<DOC>
[105 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:53122.wais]
S. Hrg. 105-946
REGIONAL HAZE AND MERCURY POLLUTION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
CLEAN AIR, WETLANDS, PRIVATE PROPERTY AND NUCLEAR SAFETY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 1, 1998
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
-----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
53-122 CC WASHINGTON : 1999
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington DC
20402
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
one hundred fifth congress
JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma HARRY REID, Nevada
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas BARBARA BOXER, California
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado RON WYDEN, Oregon
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
Jimmie Powell, Staff Director
J. Thomas Sliter, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear
Safety
JAMES M. INHOFE, North Carolina, Chairman
TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas BOB GRAHAM, Florida
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama BARBARA BOXER, California
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
Page
OCTOBER 1, 1998
OPENING STATEMENTS
Allard, Hon. Wayne, U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado...... 3
Letter, Governor of Colorado Roy Romer....................... 116
Graham, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida......... 38
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 1
WITNESSES
regional haze issue
Ament, Donald, Chairman, Colorado Senate Agriculture, Natural
Resources, and Energy Committee, Denver, CO.................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 54
Kendall, Shawn, Executive Assistant, Phelps Dodge Corporation,
Phoenix, Arizona............................................... 11
Letter, EPA regulations on haze.............................. 69
Prepared statement........................................... 63
Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 66
Nielson, Dianne, Executive Director, Utah Department of
Environmental Quality, Salt Lake City, UT...................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 56
Seitz, John S., Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Environmental Protection Agency..................... 4
Letter, providing additional information..................... 50
Prepared statement........................................... 39
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Baucus........................................... 50
Senator Inhofe........................................... 42
Woodley, John Paul, Jr., Secretary, Natural Resources,
Commonwealth of Virginia, Richmond, VA......................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 58
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Baucus........................................... 60
Senator Inhofe........................................... 61
mercury pollution
Eder, Tim, Director, Great Lakes Natural Resource Center,
National Wildlife Federation, Ann Arbor, MI.................... 32
Prepared statement........................................... 97
Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 105
Farland, William H., Director, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Environmental Protection Agency.................... 28
Prepared statement........................................... 80
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Chafee........................................... 89
Senator Inhofe........................................... 88
Senator Leahy............................................ 90
Johnson, Barry L., Assistant Surgeon General, Assistant
Administrator, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, Atlanta, GA.......................................... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 77
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 72
Levin, Leonard, Program Manager, Air Toxics Health and Risk
Assessment, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA... 34
Prepared statement........................................... 107
Responses to additional questions from
Senator Inhofe........................................... 111
Senator Leahy............................................ 112
Myers, Gary, Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics, Rochester, NY 30
Prepared statement........................................... 91
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Chafee........................................... 94
Senator Inhofe........................................... 95
Senator Leahy............................................ 96
Smith, C. Mark Smith, Deputy Director, Office of Research and
Standards, Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection, Boston, MA......................................... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 75
Report, Methylmercury Exposure Guideline Debate.............. 121
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Articles:
Mercury from U.S. Fossil-Fired Power Plants: the Global
Context, Electric Power Research Institute................. 115
Setting a Safe Exposure Level for Mercury, Electric Power
Research Institute......................................... 113
Letters:
Mercury pollution, New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection................................................. 119
Regional haze, Governor of Colorado Roy Romer................ 116
Regional haze, Western Regional Council...................... 121
Report, Mercury Action Plan 1998, New England Governors/Eastern
Canadian Premiers.............................................. 132
Resolution, Mercury in the environment, Conference of New England
Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers........................ 119
Statements:
Clearing the Air in Our National Parks, several environmental
organizations.............................................. 117
Regional Haze, Western Regional Council...................... 123
Snowe, Hon. Olympia, U.S. Senator from the State of Maine.... 116
REGIONAL HAZE AND MERCURY POLLUTION
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property,
and Nuclear Safety,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m. in room
406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James M. Inhofe
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Inhofe, Allard, and Sessions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. The hearing will come to order.
We're going to start the hearing right on time, even though
we have several Members on both sides that will be coming down.
They threw us a little bit of a curve, and they're having a
briefing on Kosovo that's required attendance at 4, so we're
going to make this a 2-hour hearing--I'm sure you're very sorry
to hear that. I will shorten my opening remarks accordingly.
Today's hearing is going to be on two different subjects,
as we know: one, regional haze; and the second, the state of
science in mercury. Both of these are very important issues,
and we have an excellent group of witnesses who are truly the
leading experts in their field. Because of this, I'll keep my
statement short and get to the testimonies very quickly.
The first issue today is regional haze. We held a hearing
on regional haze last April, and since that time two major
changes have occurred. If you'll recall, we actually
recommended six, and two of them have already taken place. One
is, we put an amendment on the highway bill to lock in the time
line for regional haze to be the same as the PM<INF>2.5</INF>
standard. This means that the States will not be required to
submit plans for haze before they submit their plans for the
particulate matter.
The second major change was a result of our hearing. The
Western Governors negotiated an agreement with several of the
interested groups to implement the Grand Canyon Report. The EPA
then reopened the comment period on these two issues, which is
scheduled to close next week.
And, while I commend the EPA for publishing the Western
proposal, I do have a number of concerns. At our last hearing,
I listed six concerns. We took care of one of these, EPA is
doing one of the others, the other four are--and I'd like to
have the witnesses keep this in mind, and perhaps if you will
address these in your opening remarks or some of these it would
save us time in questioning later on. One is prescribed
burnings--remember, we talked about that; second, use of
deciview; third, how ``reasonable progress'' will be measured;
and, four, flexibility regarding BART.
In addition, I'm concerned how the highway amendment will
be coordinated with the Western proposal, and I'm very
concerned about the level of commitment from the EPA for other
state/regional commissions.
Our second issue today is mercury. This is the first time
since the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990 that our
subcommittee has addressed mercury in a hearing. The purpose of
the hearing is to hear from the best scientists that are
available in the Government or in the private sector, and I
think this is a wise thing. We don't intend for this panel to
get into a debate on control measures or regulatory fixes. I
think that would be putting the cart before the horse. First of
all we've got to determine what the science is.
I think this is one of the mistakes that we made, even
though we started our first hearing back in the NAAQS issue to
be a hearing on the science. It seems like people quickly
forgot and assumed that the science was there when, in fact, we
found it was not there to the degree that they thought it was.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma
The first issue today is regional haze. We held a hearing on this
issue in April and since that time two major changes have occurred.
First, as part of the Highway Bill we passed an amendment that
coordinated the timeline for Regional Haze with the PM<INF>2.5</INF>
standard. This means the States will not be required to submit plans
for Haze before they submit their plans for PM. The second major change
was a result of our hearing, the Western Governor's negotiated an
agreement with several of the interest groups to implement the Grand
Canyon Report. The EPA then reopened the comment period on these two
issues which is scheduled to close next week.
While I commend the EPA for publishing the Western Proposal, I do
have a number of concerns. At our last hearing I listed six concerns.
We took care of one, the timelines, and it appears that EPA is on the
road to taking care of the other, the Western Proposal; but I still
have my original four:
1) prescribed burnings
2) use of the ``deciview''
3) how ``reasonable progress'' will be measured, and
4) flexibility regarding BART (best available retrofit technology)
In addition, I am concerned how the Highway amendment will be
coordinated with the Western Proposal, and I am very concerned about
the level of commitment from the EPA for other State Regional
Commissions.
Our second issue today is mercury. This is the first time since the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 that our subcommittee has addressed
mercury in a hearing. The purpose today is to hear from the best
scientists in government and the private sector as to the current state
of the science for mercury. I do not intend for this panel to get into
a debate on control measures or regulatory fixes; these are issues that
are best left to another day.
Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA was required to submit a Report to
Congress on Mercury, which they did just 11 months ago. Since then
another Federal Agency, ATSDR has already released a more updated
Report which relies on even more current science than EPA used.
Therefore I feel it is important and necessary that the subcommittee
take a close look at what we know and don't know, about mercury.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Allard?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
compliment you on your hard work on this particular regional
haze problem, and, in addition to that, for having this
hearing.
Haze is an extremely important issue for my State, as well
as the entire western part of the United States. We need to
deal with this issue, but we need to deal with it in a very
sound manner that respects the various economies in the States,
as well as the aesthetics in our environment.
As I mentioned, this is an extremely important issue, and
I'm particularly pleased that you have, on your first panel, a
member of the State Senate of Colorado, Senator Ament. Senator
Ament has a long and distinguishing career in the legislature,
both in the House and Senate. He's worked on various national
legislative organizations and had input throughout, and I think
you'll find that he's a very valuable witness.
Not only has he had to deal with the haze issue from a
public policy standpoint, but he is also in agriculture, and so
on a day-to-day basis he's had to live with a lot of the things
that he's going to be talking about today as a citizen of this
country.
I would state further that I'm especially pleased that you
were successful in getting your amendment passed, which put off
the haze rules and regulations until the PM new standards were
put into effect. That's a very important amendment. I supported
that.
And one of the main concerns that I've expressed time and
time again in this committee is that somehow or the other we
don't treat Federal agencies different than we do the average
American out on Main Street.
I think that is particularly true in Colorado, where we
find activities that are being carried on by the various
agencies of the Federal Government that impact our regional
haze issues, and yet the people of Colorado don't have a say
about it. What happens in our neighboring States has an impact
on us, and yet we don't have a say on it.
So I think this is a very important hearing. I apologize
that I won't be able to stay here for the entire hearing,
because I do have an intelligence hearing and a meeting at 2:30
that's very important, so I'll have to step out. But I'll have
staff here, and I'll very carefully review what has been said
in this.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership.
Senator Inhofe Thank you, Senator Allard.
We'd ask our witnesses in the first panel to come to the
table, if you would, please. We're going to try to adhere to
our 5-minute rule in opening statements. Your entire statement
will be made a part of the record.
While there are not many of our subcommittee here, they're
all represented by staff, and we understand some more will be
coming.
Each witness will be allocated 5 minutes for opening
statement. We have lights in front of us so that we can help
you adhere to that. Then we'll have 5-minute rounds.
I'll start off by introducing the members of the first
panel. Mr. John Seitz, director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency; The Honorable
Donald Ament, chairman, Colorado Senate Agriculture Committee
and Natural Resources and Energy Committee; Dr. Dianne Nielson,
executive director, Utah Department of Environmental Quality;
The Honorable John Paul Woodley, Jr., secretary of Natural
Resources, Commonwealth of Virginia; and Mr. Shawn Kendall,
executive assistant, Phelps Dodge Corporation.
Senator Inhofe With that, we'll call upon Mr. Seitz to
begin.
STATEMENT OF JOHN S. SEITZ, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY
PLANNING AND STANDARDS, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Seitz. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee----
Senator Inhofe. If you would pause for a moment, Senator
Sessions has come in.
Senator Sessions, did you have an opening statement to
make?
Senator Sessions. No, other than to say I do consider these
very important issues. I thank you for holding hearings on
them, and I look forward to hearing from the panelists.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
Mr. Seitz?
Mr. Seitz. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me back to discuss EPA's proposed rule dealing with
regional haze.
As we discussed in April, virtually all of our parks and
wilderness areas are suffering from some degree of visibility
impairment. We know that the pollutants that create regional
haze can be transported over long distances, and that the cause
and severity of regional haze vary greatly from east to west.
Average visual range in the western United States is 60 to
90 miles, or about one-half to two-thirds what this range would
be without the impairment.
In the eastern half of the United States, this range is 15
to 30 miles, or about one-third of what the visual range would
be without the impairment.
One of the major challenges associated with dealing with
this issue is the impairment is not caused by a single source
or a group of sources next to the park or wilderness area, but
rather a large group of sources that are spread over a large
geographical region.
As you know, in the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act,
Congress set the national goal for visibility, for the
prevention of any future and the remediation of any existing
manmade impairment of visibility in certain parts in wilderness
areas known as class one.
As you also know, in the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air
Act, Congress reinforced the 1977 goal by directing EPA to
tackle the problem of regional haze. In response to that, we
established the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission.
After several years of work, the commission concluded and gave
a report to the Agency in June 1996.
Under the 1990 amendments, Congress required EPA to take
regulatory action within 18 months of receipt of the report.
EPA proposed the regional haze rule in July 1997 in conjunction
with the final national ambient air quality standard for fine
particles.
In developing the proposed regulation, EPA took into
account the report of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission, as well as the findings from the 1993 National
Academy of Science report, and the advice from EPA's Clean Air
Act Advisory Committee.
After fully taking into account all public comments
received from our proposal and the supplemental notice, we
intend to finalize this rule over the next several months.
Mr. Chairman, at your previous hearing on this issue,
Governor Leavitt, the co-chairman of the Western Regional Air
Partnership--the body established to implement the
recommendations of the Grand Canyon Commission--testified about
the importance of protecting visibility in our parks and
wilderness areas. He discussed the inherent social and
spiritual values of the breathtaking vistas in the west. He
also testified about concerns he had with our proposed rule and
expressed his desire to ensure that EPA craft a final rule that
was consistent with Commission recommendations.
At that same hearing, I testified that the Agency will
ensure that our final rule will facilitate State implementation
of the recommendations of the Grand Canyon Commission. I
committed to work closely with the Western Regional Air
Partnership and western States.
To that end, I have had numerous meetings and discussions
with representatives from industry groups, western States,
representatives from environmental groups, and other
stakeholders concerning this rule.
On June 29 of this year, EPA received a letter from
Governor Leavitt on behalf of the Western Governors Association
that addressed how EPA should treat the Commission's
recommendations in our national rule. WGA developed the letter
in conjunction with various stakeholders involved in the
process. EPA was not part of this process.
In the letter, Governor Leavitt requested that we put the
letter in the public docket and reopen the comment period for
30 days so that other parties could react to the letter.
On September 3, we published the notice, making the full
text of the Governor's letter available to the public, and also
provided sample regulatory language for the public to react to.
In short, we are going the extra mile to ensure that we're
responsive to the concerns raised by Governor Leavitt and the
Commission.
In that same Federal Register notice, we asked for comment
on how EPA should interpret the provisions of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, or TEA-21.
As you well know, Mr. Chairman, that legislation includes a
provision that reinforces our goal to harmonize State planning
of particulate matter and haze.
In conclusion, we expect that our final regional haze rule
will establish a framework to improve visibility in our
national parks and wilderness areas, as the Congress intended.
I want to make clear that we have not made final decisions
on this matter, and that we will continue to carefully consider
all public comments prior to finalizing our rule.
Our goal is to ensure that our final rule achieves the
Congressionally-mandated improvements in these valuable
treasures of our Nation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Seitz. It's very nice to
have you back again.
Senator Ament?
STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD AMENT, CHAIRMAN, COLORADO SENATE
AGRICULTURE, NATURAL RESOURCES, AND ENERGY COMMITTEE, DENVER,
COLORADO
Mr. Ament. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate your holding the hearing. A special thank you to
Senator Allard. I'll include your remarks in my campaign
statement. Senator Sessions, nice to meet you.
I'm Don Ament. I chair the Senate Agricultural and Natural
Resources Committee in the Colorado Senate. I'm also a farmer
and rancher out on the northeast plains of Colorado. I've
devoted a lot of time to the issues of agriculture and natural
resources and environment. It affects my way of life, as well
as the constituency that I represent.
Since 1990, I've watched the Federal Government, and
particularly Environmental Protection Agency, struggle with the
concept of regional haze and air pollution. I am here today to
urge the Congress to take whatever steps it can to prevent the
EPA from implementing the regional haze rule. I think it is
unsupported by the law.
First, in the 1990 Clean Air Act, we debated all the
provisions--specifically debated and rejected them. I think you
probably recall all of those.
I think it is very important that Congress indicated that
they rejected this idea. The regional haze rules were just, I
don't think, based on science, and not giving States the
necessary flexibility.
Second, EPA's regional haze rule ignores the most
significant contributors' causes of what I conclude cause
regional haze. I think we have to really attribute to those
sources, the ones that are causing the major problems. I think
you all know that that's largely fires, that's dust, and it is
also import air from Mexico.
In addition to these substantive flaws found in the
proposed regional haze rules, the EPA is now also proposing an
accelerated implementation schedule for stationary sources in
sulfur dioxide controls, ignoring the mandates of Congress
found in the recently-enacted Inhofe Amendment.
I understand the Inhofe Amendment recognizes the necessity
of flexibility regarding the Grand Canyon Commission's time
table; however, EPA has selectively used the June, 1998,
Western Governors Association--and I, too, have a copy of
Government Leavitt's letter to the regional haze rule--to
accelerate implementation of the regional haze rule well ahead
of not only the Grand Canyon's recommendation, but well ahead
of the Western Governors Association proposal.
Because of the reaction by the Colorado General Assembly
that EPA and other unelected, out-of-state organizations might
ignore some sources of air pollution of the west which impact
visibility and other aesthetic standards, I sponsored
legislation in 1997 which mandates the State of Colorado
maintain regulatory control of measures designed to reduce air
pollution producing regional haze. This Colorado law was
enacted primarily to prevent command and control, top-down
regulation of Colorado air pollution problems which would
ignore some sources of air pollution and increase dramatically
the cost of operation of other sources without solving the haze
problem.
In our State, it's common of Legislature review, final
environmental regulations mandated by our Environmental
Protection Agency so that elected representatives have first-
hand knowledge of science, economics, and anticipated benefits
of proposals to help improve our environment.
I'm sure that you on this committee are familiar with the
Grand Canyon Visibility Commission. The Commission submitted
recommendations to address western regional haze to the
Environmental Protection Agency in June 1996. One of the major
conclusions of the Commission was omissions from fire, both
wildfire and prescribed fires, is likely to have the single-
most impact on visibility in class one areas.
We in Colorado are familiar with the Grand Canyon
Commission's recommendation. In fact, since 1996, the Colorado
Legislature has twice passed legislation designed to hold
Federal agencies accountable under the authority granted us by
section 118 of the Clean Air Act for control of pollution from
Federal resources.
Twice the Federal agencies have lobbied our Governor Romer
to veto the bill, and twice that interference by Federal
agencies has been successful. The result is the General
Assembly still has not been able to demand a standard from
Federal land managed to minimize emissions from fires and dust
on Federal lands.
As I sit here today, we have controlled burns that are
hazing up the air in Colorado. To me, it's only common sense
that Federal resources should be managed to minimize emissions
which cause haze if such non-health issues are truly a national
priority.
I note with dismay EPA has not been helpful in requiring
major sources of pollution from Federal facilities or lands to
be taken into account in either its regional haze or in its
daily operations. In fact, it appears to us that the EPA makes
excuses and covers up other Federal agencies when air pollution
emanates from those Federal lands.
Think about it. Here is the example. The Grand Canyon
Commission science identified emission from Federal land fires
as a major source of western haze, but soon after the
Department of Interior managed a 500 percent increase in burns.
In the House Resources Committee hearing last fall, the
Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture stated 50 percent of
western forests would need to be mechanically treated before
prescribed burns could be set, but the State need for logging
or mechanical treatment does not reflect on the Agency.
I see my time is up. You will find that I have four
suggestions for you about what we would hope Congress would
take in my testimony, and maybe in the question and answer
period I'll get a chance to reemphasize those four points, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Ament.
Dr. Nielson?
STATEMENT OF DIANNE NIELSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UTAH
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Ms. Nielson. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank
you very much for this opportunity to appear before you.
I'm the director of the Utah Department of Environmental
Quality, and I'm Governor Leavitt's official representative to
the Western Regional Air Partnership.
The Governor has taken an active role in air quality and
visibility issues in Utah and in the west as the vice chair of
the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission, the co-chair
of WRAP, and the lead Governor for air quality issues for the
Western Governors Association. I'm here today on behalf of
Governor Leavitt to provide testimony regarding a western
regional approach to regional haze and the Environmental
Protection Agency's recent notice of availability for
additional information regarding that proposal.
This is an important issue to western States, to the people
who live and work there, as you're hearing in the testimony
today, and to the people who visit.
As Utah's chief environmental officer, I appreciate the
inherent value of our western vistas, and my stewardship
responsibility to those resources.
This subcommittee has been vigilant in its efforts to
oversee not only the regional haze regulation that has been
proposed, but the work of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission and its successor, the WRAP. You are aware of the
history and the work on this unique partnership for regional
environmental management, so I won't go into those details,
although they are provided in my testimony.
What I would like to focus on is what happened since the
hearing where Governor Leavitt appeared before you in April of
this year.
At that time the Grand Canyon Commission and WGA's
environmental doctrine had been formed of work and testimony
that we had used as our guide in efforts to seek solutions for
environmental and natural resource problems, specifically
regional haze.
When we appeared before you in April, the Governor
indicated that we were working with EPA, but at that time we
did not have specific resolution on issues.
Following that hearing, there was a group of environmental
interests who also voiced concern about conclusion of this work
on the regional haze regulation.
So again, with a renewed determination, we formed a
consensus work group to specifically define language which we
could support for implementing the regional haze regulation.
On June 25, that consensus document was completed, and on
June 29, Governor Leavitt, on behalf of the Western Governors
Association, provided that document to Administrator Browner.
Since that time, the environmental groups have also
endorsed that consensus document. EPA has now proposed, through
their recent notice, consideration of the consensus document
that was provided.
It is important to recognize that the Grand Canyon
recommendations and the work of the WRAP in this recent
consensus document all recognized that improvements in
visibility must include more than just the management of
emissions from industry stationary sources.
Mr. Chairman, at the beginning in your comments you asked
about some very specific issues, including prescribed burns.
There must be--and we have supported in the context of regional
haze regulation--management of wildfires and the emissions from
those wildfires. There must also be a part for management of
the increasing volume of mobile sources and of vehicles on-road
and off-road, as well as dust and trans-boundary pollution.
What I would like to focus on are recommendations that
specifically come from the report that we provided to
Administrator Browner.
First of all, the consensus document laid out time frames
for the development and implementation of our recommendations.
I realize those time frames are tight time frames, but we think
that EPA has accurately reflected those, and we think they're
attainable time frames. We need to get on with the business of
implementing a regional plan for management of regional haze.
The consensus document also defined components necessary
for inclusion in State and tribal implementation plans, and
flexibility in terms of preparing those plans, and we think EPA
has accurately reflected that in their notice.
I have provided in my comments additional comment on the
report. I would offer those to you as they have been provided.
I would emphasize that, as you review the rest of these
recommendations, and as we answer questions today, that you
appreciate that we still, as States, see the deciview as a
measure but not a standard. We must focus on the mechanisms for
controlling pollution, not on the deciview as we move forward;
the reasonable progress is defined within the WRAP
recommendations and will be in the plan that we bring forward
under those recommendations; and that, while BART is a tool
that, as States, we feel we need in the tool box, it should not
be a mandatory regulation and it should be something that we
have the discretion within our programs and our implementation
plans to be able to implement.
I appreciate the time today, and I'll be happy to answer
questions.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Dr. Nielson.
From the Commonwealth of Virginia, Secretary Woodley.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, JR., SECRETARY, NATURAL
RESOURCES, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
Mr. Woodley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is a privilege to be here today to represent the
Commonwealth of Virginia, and our Governor, Jim Gilmore, who
asked me to send special greetings to Senator Sessions, his
former colleague as attorney general during the time he was
attorney general of Virginia.
I wish to say that in Virginia we very deeply appreciate
Congress' efforts in passing TEA-21 and adapting the time lines
for the regional haze and PM<INF>2.5</INF> programs so that
they coincide.
As you know, the eastern States have been focusing on
health-related air pollution issues such as the issues
surrounding ozone, nitrous oxides, and the PM<INF>2.5</INF>.
They have been unable to devote the resources needed to address
the issue of regional haze.
The additional planning time this revision to the law will
create will enable us to properly address or assess our
regional haze conditions and develop effective strategies.
Second, Mr. Chairman, Virginia, along with other States,
recognizes that visibility is a regional issue and must be
dealt with on a regional basis. The inadequacy of EPA's
proposed approach to regional planning is highlighted in its
recent action with respect to a particular group of States, or
the action that Dr. Nielson dealt with a moment ago, reflecting
the supplemental notice on implementation in response to the
Western Governors Association concerning the recommendations of
the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission.
These recommendations make the proposed rule more flexible,
although, as Dr. Nielson indicated, the rule remains deeply
flawed, but it is important for EPA to recognize that the other
States and regions need the same opportunity to address their
specific regional concerns.
States should be allowed to incorporate the recommendations
of a regional commission as part of their State implementation
plans without having to justify their programs individually.
Third point, Mr. Chairman, regional haze is an issue that
must be addressed with the coordination of States, localities,
and other stakeholders. The traditional methods of States and
localities addressing control measures within their boundaries
to resolve localized air pollution control problems cannot
address regional haze problems. One State has no authority over
any other State to implement control measures.
For most mandatory class one areas--and I include those
located in Virginia--the host State cannot individually
implement control measures that will ensure improvement in
visibility within those class one areas. Transport regions and
commissions will be required to implement effective regional
programs for visibility improvements.
Now, EPA encourages regional stakeholder coordination to
address regional haze, but does not address how such efforts
will be facilitated or provide incentives for stakeholders to
participate.
Congress acknowledged the need for multi-State coordination
in the Clean Air Act by establishing authority for EPA to
establish visibility transport regions and commissions, and
States do not have such authority, as the authority in the
Clean Air Act clearly places the responsibility on the
Environmental Protection Agency.
The proposal requires that individual States address and
justify control programs individually. This is a disincentive
to expend resources to coordinate with regional groups.
Regional haze rule must also directly allow for
implementation programs developed through the regional
coordination process.
The fourth point, Mr. Chairman, is that, given regional
haze is a welfare rather than a health issue, States should be
allowed to abandon or to develop alternative goals and programs
for visibility improvement separate from the deciview and no
degradation targets. These regional haze measures should focus
more directly on the scenic viewing, which is the point we're
actually trying to get at, and use a system that has more of a
relationship to the public's overall ability to experience
improved viewing.
We believe that the use of the deciview scale, normal
measurement developed by EPA, does not provide an accurate
reflection of the total viewing experience.
The proposal also emphasizes the best available retrofit
technology for point source emission control. It identifies the
private sector in the western United States as being the most
effective.
However, the EPA also subsequently agrees with the Grand
Canyon Visibility Transport Commission's recommendation for
addressing stationary source by providing a flexible air
quality planning framework to facilitate the interstate
coordination necessary to reduce regional haze visibility
impairment in mandatory class one Federal areas nationwide.
It's certainly not clear how this BART program provides
flexibility, as it is experiencing costly analytical,
technical, and legal challenges that would divert scarce State
resources.
The regulation should explicitly allow for alternatives to
the BART process such as market trading programs and emission
caps.
The last point I'd like to make, Mr. Chairman, is the
proposal requires each State to submit revised sets which
provide for periodic revision of the long-term strategy. These
periodic provisions are not required by the Clean Air Act and
are not needed to address the national goal and will draw on
resources better used for pollution control elsewhere.
The provisions that EPA proposes for tracking regional
progress are unnecessarily frequent and resource intensive.
Virginia would note that the section 169 of the Clean Air
Act clearly makes EPA responsible for evaluating visibility
improvement over time; therefore, each State should not be
required to individually assess improvements through continual
provisions.
Just in summary, Mr. Chairman, I suggest and Virginia
suggests, first of all, that this rule that is proposed by EPA
is a classic unfunded mandate on the States, and, furthermore,
that we would point out and note to the committee that this
regulation would be enforced by the same coercive Clean Air Act
sanctions that Virginia has consistently regarded as highly
detrimental to our Federal system.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Secretary Woodley.
Mr. Kendall?
STATEMENT OF SHAWN KENDALL, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT, PHELPS DODGE
CORPORATION, PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Mr. Kendall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee.
I'm Shawn Kendall, executive assistant on the corporate
staff for Phelps Dodge Corporation. I'm the Corporation's
policy and technical lead with respect to regional haze.
With respect to the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission, I spent about 6,000 hours of my time working in the
process, serving as the secretary of the public advisory
committee that delivered the consensus recommendations to the
Governor for their consideration. I also served on the
technical and policy committees and was heavily involved in all
of the technical work.
Subsequent to that, the Commission formed, or the Governors
and tribal leaders of the west formed, a voluntary alliance
called the Western Regional Air Partnership to follow through
on the Commission's recommendations. This was one of the key
recommendations that came out of the Public Advisory Committee
process--the need to be vigilant in monitoring where we are in
the future.
That organization just got staffed up a whole bunch a
couple of weeks ago. We've got about 180 people now involved
and will probably have 250 by the time we're done. These groups
are going to be following through on trying to help develop
work products for the States to use and tribes to use in
developing their implementation plans, and we're anticipating
right now most of those work products will be available for the
States and tribes to rely on by about the end of 2001.
With respect to EPA's regional haze rule, I was quite
disappointed, Phelps Dodge was quite disappointed with respect
to the proposal that came out last year. We felt that it really
missed the mark. It didn't reflect what happened in the
Commission process. It didn't have guidance about the
Commission's work. The kind of guidance it was giving the
States didn't encourage enough collaboration between the
States.
We suggested that they seriously consider re-proposing the
rule, especially recognizing that much of the work products out
of the Commission were not in the docket.
Western Governors had an initiative Dianne talked about. I
served as a stakeholder in that process to try to work through
and develop some things that were more consistent with what we
believe needs to happen on the list.
We--and I mean the stakeholders on the list, the
environmentalists, the industry people, States--we believe that
we've got the right plan. We spent a lot of time in the
Commission process coming up with these recommendations, and we
think this is the way to do it.
I really commend EPA for allowing that comment period.
There are a lot of people in the west that felt disenfranchised
from that process because it was a small group, but it was
important for everybody to have an opportunity to participate.
I believe very strongly in the public processes that we have
going on here.
With respect to Visibility Transport Commission, I think
that, of all the lessons we learned in the Commission process,
the one that is the most important is that you cannot possibly
deal with regional haze and visibility protection in class one
areas unless you work collaboratively. You have to work
together. You have to know what the emission management
strategies and plans are of other States and how they will
affect the visibility in your class one areas.
I encourage that we follow through on allowing other groups
to form Visibility Transport Commissions, because it is a
wonderful process to see the environmental community, the
industrial community, and the regulatory community coming
together and coming up with really valuable long-term
strategies.
This brings up a major concern, which is funding. These
processes are not terribly expensive when you consider the
value of the in-kind contribution of time, but they do cost
money. There is some concern right now within the Western
Regional Air Partnership about where we are going to get
funding, and we're looking for some specific things that need
to be done with respect to the Commission's follow-on annex to
guide the stationary source work.
With respect to re-proposal, Phelps Dodge believes that the
Agency should re-propose this rule. We said that in December.
We still feel that way.
This recent work with respect to the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission went a long way, but it is
still hard to see the entire rule context, and we would like to
see the thing re-proposed.
Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Kendall.
Mr. Seitz, first, I'm glad that the EPA decided to publish
the Western Governors proposal for comments. The form in which
it is published is basically a rider on the haze rule. Do you
believe the rest of the country should be given the same
opportunity as the west has had in their own Visibility
Transport Commission to craft local solutions to their
visibility problems?
Mr. Seitz. Senator, absolutely. We talked earlier in the
hearing last April about the intent of the rule and some of the
issues raised by the Commonwealth of Virginia. We strongly
believe that success for this is local jurisdictions working
together to craft solutions to the problem, and to that end I
think, particularly with the TEA-21 legislation, in light of
the schedules for submission of strategies for haze, we have
more time than was provided the Grand Canyon Commission for
these bodies to work together to come up with collaborative
situations.
I totally agree that the only way this can be done is
through States working together to come up with common
strategies. I would suggest, however, that if EPA, through
regulations, prescribes which States were to talk to each
other, that I might be before you to explain or Western States
would be saying that EPA was top-down prescribing how States
should work together.
So what we tried to do was craft a rule that allowed States
to work together much like they are now in the southeast, the
Southern Appalachian Mountain initiative, which is a voluntary
group, a non-mandated, regional body that is looking at
combined solutions to the problem.
Senator Inhofe. Well, once these other regions have issued
recommendations for their definition of ``reasonable
progress,'' would they deserve their own rider to the regional
haze rule?
Mr. Seitz. We formed the Grand Canyon Commission and
established the Commission in response to the 1990 amendments,
and its recommendations formed the basis for the development of
the rule which was proposed.
I believe--and this is an area we're receiving lots of
comment on--that all States do have the ability to do just what
you're saying.
Senator Inhofe. Have their own rider?
Mr. Seitz. I don't know that they need a rider. They have
the ability to adopt their recommendations in their SIPS.
Senator Inhofe. What do you think, Secretary Woodley? Do
you think that Virginia deserves its own program?
Mr. Woodley. Yes, sir, indeed, Mr. Chairman. I am not at
all certain that the EPA's rule is so clear, that if such a
program came forward it would be approved by the Agency.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. Mr. Seitz, now that the bill has
passed with the extension that we put on the highway bill for
the haze implementation plans, isn't there plenty of time for
the EPA to pursue the regional commission process?
Mr. Seitz. Well, I think there are two questions you have
to deal with. One is the formal visibility transport
commission, and the Agency would be pleased to engage with
other States in that conversation. But, as you are aware, these
commissions only deal with haze, and I think your amendment or
the TEA-21 legislation clearly intends that haze and pollution
programs be integrated.
The Commonwealth of Virginia has indicated very strongly
that the work they are doing on ozone and particulate matter
should be looked at as programs that also benefit haze. As you
know, the Visibility Transport Commission only addresses haze.
We would be more than willing, and the Agency stands ready
to talk to any regional body on that issue. We want an
integrated strategy because we believe that's most cost
effective, but that is the decision of the State.
Senator Inhofe. In trying to keep response rather short--I
know it will be difficult to do, but in my opening remarks I
talked about the four areas left, and would you briefly address
what the EPA has done to meet these concerns?
Mr. Seitz. Well, let me go through these, and if I miss the
mark on some of them please remind me.
One of the issues was deciview, and in your hearing in
April there was a tremendous concern that the deciview was a
standard--that is, States could be enforced against that
standard. EPA did not intend to make it a standard; just as
suggested by one of the other witnesses, the deciview is a
metric that is used to take a look at progress or to measure
how we're doing. It is not an enforceable standard and was
never intended to be an enforceable standard against the State.
Your second issue was reasonable progress. At the last
hearing, you felt reasonable progress should be measured
against, as I understand it, an emission reduction strategy
rather than the target. EPA continues to believe that State
implementation plans should be emission strategy based, that
that is what we should hold a State accountable for. Are they
doing their part in reducing emissions?
The other issue was prescribed burns and how they will be
dealt with in the Grand Canyon, as well as nationwide.
I acknowledge fully that the Grand Canyon Commission report
indicated that wildland fires could, in fact, overwhelm any of
the progress that could be made with the emission reduction
strategies.
As the Commission went on to say in the text of the report,
we believe that prescribed burning in the long run will have a
more beneficial effect.
I think we all would admit that a prescribed burn is better
than a catastrophic burn such as we saw this year in Florida.
What we are trying to do with the other Federal land managers--
and I believe in Colorado there are already agreements with the
Federal land managers, and I can check that for the record--is
work with local areas to, as you recall, from the structure of
the rule, control burning. We're talking about improvement on
the 20 percent worst days. Prescribed burning should take place
outside of that ban, should take place with advanced notice to
the State regulatory agency, and in some cases be permitted. It
should be monitored. The Federal land managers have said they
will comply with this and have already come forward to work
with most States.
I'm unfamiliar with the legislation the Senator refers to,
but if that legislation directed that all use of fire in the
State of Colorado for all sources--Federal lands, State lands,
agricultural lands--that it be subject to some type of review,
under section 110 of the Clean Air Act we would have to comply
with that.
Senator Inhofe. I'd like for the other four to be thinking
about their responding to those four points, and I'll pass it
over to Senator Sessions. We'll kind of go back and forth with
this.
Senator Sessions. Thank you.
Mr. Seitz, fundamentally you don't disagree with Mr.
Ament's conclusion that fires are the most important cause of
regional haze. The Federal Government is the primary entity
responsible for those fires?
Mr. Seitz. I guess, as a technical matter, I probably
would. I believe that----
Senator Sessions. You would disagree?
Mr. Seitz. I would disagree. There is no question----
Senator Sessions. Just briefly, why would you disagree?
Mr. Seitz. I believe the total emissions from fires on a
10-year planning framework for improvement represent 10 percent
of the total emissions. They are part of the issue, but they
are not all of the issue.
Senator Sessions. How accurate do you consider the
historical clean air standard based on manmade causes, as
opposed to natural conditions?
Mr. Seitz. I think, as we've talked about in the proposed
rule, the issue is natural conditions versus forest fire. We
are saying that that baseline has to be established within the
first 5 to 7 years of the rule. This is one of the challenges
that has to be addressed. That baseline is critical.
Senator Sessions. Well, let me ask those of you that have
been involved in the Grand Canyon Commission, Government
Leavitt, as I recall his testimony, he was very passionate
about the effort he put into that. Mr. Kendall, you said you
spent 6,000 hours. That's, what, 2 or 3 years of----
Mr. Kendall. Yes.
Senator Sessions.--40-hour weeks of your time volunteering
to come up with a proposal that would help improve visibility
in the west.
Governor Leavitt, as I recall, Mr. Chairman, just explained
that with great passion and concern about what they had done.
He was holding his breath to see what EPA would do with the
hard work of so many involved persons.
I hear each of you saying you do not believe that it was
received respectfully enough and was not acted on by EPA in a
sufficient manner.
Would any of you like to comment on that? Yes, Dr. Nielson?
Ms. Nielson. Yes, Senator, I believe that is certainly true
of the original regulation that was proposed by EPA. I think
since that time, and particularly since your hearing in April,
the work that we have been doing with EPA and the other members
of that partnership and the consensus document that we provided
and EPA's commitment to reflect that consensus document as an
entity, not parceled and picked apart, in the final rule is the
key to success in what you're identifying as the critical piece
and being able to manage regional haze.
We have developed a consensus approach to this through the
Grand Canyon and now through the work of the WRAP. I think we
have the ability to address those issues. Fire, overall, may be
not the hugest or largest percent of the problem, but, on a
given day, it is part of the problem.
We need to be able to address those issues. I think
addressing them through a regional partnership at the local
level with States, Federal land managers, and the EPA, and
tribes in the process together defining the process gives us
the ability to do that.
So at this point, I would support going forward with the
partnership, defining the strategies as we've laid out in that
consensus document and as I understand EPA's commitment to be
that they will include within their final regional haze rule.
Senator Sessions. Secretary Woodley, you made an
interesting point, and that is that, in my area of Alabama,
Birmingham, foothills of the Smokies, I guess, we have a number
of challenges--ozone, particulate matter challenges that are
taking a lot of time.
Our main forest area, national forest area, is the Bankhead
Forest, which is very little populated and very little seen by
many people, and it seems to me that we've got a major
metropolitan area with 600,000 or 700,000 people that are on
the margin of being out of attainment, and this is distracting
us from our primary health function.
Do you have any thoughts about that?
Mr. Woodley. Senator, I agree with you 100 percent.
Implementing this rule, even on the time table proposed, would
be a significant distraction, I believe, from Virginia's
regulatory agencies and our metropolitan planning organization
processes that we have underway that are seeking to address
health-based standards that have previously been imposed in
other initiatives under the Clean Air Act by the EPA.
As Mr. Seitz just indicated, the basic science is not now
done to establish the baselines, to establish the emission
factors from various kinds of activities that contribute to
regional haze to determine the difference between the natural
causes and manmade causes of these types of things, or to
determine to what extent the work we're doing on health-based
standards will, in fact, address the same issue.
Certainly small particulates in this 2.5 standard, we would
expect, if we deal with that, and deal with it on a transport
basis, would address----
Senator Sessions. Would it, itself, improve the
circumstance?
Mr. Woodley. I fully expect that it would. In the meantime,
we have laws in place that prevent significant deterioration.
The PSD program that Virginia is now running within our State
allows Federal land managers to interpose a virtual veto on any
new permit for new facility that would significantly
deteriorate the visibility in their class one areas.
So the need to do this science and to do this work at the
same time that we're addressing the NOx SIP call, the 8-hour
ozone standard, the PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard, I don't know
where I will get the resources. I do not know where I will get
the resources to do that and, unfortunately, EPA is not
suggesting that they are able to fund that mandate.
Mr. Seitz. Senator, could I comment since he referred to a
statement I made?
Senator Inhofe. This is Senator Session's time.
Mr. Seitz. Senator?
Senator Sessions. Yes. Fine.
Mr. Seitz. I think there is no question where I would
disagree with Secretary Woodley is the science is here. The
National Academy of Science in their report found that the
science is there. There is no doubt concerning what the various
sources are that contribute to regional haze.
I think the baseline we're talking about is how does forest
fire play in that issue, as I would respond to your question.
The National Academy of Science found that, in fact, the
science is there, and, in addition, as Secretary Woodley is
well aware, the actions that he, himself, stated would be taken
and we said in the rule you are correct, and in Birmingham you
are correct. The acid rain reductions, the reductions that
we're seeing as far as first planning increment for this rule
will probably produce a two to three deciview improvement in
those regions of the country, so there will be definite
benefits from these health-based actions that the State of
Virginia will be taking.
Senator Sessions. Well, it seems to me odd that we started
with a problem of the Grand Canyon view, and now we've had
virtually every area of the country moving away from health
issues that have been driving us, having to focus on
visibility, which will probably be benefitted by the same
health activities that we are participating in.
And the law just required reasonable progress. I hope that
we can be reasonable in what you're requiring.
And if you--I know my time is out, but I didn't give the
others a chance to comment on how they felt about EPA's final
or interim decisions on respecting the decision made by the
Commission. Mr. Kendall or Mr. Ament?
Mr. Kendall. With respect to that, I think that one thing
we have to recognize is that the title 4 program, the ozone
issues in the east are going to be major emission drivers that
are going to have collateral effects on visibility. Out in the
west we don't have those kinds of pressures.
We've looked at a strategy. We have to look at all sources
of pollution. In our recommendations we talk about prescribed
fire and fire management. We talk about mobile source issues.
We talk about stationary source issues. We talk about issues
about Mexico, transboundary issues.
All of these contribute. You know, the west is so clean,
there's such a light loading of particles in the atmosphere
that it's not one particular thing you can go after if you're
talking about trying to manage this.
With respect to the state of the science, I take exception
with the assumption that you can define ``natural background''
on the worst 20 percent days. We spent a lot of time. We still
don't have good, sound models out there. The Commission did
develop some models in our process. They need to be improved.
A lot of the work that we're doing now is trying to drive
the state of the science forward to help EPA with these
implementation strategies where we can take emission management
plans from States and turn them into visibility projections.
This is all driven by PM<INF>2.5</INF>.
When we talk about PM<INF>2.5</INF>, in effect that's a
visibility model. That's all we did in the Commission process--
we predicted the concentration of PM<INF>2.5</INF> by specie
and then converted that into light extension.
With respect to the deciview metric, the Public Advisory
Committee concluded that the deciview metric, as a way of
describing visibility, was a sound one because it allowed
people to see perceptible changes in increments.
They didn't agree to reasonable progress defined as a
metric like that, but in terms of trying to convert your
standard visual range or light extension into deciview we felt
that that was a good way of trying to communicate to the public
what that meant.
Senator Sessions. It would show you when you're making
progress, but it wouldn't show you what your standards ought to
be?
Mr. Kendall. It would tell you whether or not you've had a
perceptible change, and that's one of the keys to it.
If you go from 19 to 18, that's a barely perceptible
change.
Senator Sessions. Would a dry, windy year in the west put
more haze than how many automobiles out there? Are those
factors that have been analyzed accurately?
Mr. Kendall. That's one of the issues that I have with the
original proposal. I disagree with the assumption that you can
define natural conditions at that level and then drive yourself
toward it. I don't think our science is there yet. I don't
think it is unreasonable to expect it will be within 10 years,
but it is not here today.
With respect to reasonable progress, the Commission, when
they were looking at the whole concept of emission management
strategies, set a process in place that took almost a year and
a half and many public workshops to define the criteria for
evaluating emission management strategies.
Now, it isn't just cost, it isn't just this thing. We're
talking about social and cultural effects, administrative ease
and effectiveness, a whole bunch of things, and all of them--
you know, they're not all the same. So human brains have to sit
around a table and balance these things and come to a consensus
about what reasonable progress is, and I think that's the way
reasonable progress should be defined, not by a metric, but by
a consensus collaboration on a group of criteria that the
members agree are the criteria of consideration.
Senator Sessions. I'd ask--Senator Ament had a comment on
that.
Mr. Ament. Thank you, Senator Sessions.
First I want to say something about visibility baselines.
That's a particular concern to us with the Forest Service
talking about more and more prescribed burns. Recently we've
had a couple of Forest Service burns out of control and news
broadcasters talking about, ``The haze you see in the air is
prescribed burns.'' I think that is of particular importance to
us.
Attribution? I think that's another big issue.
As you heard Mr. Kendall say, we are faced--and, in fact,
Mr. Chairman, I think you'd be amused. I'd like to know the
contribution the green Forest Service pickups put in the air as
they drive up and down, hundreds of them every day, scouting
around whether or not we're going to clean up this blow-down
over there near the Zirco Wilderness Area.
But I think there are so many sources--the blow-in sources,
the sources of all the mobile sources, as well. I really feel
that we don't have a good handle on how we attribute what each
particular segment contributes to our haze problem.
Deciviews? I ran a bill in Colorado to try and set that so
we could have something to tie our hands to, and met with all
kinds of problems from my friends at the Federal level and the
environmental groups.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Ament, along that line, I think I
heard you say that you passed two pieces of legislation or one
that the--two that the Governor vetoed. I'd like to have you--
I'm a little familiar with--since many years ago I attended the
University of Colorado, I have been following the politics
there, and I'd like to know if you could give us a short
synopsis of the type of legislation you passed that the
Governor vetoed.
Mr. Ament. We tried to get a handle on how we could be the
first, if you will, to try to get something on visibility. As
you may know, we even passed a QRV bill in Colorado. That took
2 years.
But anyway, back to the visibility kinds of issues and
getting the Federal Government--again, a bill passed that the
Federal Government is going to have to abide by our rules and
regulations is certainly a task that we failed in after it
passed the General Assembly by not being able to convince the
Governor's office they ought to sign it.
Probably the biggest actors in the defeat of these two air
bills was the Forest Service. The Forest Service and the United
States Park Service were the ones that I think aided the
environmental community in placing around the Governor's
office--I happened to be in the Governor's office when I was
arguing before to pass this bill--flip charts around the entire
office, an office nearly as big as this room--flip charts on
why these bills ought to be defeated, and it was very
disconcerting, you know, that here we had spent a lot of time
researching the issues to put a Colorado thing in place the
exempt flexibility, include everybody in the talk, and then
have our friends put us down. In short, Forest Service and Park
Service were very effective in that.
Senator Inhofe. Well, you know, essentially, then, as I
understand the legislation you passed, it would allow the State
of Colorado to take care of some of these problems, as opposed
to the Federal Government?
Mr. Ament. Absolutely.
Senator Inhofe. I'm looking at it now politically. Governor
Romer vetoed that, so he's saying, ``No, we think that the
Federal Government can do a better job than the State of
Colorado''?
Mr. Ament. That's right. He thinks that we--I think
Governor Romer actually felt that--in fact, I think Governor
Romer actually caved in to the other side of that argument
saying, ``Forget all these issues that you brought up about
sources, burns, blow-in, and so on and so forth, and a Colorado
plan. Let's let the Federal Government do it for us.''
Senator Inhofe. It would seem to me politically that would
be kind of a difficult position to defend in your State.
Is the Governor term limited?
Mr. Ament. The Governor is serving his last year.
Senator Inhofe. Okay. I see.
Mr. Woodley, you had made a comment about unfunded
mandates, and I always perk up when I hear that, having been
the mayor of a major city for three terms. A lot of people are
not aware of the fact that it's not crime in the street, it's
not welfare, the greatest threat to us at that time was
unfunded mandates, and it is something we're trying to address
here, and I think you are aware of that.
Describe what you mean by unfunded mandates and try to
quantify that, if you could.
Mr. Woodley. The Clean Air Act, of course, enables the
Environmental Protection Agency to require State implementation
plans under certain circumstances, and that's essentially what
this rule-making does. Any State that does not file and have
approved by EPA within the time limit set, their State
implementation plan is subject either to discretionary or, over
a period of time, mandatory sanctions, which include the cut-
off of all highway funds and various other quite draconian
measures that are described as sanctions in the context of the
act.
These make the SIP process mandatory on the States, as a
practical matter, and this process that we've described, as
you've heard it, will be exceptionally resource intensive.
The idea of establishing the monitors necessary to study
the air quality to the extent of describing even the baseline
will require significant resources on the part of our agencies
well into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and over time
in the millions of dollars. Of course, that is the effort--
those are the efforts that will be required by the States. The
efforts that will be required on the part of the private sector
are, doubtless, even greater than that.
And so now to what extent they will be required in addition
to what we are required to do by the other health-based
standards is an open question, but I would expect that the
health-based standards, by themselves, will not fully address
this issue and that the private sector will be called upon to
make substantial expenditures under the best available retrofit
technology standard.
And yet, I have not heard suggested that these efforts will
be, in fact, funded by the Federal Government in any way,
shape, or form, and so we are, as I described it, in the case
of a classic unfunded mandate.
Senator Inhofe. For the record, we will be sending
questions for the record to each of the five of you, and we
would like to have you--we'll have, I guess, 1 week. We'll put
a 1-week limit to submitting questions for the record.
The question I want you to answer is to try to give us, as
nearly as you can, divided down the types of costs and what the
total amount you feel it will be. I know it is a very difficult
thing to do, but I'd like to talk in those terms, because it is
significant.
Mr. Woodley. Mr. Chairman, I'm fortunate in having with me
John Daniel, our leading air quality expert in our Department
of Environmental Quality, and he heard the chairman's question
and will be working on it tomorrow.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
Mr. Seitz. Senator, for the record, you're aware that the
Agency is funding 100 percent of the air quality network
associated with this program.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Sessions?
Senator Sessions. Well, Secretary Woodley, please give my
best to your Governor. He was an outstanding attorney general
and in short order was a big leader in the National Association
of Attorney Generals.
Well, I'll be frank with you and I'll ask Secretary
Woodley, because I suppose he has some of these same issues,
the timber industry in Alabama may be the most significant, I
believe, financial industry that we have, combination of paper
companies and just the magnificent natural growth of timber.
Controlled burns are a part of good timber management.
Indeed, long-leaf pine is not healthy without burning, and it
is what Forest Service and others want to see more return to
the natural long-leaf pine forest in the south.
So it troubles me that a whole State dependent upon an
industry may be, because of some aesthetic rule, jeopardized
and made non-competitive, because we have a very competitive
world market now in paper, and it is undermining--it threatens
some of our plants and one I know has closed.
Do you see any sense at which this interest in haze may
provide such a cost on industry that it could hurt us
economically and provide little health or even aesthetic
benefits for the State or region? Mr. Kendall, you may want to
comment on that, too.
Mr. Seitz. I think it is a very valid point. In these cost/
benefit analysis, I'm not aware of them having been made.
Senator Sessions. Apparently nothing was ever done in that
regard, no cost/benefit when this legislation was passed. Is
that----
Mr. Seitz. That is incorrect. There was a regulatory impact
analysis done at the time the regulation was proposed, Senator.
Senator Sessions. The regulation was proposed, not the
legislation?
Mr. Seitz. The Clean Air Act. I cannot answer that.
Senator Sessions. On the haze issue?
Mr. Woodley. Senator, I can tell you that we're very
concerned, certainly, that we maintain visibility. The Blue
Ridge Mountains, where our class one areas are located, are a
beautiful area in this country, rich in history, and we are as
interested as anyone in preserving the quality of the public's
experience, of our citizens, and of the many thousands of
visitors we receive.
That's a very interesting point, though, that they call it
the Blue Ridge. They are--I was there on Tuesday. They are, in
fact, green. They are covered with trees that are quite green.
They're called the ``Blue Ridge'' because the earliest settles
of this land of the English settlement, when they first saw
them from a distance, saw them through a natural haze that gave
them a distinct blue color. You can still see that today if you
go there.
So the haze that exists is, to a large degree, something
that has been, in the east, at least, a part of our natural
life and natural world for hundreds of years.
Senator Inhofe. Well, the Great Smokey Mountains, that was
a natural haze, also.
Mr. Woodley. It is, indeed. I'm not suggesting--I don't
mean to suggest for a moment that we cannot improve and should
not improve; I'm suggesting that we do it in a reasonable,
timely, cost-effective way that does not place undue unfunded
mandates on our States and that is timed to coincide with the
health-based standards that we're working on, and also that
allows regional efforts to be undertaken in a flexible way.
Senator Sessions. Senator Ament?
Mr. Ament. Senator sessions, if I might, this is a real big
issue in the west, and particularly Colorado, where we're
trying to further the forest industry, health problems, the
whole thing, but the industry, the saw mills and so on.
What we have tried to do--in fact, passed a resolution that
asked for mechanical harvesting of this before these burns are
put in place, and it seems to fall on deaf ears with our
Federal partners.
If would could mechanically harvest and put that wood to
beneficial use, then do the burns, then we wouldn't have as big
and hot a fires and we wouldn't have the risk of catastrophic
events and we wouldn't pollute the air so much.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Sessions, I think we're going to
have to dispense with this panel because we have that deadline,
as I announced at the very beginning of this hearing.
I would say that you will be receiving questions from
Members who are not here whose staff is here, and I appreciate
very much you folks coming. Thank you.
If the second panel would--let's make it the third panel--
the second panel was to be Senator Leahy, who is here now.
Senator Leahy, it might expedite things if you would join us up
here and then participate as a member of this committee, and
we're going to be expediting this because of the briefing that
is coming up at 4, trying to get this panel concluded by that
time if at all possible.
The third panel will consist of Dr. William Farland,
Director of National Center for Environmental Assessment in
Environmental Protection Agency; Dr. Barry Johnson, assistant
administrator, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry; Dr. Gary Myers, professor of neurology and
pediatrics; Dr. Mark Smith, deputy director, Office of Research
and Standards, Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection; Mr. Tim Eder, director of Great Lakes Natural
Resource Center of the National Wildlife Federation; and Dr.
Leonard Levin, program manager for Air Toxics Health and Risk
Assessment, Electric Power Research Institute.
And at this time, before our opening statements, I would
recognize Senator Leahy for his statement. We'd ask that the
committee room remain silent.
STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A UNITED STATES SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
courtesy very much. I'd like to thank both you and Senator
Chafee for convening this hearing.
I've spoken many times on the floor over the past few years
about my concerns about the ongoing threat of mercury pollution
to the lands and rivers and lakes of Vermont, and I think that
your hearing is an important step in the journey to finally
address the scourge of mercury pollution.
It has not been an easy journey, even this part. In the
first Congressional session of this Congress, I worked with
many in the Senate and in the House to introduce the Senate
resolution that called on the Administration to release its
long overdue mercury study report to Congress. That is the
report that was mandated by the Clean Air Act of 1990.
Earlier this year, I introduced S. 1915, the Omnibus
Mercury Emissions Reduction Act of 1998. That used the mercury
study as the basis for its legislation. In fact, if we enacted
this bill, it would significantly reduce the risk the this
powerful neurotoxic poses to the health and development of
pregnant women, women of child-bearing age, and children.
Most recently, Chairman Chafee and I have worked on the
fiscal year 1999 appropriations process to support EPA's
efforts to begin collecting mercury emissions data from power
plants and avoid strong opposition to report language on the
EPA appropriations bill that would hamper EPA from doing that.
Mr. Chairman, I mentioned all of this because Vermonters
share a deep and abiding concern for the environment. This is
not a partisan issue in our State. We have enacted some of the
toughest environmental laws in the country, but, despite these
laws, we face threats from outside our border. Mercury is one
of the biggest ones as it drifts into our waterways.
When I was growing up and I spent summers on Lake
Champlain, I never had to worry about the fish that I caught or
how to eat them. Actually, I only had to worry about the fact
that I sometimes wasn't too good at catching them in the first
place. But now the lake has fish advisories for walleye, lake
trout, and bass due to mercury.
I have a new grandchild, and I hope some day to be taking
him fishing there. I don't want to have to explain to my
grandson why he can't eat the fish he catches.
What I tell my grandson in the future is largely a function
of the direction we take in Congress over the next few years to
protect the environment. Are we going to look the other way, or
are we going the build on the vision and the courage of two
former leaders of this Committee? Senators Stafford and Muskie,
like Chairman Chafee and others in the committee today, have
shown bring us to a higher level of accountability and
protecting our environment.
We should be proud of the great strides we've made to
reduce levels of many air and water pollutants, but we have to
address the environmental threats as so far a few easy
solutions.
How do we reduce emissions in mercury and other pollutants
from coal-fired power plants without significantly increasing
our utility prices? When the 1970 Clean Air Act was written, we
didn't understand what was involved. Now we do have a report
and it gives Congress the ability to bring this under control.
The mercury study report to Congress shows troubling levels
of mercury. I might point out, Mr. Chairman, on this map you
can see how the mercury has come really basically into the
eastern side of the United States, very heavily in some parts
of the United States, like around the Chesapeake Basin area up
into my own State.
The report estimates at any time there are more than 1.6
million pregnant women and their fetuses, women of child-
bearing age, and children who are at risk of brain and nerve
development. It shows that year after year sources in the
United States emit at least 150 tons of mercury to the
environment, and then, once it is released, it doesn't behave
like many pollutants.
This is kind of a fussy chart, but basically it shows how
it goes up in the air, it doesn't biodegrade, it comes down
into water and into fish, and then from fish to humans. If you
are a child or you're just developing, or if you are a pregnant
woman, you are going to have even a greater risk from this.
We invest a lot of time and energy and law and fiscal
resources in our children, but we're not protecting them really
even in the womb in this.
If you look at this last chart, Mr. Chairman, or the next-
to-the-last chart, this shows where we were in 1993 on fish
advisories, and then right below it where we were just 4 years
later, with 1,675 fish advisories.
We have a lot there, Mr. Chairman. We know that it's going
to take a lot to do this. We have to make a dent in the 52 tons
of mercury emissions each year that we now have.
EPA report estimates it will cost $5 billion per year on
these power plants cleanup. It seems like a lot of money, but
that's out of a $200 billion profit.
So I would put the whole statement and letter, Mr.
Chairman, and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter
to Senator Chafee and the members of the subcommittee dated
today and signed by 88 environmental organizations also would
be made part of the record.
Senator Inhofe. Without objection.
Senator Leahy. I thank you for doing this. I think this
shows the concern we have, and it is the number of reports and
advisories just is going up dramatically, and if we are going
to protect our fish, our streams, our water, this is something
that we must look at.
Senator Inhofe. I thank you, Senator Leahy, for your
intense interest in this, and we do welcome you on the dais
here to participate.
[The prepared statement of Senator Leahy and the letter
signed by environmental organizations follow:]
Senator Inhofe. I'm going to ask now that you really adhere
to this 5 minutes in opening statement, and if you would
prefer--and I would prefer it--if you want to submit your
statement for the record, you may. We do have to end this at 4
for the reasons I described when you first came in. So if you
could try to accommodate us, we'd appreciate it very much. Your
entire statement will be made a part of the record.
Dr. Smith?
STATEMENT OF C. MARK SMITH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF RESEARCH
AND STANDARDS, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
Dr. Smith. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Senators, and
staffers. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
My name is C. Mark Smith. I'm the deputy director of the
Office of Research and Standards of the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection. I'm also the chair of
our department's mercury work group and the Massachusetts
delegate to the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian
Premier's Mercury Task Force.
I'm testifying today as a toxicologist, as a State
environmental regulator, and also, and perhaps most
importantly, as the father of a 5-year-old daughter who just
started kindergarten last week and a 5-month-old son who just
started crawling around last week, which introduces a whole
bunch of new risks in my household. I'm really very concerned
about mercury from all three of these perspectives.
There are three main points that I want to try to make
today.
The first point is that there is substantial and sufficient
scientific evidence on the risks and levels of mercury in the
environment, especially in the northeast, to warrant aggressive
actions to reduce mercury pollution.
Second, I want to emphasize, as Senator Leahy has already
done with his maps quite well, that we have a significant
mercury problem in the northeast; mercury levels in the
environment of the northeast are too high.
The third point that I'd like to make is that mercury can
be transported once it is released into the environment for
long distances, and what we really have is a national problem,
not just a regional problem. We're making very aggressive
efforts in the northeast to deal with the problems that are in
our area with respect to emissions, and we really feel that
additional efforts are needed to do that nationally and,
ultimately, internationally.
With respect to the scientific basis for action, there is a
remarkable degree of consensus within the northeast that I
really want to emphasize. Essentially all of the environmental
protection agencies and public health agencies in all of the
northeast States and eastern Canadian provinces have looked at
this mercury problem very closely, and we've all come to the
exact same conclusions about this: that the science really is
sufficient to conclude that there is a problem in our area with
respect to mercury. So this isn't just one State or just a few
scientists who have looked at this problem.
The four or five points that make mercury really
problematic is that mercury is very toxic to people, and also
let's not lose sight of the fact that it can also be toxic to
wildlife like eagles and loons, otters, and other fish-eating
mammals.
Second, it can affect the nervous system and brain, perhaps
permanently. It is our children that are most at risk.
Depending upon the outcome of various debates about the precise
levels of risk associated with mercury, a woman who consumes as
little as half an ounce of fish daily contaminated at a level
of half a part per million of mercury potentially puts her
fetus at risk of adverse outcomes.
And the third point is that we have levels of mercury in
water bodies in Massachusetts that are well in excess of that
level and can exceed one part per million and range all the way
up to five parts per million.
There has been considerable debate recently about the exact
magnitude of mercury risks, and many folks have argued that
perhaps mercury is less toxic than we previously believed. This
is a huge scientific debate that's going on right now that I
can't address in detail; however, myself and many other
toxicologists have concluded that the data that is available
right now, and particularly from the Seychelles Island study,
really is not a sufficient basis to relax our concerns about
mercury at this point.
Also, I want to emphasize again that no matter what the
outcome of this debate about the toxicity of mercury, the
levels of mercury in fish in the northeast are sufficiently
high that they would be of public health concern, no matter
what we ultimately conclude about the interpretation of these
studies.
With respect to mercury levels in the northeast, I want to
emphasize that we have a huge database. We have samples from
over 4,000 fish, from over 700 water bodies in the northeast.
The average levels of mercury in many game fish--sport fish
that people like to catch, including bass and pickerel and
perch--exceed 0.5 parts per million, and in many water bodies
levels exceed one part per million, on average, and in
individual fish up to five parts per million.
We have a very extensive database on this issue. On the
basis of that data, all the New England States and the eastern
Canadian provinces have issued fish advisories warning people
about the hazards associated with eating fish because of
mercury.
In Massachusetts alone, we have more than 50 water bodies
where the levels of mercury are high enough to be of risk to
adults like you and I, and we have a State-wide advisory that
has been put in place warning pregnant women to limit their
consumption of fish because of mercury contamination and risk
to the fetus.
With respect to regulations, we have a very extensive
consensus within the region and a very aggressive bilateral
regional action plan has been signed by the New England
Governors and eastern Canadian premiers committing the region
to very aggressive steps to reduce mercury pollution. We really
think these need to be extended nationally.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Dr. Smith.
Dr. Smith. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Dr. Johnson?
STATEMENT OF BARRY L. JOHNSON, ASSISTANT SURGEON GENERAL,
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND
DISEASE REGISTRY, ATLANTA, GEORGIA
Dr. Johnson. Good afternoon. I'm Barry Johnson, the
assistant administrator for the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry, which is a component of the Department of
Health and Human Services.
The subcommittee invited us to testify on mercury
pollution. Our agency has worked on a number of mercury issues,
most of which are captured in our mercury toxicological
profile.
The Superfund legislation directs our agency to develop
toxicological profiles for priority substances released from
hazardous waste sites. Our priority list of hazardous
substances is developed jointly with EPA and updated every 2
years. Mercury is No. 3 on the 1997 list of priority
substances.
Further, mercury has been the single most frequently
encountered hazardous substance in our emergency response
program for the last 8 years.
For this reason, ATSDR and EPA jointly developed and
released a health alert in the summer of 1997 that has been
widely distributed to schools, States, and other potential
targets of mercury spills.
We first published a toxicological profile on mercury in
1989. This document was updated in 1994, and a second update
was released in a draft version in October, 1997.
In October, 1997, we released, as I said, for public review
and comment our current draft profile. The document remains in
draft pending further discussions with EPA, other Federal
agencies, the States, and the public.
An upcoming inter-agency workshop in November will be a key
forum for resolving some remaining points of science and public
health.
Each of our toxicological profiles contain what are called
``minimal risk levels,'' MRLs, which are estimates of what
level of daily human exposure to a hazardous substance is
likely to be without appreciable risk of adverse noncancer
health effects over a specified duration and route of exposure.
The substance-specific estimates are intended to serve as
screening levels, not for regulatory purposes.
ASTDR's MRL--minimal risk level--for chronic, oral exposure
to methylmercury in our October, 1997, draft profile is derived
from a study conducted in the Republic of Seychelles by
University of Rochester investigators. That study reflects
multiple generations of human exposure to organic mercury
through fish consumption as the primary route of exposure.
Because of the long-term nature of this exposure, the large
sample size, and the rigorous study design, this data set was
used as the primary basis for our MRL derivation for
methylmercury.
We derived an MRL for chronic oral exposure to
methylmercury of 0.5 micrograms of mercury per kilogram of body
weight per day.
MRLs for both elemental mercury and organic mercury are
also presented in our draft document.
In our 1997 profile, we looked at the uncertainty in the
available methylmercury data. Essentially, this is a question
of how much confidence do we have in the data.
Our evaluation led us to select an uncertainty factor of
one, which means we ascribed in good confidence to the data.
This is not to suggest that there is no uncertainty remaining
about any threshold for the health hazards of methylmercury.
In fact, ASTDR anticipates further discussions with our
Federal colleagues and the public on the subject of what
uncertainty factor should be used.
Since October, 1997, there have been several additional
scientific publications on the human health effects of
methylmercury, particularly in children. For example, results
of the 66-month testing of children in the Seychelles are now
available.
Further, a study of the Faroe Islands population published
in December 1997 will need to be examined by ASTDR in the
context of our draft toxicological profile.
We continue to work with other Federal agencies to reach a
consensus on mercury issues. A key meeting of an interagency
group will be held November 18 through 20 of this year,
convened by the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources.
We consider this meeting to be an important step toward
resolving remaining scientific issues.
Mr. Chairman, a challenge for health officials is to
balance the known public health benefit of consuming more fish
in the diet and the known dangers of excess mercury exposure.
To mitigate adverse health effects of excessive exposure to
mercury, our agency supports efforts to reduce or eliminate
exposure to mercury in the environment. Such efforts must be
pursued through pollution prevention strategies, including
health education for both health care providers and the
citizens who may be at risk due to high levels of exposure to
mercury.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I would be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Dr. Johnson.
Dr. Farland?
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. FARLAND, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTER FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Dr. Farland. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I'm
William Farland, director of the National Center for
Environmental Assessment in USEPA's Office of Research and
Development.
I'm pleased to have this opportunity to contribute to the
subcommittee's discussion of science issues involved in
assessing health and ecological impacts of mercury exposure.
I've submitted more extensive testimony for the record.
Mercury is a basic element. It has neither created or
destroyed, and it has always been a component of the earth's
dynamic systems.
What has changed with time and what has caused increasing
concern about mercury and mercury exposure is the addition of
the human component to the plant's complex systems. Mercury
cycles in the environment as a result of natural and human so-
called ``anthropogenic'' activities.
The amount of mercury mobilized and released into the
biosphere, unless biologically available within the
environment, has increased since the beginning of the
industrial age as a result of increasing anthropogenic
activities.
This has raised concern about the potential for public
health and ecological impacts.
The scientific community knows a lot about human health and
ecological effects of mercury and mercury exposure, and has
agreed, in spite of remaining scientific uncertainties, that
mercury is an important environmental problem.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been at the
forefront of the science issues and control activities
regarding mercury.
One important example of the agency's science assessment
activities is the 1997 Mercury Study Report to Congress. In my
written testimony, I've provided details regarding the impetus
for the report, its content, and the process used for its
extensive peer review.
As the state of the science for mercury is continuously and
rapidly evolving, this report should be viewed as a snapshot of
our current understanding of mercury.
The report also identifies areas where further research is
needed to provide a quantitative risk assessment.
I've provided details on the agency's near- and long-term
plans for mercury-related research. I've also highlighted
efforts underway with our Federal colleagues and the outside
scientific community to identify scientific common ground on
this issue.
I'd like to focus my oral remarks on a few specific topics.
Mercury emissions and deposition. In my testimony I discuss
in some detail how mercury circulates in the environment, how
mercury in the air is deposited on land, water bodies, and the
nature of some of the scientific uncertainties associated with
this cycle.
We're often asked how much mercury are we talking about
when we say that human activity causes release into the
environment. The report says that the best point estimate for
annual anthropogenic U.S. emissions of mercury based on 1994
and 1995 data is 158 tons. Roughly 87 percent of these
emissions are estimated to be from combustion sources,
including waste and fossil fuel combustion.
Computer modeling of long-range transport of mercury
suggests that about one-third, or over 50 tons, of U.S.
anthropogenic emissions are deposited within the continuous 48
States. The remaining two-thirds is transported outside the
U.S. borders, where it diffuses into the global cycle.
The computer simulation suggests that another 35 tons of
mercury from the global cycle is deposited in the U.S., for a
total deposition of roughly 87 tons annually, over 60 percent
of which is coming from U.S. anthropogenic sources.
With regard to public health impacts, epidemics of mercury
poisoning following high exposure to methylmercury in Japan and
Iraq demonstrated that neurotoxicity is the health effect of
greatest concern and that effects on the fetal nervous system
occur at lower exposures than the effects on the adult nervous
system.
Minimally affected mothers have given birth to severely
affected infants. Dietary methylmercury is almost completely
absorbed into the blood and distributed into all tissues,
including the brain, and also readily passes through the
placenta to the fetus and fetal brain.
To describe the implications of chemical exposures on human
health, including the impacts of methylmercury, the Agency uses
the concept of a reference dose. The reference dose is an
amount of methylmercury which, when ingested daily, over a
lifetime, is anticipated to be without adverse health effects
to humans, including sensitive sub-populations.
At the reference dose or below, exposures are expected to
be safe. The risk following exposures just above the reference
doses, is uncertain that it is clear that risk increases as
exposures to methylmercury increase significantly above the
reference does.
EPA has, on two occasions, published RfDs for methylmercury
which have represented the agency consensus at the time. The
original RfD of 0.3 micrograms per kilogram of body weight per
day, based on effects seen in adults, was determined in 1985 by
EPA's Agency-wide consensus work group. The critical effect was
nervous system damage in Iraqi adult populations exposed to
methylmercury through consumption of contaminated grain.
The effect seen at the lowest dose were changes in
sensation or numbness.
The current RfD of 0.1 micrograms, based on effects seen in
children, was established as agency consensus in 1995. The
revised RfD was estimated by extrapolating from the high-dose
exposures that occurred in the Iraqi incident to impacts on the
most sensitive individuals in that population--the developing
fetus.
At the time of the Mercury Study Report to Congress, it
became apparent that considerable new data on the health
effects of methylmercury in humans were emerging. However, as
many of these new data had neither been published nor yet been
subject to rigorous review, EPA decided that it was premature
to make a change in the 1995 methylmercury RfD at that time.
The decision was supported by the Agency's Science Advisory
Board, a public advisory group providing external scientific
advice to the Administrator, and I've included the text of
their specific advice regarding the use of these emerging
studies in my written testimony.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much, Dr. Farland.
Dr. Myers?
STATEMENT OF GARY MYERS, PROFESSOR OF NEUROLOGY AND PEDIATRICS,
ROCHESTER, NEW YORK
Dr. Myers. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
present the views of our research group.
My name is Gary Myers. I've been working with the research
group at the University of Rochester for over 25 years and have
taken part in both the Iraq and the Seychelles studies.
In the 1950's, industrial pollution in Japan resulted in
high levels of methylmercury in ocean fish and several thousand
human poisonings from consuming contaminated fish. The exact
level of exposure was never determined, but it was thought to
be very large.
Fish in Japan had levels as high as 40 parts per million,
compared with average levels in the U.S. of below one, or
occasionally as high as two or three.
Not a single case of poisoning from the consumption of fish
has been reported since that epidemic in 1960.
In the 1970's, another epidemic took place, a mercury
poisoning epidemic in Iraq where people ate seed grain coated
with a methylmercury fungicide. We studied the children of
about 81 women who were pregnant during this outbreak, and we
concluded that there was a possibility that exposures as low as
10 parts per million in maternal hair could be associated with
adverse effects on the fetus. This value is 10 times the
average value in the U.S., but it is a value that women who
consume fish frequently can achieve.
In aquatic environments, bacteria convert inorganic mercury
to methylmercury and then it enters the food chain. People who
consume large amounts of fish can have up to 10 parts per
million in their hair.
The toxic effects of methylmercury from fish consumption
are not scientifically proven, in our opinion. We, therefore,
decided to investigate what we consider a sentinel population
for the U.S.
The Seychelles study started in 1987. It is a collaborative
program between the University of Rochester and the Republic of
Seychelles, funded by the National Institutes of Environmental
Health Sciences and the Food and Drug Administration, along
with the governments of both Seychelles and Sweden.
Our study was designed to determine whether prenatal
exposure to methylmercury from consumption of a fish diet is
associated with developmental effects. We thought that was an
issue that could be studied directly by looking at fish-
consuming peoples.
Our original hypothesis was that, indeed, methylmercury, at
levels achieved by regular maternal consumption of fish, would
be associated with adverse effects on child development.
The Seychelles was chosen because the average Seychellois
eats fish twice a day. In addition, the average methylmercury
of fish in Seychelles is 0.3 parts per million, a value that is
very similar to ocean fish purchased commercially in the United
States.
There is no mercury pollution in Seychelles, and there are
a number of things which make a low-level exposure study easier
to do.
The study design was carefully planned, and I've outlined
it in the handout. I'll only make a point of two things.
To minimize the possibility of bias, we made a number of
decisions before the study began, a critical element in
scientific studies.
Fist, the study is double blind. No one in Seychelles or on
the clinical team has any idea about the level of any
individual child's exposure.
In addition, we established a data analysis plan before we
collected the data to minimize the possibility that the data
would simply be analyzed until we found the expected effect.
The Seychelles child development study involves over 700
mothers and children who I enrolled during the year I lived on
the Island of Mahi. They have been evaluated regularly for over
5 years now. The results of the Seychelles child development
study so far--and analyses have been through five-and-a-half
years of age, a number that is quite fairly far along for most
toxicological studies--indicate no adverse developmental
effects from prenatal methylmercury exposure in the range
commonly achieved by consuming large amounts of fish.
We have also examined the association between the
children's post-natal exposure and the test outcomes at five-
and-a-half years. Several of those outcomes were slightly
better in the children with higher mercury. Clearly this is not
mercury, but mercury may simply be a marker for fish
consumption and other nutrients in fish may be very important
for brain development.
In summary, our studies in Iraq raised the possibility that
methylmercury exposure might adversely affect development, but
we do not believe that the Seychelles child development study
has demonstrated an adverse association through five-and-a-half
years of life.
We consider the Seychelles a sentinel population for the
U.S., since they consume large amounts of fish. The
methylmercury content of the fish is similar to that of
commercially-available fish in the U.S., and the health and
welfare of the people are quite similar.
Fish is an important source of protein in many countries,
and large numbers of mothers around the world rely on it for
proper nutrition.
The nutrients that fish contain may be important for brain
development. For older individuals, fish appears to have
cardiac and mental health benefits. Fish consumption is
increasing in countries, including the U.S. We believe it would
be unwise to limit commercial fish consumption without
convincing scientific evidence that exposure at the levels seen
with fish consumption is harmful.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Dr. Myers.
Mr. Eder, you are next. I do apologize. I understand you
got a late notice. You were invited by the minority, but you
didn't even have time to get your statement in well in advance.
So it wasn't your fault, it was ours, and you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF TIM EDER, DIRECTOR, GREAT LAKES NATURAL RESOURCE
CENTER OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN
Mr. Eder. Well, not a problem, and I apologize to you and
the committee. We had a further problem with Federal Express
today getting copies of our statement shipped down here. I
guess we can't always----
Senator Inhofe. Since we're on C-SPAN right now, I'm sure
they appreciate that. Go ahead.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Eder. Well, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of our members and
supporters around the country, the National Wildlife Federation
is pleased to be here and to have this opportunity to present
testimony in support of the legislation sponsored by Senator
Leahy, S. 1915, and on the need for Congressional action to
address the problem of mercury contamination in waters of the
United States.
I'd like to begin today by summarizing the three points I
will be emphasizing in my comments, and I have provided written
testimony to the committee.
First, mercury is a serious environmental problem requiring
Congressional action. Because the largest single source of
mercury pollution, coal-burning utilities, continues with no
requirements to reduce or eliminate mercury pollution, Senate
bill 1915 is needed.
Second, more than enough is known about sources of mercury
and its toxic effects, especially on people, to warrant taking
action now. The debate over the conclusion of the Seychelles
and Faroe Island studies is an important scientific discussion,
but it should not be used as an excuse to delay action.
Third, solutions to this problem--pollution control
technologies and switching to cleaner sources of energy--are
available. Some in the utility industry are claiming that no
solutions exist or that they are too expensive. These arguments
are flawed, as we will illustrate in our remarks today.
First, our testimony provides a snapshot of mercury
contamination problems around the country and the magnitude of
this problem. We cite, for example, studies of elevated levels
of mercury in fish in Chippewa Indians from Wisconsin. There,
researchers have concluded that, though effects are unlikely in
the adults, there may be levels associated with a slightly
increased risk of neurological effects in infants.
We also include research on mercury contamination in
several species of wildlife in the Florida Everglades,
including panthers, double-crested cormorants, alligators, and
bald eagles, studies of wood storks, endangered wood storks in
southeastern Georgia, and the list goes on.
Second, we believe that more than enough is known about the
effects of mercury in people to warrant taking action now.
A concern of NWF and most health agencies in the U.S. stems
from the effects of mercury exposure on children when they are
exposed in-utero as a result of their mothers' consumption of
contaminated fish.
NWF's members are people who fish. Many of us come from
rural parts of this country, where hunting and fishing are
important parts of our culture and our history. For people like
me, fishing is something that we do mostly for recreation, but
for our members and many other people, hunting and fishing is a
way of putting food on the table.
The two long-term studies have been examining the effects
of fish consumption and mercury levels on children exposed in
the womb. You just heard about the Seychelles Islands study.
Another study of pilot whale consuming people in the Faroe
Islands in the North Atlantic found mercury-related deficits in
language, attention, and memory in 7-year-old children exposed
to mercury in the womb.
Both of these studies are important because they are being
used to guide our Federal agencies in the establishment of
minimum risk levels and, subsequently, fish consumption
advisories.
Much media attention has focused on the Seychelles study.
We believe, however, that the Seychelles study has limitations.
These limitations include the following:
First, neurological development tests in the Faroe Islands
population have been recognized as being more sensitive in
detecting subtle cognitive and motor disturbances than the
tests used thus far in the Seychelles study.
As pointed out by one scientist with EPA, while evaluation
with these more subtle tests are planned, current findings from
the Seychelles should be regarded as interim.
In an earlier analysis from the Seychelles group, several
cases of high mercury exposure and effects were excluded as
outlying points, even though such data could show real effects
in more children due to mercury exposure.
Third, the researchers in the Seychelles study reported
improved scores on several of the tests at higher mercury and
fish consumption levels, suggesting that there was a benefit
from higher fish consumption.
This may be true, and it may be linked with the benefits of
eating fish. However, we suspect or we suggest that part of the
explanation for this could be the relatively low concentrations
of mercury in the fish consumed by the Seychelles group. The
difference there that is relevant for the U.S. population is
that in the U.S. sport anglers and others are likely to consume
fish contaminated at much higher levels, although perhaps less
frequently.
As an example, fish contaminant levels in the Seychelles
study were at roughly .05 to .25 parts per million, whereas
mercury concentrations in walleye in Wisconsin typically
averaged between 0.5 parts per million, or two to ten times
higher.
The third point is that solutions are available and are not
as expensive as is being claimed. The EPA has moved forward in
recent years to address many of the most important sources of
mercury pollution. There are solutions available to control
mercury from coal-burning power plants. Our testimony provides
evidence of these solutions and evidence to suggest that the
costs of complying with these new controls are not as high as
might be suggested.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Eder.
Dr. Levin?
STATEMENT OF LEONARD LEVIN, PROGRAM MANAGER, AIR TOXICS HEALTH
AND RISK ASSESSMENT, ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PALO
ALTO, CALIFORNIA
Dr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As a global pollutant, the impact of mercury on the human
environment is an issue not only of health but of welfare. The
issuance of mercury fish advisories by a number of States has
coincided with a cascade of information on the health value of
fish for longevity and development.
Scientific studies on mercury's health impacts on children
have the capacity to identify health risks or their absence at
levels that are far more sensitive than past studies.
Our changing understanding of where mercury originates
nationally and globally, combined with the new health data,
force us to reexamine our understanding of mercury in the
environment.
EPRI research on these questions has been underway for 15
years, and the research results have been shared cooperatively
with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Department
of Energy, and the public over that time.
I'd like to address three key questions.
First, what role do U.S. industrial emissions of mercury
play in the overall emission picture?
Second, how might changes in the input of mercury to the
atmosphere be reflected in mercury levels in fish?
Third, at what levels of exposure might mercury pose a
health threat?
New mercury that is added to U.S. waterways currently
appears to come primarily from deposition from the atmosphere.
Studies of the Great Lakes show that 75 to 85 percent of the
mercury each year is due to atmospheric deposition. The mercury
in the atmosphere originates from both domestic and
international industrial sources, as well as background
emissions from both natural and legacy deposits of mercury.
EPA, EPRI, and others have evaluated emissions from current
U.S. industrial sources, which total about 150 to 200 tons a
year for the continental U.S., as has been mentioned already.
In addition, these background deposits of mercury are also
emitting to the atmosphere. Many more products were made of
mercury in the industrial environment in the mid part of the
century, up until about the 1960's, than are now currently
used. These legacy sources of mercury have the capacity to move
into the environment, as well.
Until recently, we had no way of measuring these amounts.
Now we have new measurements done by the University of Nevada,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and many others that allow us to
calculate the contributions of background areas of mercury to
the emissions in the United States.
It appears that these natural and legacy sources together
might total about as much as current U.S. industrial sources
combined do, although distributed somewhat differently.
Since the mid-1960's, there has been, as I said, about an
85 percent drop in the industrial use of mercury. This
industrial mercury has gone into waste streams and eventually
into soils and waterways. However, museum specimens and current
catches of fish don't reflect any significant decline in the
levels of mercury in the environment over this time period.
This is an indirect indication of the long cycling time of
mercury through natural reservoirs such as lake bottom
sediments and soils. The mercury does not go away, but
eventually may be available for input to the aquatic life
cycle.
Even more far-reaching findings may be emerging from the
ongoing basic studies of mercury health effects on children.
Other speakers today have discussed these findings in more
detail. I will touch on only a few points.
The new health data from studies in the Seychelle Islands
and the Faroe Islands--studies that are continuing--are the
outcome of well-designed comprehensive assessments of children
exposed to mercury via fish consumption, the root of concern
for United States' residents.
Two independent analyses of the Seychelles' data to date
have concluded that the intake of mercury from fish may be safe
at levels that are somewhat higher than what are currently
thought to be safe limits.
These findings, if they're supported in later analyses,
imply that a given mercury level in fish may be less of a
threat to human health than formerly believed. The potential
consequences of these findings are quite significant.
Public presentation by the head of a regulatory department
of one State last December indicated that mercury fish
advisories in that State would essentially disappear if the new
safe levels that have been derived would apply. This is
expected to hold in many other States, as well.
These studies are 3 to 4 years from completion of data
collection, analysis, and interpretation. Conclusions drawn
about mercury as a threat to the U.S. population should await
completion of these investigations. We do not know how the
findings will come out, of course, and, in particular, whether
the health studies will, in the end, call for less or more
stringent mercury exposure standards. But it is clear that the
studies, when complete, will better inform any deliberations
about the need for and the focus of mercury management
decisions.
For this reason, well-informed decision-making might await
completion of the studies that are underway and planned.
That concludes my remarks.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much, Dr. Levin.
Again, I apologize that we are going to have to wind this
up, but you will be receiving in the next 7 days questions for
the record, and I think it is very significant that you get
this.
Let's start with Dr. Farland. I'm pleased that the
Administration is calling for a meeting in November of
interagency review of the latest studies of the effect on the
human exposure to mercury.
I would assume that, since the EPA and a number of other
Federal agencies are involved in the review, that there is
still uncertainty in the science and a difference of opinion in
allowable levels of mercury in fish and the threshold at which
there is no observed adverse effect for mercury. Is that
accurate?
Dr. Farland. There will always be uncertainties in the
science. As it is presented, we're going to be extrapolating
from populations outside of the U.S. In most cases, we're
really dealing with emerging science and uncertainties related
to those types of extrapolation.
There will continue to be uncertainty. We hope to reach
some additional consensus, given the new data, though, in that
November meeting.
Senator Inhofe. Well, closely related, Mr. Eder, I asked my
staff to find the statement you just made in your written
statement and they couldn't find it. You said something to the
effect that the science, even though the science has not
arrived to that point yet, there's no reason to delay action or
something. Could you repeat that statement, because I think
that's what this hearing is all about.
Mr. Eder. Well, I think the point is simply that we're not
taking action today to control the most important source of
mercury pollution to the environment, and that is from coal-
burning utilities. We have--the U.S. EPA has put new
regulations in place on incinerators, and other control
measures are in the works for other sources of mercury.
However, there is nothing being done to reduce or control
mercury being emitted from the burning of coal.
The fact that we have fish consumption advisories in 40
States and 15 of those States are State-wide advisories, and
the data indicate that the problem is not getting better, the
concentrations----
Senator Inhofe. What I'm saying--we're running out of time
here--based on today's data, what is it that you think we can
go ahead with and not delay that was in your statement?
Mr. Eder. Well, specifically, the proposals in Senator
Leahy's legislation call for a time line of a 95 percent
reduction in mercury emissions from several of the most
important sources, including coal-burning utilities, and I
think that the's an appropriate step forward.
Senator Inhofe. I think, Dr. Myers, you've answered this in
your opening statement, but I want to make sure that we get
this in the record accurately.
Does your study of the Seychelles support the statement of
Dr. Smith--and I'm going to quote the statement so you remember
it here--``that no matter what the outcome of the debate on
mercury toxicity, that a pregnant woman eating as little as 0.4
ounces of fish a day containing 0.5 parts per million of
mercury puts her fetus at risk.''
Dr. Myers. Our study really does not support that statement
at this time.
Dr. Smith. If I could just add, that's not quite what I
said, but----
Senator Inhofe. I thought I was quoting. If not, then that
was--I thought that was taken from your written----
Dr. Smith. Yes. It is kind of mixing two statements. One
statement basically to the effect that we have enough
information to take aggressive actions.
Senator Inhofe. All right.
Dr. Smith. The other statement was that a woman consuming
that amount of fish could put her fetus at risk at the lower
end of the exposure of range of concern.
Senator Inhofe. What we are trying to get to here is we're
right now talking to experts and scientists, and I'm glad that
we did this when we opened up the NAAQS issue. However, we
didn't go far enough before we took the next step, and I intend
to make sure that we, at least in those people who are not
professionals, such as us on this side of the table, that we
can fix in our mind some reasonable explanation for the
differences that science has in these important issues.
I quite often characterized our approach to the NAAQS
problem as, ``Ready, fire, aim,'' and I don't want that to
happen in this case.
Dr. Myers, could you explain the differences in the
populations studied between the Iraqi study and the Seychelles?
Dr. Myers. The Iraq study was a poisoning from eating
methylmercury coated seed grain. It was an incredibly high
poisoning with hair levels as high as 2,000 parts per million,
as opposed to one part per million in the U.S. They were quite
different populations.
And from the study we concluded that there was a
theoretical but small possibility that levels as low as 10
parts per million could cause effects. That's why we went to
the Seychelles to do a more careful study.
In our opinion, the Seychelles is the best study that we've
been able to do related to low-level mercury poisoning.
Senator Inhofe. All right. I'm going to have two questions
that will come--I'd ask you to respond for the record, but you
might be thinking about because these are critical in our
evaluation. One would be--I'll send these to you. You don't
have to write them down. Do you agree that the fish consumption
studies, rather than the Iraqi grain studies, more closely
resemble the situations here in the United States that health
agencies should be concerned with?
And, second, what specific information is needed in order
to have a better scientific understanding of mercury and its
health and environmental impact?
Again, I will once more apologize to you for the somewhat
of a crisis that came up right at 4. It is 4, and I have to
meet that crisis.
I thank you very much for coming. You will be receiving
questions for the record.
[Whereupon, at 4:01 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Hon. Senator Bob Graham, U.S. Senator from the State of
Florida
Mr. Chairman, Senator Leahy, members of the committee. I am pleased
today to have the opportunity to learn more about the scientific issues
surrounding the establishment of a suggested reference dose for human
exposure to mercury.
I would like to take a moment to explain my interest in this issue
to the committee, and express my hope that during the 106th Congress
this committee will further review of the ``state of the science'' on
mercury pollution and conduct an in-depth analysis on appropriate
policy actions.
In the state of Florida, there are no fish consumption or limited
fish consumption advisories throughout much of the state. The South
Florida region in particular is threatened by mercury deposition. For
example, in the Florida Everglades, which is widely recognized as a
``national treasure'' being the only ecosystem of its kind in the
United States, mercury levels in sediment has increased about 5 times
over the last 100 years.
It is unclear exactly what the cause of these high levels are. Over
the same 100 year period, mercury in global air has increased only 2-3
times. Contributing factors to the high mercury levels in the
Everglades are the peat sediments and algae mats that blanket this area
and provide an ideal environment for transformation of soluble mercury
into methylmercury. The shallow, slow moving water in this portion of
the state provides minimal dilution for mercury levels.
Research is continuing on the effects of these high levels. The
state of Florida has ``no consumption'' or ``limited consumption''
advisories in many areas, including the Everglades, Big Cypress and
Florida Bay. There is evidence demonstrating that endangered species
such as the Florida panther are being effected--in moderately and
highly exposed panther populations research shows reduced litter size.
As you can see, there is great interest in my state in mercury
pollution. I am pleased that this committee is beginning to look at the
science related to the human health effects of mercury. I look forward
to future work on the efforts we begin here today. Thank you,. Mr.
Chairman.
__________
Statement of John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Office of Air and Radiation, Environmental Protection
Agency
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting
me again to discuss the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
proposed rule to improve visibility and reduce regional haze in our
national parks and wilderness areas.
As you know, EPA revised the national ambient air quality standards
(NEARS) for ground-level ozone and particulate matter in July 1997.
These updated standards have the potential to prevent as many as 15,000
premature deaths each year, and up to hundreds of thousands of cases of
significantly decreased lung function and aggravated asthma in
children. In the review of the standards, EPA concluded that the most
appropriate way to address the visibility impairment associated with
particulate matter (PM) would be to establish a regional haze program
in conjunction with setting secondary PM standards equivalent to the
primary standards. EPA proposed new regulations addressing regional
haze in July 1997.
As I testified before this subcommittee last April, virtually all
of our national parks and wilderness areas are subject to some degree
of visibility impairment due to regional haze. This fact has been
extensively documented by monitoring conducted since 1978 by the EPA,
the National Park Service, the United States Forest Service, and other
agencies. Haze, which obscures the clarity, color, texture, and form of
what we see, is caused by natural and man-made pollutants emitted to
the atmosphere through a number of activities, such as electric power
generation, various industrial and manufacturing processes, car and
truck emissions, burning activities. These emissions are often
transported long distances affecting visibility in certain parks and
wilderness areas that have been identified by Congress for protection
under the Clean Air Act. These areas are known as Class I areas.
As you are aware, the causes and severity of regional haze vary
greatly between the East and the West. The average standard visual
range in most of the Western U.S. is 60 to 90 miles, or about one-half
to two-thirds of the visual range that would exist without man-made air
pollution. In most of the East, the average standard visual range is 15
to 30 miles, or about one-sixth to one-third of the visual range that
would exist under natural conditions. One of the major challenges
associated with this problem is that these conditions are often caused
not by one single source or group of sources near each park or
wilderness area, but by mixing of emissions from a wide variety of
sources over a broad region.
Background
The Clean Air Act established special goals for visibility in many
national parks, wilderness areas, and international parks. Section 169A
of the 1977 Amendments to the Clean Air Act sets the ``prevention of
any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility
in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from
manmade air pollutions as a national goal for visibility. This section
also calls for EPA to issue regulations to assure Reasonable progress
toward meeting the national goal. EPA issued regulations in 1980 to
address the visibility problem that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a
single source or group of sources. These rules were designed to be the
first phase in EPA's overall program to protect visibility. At that
time, EPA deferred action addressing regional haze impairment until
improved monitoring and modeling techniques could provide more source-
specific information, and EPA could improve its understanding of the
pollutants causing impairment.
As part of the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act, Congress added
section 169B to focus on regional haze issues. Under this section, EPA
is required to establish a visibility transport commission for the
region affecting visibility in the Grand Canyon National Park. EPA
established the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission in 1991 to
examine regional haze impairment for the 16 mandatory Class I Federal
areas on the Colorado Plateau, located near the Four Corners area of
New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Arizona. After several years of
technical assessment and policy development, the Commission issued its
final report in June 1996. The Commission's recommendations covered a
wide range of control strategy approaches, planning and tracking
activities, and technical findings which address protection of
visibility in the Class I areas in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon
National Park.
Under the 1990 Amendments, Congress required EPA to take regulatory
action within 18 months of receiving the Commission's recommendations.
EPA proposed the regional haze rules in July of last year in
conjunction with the final national ambient air quality standards for
particulate matter. In developing the proposed regulations, EPA took
into account the findings of the Commission, as well as those from a
1993 National Academy of Sciences Report.
In 1990, the National Academy of Sciences formed a Committee on
Haze in National Parks and Wilderness Areas to address a number of
regional haze-related issues, including methods for determining the
contributions of man-made sources to haze as well as methods for
considering alternative source control measures. In 1993, the National
Academy issued a report entitled, ``Protecting Visibility in National
Parks and Wilderness Areas'' which discussed the science of regional
haze. Among other things, the Committee concluded that ``current
scientific knowledge was adequate and available control technologies
exist to justify regulatory action to improve and protect visibility.''
The Committee also concluded that progress toward the national goal
will require regional programs operating over large geographic areas.
Further, the Committee felt strategies should be adopted that consider
many sources simultaneously on a regional basis.
In addition to the findings of the Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Commission and the National Academy of Sciences, EPA also
took into consideration recommendations and discussions related to
regional haze from the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee's Subcommittee
on Ozone, Particulate Matter, and Regional Haze Implementation Programs
established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) in
developing the proposed regional haze rule. The subcommittee included
wide representation from states, local and tribal governments,
industry, environmental groups and academia. This subcommittee met
regularly over two-and-one-half years to consider a variety of
implementation issues associated with the revised national ambient air
quality standards and the proposed regional haze rule. It also focused
discussions on how best to develop more cost-effective, flexible
strategies for implementing these requirements.
EPA's Proposed Regional Haze Rule
EPA's proposed regional haze rule is designed to establish a
program to address visibility impairment in the Nation's most treasured
national parks and wilderness areas. In this rule, EPA is proposing to
improve visibility, or visual air quality, in 156 important natural
areas found in every region of the country. These areas range from
Grand Canyon, Canyonlands, and Rocky Mountain National Park in the
southwest; to Yellowstone, Glacier, and Mt. Rainier in the northwest;
to Shenandoah and the Great Smokies in the Appalachians; to Yosemite,
Sequoia, and Point Reyes in California; to Acadia, Lye Brook, and Great
Gulf in the northeast; to the Everglades and Sipsey Wilderness in the
southeast; to Big Bend, Wichita Mountains, Badlands, and the Boundary
Waters in the central states. More than 60 million visitors experience
the spectacular beauty of these areas annually. The proposed regional
haze rule, in conjunction with implementation of other Clean Air Act
programs, will significantly improve visibility in these areas.
Further, EPA expects visibility to improve well beyond these areas,
across broader regions of the United States.--Mr. Chairman, in my
previous testimony before this subcommittee last April, I provided a
detailed description of the EPA's proposed rule on regional haze and so
I will not repeat this information here today.
Status of EPA's Regional Haze Rule and Recent Notice of Availability of
Additional Information
EPA Administrator Browner signed the proposed haze rule on July 18,
1997. At that time, we made the proposed rule and other related
materials available to the public on the Internet and through other
means. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on July
31, 1997, and last September, I chaired an EPA-sponsored public hearing
in Denver, Colorado. In response to requests by the public, we extended
the initial public comment period by about 6 weeks, to December 5,
1997. We held numerous sessions across the country to discuss the
regional haze proposal, including a national satellite broadcast for
all state and local air pollution agencies during which we discussed
the proposal and answered questions from the viewers. I have also
actively participated in meetings of the Western Regional Air
Partnership (WRAP), a follow-up organization to the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission that is co-chaired by Governor Shutiva
of the Pueblo of Acoma and Governor Leavitt of Utah. The WRAP is a
voluntary organization established by several states and tribes which
EPA will be working with to address western visibility issues.
Recently two significant events have influenced our efforts to
finalize the regional haze regulations. First, in June, President
Clinton signed the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-
21) which, among other things, included a provision to ensure that
states' control strategies and plans for regional haze are harmonized
with those required for PM<INF>2.5</INF>. More specifically, this
aspect of TEA-21 requires states to submit their regional haze
implementation plans within 1 year after EPA designates an area of the
country as Attainment'' or ``unclassifiable'' for PM<INF>2.5</INF>, or
at the same time that PM<INF>2.5</INF> state implementation plans are
due for areas that EPA designates as ``nonattainment'' for
PM<INF>2.5</INF>. This provision of TEA-21 reinforces EPA's expressed
intent in the proposed rule to coordinate the state plan revisions to
address regional haze with those required to meet the PM<INF>2.5</INF>
standard. EPA intends to incorporate the deadlines of TEA-21 into the
final rule in a way that promotes regional planning efforts across
regions that include areas designated attainment and those designated
nonattainment. Second, EPA received a letter on June 29, 1998 from
Governor Leavitt, on behalf of the Western Governors' Association
(WGA), that specifically addresses how EPA should treat the Commission
recommendations within the national rule. The WGA developed the letter
in conjunction with several stakeholders involved in the Commission.
EPA was not a part of this process. In the letter the WGA requested
that EPA reopen the comment period for 30 days.
In response to these two events, both of which occurred after the
extended comment period closed, we published a Notice of Availability
of additional information on September 3, 1998 providing an additional
30-day period for the public to comment on two aspects of the Agency's
regional haze proposal. Specifically, the Agency is requesting public
comments on: (1) how EPA should interpret TEA-21 legislation to best
coordinate state planning for PM<INF>2.5</INF> and regional haze; and
(2) the Western Governor Association's proposal on changes to EPA's
proposed regional haze rule to address the recommendations of the Grand
Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. In addition to providing the
full text of the Western Governors' Association letter on EPA's
Internet site, we have also provided sample text illustrating how the
Western Governors' Association's recommendations could be reflected in
regulatory language. It is important to note that EPA is not reopening
the comment period for any other issues related to the proposed
regional haze rule. Following the close of this comment period and our
careful review of the comments, we intend to issue a final regional
haze rule this Fall.
Conclusions
In summary, we believe that EPA's new proposed regional haze rule,
when finalized, will establish a framework to improve visibility in our
Nation's parks and wilderness areas, as the Congress intended in the
Clean Air Act. Over the past several years, we have been busy reviewing
public comments and considering options for addressing the concerns of
various commenters. At the request of various interested parties,
including the Western Governors Association, STAPPA/ALAPCO, NESCAUM,
and industry and environmental groups, we have held additional meetings
to discuss issues related to the rule. In addition, we have reopened
the comment period for public consideration of the rule's incorporation
of the TEA-21 deadlines and the Western Governors Association's
suggestions for including the Grand Canyon Visibility Commission's
recommendations. I want to be clear that we still have not made final
decisions on these matters. Our goal is to ensure that these new
requirements are implemented in a common sense, cost-effective and
flexible manner. We intend to continue working closely with state and
local governments, other Federal agencies and all other interested
parties to accomplish this goal.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my written statement. I will be happy
to answer any questions that you might have.
______
Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, December 17, 1998.
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in response to the letter of October 27,
1998, from Senator Inhofe and Senator Graham on behalf of the
Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear
Safety. The letter included a number of questions that were submitted
by Members of the Committee for the hearing record. As indicated in the
letter, I am directing the attached responses to your attention. We
believe that our responses demonstrate that the regional haze program
will provide States with substantial flexibility in developing
appropriate long-term strategies to improve visibility. We have
answered all of the questions except for question 15b, which addresses
smoke management agreements. We are still in the process of gathering
information from other agencies in order to fully respond to this
question. We expect that a response to this question can be provided to
you by December 15.
I appreciate this opportunity to be of service and trust that this
information will be helpful to you.
Sincerely,
John S. Seitz, Director,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
______
Responses of John S. Seitz to Additional Questions from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. In Governor Leavitt's letter to Administrator Browner
transmitting the Western Governors Association (WGA) proposal, he
stated ``We ask that in using the document you respect the carefully
balanced compromise it represents. Selective use of portions of the
document could easily undermine the significant `give and take'
involved in reaching our final draft.'' However, EPA's translation
document published in the Federal Register appears to omit numerous
elements identified in the WGA proposal as needing to be addressed in
the preamble to the rule.
Question 1a. What elements of the WGA proposal including elements
proposed by WGA for inclusion in the preamble to the final rule did EPA
include in the transition document? Please provide citations from the
text of the Federal Register notice for each of these elements.
Question 1b. What elements of the WGA proposal including elements
proposed by WGA for inclusion in the preamble to the final rule did EPA
omit from the transition document?
Response to 1a and 1b. After receipt of Governor Leavitt's letter
transmitting the WGA's proposal, EPA published a notice in the Federal
Register informing the public of the availability of the WGA proposal
in the docket to the rulemaking and on the Internet. [63 FR 46952.
September 3, 1998]. As stated in the notice, EPA provided draft
language to illustrate how the WGA's proposal might be translated into
regulatory text. We did this to help inform the public debate on the
WGA proposal. However, as further noted in the Federal Register, we did
not attempt to ``translate'' any of the WGA preamble recommendations
into illustrative preamble language. The Federal Register contains the
following language regarding the suggestions for preamble language in
the WGA letter:
``The WGA letter contains numerous suggestions for preamble
discussions to accompany the final regional haze rule. These preamble
suggestions include clarifications of the rationale for certain
conclusions, explanations to clarify WGA's regulatory language
suggestions, and discussions of a number of WGA's suggested policy
interpretations for implementation of the final rule. At this time, the
EPA has not drafted specific preamble language in reaction to these
suggestions. We do, however, request comment on the concepts and
suggestions that WGA recommends that EPA include in the preamble to the
final rule.''
The Federal Register notice thus explicitly referred to the
preamble suggestions in the WGA proposal, made the WGA's preamble
suggestions available in the docket to the rulemaking and on the
Internet, and specifically asked commenters to critically review the
concepts and suggestions made in the WGA recommendations.
Question 2. The WGA's proposal includes ``5 year milestones'' for
visibility improvement. The EPA translation document converts these
milestones into annual emission reduction targets.
Question 2a. Can you point to any section of the WGA proposal that
describes an annual milestone or target?
Question 2b. Why did EPA unilaterally alter this key provision of
the WGA proposal in the translation document?
Response to 2a and 2b. We did not intend to alter this provision of
the WGA proposal.
We agree that the definition of ``milestone'' in paragraph
309(b)(5), together with the use of that term later in the translation
document, could be read to mean that milestones must be developed for
each and every year, rather than comparing the emissions for every
fifth year with 1990 levels. Our use of the term ``annual'' was meant
to convey that States would compare the annual emissions for that
particular year (not every year) with the 1990 baseline, and not that
milestones should be set for each year.
Question 3. EPA's translation document includes a requirement for
renewable energy that does not appear to be part of the WGA proposal.
Question 3a. Can you point to any section of the WGA proposal that
includes a renewables requirement?
Question 3b. Why did EPA unilaterally amend the WGA proposal by
creating a renewables requirement in the translation document?
Response to 3a and 3b. The WGA proposal does address a renewable
energy requirement which was taken verbatim in our translation
document. In section II.G of the WGA proposal, the WGA recommends that
SIPs be required to include the following:
``A planning assessment describing the programs being relied on to
achieve the State's contribution toward the Commission's goal that
renewable energy will comprise 10 percent of the regional power
needs by 2005 and 20 percent by 2015, and a demonstration of the
progress toward or achievement of the renewable energy goals in the
years 2003, 2008, 2013, and 2018, including documentation
describing the potential for renewable energy resources, the
percentage of renewable energy associated with new power generation
projects implemented or planned, and the renewable energy
generation capacity and production in use and planned in the State.
To the extent that it is not feasible for a State to meet its
contribution to the regional renewable energy goals the State must,
in the planning assessments, identify the measures implemented to
achieve its contribution and must explain why meeting the State's
contribution was not feasible.''
In paragraph 309(d)(8)(vi) of EPA's translation document, we
provided the following illustrative regulatory text:
``(vi) A planning assessment describing the programs being relied on
to achieve the State's contribution toward the Commission's goal
that renewable energy will comprise 10 percent of the regional
power needs by 2005 and 20 percent by 2015, and a demonstration of
the progress toward or achievement of the renewable energy goals in
the years 2003, 2008, 2013, and 2018, including documentation
describing the potential for renewable energy resources, the
percentage of renewable energy associated with new power generation
projects implemented or planned, and the renewable energy
generation capacity and production in use and planned in the State.
To the extent that it is not feasible for a State to meet its
contribution to the regional renewable energy goals, the State
must, in the planning assessments, identify the measures
implemented to achieve its contribution and must explain why
meeting the State's contribution was not feasible.''
Thus, the translation text repeats verbatim the WGA's
recommendation on the subject of renewable energy. Please note that
neither the WGA proposal (nor our translation) mandate that the 10
percent and 20 percent targets be met if it would not be feasible to do
so. As a result, we do not believe that it is accurate to describe
these targets as a ``requirement'' for renewable energy.
Question 4. Senator Burns submitted a number of questions to EPA
following an April 30th hearing on EPA appropriations (the
``Appropriations questions''). In response to those questions, EPA said
it plans to publish its 5 year update report under section 169B(b) on
progress on improving visibility later this year. EPA also said that it
does not believe that it is obligated to predict future trends in
visibility due to other parts of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as part of the
169B(b) report, but that it may do so as a matter of discretion. The
testimony at the October 1 hearing made clear that accurate projections
about future trends in visibility impairment due to other sections of
the CAA will be crucial to States as they try to develop implementation
plans under the regional haze rule.
Question 4a. Will EPA commit to the committee that EPA will update
its projection of future improvements in visibility due to other parts
of the Act?
Question 4b. When will EPA publish its update projections?
Question 4c. Will EPA commit to the committee that these
projections will be available prior to the date on which States are
required to fulfill any obligations under the regional haze rule?
Response to 4a, 4b, and 4c. Section 169B requires a one-time report
on progress and improvements in visibility that are likely to result
from implementation of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 other than
the provisions of section 169B. Section 169B further requires
subsequent reports to assess actual progress and improvements in
visibility but does not call for further analyses of the progress and
improvement in visibility due to other Clean Air Act provisions. The
EPA is currently engaged in developing a 5-year report on progress and
improvements in visual air quality, which we hope to make available
later in this fiscal year.
We agree that it is important for States to understand the impacts
on visibility of other Clean Air Act requirements, such as the programs
for meeting the national ambient air quality standards for fine
particulate and ozone. We feel the best way for these visibility
improvements to be estimated is for EPA and States to work together in
regional planning efforts in which regional haze analyses are
coordinated with and integrated with those regional analyses for other
programs. We believe that more accurate assessments would result from
such efforts than through a single national assessment by EPA. The EPA
believes that completing such analyses is a key step in developing
additional strategies, as necessary, under the regional haze program.
The new SIP submittal requirements for regional haze should allow
adequate time for these projections and strategies to be developed by
States.
Question 5. Another of the Appropriations questions to EPA asked
what research needs to be performed to support the States to implement
the visibility program. The EPA answered that ``No research is needed
before the States can begin to implement the visibility protection
program.'' The EPA cited the 1993 NAS report for the proposition that
``Current scientific knowledge is adequate and control technologies are
available for taking regulatory actions to improve and protect
visibility.''
Question 5a. Does EPA believe that it has sufficient data to
justify a regional haze regulation providing for the presumptive use of
visibility goals based on the deciview metric and imposition of best
available retrofit technology (BART) on certain stationary sources?
Response. Yes, EPA believes that there is sufficient technical
information available to justify implementation of a regional haze
regulation. Our position is supported by the conclusion from the 1993
NAS report cited in your question above, as well as other important
reports on visibility. For example, the 1990 report of the National
Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) states that: ``The
fundamental physics relating light extinction (and other optical
parameters) to atmospheric gases and particles is well established. . .
. In fact, even before the past decade of visibility research,
visibility was called the 'best understood and most easily measured
effect of air pollution' (Council on Environmental Quality, 1978).''
(Trijonis, John C., NAPAP Report 24, Visibility: Existing and
Historical Conditions--Causes and Effects, October 1990). Moreover,
because EPA has not proposed an enforceable deciview standard or
proposed a level of control which constitutes BART, but rather has
proposed to leave it to States to determine based on factors set out in
the Act, any additional data needed will be developed by the States as
they proceed with the development of their plans.
Question 5b. Outside of the 16 areas studied by the Grand Canyon
Commission, does EPA currently have data on sources of regional haze
visibility impairment, atmospheric processes, monitoring, emission
control strategies, and source-receptor models sufficient to allow
States to overcome the presumptions on the deciview goal and BART
should a State choose to attempt to overcome the presumption?
Response. Yes, EPA believes that data and tools are available now
for characterizing visibility impairment and analyzing strategies to
improve visibility outside the 16 areas studied by the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC). Many class I areas outside the
GCVTC region have monitoring in place now. The chemical composition
data available from 10 years of monitoring by the IMPROVE network has
been used to characterize the contributions of various pollutants and
sources to visibility conditions in class I areas. Regional scale grid-
based modeling of acid deposition and visibility in the eastern U.S.
has been in place for a number of years. The EPA is working to provide
additional data and tools over the coming years for implementation of
the regional haze and PM<INF>2.5</INF> programs. For example, 78
additional monitors will be added to the IMPROVE network within the
next 2 years. In addition, efforts are under way to enhance
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emission factors, emission inventories, and regional
scale models for future strategy assessments.
Question 5c. Will EPA commit to the committee that no State will be
required to meet any obligations under the regional haze rule prior to
the date that these data are available?
Response. Since data and tools currently exist and since the
expansion of the IMPROVE visibility monitoring network is already
underway, EPA does not believe it will be necessary for any State to
meet regional haze obligations before sufficient data are available.
Consistent with TEA-21, EPA intends to enable States to coordinate the
development of strategies under the NAAQS and regional haze programs.
Question 6. Another of the Appropriations questions asked when EPA
plans to publish its final findings on visibility research. The EPA's
answer was that it has no plans to publish its final findings, but that
``much information is routinely included in EPA's periodic revisions to
the criteria documents.'' The proposed regional haze rule places the
burden of proof on the States to overcome EPA's presumptive SIP
requirements.
Question 6a. Isn't it incumbent on EPA to do everything it can to
assist the States to meet that burden by doing all of the necessary
research and making it easily available to the States?
Question 6b. Will EPA commit to the committee to publish its final
findings on visibility research by a date certain, and if so, when?
Question 6c. Will EPA commit to the committee that no State will be
required to meet any obligations under the regional haze rule prior to
the date that these findings are published?
Response to 6a, 6b and 6c. The EPA is committed to supporting State
efforts to implement the regional haze program. To date, EPA, the
Departments of Interior and Agriculture, and other organizations have
developed a significant body of scientific and technical information on
visibility impairment in national parks and wilderness areas. The EPA
is currently developing technical tools and guidance in a number of
areas that will help the States analyze strategies for improving
visibility. As noted several years ago in the NAS and NAPAP reports,
the science of visibility is sufficiently well understood to move
forward with a regional haze program. As EPA previously discussed in
our response to the Appropriations questions, section 169B(a)(2) of the
Act required EPA to produce only an interim findings report on
visibility research. The EPA does not intend to publish a ``final''
findings report, but will continue working with the States to develop
appropriate technical tools for implementation of the regional haze
program.
Question 7. In its answer to another of the Appropriations
questions, EPA said that its regulations on complying with the national
ambient air quality standards allow States to ``exclude high values
that occur as a result of certain natural events such as wildfires and
dust storms.'' However, those regulations do not address how similar
events will be handled under the regional haze rule.
Question 7a. Under the regional haze rule, will States be able to
exclude data from their calculation of the average visibility on the
best 20 percent of days and the average visibility on the worst 20
percent of days any days on which visibility is impacted by emission
from wildfires and dust storms as allowed under the NAAQS rules, or
emissions from man-made fires?
Response. The proposed regional haze rule, consistent with the
national goal set forth in section 169A of the Act, is directed toward
eliminating visibility impairment caused by ``manmade'' air pollution.
Natural events are neither the focus of the Act nor the focus of the
rule. Although EPA does not intend to exclude data from the visual air
quality data base, EPA will not require other sources to seek further
emission reductions to compensate for natural events.
Question 7b. If not, how and to what extent will States be able to
exclude visibility impairment from each of the following classes of
events from their calculations: wildfires, dust storms, prescribed
burns on Federal lands, prescribed burns on private and State owned
lands, and emissions from foreign sources.
Response. Wildfires and dust storms are clearly natural events
which should be accounted for in determining natural conditions.
Emissions from prescribed burning may have both a natural and a man-
made component. Some prescribed burning is conducted for reasons other
than restoring the natural fire cycle and reducing the risk of
wildfire. The effects of such burning should be addressed if it hinders
reasonable progress. The EPA intends to address these issues at the
time it revises the Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and
Prescribed Fires after the regional haze program is finalized.
Regarding international emissions, EPA staff will continue to work
with their counterparts in Mexico and Canada to identify and address
transboundary sources of manmade visibility impairment. EPA will not
impose control obligations on domestic sources to address impairment
that is caused by international transport.
As noted above, EPA does not plan to exclude the data from such
events from the visual air quality data base. EPA does, however, intend
to distinguish between that which is natural and that which is only
manmade, in assessing the degree of visibility improvement that may be
needed to reach the national goal. Thus, in implementing the regional
haze program, EPA expects States to consider the causes of manmade
visibility impairment and develop strategies which are responsive to
those contributions.
Question 8. In its answer to another of the Appropriations
questions, EPA said it is ``working with Federal land managers to
identify ways to account for and discount, for visibility analysis,
impairment from prescribed fire which is equivalent to that which would
have occurred naturally and therefore would not be considered ``man
made.'' This degree of impairment would thus not affect State
obligations to provide for reasonable progress in their SIPs.'' This
answer suggests that States are going to be responsible for that
portion of the emissions from fires that are ``man-made,'' including
that portion of the emissions from prescribed fires attributable to the
mismanagement of Federal lands by Federal land managers.
Question 8a. For purposes of compliance with the regional haze
rule, does EPA intend to distinguish between that portion of visibility
impairment from prescribed fires attributable to the ``natural'' amount
of fuel in the forest, and the portion of impairment from the excess
fuel due to forest mismanagement, i.e., the ``man-made'' portion?
Response. In section 169A(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, Congress
``declares as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the
remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory class
I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.''
As noted above, EPA does not plan to exclude the data from prescribed
fires from the visual air quality data base, but EPA intends to
distinguish, in assessing the degree of visibility improvement that may
be needed to reach the national goal, between that which is natural and
that which is manmade. The EPA intends to address this issue at the
time it revises the Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and
Prescribed Fires after the regional haze program is finalized.
Moreover, EPA intends to work with FLMs and States to minimize the
impacts of prescribed burning and ensure that the impacts of fire are
properly reflected in the establishment of Reasonable Progress goals.
Question 8b. What current or planned monitoring, reporting
activities, and source receptor relationships can you point to that
would allow EPA or States to make such a distinction?
Response. In refining estimates of manmade versus non-manmade
impairment, there are a number of available technical tools, such as
chemical composition analysis of IMPROVE monitoring data, the tracking
of fire events, and fire emissions modeling tools.
Question 8c. Are States going to be responsible for the visibility
impairment attributable to the ``man-made'' emissions resulting from
the mismanagement of Federal lands by Federal land managers?
Question 8d. If there is an increased use of prescribed fire over
current conditions with a resulting increase in the man-made portion of
prescribed fire emissions which affects a particular State, will that
State be forced to find additional emissions reductions beyond what it
might currently need from other sources, such as private sector and
State-owned sources, in order to achieve its target for progress on
visibility impairment?
Response to 8c and 8d. The proposed regional haze rule calls for
States to develop strategies that assure reasonable progress toward the
national goal. The proposed rule would provide the States with the
flexibility to include any mix of strategies to address emissions of
concern. If increases in prescribed fire emissions are of concern to a
State, the State should include appropriate strategies in its SIP, such
as an effective smoke management program. We note that to address these
emissions, EPA has encouraged development of smoke management programs
by States in the Interim Policy on Wildland Fire. The EPA also included
provisions in the proposed rule that would give the States the
flexibility to set alternate progress targets, based on a review of the
statutory factors for determining ``reasonable progress.'' For example,
if the State did not meet a reasonable progress target for a particular
class I area due to increased emissions from fire not considered part
of natural conditions, it would not be required to find additional
emission reductions from other non-fire sources. However, the State
would be required to revise its SIP to either change its strategies to
address specific source categories of concern, or to establish an
alternate progress target, if a review of the statutory factors showed
that such action was appropriate.
Question 9. Another of the Appropriations questions asked EPA how
much visibility impairment in class I areas is due to prescribed fire.
The EPA stated that it ``does not have estimates of how much visibility
impairment is due to prescribed fire by each class I area.'' However,
EPA admitted that ``Estimates of growth for prescribed fire range up to
a 5fold increase in some areas of the Western United States where fire
suppression has been based on work completed for the Grand Canyon.''
Question 9a. Can you point to any provision of the proposed
regional haze rule that assures the States that they are not going to
have to reduce their emissions to make up for the increased emissions
from prescribed fire if EPA projected 5fold increase occurs?
Response. See response to questions 8c and 8d.
Question 9b. In order to discount any portion of the visibility
impairment due to natural fire conditions, EPA first has to accurately
track and document their impacts. If EPA can't even tell us how much
visibility impairment is due to prescribed fire today, how can we
assure States that EPA will track future fire emissions so that States
are fully protected?
Response. EPA is currently working with the Federal land managers
and States to develop guidance for estimating natural visibility
conditions, and EPA will continue to do so after the rule is
promulgated. The FLMs already have a number of technical tools and data
bases in place to document fire events and estimate emissions
associated with different types of fire, various vegetation types, and
different ecosystem burn regimes. The FLMs are continuing to develop
and enhance these technical resources. It is also important to note
that the GCVTC States have recommended that the FLMs and States
implement tracking programs for fire emissions as part of their State
implementation plans.
Question 9c. Will States be strictly liable for all sources of
visibility impairment unless authorized by EPA to exclude classes of
emissions or sources?
Question 9d. The private sector in those States is going to have to
make up for visibility impairment generated by Federal action on
Federal lands. Is this correct? If not, how can you explain the EPA's
answer?
Response to 9c and 9d. No. See the response to questions 8c and 8d
above.
Question 10. You testified that with the TEA-21 legislation, future
visibility transport commissions (VTCs) will have more time than the
Grand Canyon Commission (the ``Commission'') to develop regional
solutions for reducing regional haze. Please provide a time-line
comparing the time periods for activities of the Commission with a
hypothetical VTC that begins operation at some point in the future,
showing all deadlines for actions by States under the proposed rule.
Response. In the hearing testimony, EPA was making the general
point that under section 169B of the Act, VTCs have 4 years to develop
recommendations and to provide them to EPA, while under TEA-21, areas
in many cases will have more than 4 years to submit regional haze Sips
to EPA. The EPA wants to be clear about the distinction between VTCs
and regional planning efforts. The VTC provisions of the 1990 Clean Air
Act Amendments have not changed. They require that any VTC created in
the future would have the same amount of time (4 years) to develop
recommendations to EPA as was provided for the activities of the
Commission. It is important to note that the provisions in section 169B
of the CAA for visibility transport commissions are limited to
assessing regional visibility impairment and do not impose any
obligations or confer new authorities on such commissions that would
assure actions to improve visibility. For this reason, and because many
stakeholders interested in implementation of the NAAQS and regional
haze programs recommend integrated planning, EPA is encouraging
regional planning efforts. We believe these efforts should be initiated
by the States and should be designed to achieve a more comprehensive
set of objectives than what visibility transport commissions under
section 169B are designed to address, since interstate transport of
pollutants and their precursors may also contribute to air quality
problems for fine particulate matter, as well as visibility impairment.
The point of EPA's testimony was that these regional planning efforts,
if initiated in the near future, could have more than 4 years to
conduct technical assessments and develop these coordinated control
strategies.
[The deadlines for actions in the proposed rule have been
superseded by the timing requirements in TEA-21, so this response does
not show deadlines for actions under the proposed rule.]
Question 11. You testified that you did not know whether regions
outside of the Commission would need special regulatory provisions to
implement their regional solutions.
Question 11a. Why should a regional solution reached by other VTCs
be denied the special status of a tailored regulatory provisions that
appears likely to be afforded the States in the Commission?
Question 11b. Would EPA consider adopting tailored regulatory
requirements for other regions?
Response to 11a and 11b. The proposed rule does not deny other
States the ability to work with other States in a region to develop
tailored regional solutions. Consistent with the schedule provided in
the TEA-21 amendments, we are encouraging States to form regional
planning efforts to conduct technical analyses and control strategy
evaluations in order to develop such regionally tailored solutions, in
a way that is coordinated with and integrated with efforts for meeting
the NAAQS. Note that these efforts would be more broadly responsive to
health as well as visibility protection goals than VTCs. The EPA plans
for the final rule to have the flexibility for States to implement the
strategies coming out of the regional planning process through
individual State implementation plans.
Because the work of the Grand Canyon Commission preceded the
national rule, we believe it is appropriate and useful to codify the
recommendations in rule language. This allows EPA to formally
acknowledge the early efforts of the Commission, and to assure the
participants that their efforts are consistent with the framework
envisioned for the national rule. For other parts of the country where
the national framework will already be in place during the regional
planning process, it will not be necessary to codify the control
strategy requirements into the national rule, but instead will be
sufficient for these strategies to be made federally enforceable
through the SIP approval process.
Question 11c. If EPA is considering adopting other region-specific
requirements, why is EPA considering adopting a national rule at this
time?
Response. EPA is not pursuing the establishment of region-specific
requirements beyond provisions recognizing the efforts of the GCVTC.
The EPA is moving forward to adopt a national rule at this time because
since adopted in 1977, section 169A of the Clean Air Act has authorized
EPA to address regional haze visibility impairment. In section
169A(a)(4) Congress delegated to EPA authority to issue regulations to
assure ``reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal.'' As
explained in Maine v. Thomas, 874 F.2d. 883.885 (First Cir. 1989,
``EPA's mandate to control the vexing problem of regional haze emanates
directly'' from these provisions of the Clean Air Act. While EPA
deferred addressing regional haze in its original 1980 regulations it
did so because of technical obstacles, not because of a limitation on
its legal authority. 45 Fed. Reg. 80084 (Dec. 2, 1980). Indeed, in the
1980 rule EPA expressed its intent to address regional haze in a future
rulemaking under section 169A.
The provisions in section 169B of the Clean Air Act, adopted in
1990, grew out of Congress' continued interest in having EPA develop a
regional haze program under its section 169A delegated rulemaking
authority. One provision in section 169B authorized formation of
visibility transport commissions. Congress made it clear that it did
not intend section 169B to impinge upon EPA's long-standing obligation
to address regional haze visibility impairment. See 136 Cong. Rec.
S2878 (daily ed. March 21, 1990) (statement of Sen. Adams) (``[t]he
authority to establish visibility transport regions and commissions is
a supplement to the administrators [sic] obligation under current law''
and [t]he Administrator may not delay requirements under section 169A
because of the appointment of a commission for a region under section
(daily ed. Oct. 26, 1990) (statement of Rep. Wyden) (``[in] either the
original House language nor the Senate language adopted in conference
repealed or lessened EPA's obligations under the 1977 law''). Thus,
visibility transport commissions are a potential tool for, but not a
prerequisite to, the development of regional haze regulations.
You testified that under the regional haze rule, the deciview
target is not an enforceable standard, but that it is only a metric to
measure progress. The difference between a standard and a metric is
that there are consequences to missing the standard, while there are no
consequences to coming up short on a metric.
Question 12a. Is it EPA's position that under the regional haze
rule, there will be no consequences to a State or the private sector
within a State if the deciview target is missed over a continuing
period of time? Please point to a specific provision of the proposed
rule to justify this answer.
Response. Under the proposed rule, the one deciview reasonable
progress target is a presumptive target. The proposed rule allows
States to establish alternative targets where warranted. See 40 CFR
section 306(d)(4)(proposed). Thus, the proposed rule provides States
with the flexibility to set an alternate reasonable progress target
consistent with the requirements set forth in section 169A(g)(1). Given
a particular reasonable progress target, if a State were to develop and
implement strategies to achieve the target but monitoring results were
to show that the target had not been achieved, the consequences would
be a requirement that the State review its control strategies and
target, and revise one, or both, as appropriate based on consideration
of the factors set forth in the CAA.
Question 12b. Could EPA disapprove a SIP because it believes a
State's plan will not produce the emission reductions needed to achieve
the deciview target?
Response. As explained above, the proposed rule allows States to
establish alternate reasonable progress targets where warranted. If a
State were to submit a SIP with either a one deciview or an alternate
reasonable progress target that could be reasonably met but were to
fail to back up the target with adequate strategies adopted into the
SIP, EPA could and should disapprove the SIP.
Question 12c. Could EPA impose a FIP on a State after it
disapproves a SIP?
Response. Yes. Under section 110(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act, EPA
has the authority to promulgate a FIP if EPA disapproves a SIP unless
the State corrects the deficiency.
Question 12d. If there are any other consequences of missing the
deciview target, please identify them.
Response. As noted above, the consequences of missing a reasonable
progress target would depend on the circumstances surrounding the
State's failure to meet the target. For example, if a State were to
implement all the strategies contained in its SIP but still fails to
meet the target, the consequence could be a requirement for the State
to determine the reasons for its failure to meet the target and to
revise its strategies and/or reasonable progress targets as
appropriate. Alternatively, if a State were to miss a reasonable
progress target because of failure to implement strategies adopted into
the SIP, this could result in a finding of nonimplementation and
possibly sanctions.
Question 13. You testified that a regional haze baseline must be
established within 5 to 7 years after the rule is published. Is this a
baseline for purposes of determining whether the deciview target has
been met, or a baseline for measuring classes of fire emissions? How
would EPA use this baseline in the out years?
Response. This baseline would establish visibility conditions from
which States would begin tracking reasonable progress toward the
national visibility goal. The State would establish a goal for
improving visibility from baseline conditions over each long-term
strategy period. At periodic intervals, the States would be required to
compare existing conditions to the baseline to evaluate the overall
progress made to date.
Question 14. In amending the Clean Air Act in 1990, Congress
authorized the establishment of VTCs to make an integrated assessment
of the effects of other provision of the Act, including the ozone and
particulate matter provisions, in order to determine whether there was
any need for additional specialized regulations to achieve progress on
visibility. Your testimony suggested that EPA's notion of integration
is the integration of States' efforts to implement EPA's mandated
ozone, particulate matter, and regional haze rules.
Question 14a. Doesn't EPA's approach to integrated implementation
contradict the congressionally mandated approach of an integrated
assessment of the need for any additional regulations?
Response. The EPA does not believe that coordinated implementation
between the NAAQS and regional haze programs contradicts section 169B.
The provisions in section 169B of the CAA for visibility transport
commissions are limited to assessing regional visibility impairment and
do not impose any obligations or confer new authorities on such
commissions that would assure actions to improve visibility. For these
reasons, we are encouraging regional planning efforts. We believe these
efforts should be initiated by the States and should be designed to
achieve a more comprehensive set of objectives than what visibility
transport commissions under section 169B are designed to address, since
interstate transport of pollutants and their precursors may also
contribute to air quality problems for fine particulate matter, as well
as visibility impairment.
Question 14b. Do you believe it would be more cost-effective for
VTCs to first make an determination of whether any additional efforts
are need on regional haze, and only then for States to look at the
integrated implementation of these efforts?
Response. Establishing a VTC that is a separate entity from the
regional planning efforts for the other programs does not appear likely
to improve the efficiency of the process.
Question 15. In previous testimony before Congress, administration
witnesses, including yourself, have relied on the development and
implementation of smoke management agreements between the Federal land
managers and the States to control or manage the contribution to
visibility impairment made by prescribed burns on Federal lands.
Question 15a. Is EPA a party to those agreements or involved in
their negotiation?
Response. No, while EPA participated in the development of national
policy on fire which would be responsive to air quality goals, EPA is
not a party to those agreements nor involved in their negotiation.
Question 15b. I understand that not all regions have smoke
management agreements in place. After consultation with the U.S. Forest
Service and the U.S. National Park Service, please provide the
committee with a region-by-region description of where smoke management
agreements are in place and describe the key provisions in the plans
that assure that States are able to control the Federal contribution to
visibility impairment.
Response. The EPA is working with the USDA Forest Service and the
National Park Service to better understand where smoke management
agreements are in place, and what are the key provisions of such
agreements. The EPA has not received this information for all regions
of the country. The EPA will provide you with this information upon its
receipt. The EPA expects that an additional response can be provided to
you by December 15.
______
Responses of John S. Seitz to Additional Questions from Senator Baucus
Question 1. During the hearing, Secretary Woodley indicated that
the ``bluish haze'' which envelopes the Blue Ridge and Great Smoky
Mountains is natural. Do you agree with the Secretary's statements and
its implications for addressing the regional haze to improve visibility
in this area?
Response. No. Substantial monitoring by the IMPROVE network shows
that sulfates are the dominant contributor to light extinction in this
region of the country. Only a negligible amount of sulfates are from
natural sources. Thus, much of the haze enveloping the Blue Ridge and
Great Smoky Mountains is from manmade air pollution. While there is a
degree of haze in this area that is natural, the scientific evidence
clearly shows that visibility conditions are much worse under current
conditions than would occur naturally. For example, the typical visual
range of 15 to 30 miles is only about one-third to one-sixth of the
visual range that would exist under natural conditions.
Question 2. How do you respond to Secretary Woodley's suggestion
that the regional haze regulations will detract from the nation's
efforts to address health-based environmental concerns (i.e., elevated
ambient levels of tropospheric ozone and particulate matter)?
Response. We believe that the schedule provided for in the TEA-21
amendments ensures that regional haze technical analyses and control
strategy development can be readily integrated into the analyses to
address ozone and particulate matter. We do not think that
consideration of regional haze will detract from these analyses. On the
contrary, these regional efforts will benefit by inclusion of regional
haze, because there will be a more complete understanding of the air
quality considerations relevant to the decisionmaking process.
Question 3. Some of the witnesses indicated that the proposed
regional haze rule ignored the most significant contributors to haze
and would not give the States flexibility in developing control
strategies. Do you believe that this characterization of the proposed
rule is accurate.
Response. No. The rule requires States to consider all sources
contributing to impairment in their long-term strategies. We believe
that the proposed rule provides for substantial flexibility in two
ways. States have the flexibility to develop strategies dealing with
any mix of sources that is appropriate for meeting visibility goals.
States also have the flexibility to set alternate progress targets, if
such targets are reasonable based on a consideration of the statutory
factors.
______
Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, January 4, 1999.
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Mr Chairman: This is in response to the letter of October 27,
1998, from Senator Inhofe and Senator Graham on behalf of the
Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear
Safety, which included followup questions to the October 1 Subcommittee
hearing on regional haze. We responded to all but one of your questions
in a separate response. I am now providing the response to this
remaining question, which dealt with smoke management agreements
between States and the Federal land managers (FLM's) and how the
provisions of these agreements help protect visibility. The information
we have gathered is complete and accurate to the best of our knowledge.
You also asked if Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is a party
to any of these agreements. The information we received indicates that
EPA is not a party to any of these agreements, although we certainly
encourage the States to develop such agreements in partnership with the
FLM's. We believe that the use of smoke management techniques can
significantly reduce the impacts of prescribed burning on ambient air
quality and visibility.
In answering your questions, it is important to note first that
even though only eight States currently have smoke management
agreements with the FLM's, there will be opportunities to develop more
such agreements in the near future. The National Forest Management Act
requires that forest plans be revised by the Forest Service at least
every 15 years. The lands entrusted to the Department of the Interior
are subject to a similar process. Forest planning teams actually begin
the revision process 3 to 4 years prior to this date, and within the
next 2 years nearly two-thirds of our national forests will be actively
involved in this process. This presents an opportunity for States to
get involved in this public process and to make known to the FLM's
their concerns about smoke impacts from prescribed burning. The FLM's
strongly encourage the States that they currently do not have
agreements with to take advantage of this opportunity to work with the
FLM's in developing agreements that will facilitate the protection of
air quality and visibility within their boundaries. Additionally, many
States have regulations that govern open burning and many of these
regulations have smoke management requirements in them that are
similar, if not identical, to the type of requirements found in
programs run by States that have agreements with FLM's. These
regulations, like any other State pollution control regulation, apply
to all burners including FLM's. Finally, some States have voluntary
smoke management requirements alone or in combination with general open
burning regulations. We know of no case where FLM's are not following
the requirements of a voluntary program in any State where they apply.
Regarding your specific question about which States have agreements
with the FLM's and how they allow States to control the Federal
contribution to visibility impairment, we have compiled the following
information:
The following States have agreements with Federal Land Managers in
place:
Arizona: The State has a regulation under which an umbrella
agreement was signed that includes a Federal interagency agreement
among the Forest Service, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
and a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between State agencies and the
FLMs. The State agencies include the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality and the Department of Lands. The agreement calls
for making the protection of the national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) and visibility a priority. It requires daily burn approvals,
air monitoring, and emissions tracking among other requirements. A
State smoke meteorologist is responsible for establishing acceptable
burn conditions for the State's airsheds and burn approvals are based
on these conditions. Avoiding or minimizing smoke impacts on sensitive
areas, such as the Federal Class I Areas, is a major goal of the
State's program.
California: California has several Memorandums of Understanding
(MOU's) between individual State agencies and National Forests. They
are: the California Air Resources Board (CARB) MOU with the Sequoia and
Sierra National Forests, the Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control
District MOU with the Los Padres National Forest, and the South Coast
Air Pollution Control District MOU with the Los Padres, Angeles and San
Bernadino National Forests. The State also has mandatory smoke
management regulations that apply to all wildland prescribed burning
activities (including agricultural burning, grassland burning, and
silvicultural burning). The program is implemented at the State level
by the CARB and by thirty-five local air pollution control districts to
different degrees. Authorizations to burn are required by the burners
and there is much competition among the State's many land managers to
conduct their burns due to the limited opportunities allowed by State
and local program rules. The program is fairly rigorous and the
concerns about smoke impacts in the State are many, including nuisance,
public health, and visibility protection in sensitive areas. All
Federal agencies must comply with California Air Resources Board
regulations. In addition, FLMs are held to a conformity process to show
that they are complying with the Clean Air Act. A statewide MOU is now
being drafted.
Colorado: The State Department of Health-Air Pollution Control
Division has a MOU with Federal Land Managers that forms the basis of a
statewide smoke management program. The State issues permits to burners
and conditions the permits to assure compliance with public health air
quality standards, to protect visibility, and to avoid smoke impacts on
populated areas.
Before a permit is issued air quality modeling to predict ambient
air quality and visibility impacts is required as well as certain fire
information and weather conditions.
Montana: The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has
a smoke management MOA with the Forest Service, Bureau of Land
Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the National Weather Service.
A Smoke Management Coordinator located with the DEQ is funded by
contributions from each of the land managers who burn more than a
certain acreage per year. Burns are authorized on a daily basis based
on monitored weather conditions in airsheds throughout the State. The
DEQ requires the pre-registration of burn requests from program
participants and the post-burn filing of information for tracking
purposes. The agreement also requires the use of alternative fuel
removal methods when the NAAQS are threatened.
New Mexico: The State Department of Energy, Minerals and Natural
Resources and the New Mexico Land Commissioner's office has a smoke
management MOA with the Forest Service, National Park Service, Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. Under the
agreement FLM's must obtain a permit from the State prior to burning.
There must be a burn plan and it must explicitly address visibility
impacts. Class I and other sensitive areas are to be protected from
smoke impacts. Burns are scheduled when park use is low and alternative
treatments are used if feasible. Air monitoring may also be required.
Oregon: The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the
Division of Forestry have a smoke management MOA with the Forest
Service and the Bureau of Land Management. The smoke management program
is part of the State implementation plan for visibility protection.
Like Washington State, Oregon has a comprehensive and sophisticated
program which includes a real-time air quality monitoring in some areas
of the State. Some of the requirements are: detailed reporting of acres
to be burned, tons of fuel, dates, times, locations.
Utah: The Utah Department of Environmental Quality administers a
smoke management program in accordance with an agreement with FLMs and
the State's open burning regulations. Land managers must notify the
State of their request to burn and supply fire information (fuel type,
location, acres, etc.). Burning is restricted under the agreement to
days when there are good atmospheric conditions for dispersing smoke.
The State may impose permit conditions, including air monitoring, in
order to assure compliance with those conditions. The State
implementation plan addresses the smoke management agreement for
purposes of protecting visibility in the State's Class I Areas, which
is a principal concern of the State.
Washington: The Washington Departments of Natural Resources (DNR)
and Ecology have a smoke management MOA with the FLM's. It is a
mandatory, statewide program that is part of the State implementation
plan and requires FLMs' burning activities to be approved by the DNR
Protection of Class I Area visibility is the primary focus of the
program which requires fire emission reduction goals and restrictions
on burning.
The following States are considering adopting statewide smoke
management programs and or regulations:
Nevada: Nevada has had no specific rules or agreements in place for
wildland burning but is currently considering adoption of a statewide
smoke management program. The Lake Tahoe Basin prescribed fire program
does regulate FLM wildland burning in that area of the State and
includes consideration of smoke impacts.
Wyoming: The State is in the process of developing a statewide
smoke management program consistent with EPA's Interim Air Quality
Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires, May 1998. All Federal land
managing agencies are participating in the development of the program,
to be completed in 1999. Currently, a State permit program that has
been in place for many years still regulates Federal burning activities
through compliance with permit conditions, air quality modeling
requirements, etc.
Some States that do not have agreements with FLM's do have
regulations that apply to open burning. All burners are subject to
these rules, including FLM's. Included in this group States that have
either a combination of regulations and voluntary smoke management
program, or voluntary smoke management programs alone. The States in
question are:
Alabama: The Alabama Forestry Commission's document A Smoke
Screening System For Prescribed Fires In Alabama, dated January 24,
1992, states that using the recommended smoke management planning
system is the decision of the landowner or contractor supervising the
burning operation.
Alaska: The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
implements a fairly general open burning rule. The State's major
concern relates to public health and nuisance issues in impacted
communities, primarily from wildfire events. At this time, regional
haze issues are not a State priority.
Arkansas: The Arkansas smoke management program is voluntary. As
stated in the Arkansas Voluntary Smoke Management Guidelines document
published by the Arkansas Forestry Association, dated 1998, ``The State
Forester has accepted responsibility for the dissemination and
administration of a voluntary smoke management plan for burning related
to forestry programs.''
Florida: The 1996 Florida Forest Fire Laws and Open Burning
Regulations published by the Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services, Division of Forestry do not specify if the FLM is
subject to Florida's smoke management plan. However, Florida statute
Chapter 590.12(1)(a) states that it is unlawful for any person to burn
any forest, grass, woods, wild land, etc. without first obtaining
authorization from the Division of Forestry.
Georgia: Georgia State Air Quality Control regulations Chapter 391-
3-1, revised June 1998, do not specify if the ELM is subject to
Georgia's smoke management plan. Georgia has not developed its own
smoke management guidance but instead uses the National Wildlife
Coordinating Group's publication A Guide for Prescribed Fire in
Southern Forests as a basis for their plan.
Mississippi: Mississippi regulations (Mississippi Air Emission
Regulations for the Prevention, Abatement, and Control of Air
Contaminants, APC-S-1, Amended January 22, 1998) require fires set for
forest management purposes to meet certain conditions. However, the
document Voluntary Smoke Management Guidelines for Mississippi
published by the Mississippi Forestry Commission, revised October 1998
outlines a voluntary smoke management program.
South Carolina: South Carolina regulations (61-62.2 Prohibition of
Open Burning) allow fires purposely set to forest lands for specific
management practices in accordance with practices acceptable to the
Department of Health and Environmental Control. The Smoke Management
Guidelines for Vegetative Debris Burning Operations published by the
South Carolina Forestry Commission requires a fire plan for each
forest, wildlife, and agricultural area to be burned.
Texas: Texas regulations (Subchapter B Outdoor Burning, sections
111.201 through 111-221) authorize ``Prescribed burning for forest,
range and wildland/wildlife management purposes, with the exception of
coastal salt-marsh management burning.'' Section 111.219 establishes
general requirements, regarding notification and smoke management, for
outdoor burning. The regulations do not specifically mention FLMs. In
its August 1998 State Visibility implementation plan review and report,
the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission states that the
regulation of smoke on a statewide basis ``should prevent future
impairment (of visibility in Class I Areas) associated with emissions
from prescribed fire.''
Virginia: Virginia's regulations for the control and abatement of
air pollution (9 VAC 5, Chapter 40, Part II, Article 40, sections 5600
through 5645) state that open burning may be used for forest management
provided the burning is conducted in accordance with the Department of
Forestry's smoke management plan. However, the Department of Forestry's
Smoke Management Guidelines published June 8, 1998 are voluntary.
Some States have no regulations governing open burning while others
have regulations that specify that burning is allowed with little or no
restrictions to preserve citizen rights to burn. These State
regulations do not appear to contain any measures to protect air
quality or visibility. The information we have on these States follows.
The information we have on these States follows.
North Carolina: According to North Carolina's Open Burning
Regulation (15ANCAC 2D.1900) fires set to forest lands for forest
management, fires set for wildlife management, or fires purposely set
to agricultural lands are permissible without a permit. North Carolina
has not developed formal guidelines for smoke management.
Tennessee: Tennessee regulations (Chapter 1200-3-4, Open Burning)
do not require a permit for ``Fires used to clear land consisting
solely of vegetation grown on that land for residential, agricultural,
forest, or game management purposes.'' Tennessee has not developed
formal guidelines for smoke management.
In addition to any State-Federal agreements or State regulations,
the general conformity provisions of the Clean Air Act (Section 1
76(c)), prohibit Federal agencies from taking any action within a
nonattainment area that causes or contributes to a new violation of the
standards, increases frequency or severity of an existing violation, or
delays the timely attainment of a standard as defined in the area plan.
Federal agencies are required to ensure that their actions conform to
applicable State Implementation Plans. Also, Section 118 of the Clean
Air Act requires that the Federal Government comply with all Federal,
State, tribal, interstate, and local air quality standards and
requirements. The Clean Air Act also gives FLM's an ``affirmative
responsibility'' to protect the Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs) of
Class I areas from adverse air pollution impacts. The AQRVs are those
features or properties of a Class I area which can be changed by air
pollution. Mandatory Class I areas were designated under the Clean Air
Act and are usually pristine areas of the country which receive the
highest degree of regulatory protection from air pollution impacts.
I appreciate this opportunity to be of service and trust that this
information is useful to you.
Sincerely,
John Seitz, Director,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
__________
Statement of Colorado State Senator Don Ament, Chairman, Colorado
Agriculture, Natural Resources and Energy Committee
As chairman of the Colorado Senate's Committee on Agriculture,
Natural Resources and Energy, I chair a committee that has jurisdiction
over most natural resource and pollution questions in our state. As a
farmer and rancher in the northeastern part of Colorado, I have
firsthand experience with key natural resource issues as they affect me
and my neighbors. I have served in the Colorado Legislature since 1986
and have spent most of that tenure devoted to protecting our
environment, our agricultural resources, and the natural resources of
the West.
Since 1990, I have watched the Federal Government and particularly
the Environmental Protection Agency struggle with the concept of
regional haze and air pollution. I am here today to urge the Congress
to take whatever steps it can to prevent the EPA from implementing its
Regional Haze Rule. They are unsupported by the law. First, during the
1990 Clean Air Act debates, the provisions of today's proposed Regional
Haze Rule were specifically debated and rejected by Congress as failed
command and control methods, not based on science, and not giving
states necessary flexibility. Second, EPA's Regional Haze Rule ignores
the most significant contributors to regional haze in the West while
imposing hugely expensive ``top-down'' control strategies on small
causes of regional haze which would have a negative impact on large
sectors of the economy that will increase costs of electricity to all
consumers, manufacturers, and particularly agriculture. Thereby failing
the cost/benefit mandated by Congress for aesthetic regulations.
In attrition to these substantial flaws found in the proposed
Regional Haze Rule, the EPA is also now proposing an accelerated
implementation schedule for stationary source sulfur dioxide controls,
ignoring the mandate of Congress found in the recently enacted Inhofe
Amendment to TEA-21. I understand the Inhofe Amendment recognized the
necessity of flexibility regarding the Grand Canyon Commission
implementation timetable. However, EPA has selectively used the June,
1998 Western Governors Association proposal to the Regional Haze Rule
to accelerate implementation of the Regional Haze Rule well ahead of
not only the Grand Canyon recommendations timetable, but well ahead of
the Western Governors Association proposal.
Because of the recognition by the Colorado General Assembly that
the EPA and other unelected out-of-state organizations might ignore
major sources of air pollution in the West which impact visibility and
other aesthetic standards, I sponsored legislation in 1997 (a copy
attached), HB 97-1324, which mandates that the State of Colorado
maintains regulatory control of measures designed to reduce air
pollution producing regional haze. This Colorado Law was enacted
primarily to prevent command and control, ``top-down', regulation of
Colorado air pollution problems which would ignore some sources of air
pollution and increase dramatically the cost of operation of other
sources without solving the haze problem.
In our state it is common that the legislature review final
environmental regulations mandated by our environmental protection
agencies so that elected representatives have firsthand knowledge of
the science, economics, and anticipated benefits of proposals to help
improve our environment. If the Regional Haze Rule is enacted, EPA
would supplant and abrogate this duly enacted law with directions from
Washington which ignore the will of the people of Colorado and ignore
congressional Clean Air debate and statutes. EPA's Regional Haze Rule
also selectively ignores about 5 years and almost $9,000,000 worth of
Grand Canyon science.
I am sure that you on this committee are familiar with the Grand
Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. The Commission of eight Western
Governors plus Tribes was closely assisted not only by the EPA but
numerous other Federal and state agencies and interested parties from
throughout the West. The Commission submitted recommendations to
address western regional haze to the Environmental Protection Agency in
June 1996. One of the major conclusions of the Commission was that,
``emissions from fire, both wildlife end prescribed fires, is likely to
have the single greatest impact on visibility at Class I areas through
2040'' (Recommendations, p. 85).
We in Colorado are also familiar with the Grand Canyon Commission
recommendations. which underscores our concerns about major sources of
pollution blowing in and around Colorado. In fact, since 1996 the
Colorado Legislature has twice passed legislation designed to hold
Federal agencies accountable under the authority granted states by
Section 118 of the Clean Air Act for control of pollution from Federal
resources. Twice the Federal agencies have lobbied our Governor Romer
to veto the bill and twice that interference by Federal agencies has
been successful. The result is the General Assembly still has not been
able to demand a standard from Federal land managers to minimize
emissions from fire and dust on Federal lands. To me, it is only common
sense that Federal resources should be managed to minimize emission
which cause haze, if such non-health issues are truly a national
priority.
I note with dismay EPA has not been helpful in requiring major
sources of pollution from Federal facilities or lands to be taken into
account in either its Regional Haze Rule or in its daily operations. In
fact, it appears to us that the EPA makes excuses and covers up for
other Federal agencies when air pollution emanates from those Federal
lands that are such a dominant feature of the West. For example, in
three previous congressional hearings within the last year, EPA has
been confronted with these facts:
<bullet> The Grand Canyon Commission science identified emissions
from Federal lands fires as a major source of Western haze.
<bullet> But, soon after, the Department of the Interior announced
a 500 percent increase in burns.
<bullet> In the House Resources Committee's hearing last fall. the
Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture Departments stated 50
percent of western forests would need ``mechanical treatment'' before
prescribed burns could be set.
<bullet> But the stated need for logging or ``mechanical
treatment'' is not reflected in agencies' budgets.
Consequently, if the Regional Haze Rule is implemented, western
states would be prevented from attacking real sources of haze while
being forced to regulate only one minor contributor--stationary
sources.
We need the help of this committee and help from other members of
Congress on several fronts.
1. We need Congress to make it very clear that the Regional Haze
Rule proposed, with ``topdown'' regulation ignoring all sources of
aesthetic pollution in the West other than stationary source pollution,
must be retreated and reworked before it is resubmitted to the public
for public comment and notice. The new proposal must take into account
statutory cost/benefit analysis and must regulate the major
contributors first. It must follow the timetable mandated by the Inhofe
Amendment.
2. The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission was created by
Congress to address visibility issues in the West. The Commission's
extensive interdisciplinary resources and science resulted in
recommendations concurred in by EPA. We in the West should he allowed
by Congress and EPA to design a protection program to implement the
Grand Canyon Commission's findings and recommendations--not ignore
those findings. If the Western Governors are given en opportunity to
have input, based upon the Commission's findings, the input they give
must not be selectively ignored and implemented to create a command and
control, ``topdown'' enforcement program from Washington.
3. State laws, such as the one I sponsored allowing the states to
form their own strategies to control regional haze, should be honored--
not ignored. Instead, the Regional Haze Rule would empower EPA to force
each state to adopt a federally enforceable standard framed at a
national or regional level that would set a quota for each state
regardless of scientifically supported impact analysis.
4. In light of the continuing benefits of the 1990 Clean Air Act,
science, and statutory cost/benefit considerations of non-health or
aesthetic issues, the general timetable for implementation set forth in
the Inhofe Amendment to TEA-21 must be applied to all 50 states.
Congress intended by that amendment to allow for real scientific
research to identify sources of pollution impacting health and/or non-
health aesthetic standards before a new set of costly regulations were
required.
We in the West ask the Congress to help us change EPA's Regional
Haze Rule to recognize these four necessities. Then both the health-
based regulations and non-health aesthetic-based regulations can be
implemented to the advantage of science, reduce costs and reduce
needless regulation, and honor the 1990 Clean Air Act provisions and
the intent of the Inhofe Amendment.
__________
Statement of Dianne R. Nielson, Department of Environmental Quality,
State of Utah
Good afternoon. I am Dianne R. Nielson, Ph.D., Executive Director
of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, and Governor Leavitt's
Official Representative to the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP).
Governor Leavitt has taken an active role in air quality and visibility
issues in Utah and in the West, as Vice-Chair of the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission, Co-Chair of the WRAP, and lead
Governor for air quality issues for the Western Governors' Association
(WGA). I am here today on behalf of Governor Leavitt to provide
testimony regarding a western regional approach to regional haze and
the Environmental Protection Agency's recent Notice of Availability of
Additional Information related to proposed regional haze regulations.
This issue is important to western states, to the people who live
and work in the West and to the many people who visit. As Utah's chief
environmental official, I appreciate the inherent value of our Western
vistas and my stewardship responsibility.
This subcommittee has been vigilant in its efforts to oversee the
progress of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission and its
successor organization, the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP).
You are aware of the history and work of these unique regional
partnerships, as summarized herein. When Congress enacted the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990, directing the EPA Administrator to establish
the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission, you laid the
groundwork for visibility protection through regional partnership. You
provided the opportunity to address a regional problem at a regional
level. States, tribes, Federal agencies, local government officials,
business and industry, environmental representatives, academicians, and
citizens came together in partnership to develop recommendations for
protecting visibility at the Grand Canyon and 15 other western Class I
areas. The consensus recommendations of the Grand Canyon Commission
were presented to EPA in June 1996. The Western Regional Air
Partnership or WRAP was established to implement the Grand Canyon
recommendations, and as appropriate, address other air quality issues
of regional interest. The WRAP consists of western states and tribes as
well as the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture and the
Administrator of the EPA. Committees and workgroups, with the
involvement of stakeholders as in the Commission, are working to
develop consensus approaches to initiatives and technical efforts to
reduce regional haze.
In April 1998, when Governor Leavitt testified before this
subcommittee, he reaffirmed the commitment of western Governors to the
consensus recommendations of the Grand Canyon Commission and to WGA's
Environmental Doctrine, which guides our efforts to seek solutions to
environmental and natural resources problems facing the West. Prior to
that time, EPA had proposed a regulation which failed to incorporate
the Grand Canyon recommendations. In April, while states were
encouraged by the interest EPA demonstrated in incorporating the
Commission recommendation into the proposed rule, that work was yet to
be accomplished. Following that hearing, environmental representatives
voiced their concern about the commitment to that goal. Again, with a
renewed determination, representatives of states, tribes, industry,
environmental groups, and Federal land managers worked for countless
hours to craft a consensus agreement on specific language which we
would recommend to EPA for incorporation in the proposed regional haze
regulation, language which would implement the Commission
recommendations. Copies of that June 25, 1998, consensus document have
been provided to this subcommittee and are available on the WGA website
at www.westgov.org. Governor Leavitt, in his June 29, 1998, cover
letter to Administrator Browner, endorsed the consensus work product.
The environmental representatives also endorsed the consensus document
in a letter to Administrator Browner. On August 31, EPA issued a Notice
of Availability regarding proposed regulatory language to reflect the
proposal, as well as a request for comment regarding the Transportation
Equity Act (TEA-21).
The Grand Canyon recommendations, the work of the WRAP, and this
recent consensus document all recognize that improvements in visibility
must include more than just management of emissions from industry
stationary sources. The reductions must also come from the ever-
increasing volume of mobile source pollution, from vehicles on-road as
well as construction and other off-road vehicles, reductions in road
dust, management to reduce impacts of wildfires, and trans-boundary
pollution from Mexico.
WGA recommended that EPA reopen the public comment on the ideas in
the consensus document, and we appreciate EPA doing so. The following
comments focus on key considerations in the June 25 consensus document
and how they are reflected in EPA's August 31 draft regulatory
language.
1. The consensus document laid out time frames for the development
and implementation of the states' long range strategies for addressing
regional haze on the Colorado Plateau.
EPA has accurately reflected the time frames in the consensus
document. We recognize that the time frames are tight, but we believe
they are achievable. However, the schedule requires a commitment by all
parties to complete the development of models, strategies, databases,
and other work products for consideration by the WRAP. Two specific
commitments are critical to achieving these goals.
<bullet> All partners and their representatives must come to the
table committed to implement the recommendations from the Grand Canyon
report. While we have and will continue to have discussions about the
particulars of those strategies, there can be no doubt about our
commitment to the recommendations.
<bullet> The WRAP must have sufficient funding to support
development of those work products through committees, workgroups and
the WRAP itself. Individuals, agencies, and stakeholders participating
in the Commission and WRAP have provided countless hours to this work.
However, funding is needed to cover expenses of the WRAP and the
development of work products. As Governor Leavitt pointed out in his
cover letter of June 29, 1998, our success is dependent largely on the
financial support of EPA. Likewise, we ask Congress to support this
critical financial commitment.
2. The consensus document defined the components necessary for
inclusion in state or tribal implementation plans, recognizing that any
endorsement with respect to tribal plans must come from the individual
tribes.
EPA has addressed the identification of components with respect to
state implementation plans and established mechanisms for states and
tribes to define those plans.
3. The consensus document also created a set of principles for
EPA's involvement in western efforts to develop plans and implement the
Commission's recommendations.
That set of principles was not included in the EPA draft. While we
recognize that EPA appropriately did not participate in the consensus
work group or document, those principles were agreed to by the
consensus group partners and were significant enough to justify
inclusion in that document. We look to EPA for further clarification on
how they intend to address those principles. We are resolved that they
must be incorporated in the regulation and implemented in the work of
the WRAP.
4. The consensus document did not provide for specific action if
the Annex was not timely delivered to EPA.
EPA has indicated that, if the Annex deadline is not met or if the
annex did not meet regulatory requirements in--Sec. 51.309(f)(1), EPA
would establish stationary source sulfur dioxide provisions.
Instead, EPA should provide that, if the Annex is not delivered to
EPA by the deadline or if EPA determines the Annex does not meet
regulatory requirements, EPA could initiate the process of establishing
stationary source sulfur dioxide provisions. However, if the an Annex
or revised Annex were provided within 1 year of the deadline or
determination, EPA would review it and accept the Annex if it met the
regulation.
5. The Grand Canyon recommendations were specific to the 16 Class I
areas identified in the Clean Air Act Amendments. However, western
Governors also recognized that the Commission process could serve as a
model for other Class I areas in the West.
EPA has clearly reflected that option, but not requirement, in its
draft. While implementation of the Commission's recommendations is
necessary, some states are also concerned about areas beyond the
original charge. The option, and the flexibility inherent therein, is
critical to states and the region.
6. WGA, recognizing the carefully balanced compromise in the words
of the consensus document, recommended that EPA not selectively use
only portions of the document.
EPA's draft appears to reflect the integrity of the consensus.
However, preamble language specifically included in the consensus
document is not reflected in EPA's draft. Since EPA has not provided a
draft of that critical preamble to the regulation, it is not possible
to evaluate it's consistency. We will request that EPA provide for
comment on draft preamble language or be prepared to revise such
language, if recommended, when it is released for public notice.
7. WGA did not propose imposition of the consensus recommendations
on states outside the Transport Region. Any such endorsement must come
from those states.
EPA's proposal appears to reflect that distinction.
States will provided comments to EPA regarding the draft language.
The WRAP has considerable, significant work before it, and I believe
the partners are up to the challenge of developing a flexible, regional
approaches to reducing regional haze in the West.
Thank you for the continued interest of the members of this
subcommittee to that goal. We look forward to your support as we
develop and implement these strategies.
__________
Statement of John Paul Woodley, Jr., Secretary of Natural Resources,
Commonwealth of Virginia
The Commonwealth of Virginia strongly supports protection of
visibility in our national parks. We believe, however, that a more
effect and efficient regional haze program will result if EPA's
proposed regional haze regulation is revised to address visibility in a
more stable and practical way.
I would like to begin with a number of issues regarding Virginia's
planning obligations made the Clean Air Act.
First, we appreciate Congress's efforts in passing TEA-21 and
adapting the timelines for the regional haze and PM<INF>2.5</INF>
programs so that they coincide. As you know, the eastern states have
been focusing on health-related pollutants and have thereby been unable
to devote the resources needed to address the issue of regional haze.
The additional planning time this revision to the law creates will
enable us to properly assess own regional haze conditions and develop
effective strategies. It is important both administratively and
environmentally for regional haze and PM<INF>2.5</INF> to follow on a
parallel track.
Second, states should be allowed to abandon the deciview and no
degradation targets, as well as the technology requirements, and
develop their own goals and programs for visibility improvement. More
detail on these issues is provided later in this document.
The proposal also requires each state to submit revised SIPs which
provide for periodic revision of the long-term strategy. Such periodic
SIP revisions are not required by the Clean Air Act are not needed to
meet the national goal, and will draw on resources better used for
pollution control elsewhere. The SIP decisions that EPA proposes for
tracking reasonable progress are unecessarily frequent and resource
intensive. Note that Sec. 169 of the Clean Air Act clearly makes EPA
responsible for evaluating visibility improvement over time. Therefore,
each state should not be required to individually assess improvements
through continual SIP revisions.
Other issues related to regional planning are raised by EPA's proposal.
<bullet> Regional haze is an issue that must be addressed through
coordination of states, localities, and other stakeholders. The
traditional methods of states and localities addressing control
measures within their boundaries to resolve localized air pollution
control programs cannot address regional haze problems. One state has
no authority over any other state to implement control measures. For
most mandatory Class I areas, the host state cannot individually
implement control measures that will ensure improvement in visibility
within the Class I area. Transport regions and commissions will be
required to implement effective regional programs for visibility
improvements.
<bullet> EPA encourages regional stakeholder coordination to
address regional haze, but does not address how such efforts will be
facilitated or provide incentives for stakeholders to participate.
Congress acknowledged the need far multi-state coordination in the
Clean Air Act by establishing the authority for EPA to establish
visibility transport regions and commissions. As states do not have
authority over other states to address regional emissions, the
authority established in the Clean Air Act is also clearly EPA's
responsibility. EPA must take an active role in establishing and
facilitating these regional efforts.
The proposal requires that individual states address and justify
control programs individually. This is a disincentive to expend the
resources to coordinate with regional grows. The regional haze rule
must also directly allow for the implementation of programs developed
through the removal coordination process.
We recommend that EPA allow all regions of the country to follow
the process used by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission.
This commission was created in order for the states to take the lead in
developing regional visibility objectives, with EPA taking a supporting
role. In order for EPA to know what requirements for visibility SIPs to
include in the removal haze rule, the other regions need to form their
own commissions.
Further, the proposed rule does not allow for direct implementation
of program by the Grand Canyon or other commissions for the control of
regional haze. The final rule should allow for a state to incorporate
the recommendations of a regional commission as part of its SIP without
having to justify the program individually.
The inadequacy of EPA's proposed approach to regional planning is
highlighted in its recent action with a particular group of states.
Recently, EPA issued a supplemental notice on implementation in
response to a request from the Western Governor's Association, which
solicits comment on the Association's suggestion for how the proposal
should be changed in order to accommodate the recommendations of the
Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. The recommendations
specify the visibility goals for eight western states, and would make
the proposed rule more flexible. No such flexibility has been afforded
to any other states. It is important for EPA to recognize that the
other states any regions need the same opportunity to address their
specific regional concerns.
The proposal also requires all states to submit an initial
visibility SIP and subsequent SIP revisions every 3 years. If a state
determines that its overall contribution to regional haze is
insignificant or that the contribution from particular sources within
the state is insignificant, it should be exempt from further
involvement in the regional haze program. EPA is authorized by the
Clean Air Act to exempt major stationary sources that do not
``contribute to significant impairment.'' Exempting sources that make
insignificant emissions contributions is also reasonable.
Further, the proposal is unclear about the respective roles
authority of the Federal land managers' the states and tribes, and
regional commissions and partnerships in the BART process. EPA should
clearly define who determines, reasonable attribution for an out-of-
state source that contributes to regional haze, and whether a Class I
area host state can trigger BART for any stationary source that
contributes to regional haze.
The proposal requires development of a monitoring plan with a
revision no later than 4 years from the date of the initial plan, and
additional revisions every 3 years thereafter. Formal submittal of
monitoring plans on this schedule is a duplicative use of limited
resources.
Also of concern are some program and technical issues.
Given that regional haze is a welfare, not health issue, EPA should
abandon the deciview standard and allow states the flexibility to
develop their own visibility improvement goals and programs. Regional
haze measures should focus more directly on scenic viewing and use a
system that has more of a relationship to the public's overall ability
to experience improved viewing. Use of the deciview scale, as proposed
by EPA, does not provide an accurate measurement of the total viewing
experience.
The proposal emphasizes the Best Available Retrofit Technology for
point source emission control, and identifies the private sector in the
western United States as being most affected. EPA agrees with the Grand
Canyon Visibility Transport Commission's recommendations for addressing
stationary sources by providing a ``flexible air quality planning
framework to facilitate the interstate coordination necessary to reduce
regional haze visibility impairment m mandatory Class I Federal areas
nationwide.'' It is not clear, however, how the BART program provides
flexibility, as it is experiencing costly analytical technical and
legal challenges that would divert scarce state resources. The
regulations should explicitly allow for alternatives to the BART
process, for example, market trading programs and emission caps.
Another issue is the reduction of fine particulate, which scatters
light and contributes to haze. About 73 percent of these particles are
from fine dust, some of which is naturally generated by wind and some
of which is emitted from activities such as farming, industry, and
travel. All of these activities are very difficult to control; nor is
it clear what share of particulate comes from natural sources versus
emissions from human sources. The proportion of these emissions must be
determined and suitable controls must be implemented. It would be
unfair to burden the states with target reduction rates unless research
establishes where and how these reductions can be met.
How different types of emission sources are treated are another
important aspect of the proposed haze regulation.
Reducing area source emission will be critical to reducing
visibility impairment, yet emission factors are not well developed for
many area sources. This is an issue requiring EPA's prompt attention,
since progress in addressing area sources cannot be made until emission
factors are more highly refined. Use urge EPA to improve area source
emission factors and develop appropriate national controls.
Another significant of area source is fire suppression, which was
considered effective land management for many decades. The states
require more specific guidance on how prescribed fire activity should
be incorporated into their regional haze programs.
As with area and point sources, national controls for mobile
sources will play a role in reducing regional haze. The preamble to the
proposal includes language on mobile sources that is consistent with
the Grand Canyon Commission's recommendation that some sources are best
controlled at the Federal level. Yet, the proposal itself does not
include a commitment by EPA to impose Federal controls. It is important
for EPA to develop national measures to address mobile sources.
The relationship between states and Federal entities is another
important issue facing control of regional haze.
A cooperative consultation process between Federal Land Managers
and states is critical to the achievement of regional haze goals. EPA
should clarify that such cooperation and consultation will take place
between FLMs and state environmental agencies.
Finally, I would like to address the issue of resources needed by
Virginia order to implement any form of regional haze program.
The proposed regulation places significant new burdens on states
without indicating from where to resources necessary to support these
efforts will come. BART assessments are technically rigorous and
controversial. Monitoring is resource intensive, particularly given the
remote locations which many of the monitors will be sited. Assessment
of progress in improving visibility will depend on a clear
understanding of source/receptor relationships, highlighting the need
for significant improvements in model input parameters. EPA support to
the statics is essential if those tasks are to be performed
effectively.
In addition to technical and administrative assistance, no regional
haze program will succeed unless accompanied by additional Federal
funding. States cannot divert funds allotted for efforts related to
implementation of the health-based PM<INF>2.5</INF>, PM<INF>10</INF>,
and ozone standards to address regional haze. The success of the
regional haze program hinges on EPA's financial support.
We understand and appreciate that EPA is carefully considering
state's comments in revising the regional haze rule. I now wish to
reiterate that Virginia would like to see as many of the states
comments incorporated into the rule as possible.
______
Responses of John Paul Woodley, Jr., to Additional Questions from
Senator Baucus
Question 1. You asked that the states in the Southeast be granted
sufficient time for regional planning to address regional haze. Hasn't
Virginia been involved in regional planning on air quality issues with
other states since 1992 through the Southern Appalachian Mountain
Initiative (SAMI)? Will the SAMI's work fit in with the state
implementation plans due under the regional haze rule? What efforts in
addition to the SAMI's work do you believe are necessary?
Response. Yes, Virginia has been involved in regional planning on
air quality issues with other states since 1992 through the Southern
Appalachian Mountain Initiative (SAMI). While SAMI's work is indeed
useful, and will make a valuable contribution to the understanding of
haze issues in the region, its work is still preliminary, and it is too
soon to propose any definitive recommendations.
Regional haze is only one of a number of issues being addressed by
SAMI. Other region specific efforts by other groups designed to address
regional haze in a more specific manner and in direct response to EPA
regulation will be needed.
Question 2. During the hearing you suggested that the ``blue haze''
in the Blue Ridge and Great Smoky Mountains is a natural phenomena.
What scientific evidence do you have to support this claim? Do current
monitoring data support your position that this ``haze'' is not
contributing to anthropogenic emissions? Do national experts agree with
your claim that the ``haze'' is natural and your implication that there
has been no human-caused visibility impairment in the region?
Response. I did not intend to imply that there was no human-caused
visibility impairment in the Blue Ridge or Smoky Mountains, merely that
the Blue Ridge has been called ``blue'' since at least the 1730's,
before humans could significantly impact visibility. Its distinctive
blue haze was due to natural sources. dust and biogenic volatile
organic compounds. This haze has since become a milky gray primarily
due to the scattering of sunlight from hydroscopic sulfate particles,
phenomenon particularly evident in the warm, humid months, as
determined by National Park Service research.
As I said in my testimony, I am not suggesting that Virginia cannot
or should not take efforts to improve visibility in the Blue Ridge
Mountains. However, historically speaking, it appears that some of the
visibility impairment is from natural sources. Any regulatory program
that does not take this into account is likely to be unduly costly and
ineffective.
Question 3. Your written testimony noted that 73 percent of fine
particulate matter is dust, implying that it is the most significant
contributor to regional haze nationally. However, the data from the
IMPROVE monitoring sites at Shenandoah and several other sites in the
Appalachians show that dust is responsible for less than 5 percent of
the visibility impairment in your region of the country, and no more
than 20 percent in any other region. Please explain the scientific
basis of your statement in light of the data collected over the past 10
years under the IMPROVE program. Included in your response, please
provide the specific source or sources of the data that support your
testimony.
Response. Our original statement was that about 73 percent of fine
particulate consists of fine dust. This figure was obtained from an
analysis performed by Edward C. Trexler, P.E., a consulting engineer
and expert on regional haze. Mr. Trexler's complete report with
background data-which is based in part on IMPROVE measurements--is
available from the EPA docket (Docket No. A-95-3 8).
To summarize, Mr. Trexler cited data showing the annual average
concentrations of fine particulate dust, organic carbon, elemental
carbon, sulfates, and nitrates during 1989, a representative year.
Approximately 73 percent of these particles were from fine dust.
Whether the amount of fine dust contributing to regional haze in
Virginia is 5 percent, 20 percent, or 73 percent, we are troubled that
emission factors for this particular pollutant are not well-developed,
and that speciation of sources of this particular pollutant has not
been performed. In order for the states to develop and meet targets and
goals, the proportion of pollutants must be accurately determined
before effective controls can be implemented.
______
Responses of John Paul Woodley, Jr., to Additional Questions from
Senator Inhofe
Question 1. In response to a series of questions asked by the
Senate Appropriations Committee, EPA said it plans to publish its 5
year update report under section 169B(b) on progress on improving
visibility later this year. EPA also said that it does not believe that
it is obligated to predict future trends in visibility due to other
parts of the Clean Air Act (CAA)as part of the 169(B)(b) report, but
that it may do so as a matter of discretion. The testimony at the
October 1 hearing made clear that accurate projections about future
trends in visibility impairment due to other sections of the CAA will
be crucial to States as they try to develop implementation plans under
the regional haze rule. Would an updated report on visibility progress
and trends resulting from other sections of the Clean Air Act be of
assistance to your State as it tries to develop an implementation plan
to meet the final regional haze rule? Would it be of crucial importance
in helping your State find the most efficient means of complying with
the law?
Response. An updated report on visibility progress and trends
resulting from other sections of the Clean Air Act would be of
invaluable assistance to Virginia as we attempt to develop an
implementation plan to meet the final haze rule. The overall tenor of
our comments on this issue centers primarily on the lack of information
available to states--information that is crucial in making plans and
implementing effective controls. We cannot meet the law's requirements
if we are not provided with the tools for doing so. Therefore, it is
important that EPA support the states by reporting on progress and
trends as much as possible.
Question 2. Another of the Appropriators' questions asked EPA what
research needs to be performed to support the States to implement the
visibility program. EPA answered that ``No research is needed before
the States can begin to implement the visibility protection program.''
EPA cited the 1993 NAS report for the proposition that ``Current
scientific knowledge is adequate and control technologies are available
for taking regulatory actions to improve and protect visibility.''
Question 2a. Outside of the 16 areas studied by the Grand Canyon
Commission, do you believe that EPA or the States currently have data
on sources of regional haze visibility impairment, atmospheric
processes, monitoring, emission control strategies and source-receptor
models sufficient to allow States to overcome the presumptions on the
deciview goal and Best Available Retrofit Technology should a State
choose to attempt to overcome the presumption?
Response 2a. No, adequate current data on sources of regional haze
visibility impairment, atmospheric processes, monitoring, emission
control strategies, and source receptor models does not exist. Grand
Canyon Commission data, while interesting, is not useful to states
located on the east coast.
Question 2b. Do you believe State should be required to meet
regulatory obligations under the regional haze rule prior to the date
that these data are available?
Response 2b. No, the states should not be required to meet
regulatory obligations under the regional haze rule prior to this data
becoming available. The plans prepared by the states will be only as
good as the data used to develop them; at this time, there is not
sufficient data for preparing technically accurate, workable plans.
Question 3. In amending the Clean Air Act in 1990, Congress
authorized the establishment of VTCs to make an integrated assessment
of the effects of other provisions of the Act, including the ozone and
particulate matter provisions, in order to determine whether there was
any need for additional specialized regulations to achieve progress on
visibility. Mr. Sietz's testimony suggested that EPA's notion of
integration is the integration of states' efforts to implement EPA's
mandated ozone, particulate matter and regional haze rules.
Question 3a. Doesn't EPA's approach to integrated implementation
contradict the congressionally mandated approach of an integrated
assessment of the need for any additional regulations?
Response 3a. Yes, EPA's approach to integrated implementation
contradicts the congressionally mandated approach of an integrated
assessment of the need for any additional regulations. Regional haze is
a site- and region-specific problem that needs to be approached on a
site- and region-specific basis; this has not been done. Integrated
assessment needs to occur before integrated implementation of
regulations.
Question 3b. Do you believe it would be more cost-effective for
VTCs to first make an determination of whether any additional efforts
are needed on regional haze, and only then for states to look at the
integrated implementation of these efforts?
Response 3b. Yes, it would be more cost-effective for VTCs to first
determine whether any additional efforts are needed on regional haze
before considering integrated implementation of such efforts. Again,
the states need a much clearer picture of the situation before
implementing regulations that may or may not effectively address the
problem.
Question 4. In his testimony, John Seitz indicated EPA's desire to
provide state's with ``flexibility'' and ``alternatives'' under the
regional haze rule. These are the same words, however, that EPA uses to
describe what it did in the proposed rule, which contain Federal
presumptions to be met unless states make a demonstration that
equivalent improvements in visibility can be accomplished another way.
This formula for flexibility has been severely criticized by some
states and industry as producing, in actuality, an inflexible result.
Based on Virginia's experience, can EPA's formulation in the proposed
rule provide flexibility to the states? What changes should be made in
the proposed rule to assure that state's have the flexibility to work
together on local solutions as intended by Congress?
Response. No, EPA's formulation in the proposed rule does not
provide flexibility to the states. While it appears that some steps
have been taken toward this end (for example, making the health-based
PM<INF>2.5</INF> rules consistent with those for regional haze),
nevertheless serious questions regarding the flexibility--and thereby
the feasibility--of EPA's proposed planning process remain.
Establishment of VTCs is one way that states would be able to
assess and address their individual and regional haze situations, and
provide more locale-specific flexibility in planning and
implementation. It is important for EPA to recognize that the other
states and regions need the same opportunity to address their specific
regional concerns as did the Grand Canyon Commission.
Question 5. What is Virginia's view of EPA's interpretation of the
WGA proposal, in which EPA would establish a SIP requirement for a
renewable portfolio target?
Response. We are not certain what EPA means by ``renewable
portfolio target.'' Our guess would be that EPA would adjust a target
reduction amount every 10 years or so. Rather than do this now, it
would be more sensible to see what steps are necessary to meet the
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard. These same steps would improve and, in some
cases, may completely solve the visibility problem. If problems still
remained, then additional measures could be developed. Ideally,
regional haze efforts should follow the PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIP
development. Trying to do both regional haze and PM<INF>2.5</INF>
simultaneously overtaxes state resources.
Question 6. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees, in the
VA-HUD funding bill for fiscal year 1999, has strongly recommended that
EPA provide up to $500,000 in seed money when states wish to form a
visibility transport commission as authorized under the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 to decide what more, if anything, needs to be done
to improve visibility in the Class I areas, after improvements accruing
from other provisions of the Clean Air Act are taken into account.
Question 6a. If EPA finalizes the regional haze rule, with the
Federal presumptions on deciview, the BART requirement and NSPS
presumption, will this hamper the ability of VTCs to make the best
regional decisions about achieving reasonable progress in improving
visibility in Class I areas in a cost effective manner?
Response 6a. Yes, finalizing the haze rule with current
presumptions on deciview, the BART requirement and NSPS presumption
would hamper the ability of VTCs to make the best regional decisions
about achieving reasonable progress in improving visibility in Class I
areas in a cost effective manner. Imposition of these problematic
concepts without provision of adequate background research and
documentation, as well as prevention of region-specific planning, is
not a realistic approach to solving the problem of regional haze.
Question 6b. Do you think states should form VTCs and should these
commissions be focused on assessing the need and means for further
action to address visibility impairment as contemplated under the Clean
Air Act amendments, or should they focused simply on implementing the
ozone and PM NAAQS and the Federal regional haze rule in an integrated
fashion as Mr. Seitz suggested during the hearing?
Response 6b. Formation of VTCs will be crucial to addressing
regional haze. The VTCs should focus on assessing the need and means
for further action to address visibility impairment as stated in the
Clean Air Act. While implementing the ozone and particulate matter
NAAQS and the Federal regional haze rule in an integrated fashion makes
sense, it does not make sense to proceed before a more realistic
picture of the need and means to address haze on a truly regional basis
has been established. The states need more regional planning time, and
more technical data and support from EPA before the welfare-based
standards can be integrated into the health-based standards.
__________
Statement of Shawn B. Kendall, Executive Assistant, Phelps Dodge
Corporation
Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. I am Shawn Kendall,
Executive Assistant on corporate staff of Phelps Dodge Corporation
(Phelps Dodge). Phelps Dodge is the largest producer of copper in the
United States, the second largest producer of carbon black, a major
manufacturer of copper rod for the wire drawing industry, and a major
producer of magnet wire. Phelps Dodge has 15,000 employees operating in
26 countries around the world, with 9,000 operating in 13 states in the
U.S. Phelps Dodge has been heavily involved in copper mining since the
1880's, when our operations were in the Arizona Territory.
Phelps Dodge appreciates the opportunity to discuss regional haze
with you. I am the Corporation's policy and technical lead with respect
to regional haze regulations. I have worked for Phelps Dodge for nearly
23 years in a variety of areas including air quality technical and
policy support, budgeting and financial planning at our largest mine in
the U.S., and Director of our Corporate Data Center in Phoenix. For the
last 13 years I have been in my current position working on a variety
of technical and policy issues.
I am testifying today on process issues important to the regional
haze debate. These include The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission (Commission) and how it lead to the formation of the Western
Regional Air Partnership (WRAP); and how EPA's regional haze rule
published last year ignored the work of the Commission and led to the
recent proposal based on a input from Western Governor's Association.
Finally, I will address the need to encourage the formation of other
visibility transport commissions, funding needs of these new processes
and the WRAP, and the need for EPA to re-propose the regional haze
rule.
The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission
Phelps Dodge was highly committed to the Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Commission process, as evidenced by the almost 6,000 hours of
my time which was allowed to be committed to serve on or in support of
various committees for the Commission. I was Secretary of the
Commission' Public Advisory Committee that delivered consensus
recommendations to the Commission in May 1996. These recommendations
were the basis for the Commission's final recommendations forwarded to
EPA in June 1996. In addition to my work with the Public Advisory
Committee, I also devoted substantial effort to support and staff the
Commission's technical and policy analysis committees.
I commend the Commissioners for designing and utilizing a broad-
based stakeholder process in the development of their recommendations,
for assembling technical committees which significantly advanced the
state of understanding of regional haze in the West, and for having
patience and understanding when the consensus process took longer than
planned. I came away from the Commission process with an appreciation
of the differing views of the many wonderful people who participated in
the process and a detailed understanding of what we did well and what
we could do better in the future. In the end, I recognized the success
of the Commission process as the beginning of a new paradigm for
environmental policy development in the West.
Western Regional Air Partnership
One of the key recommendations of the Commission was the need for a
follow on entity to assist the states and tribes with the monitoring
and implementation of the Commission's recommendations. That entity was
established us September 1997 as a voluntary alliance of Governors,
tribal leaders, and Federal of finials whose mission is to follow
through on the Commission's recommendations, and to work
collaboratively on odor air quality issues Bat the alliance deems
appropriate. It is known as the Western Regional Air Partnership
(WRAP). I have been appointed Co-Chair of the Technical Oversight
Committee by the WRAP, and serve on the WRAP Coordination Committee.
The WRAP organization will consist of approximately 250 volunteers from
states, tribes, local government, Federal agencies, industry,
environmental Soups, academic institutions, and the general public
working collaboratively to develop sound technical and policy work
products to support the WRAP mission. These work products will be a
resource the states and Gibes can rely on in developing their
implementation plans for the management of visibility in the mandatory
classy Federal areas, and for monitoring and reporting on the
effectiveness of their programs.
The USEPA Regional Haze Proposal published in July, 1997
Phelps Dodge was quite disappointed with EPA's proposed regional
haze regulations released in July 1997. September 1997, I testified at
an EPA public hearing regarding areas that the proposal failed to
recognize or learn Cam the Commission process. I worked with the
Western Regional Council, perhaps the leading inter-industry group
engaging the regional haze issues in the West, on an extensive comment
package. This included a proposed full rewrite of the rule to better
guide the collaboration needed between states.
These comments also explained why the establishment of arbitrary
visibility objectives without consideration of other factors required
by the Clean Air Act was not the correct way to formulate long-term
strategies. The development of these strategies rests with states and
tribes, and must take into consideration a multitude of factors in
order to develop an equitable, politically acceptable and
environmentally effective long-term strategy which will be implemented
and succeed in protecting visibility in EPA's mandatory class-I Federal
areas.
The most serious oversight in proposed rule was the lack of
guidance with respect to the Commission's recommendations.
The Commission's technical and policy analysis committees and
Public Advisory Committee generated a significant number of work
products that the public should have had access to during this
rulemaking. Since EPA staff worked in the Commission process, these
work products were part of the history that any participant would rely
on in forming opinions. I was disturbed to find that as of 2 weeks
prior to the end of the comment period last December, the rulemaking
docket only contained the Commission's final report. None of the other
key Commission work products were in the docket. Phelps Dodge filed
comments on December 5, 1997, and included all of these work products
and meeting minutes of the Public Advisory Committee that were in the
company's files.
Based on the serious deficiencies I determined existed in the
proposed Ale, and the lack of these key Commission work products in the
docket, Photos Dodge requested that the Agency reconsider its approach
to the rule, fix it, and repropose the rule. A corrected rule that
reflects the lessons learned from the Commission process would be
significantly different than EPA's proposal. I determined, and still
believe, that the public and private sector should be given a chance to
comment on a reproposed rule conforming to the lessons learned in the
Commission process.
Western Governor's Association Comments on the Regional Haze Rule
The Western Governor's Association (WGA) also filed comments on the
proposed rule in December 1997 and provided an update to this proposal
in early April 1998. The concept being put forth in the SAGA proposal
was the establishment of a formal Regional Plan, which EPA would
approve, and the States and Tribes would rely on for implementation
plans. Several members of the environmental community who participated
in the GCVTC process and the WRAP process protested this treatment to
EPA Administrator Browner and Governor Leavitt, since Here is no
statutory basis for such a regional plan, and the procedural
requirement for implementation plans could be bypassed. In addition,
many industrial representatives disagreed with the concept.
Governor Leavitt of Utah, who was Vice-Chair of the GCVTC, and
currently is Cochair of the WRAP and the lead Governor for the WGA on
this issue, was concerned about the reaction to the WGA proposal. He
had his staff assemble a small stakeholder group to try to come to
consensus on the issue and provide him win an alternative that he could
review with other Governors and then forward to EPA. The mission of the
group was to develop a consensus work product under a very tight
timeframe. The group consisted of representatives from two
environmental organizations, two industrial organizations, two state
environmental regulatory organizations and the National Park Service,
and was supported by staff from the Western Governors Association and
the National Tribal Environmental Council. I served as on of the
industry representatives in the process. The key stakeholders
outreached to the broader sector they represented.
Although the outreach was generally effective, some stakeholders
felt disenfranchised by the process. In the end, the group came to a
consensus on a recommendation for the States to review, and it was the
basis for the submittal to USEPA at the end of June of this year by
Governor Leavitt.
The recommendation from WGA has several key points on how the
Agency should treat the GCVTC recommendations in a rule context. The
guidance to the agency called for specific rule and preamble language
to be added to the rule, consistent with the GCVTC recommendations. In
addition, the specific rule components for stationary sources were to
be deferred until the Commission could provide an annex containing the
details of regional targets, and backstop contingency regulations for a
market-trading program. The Commission had envisioned delivering this
to the Administrator within 1 year after the Commission's original
report (i.e., in June 199 7), but Dad group agreed that the current
WRAP Room working on this issue should be given a chance to finish
their work. As such. an agreement was reached that the Commission would
submit the annex describing the details of the stationary source
targets and backstop program to the Administration by October 1, 2000.
Another key consideration in the proposal was the need to ensure
that states and tribes would be allowed to focus on the GCVTC based
rule, and not be distracted by over programmatic issues for other class
I areas. The group agreed that with the momentum and progress of the
WRAP, states and tribal should be able to submit long-term strategy
implementation plans in 2003. Most of the technical and policy work
should be completed by the end of 2001, allowing the states and tribes
2 years to move through the implementation plan review process. In
addition, states and tribes could defer consideration of additional
measure for non-GCVTC class I area until 2008 if they include a
modeling analysis of the effects of the 2003 long-term strategy based
son the GCVTC rules with the 2003 submittal. This would allow the
effects of the GCVTC rules to be assessed for their impact on non-GCVTC
class I areas, and preclude the formation of a bifurcated program.
The WGA requested that the Agency notice the receipt of its
suggestions for how to implement the GCVTC recommendations in the
regional haze rule, and open a thirty-day comment period lo allow
others, especially those that may have felt disenfranchised, to provide
input to the process. On September 3, 1998, EPA noticed the receipt of
the WGA recommendation, released its proposal on the specific rule
language which it derived Am the WGA recommendation, and opened the
record for comment for thirty days. This comment period will close next
Monday, October 5, 1998.
Phelps Dodge commends the Agency for taking the WGA recommendation
to heart, not only in allowing the public an opportunity to provide
input, but also for drafting proposed rule language which is
substantively consistent with the WGA recommendation. Phelps Dodge will
be filing comments on this rule later this week, noting some minor
changes that should be made, and requesting clarification of some
issues that night not be interpreted correctly in the fixture. It is,
however, Phelps Dodge's position that the entire rule package should be
corrected and reproposed before being finalized.
Other Visibility Transport Commissions
Of all the lessons learned in the GCVTC process, the most important
is that states and tribes can not develop effective long-term
strategies for mandatory class I Federal areas in their jurisdiction
without consideration of the developments in neighboring jurisdiction.
Regional haze is heavily influenced by long-range transport. The
plowing for other class I areas should occur through alliances or
partnerships. States and tribes should be encouraged to from transport
commissions in order to guide Agency rulemaking needed to ensure
reasonable progress. Phelps Dodge is aware of efforts to allow other
visibility transport commissions to be formed. Phelps Dodge supports
these initiatives and believes, based on the regional haze timing
requirements legislated earlier this year, that the formation of these
commissions will accelerate the development of sound long-term
strategies for the non GCVTC mandatory class I Federal areas. The
Governors, tribal leaders, and stakeholders in the rest of the country
should have the same opportunity that the GCVTC process provided.
Funding
Funding for the regional collaborative processes is essential for
their success. This funding is generally limited to travel, meeting,
staff and consulting services. It is essential that travel
reimbursement for date, tribal, local regulatory, environmental and
academic participants is available if those participants would
otherwise not be able to participate. Keep in mind that the in-kind
contribution of their time is worm much more than travel costs, and a
consensus work product can not be realized unless there is balanced
participation. Another mayor cost is for meeting facilities, and in
some cases professional facilitation services. Staff support is needed
for the organization, especially for coordination, and internal and
external communications. In the course of developing a consensus work
product, it is sometimes necessary to undertake technical or policy
analysis work. This work is best done by a reputable outside firm
without a stake in the outcome. Although this can be costly, it may be
necessary to ensure the process outcome has a credible basis that will
stand up to public scrutiny.
The WRAP was advised that available BPA grant funds would probably
be reduced to $150,000 in fiscal year 1999 from the $369,000 received
in fiscal year 1998. The Coordination Committee for the WRAP is
currently investigating sources of few for the nearly $1,000,000 in
costs projected for fiscal year 1999, especially recognizing the needed
developments for the Commission's Annex. The House has proposed up to
$500,000 each for a maximum of eight visibility transport commissions
to allow other groups to begin regional planning. Phelps Dodge believes
that $1,000,000 per year for the next 2 years should be allocated for
the development of the Commission's Annex. Based on the experience of
the Commission and the WRAP, this could come out of the same pool of
funds since the initial planning costs for a new Commission will be
less than $500,000 in the first year.
Re-Proposal
Phelps Dodge believes EPA's original proposal was off the mark, and
although the recent WGA development goes a long way to rectify the
deficiencies with respect to the GCVIC recommendations, the full
context of the final rule is still unclear. A full re-proposal is in
order. Such a move can only help, and can not hurt the process. The
timing of the regional haze requirements for non-GCVTC states has been
delayed, and the WRAP is proceeding to follow through on the GCVTC
recommendation, regardless of whether the regional haze rule is
published this year or next year. The regional haze issue is one that
will require continuous monitoring and updating to ensure reasonable
progress toward the goal. It will have a direct impact and benefit not
only on us, but on our grandchildren's grandchildren. Phelps Dodge
continues to request that the rule be corrected and re-proposed to
allow all interested parties to providing meaningful input to the
rulemaking.
Thank you for your attention to this very important issue to Phelps
Dodge, and to all my colleagues in the WRAP process. I would be happy
to answer any questions.
______
Responses by Shawn Kendall to Additional Questions from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. When Governor Levitt submitted the WGA's proposal to
the EPA, he said, ``We ask that in using the document you respect the
carefully balanced compromise it represents. Selective use of portions
of the document could easily undermine the significant ``give and
take'' involved in reaching our final draft.'' However, EPA's
``translation'' document does not appear to include many elements
identified in the WGA proposal as needing to be addressed in the
preamble to the rule. Can you identify any elements of the WGA proposal
that were omitted in EPA's Federal Register notice?
Response. There were some minor inconsistencies with respect to the
requested rule language components from the WGA. I am attaching a copy
of Phelps Dodge Corporation's comments to the docket which clarify some
of these. The most significant omissions were related to the preamble
language, which was requested to be prepared to accompany the specific
rule language.
Question 1a. Are these missing provisions an integral part of the
WGA proposal?
Response. Yes. The preamble language is an integral part of the
consensus agreement in that it clarifies interpretation and intent of
the rule.
Question 1b. Does the omission of these elements from the EPA
translation document alter the substance of the WGA proposal or upset
the balance struck by the proposal?
Response. This is a matter of timing and intent. If the final rule
package were to contain preamble language consistent with the WGA
request, then it would not be a problem. If the final rule language
were to omit the requested preamble content, then it would affect the
balance struck by the proposal.
Question 2. The translation document also appears to convert the
WGA's ``5 year milestones'' into an annual emissions reductions. Does
the reference to annual emissions reduction milestones in the EPA
translation document alter the substance of the WGA proposal or upset
the balance struck by the proposal?
Response. The EPA wording should have referred to 5-year milestones
of annual total emissions. This is clarified in my comments to the
docket which are attached. If the agency were asking for year-by-year
annual milestones, then this would be a major problem since the
administrative burden and expectations of the party would be
significantly altered. The expectation in the WGA proposal is that the
states would review and assess progress every 5 years. It should be up
to the Commission, in its Annex submittal, to define the specific
accounting methodologies to be employed and the specific milestones.
Question 3. The translation document also appears to add a new
renewables requirement that was not in the WGA proposal. Does the
reference to renewables in the EPA translation document alter the
substance of the WGA proposal or upset the balance struck by the
proposal?
Response. I believe that the renewables requirement that was
included by EPA is generally consistent with the Commission's
recommendation and the WGA proposal. It must be made clear that the
expectations for the states would be to monitor the potential for
renewable energy and report on a routine basis (every 5 years) as part
of the normal progress assessments. States may elect to establish their
own internal goals, but these would not be federally enforceable
requirements. The only federally enforceable requirement would be for a
comprehensive summary of the renewables generating capacity within the
jurisdiction and the potential for renewables which exist within the
jurisdiction.
Question 4. In response to a series of questions asked by the
Senate Appropriations Committee, EPA said it plans to publish its 5
year update report under section 169B(b) on progress on improving
visibility later this year. EPA also said that it does not believe that
it is obligated to predict future trends in visibility due to other
parts of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as part of the 169(B)(b) report, but
that it may do so as a matter of discretion. The testimony at the
October 1 hearing made clear that accurate projections about future
trends in visibility impairment due to other sections of the CAA will
be crucial to states as they try to develop implementation plans under
the regional haze rule. Would an updated report on visibility progress
and trends resulting from other sections of the Clean Air Act be of
assistance to your state as it tries to develop an implementation plan
to meet the final regional haze rule?
Response. As you know, Phelps Dodge is committed to supporting the
Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP). My home state of Arizona is a
very active participant in WRAP. Much of the work of WRAP is aimed at
providing updated, high-quality technical data and assessments for use
by the states and tribes in developing their ultimate implementation
plans, in addition to other policy related components. Phelps Dodge
believes it is critical that the states and tribes work collaboratively
on such efforts. The role of EPA should be to support the work of
collaborative processes such as WRAP or other visibility transport
commissions which are much closer to the regional transport and
emission management issues within their jurisdictions. EPA has failed
to provide adequate funding for the development of modeling tools for
these types of assessments. Consequently, the Western Regional Air
Partnership is continuing to try to develop improved techniques in
light of the lack of EPA commitment to visibility modeling research in
the West.
Question 4a. Would it be of crucial importance in helping your
State find the most efficient means of complying with the law?
Response. Yes. Assessments of current requirements under the Clean
Air Act will have the effect of reducing long-term emission trends.
These assessments must be considered in developing an overall strategy
for the remedying of existing visibility impairment and the prevention
of future visibility impairment in mandatory class-I Federal areas. The
Clean Air Act section 169A defines a national goal and requires states
to develop implementation plans that will make reasonable progress
toward the goal. Obviously, it is improbable to consider a scenario
where all man-made impairment can be eliminated. That said, it is
perfectly reasonable to expect that emission management strategies can
be developed that are cost effective and will provide for improvements
in visibility on worst-case days, and will assure no significant
degradation of visibility on clean days. Strategies associated with
regional haze must be put into context with the other emission
management strategies associated with the attainment and maintenance of
our National Ambient Air Quality Standards and appropriate state and
local standards. The impact of implementation plan components for other
CAA requirements must therefore be taken into consideration when
determining what additional measures will be needed to make reasonable
progress.
Question 5. Another of the Appropriators' questions asked EPA what
research needs to be performed to support the States to implement the
visibility program. EPA answered that ``No research is needed before
the States can begin to implement the visibility protection program.''
EPA cited the 1993 NAS report for the proposition that ``Current
scientific knowledge is adequate and control technologies are available
for taking regulatory actions to improve and protect visibility.''
Outside of the 16 areas studied by the Grand Canyon Commission, do you
believe that EPA or the States currently have data on sources of
regional haze visibility impairment, atmospheric processes, monitoring,
emission control strategies and source-receptor models sufficient to
allow States to overcome the presumptions on the deciview goal and Best
Available Retrofit Technology should a State choose to attempt to
overcome the presumption?
Response. Although much is known about the nature of fine
particulates which impair visibility, there is a gross lack of
validated, scientifically defensible models which can predict the
effects of a control strategy on visibility. As I said in my statement
at the hearing, significant financial resources need to be prioritized
on the development of regional-haze models. One of the major
inconsistencies with EPA's initial proposed rule and our current state
of understanding is that there is no objective way of establishing what
natural background is without comprehensive modeling. In addition,
there are no comprehensive models which can be used to assess how the
long-term strategies for regional haze will effect visibility. How can
states' demonstrations hold up to the Agency's scrutiny of meeting a
one-deciview-per-decade test if there are no approved and validated
models? The answer is they can't.
Question 5a. Do you believe State should be required to meet
regulatory obligations under the regional haze rule prior to the date
that these data are available?
Response. I believe that the states, tribes and Federal agencies,
working in cooperation through transport commissions and organizations
like the WRAP, should develop these data and tools. I do not believe
that EPA, working alone on a national scale, can effectively develop
the information, tools, and techniques that will be required for the
various regions of the country. There are fundamental differences in
the emissions and transport characteristics which are best dealt with
on a regional basis. That is why I believe that additional visibility
transport commissions should be established to allow these
collaborative efforts to move forward.
Question 6. Do you believe EPA should re-propose the regional haze
rule in its entirety?
Response. Yes. Phelps Dodge is on record in the December comments
on the Regional Haze Proposal and in our most recent comments that the
rule should be re-proposed.
Question 6a. What could be gained from such a step by EPA,
procedurally and substantively?
Response. Phelps Dodge believes that the original Regional Haze
Rule proposed by EPA failed to adequately reflect the lessons and
understanding developed by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission. The rule lacked any specific guidance with respect to the
Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission as was required under
section 169b of the CAA. Phelps Dodge believes that the rule was so
flawed that many of the comments received on the original proposal
would have been irrelevant had the rule been properly crafted. As such,
it is in the public interest that EPA re-propose the rule and allow the
public to comment on it after these deficiencies have been remedied.
There is no fundamental reason that the agency must proceed on an
artificially accelerated timeline now with respect to regional haze
given the timelines legislated by TEA-21. The work of the Western
Regional Air Partnership to follow through on the Grand Canyon
Commission is underway. The Governors, tribal leaders, and stakeholders
in the West are committed to following through to develop sound long-
term strategies. A delay in the regional haze rule would not have any
effect on the progress we are making in the West.
Question 7. We understand that the Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Commission contemplates a need for a true-up for the
emissions inventory for purposes of implementing the recommendations.
Does the timetable specified by WGA allow time for the development of
an accurate emissions inventory for the original 16 Class I areas as
well as any other Class I area that wishes to take advantage of the WGA
recommendations?
Response. It is important to qualify the role of true-up of the
emissions inventory. The true-up was asked for in the Commissions
recommendation related to stationary sources prior to the establishment
of the overall design of the back-stop market trading program and
establishment of emission management milestones. To date the majority
of major stationary source emissions of sulfur dioxide in the West have
been validated and corrected. There is some residual work which will be
finished over the next few months to deal with potential control
strategies for other smaller stationary sources. This will provide the
basis for a ``trued-up'' forecast of sulfur dioxide for the region.
Emissions inventories will always continue to improve in quality. You
don't need perfect data to make all policy decisions. However, you need
the best unbiased technical data and an understanding of its
limitations when making those policy decisions. I believe that the
inventory is adequate for the programmatic activities associated with
follow through on the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. In
addition, the Emissions Forum of the WRAP is preparing for the updating
of comprehensive region-wide emission inventories on a routine basis to
satisfy our long-term planning and tracking needs. Thus, to summarize,
Phelps Dodge believes that there is adequate time for the emission
inventory true-up to be completed.
______
Shawn B. Kendall,
Phelps Dodge Corporation,
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-3014, October 5, 1998.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center,
Room M1500 Mail Code 6102,
401 M Street SW,
Washington, DC 20460.
Attention: Docket Number A-95-38
Dear Sir/Madam: Phelps Dodge Corporation (``Phelps Dodge'')
respectfully submits the enclosed comments on the Environmental
Protection Agency's (``Agency'') Notice of Availability of Additional
Information Related to Proposed Regional Haze Regulations published in
the Federal Register September 3, 1998, Volume 63, Number 171, Docket
Number A-95-38. Phelps Dodge appreciates the opportunity to participate
in this very important rulemaking for the protection of visibility in
our mandatory Class I Federal areas.
These comments supplement the comments Phelps Dodge presented
before the United States Environmental Protection Agency Public Hearing
on the Proposed Regional Haze Rulemaking (62 Fed. Reg. 41138) held
September 18, 1997, in Denver, Colorado, and the written comments
submitted to the docket A-95-38 on December 5, 1997. Phelps Dodge, the
nations largest copper producer, as well as a major producer of carbon
black and magnet wire could be significantly affected by the proposed
rulemaking.
Phelps Dodge believes that the rule, if structured properly, could
provide a new model for how difficult and complex environmental issues
are solved in this country. Phelps Dodge understands the complex and
difficult issues inherent in this rulemaking. Protection of the quality
of visibility, while maintaining sound regulatory procedures and equity
between the regulated community and the agency are common challenges
that, if successfully resolved, will advance the shared goals of
visibility protection in the Class I areas and reasonable regulation.
Phelps Dodge continues to be highly supportive of the work of the
Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC or ``Commissions),
and the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP). A representative of
the company participated in the stakeholder team assembled by Governor
Leavitt of Utah to develop the consensus position that the Western
Governors Association (WGA) forwarded to the Agency, and is a major
part of the subject Notice of Availability. We support the consensus
recommendation of the WGA as submitted by Governor Leavitt. We thank
the Agency for allowing a 30-day comment period for interested parties
to provide input and perspective on the WGA proposal, as this was a
major concern for the participants in the consensus process that
developed the recommendations for Governor Leavitt. In addition, we
appreciate the effort of the Agency's staff in preparing draft rule
language for public review, which is substantively consistent with the
proposed guidance from WGA and illustrates the procedural due process
that this consensus gathering and public involvement was meant to
afford.
Phelps Dodge has observed some technical or interpretation errors
in the draft rule developed by the Agency in response to the WGA
letter. The following comments are requested changes to the rule
language in the proposed section 51.309 that we have determined the
Agency should make to align the language with the intent of the WGA
proposal. These changes are also intended to clarify rule issues and
prevent future misinterpretation. The references below are to the
proposed rule language in 51.309.
Sec 51.309(a)Purpose
The purpose section should be modified to indicate that the time
period is from 2003 to 2018 unless subsequently extended to assure
continuity of long-term strategies that rely on market-trading programs
or other components requiring extension of the requirement. Clarify
that the provisions apply to the implementation plan and the periodic
plan revisions required every 5 years.
The preamble must specify that a negative declaration plan revision
would be acceptable if accompanied by the required reporting and
justification.
51.309(b)(5) Milestones
The word ``annual'' should be removed to allow the program
monitoring and tracking to utilize either annual or multiyear average
emissions. The 1990 baseline reference should clarify that it is a
reference to ? baseline of actual emissions.''
51.309(d)(2) Projection of Visibility Improvement
This section is not as clear as it needs to be to provide guidance
to the regulated community. Plan submission should be accompanied by a
projection of the expected visibility conditions resulting from the
long-term strategy. These projections should be in all appropriate
metrics. The choice of metric should be clearly articulated in the
regulatory guidance, not the rule. Limiting the expression of
visibility projections to the haziness index, expressed in deciviews,
ignores the probability that better metrics may be identified in the
future as technology improves. In addition, during public review, it
would be better to express these projections in standard visual range,
light extinction, as well as haziness index, as some members of the
public may be familiar with one, but not others.
Although the modeling associated with these projections does need
to recognize contributions from other jurisdictions, states and tribes
should be free to either rely on the work of a regional partnership,
such as WRAP, or to perform the modeling themselves. Instead of
specifying that the modeling procedure must be acceptable to all
Transport Region States and the Administrator, the rule should simply
require that the modeling projections conform to modeling guidance
issued by the Agency, and the Agency should issue such guidance.
51.309(d)(3) Treatment of Clean-Air Corridors
The Agency failed to include the basis for this section and should
add the phrase ``. . . to ensure that the frequency of clear air days
increases or does not decrease at any of the 16 class I areas. . . ''
to the first paragraph.
51.309(d)(3)(i) Identification of Clean-Air Corridors
The rule should not limit the identification simply to one report,
based on the limited scientific and technical data available at that
time. The rule should include the phrase n updated as appropriate with
improved technical information. if the citation to the report is
retained.
51.309(d)(4)(iii) Provisions to fully activate . . .
The term ``regional'' should be included when referring to
milestones (i.e., ``applicable regional emission reduction
milestone''.)
51.309(d)(4)(vi) Provisions requiring the State . . .
The Agency should use the exact language from the WGA proposal in
place of this interpretation. The current wording does not track the
intent of the Commission report, or the WGA proposal. It should read:
``Report on the exploration of various emissions management options
for stationary source NOx and PM, including considering the
establishment of emission targets, in order to avoid any net increase
in the pollutants from stationary sources within the region as a whole
and to provide a foundation for future incorporation into a multi-
pollutant and possibly multi-source market-based program. Based on
these investigations, include emission management strategy components
into the long-term strategy, if needed.''
51.309(d)(5)(i) A statewide inventory . . .
Phelps Dodge agrees with the Agency's addition of sulfur dioxide
emissions to the requirements for this inventory. This is a small
departure from the Commission's recommendation and the WGA proposal
intended to track the Commission's recommendation. Phelps Dodge
believes this was a minor oversight when the Commission's
recommendations were drafted, and should be included in any case.
51.309(d)(5)(iv) Interim reports to BPA and the public . . .
Clarify that this refers to reporting on the strategies contained
in the Commission's Report.
51.309(d)(6)(iii) Enhanced smoke management . . .
In the first line, add the words ``identify and'' before
``consider.'' The purpose was to both identify these and consider
remedies.
51.309(d)(6)(iv) Identification of any legal . . .
We feel the context of this requirement is incorrect. The
expectation is for the state or tribe to identify any non-statutory
administrative barriers, and where appropriate, to document that these
have been removed.
51.309(d)(9) Implementation of Additional . . .
The preamble must include the transboundary emissions issue, and
should ensure that the states and tribes are kept apprised of these
efforts and emission projections.
51.309(d)(10) Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions
The preamble or rule must clarify that negative declaration
revisions are acceptable if appropriate and accompanied by the
necessary reporting.
51.309(f)(1) The provisions of . . .
This paragraph is contextually incorrect, since reasonable progress
applies to the 16 class I areas, not the states. Replace the language
with n In order for the provisions of 51.309(d) to ensure reasonable
progress for the 16 Class I areas, the Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Commission must submit a satisfactory annex to the
Commissions Recommendations no later than October 1, 2000. To be
satisfactory, the annex must contain the following elements:''
51.309(f)(1)(i) The annex must contain quantitative . . .
The Agency dropped the qualifier ``as projected by the Baseline
Forecast Scenario H from the WGA language. The preamble language is
needed here for full qualification of the 50-70 percent reference.
Re-Proposal of the Rule is needed
In addition to the issues raised above, the lack of preamble draft
significantly limits an understanding on how some issues might be
interpreted by the Agency, states and tribes in the future. The
omission of a preamble results in the loss of significant portion of
the regulatory record and compromises the required publication of part
of this rulemaking which is essential for effective policy
implementation. In addition, the Agency uses references to 51.3xx, and
based on the fact that the proposed references are vague and proposed
modifications to the rule proposed last year are undisclosed, it is not
possible to fully interpret how the Agency intends to implement some of
these provisions.
Phelps Dodge requested on December 5, 1997 that the Agency correct
the rule and re-propose it so the public could comment on the rule
before it becomes final. Phelps Dodge once again is requesting the
Agency to re-propose the full rule, retaining the new 51.309 section
with the modifications identified above, so that the public will be
able to fully assess the impact of the program and that this rulemaking
more fully comports with the Agencies rulemaking protocol and the
Administrative Procedures Act. We acknowledge that the proposed
treatment of the Commission's Recommendations are a valid approach, but
we note that the Administrator had a non-discretionary duty to propose
similar language in the original proposal in July 1997. Instead the
Agency's proposal noted the Commission's work in the preamble, and
asked for comments on how to treat the Commission's Recommendations.
This was clearly not the intent of Congress in CAA 169B which
specifically requires the Administrator to promulgate regulations under
CAA 169A designed to assure reasonable progress based on the
recommendations from a visibility transport commission on what actions,
if any, are needed.
Phelps Dodge's key concern continues to be the need for adequate
public participation in this rulemaking. Phelps Dodge believes the
Agency must re-propose this rule to gather relevant comment prior to
finalizing this rulemaking. This, unlike any other rule, will have
impacts for many generations to come as the states and tribes
continuously attempt to make reasonable progress toward the goal. It is
imperative that the public input process provide an opportunity for all
affected parties--states, tribes, local governments, land managers,
industry, environmental groups, and the general public--to be given an
opportunity to provide relevant comments on this rule.
Respectfully submitted by,
Shawn B. Kendall, Executive Assistant,
Phelps Dodge Corporation.
__________
Statement of Hon. Patrick Leahy, U.S. Senator of the State of Vermont
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and Senator Chafee for convening
this hearing. Over the years I have spoken many times on the floor of
the Senate about my concerns about the ongoing threats from mercury
pollution to the lands, rivers and lakes of Vermont and the rest of the
country.
This hearing is an important early step in the journey to finally
address the scourge of mercury pollution.
It has not been an easy journey, even this far. In the first
congressional session of this Congress, I worked with many in the
Senate and in the House to introduce a Senate resolution that called on
the Administration to release its long overdue Mercury Study Report to
Congress, a report that was mandated by the Clean Air Act of 1990.
Earlier this year I introduced S. 1915, the ``Omnibus Mercury
Emissions Reduction Act of 1998,'' which used the Mercury Study Report
to Congress as part of its factual basis. If enacted, this bill would
significantly reduce the risks that this powerful neurotoxin poses to
the health and development of pregnant women, women of child bearing
age, and children.
Most recently Senator Chafee and I have worked in the FY 1999
appropriations process to support EPA's efforts to begin collecting
mercury emissions data from power plants, and to voice our strong
opposition to report language on the EPA appropriations bill that would
seriously hamper EPA's work on this pollutant.
Mr. Chairman, Vermonters share a deep and abiding concern for the
environment. Vermont has enacted some of the toughest environmental
laws in the country.
Unfortunately, despite these laws, we face threats from beyond our
borders that we cannot control. Mercury is one of those threats,
drifting silently into our lakes and waterways.
When I was growing up spending my summers on Lake Champlain, I
never had to worry about eating the fish I caught--I only had to worry
about catching them in the first place. Now the Lake has fish
advisories for walleye, lake trout and bass due to mercury.
As a new grandfather, I am looking forward to spending time with my
grandson out fishing on Vermont lakes. I do not want to have to explain
to him why he cannot eat the fish he catches.
What I tell my grandson in the future is largely a function of the
direction we take in Congress over the next few years to protect the
environment.
Are we going to look the other way, or are we going to build on the
vision and the courage that two former leaders on this committee,
Senators Stafford and Muskie--like Chairman Chafee and others on this
committee today--have shown in bringing us to a higher level of
accountability in protecting our environment?
Although we should be proud of the great strides we have made to
reduce the levels of many air and water pollutants, rebuild populations
of endangered species and clean up abandoned hazardous waste sites, we
must now address the environmental threats that have to date defied
easy solutions.
Finding those solutions will be even more important over the next
few years as states and perhaps Congress restructure the electric
utility market. This committee will have the responsibility to find
those solutions.
How do we reduce emissions of mercury and other pollutants from
coal-fired power plants without significantly increasing our utility
prices? I introduced my mercury bill to begin to answer this question
and to bring more attention to one of the last major toxins for which
there is no control strategy.
When the 1970 Clean Air Act was written, Congress did not fully
understand the dangers posed by mercury exposure. At the time of the
1990 Amendments, we knew enough to worry about it, but we couldn't
agree on what to do.
Our response at that time was to write a provision into the law
requiring EPA to do a thorough study of mercury pollution and formally
report on it to Congress.
It took a long time to write the report, and then it took a lot of
time and effort to overcome industry opposition to its release. Now we
have the report, and it gives Congress the information to finally act
to bring this toxin under control.
EPA's Mercury Study Report to Congress documents the troubling
levels of mercury emissions that are being deposited over much of the
country [DEPOSITION MAP]. The report estimates that at any point in
time there are more than 1.6 million pregnant women and their fetuses,
women of child-bearing age, and children, who are at risk of brain and
nerve development damage from mercury pollution.
The Mercury Report shows that year after year sources in the United
States emit at least 150 tons of mercury to the environment. Once
released to the environment, mercury does not behave like many
pollutants. [MERCURY CYCLE POSTER] As you can see from this drawing,
mercury does not biodegrade. It recycles through our environment and
accumulates in fish, and then it accumulates in the people who eat the
fish.
Mr. Chairman, we invest tremendous amounts of love, time, energy
and fiscal resources in our children, yet we are not protecting them
from the possibility of being poisoned in the womb or in their early
developmental years by this potent neurotoxin.
Other new facts on mercury pollution are also troubling. As you can
see from this chart [1993 FISH ADVISORY MAP], there were 27 states with
fish advisories for mercury contamination in 1993. In all, 899 lakes,
river segments, and streams were identified as yielding mercury
contaminated fish. By 1997, [1997 FISH ADVISORY MAP] you can see that
39 states had issued mercury fishing advisories, for 1,675 water
bodies.
That is an increase of 86 percent. Mr. Chairman, we are going in
the wrong direction. I do not want to wait until the entire map is
filled with red before we summon the will to act.
Today, I am sure we will hear that it is not possible to determine
the degree to which kids with learning disorders, coordination problems
hearing, sight or speech problems are being banned by mercury
pollution.
But we do know that just as with lead, mercury has much graver
effects on children, even at very low levels, than it does on adults.
We might not be able to precisely measure the harm done by mercury in
children, but we should not use that as an excuse to do nothing.
We don't have to wait until we have a body count. We just need the
will to act.
It is hard to believe today, but at the time, the decision to
eliminate lead from gasoline was, itself, a controversial decision, and
these same arguments were heard then. We WILL solve the mercury problem
some day, and I hope it is soon. Just as with leaded gasoline, a few
years after we tackle mercury pollution, our children and grandchildren
will wonder why it took us so long to do the right thing.
The bill I have offered, S. 1915, is based on this new body of
scientific evidence and proposes a comprehensive approach to eliminate
mercury pollution from coal fired power plants, solid waste
incinerators, and other industrial sources from our air, waters, and
forests.
What I am proposing is that we begin putting a stop to this
poisoning of America. Emitting 150 tons of mercury to the air each year
is unnecessary, and it is wrong. Mercury can be removed from products,
and it has been done. Mercury can be removed from coal-fired power
plants, and it should be done.
Each year coal-fired power plants alone emit at least 52 tons of
mercury into the air, one third of the U.S. total. With states
deregulating their utility industries, Congress today has a unique
opportunity to make sure that these power plants begin to internalize
the true costs of their pollution so that market decisions can help us
correct this problem.
If we don't level the pollution playing field now and make these
power plants internalize the environmental cost of the way they produce
power, in a deregulated industry the financial incentive will be to
pump even more underpriced power and pollution out of these plants for
as long as they will last.
In that case, we would never make a dent in those 52 tons of
mercury emissions per year. In fact, that toll could easily rise.
As long as the rules of the game allow this, these companies
understandably will act solely to suit their economic self interests,
without taking into account the true costs to our communities and our
people. As a nation, we cannot afford to subsidize their inefficiency,
but our inaction does just that.
At the heart of the argument against taking action is a concern
about the cost to curb mercury pollution. I want to address that up
front.
When examined closely, that cost argument does not hold water. The
EPA report estimates the cost nationally of controlling mercury
emissions from power plants at $5 billion per year. This industry
generates more than $200 billion a year in revenue. That is less than
two and half percent, and that strikes me as the equivalent of a fly on
an elephant's back.
We should not concede our responsibility to defend the health of
our children to corporate accountants and lawyers.
As required by Congress, the EPA has overseen the most
comprehensive scientific study ever on the sources of mercury pollution
and on the harm mercury does to us and to our environment. With mercury
pollution, as with other pollutants, we have the benefit of all the
knowledge that science can offer us. The question is, will we pay
attention, and then will we act to make our communities safer?
We have the technology to reduce the amount of mercury and other
pollutants that spew from some powerplants. We know how to separate and
recycle mercury-containing products before they reach the combustion
units. We already have alternatives to the many products that contain
mercury. It is time to begin acting on our knowledge.
Mercury pollution is a key piece of unfinished business in cleaning
our environment. The health of our children and the health of our
environment demand that we take action.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you and Senator Chafee for your attention to
this issue, and I look forward to working with you on this in the
months ahead and, the people of Vermont willing, in the next Congress.
__________
Statement of Hon. Olympia J. Snowe, U.S. Senator from the State of
Maine
First of all, I want to thank you, Senator Chafee, for holding this
hearing today as it gives me the opportunity to highlight the problem
of mercury pollution in our freshwater lakes in the Northeast.
Mercury, as we have historically thought of it, brings to mind the
ancient Roman messenger of the gods, or the symbol that made us all
proud, that of a small Mercury capsule carrying a lone astronaut into
space.
Mercury, as we are now coming to know it, is one of the most toxic
substances in our environment, causing great necrologic damage if
ingested by humans, and, unfortunately, remains largely unregulated by
the Environmental Protection Agency. There is growing concern around
the country about mercury contamination and the risk it posses to those
most vulnerable: young children, infants, and the unborn.
Over the last several years, the EPA has conducted considerable
research on the sources and effects of manmade mercury pollution, and
has confirmed that mercury emissions are getting worse. The research,
published in EPA's Report of December, 1997, shows that more than a
third of this pollution comes from coal? burning power plants--close to
33 percent, or the release of approximately 52 tons per year.
Mercury, which is contained in coal and emitted up through
smokestacks into the atmosphere as the coal is burned, is then
transported through the air and carried downwind for hundreds and
hundreds of miles, falling to Earth in snow and rain and ending up in
our lakes, rivers, and streams. The mercury is then ingested by fish,
and in turn by humans when they eat the fish from these freshwater
sources.
In 1993, 27 states issued health advisories to warn the public
about consuming mercury-tainted fish. In 1997, 39 states issued health
advisories pertaining to eating fish from over 50,000 bodies of water.
This should alarm us, especially as the deregulation of the electric
industry may lead to a greater use of older, polluting power plants--
plants that currently have no emissions regulations for mercury.
In Maine, the beautiful common loon with its haunting call is known
as a symbol of conservation--and even appears on license plates, the
cost of which funds conservation efforts. The haunting call is now
coming from biologists whose studies show that the loons and other
birds, such as the bald eagle, may now be having trouble reproducing or
fighting diseases because of mercury ingestion.
Last year, Maine's state legislature passed a resolution to limit
mercury emissions in the State, and other states are taking aim at
similar actions as well. This past June, the New England Governors and
the Eastern Canadian Premiers met in Portland and came up with a
Mercury Action Plan to address the pervasiveness of mercury in
freshwater fish in the Northeast at levels that pose health risks to
humans. The representatives also recognized the important economic
consequences to the recreational and commercial value of fisheries
resources across the region. The Plan addresses how the Northeast can
cope with the problem of mercury pollution by taking steps that are
within the regions' control or influence.
This is an excellent step forward to decrease regional mercury
pollution, but also points out the need for a nationwide information
system and controls for mercury releases for the largest polluters,
such as the coal-burning power plants, as polluted air does not stop at
state borders or even international boundaries. On the horizon is the
fact that the burning coal continues to rapidly increase in developing
nations around the globe.
I was pleased to join as a cosponsor of Senator Leahy's Omnibus
Emissions Reduction Act of 1998, which directs the EPA to promulgate
mercury emissions standards for the largest emitting sources to reduce
these emissions by 95 percent in 5 years. The Act also directs the EPA
to work with Canada and Mexico to inventory the sources and pathways of
mercury air and water pollution within North America and to reduce
transboundary atmospheric and surface mercury pollution. The bill
dovetails nicely with the new actions the State of Maine is taking and
also the goals of the Mercury Action Plan of the Committee on the
Environment of the Conference of Northeast Governors' and Eastern
Canadian Premiers.
I want to thank Senator Leahy for his hard work in highlighting the
problem of mercury emissions through the introduction of his
legislation, and also the House sponsor of the companion bill,
Representative Tom Allen, a member of my own Maine delegation. It is my
understanding that, realistically, the Omnibus mercury emissions bills
will have a short lifespan in this Congress because of time
constraints, and were introduced mainly to bring the problem before
Congress and the public, to spark debate, and to begin a dialog,
especially with those industries that will be affected by any curbs in
emissions and those people most directly affected by the mercury
emissions.
Mr. Chairman, your hearing today will go a long way toward
developing a much needed solution to the problem of mercury emissions
in the environment, and I look forward to working with you and the
committee and the Environmental Protection Agency to come up with a
fair solution and one that will truly protect the people from this
pervasive emissions problem. I thank the Chair.
__________
Statement of C. Mark Smith Ph.D., M.S., Deputy Director, Office of
Research and Standards, Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection, New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers Mercury
Task Force
Introduction
My name is Mark Smith. I am the Deputy Director of the Office of
Research and Standards at the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection, Chair of our Department's Mercury Workgroup, and represent
Massachusetts on the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian
Premiers Regional Mercury Task Force. I have been involved in
toxicology research and policy development for the last 12 years.
My testimony today is derived from three perspectives: first as a
toxicologist; second, as an environmental regulator at the State level;
and third, and perhaps most importantly, as the father of a 5-year old
daughter and 5-month old son. Mercury is of great concern to the from
all three of these perspectives.
The most important messages that I wish to convey today are that:
1) The weight of the scientific evidence regarding mercury
pollution and its toxicity is sufficient to warrant aggressive steps to
reduce mercury emissions;
2) Mercury levels in the environment of the Northeast are
unacceptably high; and;
3) Out-of-region sources contribute significantly to our regional
problem; thus the commitments in the New England Governors and Eastern
Canadian Premiers Regional Mercury Action Plan, a binational effort to
reduce mercury emissions in the Northeast that was endorsed in June,
1998, should be adopted nationally.
Scientific Basis for Action
First, I wish to emphasize the remarkable degree of consensus that
has been reached in the northeast by public officials and scientists
that mercury is a significant environmental problem in the region. This
conclusion has been reached by essentially all the Northeast State and
Eastern Canadian Provincial Environmental Protection and Public Health
agencies. Our regions concern about mercury is based on the following:
<bullet> mercury is toxic to people and can poison fish eating
wildlife, such as loons and eagles;
<bullet> mercury injures the brain and nervous system;
<bullet> children--born and unborn--are at greatest risk; the
recent Northeast States and Eastern Canadian Provinces Mercury Study
noted that a pregnant woman eating as little 0.4 ounces of fish a day
containing 0.5 parts per million (ppm) of mercury could put her fetus
at risk;
<bullet> mercury levels in freshwater fish in the northeast are
high, often exceeding 1 ppm and ranging up to 5 ppm, well above a level
of public health concern (no matter what the outcome of current debates
on mercury toxicity);
<bullet> once in the environment mercury is very persistent, Is
difficult if not impossible to cleanup and can be transported long
distances to affect people far from its source.
Recently, some have argued, largely on the basis of results from
the Seychelles Island Health Study, that mercury may be less toxic than
previously thought. This debate is not critical in the Northeast
because levels of mercury in fish here are high enough to be of public
health concern even if the lower risk value were correct. Nonetheless,
it is important to note that I and many other toxicologists have
concluded that this single study, although of excellent quality, is not
sufficient reason to reduce our concern about mercury. In fact, by
appropriately accounting for uncertainties in this study it can easily
be interpreted as supporting current risk estimates. The fact that a
second study, at the Faroe Islands, also supports current risk
estimates for mercury fiber argues for caution.
In addition to potential effects on people it is important to keep
in mind that mercury can also impact fish and fish-eating wildlife such
as loons, eagles and otters. There is increasing evidence that mercury
levels are high enough in some waterbodies to alter Irish and bird
behavior and reproductive success.
In conclusion, although ongoing debate exists over the magnitude of
low dose mercury risks, the available data in its entirety supports
continued action to further reduce mercury levels in the environment.
On a personal note, this low dose risk debate also has not altered my
level of concern about mercury-based on my knowledge as a toxicologist
of the risks and uncertainties involved, I advised my wife to not eat
certain types of fish likely to have high levels of mercury when she
was pregnant with both our children. I would do the same today.
Evidence That Mercury is a Problem in the Northeast
The evidence that mercury is a problem in the Northeast is
extensive: more than 4,000 samples of fish from over 700 waterbodies
across the region have been analyzed for mercury. This data indicates
that mercury levels in freshwater fish often exceed 1 ppm, with
concentrations reaching in excess of 5 ppm. In the region, the overall
average concentrations of mercury in smallmouth bass, largemouth bass,
walleye, and pickerel exceed 0.5 ppm with concentrations in many lakes
and ponds even higher. Thus, mercury concentrations in many of our fish
are at levels where potentially toxic doses to a fetus could occur if a
pregnant woman were to regularly eat a modest amount of the
contaminated fish.
Based on this data all the Northeast states and decree Eastern
Canadian Provinces have issued freshwater fish consumption advisories
waking the public, in particular pregnant women, to limit or avoid
eating contaminated fish. In Massachusetts alone, fish from more Han 50
waterbodies are unsafe for the general public due to mercury and
pregnant women are advised to avoid eating native freshwater fish
caught in the state. Similar advisories have been adopted in all the
Northeast states.
Actions to Reduce Emissions
Consensus has been reached in New England that aggressive actions
to reduce mercury pollution are warranted both in our region and at the
nations level. Toward this end a comprehensive regional plan to address
mercury pollution was adopted in June, 1998 by the unanimous vote of
all the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian-Premiers. This
binational plan established a long-term goal of virtual elimination of
manmade mercury emissions in the region with a 50 percent reduction
target by 2003. Stringent but achievable emission limits, which go
beyond current EPA requirements, were agreed to for municipal waste
combustors and medical waste incinerators. Commitments were also made
to address utility and other major emission sources and to coordinate
regional efforts to promote pollution prevention activities, including
reduced use of mercury In products and increased recycling of those Mat
continue to contain mercury.
Numerous analyses indicate that much of the mercury impacting the
Northeast is derived from atmospheric deposition. This mercury comes
from both local and distant sources with as much as 40 percent coming
from out-of-the-region The major sources of mercury emissions include
municipal waste combustors, utilities (especially coal-fired
facilities), medical waste and sludge incinerators, and industry.
Because mercury pollution can be transported in the air for long
distances national efforts are needed to address the problem.
Conclusions
To reiterate, we in MA and others across the Northeast have
concluded that:
1) The scientific evidence on mercury pollution and its toxicity is
sufficient to warrant Archer steps to reduce mercury use and emissions;
2) Mercury levels in freshwater fish in the Northeast are too high;
and,
3) Out-of-region sources contribute significantly to mercury
deposition in the region due to long range transport; thus, the
aggressive commitments to reduce mercury pollution made in the New
England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers Regional Mercury Action
Plan should be adopted, in a timely fashion, nationally.
__________
Statement of Barry L. Johnson, Ph.D., Assistant Surgeon General,
Assistant Administrator, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, Public Health Service, Department of Health and Human
Services
Good afternoon. I am Barry Johnson, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator
of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). The
subcommittee invited ATSDR to testify on regional haze and mercury
pollution. Our Agency has had no involvement with regional haze but has
worked on various mercury issues. Much of our work on the scientific
issues of mercury pollution is reflected in the ATSDR draft
Toxicological Profile for Mercury.
ATSDR has developed a toxicological profile on mercury in
compliance with a mandate in the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (CERCLA, or Superfund).
Section 104(i)(3) directs us to develop toxicological profiles for
priority hazardous substances released from Superfund sites. Our
priority list of hazardous substances is developed jointly with EPA and
updated every 2 years. Mercury is No. 3 on the 1997 list. ATSDR is also
required by CERCLA (--104(i)(3)) to revise and republish individual
toxicological profiles as necessary, but no less often than once every
3 years.
CERCLA also requires that ATSDR's toxicological profiles contain
``An examination, summary, and interpretation of available
toxicological information and epidemiologic evaluations on a hazardous
substance in order to ascertain the levels of significant human
exposure for the substance and the associated acute, subacute, and
chronic health effects.'' This language directs ATSDR to develop
numerical estimates of health risks posed by hazardous substances.
Health assessors and risk managers use numerical values to characterize
the toxicities of hazardous substances. Risk assessment methods are
most often used for carcinogenic substances. This results in point
estimates or ranges of health risk that are based on various exposure
scenarios. ATSDR uses the numerical minimal risk levels (MRLs) for
noncarcinogenic toxicities of substances.
An MRL is an estimate of what level of daily human exposure to a
hazardous substance is likely to be without appreciable risk of adverse
noncancer health effects over a specified duration and route of
exposure. These substance-specific estimates are intended to serve as
screening levels. Public health assessors use MRLs to identify
contaminants and potential health effects that may be of concern at
hazardous waste sites. It is important to note that MRLs are not
intended to define clean-up or action levels for EPA or other agencies.
ATSDR develops MRLs during the preparation of toxicological
profiles. They are derived when ATSDR determines that reliable and
sufficient data exist to identify the target organs of effect or the
most sensitive health effects for a specific duration of exposure. MRLs
are based only on noncancer health effects and not on a consideration
of cancer effects.
ATSDR first published a toxicological profile on mercury in 1989.
The mercury profile was then updated in 1994, and a second update was
released in a draft version in October 1997.
ATSDR's 1994 mercury profile contained a chronic duration, oral
exposure MRL that was based primarily on a 1989 analysis of data
collected on persons in Iraq who had been accidentally exposed to
methylmercury in grain during the early 1 970's. That MRL was 0.1
micrograms of mercury per kilogram body weight per day (<greek-m>g/kg/
day). It was numerically equal to EPA's reference dose (RfD), and was
based on the same neurodevelopmental endpoint (children's delayed
walking and talking) that EPA used to derive their RfD for
methylmercury.
The CERCLA mandate to update the mercury profile, coupled with the
need to increase our knowledge of the health effects associated with
mercury, led us to convene a series of meetings in Atlanta in 1994 and
1995. We invited peer scientists to join us in panel meetings to review
the direction we should take in our continuing assessment of the health
impact of methylmercury. At that time, we were cognizant of a number of
ongoing studies, including studies in the Faeroe Islands and the
Seychelles Republic.
In 1995 our panel of experts recommended that we await the
development of the Seychelles data and use them as a starting point in
our mercury reassessment efforts. So we waited until 1996, when
published data from the Seychelles study began appearing in the
scientific literature, to begin updating our mercury toxicological
profile.
In October 1997, ATSDR released for public review and comment our
current draft profile. The document remains in draft, pending further
discussions with EPA, other Federal agencies, and the public. An
upcoming interagency workshop in November to evaluate the major
scientific studies on methylmercury and its developmental effects in
children will be a key forum for resolving some remaining points of
science and public health.
ATSDR's MRL for chronic, oral exposure to methylmercury in the
October 1997 draft toxicological profile is derived from a study
conducted by University of Rochester investigators in the Seychelles
Islands that reflects multiple generations of human exposure to organic
mercury through fish as a primary route of exposure. Because of the
long-term nature of this exposure, the large sample size, and the
rigorous study design, this data set was used as the primary basis of
ATSDR's evaluation. The Seychelles study overcomes several of the
limitations in the Iraqi study. For example, there is a rather large
sample size of 779 mother-infant pairs before the application of the
exclusion criteria. This was a prospective study, with the goals and
objectives stated before data collection.
In the Seychelles study, children were evaluated at 6.5, 19, 29,
and 66 months of age. Through the age of 29 months, no effects
attributable to methylmercury exposure were found using a battery of
neurobehavioral and neurophysiological tests. The only endpoint that
was correlated in any way with mercury exposure was the subjective
observation by several examiners that some boys, but not girls, showed
a decreased activity level during the testing period. This decrease in
activity associated with an increase in maternal hair mercury levels
was, however, not considered by the Rochester team to be attributable
to mercury exposure, and was observed only in boys whose mothers had
hair mercury levels above the median value (5.9 ppm) used as a no-
observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL). This value is 2-4 times less
than the level at which the transient depressed activity levels in
young boys were noted (i.e., > 12-26 ppm). Similarly, the Rochester
researchers found no statistical association between prenatal exposure
to mercury and the age at which the children in the Seychelle Islands
study walked or talked.
Since October 1997, there have been additional scientific
publications on the human health effects of mercury. For example,
results of the 66-month testing of children in the Seychelle islands
are now available. Further, a study of the Faeroe Islands population
published in December 1997 will need to be examined by ATSDR in the
context of our draft toxicological profile.
A scientific evaluation of studies like those conducted in Iraq,
the Faeroe Islands, and the Seychelles is complicated. All studies like
these have particular strengths and limitations. One must evaluate each
study for its statistical power, the adequacy of data collection and
analysis, the relevance of exposure data, biological plausibility, and
relevance of health findings. Examination of all currently available
scientific information must be concluded and thoroughly debated by peer
scientists before final pronouncements are made on MRLs and similar
health guidance values. The results from studies published since
October 1997 will be carefully reviewed by ATSDR and incorporated in
our final version of the toxicological profile on mercury.
As previously noted, our toxicological profiles require developing
MRLs, the derivation of which is a rather straightforward algorithm. It
is deliberately analogous to what the EPA and the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) do for RfD and ADI derivations, respectively. You
have a benchmark of toxicity, no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL),
or some other surrogate for that, and an uncertainty factor. The higher
the uncertainty factor, the lower the overall quality of the data set.
The higher the quality of the data set, the lower the uncertainty
factor.
Although the operational derivation of an MRL is straightforward,
any derivation involves a substantial amount of professional judgment.
In the case of mercury, we must consider the fact that mercury is
ingested by mothers, yet we know the fetus is the target of concern.
The mercury concentrations are measured in the mothers' hair, but we
are really concerned about the concentration of mercury in the blood
reaching the fetus. So we have to convert the maternal hair mercury
concentration to a blood mercury concentration, and subsequently
convert that blood mercury concentration to an oral daily intake.
In addition, we have the issue of uncertainty. ATSDR considers four
general areas of uncertainty in the derivation of MRLs: cross-species
extrapolation, 1 to 10; intra-species variability, 1 to 10; the use of
an adverse effect level as opposed to a nonadverse effect level, 1 to
10; and a factor to account for the quality of sufficiency of the
overall database, 1 to 10, sometimes referred to as a modifying factor
by ATSDR.
In our draft 1997 mercury profile, we looked at the uncertainty and
the available mercury data. We have the most sensitive population, the
developing fetus. We have a known and relevant route of exposure,
consumption of mercury-contaminated fish. We have identified a NOAEL in
the most sensitive subpopulation, and we see an absence of any
neurodevelopmental deficit at similar exposure levels in other
populations. That led us to select an uncertainty factor of 1. This
uncertainty factor is consistent with the standard application of those
factors in the derivation of health guidance values. This is not to
suggest that there is no uncertainty remaining about any threshold for
the health hazards of methylmercury, or that ATSDR's proposed MRL does
not reflect a margin of safety consistent with adequate precautionary
approaches and good public health practice.
From the foregoing considerations, ATSDR derived an MRL for
chronic, oral exposure to methylmercury of 0.5 <greek-m>g/kg/day. MRLs
for both elemental mercury and inorganic mercury (salts) are also
presented in the draft mercury toxicological profile. The significant
neurotoxic (nervous system) and nephrotoxic (kidney) health hazards
posed by these forms of mercury are often addressed by ATSDR in
response to spills or other unplanned releases of mercury in schools,
hospitals, and homes. In fact, mercury has been the single most
frequently encountered chemical in our emergency response program for
the last 8 years. For this reason, ATSDR and EPA jointly developed and
released a health alert in the summer of 1997 that has been widely
distributed to schools and other potential targets of mercury spills.
In July 1998, ATSDR assembled a panel of 18 experts from the
scientific and medical communities to assist the Agency in reviewing
key issues in the areas of toxicology and human heath risk assessment
as they relate to metallic, inorganic, and organic mercury compounds.
The purpose of the meeting was to review all relevant science on
mercury and its compounds, including methylmercury, and to react to
ATSDR's proposed response to comments we received during the public
review and comment period. The meeting of the panel was held as an
announced public meeting. It consisted of scientists from the EPA, FDA,
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), academia, and the
private sector, including the teams of scientists who conducted the
human epidemiological studies in Iraq, the Seychelles, and the Faeroe
Islands. The discussions from this expert panel are being used by ATSDR
and other Federal agencies to help form part of the agenda for the
November 1998 interagency workshop on mercury.
ATSDR continues to work with other Federal agencies to reach a
consensus on mercury issues. The Committee on Environment and Natural
Resources (CENR), Subcommittee on Toxics and Risks, established a
Mercury Working Group in September 1997 to look at a number of issues
concerning mercury. This workgroup, which includes representation from
ATSDR, EPA, FDA, CDC, NIH, NOAA, USDA, and the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, has already come to a consensus on a range of
issues, and continues to work towards agreement on all public health
issues concerning mercury.
The CENR Working Group is sponsoring the November 18-20 interagency
workshop in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, to further
elucidate issues regarding methylmercury exposure and public health.
The research teams responsible for the Seychelles and Faeroes studies,
as well as a team conducting similar studies along the Amazon River
basin, will present and discuss their findings at this meeting. ATSDR
considers this meeting to be an important step toward resolving
remaining scientific issues. The meeting will be used by ATSDR to help
bring closure to its toxicological profile on mercury.
A challenge for health officials is to balance the known public
health benefit of consuming more fish in the diet, and the known
dangers of excess mercury exposure. To mitigate adverse health effects
of excessive exposure to mercury, ATSDR supports efforts to reduce or
eliminate exposure to mercury in the environment. Such efforts must be
pursued through pollution prevention strategies, including health
education for both health care providers and the citizens who may be at
risk due to high levels of exposure to not only organic, but also
inorganic and metallic mercury. Throughout the profile revision period,
ATSDR has advised the public that it would be premature to predicate
any risk management decisions on information in a draft document. That
needs to await the sorting out of all relevant issues and the
finalization of the profile.
I thank you for this opportunity to present to you some of the
conclusions in ATSDR's Toxicological Profile for Mercury and to discuss
our ongoing efforts to enhance the accuracy and utility of our mercury
MRLs, including the chronic oral MRL for methylmercury.
Mr. Chairman, we would be pleased to answer any questions that you
or subcommittee members may have.
__________
Statement of William H. Farland, Director, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Environmental Protection Agency
Introduction
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to have
this opportunity to offer this testimony in hopes that it will
contribute to the subcommittee's discussion of science issues involved
in assessing health and ecological impacts of mercury exposure.
Mercury (Hg) is a basic element, it is neither created nor
destroyed, and has always been a component of the earth's dynamic
systems. What has changed with time and what has caused increasing
concern about mercury and mercury exposure is the addition of the human
component to the planet's complex systems. Mercury cycles in the
environment as a result of natural and anthropogenic (human)
activities. The amount of mercury mobilized and released into the
biosphere, and thus biologically available within the environment, has
increased since the beginning of the industrial age as a result of
increasing anthropogenic activities, raising concern about the
potential for public health and ecological impacts. The scientific
community knows a lot about the human health and ecological effects of
mercury and mercury exposure, and has agreed, in spite of the
scientific uncertainties, that mercury is an important environmental
problem.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been at the
forefront on science issues and control activities regarding mercury.
The Agency's study of the human health and ecological assessment of
mercury exposure has been centered in the National Center for
Environmental Assessment (NCEA), one of five major components of EPA's
Office of Research and Development (ORD). NCEA has major responsibility
in EPA for the conduct of chemical-specific risk assessments in support
of EPA regulatory programs, the development of Agency-wide guidance on
risk assessment, and the conduct of research to improve risk
assessment. NCEA occupies a critical position in the Agency between the
researchers in other ORD components who are generating new findings and
data, and the regulators in the EPA program offices (e.g., pollution
prevention and toxic substances, air, water and waste programs) and
regions who must make regulatory, enforcement, and remedial action
decisions.
As Director of NCEA, I am committed to the development of national
and international approaches to the testing and assessment of the fate
and effects of environmental agents. Prior to my appointment as Center
Director, I was Director of the Agency's Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment, a position which I held since 1988. I began
my EPA career in 1979 as a Health Scientist in the EPA's Office of
Toxic Substances. I received my Ph.D. in 1976 from UCLA in Cell Biology
and Biochemistry, an M.A. (1972) in Zoology from the same institution
and a B. S. (1970) from Loyola University, Los Angeles. I serve on a
number of committees and advisory boards including: the National
Toxicology Program's Executive Committee, EPA Liaison to the Public
Health Service Environmental Health Policy Committee, and past
Executive Secretary of the Federal Coordinating Council on Science
Engineering and Technology's Ad Hoc-Working Group on Risk Assessment. I
have also served on the Office of Science and Technology's Committee on
Environment and Natural Resources' (CENR) Risk Assessment Subcommittee,
and I was co-chair of the Federal Liaison Group to the National Academy
of Sciences Committee on Risk Assessment Methods. I am also a past
member of the Science Advisory Panel of the Chemical Industry Institute
of Toxicology, and a member of the Science Advisory Panel on
Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Research at the Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI). I am currently a member of the Council of the Society
for Risk Analysis, and on the editorial boards of two respected science
journals, Risk Analysis since 1987 and Environmental Health
Perspectives since 1997.
NCEA and the Office of Air and Radiation's (OAR) Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), were the lead Agency offices
overseeing the development of the 1997 Mercury Study Report to
Congress. Work on the Report began in 1992. On December 19, 1997, the
Agency released an eight-volume report to Congress. The Report fulfills
the requirements of section 112(n)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act as
amended in 1990. The Report inventories the quantity of mercury
emissions to the air from a number of sources related to human
activity; estimates the health and environmental impacts associated
with these combined emissions; and describes the technologies (and
associated costs) available to control mercury emissions from these
sources. The Report was reviewed and approved by EPA's Science Advisory
Board (SAB), -a panel of independent scientific experts, and was
developed with substantial input by industry groups, the general
public, and state, local, and other Federal Government agencies
including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Energy,
Food and Drug Administration, National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The Mercury Study Report to Congress
The Mercury Study Report to Congress, prepared by EPA, provides an
assessment of the magnitude of U.S. mercury emissions by source, the
health and environmental implications of those combined emissions, and
the availability and cost of control technologies. As the state-of-the-
science for mercury is continuously and rapidly evolving, this Report
should be viewed as a ``snapshot'' of our current understanding of
mercury. The Report also identifies areas where further research is
needed to provide a quantitative risk assessment.
Most of the mercury in the atmosphere is elemental mercury vapor,
which circulates in the atmosphere for up to a year, and hence can be
widely dispersed and transported thousands of miles from sources of
emission. Most of the mercury in water, soil, sediments, or plants and
animals is in the form of inorganic mercury salts and organic forms of
mercury (e.g., methylmercury).The inorganic form of mercury, when
either bound to airborne particles or in a gaseous form, is readily
removed from the atmosphere by either precipitation or dry deposition.
Wet deposition is the primary mechanism for transporting mercury from
the atmosphere to surface waters and land. Even after it deposits,
mercury commonly is re-emitted back to the atmosphere either as a gas
or associated with particles, to be redeposited elsewhere. As it cycles
between the atmosphere, land, and water, mercury undergoes a series of
complex chemical and physical transformations, many of which are not
completely understood.
What is well understood is that mercury accumulates most
efficiently in the aquatic food web after being transformed into
methylmercury in sediments. Predatory fish and fish-eating birds and
mammals at the top of the food web generally the highest mercury
concentrations in their body tissues. Because of its physico-chemical
properties and strong propensity to bioaccumulate, nearly all of the
mercury that accumulates in fish tissue is methylmercury. Inorganic
mercury, which is less efficiently absorbed and more readily eliminated
from the body than methylmercury, does not tend to bioaccumulate.
Mercury Emissions and Deposition in the United States
The best point estimate of annual anthropogenic U.S. emissions of
mercury, based on 1994-1995 data, is 158 tons. Roughly 87 percent of
these emissions are estimated to be from combustion sources, including
waste and fossil fuel combustion. Contemporary anthropogenic emissions
are only one part of the mercury cycle. Human activities today are
causing releases from the reservoirs that already exist in land, water,
and air, both naturally and as a result of previous human activities.
The flux of mercury from the atmosphere to land or water at any one
location is comprised of contributions from the natural global cycle
including re-emissions from the oceans, regional sources, and local
sources. Local sources could also include direct water discharges in
addition to air emissions. Past uses of mercury, such as fungicide
application to crops, are also a component of the present mercury
burden in the environment.
Computer modeling of long-range transport of mercury suggests that
about one-third ( 52 tons) of U. S. anthropogenic emissions are
deposited, through wet and dry deposition, within the contiguous 48
States. The remaining two-thirds ( 107 tons) is transported outside of
U. S. borders where it diffuses into the global cycle. In addition, the
computer simulation suggests that another 35 tons of mercury from the
global cycle is deposited in the U.S. for a total deposition of roughly
87 tons annually. One estimate of the total annual global input to the
atmosphere from all sources including natural, anthropogenic, and
oceanic emissions is 5,500 tons. Based on this, U.S. anthropogenic
sources are estimated to have contributed about 3 percent of the 5,500
tons in 1995.
Based on model estimates, the highest deposition rates from
anthropogenic and global contributions for mercury are predicted to
occur in the southern Great Lakes and Ohio River valley, the Northeast
and scattered areas in the southeastern United States. The location of
sources, the chemical species of mercury emitted, and climate and
meteorology are key factors in mercury deposition. For instance, humid
locations have higher deposition than arid locations.
Public Health Impacts
Epidemics of mercury poisoning following high-dose exposures to
methylmercury in Japan and Iraq demonstrated that neurotoxicity is the
health effect of greatest concern and that effects on the fetal nervous
system occur at lower exposures than do effects on the adult nervous
system. Minimally affected mothers have given birth to severely
affected infants. Dietary methylmercury is almost completely absorbed
into the blood and distributed to all tissues including the brain; it
also readily passes through the placenta to the fetus and fetal brain.
To describe the implications of chemical exposures on human health,
including the impacts of methylmercury exposure, the Agency uses the
concept of a ``reference dose.'' The reference dose (RfD) is an amount
of methylmercury, which when ingested daily over a lifetime is
anticipated to be without adverse health effects to humans, including
sensitive subpopulations. At the RfD or below, exposures are expected
to be safe. The risk following exposures just above the RfD is
uncertain, but it is clear that risk increases as exposures to
methylmercury increase significantly above the RfD.
EPA has on two occasions published Rims for methylmercury which
have represented the Agency consensus for that time. The original RfD
of 0.3 micrograms per kilogram body weight per day (<greek-m>g/kg/day),
based on effects seen in adults, was determined in 1985 by EPA's
agency-wide consensus workgroup. This assessment was subsequently
included on the Agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). The
critical effect was nervous system damage in an Iraqi adult population
exposed to methylmercury through consumption of contaminated grain. The
effect seen at lowest dose was changes in sensation or numbness.
The current RfD of 0.1 <greek-m>g/kg/day, based on effects seen in
children, was established as Agency consensus in 1995. The revised RfD
was estimated by extrapolating from the high-dose exposures that
occurred in the Iraqi incident to impacts on the most sensitive
individuals in that population--the developing fetus.
At the time of the Mercury Study Report to Congress, it became
apparent that considerable new data on the health effects of
methylmercury in humans were emerging. However, as many of these new
data had either not been published or have not yet been subject to
rigorous review, EPA decided that it was premature to make a change in
the 1995 methylmercury RfD at that time. This decision was supported by
the Agency's SAB, a public advisory group providing extramural
scientific information and advice to the Administrator and other
officials of the EPA. The SAB is structured to provide balanced,
independent expert assessment of scientific matters relating to
problems facing the Agency. Their report makes the following statement:
``In general, from the standpoint of looking at human health
effects and the uncertainties, draft report is a very good document and
an important step forward in terms of bringing the relevant information
together in one place for the first time. The current RfD, based on the
Iraqi and New Zealand data, should be retained at least until ongoing
Faeroe and Seychelles Islands studies have progressed much further and
been subjected to the same scrutiny as has the Iraqi data.''
With respect to the ongoing, two large epidemiology studies in the
Seychelles Islands and in the Faeroe Islands that were designed to
evaluate childhood development and neurotoxicity in relation to fetal
exposures to methylmercury in fish-consuming populations, the SAB
report states:
``Investigators conducting two new major prospective longitudinal
studies--one in the Seychelles Islands, the other in the Faeroe
Islands--have recently begun to publish findings in the literature and
are expected to continue releasing their findings during the next 2-3
years. These studies have advantages over those cited in the previous
paragraph in that they have much larger sample sizes, a larger number
of developmental endpoints, potentially more sensitive developmental
endpoints, and control a more extensive set of potential confounding
influences. On the other hand, the studies have some limitations in
terms of low exposures (to PCBs in the Faeroes) and ethnically
homogenous societies. Since only a small portion of these new data have
been published to date and because questions have been raised about the
sensitivity and appropriateness of the several statistical procedures
used in the analyses, the subcommittee concluded that it would be
premature to include any data from these studies in this report until
they are subjected to appropriate peer review. Because these data are
so much more comprehensive and relevant to contemporary regulatory
issues than the data heretofore available, once there has been adequate
opportunity for peer review and debate within the scientific community,
the RfD may need to be reassessed in terms of the most sensitive
endpoints from these new studies.''
To respond to the SAB's comment regarding the future need to
reassess the current RIO in light of the newly emerging data and
because of various limitations and uncertainties in the available data,
both the Iraqi data and those newly published from the ongoing studies,
the EPA and other Federal agencies intend to participate in an
interagency review of the human data on methylmercury. A scientific
workshop scheduled later this year will include review of the most
recent studies from the Seychelles Islands and the Faeroe Islands. The
purposes of this workshop are to refine the estimates of the level of
exposure to mercury associated with subtle neurological endpoints and
to further consensus between all of the Federal agencies. Additional
information on this upcoming meeting is included in this testimony.
After this process, the EPA will determine if a change in the
underlying scientific basis for, or the numeric estimate of, the RfD
for methylmercury is warranted.
While fate and transport of mercury in the environment is complex,
the scientific community agrees that fish consumption is the major
pathway for human and wildlife exposure to methylmercury. The data
support a plausible link between anthropogenic releases of mercury from
industrial and combustion sources in the U.S. and methylmercury in the
fish in U.S. lakes and streams. However, these fish methylmercury
concentrations also reflect additional sources of methylmercury. These
include background concentrations of mercury (which may consist of
mercury from natural sources), as well as mercury from previously
emitted anthropogenic and natural sources. Given the current scientific
understanding of the environmental fate and transport of this element,
it is not possible to quantify how much of the methylmercury in
noncommercial fish consumed by the U.S. population is contributed by
U.S. emissions relative to other sources of mercury (such as natural
sources and re-emissions from the global pool). As a result, it cannot
be predicted how much nor over what time period a reduction in mercury
emissions will result in decreased levels of methylmercury in fish.
This is an area of ongoing study.
Critical elements in estimating methylmercury exposure and risk
from fish consumption include the species of fish consumed, the
concentrations of methylmercury in the fish, the quantity of fish
consumed, and how frequently fish is consumed. The typical U.S.
consumer eating fish from restaurants and grocery stores is not in
danger of consuming harmful levels of methylmercury from fish and is
not advised to limit fish consumption. The levels of methylmercury
found in the most frequently consumed commercial fish are low,
especially compared to levels that might be found in some non-
commercial fish from fresh water bodies that have been affected by
mercury pollution.
While most U.S. consumers need not be concerned about their
exposure to methylmercury, some exposures may be of concern. Those who
regularly and frequently consume large amounts of non-commercial fish--
either marine fish that typically have much higher levels of
methylmercury than the rest of seafood, or freshwater fish that have
been affected by mercury pollution--may be more highly exposed. Because
the developing fetus is the most sensitive to the effects from
methylmercury, women of child-bearing age are regarded as the
population of greatest interest. An analysis of dietary surveys led the
EPA to conclude that between 1 and 3 percent of women of child-bearing
age (i.e., between the ages of 15 and 44) eat sufficient amounts of
fish to be at risk from methylmercury exposure, depending on the
methylmercury concentrations in the fish. These consumers should be
aware of the fish advisories issued by the Food and Drug Administration
and various States that suggest limiting the consumption of fish
containing higher levels of mercury. Such advisories in the U.S. have
been issued by 41 states (including 11 state-wide advisories) and by
some Native American Tribes, warning against consumption of non-
commercial of fish contaminated with methylmercury.
Environmental Impacts
The pattern of mercury deposition nationwide influences which eco-
regions and ecosystems will be more highly exposed. Piscivorous (fish-
eating) birds and mammals are more highly exposed to mercury than any
other known component of natural ecosystems. Adverse effects of mercury
on fish, birds and mammals include reduced reproductive success,
impaired growth and development, and behavioral abnormalities, and even
death.
Mercury contamination of the food web has been well documented. In
addition, the endangered Florida panther and the wood stork, as well as
populations of loons, eagles, and forbearers as mink and otter have
been found to have elevated tissue mercury concentrations. These
species are at high risk of mercury exposure and effects because they
either are eat fish or eat other fish-eaters. Concentrations of mercury
in the tissues of wildlife species have been reported at levels
associated with adverse health effects in laboratory studies with the
same species. However, field data are insufficient to conclude whether
piscivorous wading birds or mammals have suffered adverse effects due
to airborne mercury emissions. Modeling analyses conducted for the
Report suggest that it is probable that individuals of some highly
exposed wildlife subpopulations are experiencing adverse effects due to
airborne mercury emissions.
Mercury Control Technologies
Mercury is widely used in industry because of its diverse
properties and serves as a process or product ingredient in several
industrial sectors. However, industrial demand for mercury declined by
about 75 percent between 1988 and 1996, due largely to the elimination
of mercury additives in paints and pesticides and the reduction of
mercury in batteries. Most of the emissions of mercury are produced
when waste or fuel containing mercury is burned. The EPA has already
finalized emission limits for municipal waste combustors and medical
waste incinerators. Once these regulations are fully implemented in
2002, emissions from these categories will decline at least 90 percent
from 1995 levels. In addition, mercury emission limits have been
proposed for hazardous waste incinerators.
The largest remaining identified source of mercury emissions is
coal-fired utility boilers. Although a number of mercury control
technologies are being evaluated for utility boilers, most are still in
the research stages, making it difficult to predict final cost-
effectiveness as well as the time required to scale-up and
commercialize the technologies. Because the chemical species of mercury
emitted from boilers varies from plant to plant, there is no single
control technology that removes all forms of mercury. There remains a
wide variation in the end costs of control measures for utilities and
the possible impact of such costs on utilities. Preliminary estimates
of national control costs for utility boilers (based on pilot scale
data) are in the billions of dollars per year. Ongoing research, as
well as research needs related to mercury controls for utilities, are
described in the Report.
In addition, cost-effective opportunities to deal with mercury
during the product life-cycle need to be pursued. A balanced strategy
which integrates end-of-pipe control technologies with material
substitution and separation, design-for-environment, and fundamental
process change approaches is needed. Also, international efforts to
reduce mercury emissions as well as greenhouse gases will play an
important role in reducing inputs to the global cycle of mercury.
Mercury Research Needs
As described above, the Mercury Study Report to Congress identifies
mercury as a human health and environmental problem requiring
additional scientific and technical research. While mercury has long
been known to be neurotoxic, the development of the final Report and
its assessment of risk, is an example of an iterative process that by
its nature includes a discussion of identified research needed to
increased our understanding of the magnitude and extent of the problem.
The Report suggests additional research in the following areas:
Effects: Human health effects
Ecological effects
Exposure: Emissions characterization
Transport and fate modeling
<bullet> atmospheric
<bullet> terrestrial and aquatic
<bullet> bioaccumulation
Human exposure assessment
Ecological exposure
Risk Assessment (Human/Ecological): Risk characterization
Risk Management: Pollution prevention
Control technology
In addition, other Agency reports (e.g., Great Waters Second Report
to Congress--June 1997, Utility Air Toxics Report to Congress--February
1998) stress the adverse impacts of mercury on both human health and
the environment. The Agency's Clean Water Action Plan; Restoring and
Protecting America's Waters (February 1998) cites mercury as a complex
environmental challenge because of its ability to circulate in the
atmosphere both locally and globally and eventually biomagnify in the
aquatic food web where it is consumed by both humans and wildlife. The
Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER), and the Office of Water (OW) are faced with
addressing mercury as part of their regulatory programs. The above
Offices, along with a number of other Agency Program and Regional
Offices, formed the Mercury Task Force and the Task Force identified
cross-office actions to address mercury in the draft Mercury Action
Plan that is currently undergoing internal EPA review.
In response to this heightened Agency activity regarding mercury,
EPA's Deputy Administrator asked ORD to initiate a research program
directed at responding to these activities and supporting the Agency's
proposed and future actions on mercury. It was determined that there
were several facets in developing a mercury research program including:
1) short-term research needs that required immediate attention and
re-prioritization of Agency research projects and resources--FY1998/
FY1999 Mercury Research Projects; and
2) longer-term research needs for the 2003-2005 time period--
Mercury Research Strategy. FY1998/FY1999 Mercury Research Projects
Immediately after the submission of the Mercury Study Report to
Congress, the need to examine EPA's current mercury research in light
of the Report and other recent mercury-related activities was clear.
Was the Agency doing and had the Agency planned the appropriate
research that would provide information to reduce the uncertainties
detailed in the reports? Was the Agency doing and had the Agency
planned the appropriate research that would provide information to the
program offices that are faced with addressing mercury as part of their
regulatory programs? As a result of these questions, current research
projects were examined and immediate research needs for fiscal year
1998 and fiscal year 1999 were identified and subsequently prioritized.
These projects are consistent with priorities identified in the Mercury
Study Report to Congress and the evolving Mercury Research Strategy,
discussed below. ORD has responded with a targeted mercury research
program. This research program represents an increased level of effort
on which future mercury research initiatives would build. The fiscal
year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 research projects include:
Resolve Health Assessments for Methylmercury--This project focuses
on resolving issues surrounding mercury exposures associated with
adverse health effects, including scientific questions raised when
developing reference doses and other quantitative values. This project
supports interagency workshops and activities related to resolution of
which data sets describing adverse health effects of methylmercury on
developmental effects of methylmercury exposure in humans (e.g., Iraqi
data, Faeroe Islands data, Seychelles Island data) should serve as the
primary data set for revising the RfD, if necessary.
Control Technology Projects--These control technology projects are
directed at developing more effective emission controls on coal-fired
utilities and industrial boilers, and other stationary sources of
mercury emissions including hazardous waste combustors. The projects
focus on understanding issues related to speciation of mercury and
fundamentals of sorption capture; both being necessary to develop
effective control technologies, as well as experimental work on: 1)
mercury speciation, characterization, and control in high and low
temperature environments; 2) advanced multi-pollutant sorbents for
mercury and acid gas capture; and 3) capture mechanisms for carbon-
based sorbents.
Community-Based Risk Communication--This project supports
continuation of an ongoing cooperative agreement with the State of
Wisconsin that determines how women of child-bearing age from
ethnically diverse populations obtain and utilize risk communications
regarding mercury contamination/health risks of non-commercial fish
consumption. Fiscal year 1999 funding supports an intervention study to
determine if mercury intakes can be reduced through risk-reduction
strategies tailored for women from ethnically diverse groups. An
important component of this project is the analyses of hair samples to
determine long-term mercury exposures among ethnically diverse groups.
The subgroups selected will include persons with high intakes of non-
commercial fish and seafood.
NHANES IV-Mercury Biomonitoring--This project will improve
information on occurrence of hair and blood mercury levels in the U. S.
population. Mercury exposures integrated over time can be assessed
through biological monitoring based on hair and blood mercury
concentrations permitting EPA to refine estimates of human exposure to
methylmercury based on diet and lifestyle.
Continuous Emissions Monitoring for Speciated Mercury--The focus of
this project is to assess comparability of results of currently
available monitoring equipment that determines concentration of
speciated mercury in diverse environmental media. Availability of
methods for analyzing speciated mercury in environmental media will
improve evaluation of estimates of source contributions.
Mercury Treatment Technologies--These projects are directed at
improving control technologies for hazardous waste combustors. Included
are testing to evaluate both low-cost retrofit options especially for
cement kilns and industrial boilers that burn mercury-bearing hazardous
waste and development of technologies other than retorting and recovery
to permanently treat mercury-containing hazardous wastes.
Testing of Continuous Emissions Monitors (CEM) for Mercury Emitted
from Hazardous Waste Combustors--To support rulemaking to set MACT
emission standards for hazardous waste combustors, additional
performance tests of CEMs for mercury will be conducted. The first
round of testing revealed that the CEMs devices that were tested need
additional engineering and then additional field testing to provide
sufficient performance data to finalize the 1996 proposal to require
mercury CEMS at hazardous waste combustion facilities.
State-of-the-Science Workshop on Mercury--With increased emphasis
on the prevention, control, and elimination of mercury pollution, a
multi-day ``State-of-the-Science'' workshop to address current
knowledge and future needs relating to mercury releases to the
environment will be conducted. It is designed to focus on recent and
ongoing research conducted by the Agency, as well as mercury research
activities being conducted by others in academia, government, and the
private sector. Proceedings from the workshop will be prepared and
published. The workshop would be targeted at participants in NAFTA
(i.e., Canada, the United States, Mexico) and will focus on domestic
and cross-border issues. Target Date: Spring 1999
In addition, the Agency is proposing to fund investigator-initiated
grants that are responsive to a ``Request for Applications'' (RFA)
entitled, ``Mercury: Transport and Fate Through a Watershed.'' This RFA
is for grants to support fundamental research on mercury fate and
transport in the environment and levels of methylation. This project is
on an accelerated schedule in order to support OAR, OW, OSWER, and
Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS)
regarding their need for new data in this area. ORD will solicit
fundamental research on the complex chemical and physical
transformations and movement of mercury through the environment.
Because of the needs identified in the Mercury Study Report to Congress
and other recent Agency reports related to mercury issues, this mercury
solicitation has been accelerated in order to more quickly meet the
needs of the Agency programs. The outcome of this research will
increase our ability to trace mercury from its entrance into the
ecosystem through its biogeochemical cycling to the concentration of
methylmercury in fish tissue. This will promote the development of risk
management strategies based on sound science.
Mercury Research Strategy
As previously discussed, OAR, OPPTS, OSWER, and OW are all faced
with addressing mercury as part of their regulatory and voluntary
programs. The need for mercury research is specifically identified in
the Clean Water Action Plan--Restoring and Protecting America's Waters.
ORD is committed to the preparation of a comprehensive, multi-year
strategy for mercury research addressing the most pressing mercury
research needs of the Agency as part of the action plan.
As described previously, the Mercury Study Report to Congress and
other reports (e.g., Great Waters Second Report to Congress--June 1997,
Utility Air Toxics Report to Congress--February 1998), initiatives,
action plans, etc. have identified research needs. However, particular
documents were prepared to meet a specific charge. For example, the
Mercury Study Report to Congress primarily dealt with air emissions as
a source of mercury and did not address releases of mercury to water.
Although the broad research questions posed in the Report apply to many
source categories, it is useful to consider all mercury sources in an
overall EPA Mercury Research Strategy. The research strategy is
envisioned to be a comprehensive document that encompasses a discussion
of current and planned research activities and addresses the long-term
research needs of the Agency. The strategy will: 1) build on the
research work undertaken in the FY1998/FY1999 time frame, 2) help to
focus the research needs included in future mercury research
initiatives, and 3) identify data that will be needed by EPA to make
regulatory decisions and support EPA programs and regions in the period
2003-2005 and propose broad research initiatives/strategies that will
close these data gaps between now and 2003-2005. The research strategy
identifies needed research on assessing and managing risks from
mercury, and supports EPA's Program Offices and Regions by identifying
scientific and technical data and information that will assist them in
addressing mercury's effects on human and wildlife health. The research
strategy was prepared based, in large part, on the research needs
identified in the Mercury Study Report to Congress The general research
themes for mercury are:
<bullet> Hazards of Mercury/Methylmercury to Human Health
<bullet> Ecological Effects of Mercury/Methylmercury
<bullet> Modeling and Monitoring of Environmental Media for
Mercury
<bullet> Human and Wildlife Exposures to Methylmercury through the
Aquatic Food Web
<bullet> Control Technologies for Combustion Sources of Mercury
<bullet> Controls for Non-Combustion Sources of Mercury
<bullet> International Issues and Transboundary Distribution of
Mercury/Methylmercury
<bullet> Risk Communications on Mercury/Methylmercury
The Agency's drain Mercury Research Strategy is currently
undergoing internal EPA review. This critical step allows EPA programs
and regions to review and comment to both assure that Agency-wide
concerns, needs, and issues are addressed and to identify any possible
discrepancies, inaccuracies, or errors in the draft document. After
internal Agency review, the comments received as a result of that
review will be addressed and, if appropriate, incorporated in a revised
draft in preparation for the start of external Agency review. The
external review draft will be subjected to peer review and public
comments, including a related effort to elicit review comments from
known stakeholders and interested parties, as well as the other Federal
agencies who have been EPA's partners in various mercury-related
activities. The external draft will be peer reviewed by an independent
expert scientific review panel. External review is expected to begin in
November 1998. Following review of all comments from both the expert
science panel review and as a result of public review, the draft will
be revised to reflect incorporation of those comments, as appropriate.
The goal of a final Mercury Research Strategy by Spring 1999 is
essential in order for the Strategy to have effective input into EPA's
future mercury research initiatives.
Interagency Cooperation to Address Common Mercury Concerns and
Coordinate Activities
During the course of the development of the Mercury Study Report to
Congress, many Federal agencies and departments were involved in key
aspects of the Report. In addition, during the review and comment
phase, scientific experts in these Agencies peer reviewed the draft
document and provided useful comments. The next step in this continuing
dialogue and cooperation in the Federal community on mercury science
issues will be an upcoming workshop: ``Scientific Issues Relevant to
Assessment of Health Effects from Exposure to Methylmercury'' on
November 18-20, 1998 to be held in Raleigh, North Carolina. The meeting
is being organized by the Committee on Environment and Natural
Resources and the Office of Science and Technology Policy--The White
House, and chaired by the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences. Representatives from other key agencies are attending and
participating including the following:
<bullet> Environmental Protection Agency
<bullet> Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
<bullet> Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry
<bullet> Food and Drug Administration
<bullet> Department of Health and Human Services
<bullet> National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
<bullet> Office of Science and Technology Policy
<bullet> Office of Management and Budget
The goal of the workshop is to discuss and evaluate the major
epidemiologic studies associating methylmercury exposure with an array
of developmental measures in children. Subsequently, the product of the
workshop should facilitate agreement on risk assessment issues. The
major studies being considered are those which have examined
populations in Iraq, the Seychelles, the Faeroe Islands and the Amazon
along with the most relevant animal studies for estimating human risks.
While there is no doubt that some issues will remain unresolved and
further research will be recommended, the EPA is committed to a timely
review of its current position regarding levels of exposure to mercury
which are likely to be without appreciable risk for sensitive members
of the population (fetus and infants) once Workshop conclusions and
recommendations have been received.
The public is invited to attend the meeting as observers. The only
limitation on public attendance is space availability. In addition, a
public comment session will provide the opportunity for additional
views and comments. Oral presentations will be limited to 5 minutes in
length to allow for a maximum number of presentations. For more
information on the Workshop please see the preliminary program attached
to this testimony.
Summary
EPA has been actively engaged in the assessment of the health and
ecological effects of mercury exposure for many years. While the
scientific community knows a lot about the human health and ecological
effects of mercury and mercury exposure, and has agreed that mercury is
an important environmental problem, the development of the multi-volume
1997 Mercury Study Report to Congress provided an opportunity to
integrate the years of work by the EPA, other Federal agencies,
academia and the private sector into a comprehensive report on the
state-of-the-science. The Agency has viewed its work on the health and
ecological assessment of mercury as an iterative process that proceeds
through assessment, research and data collection, refined assessment,
etc. The Report gave substantial impetus to this process. ORD has
responded with a targeted mercury research program and the development
of a comprehensive, multi-year mercury research strategy. It is
important to note, that as the Agency has developed its work on mercury
related issues, it has continually coordinated its efforts with
colleagues in other Federal agencies and departments, applied stringent
scientific peer review, and benefited from public input.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my written statement. I would be happy
to answer any questions that you might have.
______
Responses by William Farland to Additional Questions from Senator
Inhofe
Question 1. Do you agree that the fish consumption studies, rather
than the Iraqi grain studies, more closely resemble the situation here
in the U.S. that health agencies should be concerned with?
Response. Methylmercury from both grain and fish is highly big-
available (over 95 percent absorption from either source) and
methylmercury from either food source has produced devastating
neurological damage among humans ingesting either of these sources. The
short-term, high-level exposures that caused harm in the Iraqi outbreak
far exceed the levels of exposure seen among typical U.S. consumers who
chronically are exposed to methylmercury from fish in their diet. In
that sense, the fish consumption studies more closely resemble the
situation here in the United States. Although about 10 percent of the
U.S. population rarely eat fish, the top 1 percent of the population
eat fish almost every day and have hair mercury levels that approach
the average levels found in fish-eating populations in the Seychelles
and the Faroes. In addition, there are other U.S. groups that
episodically consume large amounts of fish.
The severity of adverse health effects from frequent ingestion of
fish depends on the fish methylmercury level and other contaminants
that may be in fish. In Japan, disastrous neurological effects to the
fetus occurred after long-term ingestion of fish containing high levels
of methylmercury. Also, among people living in the Amazon River basin,
preliminary evidence has been gathered on possible adverse effects on
visual function following long-term methylmercury ingestion from fish
containing lower levels of methylmercury than seen in Japan. However, a
number of uncertainties in this study will need to be resolved before
clear conclusions can be drawn. Adverse health effects detectable with
sophisticated testing methods have also been documented in the past few
years among people living in the Madeira Islands, as well as in the
Faroe Islands. Additional highly suggestive findings supporting adverse
effects of methylmercury from fish on cognitive and neuro-behavioral
development have been described among fish consumers living in New
Zealand and members of Native American tribes with high levels of fish
consumption. The exposure levels associated with these findings may be
comparable to exposure levels among groups with high levels of fish
consumption in the United States. Therefore, all of these studies are
relevant to evaluation of mercury health and environmental effects, and
all data, including those from the poisoning incidents, must be
considered.
Question 2. What specific information is needed in order to have a
better scientific understanding of mercury and its health and
environmental impacts?
Response. EPA is developing a Mercury Research Strategy that
describes our view of research needed to: (1) understand fate and
transport of mercury once released into the environment; (2) more
extensively document the degree of contamination of methylmercury in
fish and other seafood; (3) better understand variability in human
biokinetics of methylmercury so that variability in human response to
methylmercury is better understood; (4) more thoroughly identify
control technologies that permit us to limit release of methylmercury
to air and water, and (5) allow improved interagency assessment of
health effects. This research strategy is anticipated to be completed
during the second or third quarter of fiscal year 1999.
Additionally, we will establish the levels of methylmercury in a
representative sample of U.S. women of reproductive age and in children
less than 5 years of age, by measuring mercury in hair and blood of
persons participating in the Fourth National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey (NHANES IV), conducted by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC). This effort is sponsored by seven Federal
agencies: EPA, CDC, FDA, National Institutes of Environmental Health
Sciences (NIEHS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Department of
Energy. This information will be used by public health officials to
establish policies relative to methylmercury exposure based on risk
assessments using actual biomarker data. Mercury levels in individuals
will be correlated with data on fish consumption. The study results
should be available in 3 years.
Question 3. Given the testimony received during the hearing,
regarding the incompleteness of the scientific understanding of
mercury, isn't it prudent to vigorously pursue scientific research
which addresses the unresolved issues of mercury speciation, and the
transport, fate, and effects of elemental mercury? Wouldn't it also be
prudent to have a coordinated Federal effort which, among other things,
determines the appropriate level for a mercury exposure reference dose?
Response. The overall nature of mercury cycling in the environment
is clear: air emissions of mercury are carried in the atmosphere,
deposited to land and water locally and at large distances from the
source, and there is a plausible link of such emissions to accumulate
as methylmercury in fish. Mercury deposited to land and water can be
re-emitted and reenter the global circulation to be deposited elsewhere
and can also be stored in soils and sediments. This movement of mercury
through different environmental media is called the mercury cycle. The
amount of mercury in biota is ultimately a function of the overall
mercury burden in the air as well as direct discharges to water and
soil. The physical, chemical, and biological processes involved in the
mercury cycle are extremely complex and are not understood in detail at
this time.
In order to improve our understanding of mercury cycling, EPA and
other agencies are undertaking a number of investigations. These
include EPA sponsored research to provide an enhanced understanding of
mercury fate and transport, and pollution prevention and control
options. The EPA is developing a comprehensive strategy for mercury
research which will be peer-reviewed and completed in fiscal year 1999.
Information that EPA is collecting this year on the species of mercury
emitted by the largest source of mercury emissions coal-fired electric
power plants will also help us to better understand mercury transport.
The US Geological Survey is conducting air and environmental monitoring
to better characterize deposition of mercury in sensitive environments.
Also, along with other Federal agencies, EPA is funding the National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, described previously, to
establish levels of mercury exposures in a representative sample of
women and children in the United States. EPA participated in a workshop
that was sponsored by the National Institutes of Environmental Health
Sciences to bring outside experts together to discuss recent research
on the health effects of mercury. EPA is currently funding a review of
the mercury heath science by the National Academy of Science. Based on
their work, the Academy will provide recommendations to EPA regarding
the reference dose.
______
Responses by William Farland to additional Questions from Senator
Chafee
Question 1. In your testimony, you say that the scientific
community agrees that mercury is an important environmental problem.
What supports this assertion and at what point in the scientific
discussion of mercury do the uncertainties overtake the general
agreement?
Response. Mercury contamination can result in neurological damage
to wildlife and people. During the 1 950's and 1 960's large numbers of
birds died following their ingestion of mercury treated grains. Several
human poisoning episodes have occurred. Methylmercury poisoning from
fish in Minamata, Japan is prima-facie evidence that devastating human
health damage can result from uncontrolled release of mercury into
environmental media resulting in excessive human exposure. In Iraq, in
the early 1970's, methylmercury poisoning from seed grains treated with
methylmercury killed hundreds and seriously harmed thousands of people.
The Iraqi medical authorities investigating this poisoning knew
immediately that what they saw was methylmercury poisoning; they had
seen the symptoms previously in two preceding methylmercury poisoning
episodes in Iraq. In the 1 990's, adult human methylmercury poisoning
in the Amazon River basin followed mercury contamination of the aquatic
food web following use of mercury to extract gold in mining operations.
Environmental contamination and human exposure do not occur only
from use of mercury as a pesticide, fungicide, or from large scale
industrial releases to water. Mercury may also be released to the air.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates worldwide
anthropogenic emissions (resulting from human activities) to air at
about 4,000 tons per year (158 tons from U.S. sources), with about half
the emissions joining the global pool and about half depositing locally
and regionally. Eventually mercury emitted to the air is deposited to
land and water. EPA's 1997 Mercury Study Report to Congress concluded
that there is a plausible link between mercury emissions, if
transformed to the methylated form, and levels of methylmercury
observed in fish and other aquatic creatures used as food by people and
wildlife.
As a precautionary measure, 40 U.S. states have issued fishing
advisories based on mercury contamination. Although the bases for fish
advisories vary from state to state, including many that cite the RfD
based on the Iraqi data, 11 states have judged that advisories are
warranted on every freshwater body in the state and five states have
advisories on their coastal waters which are at least partially due to
methylmercury. Freshwater fish in the U.S. occasionally may have
methylmercury concentrations exceeding those that would cause the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) to remove them from interstate commerce.
The FDA action level for mercury was based on avoiding clinically
observable effects on the adult nervous system. The developing human
fetus is more sensitive to methylmercury than the adult and population-
based decrements in the cognitive function of children exposed in utero
to methylmercury occurs at lower exposures than do clinically obvious
neurological impairments.
Uncertainties remain about the precise level of methylmercury that
one can consume on a daily basis without expectation of harm. There is
known variability in human metabolism of and responses to
methylmercury. In addition there are data gaps concerning the long term
consequences of subtle neurotoxic effects. There are gaps in knowledge
of sources and pathways of mercury in the environment. However,
qualitatively, there is no debate as to whether mercury is an
environmental problem. There is scientific consensus that methylmercury
is a well-documented human fetal neurotoxin. There is general agreement
that mercury exposure causes some changes in the central nervous
system. The only remaining question is how much exposure to this toxic
substance can be allowed without adversely affecting children's
development.
Question 2. The ongoing Faroe and Seychelles studies appear to be
reaching different conclusions regarding the potential for low-dose
mercury exposure to harm a developing fetus. Why, in your view, are the
results from these studies different?
Response. The Faroe Islands and Seychelles Islands investigations
are both well-designed, prospective, longitudinal studies that aim to
address the consequences of low-dose exposures to methylmercury. The
results of these two studies are actually more consistent than one
might be led to believe by the popular press. Although, the overall
methylmercury toxicity data base supports the biological plausibility
of the findings of adverse outcomes associated with methylmercury
exposure from the Faroe Islands cohort, a number of potentially
confounding variables in this study population, notably the concomitant
exposure to PCBs (another developmental toxin), add uncertainty to the
interpretation of this study. The most recently published data from the
Seychelles Islands cohort finds no adverse effects of methylmercury.
However, children in the two cohorts were examined at different ages
using different neurobehavioral tests. To better understand the
comparability between these studies, children in the Seychelle Islands
cohort are being reexamined at the same age as children who were tested
in the Faroe Islands using the same neurobehavioral tests. The results
from these followup examinations will shed further light on the
differences and similarities of the results from these studies. This
work is currently under way. An additional possible explanation for
some differences in observed effects is that the rate, intensity, or
duration of methylmercury exposure may differ between the Seychellois
and the Faroese cohorts in a way that increased the likelihood of
adverse effects among those with the Faroese exposure patterns. Unlike
the Seychellois, the Faroese also consume marine mammals, most
specifically pilot whales, which contain elevated levels of PCBs and
methylmercury. In addition, both the Seychellois and Faroese cohorts
are from isolated island groups that are widely separated
geographically. It is possible that there are sufficient genetic
differences among human subpopulations in susceptibility to the
neurological damage from methylmercury exposures to explain the
different findings. Because both groups consume large amounts of fish,
it is unlikely that the beneficial effects of fish consumption is a
major difference between the Seychellois and Faroese cohorts.
______
Responses by William Farland to Additional Questions from Senator Leahy
Question 1. Has EPA validated the methodology used to statistically
evaluate the findings in the Seychelles study?
Response. The EPA has not yet examined the primary data to do a
statistical reanalysis of the Seychelles Islands data and has not
independently validated the methodology used in the analyses of the
Seychelles data by the University of Rochester investigators. In the
November 18--20 meeting, which was convened by NIEHS, one of the expert
panels addressed statistical issues for all of the studies. The meeting
report will include a discussion of this issue. There are not at this
time established plans to independently validate the statistical
methodology.
Question 2. How did EPA consider published studies in populations
other than in Iraq, the Seychelles, and the Faroe Islands?
Response. EPA's current Reference Dose for methylmercury was
established in 1994 prior to release of any data on association of
methylmercury with neurological changes from either the Seychelles or
Faroe Islands populations. It was published on the Agency's EPA's
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) in 1995 and later included in
the Mercury Study Report to Congress which was released in 1997. Dose-
response estimates were based on data from the Iraqi study which was
considered the best available data set in 1994. EPA's Science Advisory
Board considered these Iraqi data, as well as other data from the
Amazon River basin, in conjunction with the data from the Seychelles
and Faroe Islands, when it reviewed EPA's reference dose in 1997. The
predominant human health study establishing the adverse effects of
methylmercury from fish in human populations were those data coming
from the outbreaks in Minamata and Niigata, Japan. Suggestive evidence
also came from the neurodevelopmental evaluation of New Zealand
children whose mothers consumed fish containing methylmercury during
pregnancy and from a similar assessment of the Cree Indian tribal
group. Studies from these three geographic areas confirmed that adverse
neuro-developmental consequences were associated with increased intakes
of methylmercury (including consequences when fish was the source of
methylmercury). These studies did not permit an estimate of dose-
response because of the way the data were collected and reported.
Question 3. States have expressed concern that Federal actions to
raise the reference dose for mercury in fish may destabilize carefully
crafted state public health programs to warn the public about the
hazards of mercury. For example, a recent national news program
reported that the hazard from mercury in fish is overstated based on a
news release from the University of Rochester study. What steps can be
taken by EPA and other agencies to correct any mix-impressions that the
public may have about whether the Rochester study represents the
official position of the Federal Government?
Response. EPA agrees that it is important to correct any mix-
impressions that could have arisen from the University of Rochester
press release. EPA developed its own statement saying that its position
would await analysis of the study results in light of other data. EPA
and agencies from HHS (e.g., Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry [ATSDR], FDA, CDC) issued a combined statement after the
November 18-20 meeting on the status of various study results and that
the University of Rochester research teams continue to monitor the
children in the Seychellois cohort using additional testing methods
(e.g., ones from the Faroes study). The statement clarified the role of
the University of Rochester study, as well as additional studies (e.g.,
the Faroese study and possibly the Amazon studies), regarding effects
of methylmercury on children's cognitive development at exposures that
are within the upper ranges of exposures occurring in the U.S. at this
time.
__________
Statement of Gary Myers, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY
Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of our research
group which has been studying the health of methylmercury (MeHg)
exposure for over 25 years. Mercury is a natural element in the earth's
crust, active chemically, and excess exposure to most forms is toxic to
the human nervous system. Methylmercury is especially dangerous. The
following summary presents our view on the effects of MeHg exposure
from fish consumption on child development.
Mercury Poisonings
In the 1950's industrial pollution in Japan resulted in high levels
of MeHg in ocean fish and several thousand cases of human poisoning
from consuming the contaminated fish. The exact level of exposure was
never determined, but it was thought to be very large. During that
epidemic some pregnant women who were exposed had few or minimal
symptoms of poisoning, but their babies were born with brain damage and
many had cerebral palsy, mental retardation, and seizures. This
suggested that MeHg crosses the placenta from the mother to the fetus
and that the developing nervous system was especially sensitive to its
destructive effects.
In the early 1970's another epidemic of MeHg poisoning occurred in
Iraq where people ate seed grain coated with a MeHg fungicide. Our
research team studied the children of about 80 women who were pregnant
during this outbreak and consumed varying amounts of MeHg. We measured
the mothers' exposure, examined the children, and concluded that there
was a possibility that exposures as low as 10 ppm in maternal hair
might be associated with adverse effects on the fetus. This value is 10
times the average in US, but a value seen in fish eating populations.
Mercury found naturally in the environment
In aquatic environments bacteria can convert inorganic mercury to
MeHg. Once MeHg enters the food chain, it is bioaccumulated, and all
fish have small amounts in their flesh. Predatory fish or mammals such
as whales have the largest amounts. Most commercial oceanic fish in the
US has < 0.5 ppm MeHg, but some freshwater fish have 2-3 ppm. Fish in
Japan had up to 40 ppm.
People who consume fish are exposed to MeHg, and regular fish
consumption can lead to hair mercury levels of 10 ppm or higher. The
average hair mercury level in the US is < 1 ppm. If MeHg does affect
the developing brain at such low levels, mothers who consume large
amounts of fish would be exposing their babies to this risk.
Since the toxic effects of MeHg from fish consumption were not
scientifically proven, we decided to investigate the question directly.
We initiated the study of a sentinel population for the US in 1987.
The Seychelles Child Development Study (SCDS)
The SCDS is a collaborative study carried on by researchers at the
University of Rochester Medical Center in Rochester, NY and the
Ministries of Health and Education in the Republic of the Seychelles.
Funding has come from the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences, the Food and Drug Administration, and the governments of
Seychelles and Sweden. The study has been in progress for over 10
years. The Republic of the Seychelles is an island nation in the Indian
Ocean off the East Coast of Africa.
Our study was designed to determine whether prenatal exposure to
MeHg from consumption of a fish diet is associated with developmental
effects. The team's original hypothesis was that MeHg at levels
achieved by regular maternal consumption of fish would be associated
with adverse effects on child development.
The Seychelles was chosen partly because they have high levels of
fish consumption. The Seychellois usually eat fish twice a day. The
average mercury content of fish in Seychelles is 0.3 ppm and that is
similar to ocean fish purchased commercially in the United States.
There is no mercury pollution in Seychelles and many things that
complicate studies of low level exposure are not present. Health care
is free, universal and readily available. Prenatal care is nearly 100
percent, the birth rate is high, and the general health of mothers and
children is good. Education is free, universal, and starts at 3/ years
of age. There is limited emigration and both the people and the
government are cooperative and supportive.
The study design was carefully planned since detecting the lowest
effect level of any toxin requires looking for very subtle differences
between children with no or very low exposures and those with higher
ones. These differences are often detectable only statistically. To
minimize any possibility of bias, a number of decisions were made
before the study began. First, the study would be double blind. Neither
the clinical team nor the families know the level of any child's
exposure. Second, children with a known cause of developmental delay
such as meningitis, very low birth weight, or brain trauma were
excluded. Third, the test battery included tests previously reported to
show associations with MeHg exposure, tests used with other toxic
exposures, and tests that might detect subtle changes. Fourth, all
testing was performed in age windows to minimize the effect of age on
test interpretation. Fifth, multiple complicating factors (covariates)
were studied. Sixth, the data analysis plan was determined before the
data were collected to minimizes the possibility that the data will
simply be analyzed until one finds the expected effect.
The SCDS main study involves over 700 mothers and children who were
enrolled during by me during the year I lived on Mahe. They have been
evaluated regularly for over 5 years. Prenatal exposure was measured in
mothers' hair levels during pregnancy, and postnatal exposure was
measured in the children's hair at 5\1/2\ years of age. Both ranged
from 1 to 25 ppm. Evaluations have been completed at 6, 19, 29, and 66
months of age. The children's homes were evaluated when they were about
4 years old. Presently evaluations are being done at 96 months of age
(8 years).
The results of the SCDS so far indicate no adverse developmental
effects from prenatal MeHg exposure in the range commonly achieved by
consuming large amounts of fish. Through 66 months of age we have
examined the association between 36 primary test outcomes and the
children's prenatal mercury exposure. Only one test showed an
association with higher mercury exposure, and we are unsure if this
effect is adverse. The test was a subjective evaluation of the
children's activity level during the evaluation, and in males the
activity level declined as MeHg exposure increased. Additionally, a
number of secondary endpoints have been examined and no adverse
associations with MeHg have been found.
We have also examined the association between the children's
postnatal MeHg exposure and the 6 primary test outcomes at 5/ years of
age. With several of these outcomes the children did slightly better as
the MeHg increased. This cannot be due to the MeHg, so we believe that
the MeHg level may simply be a marker for fish consumption at these low
exposures. This may confirm our understanding that fish contains
nutrients such as omega-3 fatty acids that are important for brain
development.
Our interpretation of the findings
Our studies in Iraq raised the possibility that MeHg exposure from
eating fish might adversely affect development, but we do not believe
the SCDS has demonstrated an adverse association through the first 5.5
years of life in this population. We consider the Seychelles an
appropriate sentinel population for the US since they consume large
amounts of fish, the MeHg content of the fish is similar to that of
commercially available fish in the US, and the health and welfare of
the people are similar.
Fish is an important source of protein in many countries, and large
numbers of mothers around the world rely on it for proper nutrition.
The mothers' nutrition is very important to the baby's wellbeing. Not
one person of any age has been reported with MeHg poisoning from eating
fish since the poisonings in Japan during the 1950's and 60's.
The nutrients that fish contains may be important for brain
development. For older individuals, fish appears to have cardiac
benefits and mental health benefits. Fish consumption is increasing in
developed countries including the United States. We believe it would be
unwise to limit fish consumption without convincing scientific evidence
that exposure at the levels seen with fish consumption is harmful.
The SCDS is continuing, and as the children get older increasingly
specific tests can be performed. We are presently completing
evaluations at 8 years of age and planning more at 12 years of age.
Findings will be reported as they are available.
appendix
Because of the public health importance of the question being
studied by the SCDS, the potential exists for differing opinions of
scientific findings to become highly politicized. The SCDS has received
only one published criticism (JAMA, 280:737, 1998), but other points
have been raised at conferences. These questions are addressed here
individually.
Why did the SCDS measure mercury in the hair rather than in the
blood? Hair mercury was used because it is the standard measure used in
nearly all other studies of this question. It was also chosen because
blood tests are unnecessarily invasive, reflect only recent exposure
rather than exposure over time, and can fluctuate widely depending upon
recent meals.
Did the SCDS use subjects whose mercury values were too low to
detect an association?
The study's goal was to see if the children of women who consume
fish regularly were at risk for adverse developmental effects from
MeHg. Women in Seychelles eat fish daily and represent a sentinel
population with MeHg levels 10 times higher than US women. Their
children are more likely to show adverse effects if they are present.
These children show no adverse effects through 5\1/2\ years of age
suggesting that eating ocean fish when there is no local pollution is
safe.
Did the SCDS use the best tests available to detect developmental
problems? The SCDS used the same developmental and psychological tests
used in most other developmental studies. These tests are deemed to be
excellent measures for determining development at the ages studied. As
the children become older, additional tests with more specificity are
being used.
Did the SCDS find expected associations between developmental
problems and birth weight, socioeconomic factors, and other covariates?
The study was not designed to examine such relationships. Some children
with such problems (i.e., head trauma, very low birth weight, etc.)
were excluded from the study because they are so frequently associated
with developmental problems. However, many expected relationships were
found.
Did the removal of statistical outliers in the analysis bias the
study? No. It is standard practice to remove statistical outliers,
which are values that are inconsistent with the statistical model
employed to analyze the data. Every statistical analysis depends on a
model, and every statistical model makes assumptions about the
statistical (distributional) properties of the data that must be
satisfied if the results of the analysis are to be correct. Sound
statistical practice requires that the necessary assumptions be checked
as part of any statistical analysis. Examination of outliers
constitutes one of these checks. Statistical outliers are defined by
the difference between the actual test score for a child and the value
predicted by the statistical model. Small numbers of such outliers
occurred in test scores for children with widely varying MeHg
exposures. In fact the results of the analysis were examined both
before as well as after the removal of outliers, and for analyses in
the main study they had little effect.
What about the Faroe Islands study where prenatal MeHg exposure was
reported to adversely affect developmental outcomes? Questions about
the measure of exposure, concomitant exposures, and the statistical
analysis have been raised about the Faroes study. Exposure was measured
in both umbilical cord blood and maternal hair. Associations with cord
blood mercury levels were reported, but these are difficult to
interpret since levels vary with recent meals and their relationship to
exposure during the earlier parts of pregnancy is unknown. The main
source of MeHg was consuming whale meat and blubber and they also
contain high levels of PCBs, inorganic mercury, and other toxic
compounds. In addition, the authors have not reported the details of
the statistical analysis that led to their conclusions.
<bullet> Are the children in Seychelles too developmentally robust
to find the effects of MeHg if they are present? Children in Seychelles
tested similar to US children on nearly all measures apart from motor
skills where they were more advanced. There is no reason to think that
they are too robust to show the effects of MeHg if any are present.
<bullet> Are children in Seychelles exposed to PCBs or other
toxins? Sea mammals are not consumed in Seychelles and measured PCBs in
the children's blood were low.
Should data from the Seychelles be considered interim? No. Among
developmental studies, a 5-year follow-up is considered quite good, and
adequate to identify most toxic exposures.
______
Responses by Gary Myers to Additional Questions from Senator Chafee
Question 1. Why have researchers chosen to study ``sentinel''
populations outside the United States rather than directing the rather
significant resources of the Seychelles study toward an actual
population of U.S. residents that have a high fish consumption diet--
especially a diet based on fish from the lakes and streams in this
country for which concerns over mercury levels have already been
expressed?
Response. The clinical study of human populations with low level
exposure to toxins presents many problems to the researcher. In order
to detect subtle differences between individuals exposed and those not
exposed, it is necessary to have a large population in which
individuals have an appropriate range of exposure levels. These
individuals must be as similar as possible with the exception of the
exposure. In addition, it must be feasible to actually study the
individuals (obtain their cooperation, test them, etc.). This is very
difficult if there are only a few in each locality, which is the case
in the United States where relatively few people consume freshwater
fish on a consistent basis and they are widely scattered. Appropriate
populations are in general very difficult to find. In the case of
mercury exposure it is very difficult to find an adequate population to
study in the United States since fish consumption is not very high.
However, ocean fish consumption in some other countries is quite high
and therefore they can serve as sentinel populations for the United
States.
The research must be precise enough to detect a very subtle effect
and also to rule out other factors that might cause a similar effect.
In addition, findings that result from chance variation need to be
excluded. It can be very challenging to detect the effects of low
levels of exposure that can easily be influenced by bias within the
study. This bias can be introduced at many levels in the study and can
influence the findings without the researcher even being aware of it.
Consequently, it can be difficult for the scientist to determine if the
findings or lack of findings are truly related to the exposure being
studied, to some other exposure, or are an artifact.
Additionally, following epidemiological studies the scientist can
only say that an association was found. It is not possible to state
that the exposure is the actual cause of the findings.
Question 2. The ongoing Faroe and Seychelles studies appear to be
reaching different conclusions regarding the potential for low-dose
mercury exposure to harm a developing fetus. Why, in your view, are the
results from these studies different?
Response. The two studies are very different even though they are
trying to answer the same scientific question. The Faroe Islands are in
the North Atlantic near the arctic circle while the Seychelles are in
the Indian Ocean almost on the equator. In addition to geographic
differences, there are differences between the two populations in diet,
exposure to other toxins, social structure of the society, and many
other factors. In addition, the study designs are quite different with
the Seychelles being a longitudinal study with the children tested at
regular intervals starting at 6 months of age while the Faroes is a
cross-sectional study with one extensive testing period at age 7 years.
The interpretations of these two studies are indeed different.
Although there may be many factors, we believe that the following may
explain some of these differences. First, exposure to mercury in the
Faroes is primarily from consumption of whale meat and blubber while
that in Seychelles is from consuming ocean fish. Whales are at the top
of the food chain, have higher levels of mercury and accumulate other
toxic materials beside mercury such as PCBs, dioxans, furans, etc. It
is not clear if these additional exposures have been fully accounted
for in the published studies from the Faroes. Second, the biological
measure of mercury exposure used in the Faroes was a cord blood
determination of mercury. Previous studies have measured exposure in
hair as the biological marker. Blood values for mercury may vary
significantly in relation to recent meals that contain mercury and
cannot reflect the exposure during earlier parts of the pregnancy that
could be significantly higher. The Faroes researchers also measured
mercury in hair, but they did not find any significant association with
their outcomes. They interpret the association between blood mercury
and outcomes to mean that blood is a better marker for exposure, but
this is circular reasoning. The fact that statistical associations
between cord blood mercury and outcomes were found is not a valid
reason by itself to choose blood mercury as the marker. Third, the
statistical procedures used to determine associations between exposure
and outcomes have not been clearly elucidated by the Faroes
investigators. When studying very subtle effects, the statistical
procedures used become very important since if a researcher examines
enough models, some will show an association by chance.
______
Responses by Gary Myers to Additional Questions from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. Do you agree that the fish consumption studies, rather
than the Iraqi grain studies, more closely resemble the situations here
in the United States that health agencies should be concerned with?
Response. We believe that the fish consumption studies from the
Seychelles Islands are more relevant to the United States than the
study of poisoning from grain in Iraq. The Iraq study followed an acute
poisoning episode with very high doses of methylmercury. We also
believe the Seychelles study is more relevant than the study from the
Faroe Islands since there is virtually no consumption of whale meat and
blubber in the United States. While PCB co-contamination of fish is
more likely in the United States than in the Seychelles, which enhances
the relevance of the Faroe Islands exposures, the difference in the
exposure source and its other components (such as selenium and omega-3
fatty acids) make the Seychelles study, on balance, a better model for
United States exposures.
The issue of concern for the United States is whether small amounts
of methylmercury present in fish can cause neurological effects. There
are many substances that are toxic in large amounts that the human body
can tolerate in small amounts with no ill effects.
The only poisoning episodes in humans due to consumption of
methylmercury in fish are those that occurred in two local areas in
Japan during the 1950's and 1960's. In these cases fish levels were 10
times higher than those in ocean fish due to heavy local contamination
by factories releasing methylmercury. There have been no subsequent
reported cases of methylmercury poisoning from consumption of fish
where mercury was naturally methylated in the environment. This does
not preclude that there may be some subtle alterations of neurological
functioning at low levels of methylmercury exposure. However, it
suggests that there is not serious risk and that if a risk is present
it is likely to be very small alterations in neurological function.
Question 2. What specific information is needed in order to have a
better scientific understanding of mercury and its health and
environmental impact?
Response. We know that large amounts of methylmercury can be toxic
to the nervous system, that mercury has no known use in the human body,
and that all fish contain small amounts of methylmercury. We also know,
however, that fish contain high levels of omega 3 fatty acids that are
essential building blocks for the fetal and neonatal nervous system. In
addition, fish contain selenium that may be protective against the many
deleterious effects of mercury.
We do not know for certain whether the small amounts of
methylmercury present in fish have deleterious effects, but the
beneficial health effects of fish consumption are well documented. It
is important to determine the relative benefits or hazards of each of
these 3 components of fish (methylmercury, omega 3 fatty acids, and
selenium) before recommending any change in fish consumption to the
public. We ar' presently planning to assess these 3 components of fish
in a careful prospective study of children in the Seychelles Islands.
This study should help in determining the relative health impact of
these three factors.
Question 3. Given the testimony received during the hearing,
regarding the incompleteness of the scientific understanding of
mercury, isn't it prudent to vigorously pursue scientific research
which addresses the unresolved issues of mercury speciation, and the
transport, fate, and effects of elemental mercury? Wouldn't it also be
prudent to have a coordinated Federal effort which, among other things,
determines the appropriate level for a mercury exposure reference dose?
Response. We believe that there are a number of unanswered
scientific questions related to methylmercury exposure that should be
addressed by research. Our present state of knowledge is not optimal
for adequately advising the public about the public health consequences
of consuming large amounts of fish. A coordinated Federal effort to
address the many issues surrounding fish consumption and human exposure
to mercury, fatty acids, and selenium from this source would be very
helpful. Such an effort should be coordinated through the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) so that the
scientific quality can be maintained at the highest standard.
The NIEHS is already taking the lead in a couple of key interagency
activities. On November 18-20, 1998 they will host a meeting on
``Scientific Issues Relevant to Assessment of Health Effects from
Exposure to Methylmercury'' which has as a goal the definition of the
most important data gaps and research needs in this area. There is also
a surveillance/ exposure assessment effort underway between NIEHS, the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other agencies to get
the data we need to determine the actual levels of methylmercury in
people's bodies here in the United States. Both of these are truly
trans-agency initiatives.
______
Responses by Gary Myers to Additional Questions from Senator Leahy
Question 1. Will the results of the reevaluation of the Seychelles
cohort using the methods used in the Faroe Island cohort be published
as a journal article? When can we expect the reevaluation to be
completed?
Response. The evaluations of the Seychelles cohort that have been
completed so far have all been published in peer reviewed scientific
journals. We anticipate that the results of future studies will also be
published.
We have already published studies using methods similar to those
used in the Faroe Islands and have not found adverse effects of
methylmercury exposure from the consumption of oceanic fish.
We are presently evaluating the Seychelles cohort as they turn 8.5
years of age and included in that test battery are further tests that
are similar to those done in the Faroes. This phase of testing will be
completed early in 1999. The data will be analyzed as quickly as
possible, but these analyses are complicated and the results will
probably not be available until late 1999 or early 2000.
Question 2. For the various studies that the University of
Rochester has conducted or participated in, and specifically the Iraq
and Seychelles studies, please describe and discuss how the peak and
average hair mercury levels during pregnancy were measured and used to
correlate with effects in mothers and children?
Response. A segment of scalp hair is selected that grew during the
period of pregnancy. One must take into account a hair growth rate of
about 1 centimeter per month and a delay period of about 20 days
corresponding to the time for mercury to travel from the blood to the
first centimeter of hair next to the scalp. Thus a length of hair of
approximately 9 cm corresponds to the period of pregnancy when
collected some 20 days after delivery.
In Iraq we measured mercury in single strands of hair by a
technique developed in our laboratory, X-ray fluorescent spectrometry.
Because it was a new technique, it was calibrated against more commonly
used techniques such as cold vapor atomic absorption. This technique
measures short lengths of hair, about 2 mm, step by step along the 9
centimeter segment. This gives a detailed recapitulation of exposure
during pregnancy. The highest 2 mm segment was taken as the peak level
during pregnancy.
These peak values were used as the basis of determining the
relationship between adverse developmental effects in children and
mercury levels in the mother during pregnancy. These data were used by
the EPA in the recent report.
In the Seychelles, the mercury levels were much lower than those
found in Iraq. It was necessary to used bunches of scalp hair (about 50
strands) instead of the single strand measured in Iraq. To measure
bunches of hair, we used cold vapor atomic absorption, a technique in
use in our laboratory since the 1960's. The entire 9 centimeter segment
was measured giving an average level during the period of pregnancy.
However, we also analyzed over 50 samples centimeter by centimeter
giving a month by month recapitulation during pregnancy. In this case,
the maximum one centimeter segment is taken as the peak value. We have
found that, on the average, the peak monthly value is about 50 percent
higher than the average level during pregnancy. This agrees with
studies on other fish eating populations.
We also observed that the peak levels are closely proportional to
the average levels so that using peak or average levels would not
affect the correlation between mercury levels and the results of our
neuropsychological performance tests.
The highest group in the Seychelles has hair in the 12-15 ppm
concentration range based on average levels. The corresponding peak
levels would be in the 18 to 22.5 ppm range. This makes the Seychelles
an excellent sentinel population as average US hair levels are below 1
ppm.
Question 3. Were the peak hair mercury levels seen in the
Seychelles study high enough, and in a sufficient portion of the study
population, to reveal adverse effects that might be expected based on
the findings and conclusions from the Iraqi exposure studies?
Response. The methylmercury exposure of the mothers in the
Seychelles cohort is several times that of women in the United States,
but lower than that of women poisoned by methylmercury treated grain in
Iraq. Our study from Iraq suggested that we might find adverse effects
at the exposure levels being studied in the Seychelles Islands. The
exposure levels being studied in Seychelles are higher than those
reported from the Faroe Islands where researchers studying mercury
exposure from the consumption of whales report they are finding
associations between exposure and outcomes.
Based on our findings in Iraq, we believe that the exposure levels
in Seychelles are sufficiently high that the Seychelles cohort can
serve as a sentinel population for mercury exposure from fish in the
United States.
__________
Statement of Tim Eder, Director, Great Lakes Natural Resource Center,
National Wildlife Federation
Introduction
On behalf of over 4 million members and supporters around the
country, the National Wildlife Federation (``NWF'') is pleased to have
the opportunity to present this testimony to the Senate today in
support of legislation sponsored by Senator Leahy, S. 1915, and on the
need for Congressional action to address the problem of mercury
contamination in waters of the United States. Our members are active in
hunting, angling, birdwatching and other outdoor activities, and care
deeply about the health of our environment.
Our members are concerned about the health of people that enjoy or
depend on catching and eating fish. We are especially concerned about
segments of the U.S. population that are more sensitive to toxic
chemicals, including populations of young children, pregnant women, and
women of childbearing age. Information to be presented in this
testimony shows that the health of these groups may be compromised or
seriously damaged due to exposure to mercury and other toxic chemicals.
Also, we understand that for wildlife to thrive, they need clean and
healthy habitat. This includes protection from exposure to toxic
chemicals like mercury that can impair their reproductive capacity,
their ability to hunt and capture prey, and other abilities. In fact,
NWF members and supporters care enough about mercury that two
resolutions dealing with mercury issues have been approved at Annual
Meetings in the past 2 years. In Resolution No. 2 for 1996, the
Federation adopted a resolution addressing the atmospheric deposition
of pollutants to the Great Lakes, Lake Champlain, and other Great
Waters. The resolution includes a call for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency to create a plan with a nationwide goal and time
lines to reduce atmospheric mercury deposition by 90 percent by the
year 2005. NWF Resolution No. 7, adopted in 1997, addresses energy
deregulation, and supports state and Federal legislation that requires
``all fossil fuel burning power plants to comply with new source
performance standards contained in applicable state and Federal air
pollution laws.''
Mercury is a toxic metal that is being increasingly recognized as a
threat to the health of numerous wildlife species and tens of thousands
of women and children around the country.
The most significant sources of the metal in the U.S. environment
include coal-fired power plants and incinerators emitting mercury to
the air. After finding its way into water bodies, mercury can build up
in the food chain, leading to high concentrations in fish that can then
expose certain wildlife and people to the metal. The fact that 40 state
health departments have issued fish consumption advisories warning
certain populations to limit the amount of fish they eat due to mercury
exposure indicates the severity of the problem.
While there has been some progress in dealing with several mercury
sources in the past few years, much more work needs to be done to fully
address the ever-present problem of mercury contamination in the U.S.
and beyond. Senator Leahy's Omnibus Mercury Emissions Reduction Act is
a necessary start in this effort, and an effort that we believe
Congress should enact.
Mercury in the Environment, and its Ecological and Human Health Effects
While mercury occurs naturally in the environment, most studies
have shown that mercury levels have increased appreciably in the recent
past due to human activity. Since the beginning of the industrial era,
researchers estimate that average mercury concentrations in the air
have increased as much as five-fold. The recent Environmental
Protection Agency Mercury Study Report to Congress noted that
combustion sources, including coal-fired power plants, municipal waste
combustors and medical waste incinerators, make up the great majority
of current releases of mercury to the environment. Once in the air,
mercury can be deposited either near its source, regionally, or
transported over hundreds or thousands of miles to be deposited in
distant lands or waters. Mercury that winds up in aquatic sediments can
then be transformed to methylmercury, which works its way up the food
chain leading to potentially high concentrations in fish.
The effects of mercury contamination on fish, wildlife and people
has been increasingly well documented in recent years. Mercury is a
known neurotoxin, which can effect the nervous systems of most
vertebrates, because they lack barriers to block mercury from entering
and interfering with the normal functioning of cells, and because
internal mechanisms to detoxify mercury are not always sufficient.
Effects of Mercury in Fish and Wildlife
In fish, laboratory studies have shown that moderate to high
mercury levels can result in impaired sperm generation, growth
reduction or inhibition, reduced hatching success, and embryo or larval
mortality. In addition, high levels of mercury in water have been shown
to cause mortality to the embryo or larvae of frogs. In laboratory
studies on wildlife, effects from methylmercury exposure include
reduced hatching success and duckling survival in mallard ducks, and
reduced hatchability and high embryo and duckling mortality in American
black ducks. In addition, field studies have found reduced hatching
success in common loons and common terns in mercury-contaminated waters
in northwestern Ontario and other regions. In addition, mercury-related
reproductive impairments have been seen in common loons nesting in
lakes in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, Canada. Common loons frequently
nest on low-pH, low alkalinity lakes that have higher mercury levels.
Many lakes in the northern Great Lakes region and New England fall in
this category.
Effects of Mercury in People, and the Controversy over Acceptable
Exposure Levels
The harmful effects of mercury on people have been well known since
the poisoning incidence in Minamata, Japan in the 1950's. Dozens of
people were victims of methylmercury poisoning after consuming fish
contaminated by chemical plant effluent in Minamata Bay. In the 1950's
and 1970's, three separate epidemic poisonings occurred in Iraq, with
459 deaths attributed to mercury-contaminated grain.
The concern of NWF and most health agencies in the U.S. stems from
the effects of mercury exposure on children, when they are exposed in
utero as a result of their mothers' consumption of mercury-contaminated
fish. These exposure levels are generally much lower than the poisoning
events in Japan or Iraq. However, lower levels does not mean without
harm--elevated mercury levels in the U.S. are thought to put up to
166,000 pregnant women at risk of exposing their fetuses to harmful
mercury levels in a given year.
Two long-term studies have been examining the effects of fish
consumption and mercury levels on children exposed in the womb. The
study in the Seychelles Islands in the Pacific has found decreased
activity level of boys at 29-months as the only negative response
correlated to mercury exposure in the behavioral and other tests given
to the children. In contrast, a study of a pilot whale-consuming
population in the Faroe Islands in the North Atlantic has found
mercury-related deficits in language, attention, and memory in 7-year-
old children exposed to methylmercury in the womb.
Both of these studies are important because they are being used to
establish methylmercury reference doses or minimal risk levels (i.e.,
the level of exposure thought to cause no adverse effects) by Federal
agencies such as the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and U.S. EPA.
While much media attention has focused on recent results from the
Seychelles Islands study, it is important to recognize limitations in
that study. These limitations must be weighed as health officials in
U.S. agencies establish safe exposure levels, and thus, fish
consumption advisories in the U.S.:
1. Developmental tests in the Faroe Islands population have been
recognized as more sensitive in detecting subtle cognitive and motor
disturbances than the tests used thus far in the Seychelles study. As
pointed out by Kathryn Mahaffey of the U.S. EPA, while evaluation with
these more subtle tests are planned, current findings from the
Seychelles should be regarded as interim.
2. In earlier analyses from the Seychelles group, several cases of
high mercury exposure (and effects) were excluded as outlying points,
even though such data could show real effects in more children due to
mercury exposure.
3. In the recent report on the Seychelles study, researchers
reported improved scores on several of the tests at higher
methylmercury (and thus fish consumption) levels, indicating some
apparent benefit from the higher fish consumption. The presence of
components in fish such as omega-3 fatty acids is recognized as a
benefit of consuming uncontaminated fish. However, because the
Seychellois are consuming high levels of fish at relatively low mercury
levels, the benefits to other populations (such as sports anglers and
others in the U.S.) consuming smaller amounts of fish with higher
mercury levels may not be realized.
Most median fish methylmercury values in the Seychelles study were
in the range 0.05 to 0.25 parts per million (ppm), whereas
methylmercury concentrations in the popular sportfish walleye in
Wisconsin average approximately 0.5 ppm, or from 2 to 10 times higher
than the amount of contamination in the Seychelles fish. Indeed average
mercury concentrations in northern pike, three types of bass, and
walleye in a recent survey of U.S. fish were 0.31, 0.38 and 0.52 ppm,
respectively.
4. The Seychelles Islands population, like that in the Faroe
Islands, is quite homogeneous. This means that the study's conclusions
may not transfer well to the U.S. where we have a more diverse
population. For example, the much greater genetic, racial, and ethnic
diversity in the U.S., combined with widely-varying fish consumption
rates across peoples who have lived in the country over varying numbers
of generations may lead to much greater variation in sensitivity to
mercury exposure than would be expected in either cohort study.
Mercury Contamination Around the United States: A Snapshot
Mercury contamination in sediments, waters and wildlife, and
elevated human exposures, have been observed at numerous sites around
the United States. A few examples are noted below.
--In a study of mercury levels and fish consumption in Wisconsin
Chippewa Indians, 20 percent of the surveyed participants had blood
mercury levels in excess of 5 microgram per liter (the upper limit of
normal, unexposed populations), and were highly associated with recent
walleye consumption. The researchers concluded that although there was
little concern for overt health effects in Chippewa adults, the levels
observed ``may be associated with a slightly increased risk of
neurologic effects (primarily developmental delays) in infants.''
--Recent research has reexamined the long-standing mercury
contamination problem in Poplar Creek, Tennessee. As a result of the
lithium-isotope separation process used to produce nuclear weapons from
the mid-1950's to the early 1960's, 150 tons of mercury were released
into the creek. Researchers recently reported that contrary to
expectations, sediment and water concentrations of mercury increased
with distance downstream from the source, with water concentrations up
to 560 parts per trillion (ppt) measured (compared to a few ppt in many
``background'' waters). The researchers attributed these results to
sediment deposition and resuspension, in part due to hydropower
operations.
--In a recent study of mercury contamination along the Texas coast,
researchers reported that prey organisms (e.g., algae, clams,
crustaceans) had higher mercury concentrations in industrially-
contaminated Lavaca Bay as compared to nearby Keller Bay.
--Much recent research on mercury contamination in the environment
has been directed at the Florida Everglades. Researchers have reported
in recent years finding elevated concentrations of mercury in panthers,
double-crested cormorants, alligators, and bald eagles that could be
causing harmful effects on the behavior or reproduction of the
populations. For example, a recent study reported that 15 percent of
double-crested cormorants studied had liver mercury concentrations that
would be lethal in some other bird species.
--A recent study of the endangered wood stork in southeastern
Georgia found that all four colonies studied were at risk of sublethal
effects due to mercury in the birds' diets.
Fish Consumption Advisories in the United States, and the Importance of
Protecting Public Health
According to the U.S. EPA, fish consumption advisories have been
issued by health departments in at least 40 states. Due to the special
sensitivities of the fetus and young children, the most strict
advisories are generally directed at pregnant women, women of child-
bearing age, and young children. As of December 1997, 15 states around
the country had statewide fish consumption advisories in place due to
mercury contamination, the most for any pollutant. Advisories for
either all lakes and/or rivers in a state are most common in the
Midwest (e.g., Ohio, Michigan) and New England (Maine, Vermont, and New
Hampshire). Statewide advisories for coastal waters are mostly in the
Gulf states (Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida). The number of
advisories for mercury nearly doubled from 1993 to 1997 (i.e., from 899
to 1782).
The fact that advisories exist for every body of water in several
states indicates that the pathway by which mercury enters these water
bodies is likely via the atmosphere. The fact that advisories have
nearly doubled indicates both that more testing is being done and that
the problem has not subsided.
State health departments generally base fish consumption advisories
on recommendations from Federal agencies such as the ATSDR, EPA, and
FDA. The ATSDR recommended in its recent draft Toxicological Profile
for Mercury a minimal risk level (level of mercury exposure thought to
result in no significant effects) of 0.5 <greek-m>g/kg body weight--
day. This recommendation is higher by a factor of five than the current
EPA level, and reflects reliance on interim results from the Seychelles
Islands. The ATSDR noted that they used an uncertainty factor of 1.0 in
determining this level, which means that they essentially used no
safety factor to apply the Seychelles results to the U.S. population.
In light of the issues raised above regarding the Seychelles study and
widespread application its results, and as we noted in a letter to the
agency on February 17, 1998, NWF believes it is extremely premature for
the ATSDR or any other agency to assume no uncertainty in recommended
methylmercury exposure rates based on interim results from the
Seychelles study.
sources of mercury in the united states, deposition patterns, and the
potential for reducing emissions
Sources and Deposition Patterns of Mercury in the United States
The recent Mercury Study Report to Congress summarized estimates of
mercury releases to the U.S. environment. Globally, a recent study
estimated that the amount of mercury emitted to the air has increased
by a factor of 4.5 over the past century due to human activities,
although the researchers noted that the atmospheric burden has
increased by about a factor of three, due to deposition near the
sources. In its discussion of mercury discharges to the environment
from human activity, the EPA Study Report focused on mercury emission
to the U.S. atmosphere, and noted that 87 percent of emissions for 1995
were estimated to be from combustion sources. Overall, of the estimated
158 tons annually of mercury emissions from human activity in the U.S.,
32.8 percent was from coal- and oil-fired power plants (with the great
majority due to coal plants--oil-fired plants are estimated to
contribute 0.1 percent of the total), 18.7 percent from municipal waste
combustors, 17.9 percent from commercial and industrial boilers, 10.1
percent from medical waste incinerators, 4.4 percent from hazardous
waste incinerators, and the remainder from other miscellaneous sources.
Fossil fuel-fired power plants and industrial and commercial
boilers are mercury emitters due to the presence of trace amounts of
mercury in the raw fuel. Medical and municipal waste incinerators emit
mercury largely due to the presence of discarded mercury-containing
products in the waste stream.
In an emission inventory for the state of Ohio, NWF estimated that
over 98 percent of mercury releases to the state's air and water were
to the air. Fifty-five percent of the 16,700 pounds of annual mercury
emissions to the air were from coal-fired power plants. Our study
indicated that 50 times more mercury was released from human-generated
air sources than from natural sources in Ohio, based on a very rough
estimate of natural emissions from soils.
While not all of the emitted mercury from a given industrial
facility will wind up in a nearby waterbody, these releases of mercury
can be put into perspective by considering the very small amount of
mercury necessary to contaminate a given lake. A medium-sized coal-
fired power plant, which typically has little mercury-removing
technology, can emit in the neighborhood of 50 pounds of mercury per
year. By contrast, 5,000 walleye in the two-to three-pound size class
contaminated to a level of 0.5 ppm (a level sufficient to trigger fish
consumption advisories) would contain a total of less than one-tenth of
an ounce of mercury.
The EPA emissions estimates for many combustion sectors (power
plants, incinerators, cement kilns, etc.) are based on estimates using
the amount of material burned (e.g., coal, oil, or other fuel), and
estimated emission factors (concentration of mercury in the fuel).
Thus, there is still some uncertainty in actual mercury emissions, in
particular for the utility industry. A thorough analysis of actual
emissions rates and measurements of mercury content of as-fired coal
would clarify the extent to which utilities are a major contributor to
U.S. mercury emissions. Unfortunately, report language currently EPA
Appropriations bill currently before a House-Senate Conference
Committee would block EPA's plans to collect this information, as well
as any other regulatory action directed at mercury emissions from
utilities.
As part of the Mercury Study Report to Congress, the EPA also
conducted a thorough modeling study estimating mercury deposition
patterns in relation to known sources. The study estimated that while
as much as two-thirds of the mercury emitted from anthropogenic sources
in the U.S. may be deposited outside the country, mercury deposition
within the country would be highest in the southern Great Lakes and
Ohio River Valley, the Northeast, and scattered areas in southern
states, including Florida. All of these regions are within or downwind
of significant industrial regions or regions where there is a high
concentration of coal-fired utilities. Due to several factors,
including funding limitations and the fact that clean measurement
techniques have become available only relatively recently to measure
mercury in precipitation and surface waters, there are limited data on
actual mercury deposition patterns around the country. The authors
above note that the limited available field data tend to agree with the
regional mercury depositional modeling, within a factor of two.
A recent survey of mercury concentrations in common loons found a
general regional trend of increasing concentrations from west to east
across North America, which mirrors the general pattern seen in the
Mercury Study Report. In another study measuring mercury at a site in
the Lake Champlain basin, highest mercury deposition occurred during
spring and summer months, and highest mercury values during these
seasons were associated with air transport from the west, southwest and
northwest. These are the general directions of regions of significant
industrial mercury sources.
Other recent studies have confirmed that human-generated mercury
sources can have significant regional impacts. A modeling study
examining mercury deposition in the Great Lakes estimated that 83
percent of the mercury loadings were attributable to anthropogenic
sources. Based on limited mercury data and relationships to sulfate and
other parameters, researchers inferred that some of the higher mercury
concentrations detected in air and rain in northern Wisconsin likely
had sources in industrial regions nearby.
current regulations and initiatives to reduce mercury releases to the
environment
Regulatory Programs to Control Mercury
The EPA has moved forward in recent years to implement several
regulations on known mercury-emitting sectors. The outstanding
exception to this trend is that there are no controls on mercury
released from coal-burning utilities. The agency has issued final
emissions limits for municipal waste combustors and medical waste
incinerators, and has proposed emissions standards for hazardous waste
incinerators, including cement kilns that burn hazardous waste.
Regarding other sectors, including commercial/industrial boilers,
chlor-alkali plants using the mercury cell process, and Portland cement
kilns, the agency is ``evaluating the impacts of mercury reductions'',
but has yet to promulgate final rules.
Notably absent are controls for the largest known source sector of
mercury emissions, fossil fuel-fired power plants. As controls on other
sectors, including municipal and medical waste incinerators, are fully
implemented by the states, emissions from these sectors will continue
to drop, creating a situation in which relative contributions from
coal-fired utilities will increase. In fact, the EPA's recent Utility
Air Toxics report estimated that annual mercury emissions from electric
utilities will increase from 51 to 60 tons between 1994 and 2010.
While the EPA has not proposed formal emissions limits for
utilities, the agency has proposed a plan to monitor mercury levels in
as-fired coal at all coal-fired power plants, and to monitor mercury
concentrations in stack exhaust at selected plants. This proposal has
created intense opposition from the utility industry, in spite of
claims from some in the industry that not enough is known about the
actual amounts and forms of mercury emitted to consider controls. This
opposition has resulted in the report language in the EPA
Appropriations bill. NWF urges the Senate to seek removal of this
report language. It can only be in everyone's interest to have more
complete, accurate information on actual emissions from all known
mercury sources.
While there has been very limited EPA action addressing mercury
from electric utilities, controls recently promulgated on particular
matter and nitrogen oxide emissions may, in small part, help address
the mercury problem. The need for protecting our air from excessive
levels of particulates and ozone is clear, in terms of the thousands of
deaths each year that can be prevented with these controls in place.
Although scrubbers and filters for these other pollutants will not
specifically address mercury, which is more difficult to trap when it
is in the gas phase, there will likely be some incidental capture of
mercury, which will aid in reducing mercury emissions from plants
subject to the new standards, as discussed below.
Voluntary Initiatives
In addition to regulatory approaches, there are voluntary
initiatives that have begun in several regions and states. These
include sector-specific initiatives, statewide programs, and regional
plans to address mercury contamination. Minnesota has innovative
programs to encourage product substitution in cases where non-mercury-
containing products are available.
NWF has worked with representatives of the health care industry and
municipal waste water treatment plants to develop common-sense
approaches to eliminating mercury in products in the waste stream of
those two sectors. Our office has published two reports, Mercury
Pollution Prevention in Healthcare: A Prescription for Success, and
Mercury Pollution Prevention for City Wastewater Plants: A Guide for
Great Lakes Communities. These reports include several case-studies of
facilities that have substantially reduced the amount of mercury used
and released to the environment in the Great Lakes region.
The Binational Toxics Strategy signed by the U.S. and Canada to
virtually eliminate persistent toxic substances in the Great Lakes
region includes a goal of reducing releases of mercury from U.S.
sources by 50 percent by 2006. A mercury workgroup is examining
strategies for reducing mercury use in various industries, and will
hold a meeting later this fall to address mercury emissions from the
utility sector in the region.
A plan that could have regulatory components was signed by the New
England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers on June 8, 1998, to
reduce regional mercury emissions by 50 percent by 2003. The agreement
calls for tighter controls on incinerators, utilities, and other
sectors, elimination of non-essential uses of mercury in household and
other products, and source reduction, segregation, and safe waste
management to minimize releases of mercury through the waste stream.
While all these initiatives are laudable, it is unlikely that the
ambitious goals in the regional initiatives (50 percent overall mercury
reductions) will be met without a strong regulatory commitment to
contend with the largest mercury source coal-burning utilities.
Solutions to the Mercury Problem in the United States
Due to the widespread problem of mercury contamination in the U.S.
and beyond, a multi-pronged strategy is needed to reduce mercury levels
so that wildlife and people are free of the threats posed by mercury
pollution. Given that a major source sector in the U.S. remains without
specific controls in place for mercury, increased attention to the
electric utility sector is an essential place to begin.
Controls on Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants
As noted above, the relative contribution of coal-fired power
plants to the total mercury emissions load in the U.S. will continue to
increase over the next decade and beyond if nothing is done. While most
other major mercury-emitting sectors either comply now or will soon be
required to comply with mercury emission standards, the utility
industry continues to have no requirements to even monitor mercury
emissions, let alone control emissions. Senator Leahy's bill is a step
in the right direction to correct that situation. Not only does it
require the promulgation, under the Clean Air Act, of controls
requiring specific reduction targets, it also requires that a sensible
monitoring program for emissions and fuel mercury levels be required in
both the utility and commercial/industrial boiler industries.
Opponents of increased controls to reduce mercury from the utility
sector have advanced several flawed arguments. These include 1) Much of
the mercury emitted is transported outside the U.S., thus entering the
global mercury pool; 2) Some of the mercury deposited on the U.S. comes
from sources outside the U.S.; 3) Not enough is known about mercury
emissions, deposition, and exposure in people to promulgate controls
now; 4) Controls for mercury would be too expensive.
The arguments that much of the utility industry's mercury emissions
are transported outside the U.S., and that the U.S. is also impacted by
foreign mercury sources are flawed for these reasons:
1)Although modeling research shows that as much as two-thirds of
the U.S. utility mercury emissions may drift outside the U.S., the data
also show that mercury deposition within the country is highest in and
near industrial regions, including regions with more coal-fired power
plants. Also, this argument is similar to suggesting that dilution is
the solution to pollution. It may be true that if an exhaust stack is
tall enough, the pollutants will be transported far from the source.
But for pollutants such as mercury, that do not break down in the
environment, even small amounts can bioaccumulate up the food chain to
dangerous levels for people, fish, and wildlife.
2) There are ongoing questions within the research community on the
extent to which mercury emissions from utilities are mostly transported
long distances. Preliminary research in several areas of the U.S.
indicates that there may be significant regional deposition (i.e.,
within several hundred miles) close to fossil fuel-fired utilities and
other sources.
3) Although other countries are also emitting mercury, the U.S., as
a powerful industrial nation, should show responsibility and leadership
in controlling pollution that drifts past our borders. The U.S. has no
moral authority to prod other countries if we are not doing everything
we can to reduce pollution at home, especially given that we have more
resources and technical capability to address the problem. The U.S.
should be setting an example of environmental stewardship to other
countries rather than continuing to allow extensive pollution from
decades-old power plants.
The argument that there is insufficient knowledge about mercury
transport and exposure to justify controls is also flawed. More
research on mercury transport, deposition, and human exposure is
needed. However, as noted above, evidence already clearly shows that
utility mercury emissions are causing problems throughout much of the
country. Moreover, other sources of mercury pollution, including
incinerators, are already implementing controls, while mercury
pollution from utilities goes on un-abated. Operators of municipal
waste water treatment plants are justifiably concerned about the costs
of capturing and removing small amounts of mercury in order to meet
water quality standards necessary to protect the health of people and
the environment. It simply goes against common sense to require some
dischargers to spend large amounts of money to prevent mercury
pollution while the biggest source continues to pollute unchecked.
Finally, there are several flaws with and questions regarding the
claim that controls for mercury would be too expensive.
1) Any evaluation of the costs of instituting pollution controls
should consider the costs of the pollution itself. Elevated mercury
levels in the U.S. are thought to put up to 166,000 pregnant women at
risk of exposing their fetuses to harmful mercury levels in a given
year. The risk to these 166,000 women is that their children will
suffer from neurological or development problems. How do we put a price
tag on the lost intelligence or potential of a child?
2) Another cost to consider is the extent to which mercury
advisories discourage anglers from fishing in specific locations.
According to the most recent National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation, there were 17 million angler trips and
expenditures (trip and equipment) of $1.4 billion in the Great Lakes
region alone in 1996.
3) It is known that utility industry cost estimates have been
inflated in the past, as was demonstrated in the debates on compliance
cost estimates around the time of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. In
order to address the problem of acid rain in the U.S., Title 4 of the
Act required 110 mostly coal-fired power plants to reduce sulfur
dioxide emissions to 2.5 pounds per million BTU heat produced by 1995
(Phase I). Estimates for complying with Phase I limits ranged up to $5
billion annually by the Edison Electric Institute, and in other cases
up to $30 billion annually for all utility provisions. The actual costs
of achieving compliance with Phase I sulfur dioxide emission
requirements was calculated in 1995 by the Energy Information
Administration to be $836 million. This figure is approximately 0.6
percent of the annual operating costs for investor-owned utilities in
1995.
The EPA Mercury Study Report estimated that reducing mercury from
coal-fired utilities would cost $5 billion annually, based on an
analysis of model plants. This sum has to be considered in light of the
unquantifiable benefits that would accrue to families that could
someday consume fish without concern for mercury-caused problems on
their children, as well as improved health of loons and other wildlife
and the factors noted above. In addition, as has been the experience
with nearly all other cases of industrial controls, it is highly likely
that new rules necessary to protect human health and the environment
would create incentives for the development of new technologies that
can more efficiently and cheaply reduce mercury emissions. Thus, the
annual costs of mercury reductions will likely decrease after more
research and development of technologies.
Improved pollution controls on utilities are needed not simply to
reduce mercury emissions, but emissions of other pollutants as well,
including ozone-forming nitrogen oxides, acid rain-forming sulfur
dioxide, particulate matter and other components that contribute to
regional haze, and carbon dioxide that contributes to global warming. A
comprehensive approach that addresses these sources alone should have
the added benefit of reducing some mercury incidentally. Given the new
regulations for ozone and particulate matter and the interest among
some in industry, and millions of consumers, for more environmentally-
friendly forms of energy generation, this should be recognized as a
window of opportunity for the electric utility industry to begin a
committed transformation to a cleaner energy future.
Several Mercury Control Strategies and Technologies Available to the
Electric Utility Industry
Promising strategies currently available for mercury control
include fuel switching (i.e., switching from coal to natural gas, which
contains less mercury), advanced coal cleaning, flue gas
desulfurization scrubbers, and activated carbon injection. Fuel
switching (in particular, switching from coal to natural gas) is a
relatively simple technique for drastically reducing mercury emission,
given that the mercury levels in natural gas are much lower than levels
in coal. In addition, with the relatively abundant supplies of natural
gas currently available, and utility deregulation beginning in a number
of states, this should be a priority for utilities competing for
consumers desiring cleaner energy generation.
In some studies, advanced coal cleaning has resulted in reduced
mercury levels in coal by up to 60 percent. In other pilot studies,
activated carbon injection in combination with other techniques and
lower flue gas temperatures has achieved median mercury reductions as
high as 98 percent. The problem of large amounts of carbon needed for
this technology may yet be solved by other innovations.
Another control technique is the use of flue gas desulfurization
scrubbers, which are currently installed on 25 percent of U.S. coal-
fired generating units. Although these scrubbers are designed to remove
sulfur dioxide, they can be effective at removing some of the mercury
in flue gases as well. More widespread adoption of this technique by
other U.S. utilities, in order to address the continuing problem of
acid deposition in New England, parts of the Appalachian Mountains, and
elsewhere, would have the added benefit of mercury reductions. Other
emerging technologies include modifying standard sorbents to increase
their capacity to absorb mercury, modification of existing technologies
(such as flue gas desulfurization scrubbers), the Enhanced Limestone
Injection Dry Scrubbing process, and enhanced fly ash scrubbing.
A Comprehensive Approach to Controls in the Utility Sector
The existence of continuing problems of mercury contamination
causing fish advisories and health impairments, acid deposition
affecting freshwater ecosystems and forests in many parts of the
eastern one-third of the country, ozone and particulate pollution
causing respiratory illnesses in thousands, and carbon dioxide
contributing to the buildup of greenhouse gases, all point to the need
for a comprehensive approach to dealing with environmental problems
from power generation. In the interim, the use of co-controls (i.e.,
capturing mercury as well as other pollutants) should be pursued
wherever possible, and will lead to reduced costs of complying with
emissions standards and improved benefits for the environment and human
health.
It is important to keep in mind that in this critical early phase
of utility deregulation, there may be pressures for a number of
utilities to shift resources to the cheapest generation systems
available. Unfortunately, these may be old, dirty coal plants. The
provisions of S. 1915 would help ensure that this situation does not
result in even more mercury pollution than has already occurred over
the past decade.
Other Provisions of S. 1915
In addition to the sound recommendations on requirements for the
utility industry to reduce mercury emissions, S. 1915 also contains
needed provisions to address mercury emissions from other sectors,
including municipal waste combustors, medical waste incinerators, and
hazardous waste incinerators. Although rules are either promulgated or
in review for these sectors, the bill adds important language on
monitoring, reporting and/or source separation that are important
provisions not currently being considered in rules for these sectors.
The recommendations in the bill for controls on coal- and oil-fired
commercial and industrial boiler units are a welcome and necessary
component of the bill, given that this sector was estimated to
contribute 18 percent of mercury emissions in the 1994-95 national
emission inventory. While Portland cement plants are a slightly less
significant source of annual mercury emissions in the U.S., the
potential for mercury contaminated dust to deposit in nearby populated
areas indicates the need for the types of strong controls included in
S. 1915.
Similarly, the bill's strong permitting, monitoring and reporting
requirements for chlor-alkali plants would insure that this sector,
which is important both in terms of mercury use and emissions, will be
subject to stringent emissions limits. Although the number of chlor-
alkali plants using the mercury-cell process in the U.S. is relatively
low (14), the significant mercury use in the industry (approximately
160 tons/year) indicates a crucial need to address what may be an
under-estimated source of significant mercury releases. The prospect of
new controls on mercury emissions may help spur some facilities to
conduct more thorough life-cycle assessments of the fate of mercury
used in their plants, and potentially switch to one of the other non-
mercury-based technologies.
Finally, Section 11 of S. 1915 contains a number of important
provisions to address mercury in an international context, including
the requirement for completion of an emissions inventory for North
America. Requirements which include efforts to describe mercury
transport pathways, as well as recommendations for pollution control
measures and options for eliminating or reducing transboundary mercury
pollution would be pioneering efforts to increase our ability to
understand, prevent and control mercury pollution. In addition, the
provision to evaluate the adequacy, completeness, consistency, and
public dissemination of fish consumption advisory information addresses
an extremely important issue. The reporting requirement would ensure
easy public access to advisory information at all geographic levels,
and a compilation would allow greater ease in assessing the consistency
and completeness of the state advisories.
Conclusion
NWF applauds Senator Leahy and this committee for its leadership in
addressing this important issue. Everyday across this country, a
grandfather takes his granddaughter to a lake for an afternoon of
fishing. If they are lucky, they will enjoy each other's company and a
beautiful afternoon with nature. They might even catch some fish. If
they do, the grandfather will face a dilemma. If they are like most
daughters, they will beg to take those fish home and cook them for
dinner. Unfortunately, chances are good that those fish contain small
amounts of mercury. The amount of mercury may be safe for granddad. It
might even be safe for his granddaughter. But, if they are from one of
the 15 states that have a statewide advisory warning them about unsafe
levels of mercury in their fish, granddad will have to decide how much
risk to subject his granddaughter to. Even worse, chances are good that
they like most people are completely unaware of what advisories the
state issues for their lake.
S. 1915 is an important step toward reducing and preventing mercury
pollution across this country. S. 1915 sets important benchmarks and
timelines for reducing pollution from the most important sources so
that someday, people will be able to eat fish from our nation's lakes,
rivers and streams without risking the health of themselves or their
families.
______
Responses by Tim Eder to Additional Questions from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. Do you agree that the fish consumption studies, rather
than the Iraqi grain studies, more closely resemble the situations here
in the United States that health agencies should be concerned with?
Response. We believe that health agencies in the United States
should be basing advisories to the public on all relevant mercury
exposure/epidemiological studies, with an eye toward precautionary
measures in the face of uncertainty. While fish consumption studies are
more relevant to mercury exposure among the great majority of people in
the United States, thorough analyses of contamination incidences, such
as the poisoning episodes in Iraq, offer additional opportunities to
assess health impacts of mercury exposure, and thus to set appropriate
organic mercury exposure thresholds that are protective of human
health, in particular for the fetus and sensitive populations. Because
of the documented health effects of mercury exposure, and the genetic
diversity and wide range of fish consumption patterns in the U.S., the
use by public health agencies of a range of studies, including those
from the Iraqi poisoning episodes, is entirely appropriate in setting
appropriate mercury reference doses for human exposure.
Question 2. What specific information is needed in order to have a
better scientific understanding of mercury and its health and
environmental impact?
Response. There have been a number of recent advances in our
understanding of mercury and its health and environmental impacts.
While it has been recognized for over a decade that mercury can cause
reproductive impairments in waterfowl, and obvious neurotoxic effects
in people, it has only been in the last decade that more subtle effects
in both people and wildlife have begun to be thoroughly investigated.
We believe there remains a need for researchers to investigate the more
subtle types of neurological effects (visual-spatial, attention,
memory, etc.) in children exposed to methylmercury in the womb,
including effects that may be present many years after exposure. These
studies should be continued in the cohorts already established, and the
more subtle tests should be used, where possible, in all relevant
epidemiological studies examining effects of mercury exposure.
We believe the government and industry need to continue to put more
resources into obtaining good data on mercury releases to the
environment, as we mentioned in our testimony and we endorse the
information collection and control proposals contained in Senator
Leahy's omnibus mercury bill. in addition, we support further
ecological research on reproductive and other effects on loons, bald
eagles, and other wildlife (in particular piscivores) that may be
threatened by mercury contamination.
Question 3. Given the testimony received during the hearing,
regarding the incompleteness of the scientific understanding of
mercury, isn't it prudent to vigorously pursue scientific research
which addresses the unresolved issues of mercury speciation, and the
transport, fate, and effects of elemental mercury? Wouldn't it also be
prudent to have a coordinated Federal effort which, among other things,
determines the appropriate level for a mercury exposure reference dose?
We acknowledge it is prudent to pursue scientific research to
address unresolved issues of mercury speciation, transport, fate and
effects, and we recognize, and support, the fact that this research
will continue. However, it is recognized by both scientists and
policymakers that mercury can be transformed in the environment from
inorganic to the more harmful organic forms. Thus although most
anthropogenic emissions are in the form of either elemental or oxidized
mercury, transformation of this emitted mercury in wetlands or other
water body sediments can lead to mercury exposure in fish, wildlife,
and people. Because it has been generally recognized by the scientific
community that mercury levels in the active environment worldwide have
increased at least two-to-threefold since the beginning of the
industrial era, developed countries such as the U.S. should not
hesitate to institute measures to control preventable mercury
emissions. Because of the fact that mercury is an element (and thus
will never degrade in the environment), that contamination can
therefore persist for decades after releases from human activity, and
that active remediation of the environment following widespread mercury
releases is impossible, we believe that stronger control measures
should be taken now, even with remaining uncertainties in current
exposure levels and effects.
We also acknowledge the desirability of a coordinated Federal
effort to deal with mercury, both from the point of view of reducing
emissions and determining an appropriate mercury reference dose. A
single, consistent recommendation for the methylmercury reference dose
from the Federal Government would simplify health department decisions
in determining fish consumption advisories. But in the face of
uncertainty and varying recommendations regarding the reference dose,
we, believe it is entirely appropriate for health departments to issue
advisories based on a precautionary approach, and thus base their
decisions on the most conservative reference dose recommended by
Federal agencies.
__________
Statement of Leonard Levin, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo
Alto, CA
introduction
I am Leonard Levin, manager of the research program on air toxics
and mercury at EPRI (founded as the Electric Power Research Institute).
We are a nonprofit collaborative science and technology consortium with
headquarters in Palo Alto, California. Members of EPRI represent about
87 percent of the U. S. regulated electric power industry with
significant international participation. EPRI has a twenty-five year
record of providing highly respected and objective science and
technology to address important energy and environmental questions.
My own background is primarily in atmospheric sciences. My
doctorate is from the Institute for Fluid Dynamics and Applied
Mathematics at the University of Maryland, with other degrees from MIT
and the University of Washington. I have over 25 years' experience in
environmental sciences.
EPRI has sponsored research on mercury since the early 1980's, and
in the past few years has joined in cooperative mercury research
programs with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Department
of Energy, the National Park Service, and other federal, state, and
international agencies. The total EPRI research budget on mercury to
date is about $20 million, at a level of about $2 million per year. My
purpose today is to discuss what science currently can tell us about
mercury in the environment, and more importantly to highlight the key
areas where we know our understanding is less than sufficient.
perspective
The issue of mercury in the environment is complex. Mercury is not
only emitted from many currently-operating industrial sources, but was
used industrially at a much greater rate earlier in the century. As an
natural element in the earth's crust, mercury cannot be created or
destroyed. It may persist in various compartments of the natural
environment. Industrial activity has liberated a great deal of mercury
from the earth's crust and mobilized it into many other compartments,
including the atmosphere, the biosphere, and the human environment.
Recent concern has focused on the potential health risk to U.S.
consumers of freshwater fish that might contain mercury, and in
particular on those who consume fish at a relatively high rate.
Foodfish taken from both freshwater and marine environments exhibit
mercury concentrations that extend over a wide range. Some of these
fish, particularly larger, older fish such as shark and swordfish that
feed on other aquatic species, may exhibit mercury levels that can
raise health concerns. These levels of concern are set by Federal and
state agencies based on studies of accidental mercury poisonings at
high doses that are extrapolated to estimate the effects of low doses
on U.S. populations. Some of these poisonings involved fish as the
route of exposure to mercury, but others did not.
Based on acute mercury poisonings that occurred in Japan and Iraq,
it is known that high levels of mercury may cause measurable deficits
in the mental and physical development of young children exposed during
gestation. New scientific studies are now underway to clarify what
mercury levels in children can produce adverse outcomes. Initial
results from those studies indicate that mercury health effects on
childhood development may be significantly less severe than previously
believed.
background
Prior to enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, EPRI
research teams carried out the first accurate measurements of mercury
emissions from operating power plants. These and other data were
provided to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by EPRI and other
utility groups, and by the U.S. Department of Energy. As a result of
such joint research efforts, our understanding of mercury in the U.S.
environment has improved significantly in the last 10 years.
Nonetheless, many significant questions remain before a definitive
quantitative assessment of the issue may be provided. Among these,
three stand out:
What portion of all mercury emissions is contributed by U.S.
industrial emissions?
How might mercury levels in fish reflect changes in the input of
mercury to the atmosphere?
At what levels of exposure might mercury pose a health threat
mercury: state of the science
A Note on Mercury Health Risk
Human health risk assessments are carried out to evaluate the
likelihood that adverse effects may result from exposure to mercury.
These assessments can be visualized as moving along two parallel
pathways. One pathway is human exposure analysis: how
much mercury gets into the environment and reaches the human
organism? The parallel analysis pathway is health hazard assessment at
what levels of exposure does mercury pose a health threat?
When these two assessments are combined, they address how much
mercury humans are exposed to, and whether that level of mercury
represents a health threat. That result is the human health risk
assessment.
A Note on Data vs. Computer Models
Because of the complex cycling of mercury through the environment,
it is difficult to determine which sources contribute how much of the
mercury found in fish. There are no current methods that allow us to,
for instance, release a unique, benign material along with mercury from
a particular industrial plant that would help us ``tag'' the mercury
from that facility as it moves through the environment. For that
reason, we must rely on computer models of mercury to assess its fate
from source emissions, through atmospheric transport and deposition, to
how much eventually makes its way into fish.
It is important to distinguish, therefore, between data, or
observed and measured occurrences of mercury in the environment, and
model results, which are computer outputs from the models used. As one
example, we have surprisingly few data points on how much mercury
deposits from the atmosphere to the surface, where people live, but
there are many model results that portray what those numbers might look
like. When these model results are compared to the sparse data, the
model results tend to be rather uncertain, by a factor of two or more,
either over or underpredicting the observations. The conclusions drawn
from these estimates concerning management of mercury should,
therefore, be tempered by the uncertainties in the estimates on which
the conclusions are based.
Emission sources
EPA and EPRI are in essential agreement that the amount of mercury
currently emitted by electric utility generation is about 50 tons per
year nationally. Essentially all of the utility-emitted mercury is
attributable to coal-fired plants. Most of these emissions come from
power plants that are equipped with very tall stacks. The available
evidence suggests that such tall stack sources disperse mercury over
great distances, with small fractions being deposited locally.
Extensive measurements done by EPRI and DOE make utility plants the
best-characterized sources of mercury.
By contrast, other man-made sources of mercury are less well-
characterized with respect to amounts and properties of emissions. Very
few measurements exist on some other categories, such as chlor-alkali
plants. In addition, these sources tend to emit mercury closer to the
ground surface and, in some cases, in amounts greater than power
plants.
Recently, evidence has come to light that indicates motor vehicle
fuels may be a source of mercury emissions and that source is therefore
under-represented in our database.
These measurements, primarily by the University of Michigan, are
only indirect to date, with more data expected in the near future.
The linkage between these sources and deposition is poorly
understood, even for very large sources of mercury. This is largely
because the chemical state of the mercury leaving a source is critical
in determining how far the mercury will travel before it is removed
from the atmosphere. Data on whether mercury from a particular source
is ionized or in its ``elemental'' form are basically lacking for most
sources.
``Legacy'' emission sources remain a very large area of
uncertainty. These include both natural releases from geological
formations, and previously emitted mercury issuing from soil that is
due to activities (such as gold mining) extending back for hundreds of
years. Recent progress has been made by U.S. and Canadian teams in
measuring these ``legacy'' quantities directly. These studies indicate
that U.S. ``legacy'' releases may equal all current industrial
emissions of mercury combined.
Mercury environmental fate and transport
Mercury emitted to the atmosphere from point sources can be either
an elemental form, essentially mercury metal, or an ionic form that is
more easily combined into chemical compounds. The ionic mercury is more
water-soluble and can be deposited more easily close to its source by
precipitation. The elemental mercury tends to enter long-range and
global circulation, contributing to regional and global background
levels. EPRI model results indicate that between about 70 percent and
95 percent of mercury exiting a coal utility stack will travel hundreds
or thousands of kilometers before depositing to the earth's surface.
Other data, more indirect, indicate that about 2,200 to 3,300 tons
of mercury are released to the atmosphere globally each year from
today's human activities; all current U.S. manmade releases make up
only about 7 to 10 percent of this total. Recent indications are that
up to \1/4\ of the global total may emanate from mainland Asia, for
which data are essentially lacking.
Direct measurements of mercury depositing to U.S. territory are
still sparse, and not representative yet of the entire nation. Model
results are useful to indicate where potential ``hot spots'' may be
located, but we often do not have verifying measurements from those
areas. We also do not have any direct data quantitatively linking
sources of atmospheric mercury with measured concentrations in soils,
waterways, or aquatic species.
New field studies of mercury in the U.S. environment are just
reaching fruition. Major work in Florida, funded by state and U.S.
agencies, EPRI, and Florida utilities, is approaching completion,
showing that a great deal of Florida mercury appears to originate
globally, arriving in Florida with air masses traveling from Africa or
southern Europe. A very large field study in the Lake Superior region
began in mid-1998, and will continue for at least 2 years, involving
researchers funded by a number of states, Federal agencies, EPRI, U.S.
and Canadian utilities, and Canadian national and provincial agencies.
These studies may begin to provide the extensive field data sets
needed to understand how mercury released from particular sources
behaves in the environment.
Mercury in terrestrial and aquatic systems
Mercury in most parts of the environment is at extremely dilute
levels, measured typically in trillionths of an ounce for each pint of
water (or, nanograms per liter). Mercury entering U.S. waterways by
atmospheric deposition or by runoff tends to wind up mostly in lake
bottom sediments, with a small portion (perhaps one-one thousandth)
eventually moving into fish tissue.
Some of the mercury that reaches lakes and wetlands is converted by
bacterial action into an organic form called ``methylmercury.''
Methylmercury is taken up by fish, and can be measured in some fish at
concentrations that are very much higher than those in the water in
which the fish live. As predatory fish eat other fish that contain some
mercury, the concentrations of mercury in the predatory fish can
increase many-fold, often reaching levels millions of times as high as
the concentration in the surrounding water. High levels of mercury have
been observed in predatory fish caught from remote lakes far removed
from any point sources of mercury.
Despite our understanding in principle of how mercury enters fish
caught for food, measurement data do not reveal the origins of the
mercury found in these fish. We have no way of knowing how much
originates from currently operating U.S. sources versus how much is
recycled within the lake from the mercury ``reservoir'' in bottom
sediments. This mercury in sediments may have originated decades or
centuries earlier, or be due to releases from sources outside of the
U.S.
Most importantly, we do not have a good understanding of the means
by which open ocean fish, such as tuna or shark, take up and
concentrate mercury. Indeed, one of the best-documented cases of
elevated mercury levels in U.S. residents arose in a Wisconsin family
that ate a diet rich in both locally-caught and imported fish.
Subsequent studies showed that this family received its mercury dose
primarily from supermarket-purchased Chilean seabass. The domestic fish
consumed were found to have mercury levels of no concern.
Human exposure and health effects
A number of studies shows that nearly all the human exposure to
methylmercury occurs via fish consumption. [There are two primary
exceptions to this. One is accidental releases, usually in industrial
processes, and usually for short periods. The second is mercury used in
tooth filling amalgams; exposures from amalgams to developing fetuses
are still under scrutiny.] This exposure may subject consumers to the
organic form of mercury found in fish tissue. Such mercury typically
resides in the human body for several weeks.
To date, mercury health risk estimates have primarily relied on
data from a 1970 acute poisoning incident in Iraq that involved severe,
rapid exposure from consumption of contaminated grain, and some deaths.
These data are the basis for the current EPA
``Reference Dose'' or health effects threshold level. This
Reference Dose refers to a level of exposure that is without expected
risk over a lifetime. A larger Reference Dose implies a less severe
health effect from the substance, since it allows more mercury intake
per day. The most sensitive individuals are children, who, even before
birth, may suffer developmental effects from mercury entering their
bloodstream from the mother. During pro- and post-natal development,
mercury can act as a toxin to development of the central nervous
system.
Recent research shows the current Reference Dose may be
unnecessarily strict. By setting this threshold at a level well below
that truly necessary to protect human health, unnecessarily stringent
protective measures may be inadvertently required by regulatory
agencies. In addition, there are proven health benefits from eating
fish, not only for adult cardiovascular health, but for childhood
neurological development. In addition, efforts to restrict mercury
exposure may lead consumers to reduce their consumption of fish, even
though the available evidence indicates that fish consumption has
significant health benefits, even for children.
This reexamination of the Reference Dose is based on two new
studies of children exposed to mercury via fish consumption (by
themselves or their mothers, during children's gestation). These
studies, in the Seychelle Islands in the Indian Ocean, and the Farce
Islands in the North Atlantic Ocean, are of populations with diets that
are highly dependent on marine life. The new studies are more relevant
to U.S. populations that consume fish than are the data from the acute
grain poisoning incident that took place in Iraq.
Results from these studies are still being analyzed. The initial
findings from the Seychelles study indicate that no significant mercury
effect was found over a wide range of pre-natal exposures to children.
The Farces study has reported finding evidence of a neurological effect
at the highest mercury levels. However, the biological significance of
these findings remains unclear. Further analyses and refinements are
expected in the results of these studies over the next 2 or 3 years.
Two independent analyses of the Seychelles results have suggested
that the current EPA Reference Dose may be too severe by a factor of 3
to 5; that is, consumers can be exposed to mercury levels 3 to 5 times
as great as the EPA level without harmful effect to children. This
implies in turn a wider availability of fish from U.S. waters that can
be considered safe for consumption.
Mercury Management Options
We do not yet have enough data to draw conclusions about which
sources, or source types, contribute the most to mercury found in U.S.
fish. Analyses indicate that background air emissions of mercury in the
continental U.S., from natural plus ``legacy'' source areas, may be as
large a source as all current industrial sources combined. In addition,
global contributions to mercury are much larger than all U.S. sources
combined. As a result, any potential changes in U.S. industrial
emissions may leave the overall source term basically unchanged.
As indirect evidence of this, there are no data showing any overall
lowering of mercury levels in fish from remote lakes over the last 35
years, despite an 85 percent drop in U.S. industrial mercury use in
that time. Indeed, despite a relatively uniform national pattern of
mercury deposition from the atmosphere, there are stark differences
from lake to lake in the levels of mercury in fish, even the same fish
species. For example, the State Health Department in Maine has noted
that two adjacent lakes in Acadia National Park were found to have such
different fish mercury levels that one lake carried a ``no
consumption'' fish advisory, while the other lake was open to
consumption of ail fish caught.
Additional Research
Our understanding of mercury has significantly advanced in the last
decade, but a great deal remains to be done. It is important to
remember that all aspects of the issue have critical uncertainties. It
would be unwise, for example, to consider mercury health effects alone
as the remaining uncertainty on the issue. Significant research is
underway on other critical areas of uncertainty as well. Some of the
major studies to be completed include:
<bullet> National studies of background mercury sources and fish
consumption;
<bullet> Refined methods to evaluate the links between source
types and fish occurrences of mercury;
<bullet> Completion and analyses of the new health effects studies
in children by independent investigators
Conclusions
At the beginning of this discussion, I proposed three key questions
that need to be examined. The first question suggested that we needed
better information on mercury emissions from undocumented sources,
particularly background sources. That information is now emerging, and
appears to represent a large contribution to the national total. The
second question asked how responsive fish mercury levels in the U.S.
were likely to be to changes in atmospheric input. Indirect evidence
shows that these levels are likely to respond very slowly to emissions
changes. Finally, I raised the question of how severe the health
effects from mercury are likely to be at U.S. exposure levels. Initial
findings indicate we may have to revise our understanding of these
health effects. In the case of one study, indications are that the
effects of mercury might be quite a bit less than we once thought.
Thus, our understanding of the sources and behavior of mercury in
the environment, and of its potential health effects, is entering a new
phase. Over the next 2 to 3 years, results from current studies will
appear in the scientific literature and allow a more informed
examination of whether there is a basis in health risks for managing
mercury sources. Informed decisionmaking can then be based on the most
relevant scientific information.
______
Responses by Leonard Levin to Additional Questions from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. Do you agree that the fish consumption studies, rather
than the Iraqi grain studies, more closely resemble the situations here
in the United States that health agencies should be concerned with?
Response. Conclusions about the health effects of mercury used by
EPA are currently based on an acute, high-dose mercury poisoning
incident in Iraq over 25 years ago. Yet, consumption of fish is the
most important route of mercury exposure for U.S. residents, and at
much lower levels. Fish consumption is also the route by which fetuses
may be exposed to mercury, due to their mothers' diets. Interestingly,
many consumer and angler studies have shown that store-bought imported
marine fish can be a much greater source of mercury than locally caught
species.
Fish consumption studies elsewhere are applicable to U.S. exposures
since they include (a) the same chronic, low-level exposure to mercury
that may apply to U.S. residents; (b) the related beneficial health
effects of fish consumption, particularly marine species, now
documented for children as well as adults, (c) the concomitant exposure
to selenium, a substance which may have a protective value for effects
of mercury in humans (though this is still not well documented), and
(d) the ability to do contemporaneous studies of actual exposure,
rather than reconstructed exposures well after an accidental poisoning
(as in Iraq).
Question 2. What specific information is needed in order to have a
better scientific understanding of mercury and its health and
environmental impact?
Response. Our ability to assess the impacts of mercury on U.S.
residents depends on a full understanding of two key aspects of mercury
in the environment. First, we need to improve our information on where
mercury in the U.S. environment originates, how it moves into distant
aquatic systems, and how it is concentrated in fish and ingested by
humans. Second, we must accurately gauge the true impact of mercury on
human health.
Our understanding of mercury in the environment--the exposure to
mercury--is also progressing. New information from field studies shows
that natural and legacy mercury emissions in the U.S. may total as much
as all current industrial sources. These need to be better quantified.
Our knowledge of human exposures in the U.S at both average and high
levels. is inadequate; new studies of exposure are beginning this year.
The primary health concern about mercury arises from methylmercury
in waterways, which is the organic form that finds its way through fish
to human consumption. The process by which mercury is transformed from
the inorganic form (dominant in source emissions and the atmosphere) to
the organic methyl form, is not fundamentally understood.
Levels of mercury in fish appear to be dominated by local water
conditions, rather than distant source inputs, and so may be
insensitive to source changes. Fish mercury levels are remarkably
uniform throughout the U.S., despite the fact that most of the
industrial mercury is emitted to the atmosphere in the east. Fish
mercury levels have not changed in recent decades despite a reduction
of 85 percent in the industrial usage of mercury. There are research
plans to investigate this question in the field.
The issue of mercury's health effects is being investigated in a
number of studies The two most prominent of childhood development are
those among fish- and whale-eating populations in the Faroe Islands of
the North Atlantic, and among fish consumers in the Seychelle Islands
of the Indian Ocean. It is expected that the analysis, interpretation,
synthesis, and followup to these studies will proceed for about 3-4
more years. It is these studies that have already produced new findings
indicating potentially lower levels of mercury health effects than had
been previously believed.
Given the testimony received during the hearing, regarding the
incompleteness of the scientific understanding of mercury, isn't it
prudent to vigorously pursue scientific research which addresses the
unresolved issues of mercury speciation, and the transport, fate, and
effects of elemental mercury? Wouldn't it also be prudent to have a
coordinated Federal effort which, among other things, determines the
appropriate level for a mercury exposure reference dose?
In joint research meetings with a number of Federal agencies over a
10 year period, EPRI has advocated a comprehensive, integrated research
effort on mercury. We have recommended an effort that focuses on key
issues where understanding is lacking. This effort is underway, and our
understanding of mercury emissions, atmospheric transport and fate,
aquatic cycling, and human exposure and risk is greatly improved from
ten or even 5 years ago. But we need to maintain this global research
effort, to better inform policy and regulatory deliberations.
______
Responses by Leonard Levin to Additional Questions from Senator Leahy
Question 1. Submitted with your comments was an attached document
from EPRI, ``Health Advisory for Freshwater Fish, ``questioning State
fish advisories. What basis does EPRI have for initiation of a
nationwide public health message in conflict with state programs?
Response. State fish advisories are based on existing conclusions
concerning the severity of mercury health effects on both adults and
children. The EPRI document referred to in the question was prepared as
a summary of new findings concerning mercury health effects. Those
findings were applied to mercury fish advisories in the State of Maine
by fir. Andrew Smith of the Maine Bureau of Health. The Maine results,
reproduced in the EPRI document, showed that many surveyed lakes
currently under mercury fish advisories in Maine would be considered
safe for unlimited consumption of caught fish if the new health
findings were adapted EPRI is simply reporting those findings from the
State of Maine.
The new findings, detailed at the hearing by Dr. Gary Myers of the
University of Rochester, are the results of ongoing studies of children
in the Seychelle Islands. Two independent teams of researchers, after
analyzing the University of Rochester results, have concluded that
mercury health effects on children may be only one-third to one-fifth
as severe as previously believed. That is the basis for the EPRI
document, and for my conclusion that these new findings if ultimately
supported may significantly alter current fish advisory levels.
Question 2. Does EPRl have emission data from coal fired power
plants showing the levels of mercury currently being emitted to support
the position in the Levin Statement? Has this information been provided
to states working on the mercury problem?
The position taken in the statement concerning power plant
emissions is that EPRI and EPA (as well as many other agencies) are in
essential agreement on the national total of utility mercury. Since
1990, EPRI (and the U.S. Department of Energy) have carried out a
national program of method development and measurement for mercury in
power plant emissions, fuels, and waste streams around the United
States. These data have been made publicly available in EPRI reports
since 1994, and also provided as detailed print and electronic files to
EPA. The data have been entered into the EPA public docket, starting in
November 1994, and are easily available to all members of the public,
including staff of state and regional regulatory agencies. EPRI has
provided summary and detailed reports to state regulatory staff in many
states and regions, including New Jersey, Michigan, Arkansas,
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the NESCAUM organization.
Question 3. Your testimony indicates that studies in Florida show
that the mercury is arriving from Africa or Southern Europe. Please
provide us with the underlying meteorological and atmospheric
circulation assumptions that you are relying on to reach this
conclusion. What are the points of origin of these emissions? Are you
aware that there are studies that show deposition in Florida from
sources within the state?
Response. Research on the origins and fate of mercury on the
Florida peninsula has been underway for 10 years, under joint
sponsorship of the State of Florida, Florida utility companies, EPRI,
the US EPA, the US Geological Survey, and others. Part of these studies
involves field and modeling experiments to determine the level of
mercury coming into the state from elsewhere (partially via the
easterly trade winds) compared to the level originating from current
and re-emitting sources within the state. Analysis and interpretation
of the data from these studies are still underway. Several
investigations suggest that more than half of the mercury deposition
occurring in the Everglades comes from global background.
Professor William Landing of the Department of Oceanography at
Florida State University has concluded, based on 3 years' data on
mercury deposition and related meteorology, that about 70 percent of
the mercury depositing within the state has its origin in this long-
range transport, from air masses beginning in the eastern Atlantic.
Those air masses are likely to entrain mercury from source areas in the
Mediterranean basin, especially southern Europe and northern Africa.
The matter is still under study, however. Dr. Gerald Keeler, of the
University of Michigan, also involved in the south Florida studies, has
reached the opposite conclusion, but based on a shorter data set from a
pilot study. This is one of many open questions on mercury.
Question 4. What proportion of ``legacy'' mercury emissions in the
global pool are attributable to emissions from facilities in the United
States? Does your testimony create a misimpression that mercury in the
global pool came from other places when in fact much of the mercury in
the global pool was originally emitted by power plants, waste
incinerators, and other sources in the United States?
Response. U.S. emissions from utilities currently make up about 1
percent of global emissions of mercury; U.S. emissions from all current
industrial sources make up about 3 percent of global total emissions
(from the EPA Mercury Study Report to Congress). Since mercury's
lifetime in the global atmosphere is about 1 year, the U.S.
contribution is also about 1 percent and 3 percent respectively.
Indeed, it is probably somewhat less, since about 30 to 50 percent of
U.S. emissions deposit within U.S. borders.
New measurements of emissions have been made from mercury
background source areas. These include both natural areas, undisturbed
by industrial activity, and mercury ``legacy'' areas. The latter
include mineral extraction and industrial sites once active, but no
longer operating (such as old gold mining areas). These legacy areas
show present-day emissions that may total as much as all current
industrial emissions in the U.S. From this, it is plausible to conclude
that, when those areas were actively in use, emissions to the air were
even greater. More research is underway to extend these measurements
nationally.
U.S. industrial use of mercury has declined by about 85 percent in
the last 40 years. These industrial uses of mercury are likely to have
led to local (rather than global) circulation of the material, winding
up in distributed industrial uses and later in landfills. Incineration
of mercury contained in industrial and consumer products has tended to
occur in facilities with low combustion temperatures and relatively low
emission stacks, more likely leading to local and regional deposition,
rather than entry into the global circulation.
__________
Electric Power Research Institute
Setting a Safe Exposure Level for Mercury
environment division air toxics health and risk assessment target
Mercury is a metal that may induce toxic health effects, including
neurological damage. To protect citizens, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is charged with setting a ``safe'' exposure
level for mercury. A safe exposure level based on historical data is in
place, but emerging information from basic research is altering our
understanding of mercury's impact on human health. This new information
has led another Federal agency to propose a less restrictive safe
exposure level.
Poisoning Accidents and EPA's Reference Dose The most common form
of mercury found in fish is the organic form, called methylmercury. Two
historical poisoning episodes highlight the toxicity of methylmercury
at extremely high levels. In the 1950's, mercury discharged from a
chemical plant into Japan's Minamata Bay poisoned people who ate
contaminated marine life from the Bay, causing them to develop so-
called ``Minamata disease'' from which 100 died and many more suffered
nervous system disorders. In the early 1970's, Iraqis ate bread
accidentally made with Hour milled from wheat treated with a mercury-
based fungicide. Several hundred people died, and subsequent studies
showed that mothers who were highly exposed to methylmercury by eating
the bread during pregnancy gave birth to children who experienced
developmental delays, such as walking months later than unexposed
children. Because it took lower exposures to affect babies developing
in the womb than to affect adults, the Iraqi episode led to the public
health objective of protecting women of childbearing age from unsafe
exposure to methylmercury that would harm their babies.
To set protective exposure levels, public health agencies worldwide
examined a variety of mercury data. EPA used analyses of the Iraqi
poisoning episode, which showed that methylmercury affected babies
developing in the womb when it was present in concentrations greater
than 10 parts per million in their mothers' hair. To this threshold,
EPA added an uncertainty factor of 10 to protect highly sensitive
individuals. The resulting ``reference dose'' (the level of exposure
that is virtually risk-free) adopted by EPA for methylmercury is 0.1
<greek-m>g/kg-day. This means that EPA considers it safe to take into
the body no more than 0.1 micrograms per day of methylmercury, per
kilogram of body weight--or, for a 70 kilogram (145 pound) individual,
7 micrograms per day.
Well-Designed Studies and a Revised Safe Exposure Level
Since the historical poisoning episodes in Minamata Bay and Iraq,
researchers have carefully designed new studies to give a more
realistic picture of human exposure to methylmercury in routine daily
life and detailed information about its potential long-term effects in
children. These studies focus on populations who eat fish and seafood,
which are the main sources of continuous, low-level human exposure to
methylmercury. Study populations include people living in Peru, New
Zealand, the Seychelles Islands, the Faroe Islands, and Canada. The
Seychelles and Faroe Islands studies each involve nearly 1000 mother-
child pairs, followed from pregnancy onward. At succeeding ages,
children in these studies have taken tests designed to assess their
psychomotor, cognitive, and social development.
In general, results to date from these contemporary studies do not
support the need for a safe exposure level as cautious as the one EPA
calculated based on the Iraqi poisoning episode. Indeed. the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)--part of the U.S. Public
Health Service--has calculated a revised safe exposure level based on
information from the Seychelles Islands study, which it deems the most
suitable for assessing childhood developmental effects. Data from the
Seychelles Islands study reveal no adverse effects to children there
from any measured level of exposure to methylmercury. On the basis of
this study, the ATSDR has proposed a new safe exposure level of 0.5
<greek-m>g/kg-day. This means that it is safe to rake into the body 0.5
micrograms per day of methylmercury, per kilogram of body weight or 5
times the amount permitted by the current EPA level.
Another recent study, using data from the Seychelles Islands but
employing different methods, reached the same conclusion--that a safe
exposure level of 0.5 <greek-m>g/kg-day is appropriate. This second
study, jointly sponsored by Alcoa, EPRI, and a number of U.S.
utilities, has undergone external scientific peer review and is planned
for publication.
Impacts of Current Analyses While ATSDR's revised safe exposure
level of 0.5 <greek-m>g/kg-day doesn't look that different from EPA's
reference dose of 0.1 <greek-m>g/kg-day, a revised safe exposure level
would likely lift restrictions on fish consumption at many of the U.S.
lakes and rivers where fishermen are currently warned of possible
mercury contamination in fish they might catch and eat. At fishing
sites where mercury contamination might prevail, state governments post
advisories telling fishermen how many fish they may safely consume. In
some cases, the advisories prohibit fish consumption. These advisories
are often aimed at women of childbearing age and young children to
protect normal, healthy development in early childhood. For example, in
sampled lakes in the state of Maine (see Figure 1), a revised safe
exposure level would remove bans on fish consumption, and would
dramatically reduce advisories limiting fish consumption by children
and by women of childbearing age.
Conclusion
Newly emerging data indicate that methylmercury exposure for
pregnant women has much less impact on the early development of their
children than previously believed. Independent analyses based on these
data support a revised safe exposure level that is 5 times less
stringent than the current EPA reference dose for mercury. This new
recommendation sharply reduces the estimated number of U.S. women
potentially exposed above safe levels and may have important impacts on
related issues, such as recreational fishing in U.S. lakes.
references
1. Cox, C., et al., Analysis of data on delayed development from
the 1971-1972 outbreak of methylmercury poisoning in Iraq: Assessment
of influential points, Neurotoxicology, 16(4): 727 730, 1995.
2. Harada, M., Minamata disease: methylmercury poisoning in Japan
caused by environmental pollution, Critical Reviews in Toxicology,
25(1): 1-24, 1995.
3. Mercury/ in the Environment--A Research Update. TR-107695. Palo
Alto: Electric Power Research Institute, December 1996.
4. Myers, G.J., et al., Effects of prenatal methylmercury exposure
from a high fish diet on developmental milestones in the Seychelles
child development study, Neurotoxicology, 18(3): 819-830. 1997.
5. Smith, I.C., P.V. Allen, and R. Von Burg, Hair methylmercury
levels in U.S. women, Archives of Environmental Health, 52(6): 476-480,
November/December 1997.
6. Toxicological Profile for Mercury, Draft for Public Comment
(Updated). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, 1997.
______
Electric Power Research Institute
Mercury From U.S. Fossil-Fired Power Plants: The Global Context
environment division air toxics health and risk assessment target
Exposure to the organic form of mercury (methylmercury) found in
fish and shellfish may pose health risks, especially to children whose
mothers eat these foods during pregnancy. For this reason, mercury is a
substance of high concern among those designated as hazardous air
pollutants in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.
Yet, no one is certain that the amount of methylmercury in fish and
shellfish is directly related to the amount of mercury currently
released into the air by industrial and other human activities. In
particular, it is unclear that lowering mercury emissions from power
plants would markedly decrease the amount of methylmercury in fish. To
explore these questions and further scientific understanding, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has conducted an intensive study
of mercury in the environment, summarizer its December, 1997 EPA
Mercury Study Report to Congress.
Since scientists estimate that half of all mercury released to the
atmosphere by human activity cycles around the globe, it is clear that
mercury is a global issue. As part of the global picture, U.S. power
plants contribute only a small percentage of the total mercury released
to the earth's atmosphere in a given year. This Air Quality Brief
places mercury emissions from U.S. utilities into the global context
needed for scientific understanding and management decisionmaking.
Estimating Mercury Releases
Mercury in the atmosphere comes from natural sources and human
activities (see Figure 1). Although global estimates are highly
uncertain, they indicate that approximately 6000--7000 metric tons per
year of mercury are released around the globe. Of that amount, 2000
metric tons per year come from the ocean surface, about 1000 metric
tons per year from natural land sources, and about 4000 metric tons per
year from human activities.
Human activities in the United States release roughly 150 metric
tons per year of mercury to the atmosphere, according to a recent EPRI
study. Of this total, about 40 metric tons per year come from U.S.
fossil-fired power plants. Other sources include private and commercial
fuel burning, municipal and medical waste burning, manufacturing/
smelting, and miscellaneous activities. In general, data On mercury
releases from power plants are of higher quality than data on releases
from other sources, due to extensive measurements at power plants by
EPRI, the U.S. Department of Energy, and others.
Tracking Mercury
Tracking the movement of mercury away from power plants to its
ultimate destination in the environment is as important as knowing how
much is emitted. Unfortunately, researchers have not found an inert
tracer for mercury that will follow it from release to the air, through
cycling in water bodies, to deposition at environmental sites. Lacicing
such a tracer, scientists must rely on atmospheric simulation models to
translate mercury releases into estimates of deposition, human
exposure, and risk.
Atmospheric simulation models deal with mercury on global,
regional, and local scales. On the global scale, some of the mercury
released to the atmosphere can travel long distances, even cycle the
globe, before returning to earth. For instance, elemental mercury,
released by combustion as a gas, stays in the atmosphere a long time
and is only slightly soluble in water. These properties allow elemental
mercury to travel great distances before it oxidizes and deposits to
the earth's surface. Thus. atmospheric simulation models indicate that
substantially more elemental mercury is added to transport and
deposition on the global and regional scales than on the local scale.
Using atmospheric simulation models to track mercury at regional
and local scales is challenging for two reasons First, all forms of
mercury enter the atmosphere ill very low concentrations. There, they
may undergo chemical and physical transformations that are poorly
understood, and therefore difficult to model. Second, modelers lack
enough actual regional and local measurements to validate the
predictive capacity of atmospheric simulation models used at those
scales.
Despite these challenges, the newest regional modeling tools
provide an opportunity to determine the relationship between utility
mercury emissions and deposition at particular environmental sites.
Researchers have applied one of these tools--a new reactive plume model
developed under EPRI sponsorship--to estimate how much mercury emitted
From a power plant stack would be deposited within a 100-km (60-mile)
radius under different weather conditions. Results show that up to, but
usually much less than, 18 percent of the emitted mercury deposits
locally, depending on weather patterns. The rest enters regional and
global circulation and travels hundreds or thousands of kilometers
before reaching the earth's surface--open over the open ocean.
Conclusion
U.S. utility plants burning fossil fuels contribute about 1 percent
of the mercury that human activities release to the global atmosphere
in a given year, find less than 1 percent of mercury released from all
sources. Estimates to date indicate that deposition of mercury in the
local area around power plants is quite low. Much of the mercury
leaving power plant stacks enters the global atmosphere and travels
long distances before it reaches the earth.
references
1. Gustin, M.S. and S.E. Lindberg, ``Assessing the contribution of
natural sources to regional atmospheric mercury budgets.'' Paper
presented at the Fourth International Conference on Managing Hazardous
Air Pollutants, cosponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute
and Potomac Electric Power Company, Washington. DC, November 12-14,
1997.
2. Lindqvist, O., et al., Mercury in the Swedish environment--
Recent research on causes, consequences and corrective methods, Water
Air Soil Pollution 55: 1-126, 1991.
3. Mercury in the Environment--A Research Update. TR-107695, Palo
Alto: Electric Power Research Institute, December 1996.
4. Mercury Study Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, December 1997. Vols. I-VIII.
5. Pai, P., et al., Simulation of the regional atmospheric
transport and fate of mercury using a comprehensive eulerian model,
Atmospheric Environment, 31(17): 2717-2732. 1997.
__________
State of Colorado, Office of the Governor,
Denver, Colorado 80203-1792, September 29, 1998.
Hon. James M. Inhofe, Chairman,
Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety
Subcommittee,
Environment and Public Works Committee,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Chairman Inhofe: I am writing to provide my input on the
hearing that the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private
Property, and Nuclear Safety is holding on EPA's proposed initiative to
protect the air quality in the country's premier national parks and
wilderness areas.
The citizens of Colorado and the American people overwhelmingly
support protecting the magnificent vistas in our national parks and
wilderness areas. Colorado State University recently published the
results of a national public opinion poll which found that there is
broad-based bipartisan support for cleaning up air pollution in the
national parks. Indeed, in the Rocky Mountain West, it is the mountain
vistas, scenic horizons and clear blue skies that inspire many to move
here to raise their families, and that draws millions of visitors from
across the country and the world Protecting, the air quality in the
unique areas that are our nation's legacy is central to our quality of
life, and our economy.
The key concern your subcommittee and others previously raised was
the manner in which EPA proposed to address the recommendations of the
Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission The Commission, led
principally by western Governors, issued a blueprint for protecting the
air quality in the ``Golden Circle'' of national parks and wilderness
areas on the Colorado Plateau, which includes not only the Grand Canyon
but many spectacular areas in Colorado (Mesa Verde National Park, Black
Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument, Snowmass-Maroon Bells
Wilderness, Flat Tops Wilderness, Weminuche Wilderness, and West Elk
Wilderness) This blueprint was developed in a bipartisan, ground-
breaking, consensus-based process and enjoys the support of public
officials, industry, tribes, environmentalists, and scientists from
across the West.
On September 3, EPA responded to the criticism raised and, based on
detailed comments from the Western Governors' Association, published a
notice proposing to incorporate the Commission's recommendations into
its air quality initiative. I appreciate EPA's response to include this
important initiative that originated from the states and local
citizens.
I support the course of action EPA charted in its September 3
public notice, and urge you to do the same.
Sincerely,
Roy Romer,
Governor.
______
Clearing the Air in Our National Parks
natural resources defense council; environmental defense fund; sierra
club; national parks and conservation association; land and water fund
of the rockies; physicians for social responsibility; defenders of
wildlife; u.s. public interest research group; grand canyon trust; new
mexico citizens for clean air & water; appalachian mountain club
On October 1, the Senate Environment and Public Works clean air
subcommittee is scheduled to hold its second hearing on EPA's proposal
to protect the scenic vistas in premier national parks and wilderness
areas. While the names of America's best-known National Parks--from the
Great Smokies to the Grand Canyon to Mount Ranier--are likely to call
up visions of spectacular scenery, many of these scenic vistas are
often so clouded by air pollution that they are barely visible. The
Clean Air Act requires EPA to issue regulations to eliminate the
manmade pollution that clouds our nation's parks. The rule is already
well past due. We urge you to support EPA's efforts to issue an
enforceable rule that clears the air within our lifetimes.
In the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments, Congress added a program to
protect visibility, declaring and codifying the national goal of
remedying existing problems and preventing future manmade visibility
impairment in specially designated national parks and wilderness areas
across the country. Yet, little progress has been made and in many
areas the air has only gotten worse. Recognizing that its past efforts
have been inadequate, in July 1997 EPA proposed a new initiative aimed
at pollution from a variety of sources that contribute to haze over
broad interstate regions. The National Academy of Sciences has
indicated that this ``regional haze'' is the predominant form of
visibility impairment in our national parks and wilderness areas.
A central feature of EPA's regional haze proposal is designed to
promote accountability in realizing actual visibility protection. EPA
proposed to prevent degradation of visibility during the clearest days.
EPA also proposed that visibility during the worst impairment periods
perceptibly be improved every ten to 15 years. However, this is only a
presumptive level of protection. States would be allowed to establish a
slower rate of improvement based on costs and other factors if they
demonstrate that it is reasonable. A November 17, 1997 Congressional
Research Service Report to Congress on EPA's proposal found that this
feature in addition to state flexibility in designing control
strategies provided extraordinary implementation flexibility.
Nevertheless, polluters are seeking to weaken these minimally
protective aspects of EPA's proposal by attacking EPA's reliance on
visibility as a measure of progress, and by undermining the rate of
progress.
The EPA proposal would establish perceptible change in visibility
as a touchstone for program accountability over the duration of the
long-term (10 to 15 year) planning period. At the same time,
recognizing that there may be variability in visibility conditions
during the shortterm that make it difficult to discern visibility
trends, EPA proposed to allow state reliance on emissions reductions to
inform whether progress is occurring over the short-term, and whether
mid-course planning adjustments are needed. As its name implies, the
purpose of the Clean Air Act's visibility program is to protect visual
air quality. Better visibility must be the ultimate measure of success.
While emissions reductions reasonably may inform short-term planning
considerations, they should not be substituted for or confused with the
fundamental programmatic goal--protecting the scenic vistas in national
parks and wilderness areas.
EPA's performance objective is a critical aspect of its regional
haze initiative. A sound measure of visibility progress enables the
public to assess the integrity of governmental programs to protect the
nation's grand vistas. Conversely, a governmental program without a
strong, concrete measure of progress is a program without any purpose
or aim and, ultimately, lacking any public accountability.
Even if EPA's proposed rate of progress is achieved, it would take
hundreds of years to clear the manmade visibility impairment in our
national parks and wildernesses. This rate of progress is especially
inadequate in the East, where the current visibility conditions on the
worst days are severely polluted.
EPA's supplemental proposal responds to earlier criticism from the
Western Governors Association that the proposal does not adequately
incorporate recommendations of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission. Environmentalists have worked together with the Western
Governors Association and industry representatives to identify mutually
agreeable strategies to improve visibility in the Grand Canyon region.
On September 3, 1998, EPA issued a supplemental proposal that
incorporates these strategies.
The Western Governors Association has acknowledged the importance
of improving visibility in park areas. Places like Grand Canyon,
Yellowstone and Yosemite are treasures of our national heritage and a
legacy we must responsibly protect for our children. Our National Parks
are visited by millions of tourists from across the country and,
indeed, around the world, proving Important economic activity in many
states.
We respectfully request your support for EPA's initiative to clear
the air polluting national parks and wilderness areas. We especially
seek your support for a sound measure of visibility progress. EPA
should finalize its proposal to prohibit further degradation of clear
visibility days. EPA should also establish a strong, presumptive rate
of visibility improvement for the most impaired days that applies to
western national parks and wilderness area, and that provides for a
faster rate of progress in the East. Thank you for your consideration
of this important matter.
Sincerely,
Sharon Buccino, Attorney,
Natural Resources Defense Council.
Debbie Sease, Legislative Director,
Sierra Club.
John Nielson, Policy Advisor,
Land and Water Fund of the Rockies.
Jim Wyerman, Vice President for Program,
Defenders of Wildlife.
Tom Robinson, Director of Conservation Policy,
Grand Canyon Trust.
Bruce Hill, Ph.D., Senior Scientist,
Appalachian Mountain Club.
Vickie Patton, Attorney,
Environmental Defense Fund.
William J. Chandler, Vice President, Conservation Policy,
National Parks and Conservation Association.
Sharon Newsome, Director, Environmental Program,
Physicians for Social Responsibility.
Rebecca Stanfield, Energy Advocate,
U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
John Bartlit, State Chairman,
New Mexico Citizens for Clean Air & Water.
______
Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers
resolution 23-2--concerning mercury and its impacts on the environment
WHEREAS, mercury is a persistent bioaccumulative toxin that poses a
serious health risk to humans, undermines the productivity and safety
of fisheries, and diminishes the economic benefits of tourism in the
region; and
WHEREAS, mercury is a transboundary air pollutant that, like sulfur
dioxide and nitrogen oxides, calls for coordinated regional, national
and international efforts to minimize contamination to the environment;
and
WHEREAS, the New England states and Eastern Canadian provinces
recognize the opportunity to reduce the release of mercury from human
activity through cooperative activity between the two regions; and
WHEREAS, the Conference of New England Governors and Eastern
Canadian Premiers Committee on the Environment convened a successful
workshop in Portland, Maine, to share information and prepare
recommendations for specific actions that the provinces and states can
undertake to ensure significant progress is realized in the release of
mercury from human activity, into the ecosystem; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the New England Governors and
Eastern Canadian Premiers call upon their respective Federal
Governments and the Commission for Environmental Cooperation to move
forward without further delay to develop and implement national and
continental measures for the virtual elimination of discharges of
mercury from human activity, into the environment; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, the New England Governors and Eastern
Canadian Premiers adopt the proposed action plan that includes 45
recommendations addressing:
The establishment of a Regional Mercury Task Force to coordinate
the implementation of the Mercury Action Plan;
mercury emissions reduction targets for identified sources, such as
municipal solid waste combustors, medical waste incinerators, sludge
incinerators, utility and nonutility boilers, industrial and area
sources;
source reduction and safe waste management, including recycling;
outreach and education, especially for high-risk populations;
research, analysis, and strategic monitoring, to further identify
and quantify sources of mercury deposition, and to monitor deposition
patterns and develop meaningful environmental indicators to measure and
track progress;
mercury stockpile management; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Committee on the Environment take
immediate action to appoint the Mercury Task Force by June 30, 1998.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, the Committee on the Environment,
working with the Secretariats, report on progress taken on the
implementation of the Mercury Action Plan at the next annual meeting of
the Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers.
Adopted at the 23rd Annual Conference of New England Governors and
Eastern Canadian Premiers, June 7-9, 1998.
__________
State of New Jersey,
Department of Environmental Protection,
October 1, 1998.
Hon. Senator Chafee, Chair,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC 20510.
Subject: Hearing on Regional Haze and Mercury
Dear Senator Chafee: I am writing to express New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection's concerns on the issues of environmental
and public health impacts of mercury. We agree sound science is the
foundation of sound regulatory determinations. Further, efficient and
effective technology needs to be readily available when control
technology is mandated. Nonetheless, there are urgent facts and
affordable initiatives that may justify regulatory determinations that
need to be included in this discussion.
The background mercury levels, particularly in the northeast, as
documented in the USEPA Mercury Report (commissioned by Congress and
reviewed and accepted by the SAB) and the Northeast State and Easterly
Canadian Provinces Mercury Studies are of significant public health
concerns particularly to human embryo development and young children.
2. Combustion sources are the single largest category source of
anthropogenic mercury emissions.
3. Source reduction, recycling and control technology in
combination are beginning to successfully lower mercury emissions fi
own some combustion sources, such as MSW and medical waste incinerators
in significant quantities.
4. Other sources such as utilities, steel and iron and refineries
are becoming proportionally a larger component of the total emissions.
5. Out-of-region sources contribute significantly to our regional
concerns.
While we agree that pending research and in some cases baseline
assessments need to be completed, that is no reason to delay prudent
action. There are valid concerns whether currently available control
technologies are cost effective for all combustion sources. However,
these technologies are maturing quickly. Advances in innovative
environmental technology are developed across a broad spectrum of media
areas and programs. A technology solution in one field may be modified
and spur on advances in the field of mercury control or vice verse.
Regulatory initiatives can be developed to help spur on efficient and
effective controls and pollution prevention approaches. Establishing
restrictions on regulatory actions in one area of mercury control is
likely to have an unintended chilling effect on research and
development for technology that are needed in this area and other
associated environmental technology areas.
There are initiatives that could be implemented through a
partnership between the USEPA, the state environmental agencies, the
combustion industries such as the waste management industry, steel
mills, refineries or utilities and their subsidiary energy service
contractor companies. These initiatives have the potential to
affordably and effectively lower overall mercury emissions now while
waiting for the completion of more research. However, these initiatives
may require regulatory determinations as follows:
1. Collection and recycling of mercury containing gas regulators.
This would require a regulatory change to allow this material to be
properly managed as a universal waste. This would eliminate this source
of mercury and is solely managed by utilities.
2. Continued expansion of the Energy Star program for energy
efficient lighting systems with low mercury content. This would require
a regulatory determination of the energy savings and mercury reduction
through the USEPA in their Energy Wise program. This is a program that
is endorsed by the utilities and their service contractors.
3. Collection and recycling of mercury containing lamps. This would
require a regulatory change to allow this material to be properly
managed as a universal waste. Energy efficient lighting is fundamental
to the demand side management programs of utilities and energy
contractors. Closing the loop on this source of mercury would be
beneficial.
4. Collection and recycling of mercury containing thermostats and
mercury switches.
This material is a universal waste but to provide for its reuse as
a product may require the USEPA or state environmental agencies through
reciprocal agreements to make a regulatory determination.
These are flexible, low cost regulatory programs that could quickly
lower overall mercury emissions across combustion sources. I urge you
not to underestimate how effective these initiatives can be, if the
concerned patties walk in partnership. New Jersey was the first state
to propose and adopt a mercury emission standard from MSW incinerators.
These standards are the lowest in the country.
This ambitious control limit was established through a stakeholder
process that respected the concerns of all the patties involved. We
developed a creative and flexible regulatory determination for source
reduction, SOU2 ce separation/recycling and control technology. The
results have been, literally, more than we hoped for. Currently, the
emissions from 3 of the 5 MSW incinerators reach into the single digit
micrograms level, below our year 2000 standard, with approximately 99
percent removal. The inlet concentration of mercury from this source in
some test runs is lower than the standard required after controls. When
we began discussing concerns about MSW emissions the industry sincerely
believed emissions as low as we leave today were impossible to achieve.
Our success is rooted in regulatory flexibility that encourages
innovation. Today in New Jersey we have over a two order of magnitude
(100 X's) reduction in mercury concentrations and emissions from this
source. This cost-effective solution is now being adopted by the New
England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers, by the Southeastern
and Great Lake States. This program could not have been developed if we
restricted regulatory determinations or approaches.
We are not asking that you bring out the legislative hammer and
bang utilities or other combustion sources over the head to comply in a
command and control response. We are asking that you help us, state
environmental agencies in the development of sensible, creative
programs that may require regulatory determination to create a level
playing field. In the increasingly deregulated markets of today, even
the most conscientious companies are unwilling to risk competitive
disadvantage by shouldering environmental obligations their competitors
can lawfully shun. Industries are unlikely to object to the modest but
effective mercury emission reduction measures we have suggested, as
long as all utilities have to meet the same requirements.
For all these reasons we ask that allow for creative and innovative
solutions to the mercury emissions issue while we wait for cost
effective control technology and more research to catch up to our
goals.
Robert C. Shinn Jr., Commissioner.
__________
Western Regional Council,
October 14, 1998.
Hon. James M. Inhofe, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property And Nuclear
Safety,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Senator Inhofe: Enclosed is a copy of the Western Regional
Council's (WRC) October 5 comments regarding the Environmental
Protection Agency's recent Notice of Availability of Additional
Information Related to Proposed Regional Haze Regulations, 40 CFR Part
51 (Docket Number A-95-38).
The WRC respectfully requests the opportunity to submit our
comments for the record of the Clean Air Subcommittee's October 1
hearing on regional haze.
WRC has been the leading multi-industry organization working on the
regional haze issue since Congress established the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.
We believe our comments regarding the Western Governors' Association's
proposed alternative to EPA's regional haze rule, the Inhofe amendment
to the TEA-21 legislation, and other issues related to the EPA notice,
may be of interest to members of the committee.
If you have any questions regarding the WRC comments, please
contact Ruth McCormick at 703-549-1466.
Sincerely,
Ed Bartlett, Chairman,
Clean Air Committee.
______
Brief Discussion of Methylmercury Exposure Guideline Debate
(By C. Mark Smith)
Although toxicologists generally view mercury as a potent toxin,
considerable debate exists over the precise level of risk that
exposures to this toxin may cause. At higher dose levels there is
extensive evidence that organic forms of mercury such as methylmercury,
the primary type found in fish, are extremely toxic. The developing
nervous systems of the fetus and children are particularly sensitive to
these effects. Numerous epidemics have occurred around the world where
many people have died or been permanently injured as a result of
exposures to methylmercury in their diets. Most notably these include
the tragic mass poisonings in Iraq, due to grain contaminated with
methylmercury, and at Minamata and Nigata Bays in Japan, due to fish
contamination. In these cases thousands of people were seriously
injured or killed. More locally and recently, a renowned scientist at
an Ivy League College tragically died from extensive brain damage as
the result of an accidental exposure to a relatively few drops (a
``large'' dose for this compound) of a related mercury compound,
dimethylmercury.
There is much current debate about the precise level of risk
associated with exposures to mercury at lower doses. The scientific
evidence on this issue is by no means clear-cut and is open to
differing interpretations. Ongoing debates on this issue largely focus
on two recent research projects where people exposed to mercury in
their diets at environmentally relevant levels were studied. Although
each project has limitations both are, by and large, of excellent
quality. To be very brief, the results of one of these studies,
conducted at the Faroe Islands, indicates that the nervous system of
babies can be injured by low levels of methylmercury in the mothers
diet. In contrast, the second study, at the Seychelles Islands, did not
detect any significant effects associated with such exposures. The
reason(s) why these studies are reaching different conclusions has not
been determined but may relate to the use of different experimental
methods or to differences in the populations studied, such as
lifestyles, exposures to other toxins or in their inherent
susceptibility (perhaps due to genetic differences).
Recently, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) proposed a chronic methylmercury exposure guideline (referred
to as the Minimum Risk Level or MRL). This guideline is 5 times higher
than the ATSDR intermediate exposure MRL as well as the equivalent EPA
chronic exposure guideline (the reference dose or RfD).
Briefly, ATSDR largely relied on results from the negative
Seychelles Island Study in deriving this new MRL value. The toxic
effects reported in the Faroe Islands Study are at this time not
adequately reflected in their analysis since new information has become
available from this study. This is a significant limitation as there
are several reasons that suggest the Faroe study may provide a better,
or at least an equally valid, basis for evaluating mercury exposure
risk. Before any conclusion is reached that higher mercury exposures
are acceptable, the different results between these studies should be
explored more fully, addressing in particular the following issues:
1) Measure of effect: The Faroe Island and Seychelles Island
Studies used different measures of effects. As noted in the attached
letter to the editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association
from Dr. Philippe Grandjean (a principal investigator in the Faroe
Island Study) there are outstanding questions about the sensitivity of
the battery of neurobehavioural tests used in the Seychelles Island
Study. Those used in the Faroe Island investigation were likely to have
been more sensitive and this could well explain the differences in
results. Resolution of this issue is very important to the appropriate
interpretation of these studies.
2) Measure of dose: In the Faroe Island study mercury levels in
umbilical cord blood and maternal hair were used as measures of fetal
mercury exposure. Umbilical cord measurements provide a more precise
measure of delivered dose to the fetus in comparison to maternal hair
mercury levels, which were relied on in the Seychelles study. Less
accurate measures of dose can lead to exposure misclassifications
(e.g., incorrectly concluding that someone was exposed to a low level
of mercury when they were in fact exposed to higher levels). This can
make dose/effect relationships more difficult to detect (i.e., biases
the results toward the null hypothesis of no effect.) This again
suggests caution in relying on the Seychelles Island Study results to
evaluate methylmercury risk.
3) Dose rate: The dose rate in the Faroe Islands was likely to have
been higher, with more episodic exposures, than in the Seychelles
Islands (the fish from the Seychelles Islands have been reported to
contain lower levels of mercury but were eaten regularly vs. the whale
meat in the Faroes, which was eaten less frequently but had higher
mercury concentrations). The Faroe Island experience may well be more
representative of the situation in the Northeast US, where fish mercury
levels are also high. This raises questions about the degree of
confidence one should have in extrapolating the Seychelles Island
results to other exposure situations.
In addition to these issues relating to data quality and
sufficiency, other limitations in the ATSDR proposed MRL revision
exist. Potential differences in susceptibilities within the human
population, which could arise due to lifestyle factors (e.g., alcohol
consumption); exposures to other environmental toxins; and the
potential for genetically determined variability in responses, also
exist.
In short all of these factors raise questions as to the
appropriateness of the proposed ATSDR MRL. Specifically, ATSDR did not
adequately account for the many uncertainties, including
interindividual variability and data limitations, as noted above. In
fact, depending on how the these inherent uncertainties are accounted
for, one can quite legitimately reach different conclusions regarding
the dangers of lower dose exposures to methylmercury: it is possible to
interpret the data as suggesting that exposures to methyl mercury are
somewhat less ``risky'' or alternatively even somewhat more ``risky''
than previously thought. Although there is no clear definitive answer,
taken together these uncertainties support the use of an uncertainty
factor substantially greater than that used by ATSDR in their MRL
derivation. This would lower the proposed value by a factor of at least
3, essentially bringing it back in line with current values.
In conclusion, from a public health perspective and especially
because children are most at risk and could be permanently harmed, the
uncertainties in the precise risks attributable to mercury exposures
should not interfere with efforts to reduce mercury levels in the
environment. This is especially true from the Northeast perspective as
levels of mercury in fish in our region are high enough to be of
concern no matter what the resolution of this debate.
______
Western Regional Council: Comments on the Environmental Protection
Agency Notice of Availability of Additional Information
related to proposed regional haze regulations
Federal Register September 3, 1998
Volume 63, Number 171, Pages 46952-3
Docket Number A-95-38
October 5, 1998
I. Introduction
The Western Regional Council (``WRC'') respectfully submits the
following comments regarding the Environmental Protection Agency
(``EPA'' or ``Agency'') Notice of Availability of Additional
Information Related to Proposed Regional Haze Regulations (``Notice'').
The Notice solicits comments on the recommendations related to the
Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (``GCVTC'' or
``Commission'') contained in the June 29, 1998, letter from the Western
Governors' Association (``WGA''), the draft translation of the WGA
recommendations into regulatory language by EPA, and the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century, Pub. L. No. 105-178 (``TEA-21'')
legislation provisions affecting the regional haze program.
WRC Background
As you know, WRC is an organization of chief executive officers of
approximately thirty companies with significant business activities in
the western United States, including accounting, construction,
engineering, financial, manufacturing, mining, oil and gas, utility and
other enterprises. The purpose of WRC is to protect the quality of life
in our region, recognizing the need for both a safe and clean
environment and a healthy economy.
WRC has been involved in the visibility issue since 1977, when the
national visibility goal was first included as part of the Clean Air
Act. During the 1980's we worked on numerous legislative and regulatory
measures to address visibility in our region. In the 101st Congress,
during the congressional debate over the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 (``CAAA''), WRC was one of the first organizations to formally
support the establishment of the GCVTC.
WRC and its member companies were actively involved in the
Commission's activities, deliberations, meetings and process, with
individuals serving on the Commission's Technical, Alternatives
Assessment, Communications and Public Advisory Committees, as well as
on several of the Commission's subcommittees. WRC supported the
Commission's final June 1996 report to EPA as a compromise, consensus
product that provided a sound approach for addressing visibility in
Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau.
WRC continues to be actively involved with the Commission's
successor, the Western Regional Air Partnership (``WRAP''), to monitor
implementation of the Commission's recommendations.
The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission Process Was Successful
and Produced a Sound Visibility Improvement Strategy
Westerners take pride in the world-renowned beauty of the American
West. We recognize that maintaining, and improving, our already
superior visibility is an important objective.
This western attitude about the importance of visibility explains
why there was such heavy participation in the Commission process by so
many individuals and organizations. WRC, along with a number of its
member companies, participated in the GCVTC process from start to
finish.
WRC invested a large quantity of both human and financial resources
in the process. An atmosphere of ``pragmatic optimism'' seemed to
permeate the GCVTC process as westerners of diverse backgrounds worked
toward a common goal. The process focused on identifying all of the
sources of visibility impairment on the Colorado Plateau and
negotiating a number of strategies to reduce the impacts of these
various sources. The consensus of participants and observers is that
the process was very successful.
Previous WRC Comments on EPA's Regional Haze Proposal
WRC shares the concern and perspective of many westerners that the
regional haze regulations proposed by EPA on July 31, 1997 ignore the
GCVTC process and threaten to thwart the common objective of visibility
improvement on the Colorado Plateau by the use of narrowly focused and
inflexible regulatory prescriptions. WRC submitted extensive comments
on the Agency's proposal, which are incorporated herein by reference
(See ``Comments of the Western Regional Council Regarding the
Environmental Protection Agency Regional Haze Regulations; Proposed
Rule, 40 CFR Part 51, Docket Number A-95-38, December 5, 1997''). WRC
continues to support the positions and recommendations in those formal
comments to EPA, including our opposition to the proposed deciview
target and group BART.
Impact of Visibility Regulations on the West
The western reaction to EPA's originally proposed regional haze
rule arises from the fact that most westerners agree that visibility
regulation strikes at the very heart of the important issue of future
economic growth. This is not an issue of private versus public
interests. Moreover, this is certainly not an issue of EPA versus big
industry as some have attempted to assert. Rather, it is a state,
tribal, and regional issue of determining how to best accommodate
economic growth and the commonly shared objective of visibility
improvement.
The issue of economic growth and visibility improvement in the West
arises in ways different from every other part of the United States.
This is true because, as a region, the West has been and continues to
be one of the fastest growing areas of the country. At the same time,
the West also enjoys the clearest air in the country from a visibility
standpoint. EPA's visibility monitoring network, the IMPROVE network,
has documented that the states of Arizona, Colorado,
Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming have the best
visibility in the country. The relatively small visibility impairment
in the West is caused mainly by roughly equal contributions of sulfate,
coarse particles, and organics (see page 6 of the GCVTC, enclosed in
Appendix A). Excellent visibility exists, in part, because of low
population densities, low humidity, and the use of low-sulfur coal for
power generation. In general, western coal contains one-tenth the
sulfur contained in coals used to generate power in the East. In fact,
the sulfur dioxide (``SO<INF>2</INF>'') emitted by just one eastern
power company is nearly equal to the total SOP emissions of the entire
western United States. According to EPA's 1995 acid rain data base, a
total of 13.4 million tons of SO<INF>2</INF> was emitted from U.S.
power plants. Of that amount, only 475,000 tons--or 3.5 percent of the
national total--came from power plants in the original Commission
states.
Congress recognized these unique characteristics of western
visibility and required EPA not to develop its regional haze program
until after the GCVTC had deliberated and provided its recommendations
to EPA. Until recently, EPA has not, in our view, accounted for the
GCVTC recommendations in its proposed rule. Rather, the non-WGA/GCVTC
provisions of EPA's July 31, 1997 proposed rule would impose the
greatest costs and burdens on the governments, industry and people of
the cleanest, western states.
The GCVTC recommendations effectively address the issue of economic
growth and visibility improvement in the GCVTC states by focusing on a
strategy (rather than inflexible standards and targets). The GCVTC
strategy focuses on a wide array of sources for purposes of ensuring
true progress toward the visibility goal, given the unique
circumstances of the GCVTC states. WRC believes that the flexible,
strategy-oriented process recommended by the GCVTC is the approach that
is fair and will work best in the West. By contrast, the inflexible EPA
approach penalizes the West by requiring the region to achieve,
maintain and improve visibility at higher levels, and higher cost, than
any other region of the country.
WGA Process/Proposal
The Agency's failure to recognize the GCVTC partnership and the
recommendations that it produced was the motivating factor behind the
WGA effort to develop its 'Proposed Changes to the Regional Haze Rule
to Facilitate Implementation of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission Recommendations.'' The WGA document represents significant
progress over the EPA proposal on many of the issues related to the
Commission's recommendations.
However, due to the rapid pace of the discussions and other
limitations, the WGA process did not allow for participation by all
interested stakeholders or for resolution of all critical issues.
Consequently, WRC appreciates the opportunity to provide the
following comments, which address outstanding issues and WRC concerns
regarding the WGA proposal.
In summary, we encourage EPA to:
<bullet> incorporate the WGA proposed revisions into the regional
haze rule as revised and refined by these comments;
<bullet> address the timing issues related to the regional haze
provision of the TEA-21 legislation by harmonizing the schedule for
regional haze SIPs with SIPs required for the PM<INF>2.5</INF> ambient
air quality standards;
<bullet> revise other aspects of the July 31, 1997 regional haze
proposal as recommended in our December 5, 1997 comments to the agency,
including eliminate the deciview target and group BART requirement,
require reasonable smoke prevention and abatement by FLMs, etc.; and
<bullet> significantly revise and re-propose the rule for further
comment.
II. Conformity with Sec. 51.309 (the rule based on the GCVTC) will be
Sufficient to Assure Reasonable Progress for the Transport
Region States; the Balance of EPA's Regional Haze Rule Shall
Not Apply to GCVTC States
The GCVTC recommendations provide a comprehensive plan for making
reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal. No other
requirements should be imposed on states in the Transport Region that
implement the GCVTC recommendations, as amplified by the WGA
recommendations and codified in the proposed 40 CFR 51.309. Proposed
Sec. 51.309 should apply instead of, not in addition to, the regional
haze rule EPA proposed on July 31, 1997. This was certainly the WGA's
intent, and WRC trusts it is EPA's intent as well. However, the Federal
Register notice and draft regulatory language are not clear on this
point. WRC requests that EPA clarify in the preamble to the final rule
and in the final rule itself that compliance with Sec. 51.309 fulfills
all of the obligations of Transport Region states with regard to
addressing regional haze, including the planning and coordination
requirements proposed in Sec. 51.302, and the requirements for a long-
term strategy proposed in Sec. 51.306, but the monitoring requirements
proposed in Sec. 51.305 would apply to Transport Region States. WRC
suggests the following changes to proposed Sec. 51.309:
Sec. 51.309 Requirements Related to the Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Commission
(a) Purpose and Applicability. The purpose of this section is to
establish the requirements for implementation plan revisions and
periodic progress reviews to address regional haze visibility
impairment in the 16 Class I areas addressed by the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission Report for the years 2003 to 2018. This
section applies to Transport Region States, which are regulated by this
section and not by Sec. 51.302 or by Sec. 51.306. Sec. 51.305 applies
to Transport Region States.
Similarly, the following sentence should be added at the beginning
of final Sec. 51.302 and Sec. 51.306:
Transport Region States are subject to Sec. 51.309 and not to this
section.
It may also be necessary to move the definition of Transport Region
States to Sec. 51.301.
The final rule must make clear that the emission management
strategies in Sec. 51.309, if included in a State Implementation Plan
(``SIP''), will assure reasonable progress.
The final rule should also provide a mechanism for states outside
the Transport Region to form other visibility transport commissions,
which could develop recommendations appropriate to their regions for
eventual incorporation into the Federal visibility regulations. The
Commission's process should serve as a model for remedying visibility
in Class I Areas throughout the United States. Visibility is a regional
issue and will be best dealt with through a regional approach with
participation by all stakeholders to create a flexible and scientific
approach to improved visibility. Stakeholders outside the Colorado
Plateau Transport Region should be given the opportunity to benefit
from the extensive work product developed by the GCVTC.
III. EPA Should Clarify That the Commission's Election to Include
Other Class I Areas With the Annex Under Sec. 51.309(F)(2) Satisfies
all Other Requirements in the Regional Haze Rule Under Sec. 51.3XX
WRC anticipates that western states that have both Colorado plateau
and non-Colorado plateau Class I areas will want the Annex and
therefore the regional planning process, to cover all of their Class I
areas. This will minimize duplication of SIPs, state duplication of the
regional planning process, and help the WRAP provide a meaningful
service to its member states. It is therefore critical to states
participating in the regional planning process that the Annex be all
encompassing. WRC supports the proposed language in Sec. 51.309(f)(2)
except that the decision to add Class I areas should be deliberated by
the GCVTC, which will provide the technical and policy justification
consistent with the expectation of achieving Reasonable Progress for
the 16 Class I areas currently within the Commission's jurisdiction.
WRC suggests the following language:
Sec. 51.309(f)(2) The Commission may elect, at the same time it
submits the Annex, to make recommendations intended to demonstrate
reasonable progress for other mandatory Class I Federal areas (beyond
the original 16) within the Transport Region States, including the
technical and policy justification for these additional mandatory Class
I Federal areas.
IV. EPA Must Provide Adequate Funding to Bring Class I Areas Outside
the Colorado
Plateau Into the WGA Proposed Program
Sec. 51.309(f)(2) of EPA's draft regulatory language (``Draft'') as
currently written states:
The Commission may elect, at the same time it submits the annex, to
make recommendations intended to demonstrate reasonable progress for
other mandatory Class I areas (beyond the original 16) within the
Transport Region States, including the technical and policy
justification for these additional mandatory Class I Federal areas in
accordance with the provisions of 51.3xx.
The technical requirements are included in Draft Sec. 51.309(g):
Plans submitted in 2003 by Transport Region States, which implement
the provisions of this section related to the Commission agree meets
and recommendations in their long-term strategy, may be the basis for
demonstrating reasonable progress for additional Class I areas in their
jurisdiction, if the plans submitted by December 31, 2003:
(1) Include a modeling demonstration of expected visibility
conditions for the most-impaired and least impaired days at the Class I
areas in their jurisdiction, which may be based on refined technical
studies conducted by the States and/or regional entity.
(2) Identify those Class I areas where reasonable progress may not
be achieved and establish a schedule and process for more detailed
review and development of additional measures which may be needed to
demonstrate reasonable progress as required in 51.3xx.
(3) Provide for updates in 2008 and 2013 plans to implement any
additional measures necessary to demonstrate reasonable progress.
WRC Comment: Conceptually, the above language is good. However, it
is very restrictive and unworkable unless revised. The section states
``may elect, at the same time it submits the annex. . .'' The annex is
due October 1, 2000, or only about 2 years away. EPA has cut funding
for the WRAP in fiscal year 1999 to only $150,000, while the WRAP has
said it will need $1.0 million for each of the next 2 year's work. The
EPA funding level is inadequate to perform the necessary work in this
short amount of time--essentially ensuring that the annex will not
include additional Class I areas. Accordingly, EPA must provide revised
language in the final rule that provides some flexibility on when the
technical data can be submitted.
V. The Annex to the Commission Report (Sec. 51.309(f)) Should
Discuss All Visibility Impairing Pollutants and All Sources of
Visibility Impairment, not Simply Stationary Sources of SO<INF>2</INF>
EPA's proposed Sec. 51.309(f) requires an Annex by October 1, 2000,
containing quantitative emission reductions for stationary sources of
SO<INF>2</INF> with programs to achieve emission reduction milestones.
WRC believes the Annex should include an analysis of all sources of all
visibility impairing pollutants.
Enclosed as Appendix A are diagrams from the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission showing pollutants and source
categories that adversely impact visibility. It is obvious from these
diagrams that western states and regulatory authorities must also focus
attention on reducing emissions of organic carbon, elemental carbon,
reactive organic gases, NOx and PM<INF>2.5</INF> in order to make
reasonable progress toward attaining the national visibility goal. It
is inappropriate to commit significant resources to the reduction of a
single contributor to visibility impairment while emissions from other
sources go uncontrolled or lack attention. The establishment of
milestones for SO<INF>2</INF> should be matched with the establishment
of milestones, other reasonable progress metrics, or other long-term
strategies for other contributors to visibility impairment such as
fires and mobile sources.
WRC asks EPA to add language to Sec. 51.309(f)(1) as follows:
(iii) The Annex should contain an analysis of all visibility
impairing pollutants, their sources, and long-term strategies, and a
process for further evaluation to include them in the SIP. This
documentation must include model rules, memoranda of understanding or
other documentation describing in detail how emissions reduction
progress will be monitored, what conditions will require the market
trading program to be activated, how allocations will be performed, and
how the program will operate.
VI. EPA Regulatory References to the GCVTC Report, and Baseline
Forecast Scenario (``BFS'') Must be Accurate
Sec. 51.309(f)(1)(i) of EPA's Draft rule entitled, ``Annex to the
Commission Report,'' currently provides as follows:
The annex must contain quantitative emission reduction milestones
for stationary source sulfur dioxide emissions for the 2003-2018 time
period. In setting these milestones, the Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Commission must consider its definition of reasonable
progress, the 50-70 percent reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions from
1990 actual emission levels by 2040, applicable requirements under the
Clean Air Act, and the timing of implementation plan assessments of
progress and identification of deficiencies which will be due in the
years 2008, 2013, and 2018.
WRC Comment: EPA's regulatory recognition of the GCVTC report is
commendable.
WRC wholeheartedly endorses EPA's recognition of the GCVTC process.
However, extreme care should be taken in putting GCVTC report language
into regulation. WRC comments in this area are for EPA to include
precise GCVTC language as necessary in quotations, but interpretations
of GCVTC words should be avoided. In fact, it would be appropriate for
the preamble to mention any attempts to interpret GCVTC language are
not binding upon the Commission. In lieu of the foregoing language, WRC
suggests the following language for Sec. 51.309(f)(1)(i):
The Annex should contain quantitative emission reduction milestones
for a 15-year review period, with assessments at 5-year intervals. In
setting these milestones, the Commission should consider its definition
of reasonable progress, its own recommendations, applicable
requirements under the CAA, and 5 year implementation plan assessments
of progress and identification of deficiencies and unnecessary
regulation.
WRC believes it is unnecessary and inaccurate to include in the
regulation a requirement for a ``50-70 percent reduction in sulfur
dioxide emissions'' without qualification. Nevertheless, if EPA refers
to a 50-70 percent reduction, EPA must at least include a reference to
footnote 5 from the Commission's Report (Appendix B). WRC believes it
would be better for EPA to replace the phrase ``the 50 to 70 percent
reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions from 1990 emission levels by
2040,'' with the phrase, ``the stationary source section of the
Commission's recommendations.''
WGA developed provisions based upon the Integrated Assessment
System (``IAS'') model to forecast activity in emissions throughout the
region. The IAS was developed as part of the GCVTC report. Like any
model, the IAS relied upon a number of assumptions to conclude that
reductions of 50 to 70 percent would be feasible by 2040. WRC supports
the WRAP process to reconcile the IAS model assumptions. Assumptions
which should be reviewed include such basic data as maximum plant
utilization rates, individual plant repowering dates and configurations
and cost for competing generation and emission control technologies.
WRC recommends that the model be corrected as part of the Annex effort
and, if required for visibility improvement, that quantitative emission
reduction milestones be established based upon an accurate model with
well documented and disclosed assumptions.
VII. EPA Should Acknowledge and Fulfill Its Obligations with Regard to
Transboundary and Mobile Source Emissions
Several important contributors to visibility impairment are not
within the power of states and tribes to regulate or control. One of
these is decisions by FLMs concerning fire. EPA should require
reasonable smoke prevention and abatement by FLMs and should not count
necessary prescribed fire against reasonable progress toward the
national visibility goal.
Other important contributors outside the control of states and
tribes include:
<bullet> emissions transported across international boundaries,
notably into the United States from Mexico, which are entirely outside
the jurisdiction of states and tribes;
<bullet> emissions from mobile sources, which are regulated
primarily by the Federal Government,2 although state and local
government can impose inspection and maintenance and traffic control
requirements.
Transboundary Emissions
In its June 25, 1998 letter, WGA requested the following from EPA
with regard to transboundary emissions:
Note in the preamble that the Commission recommendations related to
transboundary emissions noted that emissions from Mexico may be a
significant contributor to visibility impairment. The EPA should note
in the preamble the steps which have been taken to address the
Commission recommendations, and the future steps the EPA is planning to
deal with transboundary emissions.
WRC can find no attempt in either EPA's Notice of Availability or
EPA's draft regulatory language to address this request. We reiterate
the request here, and emphasize that there is broad agreement among
participants in the GCVTC process that emissions transported from
Mexico are a significant and growing part of visibility degradation in
at least some of the Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau.
Mobile Source Emissions
In its June 25, 1998 letter, WGA requested the following from EPA
with regard to mobile sources:
NOTE: The Commission's Report identified several national mobile
source-related emission reduction strategies under consideration by EPA
that are important to visibility conditions in the Class I areas on the
Colorado Plateau. The Commission agreed to promote these initiatives on
a national level. In accordance with this recommendation, EPA is
requested to make a binding commitment in its final regional haze rule
to fully consider the Commission's recommendations related to the
following national mobile source emissions control strategies:
Adoption of the 49-state LEV standard in 2001 and Tier II vehicle
emission standards in year 2004 (if determined to be more effective);
Support of EPA's current proposal for new on-road, heavy-duty
vehicles emission standards that reduce NOx and particulate emissions
by at least 50 percent over the 1998 requirements in the Clean Air Act,
while maintaining current stringent PM emission limits;
Pursue additional PM reductions from on-road vehicles;
Pursue additional engine emission standards for new off-road
vehicles (heavy-duty, construction-type) that provide reasonably
achievable reductions;
Explore broader application of and additional reductions in the
sulfur content of both gasoline and diesel fuel;
Promotion of cleaner burning fuels;
Pursue fuel standards and control strategies for diesel
locomotives, marine vessels/pleasure craft, airplanes, and Federal
vehicles as described in the Commission's Report; and
Support requirements for effective refueling vapor recovery systems
that capture evaporative emissions.''
In its Notice of Availability (63 Fed. Reg. 46953, column 1), EPA
addressed the WGA request as follows:
In drafting the regulatory language, we have attempted to
incorporate all of the WGA's recommendations for specific regulatory
requirements into regulatory text except for the recommendation to
include a binding commitment on EPA to fully consider certain national
mobile source measures. While we are not expressing a position on this
recommendation, we are unsure of how or whether the regulatory
structure of the regional haze proposal can incorporate this provision,
and we request comment on how and whether this should be done.
WRC believes EPA should make a binding commitment to fully consider
the GCVTC recommended national mobile source measures. Potential
visibility gains that result from the anticipated massive capital
investments required by the SO<INF>2</INF> milestones within the WGA
proposal could be easily compromised by the emissions from fires,
mobile sources or transboundary sources.
The rule pertaining to SIPs may not be the appropriate place to do
so, but in the preamble EPA should do the following: acknowledge that
mobile source emissions are a significant contributor to visibility
impairment in Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau, and possibly other
Class I areas as well (this includes mobile sources within and near the
Class I areas as well as emissions in urban areas more distant from the
Class I areas); explain relevant measures the Agency has already taken
(since 1990) to reduce mobile source emissions; explain relevant
measures the Agency plans to take in the next several years to reduce
mobile emissions; commit to consider visibility impacts in future
decisions about control of mobile sources.
VIII. The WGA Proposal Should be Clarified to State That the GCVTC
Recommendation Outlined Goals For Pollution Prevention. The
Proposal Should Clarify the Role of State Public Utility
Commissions (``PUCs'') in Establishing Pollution Prevention and
Renewable Resources Programs
On the subject of ``Pollution Prevention,'' Draft
Sec. 51.309(d)(8)(vi) currently provides:
A planning assessment describing the programs being relied on to
achieve the State's contribution toward the Commission's goal that
renewable energy will comprise 10 percent of the regional power needs
by 2005 and 20 percent by 2015, and a demonstration of the progress
toward or achievement of the renewable energy goals in the years 2003,
2008, 2013, and 2018, including documentation describing the potential
for renewable energy resources, the percentage of renewable energy
associated with new power generation projects implemented or planned,
and the renewable energy generation capacity and production in use and
planned in the State. To the extent that it is not feasible for a State
to meet its contribution to the regional renewable energy goals, the
State must, in the planning assessments, identify the measures
implemented to achieve its contribution and must explain why meeting
the State's contribution was not feasible.
WRC Comment: This section needs to be clarified that it is not the
intent of the rule to delegate this assessment/authority for these
assessments away from the Public Service Commission/Public Utility
Commissions and to the state Departments of Environmental Quality
(``DEQ''). Typically, the DEQ is in charge of protecting environmental
resources and is not equipped for major technical analyses and
assessments regarding electricity generation. In fact, any change may
require state legislation. The language also needs to include any
incremental change (increase) in power costs associated with
renewables, as well as an assessment of the impact on consumers and
loss of tax revenues to local and state governments. Finally, the 10 to
20 percent ``goal'' is for the region as a whole, and was not intended
to delegate any specific target to an individual state. The proposed
language implies that each state will have a quantified goal (i.e.,
``To the extent that it is not feasible for a State to meet its
contribution. . .'' etc). It is recognized that not all of the states
may be willing to participate in the WRAP, and as the number of states
declines, the opportunity for pooling the renewables diminishes, and
quickly becomes a mandate for the remaining state(s).
The targets for renewable generation are proposed in response to
regional haze, so appropriate technologies would be limited to solar,
wind and geothermal (renewable combustion technologies would present
particulate emissions). Intermittent technologies (wind and solar)
would displace intermediate and peaking gas-fired generation, not
baseload coal-fired generation. Because of its operating
characteristics, wind generation, which is intermittent, must be
limited to anywhere from 3 percent to 7 percent of the generation mix.
Consequently, electricity generated from wind would have little impact
on regional SO<INF>2</INF> emissions.
WRC believes that much more thought and consideration must be given
to the renewable goals before codifying them, as proposed in this
notice. Renewable goals presented in the name of visibility improvement
simply must meet the intended goal. Setting energy policy, disguised as
a visibility program, is unacceptable. This section should be modified
by removing the specific targets and inserting language calling for a
review of the renewable goals in the context of a visibility program.
IX. WRC Agrees With Congress That ``EPA's Public Statements That
the Schedule for the State Implementation Plan Due Pursuant to Section
169B(e)(2)'' of the Clean Air Act ``Should be Harmonized With the
Schedule for State Implementation Plan Submissions Required for
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Ambient Air Quality Standard Promulgated July, 1997.''
See Congressional Record H3928-H3929 (May 22, 1998).
A. Congress' Intent is for the PM<INF>2.5</INF> and Regional Haze
Timetables to be Consistent
TEA-21's purpose (relevant to this discussion) is:
To ensure that the schedule for implementation of the July 1997
revisions to the ambient air quality standards for particulate matter
and the schedule for the Environmental Protection Agency's visibility
regulations related to regional haze are consistent with the timetable
for implementation of such particulate matter standards as set forth in
the President's Implementation Memorandum dated July 16, 1997 (TEA-21
at Sec. 6101(b)(3)).
The full language of TEA-21 Title VI--Ozone and Particulate Matter
Standards, and the relevant legislative history, are attached as
Appendix C to these comments.
The clear intent of Congress is to make state visibility SIPs due
at or after the state PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIPs. The TEA-21 ``Inhofe
Amendment'' and CAA Sec. 172(b) provide that PM<INF>2.5</INF> SIPs in
nonattainment areas shall be due in 2007. Therefore, it follows that
Congress intends state visibility SIPs for states with PM<INF>2.5</INF>
nonattainment areas to be due at or after 2007.
Nevertheless, under EPA's proposed July 31, 1997 regional haze
rule, attainment area visibility SIPs are due in 2005. The 2005 date
must be changed to 2007 to be compatible with the PM<INF>2.5</INF>
implementation schedule and the TEA-21 language.
EPA has asked for comments on SIP deadlines for regional planning
areas. WRC agrees that Congress did not intend that regional planning
efforts be inhibited by requiring area-by-area visibility SIP
submittals for those states expected to have both PM<INF>2.5</INF>
attainment and non-attainment areas. WRC also agrees with EPA to
``allow states to first submit SIP revisions which commit to specific
integrated regional planning efforts but which do not set forth control
strategies.'' This would allow states to coordinate deadlines for both
attainment and nonattainment visibility SIPs within a planning region.
WRC believes this can be accomplished within EPA's final regional
haze rule as follows:
1. Reiterate the October 1, 2000 WGA Annex as a regional planning
goal.
2. Reiterate the December 31, 2003 submittal is a regional planning
goal with state only commitments.
3. Promulgate a regional planning commitment deadline of 2003,
consistent with the state deadline for designating PM<INF>2.5</INF>
areas as attainment or nonattainment, consistent with TEA-21.
A. Promulgate a deadline for state visibility SIPs as 2004-2008,
consistent with TEA-21, which becomes federally enforceable.
This schedule does not ``preclude the implementation of the
agreements and recommendations set forth in the Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Commission report dated June 1996.'' See Attachment C. In
fact, the early submittals committed to by WGA acknowledge the
commitment of western states and stakeholders to lead the country on
visibility protection issues.
B. The Final Regulations Must Provide More Flexibility to Allow the
WGA Process to Work Consistent With Congress' Intent Under TEA-21
That the current language of EPA's Draft rule is inconsistent with
TEA-21 is clear from a reading of the following subsections.
Draft Sec. 51.309(b)(2) defines the term ``Transport Region State''
to mean:
One of the States that is included within the Transport Region
addressed by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (Arizona,
California, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming).
To understand this definition's impact it must be read in
conjunction with Draft Sec. 51.309(c):
Plan Revision Schedule. Each Transport Region State must submit a
plan revision addressing regional haze visibility impairment in the 16
Class I areas no later than December 31, 2003. The plan revision must
comply, to the satisfaction of the Administrator, with the requirements
set forth in 51.309(d) and (e)'' (emphasis added).
WRC Comment: This language improperly ensures that, regardless of
TEA-21, visibility SIPs will be due for Transport Region states by
December 31, 2004-2008. Those states are defined above, regardless of
whether they participate in the WRAP or not. This simply will not work.
To remedy the situation, Draft Sec. 51.309(c) should be amended to read
as follows:
Plan Revision Schedule. Each participating Transport Region State
must submit a plan revision addressing regional haze visibility
impairment in the 16 Class I areas, and any additional Class I areas,
no later than December 31, 2003. The plan revision must be a regional
planning goal with state-only commitments.
X. General Comments
A. More Flexibility is Needed in EPA's Draft Rule
Draft Sec. 51.309(d) contains the following heading: ``Requirements
of the Initial Plan Revision for States Electing to Adopt all of the
Commission Recommendations.''
WRC Comment: Note the word ``all.'' The GCVTC contained a number of
hard and fast recommendations, as well as a number of recommendations
that require further thought and study; and ultimately may not be of
sufficient impact to warrant implementation or may not be completed in
time to be included in the annex or the initial SIP submittal. This
heading infers that all recommendations, no matter how relevant are to
be included in the initial SIP submittal. This heading should be
revised to state ``Requirements of the Initial Plan Revisions to Adopt
the Relevant Commission Recommendations.''
B. The Deciview Target and Mandatory Language Must be Eliminated
for the WGA/GCVTC Process to Work.
Draft Sec. 51.309(d)(2) currently contains the following language
on state plans:
``Projection of visibility improvement. The plan must include a
projection of the visibility conditions (expressed in deciviews)
expected through the year 2018 for the most-impaired and the least-
impaired days for the subset of the 16 mandatory Class I areas located
within the State, calculated based on the implementation of all
measures as required in the Commission report and the provisions in
51.209. The projections must be made in consultation with other
Transport Region States having sources or activities reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in these Class I
areas. The States must rely on projections resulting from a regional
modeling procedure deemed acceptable by all Transport Region States and
the Administrator.''
WRC Comment: There is a major problem with this language--EPA is
still demanding a deciview metric, which is in direct contradiction
with the recommendations of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission recommendations, as well as with the comments of the Western
Governors' Association and the Western Regional Council. Restricting
use of any visibility metric to deciview may be short-sighted because
there may be other metrics the WRAP or other Visibility Transport
Commissions may choose between now and 2018. The parenthetical phrase
``(expressed in deciviews)'' should be deleted from the language.
Projections of visibility impairment conditions should be expressed in
all appropriate units of measure (standard visual range, light
extinction, deciview).
C. The Final Regulatory Language Must be Consistent With the Intent of
the GCVTC Recommendations
Draft Sec. 51.309(d)(9) currently provides:
Implementation of Additional Recommendations. The plan must provide
for implementation of all other recommendations in the Commission
report that can be practicably included as enforceable emission limits,
schedules of compliance, or other enforceable measures (including
economic incentives) to make reasonable progress toward remedying
existing and preventing future regional haze in the 16 Class I areas.
The State must provide a report to EPA and the public in 2003, 2008,
2013, and 2018 on the progress toward developing and implementing
policy or strategy options recommended in the Commission Report.
WRC Comment: This requirement is simply too open-ended, and does
not take into account the Executive Summary of the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission recommendations. The Executive Summary
states that the document contains items which are ripe for
implementation while others need study. EPA's language improperly
pushes all policy items and recommendations.
D. The Definition of Milestone Must Be Corrected
Sec. 51.309(b)(5) of EPA's draft regulatory language states:
``Milestone'' means an annual percentage reduction in emissions for
a given year, compared to a 1990 baseline.
The definition for milestone must be corrected to read:
``Milestone'' means a percentage reduction in emissions for a given
time period, compared to a 1990 baseline for which the Commission will
perform an assessment.
E. States May Opt Out of the Program
The last sentence of Draft Sec. 51.309(d)(11) currently states:
``Conversely, States may elect to develop their own programs without
relying on work products from a regional entity.''
WRC Comment: This was the intent of the GCVTC and the WRAP.
However, it is moot due to other requirements contained in EPA's
proposed language due to the definition of Transport Region State and
the codified requirements proposed on those states. The final rule
should allow states to opt out.
F. Clean Air Corridors
The GCVTC conducted studies that showed that while Clean Air
Corridors exist, they are not of serious concern at this time. The
modeling study showed that even with a 25 percent increase in
emissions, visibility would not be materially impacted on the Colorado
Plateau. We need to make sure that the level of commitment of resources
to address Clean Air Corridors is commensurate with the anticipated
benefits. In addition, the plan for addressing Clean Air Corridors
states ``(iii) In areas outside of clean-air corridors, an
identification of significant emissions growth that could begin, or is
beginning, to impair the quality of air in the corridor and thereby
reduce the frequency of clean air days at one or more of the 16 Class I
areas.'' WRC believes this sentence should be eliminated. While this
language appears consistent with that submitted by WGA, it
significantly expands the boundaries of the Class I areas, essentially
making clean-air corridors de facto Class I areas.
BART Language
EPA should add language that deals with cost, non-air impacts, life
of facility, etc. (See 40CFR Sec. 51.301(c) and Clean Air Act
Sec. 169A(g)(2)). This type of language would serve as a useful
reminder that this program is about visibility, and not about
nonattainment areas.
H. Gubernatorial/State Review
EPA should also propose language that provides for final review by
individual western Governors and states prior to the implementation of
any backstop cap and trade program. WRC recognizes that the proposed
language in this public notice is largely based on a major stationary
source control strategy, which is primarily focused on SO<INF>2</INF>.
WRC continues to urge EPA and WGA to also focus on other sources of
visibility impairing emissions. Since there are many factors that
contribute to visibility impairment, WRC urges EPA to add the proposed
language as follows:
51.309(f)(1)(iii) The States shall clearly identify and discuss the
review by the Governors, and any legislative body prior to the
implementation of any backstop market trading program.
XI. EPA Should Significantly Revise and Re-propose the Rule for Further
Comment
Given the extensive comments EPA has received from states and the
regulated community and the significant revisions that are needed, WRC
believes EPA should significantly revise and repropose the ruled This
can be achieved in a timely manner, while giving the public an
opportunity to provide input on the necessary revisions to this
important rulemaking.
Incorporating the WGA proposal into the proposed regional haze rule
makes the need for re-proposal even more critical. While WRC
appreciates the opportunity to provide comment on the WGA proposal, and
on other information such as the TEA-21 legislative language, we
believe the public must have an opportunity to comment on the proposed
regional haze rule as a package, rather than on separate pieces of that
package. Furthermore, as stated in the EPA notice:
The WGA letter contains numerous suggestions for preamble
discussions to accompany the final regional haze rule. These preamble
suggestions include clarifications of the rationale for certain
conclusions, explanations to clarify WGA's regulatory language
suggestions, and discussions of a number of WGA's suggested policy
interpretations for implementation of the final rule.
EPA has not drafted the preamble language that was suggested by
WGA. WRC believes that such preamble language is a critical element to
the final rule. The rule should also be re-proposed to provide the
public an opportunity to comment on such language.
Please forward questions or requests for additional information to
Ruth McCormick: tel. 703-5491466; fax 703-549-1574.
1. In item (3) above, 2003 should be 2013. The typographical error
needs to be corrected.
2. E.g., American Automobile Manufacturers Association v. Cahill,
No. 97-7972 (U.S. Ct. of Apls., 2d. Cir., Aug. 11, 1998) (states
preempted from promulgating emission standards for new motor vehicles).
3. E.g., Shell Oil Co. v E.P.A., 950 F.2d 741 (D.C. Cir. 1991)
(additional comment period required where features of the final rule
contain significant changes from the proposed rule).
__________
New England Governors/Eastern Canadian Premiers Mercury Action Plan
1998
june 1998
Committee on the Environment of The Conference of New England Governors
and Eastern Canadian Premiers
Summary of Goals and Basis for Action
In June 1997, the Conference of the New England Governors and
Eastern Canadian Premiers (NEG/ECP) charged its Committee on the
Environment to: ``continue to advance the understanding of mercury in
this region;'' ``support cooperative action. . . to begin to address
mercury releases and resulting public health and environmental
impacts;'' and develop a regional Mercury Action Plan. A draft
framework for the Mercury Action Plan was subsequently developed by
representatives of the New England states and Eastern Canadian
provinces. This draft was refined following the NEG/ECP Workshop on
Acid Rain and Mercury in February 1998 in Portland, Maine.
The Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian
Premiers has concluded that aggressive and concerted actions are needed
to reduce potential health risks attributable to mercury exposures and
to expand scientific information on mercury sources, controls and
environmental impacts. This conclusion is based on extensive scientific
data that indicate that mercury is pervasive in freshwater fish in the
Northeast at levels that pose plausible health risks to people and some
species of fish eating wildlife. In addition to the potential health
effects caused by this contamination, there are important economic
consequences, including reducing the recreational and commercial value
of fisheries resources across the region.
This Mercury Action Plan identifies steps to address those aspects
of the mercury problem in the Northeast that are within the region's
control or influence. The Governors and Premiers support and endorse
the action plan's ultimate goal of virtual elimination of anthropogenic
mercury releases in the region. By adequately addressing those sources
within the region, we can move toward reducing mercury contamination to
levels that are safe for people and wildlife, and provide an example
for other regions. \1\ To achieve this goal, it is essential that
efforts to reduce mercury use, emissions, and discharges be initiated
now. The steps outlined in this Action Plan focus on achieving such
reductions over time, with a target of virtual elimination of
anthropogenic mercury releases in the region through a combination of
source reduction, safe waste management practices, and aggressive
emissions controls. Another important goal of the Plan is the
collection of additional scientific information on mercury emissions,
cycling and environmental impacts, to allow for documentation and
evaluation of the effectiveness of regional actions on mercury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For several reasons, it will take considerable time for current
successes in reducing mercury use and emissions to be translated into
significant improvements in mercury levels in fish. This is due to the
fact that mercury is very persistent once released and cycles through
land, air, and water. Thus, the ability of the environment to
``cleanse'' itself of past mercury contamination is a long-term
process. Additionally, there are sources of mercury, including natural
and out-of-region sources, that are beyond our immediate control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To monitor progress, interim goals or milestones have been
established pertaining to overall mercury emissions and source
reduction efforts, as well as for specific source categories. This Plan
builds upon important initiatives already underway to reduce emissions
of this pollutant. These include efforts to go beyond currently
mandated mercury emission limits for municipal waste combustors and
medical waste incinerators; to develop emission limits for other
sources: to expand programs to effectively separate, collect and
appropriately manage mercury-containing wastes; to pursue efforts for
source reductions in products; to educate the public about mercury; and
to expand and coordinate monitoring and research efforts.
The Action Plan calls for the establishment of a Mercury Task Force
which will serve as the technical coordinating committee responsible
for implementation of the Plan. The Task Force will report to the NEG/
ECP Committee on the Environment, which is responsible for overall
efforts to reduce mercury released into the environment and to minimize
the public health and environmental risk associated with mercury
exposure, in particular methylmercury (which is the most toxic form).
Basis for Action
The need for this Plan is supported by numerous studies that
document elevated levels of methylmercury in freshwater fish across the
Northeast United States and Canada. Mercury levels in freshwater fish
have been monitored in the northeast U.S. region since the 1 970's. The
results of these monitoring programs indicate that levels of mercury
significantly exceed acceptable values in fish species from certain
waterbodies in the region. This information has led public health
officials in the northeast U.S. to issue advisories recommending that
people limit their consumption of potentially contaminated fish.
Pregnant women, women of childbearing age, and children are at
particular risk because the developing nervous system of fetuses and
children are very sensitive to the toxic effects of mercury. Wildlife
in the region may also be adversely affected, as high levels of mercury
have been measured in fish eating birds, such as loons and eagles.
There are many sources of mercury in the environment. Although
natural sources of mercury exist, recent research suggests that
background concentrations of this metal in the atmosphere and sediments
have increased by a factor of two to five since pre-industrial times.
This suggests that anthropogenic sources have significantly increased
mercury levels in the environment.
Much of the mercury entering the waters of the region settles from
the air or is deposited in rain or other precipitation. The mercury in
the air originates from many sources both within and outside of the
region. In the ambient air, mercury levels are not dangerous; it is the
cumulative amount of mercury deposited to waterbodies and its
subsequent chemical transformation to methylmercury, that creates
problems. Fish absorb and retain methylmercury, causing it to
bioaccumulate until it is concentrated up to millions of times above
the level in the surrounding water, particularly in older, predatory
fish.
Ingestion of contaminated fish is the primary pathway of human
exposure to methylmercury. In addition, people can be exposed to other
dangerous forms of mercury at work, in school science laboratories and
in their homes. Such exposures can occur following the breakage and
improper cleanup of mercury containing products or as a result of
children finding spilling and playing with improperly stored or
maintained elemental mercury. In addition to the tragic health effects
that can be caused by such exposures, the costs of cleaning up the
resulting mercury contamination can be considerable. Reduced use of
mercury and better education of workers and the public about the
dangers of mercury and proper handling procedures for it would help
reduce the number of incidences as well as the health. environmental
and economic costs of these exposures.
As noted earlier, much of the mercury entering the region's
waterbodies comes from the air. Rates of mercury deposition are
estimated to be higher in the northeastern U.S. relative to most other
parts of the country. This situation is in part due to the existence of
significant sources of mercury within the region. There is also strong
evidence showing that7 similar to other pollutants, airborne mercury
emitted by upwind sources is transported by prevailing winds into the
region. Two other factors also thought to exacerbate the mercury
problem in the region include (1) the acidified condition of many
waters of the region, brought on by excess acid deposition, is
associated with higher levels of methylmercury in fish in impacted
lakes; and (2) elevated summertime levels of tropospheric ozone
exacerbate the conversion of elemental mercury in the atmosphere to
chemical forms that are more susceptible to deposition.
Analyses suggest that a wide array of sources of mercury emissions
contribute to overall deposition in the region. Municipal waste
combustors are currently the largest emission source sector in the
northeast states; utility and industrial boilers are the largest source
sector in the remainder of the United States, primarily from the
combustion of coal; and non-ferrous metal production (i.e., nickel,
aluminum) is the major source of airborne mercury emissions in Eastern
Canada.
Computer modeling conducted for the Northeast States and Eastern
Canadian Provinces Mercury Study (NESCAUM/NEWMOA/NEIWPCC/EMAN 1998) \2\
indicates that 30 percent or more of the mercury deposited in the
Northeast originates from sources outside of the region. Because of the
transboundary nature of mercury pollution, no single state or province
will be able to solve its mercury problem alone. Concerted and
coordinated regional efforts are needed. Ultimately, national and
international efforts will be required to address transboundary mercury
emissions, particularly from the utility sector. However7 because the
majority of the deposited mercury is from sources in the region, much
can be done locally to address this problem. It is hoped that the
aggressive commitments embodied in the regional action plan that
follows will provide leadership to encourage similar actions to reduce
mercury emissions nationally and internationally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM),
Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association (NEWMOA), New England
Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission (NEIWPCC), and Canadian
Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network (EMAN).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intergovernmental Coordination/Cooperation
Given the regional and international implications and concerns
about mercury emissions and deposition New England states and Eastern
Canadian provinces will expand collaboration with other jurisdictions
and institutions. including the Great Lakes states. Specifically. the
New England Secretariat of the Conference of New England Governors and
Eastern Canadian Premiers will invite the participation of the
Governors of New Jersey and New York and the Eastern Canadian
Secretariat of the Conference of New England Governors and Eastern
Canadian Premiers will monitor activities in other provinces. Because
mercury has an important transboundary component, the states and
provinces will also seek to work with national and international
environmental agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Environment Canada, and the Commission for Environmental
Cooperation. This agreement endorses an active partnership with Federal
counterparts from the United States and Canada to meet the challenges
presented in this document.
Given the concern over high levels of mercury deposited in the
region as a result of emissions from out-of-region sources, the states
and provinces will coordinate with the U.S. EPA and Environment Canada
in pursuing appropriate national controls for these sources. The New
England state and Eastern Canadian provincial environmental agencies
will seek to build alliances with their counterparts in other regions
to promote and advocate for effective national controls. Similarly, the
Secretariats of the Conference of New England Governors Conference and
Eastern Canadian Premiers will promote and advocate such controls
within the National Governors Association and the Association of
Canadian Premiers.
Regional Goal: The virtual elimination of the discharge of
anthropogenic mercury into the environment, which is required to ensure
that serious or irreversible damage attributable to these sources is
not inflicted upon human health and the environment.
Guiding Principles of the NEG/ECP Mercury Action Plan
The New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers recognize
the following principles as the guidelines for action on mercury in the
region:
In order to protect human health and the environment, the
precautionary principle shall be used. Where there are threats of
serious and irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty
shall not be a rationale for postponing measures to prevent
environmental degradation and to protect public health.
Efforts to eliminate mercury contamination in one environmental
media should not result in significant contamination of another media.
Coordination of the efforts of the New England states and Eastern
Canadian provinces is necessary for effective response strategies to
address mercury issues.
Environmental goals and objectives. in keeping with sustainable
development, shall be formulated and implemented in ways that achieve
high levels of ecological and human health benefit.
While mercury is a regional problem that requires regional
solutions out-of-region sources are also a major contributor to this
environmental threat; the New England states and Eastern Canadian
provinces stress the need for appropriate controls on sources outside
the region. However, the need to coordinate efforts and work with other
regions should not be viewed as a reason to delay action within the
region.
In keeping with these guidelines, the following objectives and
recommendations shall be pursued.
Action Item 1: Regional Mercury Task Force
Objective: The Secretariats of the Conference of New England
Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers will establish a regional
Mercury Task Force by September 1 998.
Under the direction of the NEG/ECP Committee on the Environment,
the Mercury Task Force shall:
1. Coordinate and prioritize the implementation of the actions in
the Mercury Action Plan, based on the availability of funding and other
resources.
2. Monitor and report on the progress toward achieving the Plan's
objectives.
3. Propose any necessary revisions, redefinitions, and adjustments
to the objectives and recommendations of the Plan.
4. Examine proposed or enacted state and provincial mercury
reduction legislation within and outside the region, develop model
legislation on mercury, and coordinate the development of pertinent
pollution prevention and control regulations and requirements in the
states and provinces.
5. Monitor the development of Federal emissions and waste
regulations and/or guidelines, and provide comments and recommendations
on proposed standards and regulations.
6. Coordinate, as appropriate, the regional actions of the Mercury
Action Plan with other programs and efforts outside the region, and
with Federal initiatives.
7. Reassess the reporting protocols for the U.S. Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) and the Canadian National Pollution Release Inventory
(NPRI) for mercury by the beginning of 1999, and make recommendations
for any necessary revisions.
Action Item 2: Mercury Emissions Reductions
Overall Regional Objective: BY the year 2003. reduce mercury
emissions through the implementation of the actions herein which, if
completed, are expected to achieve a reduction of at least 50 percent,
through reductions as well as source reductions and safe waste
management.
Source Specific Emission Reduction Goals \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ It is important to note that source reduction/recycling efforts
are preferable to emission controls The potential tor mercury pollution
can be more effectively reduced this way. Because source reduction
efforts take time to establish and are not applicable in all cases,
improved emission controls will be needed to achieve substantial
immediate reductions in mercury releases. It should also be recognized
that complete inbrrnation is not available on all sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Municipal Solid Waste Combustors:
Objective: By 2003, reduce the overall amount of mercury emitted
from MSW combustion sources in the region through a combination of
source reduction, waste segregation and emissions controls.
Recommendations
1. Regionally, adopt a 0.028 mg/dscm (milligrams per dry standard
cubic meter) mercury emission limit for facilities that have the
capacity to burn 250 tons/day or more of municipal solid waste. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Most Eastern Canadian and some U.S. facilities in this category
already meet or surpass this standard, therefore most of the reductions
from this goal will be obtained from U.S. facilities that are not
currently controlled to this level. Also, it should be noted that the
0.028 mg/dscm standard is based on EPA protocols; adjustments may need
to be made to apply this figure to Eastern Canadian sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Mercury emission limits for existing and new facilities under
250 tons/day will be evaluated regarding the feasibility of adopting
the 0.028 mg/dscm on a case-by-case basis.
3. Perform at least annual emissions monitoring and stack testing.
b. Medical Waste Incinerators:
Objective: By 2003, reduce--to the maximum extent feasible--the
overall amount of mercury emitted from medical waste incinerators in
the region through a combination of source reduction, waste segregation
and emissions controls.
Recommendations
4. Regionally adopt a 0.055 mg/dscm emission limit for medical
waste incinerators. The region will evaluate the feasibility of
adopting the 0.028 mg/dscm emission limit or lower for these facilities
within 3 years.
5. Perform at least annual emissions monitoring and stack testing.
6. Require, through facility permits or other suitable means, that
all medical waste treatment facility customers have in place effective
mercury source reduction and separation programs. This requirement
shall be implemented on a consistent basis throughout the region. These
source separation plans shall also be stipulated by contract between
the facility and its customers.
c. Sludge Incinerators:
Objective: By 2003, reduce--to the maximum extent feasible--the
overall amount of mercury emitted from municipal sludge incinerators in
the region through a combination of source reduction, waste segregation
and emissions controls.
Recommendations
7. Evaluate the feasibility of adopting a 0.1 mg/dsem emission
limit or lower for municipal sludge incinerators.
8. Adopt source reduction, recycling measures, and pretreatment, to
reduce mercury loading to municipal waste water.
9. Perform at least annual emissions monitoring and stack testing.
d. Utility and NonUtility Boilers:
Objective: Utility and nonutility boilers--particularly coal-fired
units \5\--are a significant overall source of mercury emissions and
deposition. Because of the transboundary nature of mercury pollution
from these sources, out-of-region boilers have been identified as a
significant contributor to the northeast's mercury problem. In light of
this, the primary objectives of this plan are the timely adoption of
national reduction programs for this source category and the reduction
of our own region's emissions. This goal will be achieved by promoting
the application of best available measures within the northeast and
adopting technologically and economically feasible control strategies
or practices to reduce emissions from these sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Mercury emissions from coal-fired boilers are estimated to
account for 33 percent and less than 20 percent of the total in the
United States and Canada respectively. In the northeast states total
annual mercury emissions are estimated to be 15,903 kg, and the
contribution from utility boilers amounts to 2,008 kg. In the Eastern
Canadian provinces total annual mercury emissions are estimated at
2,356 kg, with emissions from utility boilers estimated to be 292 kg
(based on the Northeast States and Eastern Canadian Provinces Mercury
Study).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendations
10. The NEG/ECP Committee on the Environment should promote the
establishment and implementation of national and international
strategies to reduce mercury emissions from utility and nonutility
boilers.
11. The Mercury Task Force shall identify mercury emission control
options and regional emission reduction targets for these sources
within 1 year, using the best available information. This evaluation
should include an assessment of any national actions in this area and,
as necessary, pilot studies of the effectiveness and feasibility of
identified emission control technologies.
12. Based on these evaluations, the respective jurisdictions will
develop and implement regional strategies to promote maximum
economically and technically feasible reductions in mercury emissions
from utilities and other boilers in the northeast. The implementation
of these efforts should commence within 5 years (by the year 2003).
e. Industrial Sources:
Objective: Maximum achievable emission reductions for individual
facilities should be achieved in the shortest feasible timeframe.
Specific industrial sector emission limits and control requirements
will be recommended by the Mercury Task Force.
Recommendations
13. Encourage the expeditious adoption of maximum achievable
standards for major industrial sources, such as chlor-alkali plants and
non-ferrous metals production.
f: Area Sources:
Objective: Maximum achievable reductions in mercury emissions will
be achieved for each subcategory--general lab use, dental preparation
and use, paint use, crematories, and landfills--as noted in the
Northeast States and Eastern Canadian Provinces Mercury Study within
the shortest possible timeframe.
Recommendations
14. Develop targets and timelines with an emphasis on source
reduction, segregation and safe waste management efforts, including
recycling.
Action Item 3: Source Reduction and Safe Waste Management, including
Recycling
Overall Regional Objective: Eliminate or reduce nonessential uses
of mercury in household, institutional and industrial products and
processes. Segregate and recycle mercury attributable to the remaining
uses and or products to the maximum degree possible.
Objective No. 1: By 2003, reduce the overall amount of mercury-
containing wastes from household, commercial and industrial sources,
through source reduction, segregation and safe waste management,
including recycling.
Recommendations
15. Reduce/eliminate the use of mercury in medical and consumer
products to the extent feasible.
16. Identify and implement source reduction programs and develop
model legislation.
17. Reduce the use of mercury and the generation of mercury-
containing wastes by expanding state and provincial pollution
prevention technical assistance to institutions such as dental clinics,
hospitals, schools and laboratories.
18. Draft model legislation implementing coordinated labeling and
manufacture take-back programs to help consumers identify products
containing mercury and how to properly dispose of them, and work with
the New England congressional delegation and members the Canadian
Parliament from Eastern Canada to enact labeling legislation.
19. Eliminate the use of mercury in school science programs through
the initiation of programs and/or legislation, and encourage the
recycling and safe management of existing stocks.
2U. Adopt measures to curtail the sale of elemental mercury and
educate affected populations as to the risks involved with cultural
uses.
Objective No. 2: In those instances where source reduction is not
currently feasible, promote the safe management and recycling of
mercury-containing wastes.
Recommendations
21. Evaluate the effectiveness of existing mercury collection and
recycling efforts and develop strategies to increase the effectiveness
of existing state and local efforts.
22. Develop additional recycling and reclamation programs for
mercury-containing products by establishing innovative public/private
partnerships with combustion facilities, businesses, institutions and
municipalities.
23. Institute collection programs for elemental mercury used by
dentists? water suppliers and other identified users, and establish
safe handling practices for the collected mercury.
24. Develop strategies to minimize crossmedia impacts of mercury
management policies by coordinating efforts and facilitating
discussions among air. water, and waste programs.
25. Support regional collaboration to resolve regulatory issues and
barriers associated with safe waste management and recycling of mercury
containing wastes and to enhance state and provincial implementation of
improved regulatory programs.
Action Item 4: Outreach and Education
Objective No. 1: Educate the public about the adverse health and
environmental effects of mercury and ways to reduce the risk of
exposure. Develop effective outreach programs for at-risk populations.
Recommendations
26. Develop and implement a communications strategy to contact and
educate sensitive populations about the health effects of consuming
mercury contaminated fish and ways to reduce their risk.
27. Develop and implement a communication strategy to address
health effects of exposure to elemental mercury from incidental/
accidental exposure and through ritualistic uses of mercury.
28. Develop consistent and/or compatible health advisories for
States and Provinces with shared waterbodies and publicize them.
Objective No. 2: Educate the public and industry about products
that contain mercury and recommend appropriate substitutes and other
methods of reducing their use of mercury and proper recycling and waste
management techniques.
Recommendations
29. Develop brochures on products containing mercury. and
alternatives.
30. Develop a regional educational programs for commercial and
institutional sectors that generate substantial mercury waste, and
promote the use of low or no mercury products and processes and, if
necessary, proper recycling and waste management.
31. Develop a regional guide to the state and provincial agency
mercury contacts.
Action Item 5: Research, Analysis and Strategic Monitoring
Objective No. 1: Support and expand research and analysis to
improve our understanding of mercury sources, impacts and cycling in
the environment.
Recommendations
32. Establish a binational mercury research workgroup which will
identify regional research priorities, interface with Canadian and U.S.
national research efforts, and initiate/implement region-specific
research.
33. Develop or refine mercury inventories in all states and
provinces. Coordinate with Federal authorities to improve emissions
estimates for source categories with uncertain projections and collect
more accurate and representative data to enable the development of
inventories for sources that are not currently included in the mercury
inventory, including refineries and mobile sources.
34. Coordinate and facilitate information exchange, in order to
achieve the same level of quality among inventories and ensure
uniformity with the RELMAP inputs.
35. Develop a systematic approach for quantifying the expected
reductions from existing and planned emissions control strategies and
updating the emission estimates for the affected sources.
36. Promote the collection of more emissions test data for sources
such as utility and nonutility boilers, mobile sources, and oil
refineries.
37. Coordinate with Federal authorities to develop an updated
inventory of the sources of mercury in municipal solid waste.
38. Promote the development of a viable mercury dispersion model
for use by researchers and regulators.
39. Encourage research on green chemistries for safe alternatives.
Objective No. 2: Support and expand strategic monitoring of mercury
emissions, deposition and fish tissue levels and develop meaningful
environmental indicators to measure and track progress.
Recommendations
40. Develop a comprehensive set of regional indicators to evaluate
the effectiveness of reduction strategies and measure environmental
results.
41. Develop a regional long-term atmospheric transport monitoring
network that would measure mercury, acid rain, and fine particulate
matter at each site.
Integrate the existing and forthcoming New England and Eastern
Canadian regional mercury deposition networks and maintain these
networks for at least 5 years. Adjust network components as necessary.
43. Develop standard protocols for fish and wildlife tissue
sampling and analysis to ensure consistent and comparable data. Conduct
additional fish tissue monitoring as necessary, and develop a
comprehensive data base for the Eastern Canadian provinces and
NewEngland states.
Action Item 6: Mercury Stockpile Management
Objective: Minimize mercury stockpile entry into commercial
marketplace to reduce future emissions.
Recommendations
44. Under the auspices of the NEG/ECP, advocate for the safe
management of U.S. Department of Defense mercury stockpiles.
45. Seek to identify any other mercury stockpiles, both public and
private, and ensure their safe management.
-