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

43–289 PDF 2008

THE MERCURY EXPORT

BAN ACT OF 2007

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

COMMERCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 1534

JUNE 22, 2007

Serial No. 110–59

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

energycommerce.house.gov
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Chairman

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

BART GORDON, Tennessee

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

BART STUPAK, Michigan

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland

GENE GREEN, Texas

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

Vice Chairman

LOIS CAPPS, California

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania

JANE HARMAN, California

TOM ALLEN, Maine

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

HILDA L. SOLIS, California

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas

JAY INSLEE, Washington

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JIM MATHESON, Utah

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

JOE BARTON, Texas

Ranking Member

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois

FRED UPTON, Michigan

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

STEVE BUYER, Indiana

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania

MARY BONO, California

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

DENNIS B. FITZGIBBONS, Chief of Staff

GREGG A. ROTHSCHILD, Chief Counsel

SHARON E. DAVIS, Chief Clerk

BUD ALBRIGHT, Minority Staff Director

(II)
(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland, Chairman

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

BART STUPAK, Michigan

LOIS CAPPS, California

TOM ALLEN, Maine

HILDA L. SOLIS, California

Vice Chairman

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

GENE GREEN, Texas

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio)

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois,

Ranking Member

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

VITO FOSELLA, New York

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

JOE BARTON, Texas (ex officio)

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

RICHARD FRANDSEN, Chief Counsel

CAROLINE AHEARN, Counsel

ANN STRICKLAND, Brookings Fellow

RACHEL BLESHMAN, Clerk

GERALD COURI, Minority Counsel

(V)

C O N T E N T S

Page

H.R. 1534, to prohibit the sale, distribution, or transfer of mercury, to prohibit the export of mercury, and for other purposes ......................................... 8

Hon. Albert R. Wynn, a Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland, opening statement ...................................................................................... 1

Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 3

Hon. Tom Allen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Maine,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5

Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas,

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 6

WITNESSES

Alice C. Williams, Deputy Associate Administrator, Infrastructure and Environment, Office of Environmental Projects and Operations, National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S. Department of Energy ............................. 20

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 198

Cornel A. Holder, Administrator, Defense National Stockpile Center, Defense

Logistics Agency, U.S. Department of Defense .................................................. 23

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 217

James B. Gulliford, Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides,

and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ....................... 26

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 241

Linda E. Greer, senior scientist, Natural Resources Defense Council ................ 43

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 232

Michael Shannon, M.D., chair, the Committee on Environmental Health,

American Association of Pediatrics; professor and chair, Division of Emergency Medicine, Children’s Hospital Boston, Harvard Medical School ........... 92

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 92

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 191

C. Mark Smith, deputy director, Office of Research and Standards, director,

Massachusetts Mercury Program; co-chair, New England Governors and

Eastern Canadian Premiers Mercury Task Force; Quicksilver Caucus, Massachusetts Representative ................................................................................... 94

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 96

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 205

Arthur E. Dungan, president, the Chlorine Institute, Incorporated ................... 99

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 101

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 223

Bruce Lawrence, president, Bethlehem Apparatus Company, Incorporated ...... 128

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 129

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 210

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Thaomas P. D’Agostino, Deputy Director, Defense Programs, Department of

Energy, memorandum of December 13, 2006, submitted by Mr. Wynn .......... 141

David P. Littell, commissioner, Maine Department of Environmental Protection, letter of June 20, 2007, to Mr. Wynn ......................................................... 142

Michael Parkinson, M.D., American College of Preventive Medicine, letter

of June 20, 2007 to Mr. Wynn ............................................................................. 144
Page

VI

Christopher Bowlin, vice president, government affairs, American Medical

Association, letter of June 21, 2007 to Mr. Wynn ............................................. 145

AMA Report of the Council on Scientific Affairs ........................................... 151

AMA Report of the Council on Science and Public Health ........................... 167

Rich Nolan, vice president, government affairs, National Mining Association,

letter of July 6, 2007 to Mr. Wynn ..................................................................... 179

Michael Tetreault, executive director, the Nature Conservancy, letter of June

20, 2007 to Mr. Allen ........................................................................................... 183

Michael McCally, M.D., executive director, Physicians for Social Responsibility, letter of June 15, 2007 to Mr. Allen ............................................................. 184

Michael F. Hirshfield, senior vice president for North America and chief

scientist, Oceana, letter of June 21, 2007 to Messrs. Wynn and Shimkus ..... 186

Mark A. Kohorst, senior manager, Environment, Health & Safety, National

Electrical Manufacturers Association, letter of June 29, 2007, to Mr. Wynn . 188
(1)

H.R. 1534, THE MERCURY EXPORT BAN ACT

OF 2007

FRIDAY, JUNE 22, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room

2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Albert R. Wynn

(chairman) presiding.

Members present: Representatives Capps, Allen, Barrow, Green,

Schakowsky, Shimkus, and Pitts.

Also present: Representative Gillmor.

Staff present: Karen Torrent, Dick Frandsen, Caroline Ahearn,

Ann Strickland, Rachel Bleshman, Jerry Couri, Garrett Golding,

Tom Hassenboehler, and Mo Zilly.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ALBERT R. WYNN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Mr. WYNN. Good morning. I would like to call this meeting to

order. Today, we have a hearing on H.R. 1534, the Mercury Export

Ban Act of 2007, introduced by one of our distinguished members,

Mr. Allen.

For the purposes of making opening statements, the Chair and

the ranking member of the subcommittee and the full committee

chair will each be recognized for 5 minutes. All other members of

the subcommittee will be recognized for 3 minutes, though members may waive the right to make an opening statement and when

first recognized to question witnesses, those members would then

add 3 minutes to their time for questions. Without objection, all

members have 5 legislative days to submit opening statements for

the record.

We are here today to hold a hearing on H.R. 1534, the Mercury

Export Ban Act of 2007, which, as I indicated, was introduced and

sponsored by my esteemed subcommittee colleague, Mr. Tom Allen

from Maine. This very important legislation will place an export

ban on elemental mercury beginning in year 2010 and prevents

Federal agencies from selling, transferring, or distributing elemental mercury.

The availability of surplus elemental mercury on the world market presents a grave risk for our health and environment, as well

as the global population and environment. Mercury is a potent
2

neurotoxin that can cause brain, lung, and kidney damage. Mercury poses the greatest risk to our most vulnerable population, the

fetuses, infants, children, and women of childbearing age. Mercury

can be transmitted unknowingly by a mother to a fetus in utero

and to a nursing infant through breast milk. In developing fetuses

and young children, mercury disrupts biological processes critical to

brain development.

Mercury is released into the environment through mining and

manufacturing processes and leaks or spills of mercury-containing

products. Mercury emissions can be transported over long distances

and remain airborne for as long as a year. These emissions,

through precipitation, deposit into water bodies where they are

transformed by bacteria into highly toxic methyl mercury that accumulates in fish and subsequently in humans who eat mercurycontaminated fish. As many as 44 States have issued fish

advisories warning residents to limit consumption of mercury-contaminated fish.

Annual mercury use in the United States in the last 20 years has

actually decreased from 2,225 to 271 metric tons. The United

States has an excess supply of elemental mercury from both private and Federal sources. This excess supply will only increase in

future years as the demand for mercury-containing products continues to decline and the eight chloralkali plants that use elemental mercury close or switch to another manufacturing processes.

As of 2010, there are expected to be five remaining mercury

chloralkali plants. An estimated surplus of 1,400 to 1,500 metric

tons of elemental mercury would be generated if these five plants

closed or switched to a non-mercury manufacturing process.

EPA estimates that other mercury-generating sources: gold mining, consumer product recycling, and site remediation programs

combine to generate up to 200 metric tons per year.

Today, elemental mercury offered for sale from decommissioned

chloralkali plants and the lesser producing sources travels through

an unregulated and mysterious chain of brokers and processors.

Much of this mercury ends up being used in artisanal or small

scale gold mining by people in developing countries, mainly in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. These miners use mercury and heat

to separate grains of gold from small bits of sand and rock in pans.

This process releases most of the mercury into the environment, exposing people nearby to toxic fumes that can cause tremors, memory loss, and other symptoms of neurological damage. Between 10

and 15 million people, including 4.5 million women and 1 million

children, are working at small scale mines. According to the United

Nations Environment Program, artisanal mining results in the release of as much as 1,000 tons of mercury per year, accounting for

about one-third of all global manmade mercury releases into the

environment.

Recall the principle that pollution knows no geographical boundaries, elemental mercury that we export overseas returns back to

the United States as toxic pollution contaminating our country’s

air, soil, water and fish. Congress must take action now to prohibit

the export of mercury to reduce this global pollution that imperils
3

the health of our citizens, and also contributes to the ongoing degradation of the environment, both home and abroad.

H.R. 1534 addresses the problem of global mercury pollution by

banning the export of elemental mercury and setting up an advisory committee to advise Congress on how this excess mercury

should be stored and handled for the long term. The legislation will

also prevent Federal agencies from selling, transferring, or distributing elemental mercury. DOD and DOE combined store close to

6,000 metric tons of mercury. In fact, DOD and DOE’s decision to

stockpile their mercury grew out of their concerns about the impact

that mercury releases may have on human health and the environment.

I applaud Congressman Allen for his dedication and leadership

on this issue, and I look forward to the testimony from the panels

on this issue.

At this time, I recognize our ranking member, Mr. Shimkus, for

an opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it has been a long

week, so if we struggle for words, we have actually been working

here. It is good to have everybody here on time and moving punctually.

Like you, I am interested in learning more on this subject and

exploring the views from our witnesses. I appreciate our witnesses

for coming here. In the last week, I think most of our members

have learned more about mercury than in the past years that I

have been here, because as a lot of us know, mercury is all around

us. It is a natural element that appears in every high school classroom’s periodic table. However, we know that human exposure to

mercury can result in very serious health issues. When these products are mishandled, damaged or broken, we are exposed to vaporized elemental mercury. I even played with mercury in this form

as a child, which some may explain why I am the way I am, and

we won’t go into that detail. Many folks in my era did, and I remember the neighbor down the street who had it. We pulled it out,

we smashed it, we wove it together—scary times.

Last night, the Senate passed their energy bill. In both their bill

and the bill we marked up on committee on Wednesday, we have

encouraged the use of these, compact fluorescent light bulbs. This

could place mercury in people’s homes, schools, daycare centers,

hospitals, and nursing homes. We had this great debate Wednesday

night about labeling, which I think we should both be embarrassed

about. That is why I said it was kind of stupid, because it mentions

mercury on this package. One side didn’t want to put it on the

package, we said put it on the package, and it is on the package

anyway. Versus these types of light bulbs.

Now, the Senate and us are going to expansively move to expand

the use of these bulbs throughout not only our country, but we

hope the world, which brings out the schizophrenic nature of our

public policy debate, and I will highlight some of those when I get

a chance.
4

In our quest to be energy efficient, we must be careful to ensure

that people are aware of the risk associated with mercury. My own

State of Illinois, like eight other States, has passed a law to take

mercury containing products out of schools. We do not know what

the safe level of elemental mercury exposure is for our children.

For the record, there are 144 lights in this hearing room filled

with at least 8 milligrams, based on the 2002 industry standard.

That is at least 1,152 milligrams of mercury, and we were talking

about the baseball game, and I was envisioning this in the Wednesday night debate, what if a terrorist came into the room armed

with 36 baseballs and started throwing them at the ceiling, busting

the lights and spreading vaporized mercury all over the hearing

room? Well, when a glass thermometer was dropped outside the attending physician’s office, as was stated in the hearing on Wednesday night, they shut down the hallway for 4 hours. And that is less

than the mercury involved in these light bulbs up here.

Currently compact fluorescent bulbs are 5 to 6 percent of domestic lighting sales, and bulbs in the United States are made largely

in Asia, specifically in China. As we know, the region has lower environmental standards than those in the United States. A lot of

people would be surprised to find out that the United States is the

only industrialized country that now has standards for mercury

emissions. We talk about Europe and we talk about everybody else

moving on environmental standards. United States is the only

country that has mercury standards, and we will be able to address

this in the second panel.

Since mercury is an essential ingredient of bulbs, if the United

States and the European Union cut off exports to China, what will

that do for the global mercury stocks? Will the price become such

that regular Americans who want this technology can’t afford it?

We are encouraging to buy it, but the light bulbs are exponentially

more costly than regular old inefficient light bulbs.

In addition, if we ban mercury exports, we need to figure out

what we are going to do with all the mercury we have here. I know

that some want essential storage facilities. Given the last three

decades of controversy concerning Yucca Mountain, I would urge

my colleagues to use caution when pursuing a similar solution to

mercury. I have actually joked about let us just add an additional

wing to Yucca Mountain. We can have the mercury wing and we

can store it there.

Finally, I want to know what the United States is doing from a

regulatory and diplomatic perspective to reduce dangerous mercury

exposures. Before we legislate, we need to know if there are gaps

in existing law and how any of our efforts mesh with existing ones.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I think we are just starting this whole

process of informing members. It is a great hearing. I appreciate

your time, and I yield back.

Mr. WYNN. I thank the gentleman for his opening statement. I,

too, played with mercury, so I know. I thought it was pretty cool,

too.

Mr. SHIMKUS. That explains you and me.

Mr. WYNN. Hopefully we have come a long way since then.

At this time, I would like to recognize the sponsor of the legislation, the distinguished gentleman from Maine, Mr. Tom Allen.
5

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM ALLEN, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MAINE

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for

your concern for this particular area, and for holding this hearing

on my bill, H.R. 1534, the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2007. I am

pretty sure I played with mercury, too, so that makes three of us,

but it was elemental mercury and you know, the waste issue that

my friend Mr. Shimkus raised about any products containing mercury is something that needs to be addressed, because fundamentally, once elemental mercury gets into the waste stream and gets

up in the atmosphere and comes down, it becomes methyl mercury

in bodies of water, and that methyl mercury is the major challenge

we have in terms of the effects on wildlife and the threat to human

beings.

It is a well-established fact that mercury is a powerful

neurotoxin, harmful at even low exposure levels. It is harmful

whether it is inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through the skin. Once

exposed to water, elemental mercury is transformed to methyl mercury, which is highly toxic and which has a tendency to bioaccumulate in both fish and the humans who eat the fish, and I would

add, songbirds and other things as well. Very young children with

developing nervous systems are particularly at risk. In addition,

pregnant mothers who are exposed to mercury pollution can transmit mercury to their unborn children, increasing the chances of

miscarriage and birth defects.

My home State of Maine has been a national leader in educating

people about the dangers of mercury and in reducing exposure to

mercury through State sources. Maine’s 5,800 lakes and ponds and

our 32,000 miles of rivers, streams, and brooks have been under a

fish consumption advisory since 1994 because of mercury pollution.

According to Commissioner David Latell of the Maine Department

of Environmental Protection, ‘‘In-state controls have reduced mercury emissions over 75 percent since 1990. Seventy-five percent of

our State’s historic use of mercury in products will be eliminated

through a series of sales and disposal bins; yet because mercury remains in widespread use elsewhere in the world, atmospheric

transport continues to bring mercury into our States. Maine’s actions alone cannot stop ongoing contamination of our environment.’’

My bill seeks to combat a large source of mercury pollution

worldwide, namely the export of elemental mercury from the

United States to developing countries. This mercury is used largely

for artisanal mining. Exposure occurs when miners handle the

mercury. It enters the water when miners pan for gold, and enters

the air through the smelting process, which emits mercury vapor.

According to the United Nations Environment Program, approximately 15 million people worldwide, including 4.5 million women

and 1 million children, engage in artisanal mining with mercury,

exposing them to the poisons that mercury produces. Some of this

mercury is exported from the United States, and that should be unacceptable to us as a Nation. Further, this practice harms Americans exposed through the global air transport of mercury pollution

or through the consumption of mercury-contaminated fish.

The Departments of Defense and Energy are the two largest

holders of mercury in the United States. The EPA has urged DOD
6

and DOE not to sell its mercury stockpiles, due to the serious

human health and environmental risks associated with mercury.

DOD and DOE have agreed; however, that ban is not in law, which

is why my bill prohibits the Federal Government from exporting

mercury. Further, private companies may still export this poisonous and hazardous material, which is why my legislation is necessary.

Finally, I believe we need to develop a long-term solution to the

problem of mercury storage and disposal, especially if we are going

to ban the international trade in mercury. My bill establishes an

advisory committee made up of a wide range of stakeholders that

is tasked with reporting back to Congress no later than 1 year after

enactment with recommendations for long-term storage options.

Long-term storage of mercury is relatively easy and cheap, compared to storage and disposal of other hazardous materials.

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, and

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses.

Mr. WYNN. Thank you for your opening statement, and again, for

your leadership on this issue.

We have actually got a vote on. I would like to see if we can get

opening statements in. I would like to recognize the gentleman, Mr.

Pitts, for an opening statement.

Mr. PITTS. I will waive.

Mr. WYNN. I would like to recognize the gentleman, Mr. Green

of Texas, for an opening statement.

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I will waive, but I support my colleague from Maine’s bill. I have no problem at all with being able

to develop a site to hold mercury. We do that with asbestos and

other contaminated items.

Thank you.

Mr. WYNN. Thank you very much. At this point, the subcommittee will recess until the conclusion of votes, and other statements

will be accepted for the record.. We will reconvene immediately

after the last vote in this series.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Green and H.R. 1534 follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today on H.R. 1534, the Mercury Export Ban of 2007. As a member of the Health Subcommittee and the Foreign

Affairs Committee I recognize the global and health related benefits of this bill.

Mercury is a neurotoxin that is very harmful to children, fetuses, and pregnant

women. Once the true health effects of mercury were realized in the United States

its use for manufacturing and products was decreased.

However, we are now burdened with reserves of commercial mercury that is being

sold to recyclers who have no mean of disposing of the mercury. The recyclers sell

this mercury to brokers who distribute this mercury on the global market.

Once on the global market this mercury is used by small scale gold miners who

unknowingly allow their miners to unsafely expose themselves to mercury.

Once this mercury is released into the atmosphere or water we are allowing other

countries to contribute to a global mercury contamination problem.

We essentially are selling mercury to other countries in an attempt to get rid of

it only to have the mercury come back to us in the form of contamination.

It is time we prohibit the sale of mercury overseas and begin safely stockpiling

the mercury we have in this country.

The Department of Defense and the Department of Energy have maintained Government mercury stockpiles for years and we should do the same with commercial

mercury.
7

The EPA has been investigating the issue of mercury in the United States for

quite some time, but with no deadline issued by Congress progress on this issue has

been slow.

This bill would ban exporting elemental mercury by 2010 and the sale, distribution, or transfer of elemental mercury between State and local government, Federal

agency, or private entity except for storage purposes.

It would also require the EPA issue a report to Congress 1 year after the ban to

address the issue of mercury in the United States and create an Excess Mercury

Storage Committee so that we can address the storage and health issues related to

elemental mercury in the United States.

Some of my colleagues on this committee may say that this bill is putting the cart

before the horse. To that I say, sometimes we need to set deadlines in order to deal

with the issues at hand.

I support this bill and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

[Recess.]

Mr. WYNN. The subcommittee will now come to order.

I believe I saw Mr. Barrow here. I was going to inquire if he

wanted to make an opening statement, but he apparently stepped

out.

That being the case, I believe all opening statements are concluded and we will move to hearing from our distinguished panel.

I would like to introduce Ms. Alice Williams, who is Deputy Associate Administrator for Infrastructure and Environment for the National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. We also have with us Mr. Cornel Holder, Administrator, National Defense Stockpile Center, U.S. Department of Defense, and

also Mr. James Gulliford, Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Welcome. Thank you for coming, and we would like to hear opening statements for about 5 minutes. Your entire statements, of

course, will be included in the record.

Ms. Williams, if you would like to proceed.

STATEMENT OF ALICE C. WILLIAMS, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENT, OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS AND OPERATIONS, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, WASHINGTON, DC

Ms. WILLIAMS. Chairman Wynn, Ranking Member Shimkus, and

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Department of Energy’s management of its stockpile of

mercury located at the National Nuclear Security Administration,

NNSA, and I will refer to it as NNSA throughout the testimony,

at the Y–12 National Security Complex at Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

NNSA was established in 2000 as a separate organized agency

within the Department of Energy, responsible for enhancing national security through the military application of nuclear energy.

NNSA maintains and enhances the safety, security, reliability, and

performance of U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile, works to continue

to reduce global danger from weapons of mass destruction, provides

the United States Navy with safe and effective nuclear propulsion,

and responds to nuclear and radiological emergencies in the United

States and abroad.

Presently, the stockpile of surplus mercury owned by NNSA is in

safe, secure storage at the Y–12 National Security Complex and the

Department has no plans to sell it. The mercury in storage was

originally acquired by the Atomic Energy Commission in the 1950s

and 1960s for the separation of lithium isotopes. The Cold War production of enriched lithium required millions of pounds of mercury.

In 1963, the Y–12 lithium separation and enrichment program was

shut down, and over the next several years the production process

was dismantled and the mercury was recovered. The mercury,

some owned by the Department of Defense and some by the Department of Energy, was placed in storage at Y–12. Over time, a

significant quantity of the mercury was sold, leaving 1,206 metric

tons of the NNSA-owned mercury still in storage. The last time the

Department of Energy sold mercury was in 1994. This is the single-
21

largest inventory of mercury in the DOE complex. The DOD owned

mercury stored at Y–12 was transferred to the DOD storage facility

in 2005.

In the 1970s, the NNSA mercury inventory was transferred from

existing seamed flasks into new seamless flasks, each of which can

hold 76 pounds of mercury. Approximately 35,000 of these flasks,

which are made of 3L carbon steel and sealed with a threaded pipe

plug, are stored in groups of 45 on wooden pallets. The pallets are

stored up to three high in a single story solid brick wall constructed building that is used only for mercury storage. The building is approximately 150 feet by 90 feet, and has a concrete floor

that is sealed with a leak-proof coating. A 6- to 8-inch dike exists

around the outer edge of the building to contain any material that

would be released in the event of a spill. In other words, the building is constructed to be environmentally protective. In addition, the

building is equipped with an automatic dry pipe fire suppression

system and portable fire extinguishers. The building is further located within security fences and boundaries, as well as within the

perimeter intrusion detection and assessment system at the Y–12

facility.

Continuous air monitoring and periodic visual inspections of the

building are performed on a routine basis. The air monitoring is

conducted at two locations near the storage building, and includes

monitoring airborne mercury vapor. Measured concentrations are

well below the current environmental and occupational health

standards for inhalation exposure of the mercury vapor.

The visual inspections are performed on a quarterly basis for fire

safety and to observe for leaks or abnormal conditions. There is no

history of a flask that has leaked and the condition of the flasks

appears to be very good at this time.

Providing for long-term storage of mercury at the Y–12 complex

will be costly. It has been estimated that storing the mercury for

the next 40 years at Y–12 could cost about $42 million. The costs

are related to the maintenance of the building, such as installing

a new roof, reflasking, if it is determined that the flasks storing the

mercury have deteriorated significantly, air monitoring, visual inspections, and securing the building as well as the management.

Following the decision by Defense Nuclear Stockpile Center in

1994 to halt the sale of mercury, NNSA began to explore its options

for the disposition of the surplus mercury at Y–12. One of these options was to sell the surplus mercury, which resulted in the preparation of a draft environmental assessment. The EA, which tiered

from the DOD’s Final Mercury Management Environmental Impact

Statement, analyzed the environmental impacts of several alternatives related to the management of mercury. Before the EA was

finalized, NNSA decided in December 2006 to continue to store the

surplus stockpile of mercury at the Y–12 site. This decision was

based on several factors, but included mercury’s known toxicity to

living organisms and its mobility in the biosphere, continued global

efforts to reduce the use of elemental mercury in the developing

countries, and policies of other countries, for example, the countries

that make up the European Union support long-term storage of elemental mercury.
22

At this time, we believe that continuing to store NNSA’s stockpile of mercury at our Y–12 complex or identifying an alternate

storage location is the right thing to do. It ensures that the mercury will not be released to the global environment, thereby minimizing mercury emissions and reducing contamination levels in the

environment of this toxic chemical.

This concludes my statement, and I will be pleased to respond

to your questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Williams follows:]

STATEMENT OF ALICE C. WILLIAMS

Chairman Wynn, Ranking Member Shimkus, and members of the subcommittee,

thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Department of Energy’s management

of its stockpile of mercury located at the National Nuclear Security Administration

Y–12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. NNSA was established

in 2000 as a separate organized agency within the U.S. Department of Energy responsible for enhancing national security through the military application of nuclear

energy. NNSA maintains and enhances the safety, security, reliability and performance of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile; works to reduce global danger from

weapons of mass destruction; provides the U.S. Navy with safe and effective nuclear

propulsion; and responds to nuclear and radiological emergencies in the United

States and abroad.

Presently, the stockpile of surplus mercury owned by NNSA is in safe, secure storage at the Y–12 National Security Complex and the Department has no plans to

sell it. The mercury in storage was originally acquired by the Atomic Energy Commission in the 1950’s and 1960’s for the separation of lithium isotopes. The Cold

War production of enriched lithium required millions of pounds of mercury. In 1963,

the Y–12 lithium separation and enrichment program was shut down, and over the

next several years the production process was dismantled and mercury was recovered. The mercury, some owned by the Department of Defense (DOD) and some by

the Department of Energy, was placed in storage at Y–12. Over time, a significant

quantity of the mercury was sold leaving 1,206 metric tons of the NNSA-owned mercury still in storage; the last time DOE sold mercury was in 1994. This is the single

largest inventory of mercury in the DOE complex. The DOD-owned mercury stored

at Y–12 was transferred to a DOD storage facility in 2005.

In the 1970s the NNSA mercury inventory was transferred from existing seamed

flasks to new seamless flasks, each of which can hold about 76 pounds of mercury.

Approximately 35,000 flasks, which are made of 3–L carbon steel and sealed with

a threaded pipe plug, are stored in groups of 45 on wooden pallets. The pallets are

stored up to three high in a single-story, solid block wall construction building that

is used only for mercury storage. The building is approximately 150 feet by 90 feet

and has a concrete floor that is sealed with a leak-proof coating. A 6- to 8-inch dike

exists around the outer edge of the building to contain any material that could be

released in the event of a spill. In other words, the building is constructed to be

environmentally protective. In addition, the building is equipped with an automatic

dry-pipe (water supply) fire suppression system and portable fire extinguishers. The

building is located within security fences and boundaries as well as within the Perimeter Intrusion, Detection, and Assessment System at Y–12.

Continuous air monitoring and periodic visual inspections of the storage building

are performed on a routine basis. The air monitoring is conducted at two locations

near the storage building and includes monitoring airborne mercury vapor—measured concentrations are well below the current environmental and occupational

health standards for inhalation exposure to mercury vapor. The visual inspections

are performed on a quarterly basis for fire safety and to observe for leaks or abnormal conditions. There is no history of a flask that has leaked and the condition of

the flasks appears good at this time.

Providing for long-term storage of mercury at the Y–12 National Security Complex will be costly. It has been estimated that storing the mercury for the next 40

years at Y–12 could cost about $42 million. The costs are related to maintenance

of the building such as installing a new roof; reflasking if it is determined that the

flasks storing the mercury have deteriorated significantly; air monitoring; visual inspections; security of the building; and facility management.

Following the decision by the Defense Nuclear Stockpile Center in 1994 to halt

the sale of mercury, NNSA began to explore its options for the disposition of the
23

surplus mercury at Y–12. One of these options was to sell the surplus mercury

which resulted in the preparation of a draft Environmental Assessment (EA). The

EA, which tiered from DOD’s Final Mercury Management Environmental Impact

Statement, analyzed the environmental impacts of several alternatives related to

the management of mercury. Before the draft EA was finalized, NNSA decided in

December 2006, to continue to store the surplus stockpile of mercury at the Y–12

site. This decision was based on several factors which included:

• Mercury’s known toxicity to living organisms and its mobility in the biosphere.

• Continued global efforts to reduce the use of elemental mercury in developing

countries.

• The policies of other countries (e.g. the countries that make up the European

Union) support long-term storage of elemental mercury.

At this time we believe that continuing to store NNSA’s stockpile of mercury at

our Y–12 National Security Complex or identifying an alternate storage location is

the right thing to do. It ensures that the mercury will not be released to the global

environment thereby minimizing mercury emissions and reducing contamination

levels in the environment of this toxic chemical.

This concludes my statement. I will be pleased to respond to your questions.

Mr. WYNN. Thank you for your testimony.

We now would like to hear from Mr. Holder.

STATEMENT OF CORNEL A. HOLDER, ADMINISTRATOR, DEFENSE NATIONAL STOCKPILE CENTER, DEFENSE LOGISTICS

AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FT. BELVOIR, VA

Mr. HOLDER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished

members of the subcommittee. I am Cornel Holder, Administrator

of Defense Stockpile Center, a field Activity of Defense Logistics

Agency.

The Defense Logistics Agency is the Department’s only Logistics

Combat Support Agency. The Defense National Stockpile Center is

responsible for providing safe, secure, and environmentally sound

storage for strategic and critical materials that make up the National Defense Stockpile.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear today to describe the management of the stockpile and discuss the storage of elemental mercury in the inventory.

The National Defense Stockpile was created shortly after World

War II to acquire and store critical ores and materials. These supplies were intended to lessen the United States dependency on foreign sources of supply in times of war or national emergency. In

1988, the program was transferred by Executive order to Department of Defense, who assigned the management of the program to

Defense Logistics Agency. A change in direction of the stockpile occurred in 1994 when over 99 percent of the inventory was determined to be in excess of Department of Defense needs, and over the

next several years Congress authorized its disposal.

Elemental mercury has been in the stockpile inventory since the

1940s. The U.S. Government purchased the mercury inventory

from a number of countries, including Spain, India, China, and

Italy. Congress has authorized the sale of a small portion of mercury inventory in 1981, and the Defense National Stockpile Center

sold mercury to foreign and domestic buyers into the early 1990s.

In 1994, the Defense National Stockpile Center suspended the

sales of mercury in response to congressional concerns about the

potential environmental impact of selling mercury, and requested
24

the Department to evaluate alternative mercury disposal options or

long-term storage.

Currently, there are 4,436 metric tons of mercury stored at depots located in Somerville, NJ; New Haven, IN; and Warren, OH.

The mercury inventory is stored in 76-pound steel flasks and overpacked in 30-gallon carbon steel drums. Mercury has been safely

stored for over 50 years.

Annual reductions in the number of quantities of stockpile inventory has been occurring since 1994, and has lead to corresponding

reductions in Defense National Stockpile Center infrastructure.

The reductions led to the need to develop a long-term strategy for

continued management of the mercury inventory. An environmental impact statement was initiated in 2001 and completed in

2004. The statement analyzed three alternatives for long-term

management of the mercury. One, leaving the mercury at existing

storage locations; two, consolidating the mercury storage at one location; and selling the mercury inventory. In the record of decision,

the Stockpile chose the long-term storage alternative. The decision

was based on a combination of environmental and economic factors,

policy consideration, and stakeholder’s comments. Consolidated

storage also facilitates the National Defense Stockpile long-term

closure strategy at the sites in which mercury is removed. The chosen sites for consolidated storage is Hawthorne Army Depot in

Hawthorne, Nevada. The Hawthorne Army Depot, a Governmentowned contractor-operated facility, will provide storage facilities as

well as necessary service and support to maintain the mercury inventory. The Defense National Stockpile Center is working with

the State of Nevada and Hawthorne to ensure the mercury is properly prepared for transportation to Nevada and that the facilities

are upgraded to meet Stockpile’s high standards.

The Defense National Stockpile Center is fully committed to safe,

secure, environmentally sound management and storage of the

mercury. The decision to consolidate and store mercury is consistent with the H.R. 1534 prohibition on the sale and transfer of mercury by Federal agencies.

I thank you for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee on this important issue, and I welcome your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holder follows:]

STATEMENT OF CORNEL A. HOLDER

Good morning, Mr.Chairman, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I

am Cornel Holder, administrator of the Defense National Stockpile Center (DNSC),

a field activity of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). DLA is the Department of

Defense’s only Logistics Combat Support Agency. DNSC is responsible for providing

safe, secure and environmentally sound stewardship for the strategic and critical

materials that make up the National Defense Stockpile. I to describe DNSC’s management of the National Defense Stockpile and to specifically discuss the management of the elemental mercury stored in the National Defense Stockpile inventory.

The purpose of the National Defense Stockpile is to ensure that the United States

has a sufficient supply of strategic and critical materials to supply military, industrial, and essential civilian needs for national defense. The National Defense Stockpile was created shortly after World War II to acquire and store critical ores and

materials to lessen United States dependence on foreign sources of supply in times

of war or national emergency. Between 1949 and 1988, the General Services Administration and the Federal Emergency Management Agency were responsible for the

program. In 1988, Executive Order 12626 transferred the responsibility for the National Defense Stockpile to the Department of Defense who subsequently assigned
25

the management of the program to the Defense Logistics Agency. DNSC was established within DLA to manage the strategic and critical materials held in the National Defense Stockpile. Since 1994, over 99 percent of the NDS has been determined to be excess to department needs, and Congress has authorized its disposal.

The activities of DNSC are governed by the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock

Piling Act, 50 U.S.C. § 98 et seq.

Elemental mercury has been in the National Defense Stockpile inventory since

the 1940s. The United States government purchased the mercury inventory from a

number of countries including Spain, India, China, and Italy. Congress had authorized the sale of a small portion of the mercury inventory in 1981, and DNSC sold

mercury to foreign and domestic buyers into the early 1990s. In 1994, DNSC suspended the sale of mercury in response to congressional concerns regarding the potential environmental impact of selling mercury and the request that the Department evaluate alternative mercury disposal options or long-term storage. The Environmental Protection Agency supported our decision to suspend mercury sales and

to develop environmentally sound management options for mercury.

Currently, DNSC has 4,436 metric tons of mercury stored at depots located in

Somerville, New Jersey; New Haven, Indiana; and Warren, Ohio. The DNSC inventory of mercury is stored in 76 pound flasks. The mercury in the National Defense

Stockpile has been safely stored for over 50 years and DNSC is fully committed to

the safe, secure and environmentally sound management and storage of mercury.

In 2001, to provide additional levels of protection, DNSC overpacked the mercury

flasks into 30 gallon drums. There are six flasks per drum, with the flasks sealed

in plastic bags with cardboard inserts to keep the flasks apart, and a mercury-absorbent cushion in the bottom of the drum. Each drum has a one inch rubber gasket

in the drum ring that, when tightened, provides a water and air-tight seal. The

drums are on pallets (five drums to a pallet) with drip pans underneath the drums

for additional protection. Additionally, the warehouse floors where the mercury is

stored have been sealed, and entry into each mercury storage access is controlled.

Mercury vapor sampling is conducted during routine inspections and every three

years private auditing companies conduct an environmental review of all DNSC

storage locations.

Reductions in the number and quantity of National Defense Stockpile inventory

have led to a corresponding reduction in the DNSC infrastructure. DNSC has reduced its number of operating depots, closed out storage sites, and reduced its workforce. This reduction in footprint necessitated the development of a long-term strategy for the continued management of the mercury inventory. This required the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). DNSC analyzed three alternatives in its Environmental Impact Statement: (1) leaving the mercury at the existing storage locations;

(2) consolidating mercury storage at one location; and (3) selling the mercury inventory. The EIS, completed in April 2004, indicated all three alternatives would have

negligible to minor environmental impacts, and that the human health and ecological risks from all three would be negligible. In the Record of Decision for the Environmental Impact Statement, DNSC made the decision that long-term consolidated

storage at one location was the preferable alternative. This decision was based on

a combination of environmental and economic factors, policy considerations, and

stakeholder comments. Consolidated storage also facilitates DNSC’s long-term closure strategy at the sites from which the mercury is removed.

Site selection for the consolidated storage of the mercury then needed to be determined. Hawthorne Army Depot (HWAD) in Hawthorne, Nevada, was considered as

a consolidated storage location in the EIS. HWAD is a government-owned, contractor-operated facility whose main mission is the maintenance and storage of conventional ammunition. HWAD includes sufficient warehouse space for the storage of the

DNSC mercury inventory, and the EIS concluded that storage there would have

minimal environmental impacts with negligible ecological and human health risks.

DNSC signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the Army Joint Munitions Command on May 31, 2006, wherein HWAD will provide storage facilities and related

support to maintain the DNSC mercury inventory on a reimbursable basis on behalf

of DNSC. DNSC is currently working with HWAD and the Nevada Department of

Conservation and Natural Resources to facilitate the transfer of mercury to Hawthorne and ensure the facilities are upgraded and safety protocols are in place for

the continued safe and secure long-term storage of mercury. The projected transportation costs to move mercury to HWAD is $1.4 million and the estimated annual

storage cost at HWAD is $505 thousand. If the Department were authorized to sell

its existing stockpile of mercury—the estimated sales receipts would be $83.6 million.
26

DNSC’s decision to consolidate and store mercury allows us to continue to manage

the National Defense Stockpile mercury inventory in an environmentally responsible, safe, and secure manner. This decision is consistent with the H.R. 1534, ‘‘Mercury Export Ban Act of 2007,’’ prohibition on sale, distribution, or transfer of mercury by Federal Agencies. I thank you for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee on this important issue.

Mr. WYNN. Thank you very much, Mr. Holder.

We will now hear from Mr. Gulliford.

STATEMENT OF JAMES B. GULLIFORD, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC

SUBSTANCES, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. GULLIFORD. Good morning, Chairman Wynn, Congressman

Shimkus, and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting

me to testify today regarding the export and storage of commodity

grade mercury, and H.R. 1534, the Mercury Export Ban Act of

2007.

I have a few opening remarks, but also ask that my written testimony be included for the hearing record.

Mr. WYNN. Without objection.

Mr. GULLIFORD. Thank you.

Let me begin by emphasizing that I share your interest in continuing to advance efforts to reduce global and domestic use of mercury. I am proud of the work that we have done to date to address

domestic mercury emissions and use, and to launch a number of

international mercury partnerships. We are committed to working

domestically and internationally to reduce mercury risk to human

health and the environment.

In July 2006, EPA published the Roadmap for Mercury. This document provides the public and all of our stakeholders with a clear

statement of EPA’s commitment to address mercury in the environment, and continued collaboration with our Federal and State partners is key to addressing the priorities and completing the projects

that are outlined in the Roadmap.

With respect to H.R. 1534, the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2007,

I think we all agree that the challenge of global mercury is multifaceted and therefore, there are no simple solutions to this complex

global problem. However, I believe that efforts to reduce mercury

use and demand are the most important next steps.

Programs to address mercury demand, both domestically and

globally, and to eliminate the primary mining of mercury are critical. H.R. 1534 would impose a ban on exports of mercury from the

United States. The prospect of an export ban raises a number of

important questions that would need to be carefully considered. For

example, would a ban on U.S. exports lead to new efforts of primary mining of mercury elsewhere in the world to meet global mercury demand? What effect might a U.S. export ban have on efforts

to encourage the use of mercury from environmentally preferable

sources, such as recycled mercury? Could an export ban be made

consistent with U.S. trade obligations, and if such a ban were implemented, what would happen to excess stocks of mercury now in

private hands in the United States? As an alternative to an export
27

ban, the administration believes that the first priority should be

given to pursuing demand management strategies.

The proposed legislation also includes the establishment of an expert panel, and we agree that a stakeholder approach is valuable

in developing solutions to storage of excess mercury. Earlier this

year, EPA, in conjunction with a Federal interagency workgroup,

established a stakeholder group to provide the Government with an

assessment of options for managing non-Federal supplies of mercury. The stakeholder participants have been selected to represent

a balanced mix of academia, industry, States, and nongovernmental organizations, and we have asked them to address how domestic, non-Federal stocks of mercury could be managed in the

short and long term.

Finally, we agree that the U.S. Government must exercise its

stewardship responsibilities for the mercury stocks under its control, and I applaud both Departments of Defense and Energy, with

whom EPA works closely, for their decisions to ensure that their

stockpiles will remain safely in storage.

Again, our domestic track record is solid. Demand for elemental

mercury in the United States has declined significantly over the

past decade, and I expect that trend to continue. However, there

is still work to be done domestically and there are significant international needs as well.

At the 2005 UNEP governing council, the United States led efforts to develop global partnerships to reduce risk for mercury

internationally. EPA has been instrumental in leading the development and implementation of these partnerships which aim for tangible mercury reductions by leveraging resources, providing technical expertise, technology transfer, and information exchanges in

various sectors, and we are committed to ensuring that these partnerships are both productive and effective.

In closing, the administration places great importance on addressing both domestic and international mercury issues. EPA is

committed to finding protective and comprehensive solutions, and

I look forward to working with the subcommittee and others to

achieve this shared goal.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gulliford follows:]
28
29
30
31
32
33
34

Mr. WYNN. Thank you, and I would like to thank all of the witnesses for their testimony.

This concludes the opening statement of our panel of witnesses,

and the Chair would like to recognize himself for 5 minutes.

Ms. Williams, the first question I have is: isn’t it true that when

DOE was deciding what to do with its 1,200 ton stockpile of mercury, that EPA urged NNSA to store the mercury and not to place

it on the world market because of the harm that could result?

Ms. WILLIAMS. EPA provided counsel to us, as did DOD, as did

other Government agencies, and so we took all of those opinions

and positions into account.

Mr. WYNN. Could you describe the environmental and public

health consequences that EPA shared with you?

Ms. WILLIAMS. There were many of these that have already been

shared in your opening comments. The fact that it is a bioaccumulating element; the fact that it gets into the water system and can

microbially be changed into methyl mercury; the fact that it is very

dangerous to women and unborn children. All of those were the

things that we considered and we also had long discussions about

artisanal mining and how artisanal mining is conducted and perhaps some of the impacts of that.

Mr. WYNN. Thank you. Mr. Holder, DOD has also decided to

stockpile its mercury and not sell it on the global market. Is it correct that DNSC voluntarily halted mercury sales in 1994 because

of the concerns raised by the EPA and others about the effect of

mercury on the global environment?

Mr. HOLDER. There were concerns also by Congress and EPA,

and yes, we did suspend sales in 1994, based on those concerns

about mercury getting into the environment.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Gulliford, the question I have is if EPA has now

advised both DOE and DOD to store rather than sell its elemental

mercury, when we talk about the private sector, are we essentially

talking about the same kind of mercury?

Mr. GULLIFORD. Yes, we are, same type of mercury.

Mr. WYNN. Would you have similar environmental concerns with

respect to this mercury being sold to foreign buyers as you expressed to DOE?

Mr. GULLIFORD. Absolutely, and those concerns are stressed very

clearly in both the Mercury Roadmap and in my testimony as well.

Mr. WYNN. Now, you made reference to the possibility that there

might be some new primary mining of mercury. Do you have any

evidence of that?

Mr. GULLIFORD. The ability to mine mercury exists, obviously, in

various places in the world. It is currently very active right now

in Kyrgyzstan and also in China, and clearly, the world market responds to the availability and the demand for mercury supplies.

And while I don’t necessarily have reasons to believe that mercury

mining would or wouldn’t increase, but I think it is likely, again,

given the demand for mercury internationally——

Mr. WYNN. Well, you are saying two things. One you are saying

you don’t know whether it would or it would not, then you are now

saying it is likely.

Can I say that you really don’t have any evidence that it would

increase, given that there are existing sources?
35

Mr. GULLIFORD. As I stated in my testimony, I think that that’s

a very important question that would need to be explored in considerable detail.

Mr. WYNN. What is the cost of these mining operations, if you

were to start a primary mine?

Mr. GULLIFORD. I don’t know the answer to that question.

Mr. WYNN. Do you know who finances these mining operations?

Mr. GULLIFORD. I don’t know the answer to that, but it would either be done through government——

Mr. WYNN. Would someone financing a new mining operation be

concerned about liability questions?

Mr. GULLIFORD. I don’t know whether they would or they

wouldn’t. I don’t know the condition of actual mining that exists in

the places that I have described, either Kyrgyzstan or China.

Mr. WYNN. All right. I don’t believe I have any further questions.

I would like to turn to our ranking member, Mr. Shimkus, for

questions.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those are really good

questions, Kyrgyzstan and China, but we don’t have a mining association here. They could probably answer the cost of what a mine

costs, what is the commodity return, and the risk assumed and

stuff. Maybe we can get them on record. Just a point.

Mr. Gulliford, do you know that an export ban would reduce mercury contamination of air, water, or fish either in the U.S. or

abroad?

Mr. GULLIFORD. It would only reduce any types of emissions from

mercury sources if it were to result in less actual use of mercury

worldwide, and we can’t be certain of that unless we know whether

or not there are adequate supplies of mercury in the marketplace

and other locations, and whether or not there would be additional

mining initiated as a result of a ban on domestic export of mercury

from the United States.

The reality is the amount of mercury that is exported from the

United States is not a great percentage of the world market share.

Mr. SHIMKUS. There has to be a comprehensive approach. I

mean, we are talking about China’s mining operations. I think the

vast majority involved, 99 percent of these are produced in China.

Obviously—and I like these bulbs. I like energy efficiency. I think

they are great things, but as we expand that, we are sending conflicting signals. We are sending a signal, more mercury, until technology—which I think in the light bulb industry, is 5 to 10 years

away, depending upon what type of light bulb it is. I am not picking on it because I have got these in my home now. I am replacing

them, and as such, we are purchasing them in the Federal buildings, but we are sending contrary signals if there needs to be a

comprehensive approach, we are encouraging more mercury in the

worldwide economy by pushing these bulbs, is that correct?

Mr. GULLIFORD. The mercury for those bulbs pretty much is supplied by mining that actually occurs in China. China has the ability

to produce mercury that it needs for its domestic purposes and for

the development of products that it exports. It also exports traditional mercury containing products, such as thermometers, other

measuring tools, and the like. So the Chinese are certainly willing

to export mercury and put mercury in the various products.
36

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes. Is there a release in just the operation itself

of a mine that either is a primary product or a secondary product?

Is there a natural emission through the mining of mercury into the

atmosphere?

Mr. GULLIFORD. Yes. The mining activities do result in releases

of mercury.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great. Thank you very much.

Ms. Williams, according to your testimony, the DOE was left

with 1,200 metric tons of recovered mercury in storage after it decided—Mr. Holder, in storage after it decided to stop its sales. How

much was actually sold and what led to the decision to stop selling?

Mr. HOLDER. Between 1980 and 1990s, we sold approximately

50,000 flasks, which equates to about 3.8 million pounds of mercury. We currently have 4,436 metric tons remaining within the inventory.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Who were the main buyers, do you know?

Mr. HOLDER. Main buyers were domestic and international companies. Domestic, B.F. Goldsmith, Bethlehem Apparatus, Asian,

Atlantis and international was Beni Mercurio.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Is there any data about what happened to the

price of mercury domestically and abroad after NNSA halted sales?

Mr. HOLDER. No, after we basically left the marketplace, we did

not continue gathering market intelligence of sales of mercury.

Mr. SHIMKUS. In your verbal statement starting, you mentioned

that there was also an economic factor in your decision.

Mr. HOLDER. Yes.

Mr. SHIMKUS. So you are saying that economically, your department decided—that was part of the variable deciding not to sell.

Can you tell me about that economic balance——

Mr. HOLDER. When we talk about that, we looked at the economic scale. Since we are basically selling off the entire stockpile

inventory, one of the things we had to look at was reduction in

sites, and so the consolidation of the mercury fits right in to our

economy of scale of trying to find one site in order to move the mercury to one site, which would reduce oversight, and right now, it

would cost us about $1 million to store mercury at the three sites.

Going to one site, the estimated cost is $500,000 per year.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Ms. Williams, with the chairman’s indulgence, any

of the questions that I asked Mr. Holder, is there a response you

have to some of those?

Ms. WILLIAMS. We have not tracked the economics, and also I

cannot tell you who the mercury was purchased by when we last

sold it, and if you wish, I could take that for the record.

Mr. WYNN. Gentleman’s time is expired.

At this time, I would like to turn to the bill’s sponsor, Mr. Allen,

for questions.

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Gulliford, from reading the testimony of those on the second

panel, it seems clear we have got a rare consensus among the

chloralkali industry, the environmental community, the States, and

the medical community that we should stockpile our elemental

mercury to prevent the environmental harm and the public health

harm that comes from selling large amounts into the global economy. Do you disagree with that consensus?
37

Mr. GULLIFORD. I believe that the best way to deal with mercury

use, as we did domestically and internationally is to work on the

demand side of the equation, that way we can provide technical information to developing countries that use mercury, it gives them

a reason and it gives them an ability to stop using mercury. And

the best way to end the use of mercury is to work again at the demand side, rather than through some type of an action that, again,

we can’t be certain will lead to the result that we are interested

in.

Mr. ALLEN. But if your reservations about a ban could be resolved, and I will come to some of those questions later, but if your

reservations about a ban could be resolved, would you have any

problem with stockpiling elemental mercury?

Mr. GULLIFORD. I think that it is in our interest to find ways to

store mercury that isn’t needed, and I certainly agree with that

premise. In fact, working with UNEP over the next couple of years,

we will be working on examining this overall global situation of

what mercury is used, where it is produced, where it is needed,

what products still have value of using mercury, as we have discussed. And then ultimately they will look at some type of option.

Mr. ALLEN. OK, thank you.

You have indicated that EPA leads the UNEP partnership dealing with mercury management in artisanal and small scale gold

mining, and has participated in the global mercury project. In February 2007, the Global Mercury Project reported its findings, and

one of them was ‘‘Various locations, specific Global Mercury Project

training programs and assessments have demonstrated that when

mercury is less available and/or more expensive, less mercury is

consumed as miners switch to more efficient practices, sometimes

eliminating mercury use entirely.’’ What they are saying in that report is that make it more expensive, make it less available, and

you create an incentive to switch to other substances. Do you disagree with that, or do you agree with it?

Mr. GULLIFORD. I would say that we have not seen evidence of

mercury use in our gold mining decreasing. In fact, our concern is

that more artisanal mining is occurring around the world as people

who have the need to generate income for themselves or their families look to mining as a way to generate income that they need to

survive. And so we have not seen evidence of reduction in artisanal

mining.

Mr. ALLEN. Let me pursue that further. Based on what I understand, artisanal mining is occurring in only two places, the Kyrgyz

Republic and China. At the Brussels Conference in October 2006,

Kyrgyzstan announced a plan to close its mercury mine and would

seek financial assistance to switch to mining of other metals.

China, to my understanding, only mines for domestic consumption.

I mean, it does make products, but it restricts imports of mercury.

So I think you said earlier you are not aware of any new mining

operations or any plans for new mining operations. I mean, aren’t

there things the United States could do to prevent or stop or discourage efforts to expand this kind of mining?

Mr. GULLIFORD. Well, I am not aware that Kyrgyzstan has announced any plans to reduce their mining activities. I am also confident that China is more than willing to mine to produce all of the
38

mercury that they need for any market, either domestic or international, on their part.

Mr. ALLEN. I just have a few seconds left.

You had a series of reservations, and I just wanted to deal with

a couple of them. You asked could an export ban be made consistent with U.S. trade obligations, and we are only talking about $8

million a year here in terms of our exports. I would doubt that that

would give rise to a real trade issue. You do properly raise the

question if a ban were implemented, what would happen to excess

stocks of mercury now in private hands. That is why we have provided for a committee to figure out how to store it. We think that

issue is relatively easily resolved.

I see my time is expired. Mr. Chairman, and I thank you.

Mr. WYNN. I thank the gentleman for his line of questioning.

At this time, I would like to recognize the gentleman Mr. Pitts

for questioning.

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

For EPA, some countries like China are not committed to banning exports of mercury. What environmental good is being

achieved if the United States bans its exports and other countries

for financial reasons fill in the gap of the displaced commodity?

Will banning exports have any positive environmental impact on

countries that still mine for mercury?

Mr. GULLIFORD. No. In fact, our concern is what will happen

from a mining standpoint were there to be a domestic ban on mercury exports from the United States.

Again, we have worked to actually encourage the use of preferable sources of mercury, which is recycled mercury products.

Again, mercury is necessary. At the same time, we are very committed—and you can see that in the actions that have occurred domestically, as well as the leadership that we have provided to

international efforts, through our partnership projects, to reduce

this demand. We believe that ultimately, just as it has occurred in

this country, we have reduced our use of elemental mercury by 87

percent in this country since 1980, through education, through

technology transfer, and providing alternatives to mercury use,

that that is the most appropriate way to address mercury use

internationally as well. We have had some success with the initial

work of those partnership projects internationally.

Mr. PITTS. Could increasing Federal mandates for energy efficient lighting together with an export ban for mercury contribute

to increased mining of mercury in China or elsewhere?

Mr. GULLIFORD. I believe that China has the ability and will

mine as much mercury as they need to meet any opportunity that

they have to develop industry and to market the products of that

industry, including the use of mercury. Because they don’t limit

their mercury exports only to the compact fluorescent lighting

products, they also export other mercury products, even such as the

traditional thermometers that are used in hospitals throughout

Asia.

Mr. PITTS. Is it cheaper to mine virgin mercury in China or to

buy it from the market? What is the mercury that is produced in

China being used for?
39

Mr. GULLIFORD. I think in China there are a lot of uses of mercury in different products. We talk a lot about the uses for

artisanal mining, the lighting, and thermometers still being produced. Other devices are being produced such as thermostats and

other types of products. So there are still a lot of uses, and all of

them I think would need to be factored into a decision as to what

the effect of a mercury export ban might be.

Mr. PITTS. And again, what are you doing to address production

and use of mercury by China?

Mr. GULLIFORD. We have bilateral negotiations with China on a

lot of issues. In fact, I have visited China in Shanghai and we have

two projects with hospitals in Shanghai encouraging them to move

away from some of the very products that they produce. Again, the

use of mercury in hospitals, both in thermometers and in blood

pressure cuffs, which are very common, result in spills which are

hazardous particularly to the people that work there. They require

maintenance because they leak over time, and there is a lot of mercury use and a lot of mercury leakage and problems with mercury

exposure in hospitals.

So we are working on issues like that. We are also working

through the Asia Pacific Partnership on the challenge of mercury

emissions from power plant generation and we are encouraging a

responsible action on the part of China. China also is a large economic force that is very willing to market the types of products

that are needed or used around the globe, and if they contain mercury, they are willing to export those products.

Mr. PITTS. Now, you said Kyrgyzstan or Kyrgyz Republic is also

producing. They don’t have a lot of resources. What are you doing

as far as their production?

Mr. GULLIFORD. I am not aware that we have any direct partnerships with Kyrgyzstan on mining and use of mercury.

Mr. PITTS. And EPA has a variety of activities underway to reduce mercury demand. Just, again, highlight some of the projects,

both domestically and internationally, that explain why it is so important to manage demand as part of an effective solution here.

Mr. GULLIFORD. Yes, consistent with the five UNEP partnership

goals that they have set forth, we have demonstrations—and the

United States has taken the lead on artisanal mining, and in the

case of artisanal mining efforts, we have a project in Senegal where

the mining operation there has incorporated the uses of hoods in

the smelting process to capture mercury fumes and vapors as they

are released, which results in less exposure to workers. It also results in less emissions into the atmosphere. I think the number is

roughly 60 of those mines are using that type of an activity to reduce emissions and local exposures.

Another one of the areas of the UNEP partnerships is the

chloralkali sector. We have a strong partnership in Russia where

they have already transferred to non-mercury processes in a couple

of their operations, and they are very substantial. Again, the use

of mercury in Russia, is a very positive demonstration partnership

project, and one that is repeatable, and Russia tends to continue

to move through their domestic chloralkali facilities to transfer out

of the mercury technology, as much as we see here in this country.
40

We also have interests and we are working in the private sector,

including our products and processes in our partnership projects. I

mentioned the efforts that are in a number of countries to look at

the use of mercury products in hospitals where exposure can be

very high, particularly to the working staff of those hospitals, doctors and healthcare providers. The actual patients can move

through hospitals fairly quickly and not be exposed for a long period of time, but the actual workers are under considerable exposure.

The other two areas where we don’t necessarily have the lead,

but where we are also providing support internationally is to the

issue of mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants and also

then to look at the research components appropriate to mercury

emissions, international transport of mercury.

Mr. PITTS. And finally, can you speak to any of the recent consumer and retail concerns pertaining to the cleanup and disposal

of CFLs?

Mr. GULLIFORD. Yes. On the EPA Web site, we have some very

specific instructions for consumers who use these bulbs. Concern is

if they are broken, what should you do. If you look at that Web

site, it would instruct any homeowner who has, for example,

dropped one of these lights that resulted in a spill, first of all, to

aerate the area, to vacate it, open all the windows, provide an opportunity to dissipate any emissions that might be from that bulb.

Next, it instructs homeowners to clean up carefully, never vacuum

because vacuuming only disperses it, but to use some type of a

towel or something that will actually absorb the mercury, and put

it into plastic containers, plastic bags, double bag it, that type of

thing. Obviously, to be careful not to cut yourself when doing that,

and then to dispose of it properly. There are disposal sites in many

of our communities, or also it can be put into something that would

go into a landfill. We would discourage it from going into a process

that would ultimately result in incineration.

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WYNN. The gentleman’s time is expired.

At this time, the Chair would recognize the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I take this issue of

mercury very seriously. Some years ago I actually wrote a chapter

in a book called ‘‘50 Ways to Improve Women’s Lives’’ about the

danger of mercury. My district sits on Lake Michigan and we are

concerned about the contamination of fish. I have also been concerned, now that you have mentioned power plants, the decision on

the Bush administration to roll back in 2005 Clinton administration decisions requiring that all power plants reduce mercury emissions to the maximum extent possible by 2008.

I wanted to call your attention, Mr. Gulliford, to the Global Mercury Project, the United Nations Global Mercury Project, and it delivered its report in February of this year. It says that it calls on

nations around the world to achieve the goal of reducing mercury

consumption by reducing mercury supply through export controls

and other mechanisms that will encourage the transition to alternative technologies. Do you support the United Nations Global

Mercury Project call for a mercury export ban?
41

Mr. GULLIFORD. We are working very closely with the UNEP

Council on their programs for mercury reduction, that is why we

have made the effort to sponsor and support the five partnership

projects. We are also working with them to support the gathering

of the data to look at issues related to the mercury use, mercury

demand, mercury supply, and the potential for any type of policy

for the future——

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, it sounds like you think that there are

appropriate uses for mercury, and so Mr. Holder, the sites that contain mercury right now, we are not releasing anything from storage

since 1996, right?

Mr. HOLDER. Since 1994 we have suspended sales and we have

not released any mercury from our warehouses.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So if you think, Mr. Gulliford, that there are

legitimate uses, why would the EPA then say none of it could be

released from storage?

Mr. GULLIFORD. Clearly, the use of mercury in this country and

our goal for the use of mercury internationally is to reduce the use

of mercury. That has happened in this country. As I indicated, we

have reduced mercury use domestically by 87 percent since 1980,

and that is a trend we believe will continue to occur. We don’t believe there is need for all of the mercury and we think that it is

very good that we have made a decision what to do with Federal

sources, and we have convened a stakeholder panel to look at options for, again, what can we do to store properly domestic supplies.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And that is being all consolidated, the storage?

Is that part of the plan?

Mr. HOLDER. Part of the plan is to consolidate all the mercury

into one storage site.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And also, Mr. Gulliford, you have been talking

about efforts to encourage the—wait.

In your testimony, you say the ban on U.S. exports of mercury

raises questions such as what effect there might be on ‘‘efforts to

encourage the use of mercury from environmentally preferable

sources, such as recycled mercury.’’ So is the United States engaged in efforts to encourage the use of mercury in those ways in

the global market?

Mr. GULLIFORD. I believe that the use of environmentally preferable sources of mercury are preferable to new mining. I don’t

think we should do anything to encourage the additional mining of

mercury anywhere in the world, and rather we ought to use these

existing sources of recycled mercury. They are very preferable.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Do we have metrics on this? Are there goals

that you want to achieve? I know you mentioned how much mercury has been reduced, but are there specific goals to actually reduce the use of mercury, goals that are achievable and that we are

aiming toward and measuring toward?

Mr. GULLIFORD. Yes, there are, in some cases. For example, with

respect to mercury switches in autos, when we worked with the

auto industry to stop using mercury switches in automobiles and

we backed that up and are just completing a rule that will prevent

those from coming back into use at any future time. We also then

went forward with the scrappers and the recycling industry, trying
42

to get those mercury switches out of automobiles before they are

shredded and then resmelted, and then you would have an air

emission associated with that. We expect some very significant reductions in mercury, and so we do have numbers on those which

we can get for you. We are also then looking for other products,

such as similar devices that——

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. My time is expired and the chairman is gaveling.

Thank you very much. I thank your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WYNN. Thank the gentlelady for her questions.

Are there other members seeking to ask questions at this time?

Seeing none, I would like to thank all the witnesses on this panel

for your outstanding testimony, and excuse you at this time, and

ask that the second panel would come forward.

Also at this time, the Chair is going to ask unanimous consent

that a memo from Thomas D’Agostino, the Deputy Administrator

for Defense Programs at DOE, the memo is dated December 13,

2006. In the memo, he states that the decision to store DOE’s in

NNSA’s mercury inventory is based on several factors, including

EPA’s urging that this mercury be stored and not returned to the

economy. I would, at this time, ask unanimous consent that it be

included in the record.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. Chairman, I don’t think I will but I think we would like to

see that.

Mr. WYNN. I thought you had seen it but I certainly am happy

to share it with you.

Mr. SHIMKUS. And also, Mr. Chairman, as part of this opens up

for a colloquy, whether there are insertions by the National Electronic Manufacturers Association of Lighting Manufacturers and

the mining industry, if we would be allowed to submit a statement

from them into the record, and what time we would be allowed to

do that?

Mr. WYNN. I don’t have a problem with the submission. I would

like, of course, to see them if the Democratic side has not seen

them, so if you would allow us to see them, then I would——

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes, if you would just give us a timeframe so we

make sure they get it here in an appropriate amount of time,

then——

Mr. WYNN. Would 5 days be a sufficient timeframe?

Mr. SHIMKUS. I think that would be fine. That would be very

generous, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WYNN. Probably too generous, but having said that, we will

keep the record open for 5 days to receive the letter. I will reserve

the right to object, however, pending receipt of that letter.

Mr. SHIMKUS. We are all getting so smart, aren’t we?

Mr. WYNN. Give me time.

With respect to the unanimous consent request that I made——

Mr. SHIMKUS. I withdraw my objection, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WYNN. I thank the gentleman, and the memo will be entered

into the record.

I would also, at this time, seek unanimous consent to enter letters of support for H.R. 1534 into the record. I believe the minority

does have these letters. They are from the State of Maine, the
43

American Medical Association, the Nature Conservancy, and the

American College of Preventative Medicine.

Mr. SHIMKUS. No objection.

Mr. WYNN. Hearing none, the letters are admitted into the

record.

At this time, I would like to welcome our second panel. I would

like to introduce them and thank them for appearing.

First, we have Dr. Linda Greer. She is a senior scientist, National Resources Defense Council. We also have Dr. Michael Shannon, chair of the Committee on Environmental Health and American Academy of Pediatrics. We have Mr. Mark Smith, deputy director, Office of Research and Standards, Director, Massachusetts

Mercury Program, Massachusetts Department of Environmental

Protection. We also have with us Mr. Arthur Dungan, president of

the Chlorine Institute, and finally, Mr. Bruce Lawrence, president,

Bethlehem Apparatus Company.

Again, welcome, and we will begin with 5-minute opening statements from each of the panelists. The prepared testimony that you

submitted in advance will be made a part of the hearing record.

And with that, Dr. Greer.

STATEMENT OF LINDA E. GREER, SENIOR SCIENTIST,

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, WASHINGTON, DC

Ms. GREER. Thank you. Well, good morning. Thank you for the

opportunity to testify. I direct the Environmental Health Program

at the Natural Resources Defense Council, which is an environmental advocacy organization. In that capacity, I focus on the most

dangerous chemicals that are in the air, in the water, in the food,

or in our houses, and mercury has been on our radar screen as our

highest priority pollutant in the food supply for the purposes of

protecting health in the United States.

For that reason, I have been working personally and with some

of my staff on both global mercury pollution issues and domestic

mercury issues here in the United States for about 5 years. In my

oral testimony, let me try to simplify this issue for the hearing

today and provide my perspective on the need for this legislation.

I think the basic question at hand is: ‘‘Why should we care about

exporting mercury out of our borders? Why should we care about

where it goes?’’ And there are really two big reasons why we should

care about this and why we need this bill. The first reason, which

has been covered in several opening statements, is that mercury is

a global pollutant, and so the unfortunate fact of the matter is that

if we ship mercury abroad and it gets used in polluting ways, that

mercury comes right back at us. We don’t have the luxury of not

caring about mercury outside of our borders. We need to worry

about the management of that mercury all along in order to protect

our own health and our own food supply.

The second reason is sort of a dollars and cents reason, which is

this: States and localities are expending much welcomed effort in

collecting and recycling mercury-containing products because it is

very dangerous for those products to wind up in municipal trash

stream and then get burned in a municipal incinerator or break.

It doesn’t make any sense, though, for them to collect all that mercury, to take all that time and trouble, just to put it in a bucket,
44

so to speak, and send it abroad to highly polluting uses. Recycling

for reuse in highly polluting industries is not a step in the right

direction. Because mercury is a global pollutant, if we take the

time and trouble to collect these small sources, we should then not

be sending it off to countries in the developing world who are then

going to mismanage it. Unfortunately, unless we do something like

the export ban we are discussing today, we do not have any control

over where this mercury goes.

In its testimony today, EPA expresses concern about the unattended consequences of a mercury export ban on promoting environmentally preferable recycled sources of mercury. My answer to

that concern is this: there really is nothing environmentally preferable about collecting mercury just to send it abroad to recycling,

and I think the problem would be to the contrary. I think over a

longer period of time, as States and localities watch the money and

effort they are putting in to collect this mercury go for essentially

no big purpose—that is, just collect the mercury in order to send

over to Vietnam or India or someplace that will mismanage it—

that people will become disillusioned about the value of recycling

and they will feel like they should turn their resources to something that makes a bigger contribution in the big picture.

Now let me turn for a minute to an overview of the situation of

the global mercury trade, which is a very bleak situation. It is important for people to take stock of this situation, because the magnitude of the problem we have right now is very large. It is important to compare this against the speculative unintended consequences, such as those that have been raised by EPA and others

today in their testimony. So much of the detail about this is in my

written statement. I will highlight for you only this. We use between 3,000 and 3,500 tons of mercury globally per year. That has

gone down enormously over the past 50 years, but it has been stable for the last decade. Usage is not going down fast enough from

there. The problem is not just the standing amount of mercury that

we are using, but that in the last decade, there has been an enormous shift in where and how that mercury is being used. So that

in the older days, we in the United States were still using mercury,

the Western European countries were still using lots of mercury.

That mercury was, for the most part, much more carefully managed than the mercury being used in the developing world today.

In my testimony, I have a figure, figure 2, that shows for one typical year the flow of mercury which is basically from the industrialized world to the developing world, as the industrialized world

has gotten rid of its dangerous mercury uses.

The largest percentage of this mercury goes into that practice of

artisanal mining that has already been the focus of both opening

statements, and also some of our witnesses today, and I just want

to emphasize for you how very dangerous that practice is. It is

more than roughly a third of the global mercury use. It is being

used by the poorest people of the world, people who have no other

means of support. They are grossly intoxicating themselves with

mercury, such that they usually can’t do this work for very many

years of their life because they have become intoxicated, and it is

throwing 1,000 tons of mercury a year, almost all they use, into the

air and into the global food supply. As has already been mentioned
45

by several representatives, UNIDO, which has been in the lead on

this problem, has called for an export ban as the single-most important thing that the world could do in order to reduce this practice.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Greer follows:]
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91

Mr. WYNN. Thank you very much, Dr. Greer.

Dr. Shannon.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL SHANNON, M.D., CHAIR, COMMITTEE

ON ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF

PEDIATRICS; PROFESSOR AND CHAIR, DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL, BOSTON, MA

Dr. SHANNON. Thank you and good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today before the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials at this hearing, H.R. 1534, the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2007. My name is

Dr. Michael Shannon, and I am proud to represent the American

Academy of Pediatrics, a nonprofit professional organization of

60,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical subspecialists,

and pediatric surgical subspecialists dedicated to the health, safety,

and well-being of infants, children, adolescents, and young adults.

I am chair of the Academy’s Committee on Environmental Health.

I am Chief of Emergency Medicine, and co-director of the Pediatric

Environmental Health Program at Children’s Hospital, Boston. I

am a professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. My Board

certifications include pediatrics, emergency medicine, and medical

toxicology. I have been a pediatrician for 30 years.

Mercury is a ubiquitous environmental toxin that is capable of

causing a wide range of adverse health effects in humans. The

AAP’s Committee on Environmental Health describes the dangers

of mercury in the environment to children in a 2001 technical report of which I was the lead author.

Elemental mercury is one of the three forms of this substance,

the other two being organic mercury and inorganic mercury. The

elemental form, as you know, is generally liquid at room temperature. When heated, however, elemental mercury becomes a vapor.

This vapor has the ability to contaminate large geographic areas,

affecting all of those nearby. In the United States, the largest

source of atmospheric mercury vapor is from burning fossil fuels,

especially high sulfur coal. Other major sources include chloralkali

production, a process that uses elemental mercury to produce chlorine, bleach, and other products, mercury mining, and waste incinerators, especially those that incinerate medical waste.

Elemental mercury in liquid form is found in thermometers, barometers, and other medical instruments. Indiscriminate disposal

of medical devices is a major source of environmental mercury contamination when they are buried in landfills or burned in waste incinerators, rather than recycled. Fortunately, our efforts to eliminate elemental mercury from medical devices has been successful

in reducing human exposure from this source.

As I mentioned, when heated, elemental mercury rapidly vaporizes. Once we inhale it, mercury vapor easily passes through the

membranes of our lungs, entering the bloodstream where it is then

primarily distributed into the central nervous system and the kidneys. Circulating elemental mercury also crosses the placenta and

concentrates in the fetus. In adults, the half life of mercury, that

is, the amount it takes for the body to eliminate one-half of the

metal, is as long as 90 days.
92

Elemental mercury poisoning can produce a broad range of effects on the central nervous system, kidneys, skin, and lungs. In

children, elemental mercury is particularly deleterious because of

its effects on the rapidly developing brain of the child. Children exposed to elemental mercury can develop a range of neurocognitive

and behavioral effects ranging from learning disabilities to devastating neurologic problems, including mental retardation, blindness, and spasticity.

History has provided us several important lessons of the consequences of severe mercury exposure to children. One example is

the Minamata Bay incident in the 1950s. At that time, a coastal

factory discharged large amounts of mercury compound into the

bay. That mercury was taken up by local fish, which was routinely

eaten by nearby villagers. An epidemic of childhood disease manifested by blindness and spasticity appeared among the offspring of

women who ate the contaminated fish while pregnant. Ultimately,

there were 41 deaths and at least 30 cases of severe brain damage

in these infants.

There also continue to be case reports describing the development of severe mercury poisoning in children and adults as a result

of mercury spills and even mercury thermometers breaking with

the mercury being vacuumed or spilling into a heating duct. This

is rare, but continues to show us how toxic this element can be.

Because elemental mercury that enters the blood, central nervous system, and kidneys is so slowly eliminated, toxicity can be

prolonged. Given that treatment options for mercury intoxication

are inadequate, prevention of exposure is the cornerstone of avoiding long-term health consequences.

In conclusion, the American Academy of Pediatrics commends

you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today and calling attention to the hazards of elemental mercury. We look forward to

working with Congress to minimize the exposure of children and

all Americans to potentially toxic levels of mercury. I appreciate

this opportunity to testify, and I will be pleased to answer any

questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Shannon follows:]

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL SHANNON, MD, MPH, FAAP

Good morning. I appreciate this opportunity to testify today before the Energy

and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials at this

hearing, H.R. 1534, the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2007. My name is Michael Shannon, MD, MPH, FAAP, and I am proud to represent the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), a non-profit professional organization of 60,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical sub-specialists, and pediatric surgical specialists dedicated

to the health, safety, and well-being of infants, children, adolescents, and young

adults. I am Chair of the AAP’s Committee on Environmental Health. I am Chief

of the Division of Emergency Medicine and Co-Director of the Pediatric Environmental Health Center at Boston Children’s Hospital. I am also a Professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. My board certifications are in General Pediatrics,

Emergency Medicine, Pediatric Emergency Medicine and Medical Toxicology.

ELEMENTAL MERCURY POSES A SERIOUS HEALTH HAZARD TO CHILDREN

Mercury is a ubiquitous environmental toxin that is capable of causing a wide

range of adverse health effects in humans. The AAP’s Committee on Environmental

Health described the dangers of mercury in the environment to children in a 2001

technical report, of which I was a lead author.
93

1 Goldman LR, Shannon MW, and the AAP Committee on Environmental Health. Technical

Report: Mercury in the Environment: Implications for Pediatricians. Pediatrics, 2001 108: 197-

205.

2 Ibid.

3 Speaking Points for Mercury in the Environment: Implications for Pediatricians, http://

www.aap.org/moc/pressroom/speaking—points/mercury.htm?CFID=1395517&CFTOKEN=64233499.

4 Ibid.

Elemental mercury is one of the three forms of this substance, the other two being

organic mercury and inorganic mercury. The elemental form is liquid at room temperature. When heated, elemental mercury becomes a vapor; this vapor has the ability to contaminate large geographic areas, affecting all of those nearby. In the

United States, the largest source of atmospheric mercury vapor is from burning fossil fuels, especially high-sulfur coal. Other major sources include chloralkali production (a process that uses elemental mercury to produce chlorine, bleach, and other

products), mercury mining, and waste incinerators (especially those that incinerate

medical wastes). Elemental mercury in liquid form is found in thermometers, barometers, and other medical instruments. Indiscriminate disposal of medical devices

is a major source of environmental mercury contamination when they are buried in

landfills or burned in waste incinerators rather than recycled. Fortunately, recent

efforts to eliminate elemental mercury from medical devices have been successful in

reducing human exposure from this source. 1

Elemental mercury readily vaporizes in the presence of heat. When inhaled, mercury vapor easily passes through the membranes of the lung, entering the bloodstream, where it is then distributed primarily into the central nervous system

(CNS), and the kidneys. Circulating elemental mercury also crosses the placenta

and concentrates in the fetus. In adults, the half-life of elemental mercury, that is,

the amount of time it takes for the body to eliminate one-half of the metal, is as

long as 90 days. 2

Elemental mercury poisoning can produce a broad range of effects on the central

nervous system, kidneys, skin and lungs. In children, elemental mercury is particularly deleterious because of its affects on the rapidly developing brain of the child.

Children exposed to elemental mercury can develop a range of neurocognitive and

behavioral effects, ranging from learning disabilities to devastating neurologic problems including mental retardation, blindness and spasticity. 3

History has provided us several important lessons of the consequences of severe

mercury exposure to children. One example is the Minamata Bay incident which

took place in Japan in the 1950’s. A coastal factory discharged large quantities of

mercury compounds into the bay. That mercury was taken up by local fish which

was routinely eaten by nearby villagers. An epidemic of disease, manifested by

blindness and spasticity appeared among the offspring of the women who ate the

contaminated fish while pregnant. Ultimately, there were 41 deaths and at least 30

cases of severe brain damage in these infants. There also continue to be case reports

describing the development of symptomatic mercury poisoning in children and

adults as a result of mercury spills and even mercury thermometers breaking, with

the mercury bead being vacuumed or spilling into a heating duct. This is rare, but

continues to show us how toxic this element can be. 4

Because the elemental mercury that enters the blood, CNS, and renal tissues and

is so slowly eliminated, toxicity can be prolonged. Given that treatment options for

mercury intoxication are inadequate, prevention of exposure is the cornerstone of

avoiding long-term health consequences.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that elemental mercury is toxic

to the fetus and to children, and recommends that aggressive efforts should be made

to reduce exposure for pregnant women and children as well as the general population.

• Efforts should be made to decrease the amount of elemental mercury in the

waste stream by continuing the phase-out of mercury-containing devices. Families

should be encouraged to remove mercury thermometers from their homes.

• Elemental mercury should not be present in the home or other environments

of children. Public health agencies, community organizations, pediatricians, and

other child health providers should work together to identify and address the factors

that may lead to elemental mercury exposure.
94

CONCLUSION

The American Academy of Pediatrics commends you, Mr. Chairman, for holding

this hearing today to call attention to the hazards of elemental mercury. We look

forward to working with Congress to minimize the exposure of children and all

Americans to potentially toxic levels of elemental mercury. I appreciate this opportunity to testify, and I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. WYNN. Thank you very much, Dr. Shannon.

Dr. Smith.

STATEMENT OF C. MARK SMITH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE

OF RESEARCH AND STANDARDS; DIRECTOR, MASSACHUSETTS MERCURY PROGRAM; CO-CHAIR, NEW ENGLAND GOVERNORS AND EASTERN CANADIAN PREMIERS MERCURY

TASK FORCE; QUICKSILVER CAUCUS, MASSACHUSETTS REPRESENTATIVE, BOSTON, MA

Mr. SMITH. Good afternoon Chairman Wynn and members of the

committee. I would like to thank you all for providing the Environmental Council of States and the Quicksilver Caucus with the opportunity to testify today on this important issue.

As you may be aware, the Environmental Council of States is a

nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that is comprised of the leaders

of the State environmental agencies. It has been involved in dealing with mercury issues for many years. The Quicksilver Caucus

is a coalition of interstate organizations dealing specifically with

mercury, and the interstate organizations represent air, water, and

solid waste pollution prevention organizations from across the

country.

My name is Mark Smith and I am testifying today for ECOS and

the Quicksilver Caucus on behalf of Arleen O’Donnell, who is the

acting commissioner for the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and is the Chair of the ECOS cross media committee. Unfortunately, Arleen could not be here today.

My background, just for a quick review, is that I have a Ph.D.

in molecular toxicology and a master’s degree in environmental

health management. I currently direct the Massachusetts Mercury

Reduction Program; was a founding member and currently co-chair

the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers Mercury Task Force. I have also been the Massachusetts representative

to the Quicksilver Caucus since its inception.

As you have heard, mercury is a very important issue for the

States. We have heard that there are 44 States that have fish consumption advisories in effect. Just to put that in perspective, that

amounts to tens of thousands of water bodies across the country,

impacting close to 13 million lake acres and 760,000 river miles.

This is a really big problem for the States. Monitoring by the Centers for Disease Control also indicates that several hundred thousand newborns each year are being exposed to excessive amounts

of mercury, primarily through their mothers’ consumption of contaminated fish, fish that have unacceptably high levels of mercury.

As the father of a son who loves to fish, and even likes to eat

them on occasion, this is personally an important issue as well. It

is really a sad state of affairs when we have to tell our children

that the fish they just caught is not safe to eat because it is con-
95

taminated with mercury, which is something I just had to do last

week. We actually did catch a few fish on a trip we were on. It

doesn’t happen frequently, but sometimes it does.

Because of the extent and seriousness of the problem, over 22

States are developing or implementing State-specific action plans

to address mercury. Overall, these efforts have been very successful. For example, in my State, and as we have heard, in the State

of Maine, mercury reductions in the order of 70 to 80 percent have

occurred over the past decade or so, as we have been implementing

State and regional action plans to address mercury. Similar reductions are happening in many other States across the country.

Of significance to this hearing, mercury product legislation is

being adopted in many States, which is reducing the demand for

mercury, elemental mercury, by reducing unnecessary uses and

phasing them out. At the same time, State recycling programs designed to reduce releases of mercury from end-of-life products and

to prevent costly spills of mercury are also increasing, resulting in

increasing supplies of commodity mercury here in the United

States.

Because global sources have been found to contribute significantly to mercury deposition in our States and because many

States have these programs to recycle mercury, ECOS and the

Quicksilver Caucus have had a longstanding interest in the management of commodity mercury. To minimize the potential for mercury releases on the global scale, ECOS, beginning in 1996, has

consistently called for the cessation of sales of U.S. mercury stockpiles and urged those to be permanently stored; has urged nations

to end subsidies to mercury mining; and urged U.S. EPA to develop

a retirement option for the long-term sequestration of excess mercury. Most recently, the Quicksilver Caucus developed 14 principles

that articulate the views of ECOS, the National Governors Association, and the Quicksilver Caucus regarding the use and management of elemental mercury in an environmentally sound manner.

These principles include provisions designed to reduce unnecessary

uses of mercury, restrict mercury exports, and safely store excess

mercury.

Of most relevance to today’s discussion, the principles specifically

call for a prohibition on the export of elemental mercury to developing countries where the resulting uses can result in unsafe exposures, and also call on the U.S. to cease the export of elemental

mercury except for a very limited number of essential uses where

it can be demonstrated that the receiving country does not have

sufficient domestic sources of its own secondary mercury. The QSC

principles would allow for potential exemptions from the suggested

export restrictions for essential uses under a quite limited set of

circumstances.

It is our position that decisions on these issues should be made

by knowledgeable experts using an appropriate and transparent

Federal process. The creation of a national committee as called for

in the Quicksilver Caucus principles is, I think, the ideal and logical place for decisions to be made as to whether a particular use

is essential and whether an exemption should be allowed.
96

To conclude, I would again like to thank the committee for this

opportunity to speak on this issue, and I am available to answer

any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

TESTIMONY C. MARK SMITH

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, for providing the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) the opportunity to present testimony on the

States Perspectives on Managing Commodity Grade Elemental Mercury. My name

is C. Mark Smith and I am testifying on behalf of Arleen O’Donnell, the Acting

Commissioner for Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and the

Chair of the ECOS Cross-media Committee. I have been involved in mercury policy

and research for over 15 years and have been the Massachusetts representative to

the Quicksilver Caucus since its inception. Currently I direct my agency’s multimedia mercury program and Co-chair the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers Regional Mercury Task Force.

The Environmental Council of States is the national non-partisan, non-profit association of the leaders of state environmental agencies. Our members are the officials

who manage and direct the environmental agencies in the States and territories.

They are the state leaders responsible for making certain our Nation’s air, water

and natural resources are clean, safe and protected.

Today I am here representing not only my own state, but also as a voice for all

the environmental agencies in the states belonging to our organization and to the

Quicksilver Caucus.

The Quicksilver Caucus, formed in May 2001 by a coalition of State environmental association leaders to collaboratively develop holistic approaches for reducing

mercury in the environment. Caucus members who share mercury-related technical

and policy information include the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), the

Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO),

the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA), the Association of State

and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA), the Association

of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) and the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable (NPPR). The Quicksilver Caucus’ long-term goal is that State,

Federal, and International actions effectively address mercury pollution.

Mercury is a public health and environmental health problem across the country

and the globe. Environmental monitoring over the past two decades has demonstrated that mercury levels in fish from states across the United States are too

high. As a result, as of 2004, 44 States had fish consumption advisories in effect

because of mercury, affecting over 13 million lake acres and 767,000 river miles. National advisories for saltwater fish, such as shark, tuna and swordfish, are also in

effect.

Mercury is such a concern because it is a potent brain toxin that adversely affects

children and wildlife. Once released into the environment mercury persists and does

not break down into harmless components like many other pollutants. It also bioaccumulates, or concentrates, into fish which, when eaten, are the major pathway

for human exposures to this toxin. Although mercury is a natural element, due to

human activities, the level of this toxin in the environment is much higher today

than it was 150 years ago—for example mercury levels in sediments from many

New England and Minnesota lakes were found to range from 150 percent - 800 percent higher now compared to pre-industrial times.

The brain and developing neurological system of the fetus and children are particularly sensitive to mercury and can be damaged by fairly low levels of exposure.

Of particular concern is the fact that children can be exposed to toxic amounts of

this pollutant before birth because mercury in a mothers’ diet crosses the placenta

and enters the fetus. Based on data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control,

which has measured mercury levels in the blood of women across the country, several hundred thousand newborns each year are at risk of mercury toxicity in the

U.S. because of their mother’s exposure to mercury. Based on this data over 8,000

newborns are at risk each year in my state alone.

Because of its chemical properties mercury pollution knows no borders as it can

be transported long distances in the atmosphere, creating trans-boundary issues

that are regional, national and global in scope. Mercury is also a multimedia pollutant that can readily transfer between air, water and soils. Effectively reducing mercury levels in our state environments therefore requires effective multimedia pro-
97

grams at the regional, national and international level.Because the states are being

impacted so significantly by mercury pollution and deposition, reducing sources of

mercury releases at the national and international levels is a priority for us.

To minimize the potential for mercury releases, ECOS and the Quicksilver Caucus

have had a long-standing interest in the management of commodity mercury. ECOS,

beginning in September 1996, has consistently stated its opposition to future U.S.

mercury stockpile sales and called for a permanent halt to any such sales; called

on the United States Department of Defense, the United States Department of Energy, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to research and evaluate long

term management, retirement and substitution options in cooperation with interested parties; urged all nations to end subsidies to mercury mining and sales; and

urged USEPA to develop retirement options for mercury so that waste generators

and waste treatment facilities may choose recycling or retirement.

In addition many states have adopted mercury products legislation to reduce mercury use and increase the recycling of mercury from remaining uses. Numerous

states are also implementing extensive mercury collection and recycling programs,

which are contributing to the excess U.S. supply of commodity elemental mercury.

Exports of mercury concern the states because poorly regulated uses in other countries can result in direct exposures to their citizens and contribute significantly to

overall global mercury releases to the environment and resulting impacts on our

states.

The Quicksilver Caucus recently developed 14 principles that encompass the environmental position on elemental commodity mercury of the Environmental Council

of States, the National Governor’s Association and state associations representing

air, water, waste, and pollution prevention. These principles articulate states perspectives for the development of comprehensive and effective management of elemental mercury in an environmentally secure manner at the local, state, national,

and international level.

These principles are presented in their entirety below and include a number of

provisions to: reduce the unnecessary use of mercury (principles Nos. 1, 2, 3, and

11); restrict mercury export (principles Nos.6, 8 and 9); and safely store excess mercury (principles Nos. 6 and 10). The principles specifically call for a prohibition on

the export of elemental mercury to developing countries where the resulting uses

can result in unsafe exposures. The principles also call on the U.S. to cease the export of elemental mercury, except for a limited number of essential uses where it

can be demonstrated that the receiving country does not have sufficient domestic

sources of its own secondary mercury. The QSC could only identify a small number

of essential uses, including fluorescent lighting, some dental amalgam applications

and, potentially, a select few scientific pieces of equipment. These are noted in principle No. 3. Although other essential uses were not precluded, the QSC believes that

these, if they exist, are likely to be very few in number and will likely decrease in

the future as mercury-free alternatives are developed. The QSC principles would

allow for limited exemptions from the suggested export restrictions for such essential uses provided they meet the other criteria stipulated in principle No. 8. Decisions on these issues should be made by knowledgeable experts using an appropriate and transparent Federal process. The creation of a National Advisory Committee, as called for in principle No. 13 to develop recommendations for action,

would provide a logical place for decisions to be made regarding the specific criteria

and process to determine which mercury uses are essential and whether exemptions

should be allowed in a particular situation.

The complete set of principles state that:

(1) The manufacture and sale of non-essential uses of mercury-added products

should be phased out in the long-term. Several mercury-added products can be

phased-out in the next three to five years including most uses of thermometers,

manometers, thermostats, switches, relays and novelty items.

(2) The best opportunities for achieving this goal will be to aggressively pursue

multi-stakeholder partnerships, educate consumers and businesses and leverage

Federal and state environmental laws and regulations to accelerate such a reduction.

(3) Reuse of elemental mercury should only be utilized in processes or products

deemed essential. Few essential uses remain, but include fluorescent and compact

fluorescent lamps, some restorations with dental amalgam, and perhaps a select few

scientific pieces of equipment. For those uses of mercury that continue, capture and

recycling of mercury-containing products at the end of their useful life should be required.

(a) The United National Environment Programme estimates that globally, use

of mercury in lamps and dentistry represent less than 15 percent of total uses, or
98

even as little as 9 percent. Research should be conducted to determine whether

there are any countries that do not have sufficient domestic sources of secondary

(recycled) mercury for these purposes.

(b) Federal and state governments should work with manufacturers to ensure

adequate nationwide infrastructure exists for safe collection, storage and disposal of

used mercury-containing lamps and other products through a product stewardship

framework. This infrastructure should provide flexibility for States to maintain and

to continue to develop, and implement their own strategies or regulatory programs.

(c) Research should be supported to find safe alternatives to elemental mercury

in those products deemed essential.

(4) Research should also be conducted on the use and export of mercury compounds, including such mercury compounds as mercuric chloride and mercuric oxide,

and in finding safe alternatives.

(5) States and the Federal Government should continue to work with manufacturing sectors to address current and legacy uses of mercury in the manufacturing

process (e.g., working with the chlor-alkali manufacturers to identify alternatives to

mercury cell technology and where feasible, phasing out the use of the ‘‘mercury

cell’’ manufacturing process).

(6) Following the collection and recycling (retorting) of used mercury-containing

products, the mercury should be sequestered and safely stored within the United

States.

(7) The United States should support mechanisms to better track international

trade of mercury, mercury compounds, and mercury-containing products.

(8) The United States should be a leader in proper use and management of elemental mercury by not exporting any mercury-containing products to other countries unless it is related to an essential use. Exporting surplus elemental mercury

to developing countries where it can result in unsafe exposure should be prohibited.

Elemental mercury should only be exported to other countries for essential uses

where it can be demonstrated that the country does not have sufficient domestic

sources of secondary (recycled) mercury.

(9) The United States should prohibit imports of elemental mercury and mercurycontaining products, unless the import is for sequestration.

(10) Until a safe disposal technique is developed, temporary storage of elemental

mercury should be in a safe, secure, continuously monitored location. Industries that

generate significant amounts of elemental mercury should be responsible for the

storage of their own mercury until a long-term solution in the United States is identified and implemented. Additionally, long-term Federal research seeking ways to

permanently and safely dispose of elemental mercury should be supported.

(11) The United States should assist other countries in phasing out uses and applications of mercury and help them identify safe storage techniques to use for their

mercury stockpiles until a long-term solution is identified and implemented.

(12) The USEPA and states need to work together to track changes in the use

of mercury-added products to measure the sources and amount of mercury that is

collected. This needs to be correlated with (a) monitoring the releases of mercury

to air, water, and land and (b) monitoring of fish tissue.

(13) The Congress or the President should establish a National Advisory Committee to develop a comprehensive report that incorporates the principles set forth in

this document and make recommendations for action by governments, industry, academia, and citizens and a time table for doing so.

(14) The Federal Government should ensure that there is adequate funding to

support the above mercury reduction activities at the Federal, state, and local community levels of government as appropriate.

The QSC states hope that you consider using these principles as you develop the

proposed legislation.

In conclusion, the states urge that:

• National elemental mercury stockpiles should not be sold but should continue

to be safely stored;

• National and international strategies to address commodity elemental mercury

production, use and ‘‘retirement’’ should be developed and implemented;

• Elemental mercury in excess of that needed for essential uses should be sequestered;

• The Federal Government should take responsibility for safely sequestering commodity mercury;

• National strategies/ programs addressing commodity elemental mercury should

be developed in consultation with the States.

To end, I would also like to provide an additional perspective on this issue from

the standpoint of Massachusetts. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has been
99

significantly impacted by mercury pollution and has been very actively engaged in

mercury reduction issues. In MA, over 50 percent of the water-bodies tested in the

state have one or more species of fish with sufficiently high levels of mercury to

warrant a consumption advisory and our state Department of Public Health warns

pregnant women, children and nursing mothers to avoid consuming any native

freshwater fish caught in the State (http://www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dph/environmental/exposure/fish—mercury—in—ma.pdf; http://db.state.ma.us/dph/

fishadvisory/). In ‘‘mercury hotspot’’ areas like the northeast part of MA and southern New Hampshire, close to 100 percent of the tested water bodies have fish with

elevated mercury levels (http://mass.gov/dep/images/fishmerc.doc). We have recently estimated that mercury deposition will need to be reduced by 86–98 percent

to achieve water quality objectives in relation to mercury levels in freshwater fish

in the Northeast states. Such steep reductions cannot be achieved without significant reductions from national and international sources. In fact, mercury deposition

modeling results from USEPA and other research groups indicate that a large fraction, ranging from about 60 percent to over 80 percent, of all mercury deposited in

the U.S. comes from global sources. A ban on the export of U.S. elemental commodity mercury would be an important step that the U.S. could take to address the

international sources of mercury emissions that impact waters of the U.S. Provisions can be added to the legislation to address unlikely but possible scenarios such

as the need for essential uses of mercury that cannot be met without tapping U.S.

mercury stockpiles.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Mr. WYNN. Thank you very much, Dr. Smith.

We will now hear from Mr. Dungan.

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR E. DUNGAN, PRESIDENT, THE

CHLORINE INSTITUTE, INCORPORATED, ARLINGTON, VA

Mr. DUNGAN. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Shimkus, and members of the subcommittee, I am Art Dungan, president of the Chlorine Institute. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you

concerning the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2007, and the advisability of establishing a Federal stockpile for mercury.

In the United States, there are currently seven facilities that

produce chlorine using the mercury cell process. All are members

of the Chlorine Institute. Two of these facilities have announced

their intention to close or to convert to another technology by the

end of 2008. We believe the remaining plants can continue to operate until the end of their economic life in a manner that is fully

protective of human health and the environment, and in compliance with all regulatory requirements.

The Chlorine Institute and the chloralkali producers using the

mercury cell technology have worked aggressively and voluntarily

to reduce mercury use and releases to the environment, and have

worked cooperatively with all agencies as they set regulatory

standards limiting such releases.

In 1996, the Chlorine Institute and the mercury cell producers

voluntarily agreed to reduce mercury use by 50 percent. As indicated in our ninth annual report to EPA, the overall reduction in

annual mercury usage in the ninth year was 94 percent.

The Mercury Export Ban Act of 2007 has two main provisions.

These are the prohibition on export of mercury, and the establishment of an excess mercury storage advisory committee. It is premature to establish a ban on mercury exports until the United

States has a program established and in place for the permanent

storage of mercury and coordinated with international groups to

ensure that the reduced supply of mercury from countries such as
100

the United States does not result in the expansion of existing or

the opening of new primary mercury mines elsewhere in the world

to meet the demand. If the goal of the mercury export ban is to reduce mercury use and indirectly mercury releases to the environment, a ban established before international action to reduce mercury use is implemented, will have the opposite effect.

The Institute supports the establishment of an excess mercury

storage advisory committee to address issues related to surplus

mercury. The Institute was also asked to address the advisability

of establishing a Federal stockpile for mercury. For more than 5

years, the Institute has publicly supported the establishment of

such a Federal stockpile. The Department of Defense Logistics has

safely stored mercury for more than 50 years.

Earlier this decade, the DLA undertook a very public process to

examine how the long-term storage of its surplus mercury should

be addressed. The conclusion was that mercury could continue to

be safely stored for a long-term period by the DLA. The Institute

does not believe that any viable alternative exists to the storage

program being implemented by the DLA. The Chlorine Institute

recognizes that is beyond the current mission of the DLA to manage the long-term storage of all surplus mercury generated in the

United States. However, the Institute believes it would be sound

public policy for the U.S. Government to manage all the surplus

mercury in a safe and environmentally friendly way, as is being

done by the DLA.

In conclusion, the Institute is opposed to the prohibition on the

export of mercury, because it is premature to establish such a ban

until the United States has a program established and in place for

the permanent storage of mercury. The Institute supports the establishment of an excess mercury storage advisory committee. The

Institute supports the establishment of a Federal stockpile for mercury.

I thank you again for the opportunity to appear before the committee and share the Chlorine Institute’s views.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dungan follows:]
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128

Mr. WYNN. Thank you very much, Mr. Dungan.

At this time, Mr. Lawrence, we would love to hear from you.

STATEMENT OF BRUCE LAWRENCE, PRESIDENT, BETHLEHEM

APPARATUS COMPANY, INCORPORATED, HELLERTOWN, PA

Mr. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the

committee.

In my opinion, it is not advisable to establish a Federal stockpile

for mercury. The result would be that more mercury air emissions

will occur by the removal of secondary mercury from the international market.

The world consumes approximately 2,000 tons of mercury per

year. Of this, roughly 50 percent or 1,000 tons is provided by virgin

mercury mining. Reports indicate that virgin mercury mining will

lose approximately 4 percent of their production to air emissions.

That makes 40 tons of mercury pollution annually. Virgin mercury

mining occurs in China and Kyrgyzstan. The markets in both

China and Kyrgyzstan have shown that they will purchase secondary mercury to offset their mining production. If the United States

were to encourage the sale of mercury from caustic soda plants and

from the U.S. Government stockpiles, then the world would be relieved of the 40 tons of mercury pollution annually.

An export ban on sales of commodity grade mercury will result

in an increase in world atmospheric mercury pollution. The increase will be caused by the increase in virgin mercury mining.

More troubling is the likelihood that the new mining that will

occur will be from what is called artisanal mercury mining. This

type of mining is much less efficient because of the small scale and

crude equipment. Air emissions could be as much as 50 percent of

production. An effect of an export ban of secondary mercury from

the United States and from the European Union could result in an

increase in global mercury pollution by 500 tons a year. Along with

the current mercury mining pollution, the result of the legislation

could be up to 540 tons per year.

The argument that the suspension of mercury sales will cause

prices to increase and thereby cause less artisanal gold mining is

not valid. As indicated by Mr. Ed Wyler, economist for Environmental Protection Agency, ‘‘Demand for mercury by miners is insensitive to mercury price. HG cost is very small relative to value

of recovered gold, approximately 0.1 percent.’’ Mr. Wyler’s report,

he indicated that it takes a pound of mercury to produce a pound

of gold by artisanal miners. Today’s world market price for mercury

is about $8 per pound. Today’s gold price of $650 per troy ounce

is equal then to $9,477 per pound. Therefore, mercury cost is 0.08

percent. If the price of mercury were to increase to $100 per pound

because of the removal of supplies from U.S. and Europe, then the

mercury cost would become only 1 percent of the value of gold recovered. In my opinion, $100 per pound for mercury would be a sufficient incentive to create enough new artisanal mercury mines.

These new mines would not only supply artisanal gold miners with

the mercury they want, they will also produce much more atmospheric mercury pollution.

I strongly recommend that H.R. 1534 not be passed. In addition,

I strongly encourage the resumption of sales of mercury from Fed-
129

1 Revich, Boris (1994): ‘‘Mercury Levels in the Atmospheric Air of Some of the Former USSR

Cities and in Human Blood, Hair and Urine’’ published from the: International Conference on

Mercury as a Global Pollutant. Whistler, British Columbia, Canada, July 10–14, 1994. Note: Mr.

Revich indicates that the Khaidarkansky mine in Kirghizia emits 21 tons of mercury per year.

With an average production of 500 tons per year the 21 tons represents 4.2 percent.

2 Weiler, E. (2002): ‘‘Can the U.S. act alone on mercury?’’ presented at the US EPA-sponsored

conference: Breaking the Mercury Cycle: Long-Term Management of Surplus Mercury & Mercury-Bearing Waste, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, May 1–3, 2002

eral stockpiles. Passage of H.R. 1534 could result in 540 tons of

mercury pollution per year. Non-passage of H.R. 1534 with the resumption of sales of stockpiles could result in the elimination of 40

tons of mercury pollution per year.

Thank you. That concludes my statement.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lawrence follows:]

TESTIMONY OF BRUCE LAWRENCE

It is not advisable to establish a Federal stockpile for mercury. The result would

be that more mercury air emissions will occur by the removal of secondary mercury

from the international market.

The world consumes approximately 2,000 tons of mercury per year. Of this, roughly 50 percent or 1,000 tons is provided by virgin mercury mining. Reports indicate

that virgin mercury mining will lose approximately 4 percent of their production to

air emissions. That makes 40 tons of mercury pollution annually. Virgin mercury

mining occurs in China and in Kyrgyzstan. 1

The markets in both China and Kyrgyzstan have shown that they will purchase

secondary mercury to offset their mining production. If the United States were to

encourage the sale of mercury from caustic soda plants and from the U.S. government stockpiles, then the world would be relieved of the 40 tons of mercury pollution annually.

An export ban on sales of commodity-grade mercury will result in an increase in

world atmospheric mercury pollution. The increase will be caused by the increase

in virgin mercury mining. More troubling is the likelihood that the new mining that

will occur will be from what is called artisanal mercury mining. This type of mining

is much less efficient because of the small scale and crude equipment. Air emissions

could be as much as 50 percent of production. The net effect of an export ban of

secondary mercury from the United States and the European Union could result in

an increase in global mercury pollution by 500 tons per year. Along with the current

mercury mining pollution, the result of this legislation could be up to 540 tons per

year of mercury atmospheric pollution

The argument that the suspension of mercury sales will cause prices to increase

and thereby cause less artisanal gold mining is not valid. As indicated by Mr. Edward Weiler, economist for the Environmental Protection Agency, ‘‘Demand for mercury by miners is insensitive to mercury price;’’ ‘‘Hg cost is very small relative to

value of recovered gold (approximately 0.1 percent).’’ 2

In Mr. Weiler’s report, he indicated that it takes a pound of mercury to produce

a pound of gold by artisanal miners. Today’s world market price for mercury is

about $8 per pound. Today’s gold price of $650 per troy ounce is equivalent to

$9,477 per pound. Therefore mercury cost is .08 percent. If the price of mercury

were to increase to $100 per pound because of the removal of supplies for the U.S.

and Europe, then the mercury cost would become only 1 percent of the value of gold

recovered. In my opinion, $100 per pound mercury would be sufficient incentive to

create enough new artisanal mercury mines. These new mines would not only supply artisanal gold miners with the mercury they want, they will also produce much

more atmospheric mercury pollution.

I strongly recommend that H.R. 1534 not be passed. In addition, I strongly encourage the resumption of sales of mercury from the Federal stockpiles. Passage of

H.R. 1534 could result in 540 tons of mercury pollution per year. Non-passage of

H.R. 1534 with the resumption of sales from stockpiles could result in the elimination of 40 tons of mercury pollution per year.

Mr. WYNN. Thank you very much, Mr. Lawrence.

I would like to thank all the panelists. At this time, I would like

to ask a few questions.
130

First of all, Dr. Shannon, thank you very much for coming down

from Boston. I certainly appreciate your presence here, and also

your testimony.

I want to ask a fairly narrow question with respect to the endorsements of this bill, H.R. 1534, that were made by the American

Medical Association and the American College of Preventative Medicine. My question is basically this. I am not sure whether you are

in a position to endorse on behalf of the Association of Pediatrics,

but would you say that your position is consistent with the endorsements that have been previously made by the American Medical Association and the American College of Preventative Medicine?

Dr. SHANNON. I would say that the Academy’s view is absolutely

consistent with the principles of this legislation, that is, whatever

can be done to reduce the global burden of elemental mercury.

Mr. WYNN. Thank you.

Dr. Greer, the EPA says that—and we have heard this testimony

today—the administration’s position is that we have to rely on demand management strategies. A couple of questions that are somewhat related. Do you think that just reducing demand and not addressing supply will solve the problem is the first question.

The second question, are these mutually exclusive strategies?

Ms. GREER. Actually, when people have taken a hard look at this

they have concluded that the only real way to solve this problem

is by ratcheting down supply and demand in a logical kind of

hinged fashion. If you only reduce demand, then you get all this

excess supply, the price gets lower and lower, and you sort of invite

more and more uses. If you reduce supply and you don’t reduce demand, then you get the problem that the gentleman from Bethlehem Apparatus was mentioning, that you might spark additional

mining of mercury.

So what needs to happen is a coordinated reduction of supply

and demand.

The only other comment I would have on EPA’s call to lower

mercury demand is this. We are on a glide path down of demand

here in the United States, so that is really not our highest priority

anymore to get us down to zero. We have really done a very good

job, and we will be down at the bottom sometime soon. Our higher

priority should then be to take steps to reduce demand abroad, and

you are hard-pressed to come up with demand reduction strategies

for these uses abroad, such as artisanal mining, except by constraining supply and making the price go up.

And so I really don’t see a demand reduction strategy without a

supply reduction strategy making any sense in the long run.

Mr. WYNN. Thank you very much. Just a follow-up question. Do

you agree with the findings of the November 2006 report of the

United Nations Environment Program that stated various locationspecific global mercury project, training programs, and assessments

have demonstrated that when mercury is less available and/or

more expensive, less mercury is consumed as miners switch to

more efficient practices, sometimes eliminating mercury use entirely.

Ms. GREER. Well, Representative Wynn, these are the experts.

That is the agency that has put the experts in the field and those

people have thrown themselves at this problem for more than a
131

decade, and so I think we have to respect their expertise along with

the technical assistance and training that they are trying to do,

that they feel that the scale of this problem is such that they really

need this additional boost from worldwide constraining of supply in

order to make a difference. I just think those are the people that

have been in the field for more than a decade. We ought to take

their conclusions seriously.

Mr. WYNN. Thank you.

Dr. Smith, I believe you indicated that 60 to 80 percent of all the

mercury deposited in the U.S. comes from global sources. Can you

amplify on the need to stop U.S. mercury exports and how poorly

regulated uses overseas come back to impact the resources and

public health concerns that we have?

Mr. SMITH. There have been a number of deposition modeling

studies that have concluded that a substantial fraction of the mercury depositing in the U.S. and our States is coming from global

sources. That may range from 50 to as high as 80, 85 percent, so

it is a very significant fraction.

With respect to the export of mercury here, we do know that the

distributive uses for artisanal gold mining and other unnecessary

uses in third world countries, for example, mercury containing jewelry that can still be bought in Mexico provides an example of that.

It is definitely contributing to releases of environmental mercury,

which will enter the global circulation and impact the United

States.

Mr. WYNN. Thank you.

Mr. Dungan, a couple of quick questions. I think the earliest part

of your testimony basically established the fact that there are alternatives to mercury use, which is why there is such a decline in the

United States. Is that correct?

Mr. DUNGAN. There are alternatives, yes.

Mr. WYNN. OK, all right. And second, I think you said basically

you would support a stockpile, so you are not so much concerned

about the new virgin mines. You seem to be saying—and I don’t

want to put words in your mouth—but you seem to be saying if

there is a U.S. stockpile, you are fine with banning exports. Is

that——

Mr. DUNGAN. Well, you may put it that way, but our concern is

that this bill, as it exists now, really puts the cart ahead of the

horse. All you have done is ban exports but there is no policy that

the bill sets to handle surplus mercury. So we are concerned about

that.

But let me also go back to the first question. Each facility has

to look at what its long-term options are, and to say that there are

alternatives available is one issue. The other issue, does this alternative make sense for this facility?

Mr. WYNN. Thank you very much. I believe my time has expired.

I will turn to the ranking member, Mr. Shimkus, for questions.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I take my questions, I just want to welcome Paul Gillmor here, a former chairman

of the subcommittee for 6 years. He is on a week leave—not leave

of absence, but he has joined us for this week, and he shows his

commitment because he is even here at this hearing. Thank you.
132

Quick question, I only have a short couple minutes. Good or bad,

Dr. Greer?

Ms. GREER. Good. Want to know why, or do you want to keep

going?

Mr. SHIMKUS. No, no, good or—if broken?

Ms. GREER. If broken, it is a very miniscule amount of mercury.

I think——

Mr. SHIMKUS. So it is OK then?

Ms. GREER. It is OK.

Mr. SHIMKUS. All right, good.

Dr. Shannon?

Dr. SHANNON. I would agree that if broken, the vapor would dissipate quickly and not produce a significant health——

Mr. SHIMKUS. Dr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, good, but if you break millions and millions and

millions of them, it would add up to quite a bit of mercury.

Mr. SHIMKUS. And it goes up in the atmosphere and into the

fish?

Mr. SMITH. And ultimately into the fish.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Dungan.

Mr. DUNGAN. I really am not qualified to answer that.

Mr. SHIMKUS. All right, Mr. Lawrence?

Mr. LAWRENCE. I will say good. The amount of mercury consumed by the lighting industry is a very, very small fraction——

Mr. SHIMKUS. Let me keep going quickly then.

This is labeled mercury. Good or bad? Just go down the line,

good or bad, that this is labeled as having mercury in it?

Ms. GREER. I think it is fine that it has a label.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Good. Dr. Shannon?

Dr. SHANNON. Agree.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Dr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Agree and it is labeled because of State requirements

and legislation that requires it to be.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Not Federal?

Mr. SMITH. No.

Mr. SHIMKUS. We debated that a couple——

Mr. DUNGAN. I agree.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Lawrence?

Mr. LAWRENCE. I agree.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Ad in today’s Hill, exposing the benefits of fluorescent light bulbs, no labeling of mercury, good or bad? Dr. Greer.

Ms. GREER. I really haven’t worked on this issue, so I have to

say——

Mr. SHIMKUS. Is mercury good or bad?

Ms. GREER. The need for a label, I think it is a good idea to have

a label.

Mr. SHIMKUS. All right. Dr. Shannon?

Dr. SHANNON. I don’t think it was necessary to put the word

‘‘mercury’’ on that ad.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Dr. Smith?

Mr. SMITH. Not in the ad, but it should be labeled if they are

selling them in most of the New England States.

Mr. SHIMKUS. And you all don’t care.
133

OK. Dr. Smith, on March 20, 2007, ECOS approved resolution

No. 07–1 entitled ‘‘Creating a Partnership for a National Vision for

Mercury’’ which I have right here. This resolution was very clear

about not having the States preempted in their attempt to clarify

and address mercury. Massachusetts and my State of Illinois have

enacted strong legislation and implemented other programs to remove mercury from our schools. In view of ECOS’s resolution and

our States’ efforts to protect public health against elemental mercury exposures, do you and ECOS support Federal preemption that

compels schools and daycare centers to install mercury containing

energy efficient lighting equipment, even if they do not want to do

it, because of health risks from mercury?

Mr. SMITH. Well, as a general rule, the States really do not like

Federal preemption on pretty much anything, so we would like to

have the alternative of doing what is best in our individual circumstances.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you.

Dr. Greer, should energy efficient lighting with mercury be compelled in schools and daycare centers to reduce electricity use if the

school or daycare center does not want to use them out of public

health and environmental concerns over exposures to released elemental mercury?

Ms. GREER. Mr. Shimkus, I do appreciate how much you are concerned about the mercury in these bulbs, but I am here to tell you

that if you are worried about mercury exposure in schools, you

should worry about what is in their thermometers and what is in

their chemistry labs.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, you are right. That is the whole point, if

you——

Ms. GREER. Because if you are talking about—what we are talking about——

Mr. SHIMKUS. Reclaiming my time. If we are talking about the

problem of mercury, then we ought to be talking about the problem

of mercury.

Ms. GREER. I just think we ought to put our——

Mr. SHIMKUS. It should be a comprehensive approach, and we

are promoting thousands of increased light bulbs—and I am not

saying I disapprove of them, but——

Ms. GREER. But you are starting at the very smallest use of mercury that everybody——

Mr. SHIMKUS. Do you know where these come from?

Ms. GREER. China.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Do you know who is mining it?

Ms. GREER. China.

Mr. SHIMKUS. What is the problem with mercury in the air, the

mining operations that you just promoted? Zero Mercury in international organizations, are you part of that?

Ms. GREER. I am part of that.

Mr. SHIMKUS. And you know in this publication it says what to

do about mercury in electronics equipment?

Ms. GREER. Right.

Mr. SHIMKUS. What does it say?

Ms. GREER. But in this case——
134

Mr. SHIMKUS. No, what does your organization say in this document?

Ms. GREER. It is zero for electronic equipment, but it is——

Mr. SHIMKUS. It says no mercury in electronics. I mean, you are

a member of this group.

Ms. GREER. I am.

Mr. SHIMKUS. So your testimony is contradictory. When you say

it is not enough to cause any effect, but then internationally you

say ban it from all electronic equipment.

Ms. GREER. Excuse me, I would like to set the record straight

about my position. This is a big problem of 3,500 tons of mercury

a year. Policies should start in the big places and not in the smallest places. It is my opinion that starting on this problem with compact fluorescent light bulbs is starting at the miniscule end of

it——

Mr. SHIMKUS. I am starting at China, and I yield back my time.

Mr. WYNN. The Chair recognizes the bill’s sponsor, Mr. Allen.

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you.

Dr. Greer, I too think we ought to begin with the major problems. I would just add to this debate with the comment that compact fluorescent light bulbs, among other things, are intended to reduce the demand for new coal-fired power plants, which do emit

mercury and which is a significant source of mercury here.

But I want to come back to your testimony. Your written testimony, and really, pages 15 through 19. When Mr. Gulliford was

testifying in the first panel, he talked a lot about the fear he had

that an export ban on mercury would essentially lead to increased

mining. It seems to me in those four pages, you make a very compelling case that it would not do that, and I would like to ask you

to address that issue directly.

Ms. GREER. Let me just summarize what I said in that written

testimony.

There were two reasons that we don’t think that this is at all

likely. The first is that most places can’t mine mercury in the

world. The largest mine in the world in Spain has been intentionally shuttered because the European Union has been constraining supply. The mines in Algeria were closed. They had technical

problems for years and are not expected to reopen. This really is

leaving only the Kyrgyzstan mine as a mine that is in operation

for export, and that mine is suffering from problems itself. It has

not been able to produce more than 500 tons a year, and according

to the World Bank, its deposits really aren’t very rich.

This leaves, of course, China, but as we already said, China is

mining a tremendous amount of mercury but not for export. They

use it all for their own purposes.

And so when you look at what is really available through more

mining, there are just not very many places in the world to imagine that this could really happen.

And then the second reason I put in my testimony is because

UNEP has just done a very extensive analysis of global demand,

and they predict that between now and 2015, global demand is

going to go down. And so as a matter of a financial investment by

a company or a country, it doesn’t seem like a very attractive in-
135

vestment to undergo the expense of opening up a new mine in the

case that global demand is slowly going down.

Mr. ALLEN. Two other points. Mr. Gulliford was not aware of any

steps by Kyrgyzstan, but you mentioned in your testimony that at

an October 2006 European Commission Mercury meeting in Brussels, the head of the mine asked the international community for

assistance in transitioning through other economic activities in the

region.

Ms. GREER. That is right. And NRDC was at that meeting.

Kyrgyzstan was invited because they are so important to global

supply of mercury, and what we learned at that meeting is that the

mine is subsidized by the government. It is not a profit making institution. The government would like very much to find alternative

employment opportunities for people in that mine and convert that

area to non-mercury mining because it is not a very profitable operation for them anyway. They were seeking international assistance

for development that would enable them to close that mine.

Mr. ALLEN. And finally, could you speak to the current activities

in the European Union to ban the export of mercury from those

countries?

Ms. GREER. Yes, and in fact, I have a small news announcement

to make on that. As some of you know, the European Union has

also been contemplating an export ban, and they export much more

mercury than the United States. Combined, if the European Union

and the United States did an export ban, we would take a very nice

bite out of the global supply of mercury. The EU is about a year

and a half ahead of us in terms of their deliberation, and just on

Tuesday their Parliament passed the mercury export ban, which

will go into effect in 2010. Now they have the functional equivalent

of a conference between the Council of Ministers and the Parliament, but that should be completed by the fall. There are not big

differences between the Parliament bill and the Council of Ministers bill, and so as you gentlemen can imagine, it won’t take too

long, I think, for them to pass this in the fall.

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you.

Finally, Mr. Smith, I have a quick question. Taking your position

as you support a ban on the export of mercury, providing there is

narrowly tailored exemptions for what you refer to as essential

uses, and I am always concerned when you start writing exemptions for essential uses or phrases like that, they can be big enough

to drive a pretty big truck through. So I wondered if you could expand on that. Do you mean anything more than dental amalgam

and compact fluorescent light bulbs, or do you have any thoughts

on how we would make that point?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, the Quicksilver Caucus group that pulled together those principles, when thinking about essential uses, could

really only come up with the three that are listed, dental amalgam

uses, uses in fluorescent lamps, and some uses for medical equipment where we don’t have options that are readily available. Those

are the ones we could come up with. We really couldn’t preclude

that there may be other ones that are out there. We did not have

the time to invest a serious research effort into it. Because there

may be others, we wanted to leave that as an option to have ex-
136

emptions for those essential uses that might be identified by a professional committee at some future date.

Mr. ALLEN. Great, thank you.

Mr. WYNN. I thank the gentleman.

At this time, the Chair would recognize the former chairman of

this subcommittee, Mr. Gillmor, for questions.

Mr. GILLMOR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is good

to be back, even if it is for a temporary period.

Let me ask Mr. Dungan, and you proposed a central storage facility. We have had some experience with nuclear waste with a proposal with this Yucca Mountain. That has not been successful. It

is not being done. We have nuclear waste stored at about 100 locations around the country. Why do you think we will be any more

successful, and you might want to jump in on this also, Mr. Lawrence, why do you think we would be any more successful with this

than we have been with Yucca Mountain?

Mr. DUNGAN. Well, mercury waste, in my opinion, is not nuclear

waste. The Federal Government does have a successful history of

safely storing mercury for 50, 60 years. The concern is if private

industry were to store this mercury, under current U.S. regulations

we don’t have the authority to do it. If you impose an export ban,

at some point, there is no market for mercury. It no longer becomes

a commodity, and then how is it handled? Is it handled as waste,

and how is this controlled, and what are these long-term issues?

This mercury is going to be around, not just for 40 years as proposed in the bill, but forever, and someone has to be able to manage it forever. We don’t think that there is a private organization

that can do that.

Mr. GILLMOR. Let me ask you, if the U.S. and the EU ban mercury exports and China does not—I mean, frankly, I think we know

what China’s record has been on global warming. They are going

to be the largest carbon emitter on the planet. They have no interest exhibited so far of trying to limit that. We are getting food from

them that has been poisoned and they don’t care much about examining that.

But I guess my question is if the U.S. and EU ban it and China

does not, what will be the result in terms of total mercury in the

planet under that——

Mr. DUNGAN. Well, I have a hard time believing that China will

not supply all its mercury needs, whether that be by importing

mercury or starting new mines. I think they will. And while most

uses of mercury are declining, mercury use for catalysts in chemical plants in China and artisanal mining throughout the world are

increasing, and as Mr. Lawrence pointed out, the economics would

appear to indicate that there might be an incentive for new mines

to be started up. I am not saying they will, but I think this is a

clear issue that needs to be addressed before we impose any kind

of export ban.

Mr. GILLMOR. Thank you. Let me ask you another question on

that. Forty years, do you think that is a relevant and a necessary

timeline? I mean, mercury is basically eternal. Nuclear fuel is not.

It does have a finite time, so is 40 years a realistic timeframe?

Mr. DUNGAN. In my opinion, no. I think in a zillion years that

nuclear waste may be harmless, and mercury will still be there in
137

its current form. I believe that any facility, while you might look

at a 40-year economic horizon, it ought to be designed that you expect that facility be there forever.

Mr. GILLMOR. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WYNN. Thank the gentleman.

At this time the Chair would recognize Mrs. Capps. I am sorry,

Ms. Schakowsky.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Smith, while States I understand—and Illinois would have

an interest in this as well—are not interested in preemption, how

would you feel about Federal legislation that at least lets the

States go beyond the level of the Federal Government, would it

meet national standards?

Mr. SMITH. I think the States would probably be comfortable

with that, and with respect to the mercury world, there are numerous States, including Illinois and my State, Massachusetts, and

many, many others that are already exceeding EPA Federal requirements with respect to pollution controls and pollution prevention activities, so that is certainly consistent with what we are already doing.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Dr. Greer, a lot has been made of the storage

issue, and yet, I am looking at your testimony that says as a technical matter, it is quite easy to store mercury. I wondered if you

wanted to respond to this notion, both about what an incredible

problem it seems to be presented as, and if you could talk about

that.

Ms. GREER. Well, in my capacity at NRDC, I work on a lot of different toxic chemicals, and I am here to tell you that mercury is

a dream chemical for storage compared to most of the other chemicals that are toxic that are out there. It is not reactive, it is not

explosive, if you keep it below 70 degrees it doesn’t volatilize, and

so it really is a very simple matter to store it in flasks as is going

on, or in stainless steel tanks in a monitored warehouse. If all the

toxic chemicals I worked on were this easy to store, we wouldn’t

have the sort of Superfund problems that we have and we wouldn’t

have the controversies that we have about storage piles for other

hazardous materials.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So would you say that this notion that we

have to solve the storage problem before we address this export

issue is necessary? You would disagree with that?

Ms. GREER. Well, I don’t think there is—and probably Mr.

Dungan agrees, there isn’t really a technical problem about storage. What he is referring to is we need to decide where we want

to put it and what happens with the legal liability and other issues.

I think the bill does this by setting up the FACA committee and

by asking for a recommendation to Congress well in advance of

when the ban actually goes into effect. So from my perspective,

that concern is addressed and we do intentionally have in the bill

something that lines up a storage solution before it goes into effect.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you.

I am fascinated with your testimony, Mr. Lawrence, because it

is so precise. You talk about how the net effect of an export ban

could result in global mercury pollution by 500 tons per year. The

result of this legislation would be up to 540 tons per year, and you
138

go on to talk about how much—‘‘Non-passage could result in the

elimination of 40 tons of mercury pollution per year.’’ I would be

very interested in seeing what all your assumptions are and how

you arrived at this calculation of the 540 tons more and the 40 tons

less. And if you could just submit that, I would really—if you want

to make a comment?

Mr. LAWRENCE. Well, the only thing that I haven’t put in what

I have submitted already is that the 500 tons is my estimate, that

there is 500 tons of mercury used in artisanal mining, so because

of the one-to-one relationship with the mercury and gold. So that

if we take away the supply sources of the artisanal miners, then

it is going to be produced someplace else, and that——

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So you discount the historical experience, really, that Dr. Greer referred to that actually decreasing mercury

availability has not, in fact, created more. Actually there has been

less. Am I saying that correctly, that some of these operations have

actually shut down and we haven’t seen an expansion of mercury

mining? Let me just make sure I have got that right.

Ms. GREER. Yes, we might be getting confused between mining

for gold, artisanal mining for gold and mercury mines, could you

rephrase the question?

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, I am trying to understand if the basis

for deciding that this bill will result in 540 tons of mercury pollution and that resumption of sales from stockpiles would result in

the elimination of 40 tons of mercury pollution. I don’t know if

what you had said relates to this calculation, but I mean, that is

pretty precise.

Mr. LAWRENCE. I took 4 percent of 1,000 tons of virgin mining

that I mentioned in here. If we were selling 1,000 tons from the

stockpile, it could displace that 1,000 tons of virgin mercury mining.

Ms. GREER. To weigh these two things, if we were to open new

mines and we had 40 new tons of mercury pollution out of that,

that would—setting everything else aside that would be worse than

using recycled mercury. But what we are really comparing is that

having an over-supply of mercury in commerce and meeting all of

those demands, which is 3,500 tons of mercury a year.

So for the speculative outcome that we might cause more mining

that might cause 40 additional tons of releases, against an already

existing 3,500 ton demand and consumption every year that we are

trying to address. And the way to do that is to ratchet down supply

and demand.

Mr. WYNN. The gentlelady’s time is expired.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you.

Mr. WYNN. We have got a vote on. I am going to turn it to Mrs.

Capps for questions, and I think we will be able to conclude the

hearing prior to voting.

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you very much.

I want to address my questions, or at least some of them, to Dr.

Shannon. Can you help us understand the mercury-related symptoms in illnesses that were observed in the small-scale gold mining

communities discussed in the UN’s Global Mercury Project?

Dr. SHANNON. Well, I will answer in this way and I hope I answer your question. First, the effects of elemental mercury expo-
139

sure are actually quite subtle until the exposure is severe, truly at

an extreme, and at that point, the primary effects are neurologic.

That is generally what you will see in children, and as I mentioned

in my testimony, it can vary from very subtle neurobehavioral difficulty concentrating types of symptoms to the more severe seizures

or life-threatening neurologic events.

Mrs. CAPPS. You are implying that it isn’t readily detected perhaps at first, that the intoxication is the end of it?

Dr. SHANNON. That is exactly right. So the point I am hoping to

make is that at the point that you are seeing symptoms in children

or adults, their exposure is severe. They have an enormous mercury burden.

Mrs. CAPPS. Let me ask you then, what will happen and does

happen to the mothers and children who have been working in

these gold fields and handling the mercury?

Dr. SHANNON. We believe that most, if not all, of the neurologic

consequences of elemental mercury exposure are permanent. Almost as certainly, some of it as it is eliminated from the body,

there would be some improvement but there is, we believe, no hope

of returning to baseline function.

Mrs. CAPPS. Finally, if mercury exports from the U.S. are banned

by 2010, what type of health impact would that have on these

small-scale mining towns, and do you think H.R. 1534 would have

a positive step in reducing harm from mercury in the environment,

not only in these countries, but would it even be important here

in the U.S.?

Dr. SHANNON. Again, let me try to answer your question in the

following way. Anything that we can do to reduce human exposure

to elemental mercury will result in vastly improved health, vastly

improved health outcomes, and in the case of children, I am just

thinking about the developing brain and being able to reduce, if not

eliminate, exposure of this toxic metal to their developing brain

will have a great positive impact on health.

Mrs. CAPPS. Dr. Greer, you might want to add something. I have

a little more time and I know we are pressing it with votes. If I

am allowed, I would ask you to follow on with that, if you care to?

Ms. GREER. I don’t have too much to add to that, except to

strongly agree that we know that the damage that mercury causes

is permanent, particularly to the developing infant, and it is for

that reason that it is such a high priority for NRDC, for the Zero

Mercury Group, and other international groups to eliminate large

sources of mercury exposure.

Mrs. CAPPS. And it would be in the gold mining communities

that were described in the project, but in this country as well?

Ms. GREER. In this country as well. Wherever there are large exposures to mercury.

Mrs. CAPPS. That is the end of my questioning. Thank you.

Mr. WYNN. I thank the lady for her questions. I want to thank

all the witnesses for coming here today and thank you for your testimony.

I believe this concludes our questions. I want to remind members

that they may submit additional questions for the record to be answered by relevant witnesses, the questions should be submitted to

the committee clerk in electronic form within the next 10 days. The
140

clerk will notify your offices of the procedures. I want to thank all

the staff for helping us this morning.

Without objection, the subcommittee hearing is now adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285