U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

85–534 PDF 2014

S. HRG. 110–1249 

HEARING ON MERCURY LEGISLATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND 

PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 13, 2008 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress.senate 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ANDREW WHEELER, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

TUESDAY MAY 13, 2008 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 1 

Voinovich, Hon. George, U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio ............................. 3 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank, U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ............... 6 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 7 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 8 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin, U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 33 

Obama, Hon. Barack, U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 223 

WITNESSES 

Meyers, Robert J., Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Air 

and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Accompanied By: 

James Gulliford, Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides 

and Toxic Substances ........................................................................................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Jackson, Lisa P., Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection .............................................................................................................. 38 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 58 

Senator Boxer ................................................................................................... 60 

Senator Inhofe .................................................................................................. 62 

Durham, Michael D., President and CEO, ADA Environmental Solutions ........ 65 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 67 

Benson, Steven A., Senior Manager, Energy and Environmental Research 

Center, University of North Dakota ................................................................... 82 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 84 

Levin, Leonard, Ph.D., Technical Executive, Electric Power Research Institute ........................................................................................................................ 93

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 95 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 105 

Patton, Vickie, Deputy General Counsel, Environmental Defense Fund ........... 113 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 116 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 123 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 127 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 128 

Greer, Linda E., Ph.D., Director, Public Health Program, Natural Resources 

Defense Council .................................................................................................... 137 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 140 

Dungan, Arthur E., President, The Chlorine Institute, Inc ................................. 163 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 165 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 214 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 217 

(1) 

HEARING ON MERCURY LEGISLATION 

TUESDAY MAY 13, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC. 

The full committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper presiding. 

Present: Senators Carper, Lautenberg, Cardin, Klobuchar, 

Whitehouse, Voinovich, Barrasso, Craig 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. The hearing will come to order. Good morning, 

everyone. We will be joined later this morning by a number of our 

colleagues. 

Our Chair, Senator Boxer, will not be able to attend. She has 

asked me to express her appreciation to those of you who have 

come to join us to testify and respond to our questions. She has 

also left with me a statement that we would ask for unanimous 

consent to be included in the record. Without objection, it will be. 

Senator CARPER. Today’s hearing is focused, as you know, on 

mercury legislation, bipartisan legislation S. 2643, the Mercury 

Emission Control Act, and Senator Obama’s legislation, S. 906, the 

Mercury Market Minimization Act of 2007. The Senators will have 

roughly 5 minutes for our opening statements, then I will recognize 

the EPA Assistant Administrator who is at the table, Bob Meyers. 

Following his statement, he is going to be joined by one other person from EPA for our questions. We will probably have two rounds 

of questions. 

I will then ask for our second panel of witnesses to come forward. 

Their testimony will be followed by one round of questions. Finally, 

our third panel will be invited to the witness panel with questions 

to follow their statements. 

We expect to have a series of votes at 11 o’clock. I think we will 

have four votes, and we will probably be here with testimony and 

questions until about 11:15, and then we will recess until we finish 

our last vote and come right back. 

I expect the hearing will be over before 12:30, and that is certainly our goal. 

Mercury pollution can be a serious health threat when it is released into the air by power plants and settles into the oceans and 

into our waterways where it accumulates in fish and animal tissue. 

Children and women of child-bearing age are most at risk. 

2 

Studies show that 1 in 17 women of child-bearing age have mercury in their blood at levels that could pose a risk to their unborn 

children. In 2005, EPA went against the mandates of the Clear Act 

and finalized the flawed Clean Air Mercury Rule. This regulation 

ignored Federal law. It did not go far enough to protect the health 

of America’s vulnerable populations. 

On February 8th, 2008, a Federal court rejected the Bush administration’s Clean Air Mercury Rule. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that EPA failed to fulfill 

its obligations under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act because the 

rule established a weak cap and trade program which would allow 

many power plans to avoid installing any mercury controls at all. 

In its decision, the court said EPA’s mercury rule was based on 

‘‘the logic of the Queen of Hearts, substituting the EPA’s desires for 

the plain text of the law.’’ Americans have waited too long for mercury pollution to be addressed. The EPA must now act quickly to 

implement pollution requirements that are absolutely necessary to 

protect American lives. We know that cost-efficient, practical technology is available today to regulate mercury emissions from power 

plants. I have requested an update to the May 2005 GAO report 

that reviewed emerging mercury control technologies to document 

this. 

On February 15th of this year, I introduced bipartisan legislation 

to help protect Americans from the harmful effect of mercury pollution. The Mercury Emissions Control Act would require the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency to issue new, stronger rules to 

control mercury emissions from power plants as required by the 

Clean Air Act. Our legislation, which has 11 bipartisan co-sponsors, 

would require EPA to propose a regulation of hazardous air pollutants from power plants as originally prescribed by the Clean Air 

Act. The legislation would also require reduction of mercury pollution by at least 90 percent, I believe by 2015 or 2016. 

Our Mercury Emissions Control Act would also require that mercury controls be installed at every coal-fired plant in America that 

needs them. 

Although the focus of today’s hearing is mercury, as we move 

closer to a floor debate on global warming, we must consider many 

pollutants that threaten our health and our environment. When 

dealing with air pollution from power plants, it makes sense to address all the pollutants at the same time, whether it is ozone-forming nitrogen oxide, asthma-causing sulfur dioxide, toxic mercury 

emissions or global warming causing CO2, they all come out of the 

same smoke stack. By addressing all four pollutants as a system, 

power plants will have the flexibility and regulatory certainty needed to plan for the most cost-effective control strategy. 

Our witnesses today will testify about the State of mercury control technology, about health effects and the need for strong regulation, as well as progress that States are making. Ms. Lisa Jackson 

from New Jersey has joined us today. In addition, I received a compelling letter from Douglas Scott, who is the director of the Illinois 

EPA, supporting our mercury bill and discussing efforts that his 

State, Illinois, is making to reduce mercury pollution. Without objection, I will ask that that letter be entered into the record. 

[The referenced material was not received at time of print.] 

3 

Senator CARPER. We are grateful to all of our witnesses that are 

here today and we look forward to your testimony. 

With that having been said, let me turn to Senator Voinovich for 

his opening statement. Then we will come to Senator Lautenberg 

and Senator Barrasso. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE VOINOVICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to mention that Senator Inhofe would be here today, 

but he is traveling back to Oklahoma with Secretary Chertoff to review the tornado damage in northeast Oklahoma. 

I want to thank the witnesses for taking time out of their busy 

schedule to testify today. I have long supported decreasing mercury 

missions and sponsored the Clear Skies Act, which would have cut 

emissions by 70 percent, and was supportive of the Administration 

rulemaking effort which set up the Clean Air Mercury Rule. I think 

we are the first country in the world to set up recommendations 

in terms of mercury. 

Both Clear Skies and CAMR sought to usher in phased reductions in mercury emissions in a manner that was consistent with 

the development of control technologies. The first phase of reductions leveraged what is referred to as co-benefit reductions from 

what may be achieved through the implementation and application 

of control technologies to reduce sulfur and NOx. The second phase 

ushered in control requirements that would require mercury-specific controls, activated carbon injection, for example. 

Now the D.C. Circuit has vacated CAMR. We are again faced 

with the question of what is the appropriate level of control for 

mercury emissions. When we debated mercury controls previously, 

reasonable people disagreed as to what technology could deliver. 

There was significant concern that while certain technologies would 

work well for certain coal types, other coal types, particularly 

lower-ranked coals, were more difficult to control. The Administration finalized a trading program in part because it allowed sources 

flexibility in meeting aggressive compliance obligation should technologies fail to deliver as promised. 

The bill we now consider, the Emissions Control Act, amends the 

Clean Air Act and requires a 90 percent reduction in emissions of 

mercury from new and existing power plants. As I understand the 

legislation, this is a source-specific control requirement. There is no 

flexibility in meeting the 90 percent reduction requirement. 

Now I understand that good progress has been made in advancing mercury control technologies, and I would be interested in 

hearing more about it today. However, it doesn’t sound as if all the 

technology challenges have been resolved. As with the previous debate, the experts before us disagree about what technology can deliver. It is less than clear that a 90 percent requirement can be met 

on a consistent, reliable basis for all plants, particularly older facilities. Indeed, given the wide range of coal types and plant configurations, it seems that Congress, acting too broad to apply aggressive mercury control requirements is something that is inadvisable from a national policy perspective. 

4 

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act lays out a process for the EPA 

to establish technology-based standards for new and existing 

sources of hazardous air pollutants. This process allows for a detailed review of available control technology and provides that control requirements be applied based on what is achieved in practice. 

Importantly, the Clean Air Act provides that separate standards 

may be established for sub-categories of sources. For example, the 

different coal types prove more difficult to control and provides for 

the adoption of less stringent requirements for existing sources. 

The bill we now consider does not provide even this modest flexibility. Moreover, the bill preempts expert agency judgment concerning what technology can deliver. In the absence of legislation 

that provides for more flexible compliance requirements I believe 

we should allow the agency experts to follow the existing Clean Air 

Act, which provides for a thorough technical review of mercury control technologies before a determination is made concerning the appropriate level of control. I do not believe that we should arbitrarily 

impose our determination of what is achievable, no matter how 

well intended. 

And two final points. First, as in the debate in 2004, little regard 

has been paid to the impact a 90 percent MACT would have on our 

Nation because coal plants unable to attain it would be shut down. 

This would result in fuel switching away from coal to natural gas. 

Increased reliance on natural gas for electricity generation will further increase prices, seriously impacting the ability of businesses to 

compete in the global marketplace and a family to pay their utility 

bills. I can say that regardless of what we do, we are going to see 

increased costs of natural gas in this Country. 

But the increased costs may be worth it if a 90 percent mercury 

reduction was expected to provide significant public health benefits 

beyond those derived from the EPA’s now-vacated rule. EPA estimated the cost of its cap and trade rule at about $2 billion. In 

2005, the Energy Information Administration projected the costs 

for 90 percent MACT standard as high as $358 billion with an average increase in national electricity prices of 20 percent. The additional reduction in U.S. mercury disposition was projected to be 

just 2 percent, an almost immeasurable decline in people’s exposure to mercury. 

Because these numbers are not dated, however, I would ask Senator Carper if we might have EPA run an economic analysis of this 

legislation before we move to a Committee vote. As with all legislation we consider, I believe we need to have a sense of the costs it 

will impose on society before we proceed. 

I have run out of time and I will ask that the rest of my statement be put into the record. But I have to say, Senator Carper, 

that we passed out one of the most significant pieces of legislation 

several months ago dealing with climate change. I insisted at that 

time that we ought to have an EPA evaluation and an Energy Information evaluation. We didn’t have it. Didn’t have it. Went ahead 

and passed it out. And now the information is coming in, and it is 

pretty devastating in terms of its impact on the Country. 

It seems to me we would have been far better off if we had had 

that information before we shoved the legislation out of committee, 

so that maybe we might have made some adjustments in it to reVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:20 Sep 29, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85534.TXT VERN
5 

spond to those numbers. So I think when you are dealing with this 

kind of legislation, let’s figure out what impact it is going to have. 

Is 70 as good as 90? If it is not, then let’s see what health benefits 

would go from 70 to 90. Again, harmonizing our environment, energy and our economy. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE VOINOVICH, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Thank you Madame Chair for calling this hearing today on the Mercury Emissions Control Act. And thank you to the witnesses who have taken time from their 

schedule to testify today. I have long supported decreasing mercury emissions—I 

sponsored the Clear Skies Act, which would have cut emissions by 70 percent, and 

was supportive of the Administration’s rulemaking effort which set up the Clean Air 

Mercury Rule (CAMR). 

Both Clear Skies and CAMR sought to usher in phased reductions in mercury 

emissions in a manner that was consistent with the development of control technologies. The first phase of reductions leveraged what is referred to as ‘‘cobenefit’’ 

reductions from what may be achieve through the application of control technologies 

to reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. The second phase ushered in control 

requirements that would require mercury specific controls—activated carbon injection, for example. 

Now that the DC Circuit has vacated CAMR, we are again faced with the question of what is the appropriate level of control for mercury emissions. When we debated mercury controls previously, reasonable people disagreed as to what technology could deliver. There was significant concern that while certain technologies 

would work well for certain coal types, other coal types—particularly lower ranked 

coals—were more difficult to control. The administration finalized a trading program, in part, because it allowed sources flexibility in meeting aggressive compliance obligations should technologies fail to deliver as promised. 

The bill we now consider—the Mercury Emissions Control Act—amends the Clean 

Air Act, and requires a 90 per cent reduction in emissions of mercury from new and 

existing power plants. As I understand the legislation, this is a source specific control requirement and there is no flexibility in meeting the 90 percent reduction requirement. 

Now I understand that good progress has been made in advancing mercury control technologies—particularly on lower ranked coals. However, it doesn’t sound as 

if all the technical challenges have been resolved. As with the previous debate, the 

experts before us disagree about what technology can deliver. And it’s less than 

clear that a 90 percent control requirements can be met on a consistent and reliable 

basis by all plants—particularly older facilities. Indeed, given the wide range of coal 

types and plant configurations it seems that Congress, acting to broadly apply aggressive mercury control technology requirements, is something that is inadvisable, 

from a national policy perspective. 

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act lays out a process for the EPA to establish technology based standards for new and existing sources of hazardous air pollutants. 

This process allows for a detailed review of available control technologies and provides that control requirements be applied based on what is achieved in practice. 

Importantly, the Clean Air Act provides that separate standards may be established 

for subcategories of sources (for example, if different coal types prove more difficult 

to control) and provides for the adoption of less stringent requirements for existing 

sources. 

The bill we now consider does not provide even this modest flexibility. Moreover, 

the bill preempts expert agency judgment concerning what technology can deliver. 

In the absence of legislation that provides for more flexible compliance requirements, I believe we should allow agency experts to follow the existing Clean Air 

Act—which provides for a thorough technical review of mercury control technologies 

before a determination is made concerning the appropriate level of control. I do not 

believe that we should arbitrarily impose our own determination as to what is 

achievable, no matter how well intended. 

Two final points: First, as in the debate in 2004, little regard has been paid to 

the impact a 90 percent MACT would have on our nation because coal plants unable 

to attain it would be shutdown. This would result in fuel switching away from coal 

to natural gas. Increased reliance on natural gas for electricity generation will furVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:20 Sep 29, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85534.TXT VERN
6 

ther increase prices, seriously impacting the ability of businesses to compete in the 

global marketplace and of families to pay their utility bills. 

But the increased costs may be worth it if a 90 percent mercury reduction was 

expected to provide significant public health benefits beyond those to be derived 

from the EPA’s now vacated rule. 

EPA estimated the cost of its cap-and-trade rule at about $2 billion. In 2005, the 

Energy Information Administration projected the costs for a 90-percent MACT 

standard as high as $358 billion, with an average increase in national electricity 

prices of 20 percent. The additional reduction in U.S. mercury deposition was projected to be just 2 percent—an almost immeasurable decline in people’s exposure to 

mercury. 

Because these numbers are now dated, however, I would ask Senator Carper if 

we might have EPA run an economic impact analysis of this legislation before we 

move to a committee vote. As with all legislation we consider, I believe we need to 

have a sense of the cost it will impose on society before we proceed. 

Second, I remind members of this committee that we are set to take up S. 2191 

on the Senate floor next month. This bill, if implemented, would dramatically alter 

the nation’s electricity portfolio. Indeed, the Clean Air Task Force preformed an 

analysis that indicated S. 2191 would cut the nation’s mercury emissions by as 

much as 82 percent—largely because coal would be virtually eliminated from the 

generation mix. While I oppose S. 2191, I don’t believe these two bills should be 

viewed in a vacuum. Should S. 2191 be implemented, it’s unclear why this legislation is necessary. 

With regard to S. 906, the Mercury Market Minimization Act of 2007, I am particularly concerned as the Senate bill does not propose a specific means to address 

the long term storage and responsibility for the expended mercury inventory from 

the private sector. Instead it proposes the creation of an entity that will study the 

issue before proposing a solution. The bill reported out of the House, H.R. 1534, by 

contrast, requires the Department of Energy to accept the mercury inventory, be 

paid for doing so, and then indemnifies the contributing company against future 

claims. 

I also have concerns regarding the bill’s definition of ‘‘elemental mercury.’’ If mercury is found in a material, such as coal, is coal then banned from export? I believe 

a provision should be added that excludes materials that naturally contain trace 

amounts of elemental mercury. Finally, I believe we should require a report after 

several years that the ban on the export of mercury has resulted in no harm to our 

industries and our economy and had no unintended consequences. 

None of these deficiencies are in the House version of this legislation, which I believe S. 906 should be amended to conform to. 

Senator CARPER. I would be happy to discuss it further with my 

friend. I would just ask us to remember that it was, I think about 

3 years ago, that EPA, after a lot of pushing and encouraging, actually modeled several multi-pollutant bills, including the one that a 

number of us introduced many years ago that included sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and CO2. But I would be pleased to 

discuss it with you. Thanks. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK LAUTENBERG, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend you for your introduction of a bill to reduce the presence of 

mercury in our communities and throughout our Country. 

While I have great respect for our colleague from Ohio, I kind of 

looked at these problems from the back end forward and questioned what it is that we want to do. It may alter the costs from 

the costs of a life, of a child’s inability to function properly because 

of a neurological disturbance, it may affect the health and wellbeing of a new child. So I say, well, how do you measure that 

human cost with a dollar cost? 

And I think there is a distinct difference in the view. Mercury, 

we know, is a proven threat to our health, even in low doses. MerVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:20 Sep 29, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85534.TXT VERN
7 

cury can permanently affect a child’s development. And in adults, 

chronic exposure to mercury can cause vision loss, contribute to 

heart disease, among other ailments. With such clear and severe 

health risks that no scientist or doctor disputes, we should have 

strong laws, strong as we can take, to protect our residents. But 

as it has so many times, the Bush administration fails to protect 

the health of the public or our environment. 

In 2005, the EPA overturned the requirement for all of America’s 

power plants to upgrade their technology to the best emission control available. The EPA also created a cap and trade system to reduce mercury emissions at power plants. Cap and trade works in 

the fight against global warming. But it does not work in the fight 

against mercury emissions. 

If you live in a community near a coal-fired plant that buys its 

way out of mercury regulations, you pay the cost with increased 

mercury in the food you eat and the water you drink. It is not just 

communities in the immediate area around the power plants that 

are affected. Studies show that emissions from coal-fired power 

plants in the Midwest affect residents in the Northeast, including 

my State of New Jersey and the Chairman’s State of Delaware. 

New Jersey is one of the Nation’s leaders when it comes to environmental law. But New Jersey’s laws are being undermined by 

the Bush administration’s weak environmental policies that affect 

the Country as a whole. Thankfully, the courts decided common 

sense was in order and overturned the Administration’s policy. To 

me, this is one more chapter in an ongoing story that we have seen 

from this EPA. It forgets its mission and neglects public health. 

From greenhouse gas emission to toxics to mercury, the courts 

have stepped in and set things right where the Administration 

went wrong. 

After the court decision, Senator Carper introduced a bill to require major mercury reductions at our Nation’s power plants. I am 

a co-sponsor, I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this legislation, 

which would protect the health of residents who are affected by 

power plant emissions. And I look forward to working with my colleagues on this Committee to set things right and pass the Carper 

bill. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Senator Lautenberg, thank you very much for 

your statement and for your strong support. 

Senator BARRASSO. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, we must protect our environment, and we must 

do so while ensuring that our Nation is powered into the future 

and has adequate power. Over the last few decades, our Nation’s 

air has dramatically improved. Those are the effects of environmental laws enacted by Congress. They have been very positive. 

Over the last 36 years, carbon monoxide emissions have fallen dramatically, nitrous oxide emissions have fallen dramatically, as has 

sulfur dioxide. Particulate emissions are down 80 percent, lead 

emissions are down. 

8 

Should we do more? Certainly. There is always room for improvement. Health issues associated with atmospheric mercury have 

been identified. The accumulation of mercury in fish is a recognized 

problem. 

My concern with the Mercury Emission Control Act are the findings that State that we can reduce coal-fired power plant mercury 

emissions by 90 percent by the year 2010. And the technology is 

just not there—— 

Senator CARPER. Senator Barrasso, it is by 2015. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to make sure that the technology is there to do the sorts 

of things that we talk about, because the EPA estimates that removal technologies still need to be advanced. So what happens if 

we try to go too fast? Well, power plants could reduce mercury 

emissions by switching from one type of coal to another. And the 

switch would be from low sulfur coal to high sulfur coal. But with 

that switching, other pollutants are going to rise, so we will have 

more sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide and less mercury. You can’t 

get them all out at the same time. The technology is not there to 

do it. 

Some generators may switch from coal to natural gas. There is 

a GAO study, and I would like to introduce this as part of the 

record, Mr. Chairman, that says that the ability of U.S. electricitygenerating units to switch from coal to natural gas is limited, and 

fuel switching could cause adverse economic consequences. Wyoming is a major supplier of natural gas. So something like this can 

help Wyoming’s natural gas economy, but it won’t help families and 

businesses in other parts of the Nation who are saddled with high 

energy costs. 

The concern continues, Mr. Chairman, that to me, we need to 

continue with the technology. Coal is our best domestic energy 

source. We need to make this industry stronger and yes, cleaner, 

but we need to have the technology to be able to do those things, 

which is going to involve an additional investment on the part of 

our Nation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

Senator Whitehouse, welcome. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. Good to be here 

with you. 

Really, I think, Mr. Chairman, for as long as there have been 

Americans, there have been dads who took their sons fishing. It 

was kind of an emblematic thing. You can imagine the Norman 

Rockwell picture. And for the first time in any generation, we are 

in a situation now where that is not really feasible any longer, because the fish that the sons and daughters may catch is polluted 

with mercury in many places to the point where it is no longer safe 

to eat. 

That is a significant piece of thievery, if you will, from the American experience. And it is unnecessary. And States like mine can 

do very little about it. We are in the same position that Senator 

9 

Lautenberg’s State of New Jersey is. We can legislate all we want, 

but what rains in on us from Midwestern power plants has profound health effects in Rhode Island. And we don’t have the power 

as a single State to regulate what happens elsewhere in the Country. That is why we count on the Environmental Protection Agency. 

That is why it is so frustrating to see an Environmental Protection Agency that doesn’t take its duty seriously, where the courts 

over and over again have to knock them up side the head and say, 

come on, get this right. It was this mercury issue that caused the 

court to describe the Queen of Hearts logic from Alice in Wonderland that the agency was applying in order to delay applying technically feasible protections that help Americans, that help our 

lakes, that help our fish. But because they weren’t welcomed by industry, this EPA simply wasn’t serious about them. And it is very 

frustrating. 

So I am very glad to join, Mr. Chairman, the Carper legislation 

and be here to hear about it and show my support, and to join Senator Lautenberg, who has such a long and distinguished record of 

fighting for the safety of Americans from various toxic contaminants. To be here with the two of you makes me very proud. I will 

end it there. 

Senator CARPER. We are honored to have you joining us and welcome your support. 

I want to go back to a point that Senator Barrasso made earlier 

with respect to the date by which we expect reductions of roughly 

90 percent to have been achieved. Under the Clean Air Planning 

Act, which is a separate piece of legislation, it is multi-pollutant 

legislation, which involves sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury 

and CO2, that legislation requires a 90 percent reduction overall in 

mercury emissions by 2015. 

The legislation that is before us today, if passed, if signed into 

law, would require EPA to promulgate by the end of this year, I 

believe, a proposed rule for consideration. That proposed rule would 

then be finalized some time, I presume, next year. I believe that 

power plants would have as many as 3 years to actually install the 

technology. 

So we are not talking as late as 2015, but it would be somewhere 

between 2011 and probably 2014. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Chairman. Because in the findings of the bill, it does say feasible by calendar year 2010, using current methods. It is my understanding 

from all my research that the current methods are not there to 

have something feasible in 2010. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. We will have an opportunity to hear from 

some folks later today who are going to talk to us about how feasible it is to do it now or in 2010 or 2015. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. We have been joined at the table today by our 

Assistant Administrator from EPA. I want to thank Mr. Meyers for 

joining us. You have been here before. We will ask you, I think you 

may have someone join us for Q&A. We may take as many as two 

rounds for your testimony and for Q&A. 

We welcome you. We will ask you to keep your comments close 

to 5 minutes. If you go a little beyond that, it is all right. You are 

10 

recognized at this time. Your full statement will be made a part of 

the record. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. MEYERS, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION, 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ACCOMPANIED 

BY: JAMES GULLIFORD, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES 

Mr. MEYERS. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss 

the important issue of reducing mercury emissions and public 

health and environmental risks that such emissions present. With 

me today, as you have noted, is Jim Gulliford, who is the Assistant 

Administrator for the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic 

Substances. 

Overall, for important public health and environmental reasons, 

EPA remains committed to achieving mercury emission reductions. 

Over the past two decades, EPA has issued a number of regulations to control mercury emissions from large sources. These includes standards for waste combustion, medical incinerators, 

chloralkali plants, industrial boilers and other sources. 

EPA has also initiated other efforts to control mercury emissions 

through innovative means. In August 2006, the agency announced 

a program to retrieve mercury switches from automobiles before 

they were shredded and melted. This program removed its millionth switch this past February. 

The agency is additionally focusing efforts on international emissions through the Global Mercury Partnership. I think it bears repeating, as was mentioned earlier, that when EPA promulgated the 

CAMR rule in March 2005, the U.S. became the first country in the 

world to permanently reduce and cap mercury emissions from coalfired power plants. CAMR built upon EPA’s Clean Air InterState 

Rule and when fully implemented, as mentioned also, the rules 

would reduce mercury emissions from approximately 48 tons a year 

to 15 tons. 

Under the cap and trade system utilized by CAMR, emissions 

were capped permanently and nationwide. The trading program 

provided a continuous incentive for technology innovation and flexibility for compliance by the power sector while retaining requirements at new plants also meet new source performance standards. 

CAMR additionally included rigorous continuous mercury emissions monitoring provisions which reflected the State of the science. 

EPA worked through an intensive cooperative effort and consensus 

among diverse stakeholders to advance and upgrade the quality of 

emissions, measurement and monitoring. 

Over the last 3 years, EPA and the States have made considerable progress in implementing CAMR. By February 2008, a total 

of 34 States had submitted plans for approval and most of the rest 

required State plans were in development. At the same time, the 

power industry was deploying mercury-specific control technology 

and so by the beginning of 2008, the industry had already installed 

activated carbon injection systems on approximately 2.7 gigawatts 

of coal-fired capacity. 

As mentioned also, on February 8th of this year, a three-judge 

panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated CAMR and reVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:20 Sep 29, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85534.TXT VERN
11 

lated Section 112(n) revision rule. Following the decision, on March 

14th, the Court issued its mandate which caused the vacatur of 

CAMR and related 112(n) revision rule to take effect. While EPA 

respects the District Court’s decision in this matter, we fundamentally disagree with the Court’s opinion. 

Therefore, on March 24th, the Department of Justice filed a motion for rehearing en banc bond, asking the full Court to reconsider 

the three-judge panel’s decision. In presenting our arguments for 

rehearing, EPA points to the absurd result occasioned by the threejudge panel’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act. If the decision 

stands without revision, it would result in a rulemaking the agency 

previously determined through notice and comment rulemaking not 

to be appropriate and necessary. Moreover, challenge to the initial 

2000 listing decision could occur only after such rulemaking was finalized. 

Turning to legislation, the Mercury Emissions Control Act 

amends the Clean Air Act to require EPA to propose Section 112(d) 

MACT regulations. As mentioned, these regulations would be due 

to be proposed within 180 days of enactment or no later than October 1st of this year. The bill further specifies that any final regulations promulgated by EPA attain the pre-determined result of reducing mercury emissions from new and existing utility steam generating units by not less than 90 percent. 

My written testimony indicates that the Administration does not 

have a formal position on legislation but notes difficulties we have 

with the current construction of the bill. 

Turning to S. 906, the Mercury Market Minimization Act, Mr. 

Gulliford will be available for questioning on this legislation. I 

would note the Administration has already issued a statement of 

Administration policy on H.R. 1534, stating the legislation is premature, pending further analysis of the main issues raised by such 

a ban. While there are some differences between the House and the 

Senate bills, the issues raised by the SAP are also relevant to the 

Senate bill. 

In general, we regard S. 906, it is our view there is inadequate 

understanding of the potentially negative consequences of an export ban on the environment, industry, both domestic and international, and the Federal Government. A ban would also prompt 

questions under international trade rules. 

I would cut my remarks short at this point in time to respect the 

5-minutes and then be available to address questions concerning S. 

2643 and invite Mr. Gulliford to address questions regarding S. 

906. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Meyers follows:] 

12 


85534.001
13 


85534.002
14 


85534.003
15 


85534.004
16 


85534.005
17 


85534.006
18 


85534.007
19 


85534.008
20 


85534.009
21 


85534.010
22 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Gulliford, you are welcome to join us at the 

table. Thank you for your presence today. 

Mr. Meyers, in the Clean Air Act, Congress asked EPA to determine if power utilities should be regulated under Section 112, the 

Air Toxics program. In 2000, the EPA came to us with a resounding yes. Utilities are a major source of hazardous air pollutants, 

specifically they mentioned mercury, and should be regulated with 

the maximum achievable control technology. 

Five years later, the EPA changes its mind to remove utilities 

from the program. Could you just start off by explaining the rationale for this? 

Mr. MEYERS. The rationale regarding that was detailed in 112(n) 

revision rule, which was promulgated at the same time as CAMR 

was. Essentially, we considered that the appropriate and necessary 

determination made in 2000 was in error and that the provisions 

of 111 provided a context for regulating mercury under Clean Air 

Act provisions allowed by 112(n). And on the basis of the 111 provisions, we thought that the 112 provisions were essentially unnecessary. 

Senator CARPER. In your testimony, I think you discuss the rigorous continuous mercury emissions monitoring provision that is 

included in the Clean Air Mercury Rule. You describe the methodologies adopted as ‘‘State of the science.’’ 

If the Court does not agree to re-hear the Clean Air Mercury 

Rule case, will EPA use the same State of the science methodology 

in adopting emissions control standards? 

Mr. MEYERS. The monitoring specifically, or the standards themselves? 

Senator CARPER. The standards. 

Mr. MEYERS. Well, we are requesting rehearing by the full panel 

D.C. Circuit. We do, as I said, respect the opinion of the Court. If 

the opinion of the Court stands, our rule is vacated and we would 

need to proceed under the listing decision in 2000. 

Senator CARPER. If the Court doesn’t rule in EPA’s favor, well, 

first, let me ask you, when do you expect to hear from the Court? 

Mr. MEYERS. That is usually at the pleasure of the Court. Briefs 

were filed within about the last 6 weeks or so. So I would imagine 

we would hear relatively soon on the rehearing request. 

Senator CARPER. Some time this summer? 

Mr. MEYERS. Presumably. The Court has latitude to request further briefing. We don’t know exactly until we hear from the Court. 

They could deny rehearing very quickly or have some further process. 

Senator CARPER. If the Court does not rule in EPA’s favor, how 

long would it take to establish standards for hazardous air pollutants, including mercury under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act? 

Mr. MEYERS. Well, a typical 112 rulemaking requires, one thing 

to remember is that the 2005 regulations were based on a 1999 inventory of information requests that we did back then. So the information in 2008 is obviously almost a decade old. So the first step 

in terms of a 112 process would be information collection, necessary 

updating of our information on both the emissions and the control 

technology that has been installed. 

23 

We have some information concerning that, but we need to do 

this in a comprehensive manner, in order to evaluate what, under 

112 compiles the best performing 12 percent. So we would do an 

information request, we would have some analysis of that, public 

comment. Typically, in terms of MACT, the process for proposal is 

12 to 18 months and the process for final is 12 to 18 months, in 

a range of 2 to 3 years total. 

Senator CARPER. With our second panel today, we are going to 

hear about the mercury emission control technology. I welcome 

that. I think one of the critical questions to answer with respect to 

reducing mercury emissions is, how good is the technology today, 

how good is the technology likely to be three, four, 5 years from 

now. And does the adoption of a rigorous emissions standard, does 

it actually incentivize and hasten the development of the technology that will enable us to reduce mercury emissions further. 

I am confident that reductions well beyond what was required 

under the Clean Air Mercury Rule are available with today’s technology. 

Let me just ask you, do you believe that Section 112 of the Clean 

Air Act has the flexibility to establish a standard that will require 

every power plant to install control technology that needs it, while 

still allowing for some averaging to meet an overall 90 percent reduction? I would just reemphasize the last part of that question, 

while still allowing for some averaging to meet an overall 90 percent reduction. 

Mr. MEYERS. That is a more complicated question than it might 

appear to be, Senator. But I would answer it briefly, that there are 

certain flexibilities available within 112 that we have utilized with 

regard to sub-categorization of sources. In other words, we have 

looked at different source types and sub-categorized from among 

the broader source to create different technology requirements. 

But 112(d) is a fairly straightforward constraining provision. So 

each of the standards basically have to be met. The concept of averaging, I would like to get back for the record to search for any examples where we’ve used averaging broadly across a category. Our 

approach has been in terms of differences within a category of subcategorization rather than averaging. 

Senator CARPER. That is one that we would like for you to get 

to us on, if you would, please. 

[The referenced material was not submitted at time of print.] 

Senator CARPER. Senator Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you very much. 

I spent a lot of time the last couple of weeks at home. A great, 

great complaint from my constituents in regard to the cost of heating their homes. Natural gas costs have skyrocketed, and it appears that they are going to be going up a lot more in the next couple of years. 

Is it your opinion that if the technology, and we are going to be 

hearing more about it today, is not available, commercially and viable, that utilities will fuel switch to natural gas? 

Mr. MEYERS. I think a number of analyses that we have performed on various bills, including Clear Skies provisions, including 

some of what we have done in climate change, so that the economic 

24 

incentive is there, fuel switching will definitely occur as a response 

to constraints. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I will tell you, I looked at my utility bill and 

my wife said to me, she just couldn’t believe it, and she said, how 

can other people be paying the cost of this? I think so often, when 

we consider some of these things here before Congress, that we 

give little consideration to the impact that it has on just the average person’s standard of living. And you add that on now to the 

cost of gasoline, and we are hearing a howl come out across the 

United States of America. 

The other issue that I am interested in is the one that I raised 

in my opening statement, and that was the issue of going from 70 

to 90 percent in terms of reducing mercury. Have there been any 

authoritative studies to indicate the health benefits that would be 

derived for the American people by going from 70 to 90 percent, understanding that the cost of going from 70 to 90 might be extraordinary? 

Mr. MEYERS. I don’t know of a specific study that we have done 

analyzing 70 versus 90. In 2005 we did a considerable amount of 

detailed work on the health benefits of the emission controls that 

we were putting in place. It is certainly a question of whether there 

is a linearity in those between 70 and 90. Again, we will provide 

information. In other words, whether you get corresponding rate of 

health benefit for the improvement. We would be happy to provide 

that information for the record, Senator. 

Senator VOINOVICH. In other words, you could provide information on that? 

Mr. MEYERS. I believe we can. I don’t off the top of my head 

know of an incremental analysis between 70 and 90. One would expect improvements, benefits between 70 and 90. As I said, I am not 

sure if that is in a linear fashion or not. But we will provide what 

information we can. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Do you have any information on the additional cost that would be incurred by going from 70 to 90? 

Mr. MEYERS. Well, if the reference is between the CAMR rule, 

which is a cap and trade, versus a 90 percent, 112(d), certainly the 

cost would be much higher under a unit by unit provision compared to one that required or allowed for trading. If it is not on a 

unit by unit basis, then it will be less. 

The experience and other witnesses in the second panel will, I 

am sure, get into their experience of installing, is that we have 

variable results. There are some good results, there are some results over 90 percent, in some cases much over 90 percent. But 

there are also some challenges with regard to certain ranked coals, 

lignite and other coals that have difficulty in attaining consistent 

results of removal. So the cost for a unit that has that problem 

could be considerable. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Off-hand, would you be able to share with 

us the reduction in mercury as a co-benefit from reducing NOx and 

SOx? 

Mr. MEYERS. Yes. I think that is what we detailed in the analysis to accompany the CAMR rule, the first phase of the CAMR 

rule was linked to the CAIR reductions, which are essentially 

aimed at NOx and SOx and installation of fluidized gas 

25 

desulfurization units and SCR technology, which can in certain 

combinations, certain coals, bituminous coals, give very good results for mercury. Additionally, other technologies, like fabric filters, et cetera, for particulate control, can result also in mercury 

reductions. 

Senator VOINOVICH. What do you mean by good results, 40 percent? Fifty percent? Sixty percent? 

Mr. MEYERS. There is a range, sir. Some of the information I 

looked at in preparation for the hearing would show ranges from 

60 to 80, CAMR itself we thought was about an 80 percent overall 

full effect out of coal. On some bituminous coals, again, we see results that go over 90 and in some cases, waste coal can get 98 percent or more. So it is a range, and it depends, as mentioned before, 

on the configuration of the plant, the coal, even if it is a certain 

type of coal, even the sulfur content, various constituents of that, 

sulfur content, other things are important in how the control technology affects the emissions. 

Senator VOINOVICH. And you are talking about that, those are 

the kinds of numbers you could get from just the co-benefit? Because most of the new facilities or the ones that they are modernizing have—— 

Mr. MEYERS. We certainly felt the first phase of CAMR would get 

us to a co-benefit level of at least 38 tons. After that, we saw the 

installation of ACI technology in the 2010 to 2018 period to reduce 

further to the 70 percent level. But we would be happy to provide 

our most updated estimates of the co-benefits from current technology and we have a Clean Air Markets Division that can provide 

that information to you readily, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Senator Voinovich. 

Senator Lautenberg, you are recognized, then we will come to 

Senator Barrasso, and we have been joined by the Senator from 

Idaho. Welcome. 

Senator Lautenberg, you are recognized at this time. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Meyers, if we have covered anything that I am asking about, 

please remind me. 

The Federal Court determined that your agency should have required better technology to reduce emissions at all power plants, as 

opposed to using a cap and trade approach. While you appeal this 

ruling, there is currently no Federal regulation in place for mercury emissions. How can we further delay regulating the emissions 

through litigation at the same time that your own website warns 

of the danger of exposure to mercury? 

Mr. MEYERS. Sir, the court decision turned on the objection that 

the agency had not used what is known as the 112(c)(9) delisting 

process so the court did not hear arguments further other than to 

say that the agency was in error for not going through the (c)(9) 

delisting process in 2005, once it had listed the units in this category in 2000. 

But with respect to what we are very seriously looking at our options after the court’s decision, I have met several times with my 

staff to analyze the immediate result. There are some immediate 

26 

results, as we indicated in our filing to the court. Section 112(g) applies to units, 112(g) applies to construction, major modification. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. In the simplest of languages, please. The 

nomenclature means a little bit more to you than it does to me. So 

there is no doubt about the danger of mercury, particularly to pregnant women, their babies. And so do you think it is urgent that we 

get on with regulating mercury emissions? 

Mr. MEYERS. We certainly do think it is important. That is why 

the agency has taken a number of actions over—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Urgent, Mr. Meyers? 

Mr. MEYERS. It is very, very important, urgent. We have many, 

I would say, health threats that could be considered urgent. Mercury is a very important health threat. We are very serious about 

addressing it. As I mentioned, in the wake of the court’s decision 

with regard to new, modified plants, you have 112(g). Also right 

now we have our CAIR program, which effectively, the early actions that are being taken right now with the 2.7 gigawatts of ACI 

that is installed, I mentioned in my testimony, and the other actions that have been taken to comply with SO2 and NOx, we will 

see mercury reductions. We will see mercury reductions in 2010 

and beyond as a result of CAIR. 

So we are seriously looking at the options. We do think that the 

court opinion was in error, as I said. But we will comply with the 

court opinion. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Studies show that mercury emissions from 

power plants in the Midwest do lead to mercury hot spots in the 

Northeast, including in my State of New Jersey. How do we defend 

a cap and trade system that does not prevent mercury pollution 

from spreading across the Country? It can move the emissions facility. But that doesn’t mean that it isn’t putting other people, subjected to the mercury emissions, or mercury consequences. 

Mr. MEYERS. When the original rule was promulgated in 2005, 

we included an analysis on this point in terms of what we saw from 

cap and trade. Our experience with cap and trade led us to believe 

that the highest emitters would be incentivized to be the first to 

control. This is what we saw in the acid rain program, we did an 

analysis for the record that would show the same effect in the cap 

and trade. So we thought that the hot spot issue, the localized 

emissions was adequately addressed by the cap and trade mechanism. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Meyers, I wanted to talk a little bit about the storage of excess mercury and the Senate bill. There is a House version of the 

bill as well. I had received a letter from the National Nuclear Security Administration that was sent to me in my ranking role on the 

Subcommittee on the Superfund, and it was also sent to Senator 

Boxer, Senator Inhofe. Specifically, it deals with the storage of excess mercury and some concerns that they have from a security 

standpoint. The letter talks about the House bill contains a provision that would direct the Department of Energy to accept nonFederal commodity grade mercury for log-term storage. I am opVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:20 Sep 29, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85534.TXT VERN
27 

posed to this provision. This is speaking here, the National Nuclear 

Security Administrator, he says, ‘‘I am opposed to this provision for 

several reasons, including the impact it would have on the Department of Energy’s primary mission and the cost to the taxpayer.’’ 

Do you know what the plan is for the storage and the cost related to that, Mr. Gulliford? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. If I may, Senator Barrasso, yes. We have conducted an interagency work group on commodity mercury. We have 

looked at the issues related to storage of mercury. We have commitments from the Department of Energy, Department of Defense, 

for long-term storage of Federal mercury reserves and products. 

We also went to a stakeholder panel to talk about the potential 

for further storage of privately held mercury stocks, and several 

things that we learned from that stakeholder panel. First, that 

there are a lot of technologies, a lot of container options for storage 

of mercury. Clearly, it is not the problem, for example, of unspent 

uranium or other nuclear waste. 

But still, two things. Basis for the position of the U.S. Government is that it really isn’t in the Department of Energy’s mission 

to store private stocks of mercury. So we are not interested in that. 

And second, that the costs for doing and storing private mercury 

can be absorbed by private sector, and that there can be private 

sector solutions to storing long-term storage of mercury as well. 

So there are options that are available to the public and there 

are safe storage containers for mercury storage. 

Senator BARRASSO. So in terms of the national security concern, 

it is not there with this. It is the expense specifically related to it, 

and the Government shouldn’t be the one, or the American taxpayer shouldn’t be the one bearing the brunt of that? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. Expense and mission. 

Senator BARRASSO. I wanted to get to another thing, following up 

on what Senator Voinovich was talking about, with SOx and NOx

and mercury and the technology. When I visit with scientists that 

I am working with, it seems like the research and development results to date, at least, we haven’t had the long-term testing, is that 

if you remove the mercury, then you will substantially lessen trying to simultaneously remove the other emissions, such as the NOx

and the SOx and particulate matter. It is not like just washing 

something twice and you get it twice as clean, it doesn’t balance 

exactly. Is that your understanding as well, Mr. Meyers? At least 

from what we know today? 

Mr. MEYERS. Yes, the various coal types, but certain combinations of control equipment, like an SCR, along with back-house or 

a scrubber on the back end of a unit, can result in very good efficiency and removals. In particular, I think, since the 2005 rulemaking, we are encouraged by the progress that has been made on 

sub-bituminous coals, which we thought at the time, and it still 

poses challenges, but were more difficult to control. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Senator Whitehouse, I think you are next. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thanks very much, Chairman. 

Mr. Meyers, mercury is extremely toxic, is it not? 

28 

Mr. MEYERS. It is a neurotoxin, sir, yes. It is certainly toxic to 

humans. We have evidence of that through gross poisoning incidents that occur through feed grain, and in Japan. So we have no 

doubt it is a neurotoxin with very serious effects. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And Congress demanded that it be controlled through the best available control technologies, correct? 

Mr. MEYERS. Congress provided in Section 112(n) for the treatment of power plants and it went through revisions in the 1990 

amendments. So it provides a special subsection to the overall section controlling hazardous air pollutants. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But the idea was that there would be best 

available control technology to limit mercury emissions, not so? 

Mr. MEYERS. Section 112(n) as we read it required the agency to 

conduct a study and then based on the study, it made a determination, if the agency determined after the study it was appropriate 

and necessary to regulate it, then provide for regulation. It did 

not—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. By best available control technology? 

Mr. MEYERS. Section 112(n) does not specifically mention best 

available control technology. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Do you dispute that that was Congress’ intent? 

Mr. MEYERS. I think everything we reanalyzed in 2005 in our petition for rehearing speaks of our view that the Congress, in setting 

up 112(n), set up a special provision for utility units. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Are coal-fired power plants the largest 

source of human-caused mercury pollution? 

Mr. MEYERS. In the world or in the United States? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. In the United States. 

Mr. MEYERS. I think they are the largest remaining source. They 

did not used to be the largest source. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But they are presently the largest source? 

Mr. MEYERS. Of the category, yes, I think they are the largest 

remaining source. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And EPA exempted, in effect, coal-fired 

power plants from best available control technology through the administrative stratagem of proceeding to the cap and trade program, 

correct? 

Mr. MEYERS. We did not exempt, we sought to control them 

under Section 111 versus Section 112 under a new source performance standard versus a MACT standard. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Which did not require that best available 

control technologies be currently applied. 

Mr. MEYERS. It did not require best available control technology 

on each unit, sir, that is correct. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And the court found that to be unlawful, 

correct? 

Mr. MEYERS. The court found that our delisting decision was unlawful. In other words, the court said that once EPA had listed the 

substance, it could not delist it, which we did in the 112(n) revision 

rule, without going through Section 112(c)(9). 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And having departed from the per plant 

best available control technology requirement, and gone to the administrative stratagem of the cap and trade program, did you conVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:20 Sep 29, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85534.TXT VERN
29 

sider that there might be any legal risk whatsoever to that program? 

Mr. MEYERS. Well, I was at the agency during that period of 

time. Certainly we evaluated legal risk with all our regulations. 

That is—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Did you see any legal risk in not going forward that way, that this might be challenged and overturned by 

courts? Was that a hypothesis that you considered? 

Mr. MEYERS. I would say there is some degree of legal risk in 

every decision that we make. There was a legal decision in this—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Legal risk in this decision? Yes. Despite 

that, was there any kind of backstop regulation or effort to followup under a pure best available control technology regime? 

Mr. MEYERS. I think in this case, sir, the backstop was CAIR. 

The backstop was our separate regulation on SOx and NOx which 

produced the co-benefits. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Which mercury just followed along on, 

right? 

Mr. MEYERS. Yes, although those same controls can be optimized 

for mercury control. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Was that mandated that they be optimized for mercury control? 

Mr. MEYERS. No. It was incentivized through the cap and trade 

system that we promulgated. It was not mandated for each unit. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. If it was the agency’s intention to avoid 

controlling the release of emissions of mercury by coal-fired power 

plants, if it was their intention to avoid that—— 

Mr. MEYERS. No, not at all. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Hang on. That is the hypothesis. Let me 

ask the question. Can you think of any better way you could have 

achieved it than to establish a parallel, unlawful cap and trade program that was itself defeated without any backstop so that you 

leave nothing but the SOx and NOx program to protect Americans 

from mercury emissions? If you said to them, no, we are just not 

going to do it, there would be an easier challenge. It strikes me 

that this is the best conceivable way to avoid doing this. And it is 

a very clever, if you wanted to follow a very clever stratagem to 

avoid meeting your duties, it would be hard, I can’t think of a better one than this. Could you think of a better one? 

Mr. MEYERS. Sir, at the end of the day, we promulgated regulations to control mercury in two phases. So it was our intention to 

control mercury emissions from power plants. 

The basis of your hypothesis is that we would know in advance 

how a court would rule and essentially use that unknowable to affect our behavior before we got to court. Our intention was to control mercury emissions, which we thought we did in the best manner through a cap and trade system. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. My time has expired. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you for those questions. Senator Craig, 

your turn. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As it relates obviously to your legislation and the concern we all have 

about mercury emissions, this is a timely and important hearing. 

I guess my frustration is, where do we begin and how do we handle 

30 

it in lieu of the technology that isn’t available yet or isn’t available 

as readily and applicable to retrofitting current generation capability as it is possibly to future. 

Deputy Administrator Meyers, as EPA looks at this issue and the 

knowledge over mercury grows, how does mercury transported from 

China affect the United States? My point is, once mercury is 

gasified and goes airborne, how long does it stay airborne. We have 

all gotten a big surprise here in the last year. China wasn’t to surpass the United States for some time in coal-fired emissions. Well, 

they did in June. And within those emissions and the technology 

that produces them, I have to assume there is a high level of mercury along with CO2. 

Do we know about how long it stays airborne and with the rate 

of growth and the online coming of generating capacity in China, 

they do it now weekly, bringing new coal-fires online, what kind of 

an impact is that, or do we understand what kind of an impact that 

is having on the United States as it relates to mercury? 

Mr. MEYERS. Sir, we do have some ideas. In answer to your first 

question, mercury is emitted in essentially three different forms. 

Depending on the form, it can be transmitted for very long distances for very long periods of time. Essentially there is transport, 

international transport within the continental U.S. The effect of 

international transport versus local sources varies. On the West 

Coast, it is higher, you see perhaps 85 percent international transport contribution on the West Coast. On the East Coast, the number is more like about 50 percent. 

But there is variability in the regions. There is variability also, 

I would say, too, with respect to the ultimate health effect, because 

what we were talking about, the mode of exposure of any of this, 

is consumption of fish. So it doesn’t matter to the water body how 

the mercury gets there. It doesn’t matter if it came internationally 

or if it came from a local source or if it came through some other 

source of pollution or leaching from soil. 

What matters is that there is methylation in the pond and that 

the mercury then bioaccumlates through the food chain and is consumed on a regular basis, causing the health effects. So the short 

answer to your question is that there is transport, the degree varies. It is substantial, but it is something that we are continuing to 

evaluate. We have observatories in Mauna Loa in Hawaii that are 

trying to assess this right now. 

Senator CRAIG. So in other words, we don’t really know yet? We 

know it is happening? 

Mr. MEYERS. We know it is happening. We have a rough idea of 

the extent. But I don’t think the State of our science is such that 

we could point to China or any other country and say with certainty X amount of mercury comes and is deposited in Rhode Island or Iowa or any other State. 

Senator CRAIG. As compared to, OK. 

Mr. MEYERS. It is a global pool of mercury and it is emitted from 

a lot of different sources. 

Senator CRAIG. We have heard a lot today about what some people think is wrong about EPA’s approach toward controlling mercury. Can you explain to me, Administrator Meyers, what the beneVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:20 Sep 29, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85534.TXT VERN
31 

fits of the cap and trade approach are that haven’t been brought 

out here today? 

Mr. MEYERS. Yes. I think we demonstrated the benefits of cap 

and trade, and one prime example is Title IV of the Clean Air Act, 

the Acid Rain program. Congress approved that in 1990. The performance of that program to date, we have exceeded expectations 

in terms of the cost, reducing the cost of control. It is a very transparent system for compliance, too. It doesn’t take many resources 

to know what is going on, because we have tracked the allowances. 

So we believe that system was appropriate in mercury. We analyzed it. We were concerned, and we have heard the concern over 

hot spots. We did an analysis to indicate, as I indicated, that the 

larger sources, those that emit a lot under a system that 

incentivizes and essentially makes somebody pay a price for pollution, they have the most incentive to control. So we would expect 

to see the reductions at the largest sources first. That is what we 

saw in acid rain. 

Senator CRAIG. But in the end, if coal continues to be used in the 

way we are currently using it, in the same ratios of electrical generation, technology has to be the answer to keep it out of the environment to begin with? 

Mr. MEYERS. Absolutely. With regard to mercury, mercury is in 

coal. So you either capture through traditional air pollutant control 

technology or you move to ACI, activate carbon injection or some 

other sorbent controls that have been or are being demonstrated 

right now. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Senator Craig. 

Senator Klobuchar, welcome. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And 

thank you for being here, Mr. Meyers. 

As you know, Minnesota is the Land of 10,000 Lakes. However, 

mercury contamination has already cast a shadow over our fine 

tradition of grilling walleye and northern pike over our campfires. 

More than two-thirds of the lakes that have been tested in Minnesota are contaminated with mercury levels that exceed the Clean 

Water Act standards. 

A number of the species of fish in our lakes can’t be eaten safely 

once a month. The mercury in the fish, of course, passes through 

the people who eat it, and is especially dangerous for pregnant 

women. Data from 2001 indicates that one of every 70 babies born 

in Minnesota each year may be affected by mercury toxicity. 

The good news is that Minnesota has been very proactive on 

mercury, and we are a national leader. Starting in the early 1990’s, 

Minnesota has passed a number of State laws. These efforts culminated in a comprehensive law in 2007 where Minnesota banned 

nearly every remaining use of mercury in consumer products, even 

in thermostats and thermometers. We have also passed a law requiring the three largest power plants in the State to reduce their 

mercury emissions by 90 percent by 2015, and our utilities were actually supportive of these measures. 

All told, our efforts have resulted in a reduction of 70 percent of 

Minnesota’s mercury emissions since 1990, and we will go even 

higher with the effects of our new law. 

32 

So my questions are along those lines. My State’s efforts in banning mercury from consumer products, cleaning up power plants, 

have resulted in this reduction. But I have been told by our State 

experts that 90 percent of the mercury that is deposited in our 

lakes comes from outside of Minnesota. So what good does it do for 

our States to undertake these efforts if the Federal Government 

doesn’t follow suit? That is my question. 

Mr. MEYERS. In response to your question, I think we did take 

action to address the concerns of your State and other States 

through our rule. We thought that the 70 percent control levels, 

and we effectively think, when we further analyze it, it would be 

up to 80 percent from coal, mercury from coal-fired power plants, 

would be produced under our CAMR regulations. 

So when the court vacated our regulation, in a sense, there is no 

mercury regulation at the Federal level right now. We are disappointed in that decision because we thought we were moving in 

the right direction. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. But even your direction was not as aggressive as Minnesota has been, that is my understanding. 

Mr. MEYERS. I will posit that is true. One thing about CAMR, 

when we started, before CAMR existed, there were I think three 

or four State programs to control mercury. In the years since 

CAMR, I think over a couple dozen or more States have taken action. 

One of the benefits of CAMR, I think, was that States did act. 

I think your action may predate CAMR, it probably does. But I am 

not claiming causality here. The States have focused, were allowed 

to go stricter, and they could go stricter then have direct control 

programs under the CAMR system. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Our utilities, as I said, agreed to reduce 

their mercury emissions by 90 percent by 2015. That would be 

Excel and Minnesota Power. If they have agreed to do this, why 

can’t the rest of the Country do the same? 

Mr. MEYERS. I would have to look into the configuration and the 

coal types that are used by the utilities in your State. I don’t know 

also in terms of some of the State programs that are enacted, also 

I am not sure if this is the case in Minnesota, but I am aware in 

some States there were escape clauses on the provision. They were 

providing for 90 percent, as long as the control technology proved 

out. 

Again, I am not aware—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, you should also know Excel agreed to 

a 30 percent, that 30 percent of their electricity be provided by renewables by 2025. So they have been very devoted to this idea. 

My last question, actually, another topic. In the past, one large 

source of mercury emissions in Minnesota was the incineration of 

trash to produce electricity at our nine waste-to-energy facilities. I 

understand that there have been enormous strides made in cleaning up the emissions from these plants, such as to the extent that 

they no longer really rank among our principal mercury sources. 

Could you talk about the progress that has been made with this 

technology and what are your thoughts on the expansion of wasteto-energy as another source of electricity for our Country? 

33 

Mr. MEYERS. Certainly there has been progress. We promulgated 

rules to require those reductions. Waste-to-energy has been around 

for a couple of decades, different incentives have caused its growth 

including PURPA and qualified facilities under that law, which initially provided for purchase by traditional utilities of that power 

that avoided cost. I am not an expert in waste-to-energy, I assume 

there is some room for growth, as there is in most endeavors. 

We are supportive of those efforts, as long as they are in compliance with our regulations. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

Senator CARPER. Senator Cardin, I believe you are next. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me ask unanimous consent that my opening statement can 

be made part of the record. 

Senator CARPER. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Madame Chairman, thank you. 

In my home State of Maryland there are 14 water bodies listed for not meeting 

water quality standards due to mercury pollution. Marylanders are can’t eat all the 

fish they catch because fish from some Maryland streams and lakes contain mercury. Eating these fish can be especially dangerous to women of child bearing age 

and to young children. Unfortunately, Marylanders are not alone—nationwide, mercury pollution has contaminated 12 million acres of lakes, estuaries and wetlands— 

30 percent of the national total—and 473,000 miles of streams, rivers and coastlines. 

Mercury is a persistent, bioaccumulative toxic metal—it accumulates and concentrates up the food chain. Although it occurs naturally in the environment, over 

the past century human activities, including industrial emissions or practices and 

poor waste management, have substantially increased the amount of mercury released to the environment, particularly via atmospheric emissions. Each year, U.S. 

power plants and other industrial facilities spew about 150 tons of mercury into the 

air. 

Once released to air, mercury can be transported long distances. Consequently, a 

large portion of mercury that is deposited in Maryland originates from other 

sources. A 2007 Maryland Department of Natural Resources report estimates that 

about 88 percent of the total mercury deposition in the Chesapeake Bay watershed 

originates from outside of Maryland. 

While concentrations of mercury in the air are usually low, mercury eventually 

reaches our waterways where it can be transformed into methylmercury by bacteria, 

a form of mercury that readily bioaccumulates in fish tissue. Humans can become 

exposed to this form of mercury via eating fish. 

Mercury is toxic to the developing nervous system and can impact brain development—particularly in the fetus and young children. Due to these concerns, the 

Maryland Department of the Environment issues guidelines for how much 

recreationally caught fish (mostly freshwater fish) can be safely eaten, while the 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration issues guidelines for commercially marketed 

fish. 

MDE considers a waterbody to be impaired—that is to say, not meeting its ‘‘fishable’’ use—when, for indicator fish species, the methylmercury concentration exceeds 300 parts per billion of edible fish tissue. Water bodies with average fish tissue methylmercury levels above 300 ppb are listed as ‘‘impaired’’ under the U.S. 

Clean Water Act. Such listing triggers the need for a future Total Maximum Daily 

Load analysis. 

Issuing waterbody impairment advisories and recommending reduced fish consumption do protect human health, but represent insufficient action on the part of 

the Federal Government in fully protecting human health and that of the environment. We should act to reduce mercury emissions, remove mercury from all industrial practices—particularly those for which there are cleaner and safer alternatives, 

and not export mercury overseas where it might endanger the lives of others. 

34 

Because of my concern for public health and protection of the environment, I’ve 

co-sponsored legislation related to reducing mercury in our environment by banning 

particular industrial practices as in the making of chlorine and caustic sodas. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about their support and concern for 

this and other legislation. I hope that we can act promptly on the issue of mercury 

to improve global public and environmental health. 

Thank you Madame Chairman. 

Senator CARDIN. Let me just make a quick observation before I 

ask Mr. Meyers a couple of question. There are 14 water bodies in 

Maryland that have now been listed as not meeting safe standards 

as far as mercury pollution is concerned. The consequence is that 

there are fish that are caught that are not safe for human consumption. Warnings have been issued, as you know, for women of 

child-bearing age and children. We know that mercury can have a 

devastating effect on children as far as their brain development. So 

it is a serious health issue. 

And just to underscore a point that has been made by some of 

my colleagues in their questions, there was a 2007 Department of 

Natural Resources State study that showed that 88 percent of the 

mercury pollution in the Chesapeake Bay comes from outside the 

State of Maryland. So the airborne problems are real and they are 

having an effect in our States. 

Mr. Meyers, my question to you is that the EPA, in conjunction 

with other Federal agencies, has convened a stakeholders group to 

look at ways to deal with non-Federal sources of mercury. It is my 

understanding that the last meeting was in September 2007. My 

question is, when could we anticipate recommendations coming out 

of that stakeholders meeting on non-Federal supplies of commoditygrade mercury? 

Mr. MEYERS. Senator, if I could, let me have Mr. Gulliford answer that. 

Mr. GULLIFORD. We have concluded that stakeholder group. They 

have provided input to us on a variety of issues related to mercury 

management options from Federal storage to private storage to the 

issue on the export ban and a lot of issues associated with it. 

Clearly, some of the issues that are important to us from a Federal Government standpoint are the costs of doing that. Should 

those costs be borne by the American public or should they be 

borne by those private companies that own that mercury? Second, 

is it a part of the Department of Energy’s mission to have the responsibility to store non-Federal sources of mercury? 

So clearly, a lot of the conclusions from the interagency work 

group on commodity mercury are that one, we are certainly supportive of the decision by both the Department of Energy and the 

Department of Defense to store for considerable terms the Federal 

Government’s mercury that is in the possession of the Federal Government. 

Second, we don’t believe that it is the Federal Government’s responsibility to store privately held mercury. Clearly, there are technologies in terms of containers that are adequate to safely store 

mercury for an extended period of time, that can be done by the 

private sector as easily as it can be done by the Federal Government. At this point in time, we believe that it is probably more appropriate for private industry to store their own mercury. 

35 

Senator CARDIN. Do you anticipate that there would be recommendations to restrict the exporting of excess mercury here from 

the United States to other countries? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. A little bit more on background of the commodity mercury stakeholder panel. It was not a FACA, so we did 

not ask them for recommendations. We asked them for input. 

There was no attempt to arrive at a consensus opinion. There are 

a variety of opinions held. I think there was, if you were to look 

at the type of input that we got, clearly there was an interest on 

the part of industry for the Federal Government to be the storer 

of excess commodity mercury. I think of non-Government organizations as well, there was that interest as well. 

But the facts clearly don’t require the effective storage of commodity mercury, that it has to be done by the U.S. Government. 

Senator CARDIN. I understand that, I am somewhat disappointed, 

but I am somewhat disappointed there are not recommendations. 

My interest is getting the best information available to try to make 

the right policy judgments. It seems to me that one of the avenues 

that should be explored is that perhaps the Federal Government 

should take on a greater responsibility in the storage of mercury 

in exchange for which there would be restrictions on the export of 

excess mercury, so that we don’t have other countries that have 

been more careless in the use of mercury having additional sources. 

Now, some have argued that that might just increase the mining 

of mercury. I am not aware, maybe you are, of any evidence to that 

effect. It seems to me if we can control what is in this Country and 

make sure they are not getting into the hands of irresponsible 

users, that would be in our interest. 

Mr. GULLIFORD. Again, several points to your question, your series of questions there. First, all the information that came from 

the stakeholder panel is available to the public. It is available on 

our website. We collected that information, reviewed it with the 

members to make sure that it was accurately reflected in that. So 

that information clearly is available. 

Second, however, we believe that at this point in time, the most 

appropriate actions that we can take with respect to mercury in 

products and mercury that is released as a part of processes or 

uses of mercury in processes, that the actions we can take to most 

appropriately be protective are to reduce the demand for mercury. 

It is clear that mercury is available from a variety of sources, 

and simply prohibiting the export of U.S. sources of mercury, it is 

very difficult to predict what the outcome of that would be with respect to mercury uses. You speak to issues of mining. Again, we believe that the most appropriate action we can do is to discourage 

or take actions to eliminate existing mining activities that are occurring. 

The U.S. Government has supported initiatives by the Swiss to 

look at an analysis of mercury mining in Kyrgyzstan, the largest 

mine that still operates and produces mercury, to look at options 

for reapplying the mining industry there in a way that does not, 

rather than mine mercury, looks at other products to mine in a 

way that can still support the economy that mining is important 

to in Kyrgyzstan, but reduces the additional input of mercury into 

whatever the global amount of mercury that exists, again, in the 

36 

area of commodity-grade mercury that is available for products or 

processes. 

Senator CARDIN. That is a very helpful answer. I would just 

point out, if we restrict the export of mercury there will be less 

mercury. The bottom line is going to be less. 

Mr. GULLIFORD. I think, though, one of the points you ought to 

also consider is what are the impacts on trade, and that there are 

a lot of uses of mercury still in this Country that are allowed. We 

assume that those uses are still allowed in other countries as well, 

and the ability of those countries to have access to mercury for 

those acceptable, allowable uses, is something that we ought to be 

concerned about with respect to our trade commitments and our 

trade agreements. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Senator Cardin. 

We have votes which are expected to start around 11, then 11:10 

and 11:25. I am told that the debate is winding up on the flight 

insurance bill and that we can expect to start those votes soon but 

not immediately. 

We are going to get into a second round here, I think it will probably be truncated somewhat. But let me just start off by asking Mr. 

Meyers, as you may recall, a number of my colleagues have joined, 

Democrat and Republican colleagues, have joined me in introducing 

our Clean Air Planning Act, re-introducing our Clean Air Planning 

Act, which would require power plants to significantly reduce nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, mercury and CO2 emissions. 

With the Clean Air InterState Rule and the Clean Air Mercury 

Rule both involved in court challenges, do you think that this 

might now be the right time for EPA to consider combined multipollutant regulation of power plant emissions? 

Mr. MEYERS. Well, sir, as you know, at the time you introduced 

your legislation, the Administration also had the Clear Skies Act 

that was before Congress and actually considered by this Committee in early 2005, I believe. So we certainly, as an Administration, have always advocated a multi-pollutant approach, and have 

never wavered in that. 

With respect to where we are, there is a difference between 

CAMR and CAIR. In CAMR, we clearly have a court vacatur and 

with regard to CAIR, arguments have been heard, oral arguments 

and there is no decision yet. We await that court’s review and decision. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

One of the questions, maybe Senator Craig asked the question 

about the source of mercury emissions that come to this Country, 

how much might be coming from China. My staff did a little bit of 

homework here, and it looks like somewhat, something maybe just 

a bit less than half of the mercury emissions that are deposited in 

this Country come from sources that emit in this Country, so 

maybe just a bit less than half come from sources within the U.S., 

and the remainder come from sources outside of the U.S. 

Question one for Mr. Gulliford, and then I will have some other 

questions for the record, Mr. Gulliford, in Mr. Meyers’ written testimony, potentially negative consequence are mentioned in association with an export ban. I don’t know of any consequences worse 

37 

than the negative health impacts on our children. Could you please 

explain for us the anticipated negative consequences that would 

justify delay in implementing an export ban? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. Again, the issues of an export ban really aren’t 

very well studied in terms of what the implications may be on additional mining. We do believe we understand the Kyrgyzstan mining 

situation and that it is unlikely that additional mining could occur 

there. I don’t think we do understand very well the potential implications for mining in China. So that is the first issue with respect 

to unintended consequences. 

Second, do we achieve the consequences that we want to. If you 

look at the use of a lot of the mercury where uses are currently 

increasing, it is in artisenal mining. We know that people in different countries, poor countries where people do artisenal mining, 

they look at mercury as a way to enhance their recovery of gold. 

For that reason, they pay for mercury. We have no reason to expect 

that mercury export ban would change the dynamics of the mercury that gets into the hands of those people and allows them to 

use it. 

Clearly, we believe that the better approach is the one that we 

have chosen to work with UNEP and mercury partnerships, to 

work with those people to help them understand that there are alternatives to the use of mercury, and there are also safer ways, 

even, to use mercury in artisenal mining. We believe that the benefits of that work is clearly superior. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. I have used 4 minutes and I am 

going to relinquish the remainder of my time, and Senator 

Voinovich, if you could just keep your questions to about 4 minutes, 

that would be good. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I have no questions. 

Senator CARPER. Senator Voinovich has no questions. 

Senator Lautenberg? All right. Senator Whitehouse? Last opportunity. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I am told that the vote has been called. 

Senator CARPER. Yes, the vote has been called. 

Gentlemen, the record will remain open for about another week. 

A number of our colleagues, including myself, will want to ask 

some additional questions. We would ask that you respond in writing as promptly as you could. 

Senator Lautenberg? 

Senator LAUTENBERG. When we are we going to leave for the 

vote? 

Senator CARPER. My inclination is actually to get started on the 

second panel. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Then if I might just take a minute to introduce Ms. Jackson. 

Senator CARPER. Sure. We are happy to do that. 

With that, the first panel is excused. Thank you very much for 

joining us today. 

I would invite the second panel to come forward. 

Senator Lautenberg, please feel free to introduce Commissioner 

Jackson. My recollection is, Commissioner Jackson, that you had 

been invited to testify a couple of months ago at another panel, and 

you were unable to come, someone else did come in your absence. 

38 

As I recall, she did an excellent job. We are delighted that you are 

here today. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Senator LAUTENBERG. She is committed to New Jersey, Mr. 

Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, I am honored to introduce to our Committee the 

Commissioner of New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection, Lisa Jackson. Commissioner Jackson is a highly effective 

advocate for our environment in New Jersey, and I think probably 

does some good for Delaware, even in her pursuit of that assignment. She has dedicated her career to public service, having previously served 16 years at the Federal level with EPA. Together, 

we have worked on project important to New Jersey, keeping our 

air clean, fighting global warming and protecting our State’s strong 

chemical security laws. 

So as usual, I look forward to her testimony and to her continuing to work on her protection of our environment. We thank 

you very much for being here. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Senator Lautenberg, thank you for that introduction. I think what I am going to do is just briefly introduce the 

other panelists, and then ask Commissioner Jackson to actually 

begin her testimony. Then when you conclude, we will probably run 

and begin the first of four votes. 

Our second panelist, following Commissioner Jackson, will be Dr. 

Michael Durham, Officer and Board Member of the Institute of 

Clean Air Companies. Thank you for coming today. 

Next is Dr. Steven Benson, Senior Research Manager and Advisor of the Energy and Environmental Research Center. Thank you 

for coming. 

Dr. Leonard Levin, Technical Executive of Air Quality, from the 

Electric Power Research Institute. Thank you for joining us. 

Finally, Vickie Patton, Deputy General Counsel, Climate and Air 

Program of the Environmental Defense Fund. It is good to see you. 

Thank you so much for coming. 

Commissioner Jackson, your entire testimony will be made a 

part of the record. In fact, the same is true for all of our witnesses. 

Feel free to summarize as you see fit. I will ask you to stay within 

a 5-minute time period, if you could. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF LISA P. JACKSON, COMMISSIONER, NEW 

JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

Ms. JACKSON. I am happy to. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I have to thank Senator Lautenberg for that lovely introduction, 

but also for his leadership on so many environmental issues in our 

State and for his support of me personally and for the Governor’s 

environmental agenda. 

And Senator Carper, I have to thank you for keeping a multi-pollutant focus, first and foremost, when it comes to air emissions. I 

think that will in the end be a good solution to many of our problems, including the mercury problem that we discuss here today. 

I will summarize my remarks as follows. The court cited Lewis 

Carroll in vacating the rule, so I will keep the same analogy and 

ask members of the panel and members of this Committee to look 

39 

through the looking glass at an alternative reality to where we find 

ourselves nationally with respect to mercury regulation. The State 

of New Jersey really has been a leader on regulating mercury. And 

it is regulation, it is strong regulation for mercury. 

But like the State of Minnesota, it was regulation that was supported by our electric generating industry within the State. As a 

result of having moved forward with regulation, decades ago, a decade ago at least, we have experience now that we offer to this Committee that we hope is instructive to you as you consider S. 2643. 

Certainly, New Jersey supports S. 2643. We believe it is the right 

path in terms of continuation of mercury regulation. New Jersey 

has a long history of working with its stakeholders as well, and on 

implementing regulation, and, I have to note, fine-tuning them as 

we learn. Because have learned in New Jersey and in States 

throughout the Northeast that forcing technology in American ingenuity means that we learn to improve technology as we go. I think 

that is my lesson here. 

Indeed, Alyssa Wolfe was here about a year ago. I couldn’t appear at that time because of wildfires in our State. I am glad to 

say that is not the case today. 

New Jersey is not alone in supporting S. 2643. The Environment 

Council of the State recently adopted a resolution at their meeting 

in New Orleans encouraging EPA to expeditiously issue a mercury 

rule. 

I would like to talk a little bit about the technology, because I 

know that is the focus of this panel. In the last year, mercury control projects in New Jersey confirm that 90 percent control of mercury from coal-fired electric generating units is achievable, is 

achievable now. Our first experiences with municipal solid waste 

incinerators, we have 12 years of having required mercury regulation of MSWs, and in that time, mercury emissions have dropped 

by about 90 percent in the first year of carbon injection installations on 13 incinerators. 

After years of experience, mercury control levels are now between 95 and 99 percent for all units in the State. Carbon injection 

for those units has proven to be low cost, quick to install and highly effective on units as long as those units have good particulate 

control. For the 13 incinerators in New Jersey, carbon injection 

took less than 1 year to install, and that was back in 1995. 

With respect to coal, the ten facilities in our State are in various 

stages of implementing mercury control. What we have learned so 

far is that carbon injection prior to fabric filters achieves over 90 

percent mercury control and very low emissions of mercury. We 

have some units in our State, particularly the connective deepwater 

facility, which achieves our mercury emissions requirements without injecting any extra carbon, primarily because their process produces carbon and that provides enough carbon to effectively control 

mercury emissions as well. 

Initial testing shows units with well-designed electrostatic 

precipitators, ESPs, can achieve close to or greater than 90 percent 

reduction. Some ESPs do need to be supplemented with fabric filters as we are finding out at the PSEG facility in Mercer County. 

And recent tests of carbon injection at RC Cape May’s BL England 

Plant showed over 95 percent control. I would like to note for the 

40 

Committee that that is with high sulfur coal. So we are seeing 90 

percent removal, and that is a high sulfur coal, which I know has 

been a concern. I am sure we may hear from some members of the 

panel with respect to that issue. 

Units with less effective particle control are less effective at capturing the mercury, even if you inject carbon. So some units in the 

U.S. will likely need to upgrade particulate control in order to 

achieve 90 percent. That is in my mind very appropriate, this is 

maximum available control technology. It is very important to remember when you look at costs and benefits that you remove much 

more than mercury. You deal with hazardous metals, hazardous 

organics, particulate matter, even dioxins in some cases. 

Addition of fabric filters can take longer than a year. 

I will not talk about the court action, although I am happy to in 

my remarks, and we certainly have a section in my written testimony. 

In summary, I would just like to say that continuing to have a 

90 percent reduction option is extraordinarily appropriate in my 

mind for mercury. Ninety percent reduction in mercury emissions 

from coal-fired plants is achievable. It is an appropriate requirement of S. 2643. I applaud the fact that that piece of legislation 

would look at more than just mercury, would be multi-pollutant in 

its approach. 

And I would suggest only one, with respect, potential modification, which is to do what we have done in New Jersey, which is 

to provide an emission rate option, so that you have an option of 

90 percent removal or a rate of emissions per megawatt hours, say, 

or megawatt, such that if you start with very low mercury coal, you 

are not trying to get to an extraordinarily low level of mercury if 

you mandate 90 percent across the board. 

I do not believe emission trading for neurotoxins is an appropriate approach, frankly. Mandating a Section 112 MACT performance standard will ensure that kind of trading does not occur. 

I also believe we need MACT standards for all hazards. Thank 

you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson follows:] 

41 


85534.011
42 


85534.012
43 


85534.013
44 


85534.014
45 


85534.015
46 


85534.016
47 


85534.017
48 


85534.018
49 


85534.019
50 


85534.020
51 


85534.021
52 


85534.022
53 


85534.023
54 


85534.024
55 


85534.025
56 


85534.026
57 


85534.027
58 


85534.183
59 


85534.150
60 


85534.151
61 


85534.152
62 


85534.153
63 


85534.154
64 


85534.155
65 

Senator CARPER. Commissioner Jackson, thank you for your testimony. 

Given the experience that you have in New Jersey, what you 

have done is actually quite relevant to what we are considering 

here today. So we are grateful for the example and also for your 

input. 

We are going to recess the hearing for about 35 minutes or so. 

We are in our first vote, we have about three more to follow, and 

I hope to be back to reconvene at about 12:15. For this time, the 

hearing is recessed. 

[Recess.] 

Senator CARPER. We just finished four votes, now we are done, 

we will be able to complete our hearing and go on with our lives. 

Dr. Durham, you are next. You are recognized for 5 minutes and 

your entire statement will be part of the record for you and for 

each of our other witnesses. Thank you for your patience. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL D. DURHAM, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

ADA ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS 

Mr. DURHAM. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Good morning. I am Michael Durham, President of ADA Environmental Solutions, a company that develops and commercializes air 

pollution control technology. I am here today as an officer of the 

Institute of Clean Air Companies, a national trade association of 

more than 100 companies that supply air pollution control and 

monitoring technologies for electric power and industrial plants. 

We thank you for the invitation to testify on the status of mercury 

control technologies. 

When I first testified to this Committee in 2002, we had completed only two full-scale tests of activated carbon injection. While 

we had achieved 90 percent capture of mercury in the first test on 

eastern coal, we discovered limitations of the technology in the second test on western coal. This issue is highlighted in a January 

2005 report to this Committee, referenced earlier by Senator 

Voinovich, in which EIA projected the legislation requiring 90 percent mercury control could cost $358 billion. 

Since 2002, the science and understanding of mercury control 

has moved rapidly from R&D into full system deployment. Through 

funding for DOE, EPRI and power companies, we have been able 

to discover the root cause of, the limitations on western coals and 

successfully develop different solutions so that now 90 percent capture can be readily achievable. Today, control of mercury on western coal represents our easiest and lowest-cost application for mercury control. 

Demonstrations have also been conducted on other control technologies, such as mercury removal in wet scrubbers, and enhancements such as oxidizing catalysts. ACI has now been tested fullscale on over 50 plants, representing a variety of power plant configurations burning different coals. Today we have more operating 

and performance data on mercury control than was available for 

any other pollutant prior to Federal regulation. Recent analyses by 

DOE and EPA suggest that cost will only be a small fraction of 

early EIA estimates. 

66 

Following the rapid development of a number of viable control 

technologies, strict regulations were enacted over a dozen States, 

and new power plants were required to achieve 90 percent capture. 

This has created a healthy market for commercial mercury control 

technology and today vendors are actively installing systems across 

the Country. 

In addition to mercury that will be captured as a result of the 

installation of SO2 scrubbers and NOx control catalysts, there have 

been over 85 commercial contracts awarded for ACI. Systems are 

being installed on new and existing power plants representing 

40,000 megawatts of power, approximately 12 percent of the fleet. 

Because of the simplicity and versatility of ACI, systems were 

purchased for boilers with different equipment configurations ranging in size from 50 to 900 megawatts, burning all three of the U.S. 

coals, including bituminous, sub-bituminous and lignite. In addition to these 85 contracts, another 70 ACI systems will be awarded 

in the next 2 years to meet the latest State regulations. 

As you consider a Federal mercury regulation, you should be 

aware that because of differences in the age, location and design 

of the 1,100 plants within the U.S. fleet, there will be significant 

plant by plant variations in cost and technical difficulties of achieving high levels of mercury control. There have been similar challenges faced by other regulated pollutants that have spurred the 

development of a suite of technology options for each pollutant. 

ICAC recommends that you consider flexibility in the legislation 

as a way to address differences in plant by plant operations. Flexibility can reduce overall costs, and alleviate burdens for the most 

challenging applications. A well-designed program with flexibility 

can ultimately achieve greater reductions in mercury emissions 

without jeopardizing the reliability of electricity supply. 

There are a number of examples of flexibility in recent State 

mercury regulations, such as system-wide averaging, two-phase approach, soft landings and safety valves. You might also consider 

the fact that all mercury control technologies incorporate interactions with other air pollution control equipment, often resulting 

in co-benefits. Therefore, costs can be minimized under a multi-pollutant regulatory framework in which decisions about mercury can 

be integrated with strategies to address the other criteria pollutants. 

In summary, I would like to add that there are still challenges 

remaining for some power plant applications that provide opportunities for technology innovations and further cost reductions. We 

are working with the electric power industry to develop and implement new clean coal technologies to continue the progress the industry has made over the past decades burning coal with significantly lower emissions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Durham follows:] 

67 


85534.028
68 


85534.029
69 


85534.030
70 


85534.031
71 


85534.032
72 


85534.033
73 


85534.034
74 


85534.035
75 


85534.036
76 


85534.037
77 


85534.038
78 


85534.039
79 


85534.040
80 


85534.041
81 


85534.042
82 

Senator CARPER. Dr. Durham, thanks, and I look forward to following up on some of the points that you have raised during our 

Q&A. Thank you. 

Dr. Benson, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN A. BENSON, SENIOR MANAGER, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA 

Mr. BENSON. I would like to thank the Chair and members of the 

Committee for the opportunity to testify today. I am a senior research manager at the Energy and Environmental Research Center 

at the University of North Dakota. 

At the EERC, we conduct research, development and demonstration projects on a wide range of energy and environmental issues, 

including energy production and environmental issues associated 

with the utilization of renewable as well as fossil energy resources. 

For the past 20 years, we have been involved in the development 

and testing of mercury measurement and control technologies in 

bench, pilot and full-scale systems. To date, we have conducted 

mercury emissions control testing in over 80 power plant units that 

fire lignite, sub-bituminous and bituminous coals in the United 

States and Canada. 

Today I will provide a perspective on the status of mercury control technologies and coal-fired power plants. Over the past 5 years, 

a variety of technologies have been tested, including sorbents to 

capture mercury, such as activated carbons, metals, silicates. There 

has been chemical addition and catalyst used to oxidize mercury to 

a soluble form for capture in scrubbers, as well as combinations of 

sorbents and oxidizing agents. 

While significant progress has been attained for achieving greater than 90 percent removal of mercury from combustion flue gases 

for selected coals and selected system configurations during shortterm testing, technology necessary to maintain 90 percent mercury 

control throughout the coal-fired fleet has not been demonstrated 

adequately to ensure long-term performance and reliability. Demonstrated technology performance and reliability to meet mercury 

emission standards is essential to ensuring reliable electricity generation at low cost. 

I will comment on both performance and reliability relative to 

mercury control technologies. Typically, the most important factors 

that limit technology performance are coal composition, coal composition variability and plant configurations. Remember that coal 

fired, plant configurations and operations are typically unique to 

each plant. 

We found that in order to attain optimum mercury capture performance, the technology must be tailored based on the forms of 

mercury in the flue gases, which are driven by coal composition, 

system configuration and operating parameters. For example, injection of plain and enhanced activated carbon upstream of particulate control devices in power plants has shown greater than 90 percent control in some cases. However, in other cases, difficulty in obtaining greater than 60 percent mercury control has been observed, 

even with injection of high levels of enhanced activated carbon. 

83 

Broadly applying mercury control technologies across the fleet of 

more than 1,200 power plants requires long-term demonstrated 

performance of the suite of technologies based on fuel type and 

plant configuration. Technology reliability is essential for the electric power industry. The technologies must provide high levels of 

mercury removal efficiency 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, as a 

function of fuel variability, plant operations and seasonal changes. 

Uncertainties exist in the ability of the technology to maintain high 

levels of mercury control if changes occur in coal composition, fuel 

blending ratios and load conditions. In addition, concerns for the 

performance of the technology under very low temperature conditions and high temperature conditions exists. 

In conclusion, we have made significant progress in the development of mercury control technologies for coal-fired power plants. 

However, unresolved issues remain. The wide range of coal types, 

plant configurations, increases the uncertainties in the ability to effectively control mercury emissions. Less than 10 percent of the 

power plants in the United States have been tested. Technology 

performance is typically based on short-term testing of a few hours 

or a month. 

Longer term testing of mercury emissions control technologies on 

selected power plant configuration and fuel properties as needed to 

reveal any unintended environmental side effects of the mercury 

control strategy, identify and minimize the effects of sorbent poisons, such as SO3, and also identify other balance of plant issues, 

such as corrosion that may limit the lifetime of the power plant. 

Longer term testing must be designed to address these remaining 

issues, as well as refine the technologies to ensure that the electric 

utility industry can meet new mercury standards while providing 

low cost, reliable electricity in the future. 

However, the number of projects and programs on mercury control have dropped off sharply recently and the funding for future 

long-term testing is very limited and in some cases, has been zeroed out. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I will be glad to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Benson follows:] 

84 


85534.043
85 


85534.044
86 


85534.045
87 


85534.046
88 


85534.047
89 


85534.156
90 


85534.157
91 


85534.158
92 


85534.159
93 

Senator CARPER. Dr. Benson, thank you very much for that testimony. 

Now we will turn to Dr. Levin. Welcome, and thank you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF LEONARD LEVIN, PH.D., TECHNICAL 

EXECUTIVE, ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE 

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you, Chairman Carper, members of the Committee. 

I am Dr. Leonard Levin, Technical Executive at the Electric 

Power Research Institute, located in Palo Alto, California. I am 

here at the request of the Senators to discuss some recent research 

findings that relate the sources of mercury to its movement in the 

atmosphere, its ultimate fate when deposited to U.S. waterways 

and to the fish populations that live there, and how those findings 

relate back to mercury source management. 

Mercury reaches humans primarily by the consumption of fish 

that may have elevated mercury levels. For that reason, public 

health benefits can in part be indirectly evaluated by how much 

less mercury deposits from the atmosphere to waterways containing these fish, once controls are placed on mercury sources. 

One newly published study provides a good picture of links among 

U.S. and global mercury emissions, how those have changed over 

the last 10 years and what we can expect to see in the resulting 

deposition of mercury in the United States from the atmosphere. 

This study, and other new findings based on observed data, join 

a record of extensive modeling studies over the past few years, to 

provide a more understandable picture of the benefits to public 

health from regulating U.S. mercury sources. There are some key 

points relating to mercury deposition that relate back to this link 

between source controls and public health benefits. First, every 

source of mercury to the atmosphere emits three principal forms 

kinds of mercury. These three forms behave quite differently in the 

environment. One form of mercury is water soluble and is readily 

washed out of the atmosphere by precipitation. The other two 

forms of mercury are not water soluble and are more likely to be 

dispersed by large-scale wind patterns and pass out of national airspace before eventually being removed from the atmosphere at 

greatly reduced levels. 

Second, more than 95 percent of global emissions of mercury 

originate outside the United States. Some of this global emissions 

total will deposit within U.S. waters. This establishes in essence a 

limit on how much the mercury entering fishable U.S. waters can 

be reduced by controls on U.S. sources alone. 

Third, by far, most of the fish consumed by women of child-bearing age in the United States, the most sensitive individuals via potential exposure of developing fetuses, are sold in commerce and 

are harvested in the North Pacific, upwind from the United States, 

or come from farmed fish. For that reason, even severe cuts in U.S. 

emissions are bound to have limits on how effective they are in reducing U.S. mercury exposure generally. 

It is increasingly evident that specific control approaches tailored 

to the particular source being managed will provide the greatest return in overall public health benefits. The continuing development 

and testing of new control technologies is a needed step in this 

94 

process. The forms of mercury emitted dictate that, beyond a certain point for each mercury source, further controls will lead to less 

and less additional health benefit. 

Together, all these factors and the scientific evidence for them 

call for close scrutiny of mercury in the U.S. both prior to and following any control steps. That scrutiny is just beginning with testing of required new measurement methods and the initial design 

of a multi-year national monitoring network for environmental 

mercury. 

We should not anticipate rapid and obvious declines in fish mercury everywhere in the Nation once even the largest mercury 

sources are controlled, but instead look forward to an extended effort to manage mercury wisely and be vigilant about any resulting 

environmental health benefits. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Levin follows:] 

95 


85534.048
96 


85534.049
97 


85534.050
98 


85534.051
99 


85534.052
100 


85534.053
101 


85534.054
102 


85534.055
103 


85534.056
104 


85534.057
105 


85534.160
106 


85534.161
107 


85534.162
108 


85534.163
109 


85534.164
110 


85534.165
111 


85534.166
112 


85534.167
113 

Senator CARPER. Dr. Levin, thank you so much. 

Ms. Patton, thank you for joining us today. 

STATEMENT OF VICKIE PATTON, DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL, 

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND 

Ms. PATTON. Thank you very much, Senator Carper and Senator 

Voinovich and Senator Barrasso for the opportunity to be here. 

My name is Vickie Patton. I am the Deputy General Counsel at 

the Environmental Defense Fund. I served in EPA’s Office of General Counsel both in the first Bush administration and then also 

under the Clinton administration, where I had the privilege of 

working with a number of technical experts on air pollution. 

In 1990, Congress debated with overwhelming bipartisan support 

an overhaul to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, in which it 

laid out a blueprint to address the most toxic, indeed, hazardous 

air pollutants, including mercury pollution. Since that time, since 

Congress laid out its blueprint for action, we have made a lot of 

progress. We have plowed a lot of ground through good American 

ingenuity and innovation. 

EPA has issued a 1,700 page report to Congress laying out the 

very serious health effects of mercury pollution. The National Academy of Sciences has issued a similar report, documenting the toxicological effects of mercury pollution. And what it has instructed us 

is that mercury poses a particularly serious threat to our most vulnerable populations, our children. Since that time, there has been 

a new body of data highlighting the connection between mercury 

exposure and the environment and heart disease, cardiovascular effects. 

At the same time, a number of scientists have looked at the societal benefits of controlling mercury pollution from coal-fired power 

plants, the Nation’s largest source of man-made mercury pollution. 

Scientists at the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis examined the 

societal, the monetary benefits of protecting Americans from the 

cardiovascular effects, from heart disease, children from cognitive 

developments. 

Similarly, a group of scientists at Mount Sinai Medical Center 

teamed up with scientists at Children’s Hospital and they conducted an assessment of the benefits of protecting children, their 

cognitive development, from mercury pollution. Both of these studies revealed that the monetary benefits of controlling coal-fired 

power plants at a high degree were in the billions of dollars. Of 

course, to a parent who is faced with a young child who has been 

exposed to mercury pollution, the value of protecting that child and 

securing its potential is priceless. 

While we have been looking at the very serious health effects, 

American engineering firms have been demonstrating the great capacity to control mercury pollution. There have been pilot scale 

tests, there have been full-scale tests, we have examined the potential to control mercury at all coal types: lignite coals, bituminous 

coals, sub-bituminous coals, at all sorts of control technology configurations. And today, if you look at the Institute for Clean Air 

Companies website, you will see that there 90 bookings for advanced mercury controls at coal plants across the Nation, all parts 

114 

of the Country, burning all sorts of coal types with all different 

kinds of control technology configuration. 

These bookings reflect some 40,000 megawatts of coal-fired capacity in America. This is good news. And it is not surprising, because 10 years ago, when EPA put in place a protective program 

to control mercury, 90 percent for medical waste incinerators and 

trash combusters, it was the same technology that proved that we 

could in fact reduce mercury dramatically from those sources of 

pollution. 

While we have made great strides in terms of understanding the 

health effects of mercury and American innovation in bringing 

technology to bear, our national policy has faltered. EPA has put 

in place a flawed program to address this neurotoxin, using a meager trading program, a trading program that would in its first 

phase reduce mercury by only 20 percent and postpone any meaningful reductions for yet another generation of children. While Environmental Defense Fund has been a strong proponent of trading 

programs and using market-based mechanisms to solve environmental problems, trading is inappropriate for a neurotoxin that has 

very serious health effects. 

In fact, there are a body of studies that show us that coal-fired 

power plants are associated with depositional hotspots. There was 

a landmark study done by EPA scientists and Michigan scientists 

in Steubenville, Ohio that associated coal-fired power plants with 

some 70 percent of the mercury deposited at this monitoring site 

that operated for 2 years continuously at the Franciscan University 

in Steubenville, Ohio. Similarly, scientists have looked at thousands of data points across New England and found evidence of serious biological hotspots. They have done sophisticated modeling 

analysis to show that if you reduce mercury in the immediate vicinity of where we are finding hotspots of mercury in the common loon 

and the yellow perch that it will have significant benefits. 

But we also have real world empirical studies where State scientists in Florida looked at the benefits of reducing mercury from 

medical waste incinerators and combusters in South Florida. What 

they found is when they cut pollution 90 percent from those units 

that there was an immediate and commensurate response in the 

health of the Everglades in South Florida. So the mercury pollution 

in largemouth bass has been demonstrably reduced, as has other 

evidence of mercury pollution in the environment, and the grand 

egret. 

So there are lots of examples where we know that when we reduce mercury pollution in our local environment, it has real world 

benefits. And we can demonstrate that through real world studies. 

Sometimes when we debate air pollution issues in America it is 

easy to kind of lost sight of time, it is easy to lose sight of the perspective because we get caught up in issues about technology, we 

get caught up in issues about D.C. Circuit cases. But I want to 

thank you, Senator Carper and Senator Voinovich, for trying to 

help keep America’s eye on the ball and ensure that we don’t lose 

our perspective and lose our way. Coal-fired power plants are the 

Nation’s largest single source of man-made mercury pollution. The 

National Academy of Scientists issued a seminal toxicological study 

in which it found that the children who are exposed at these enviVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:20 Sep 29, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85534.TXT VERN
115 

ronmental levels to mercury pollution may struggle to keep up in 

school, they may require remedial classes, they may require special 

education. This has real world impacts in thwarting the potential 

of our children. 

EPA’s own toxicologist, Dr. Kathryn Mahaffey, looked at umbilical cord data. What she found is some 630,000 children each year 

are exposed to mercury levels that can impede their neurological 

development. This is EPA’s own toxicologist. If you look at the consequences over the last 18 years of debate and delay, that means 

some 11 million children have been exposed to mercury pollution 

in our environment. While we have struggled federally to solve the 

problem, States have really charted the way. States across the 

Country have adopted very protective programs to address mercury 

pollution. 

So with your leadership, I would like to respectfully request that 

we follow the lead of the States like Delaware and Illinois and Arizona and Colorado and Oregon and Washington and New Jersey 

and Massachusetts and Michigan that have adopted very protective 

programs, and we do the same to ensure that each child can realize 

its full potential. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Patton follows:] 

116 


85534.068
117 


85534.069
118 


85534.070
119 


85534.071
120 


85534.072
121 


85534.073
122 


85534.074
123 


85534.184
124 


85534.169
125 


85534.170
126 


85534.171
127 


85534.172
128 


85534.173
129 


85534.174
130 


85534.175
131 

Senator CARPER. Thank you very much. 

Senator Voinovich has to leave at 1 o’clock. I am going to ask just 

one question and then turn the time over to Senator Voinovich for 

his questions. 

My question is, and this really is a question that draws from 

Senator Voinovich’s earlier comments and concerns, I will attempt 

to paraphrase him. Among the concerns that he and a couple other 

of my colleagues and one or two of our witnesses has raised is, is 

there technology in existence today that will actually enable us to 

reduce our emissions from most different kinds of mercury, from 

different kinds of coal, different kinds of plants? Do we have the 

technology today that would enable us to reduce emissions by 70, 

80 or 90 percent or more? That is the first part of the question. 

If we do, or if we don’t, let’s say if we don’t, is it really going to 

cost something like $300 billion, I think that was one of the numbers I heard, over $300 billion to actually develop the technology 

and implement and deploy it across the thousand-plus coal-fired 

plants? So the cost of deployment, Dr. Durham, I think I heard you 

say the cost is actually a good deal less than that. 

A third related question is cost benefit analysis, given whatever 

cost it is likely to take, does the benefit actually convince us that 

we ought to undertake the cost? And last, a concern that Senator 

Voinovich is consistent in raising in hearings of this nature, is the 

question of fuel shifting. Half of our electricity comes from coal. 

The concern is, if we undertake this step to dramatically reduce 

mercury emissions over the next half dozen or so years, what does 

that do for folks who are paying their utility bills? Also, what does 

it do in terms of encouraging fuel shifting to natural gas, something we don’t want to encourage? 

Commissioner Jackson, given the experience you have had in 

New Jersey, could you start off, please? 

Ms. JACKSON. I am happy to, Senator, thank you. New Jersey’s 

experience is that the technology is available today for our plants. 

It is either in implementation, being implemented now and we expect to see full implementation easily well in advance of 2012, 

which is our latest deadline for implementation. Our rules gave 

until 2007 if you were only controlling mercury. But if you were 

doing a multi-pollutant approach, you have until 2012. We will 

probably make 2010 for our ten plants. 

In terms of cost, I will defer to Dr. Durham. But clearly, our experience has been whether it is municipal incinerators or these 

plants that it this is a low-cost, carbon injection has proven to a 

very low-cost alternative. The benefit of making sure that you have 

good particulate control extends beyond mercury to a range of other 

potential pollutants, not to mention particulates. 

Senator CARPER. So your experience in New Jersey is that the 

technology is available now, the cost is not prohibitive for the 

plants it is being incorporated into. Thank you. 

Dr. Durham? 

Mr. DURHAM. In the study referenced by Senator Voinovich by 

EIA, those costs were based around the fuel switching issue. At the 

time, we were struggling with controlling mercury from western 

coals. So with a premise that EIA could only consider technologies 

132 

capable of achieving 90 percent without technology for western 

coals, it assumed they would all have to switch to natural gas. 

Since then, we have come up with technology solutions for the 

western coals that are significantly lower than we had ever hoped 

for. And as a result, most of the commercial mercury control systems being sold today on new power plants, most of them burn 

western coals, achieving 90 percent. The first one, the permit for 

a new power plant, the Council Bluffs Station, is now operating at 

a level of about a factor of five lower than the system was designed 

for. So it is using a fifth the carbon it was designed for and achieving 90 percent. The first commercial system on an existing power 

plant has been operating over a year at 90 percent mercury removal on western coal. 

So the issue around switching away from western coals because 

of this has actually been switched because of technology advances. 

Now western coals are our easiest and cheapest application. 

Senator CARPER. Let me turn to Senator Voinovich. I want to 

make sure he has some time before he has to run off. Senator 

Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. You are basically taking it down the road I 

was going, thank you. 

If I heard correctly before, if you do aggressive SOx anSOx reduction, you get co-benefits. Does anyone want to comment about how 

much reduction do you get from that procedure? In other words, 

the argument is that when we looked at this the last time that the 

cost of the controls for mercury were very expensive and that we 

would be better off not mandating a high level and that we would 

give the technology a chance to mature and take advantage of cobenefit, which does reduce the mercury emissions. That is a comment on that. 

The second question is the one I asked the other panel, and that 

is the difference between 70 and 90 percent, in so many instances, 

how much more health benefit are you going to get between 70 and 

90 percent? And how much additional cost do you incur by going 

that extra 20 percent? So the first question I think would be just 

how much are we getting when we have co-benefit? 

Dr. DURHAM. The co-benefits issue is primarily on eastern coals. 

That is because as Dr. Levin talked about, different forms of mercury are produced. The eastern coals produce a form that can be 

captured in the wet scrubbers. So the use of wet scrubbers for capturing mercury is probably one of the primary means of capturing 

mercury. 

Senator VOINOVICH. In other words, when you use high-sulfur 

coal, you use scrubbers. When you use scrubbers, you reduce the 

mercury emissions. When you use low-sulfur coal, in many instances you don’t use the scrubbers and as a result, you don’t get 

the co-benefit because you are not using scrubbers? 

Dr. DURHAM. Not necessarily. Actually, many of the plants burning western coals do have scrubbers. But the form of mercury that 

is created by the western coals is not removed in a scrubber, because it is not water soluble. So the issue of co-benefits is pretty 

much localized around the eastern coal applications. That range is, 

I think Dr. Benson mentioned 60 to 90 percent. We’re looking at 

ways of enhancing it. Dr. Levin’s organization, EPRI, is doing a lot 

133 

of work on enhancing how do we get more of that co-benefit, either 

by oxidation catalysts or improving the chemistry within a scrubber to try to assure that 90 percent level for the scrubbers on eastern coals. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Dr. Levin. 

Mr. LEVIN. My specialization in particular is on environmental 

effects of mercury. Regarding the health benefits that the Senator 

referred to, the modeling that we have looked at shows that in 

moving from a 70 percent to a 90 percent national control goal, 

there is decreasing health benefit as measured by lower deposition 

into U.S. waters resulting from going between 70 percent and 90 

percent. The reason is that the incentive for any source is to capture early and more readily the water-soluble form of mercury at 

the emission point, and then to later introduce controls such as activated carbon that will more effectively capture the less watersoluble form. 

The problem is that this elemental form of mercury, because it 

is less water soluble, is also less likely to be deposited within the 

United States, more likely to be widely dispersed into the atmosphere. Some of it will eventually deposit to the United States. Most 

of it will remain in the atmosphere or be deposited elsewhere 

around the globe. 

That is the reason that there is not a commensurate decrease in 

deposition, and therefore potential health benefits, in going from 70 

to 90 percent. You would hope to find an additional 20 percent increase in health benefits. Instead what we find is deposition decreases of anywhere from 5 to 10 percent; in many cases less than 

5 percent, due to that additional 20 percent control level, because 

of the different form of mercury that is being captured at the margin. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Dr. Benson, do you want to comment on 

that? 

Mr. BENSON. Relative to the control technologies and the effectiveness of control technologies, it is very coal-dependent. Typically, 

we get the opportunity to work on very challenging cases of mercury capture where there are poisons and that impact the ability 

of mercury control technologies to capture the vapor phase mercury. 

With respect to the co-benefits, I agree with Dr. Durham’s perspective. There are ways to enhance western coals for SCRs and 

scrubbers to capture the mercury but you need to add something 

like a chemical or enhance the operation of a catalyst to make sure 

you control the mercury emissions. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. I appreciate it. 

Senator CARPER. Let me go back and ask the panel, someone 

mentioned the word flexibility and why it was important that we 

just not mandate a particular standard for every single power 

plant, but to realize that there are differences in coal, there are differences in the way these plants operate. Could somebody just take 

a minute and talk to us about flexibility? I don’t know if it was Ms. 

Patton or Dr. Durham, but someone mentioned the need for flexibility in terms of as we go forward with legislation. 

Dr. DURHAM. As we have talked about, each plant was designed 

with different equipment, different coals, all these characteristics. 

134 

Even for plants that may be identical, we see differences in operation. So the flexibility comes about in that there are going to be 

some that can easily achieve 90 percent, and others, it is going to 

be a struggle where it may end up being two or three times the 

cost to get 90 percent mercury control from that one unit. 

And it may be an issue that you can have two operating units, 

one that Ms. Jackson mentioned that got 95 percent. That could be 

sitting next to an identical unit that is only getting 85 percent. 

With some flexibility to average those at 90 as opposed to now, how 

do we get that 85 to 90, it may cost twice as much as it took to 

get from zero to 85. So that kind of flexibility allows balancing, it 

allows the utility to consider low-cost options across their fleet. 

Senator CARPER. That is a very helpful point. 

I have a question, if I could, for Commissioner Jackson, please. 

The actions taken and the results achieved by the Garden State to 

reduce mercury pollution are, I think most of us would have to 

agree, impressive. How would a Federal rule build on the health 

benefits realized by your State’s action? 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Senator. A Federal rule would, quite 

simply, eliminate or at least begin to eliminate the mercury emissions that come to us from upwind, which we believe remain and 

are significant. We have done a lot of work to address our plants 

and our neighbors downwind, but we are looking for help from the 

Federal Government. New Jersey is not un-used to going first, but 

we tend to look back and hope that the rest of the Country will join 

us. 

Our experience is, this is not expensive. A small amount of flexibility goes a long way. The ability to look at an annual average 

gives plants a lot of ability to manage their individual plant emissions. And we would look for some recognition that averaging 

across the fleet might be too large an area, that looking at a plant 

or an area might make sense. But we are very concerned about our 

upwind neighbors. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Let me ask a question of Ms. Patton. In your opinion, why do you 

suppose EPA would want to regulate mercury through a cap and 

trade regimen, but be against a cap and trade approach for CO2? 

Ms. PATTON. Senator Carper, the history with emissions trading 

is a very robust and good history. When Congress in 1990 applied 

emissions cap and trade system to the challenge of reducing sulfur 

dioxide by millions of tons, the Nation secured very important 

health and environmental benefits at a fraction of the estimated 

cost. So it doesn’t make sense for the Environmental Protection 

Agency to oppose addressing the urgent challenge of global warming with the same tool that has proven so effective in securing societal benefits at a fraction of the cost. We would hope that EPA 

does, as it grapples with these issues, look at the authorities it has 

under the Clean Air Act to address global warming, pollution in a 

thoughtful, cost-effective way, in the same way that we have addressed other problems. 

But with mercury, we have to be very judicious in how we use 

emissions cap and trade tools and emissions trading tools, because 

if we misapply them and we don’t apply them constant with what 

the science tells us and what is necessary to protect human health, 

135 

not only do we risk creating hot spots or not addressing the problem we set out to address, but we undermine the legitimacy of 

these very important public policy tools in the public square and 

that doesn’t serve anyone’s interest. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

A question for Dr. Durham, then I have one last question to ask 

Dr. Levin and Dr. Benson. I will just telegraph my pitch and tell 

you what I am going to ask you so you can think about it while 

I ask this question of Dr. Durham. 

If we were to go down the road and adopt legislation in markup 

and Committee and take to the floor legislation similar to that 

which a number of us have co-sponsored on mercury, what would 

be some advice that you would have for us? Similar to what Dr. 

Durham said, he said make sure you provide for some flexibility. 

If you have one plan alongside another, 85, 95 percent example 

that he gave us, to get 85 percent up to 90 costs a whole lot of 

money, and just make sure that we can take advantage of the 95 

percent, which was more cost-effective, and settle for 85 percent in 

the other plant. That is the kind of advice I would welcome for our 

consideration today. 

While you are thinking about that, let me ask Dr. Durham one 

last question. What impact do you suppose we see with the multipollutant regulation like the Clean Air Planning Act that a number 

of us have co-sponsored and introduced? What impact would it 

have on the cost effectiveness and overall efficiency of control technology? 

Dr. DURHAM. As I mentioned, Senator Carper, all of the mercury 

control technologies interact one way or another with one of the 

other air pollution control systems. There is no single box for mercury control. So for example, on the eastern coals, one of the most 

cost effective approaches is through what started out as the CAMR 

program, building on the CAIR, is that we are going to get a lot 

of mercury capture in scrubbers and SCRs for NOx control. They 

can be modified, our companies have technologies for improving the 

mercury removal in scrubbers and improving what a catalyst can 

do for that. So that would be very significant. 

On the ACI technologies, the addition of fabric filters not only 

enhances the mercury capture in an ACI system, it lowers the 

amount of carbon that is being used and has a co-benefit of increased fine particle capture. So because of these interactions, it is 

really difficult to make a decision about mercury in a vacuum. It 

is much more cost effective if you consider all the other pollutants 

at one time. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Dr. Benson and Dr. Levin, if we are to proceed with this legislation, what are some things you would have us keep in mind to address some of the concerns that you have raised and maybe the 

concerns that others have raised, including my colleagues? 

Mr. BENSON. I think one of the key things you need to keep in 

mind is that there is a wide distribution of fuel types, there is a 

wide distribution of power plant types that are out there. Dr. Durham has indicated, some of them are going to be fairly easy, fairly 

cost effective to enhance the mercury control, or to provide mercury 

controls that can meet 90 percent and above. 

136 

However, for other power plants, because of either a coal property that is different or a blending scenarios, something in the operations, mercury is very difficult to control. Allowing some flexibility, since most mercury control technologies are tailored to a specific coal type, boiler operations, as well as a design so you can 

meet the 90 percent standards, or, it depends upon the cost of getting there. 

In some cases, equipment will have to be added to a plant, in 

other cases all you need to do is add in an oxidizing agent and an 

activated carbon for example. Flexibility and an understanding 

that tailoring is required for optimum mercury control. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, sir. Dr. Levin, the last word. 

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you. If the ultimate goal of environmental regulation is the protection of human health and welfare, it is not sufficient to control sources without monitoring the results and being 

vigilant about the effects of that regulation on human health, in 

particular. For that reason, it is important that the national monitoring program of mercury in the environment proceed as quickly 

as are the steps to impose controls on mercury sources of any sort. 

That mercury monitoring network has barely begun at the moment and has to increase substantially in effort and in time and 

spatial coverage, as well. The first steps of that effort were taken 

several years ago with a scientific meeting in Florida to designate 

the compartments of the environment that should be monitored for 

changes in mercury over time as sources change. The most recent 

step was the meeting in Annapolis last week of scientific specialists 

under EPA’s sponsorship to get down to more detailed monitoring 

network design. 

The bill that was before the Senate last year to institute a large 

national effort with Federal agencies to undertake a measurement 

and monitoring network was a good step toward that as well. I 

think that effort to look at the consequences of controls is a very 

important and integral part of the national effort. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you both. 

For our other witnesses, any other very brief closing comments 

that you would like to leave us with before we turn to our final 

panel? Commissioner? 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Senator. I would just like to emphasize 

again, I would ask the Committee to consider a hybrid standard, 

a removal percentage and perhaps a mass rate per megawatt hour, 

which would allow flexibility but still give a strong regulatory signal and a strong regulatory standard that could be measured easily 

and effectively and I think at a low cost. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thank you. Dr. Durham? Just a very 

brief closing statement. 

Dr. DURHAM. Yes, Senator. Again, just to emphasize that technology is making huge advances, it will continue. There are still 

challenges out there, but a rule with flexibility will assist that situation and regulations provide the certainty for investments in this 

activity. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Ms. Patton, just a very brief closing 

comment. 

Ms. PATTON. Sure. I would just respectfully request that any 

flexibility be firmly rooted in science and fleet-wide averaging has 

137 

the risk of creating uneven distribution of a neurotoxin. So you can 

achieve a great deal of flexibility through a plant-wide approach 

rather than unit-specific limits and through the annual averaging 

that Commissioner Jackson described. 

There was a big mercury meeting in Knoxville, Tennessee last 

month. I brought with me a presentation from Alstom, one of the 

Nation’s, if not the world’s, largest engineering firms. I will just 

wrap up with the words of the Alstom engineer who was there, who 

said, ‘‘Technology is ready, let’s resolve the politics.’’ With your 

leadership, we look forward to resolving the politics and moving 

forward to protect children’s health. 

Senator CARPER. That is a good note to close this portion of our 

hearing on. 

Our thanks to each of you. I apologize that our four votes delayed 

this hearing. Thank you for sticking with us and for your testimony 

and for your willingness to respond to the questions that we will 

submit within the next week. Thank you so much. 

Our final panel includes two witnesses, Dr. Linda Greer, who is 

the Director of the Public Health Program of the Natural Resources 

Defense Council, and also Arthur Dungan, who is the President of 

the Chlorine Institute, Inc. It is good to see you both. Thank you 

for joining us today. I regret that you have had to wait so long. 

We are anxious to hear your testimony. I will not ask a large 

number of questions but will have a couple of questions, I am sure, 

that I will ask of each of you. 

Dr. Greer, if you will go ahead, and each of you, feel free to summarize your testimony. Your entire testimony will be made part of 

the record. Welcome and thanks for joining us. 

STATEMENT OF LINDA E. GREER, PH.D., DIRECTOR, PUBLIC 

HEALTH PROGRAM, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 

Ms. GREER. Thanks very much and good afternoon. I want to 

compliment the Committee for holding this mercury hearing and 

particularly for this third panel on mercury export and trade. 

As we have heard today, many people are aware of the great 

problems of mercury contamination of the food supply in our Nation and for that matter, many people are also aware of the largest 

source of domestic mercury pollution in the United States, which 

is coal-fired power plants. But most people are very much less 

aware or unaware of another source of global mercury pollution, a 

very important source, which is from the intentional use of mercury as a commodity metal in industrial process and processes. 

Unfortunately, most of those uses occur in the developing world 

in very highly polluting industries, particularly such as artisenal 

and small-scale mining, where mercury is released virtually uncontrolled in very large quantities every year. Unfortunately also for 

us, mercury is a global pollutant. There has been a lot of handwringing about that today in this hearing. And as a result of that, 

mercury used and abused elsewhere in the world comes right back 

at us, both in our air currents over the Pacific Ocean, also in the 

fish that we eat, because 75 percent of the fish that Americans eat 

is imported fish. Much of this fish is swimming in the South Pacific 

off the shores of countries that use very large quantities of mercury 

and release a lot of mercury pollution. 

138 

The solution to this problem is not to stop eating fish, which is 

otherwise a very healthy food for us. The solution to the problem 

is to stop global mercury pollution. And as we have already mentioned today in other testimony, to address this comprehensively 

requires that we address the global stage and not just mercury 

within our own borders. 

So really the key question for us in the United States is, what 

should we be doing about global mercury pollution; what is the contribution that we can make to most substantially reduce the mercury in our food supply? 

Well, we in the United States have already substantially reduced 

our use of mercury within our borders. We have gone from about 

2,000 tons a year in 1980 to less than 500 tons a year in the year 

2000. That downward trend is continuing. I believe Art Dungan 

will talk about that from his own industry after me. 

Studies therefore reveal that where we really are making a contribution, a continuing and large contribution, is in supplying mercury to other users around the globe. The single most important 

thing that we could do in this Country to stem the tide of mercury 

pollution globally would be for us to curtail the surplus mercury 

that we are no longer using that we are sending into global trade 

which is then being used in these highly polluting industries, 

which of course, brings us to the topic of this third panel. 

So it is a very simple proposition. What we need to do is take 

what we are selling off the global market and store it and do it as 

soon as possible. What is recommended in both the House and Senate bills is by 2010. 

And I had to chuckle a few times during your questioning on the 

coal-fired power plants, because in this case, we have very lowhanging fruit. There is no question that the technology is here 

today to do this. As a matter of fact, both the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy have been safely storing vast 

stockpiles of mercury for decades without any major incident. 

As a technical matter, it is quite easy. Mercury is not reactive, 

it is not explosive, it doesn’t take up much space. NRDC has calculated that it would take essentially one U-Haul rental truck to 

store all of the Nation’s exported mercury for 1 year. And the cost 

of storage is very cheap, it is essentially pennies per pound. 

Mercury is also not a valuable commodity that we are taking off 

the market. The 2006 figures for the value of all of our exported 

mercury was $7.6 million, which is roughly a quarter of the quantity of money that was in the tuna industry’s advertising campaign 

to get us to eat more of that product. 

In my remaining minute, I have just a couple of important details that I would like to hit about the differences between the 

House and Senate bill on the mercury export ban. As you know, 

both the House and Senate introduced bills in 2007. Since then, the 

House bill was subject to extensive review and negotiation with interested parties. EPA held four meetings to review issues such as 

U.S. supply and demand, technical capabilities to store, cost for 

storing, et cetera. The result was a modification to the Senate bill, 

S. 906, that creates a safe and legal storage option for the mercury 

that we would cease to export into global commerce, and the result 

is also a bill that now has very wide political support. 

139 

There was one misunderstanding that came out earlier in the 

hearing when we were discussing the House bill, when EPA witnesses were here. That was whether or not the U.S. taxpayers 

would be paying for this storage. In the House bill, the U.S. taxpayers are not paying, the cost is borne by the generators of the 

surplus mercury and is paid to the Department of Energy so that 

it would cover the expenses, not just of day-to-day storage, but of 

any possible problems in the future that might occur because of 

storage. 

So whereas the Senate set up a task force to address the storage 

issue, time has marched on since the introduction of the Senate 

bill. The House basically fast-tracked that task force by calling the 

interested parties together and resolved the matters. We are urging 

the Senate to take a close look at this consensus legislation from 

the House and use the House bill as an alternative for markup. 

In closing, I would like to emphasize that the opportunity that 

we have before us will really make a huge difference. The U.S. is 

one of the top five mercury exporting nations. There are seven to 

eight times the amount of mercury that we release annually from 

coal-fired power plants that we ship into global commerce every 

year. For literally pennies a pound, we can take out of circulation 

and out of the hands of extremely poorly controlled industrial uses 

around the world this toxic substance. 

Furthermore, industry, State regulators and the environmental 

community agree that this is a good idea and we have worked diligently to craft a path forward for safe storage that is acceptable to 

all of us. Truly, if we can’t do this in 2008, we can’t do anything. 

So I hope that we can work together in the coming weeks to make 

good on this opportunity. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Greer follows:] 

140 


85534.075
141 


85534.076
142 


85534.077
143 


85534.078
144 


85534.079
145 


85534.080
146 


85534.081
147 


85534.082
148 


85534.083
149 


85534.084
150 


85534.085
151 


85534.086
152 


85534.087
153 


85534.088
154 


85534.089
155 


85534.090
156 


85534.091
157 


85534.092
158 


85534.093
159 


85534.094
160 


85534.095
161 


85534.096
162 


85534.097
163 

Senator CARPER. Dr. Greer, thank you so much. 

Mr. Dungan, we are happy you are here. Your whole testimony 

will be part of our record. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR E. DUNGAN, PRESIDENT, THE 

CHLORINE INSTITUTE, INC. 

Mr. DUNGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am Art Dungan, President of the Chlorine Institute and I am 

here representing the Institute. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you concerning mercury legislation. 

My testimony will cover the Mercury Market Minimization Act 

of 2007, Senate Bill 906, and the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2007, 

House Bill 1534. In the United States, there are currently six facilities that produce chlorine using the mercury cell process. Of these 

six facilities, two have announced their intention to convert to another technology within the next 12 to 24 months. The remaining 

four plants, and possibly a plant scheduled for conversion, would 

be affected by this bill. 

The Chlorine Institute and the chloralkali producers using the 

mercury cell process have worked aggressively and voluntarily to 

reduce mercury usage and releases to the environment, and have 

worked cooperatively with all agencies as they set regulatory 

standards limiting mercury releases. 

In 1996, the Chlorine Institute and the mercury cell producers 

voluntarily agreed to reduce mercury use by 50 percent. As indicated in our most recent annual report to EPA, the overall reduction in annual mercury usage in the tenth year was 92 percent. 

The Chlorine Institute wishes to comment on Sections 3 and 4 

of Senate Bill 906. The Institute supports Section 3, which prohibits the sale or distribution or mercury by the Department of Defense or the Department of Energy. Mercury needed by the United 

States industries can amply be supplied by private mercury 

sources. Concerning Section 4 of the bill, the Institute is opposed 

to establishing a ban on mercury exports until the United States 

has a program established and in place for the permanent storage 

of mercury. 

Implementation of an export ban will not only affect the remaining mercury cell plants but other sources of mercury. Over a 40- 

year period, other domestic sources of mercury, such as byproduct 

mining and recycling programs, will have a far greater contribution 

to the United States mercury supply than the chloralkali industry. 

It is estimated that the current quantity of net mercury exports is 

about 300 tons per year. With an export ban in place, this surplus 

mercury will have to be stored somewhere. Few options would have 

the safeguards that a permanent, federally managed storage site 

would have. 

The Chlorine Institute respectfully asks the Committee to consider House Bill 1534. When originally proposed in March 2007, 

H.R. 1534 was very similar to S. 906. H.R. 1534 as passed is the 

result of several affected stakeholders working cooperatively to 

produce a bill. This coalition included the National Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Council of States, the American 

Chemistry Council, the National Mining Association and the Chlorine Institute. 

164 

The Coalition negotiated several important changes to House Bill 

1534. Utmost were the mercury management and storage provisions which provide an important viable long-term storage solution 

if an export ban is enacted. The bill also provides several other important provisions, including performance criteria, indemnification 

and fees. We urge the Committee to adopt H.R. 1534. 

In summary, the Institute is opposed to a prohibition of the export of mercury unless and until the United States has a program 

established and in place for the permanent storage of mercury. The 

Institute supports the establishment of a Federal stockpile for the 

permanent storage of surplus mercury. The Institute supports H.R. 

1534 as passed by the House and urges the Senate to pass the 

same legislation. 

I thank you again for the opportunity to appear before the Committee and share the Chlorine Institute’s views. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dungan follows:] 

165 


85534.098
166 


85534.099
167 


85534.100
168 


85534.101
169 


85534.102
170 


85534.103
171 


85534.104
172 


85534.105
173 


85534.106
174 


85534.107
175 


85534.108
176 


85534.109
177 


85534.110
178 


85534.111
179 


85534.112
180 


85534.113
181 


85534.114
182 


85534.115
183 


85534.116
184 


85534.117
185 


85534.118
186 


85534.119
187 


85534.120
188 


85534.121
189 


85534.122
190 


85534.123
191 


85534.124
192 


85534.125
193 


85534.126
194 


85534.127
195 


85534.128
196 


85534.129
197 


85534.130
198 


85534.131
199 


85534.132
200 


85534.133
201 


85534.134
202 


85534.135
203 


85534.136
204 


85534.137
205 


85534.138
206 


85534.139
207 


85534.140
208 


85534.141
209 


85534.142
210 


85534.143
211 


85534.144
212 


85534.145
213 


85534.146
214 


85534.176
215 


85534.177
216 


85534.178
217 


85534.179
218 


85534.180
219 


85534.181
220 


85534.182
221 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Dungan, thank you very much. 

A couple of questions, if I could, for Dr. Greer and then one for 

you, Mr. Dungan. Dr. Greer, I think you mentioned in your testimony that the European Union has already adopted a similar mercury export ban, similar to that which we find in Senator Obama’s 

bill. Have you seen or have they seen an impact on the mercury 

market as a result of these actions? 

Ms. GREER. Actually, it is not in effect yet. They are in our equivalent of conference committee, resolving their two editions. So they 

are ahead of us, slightly. I have a case of beer bet on whether the 

United States gets there before the European Union. 

Senator CARPER. Which side are you on? 

Ms. GREER. I am definitely on our side. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. All right. Mr. Dungan, I understand in the 

House legislation, which you endorse, the House provisions on the 

Mercury Export bill, the U.S. Government would charge a fee to 

cover all costs of mercury storage. First of all, is that true? And 

what are your thoughts about adding this provision to the Senate 

bill? I think you may have alluded to this. And would you be more 

inclined to support this bill with that provision added? 

Mr. DUNGAN. Yes. The House bill does include a provision for 

costs. The Department of Energy is supposed to develop the actual 

long-term cost for the storage of mercury and whoever supplies 

mercury to the stockpile would pay that cost. This is the lifetime 

cost, which is basically forever, perpetual cost for storing of that 

mercury. EPA has estimated that would be about $3 a pound at a 

maximum level. 

So industry, whoever puts mercury into that stockpile would pay 

that cost. So the cost to the Government should be zero. 

Senator CARPER. All right, good. Thanks. 

One last question, Dr. Greer. I believe, correct me if I am wrong, 

but I believe you stated that major sources of mercury contamination in our food come from quite a distance from our shores. Do you 

believe that we should still do nothing to regulate the major 

sources here in the United States from power utilities? 

Ms. GREER. No, absolutely not. We really do have to look at both 

sources. Our imported ocean fish, for fish like tuna fish and some 

swordfish, swims very close to these international sources of mercury pollution. But for all of our freshwater fish and all of our 

hotspots of contamination, we have no choice but to also work on 

the coal-fired power plants. 

Senator Carper, 15 of the 19 States represented on this Committee have mercury restrictions for fishing within their States. It 

is really quite critical for our own sports fish, our own health of the 

Great Lakes and our own coastlines for us to be regulating our 

largest source of pollution, which is coal-fired power plants. We 

need to do both. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thank you. I have other questions for 

each of you, I am not going to ask them now. Our caucus luncheon 

started 45 minutes ago, I am late. And I hope we haven’t made you 

late for something as well. But we are really grateful to you for 

being here, for adding significantly to the value of this hearing. 

222 

We would ask that you give us another week or so to followup, 

if we have some questions, and if you get them, to please respond 

promptly. 

Thank you again, and with that having been said, this hearing 

is at last adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:32 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

223 


85534.147
224 


85534.148
225 

Æ