    [House Hearing, 110 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                       THE MERCURY EXPORT BAN ACT OF 2007

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

                                   H.R. 1534

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 22, 2007

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 110-59

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                            energycommerce.house.gov

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    43-289 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2008
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free(866) 512-1800; DC
    area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC,
    Washington, DC 20402-0001

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                      JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Chairman

    HENRY A. WAXMAN, California          JOE BARTON, Texas
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts          Ranking Member
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               RALPH M. HALL, Texas
    EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York             J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       FRED UPTON, Michigan
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California            ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
    ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
    ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland             HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico
    GENE GREEN, Texas                    JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
    DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
        Vice Chairman                    Mississippi
    LOIS CAPPS, California               VITO FOSSELLA, New York
    MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania             STEVE BUYER, Indiana
    JANE HARMAN, California              GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
    TOM ALLEN, Maine                     JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
    JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             MARY BONO, California
    HILDA L. SOLIS, California           GREG WALDEN, Oregon
    CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas           LEE TERRY, Nebraska
    JAY INSLEE, Washington               MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
    TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
    MIKE ROSS, Arkansas                  SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
    DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon               JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
    ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York          TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
    JIM MATHESON, Utah                   MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
    G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina     MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
    CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
    JOHN BARROW, Georgia
    BARON P. HILL, Indiana

                                     ______

                               Professional Staff

                     Dennis B. Fitzgibbons, Chief of Staff

                       Gregg A. Rothschild, Chief Counsel

                          Sharon E. Davis, Chief Clerk

                     Bud Albright, Minority Staff Director

                                      (ii)
              Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials

                       ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland, Chairman
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois,
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                     Ranking Member
    LOIS CAPPS, California               CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    TOM ALLEN, Maine                     NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
    HILDA L. SOLIS, California           HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico
        Vice Chairman                    JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
    TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             VITO FOSELLA, New York
    G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina     GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
    JOHN BARROW, Georgia                 JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
    BARON P. HILL, Indiana               LEE TERRY, Nebraska
    DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
    ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York          JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
    HENRY A. WAXMAN, California          TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
    GENE GREEN, Texas                    JOE BARTON, Texas (ex officio)
    JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex
        officio)
                                     ------

                               Professional Staff

                        Richard Frandsen, Chief Counsel
                            Caroline Ahearn, Counsel
                        Ann Strickland, Brookings Fellow
                             Rachel Bleshman, Clerk
                         Gerald Couri, Minority Counsel

                                 C O N T E N T S

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

    Hon. Albert R. Wynn, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Maryland, opening statement.................................     1
    Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Illinois, opening statement....................................     3
    Hon. Tom Allen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Maine, opening statement.......................................     5
    Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Texas, prepared statement......................................     6

                                   Witnesses

    Alice C. Williams, Deputy Associate Administrator, Infrastructure
      and Environment, Office of Environmental Projects and
      Operations, National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S.
      Department of Energy...........................................    20
        Prepared statement...........................................    22
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   198
    Cornel A. Holder, Administrator, Defense National Stockpile
      Center, Defense Logistics Agency, U.S. Department of Defense...    23
        Prepared statement...........................................    24
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   217
    James B. Gulliford, Assistant Administrator, Office of
      Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, U.S.
      Environmental Protection Agency................................    26
        Prepared statement...........................................    28
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   241
    Linda E. Greer, senior scientist, Natural Resources Defense
      Council........................................................    43
        Prepared statement...........................................    46
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   232
    Michael Shannon, M.D., chair, the Committee on Environmental
      Health, American Association of Pediatrics; professor and
      chair, Division of Emergency Medicine, Children's Hospital
      Boston, Harvard Medical School.................................    92
        Prepared statement...........................................    92
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   191
    C. Mark Smith, deputy director, Office of Research and Standards,
      director, Massachusetts Mercury Program; co-chair, New England
      Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers Mercury Task Force;
      Quicksilver Caucus, Massachusetts Representative...............    94
        Prepared statement...........................................    96
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   205
    Arthur E. Dungan, president, the Chlorine Institute, Incorporated    99
        Prepared statement...........................................   101
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   223
    Bruce Lawrence, president, Bethlehem Apparatus Company,
      Incorporated...................................................   128
        Prepared statement...........................................   129
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   210

                               Submitted Material

    Thaomas P. D'Agostino, Deputy Director, Defense Programs,
      Department of Energy, memorandum of December 13, 2006,
      submitted by Mr. Wynn..........................................   141
    David P. Littell, commissioner, Maine Department of Environmental
      Protection, letter of June 20, 2007, to Mr. Wynn...............   142
    Michael Parkinson, M.D., American College of Preventive Medicine,
      letter of June 20, 2007 to Mr. Wynn............................   144
    Christopher Bowlin, vice president, government affairs, American
      Medical Association, letter of June 21, 2007 to Mr. Wynn.......   145
        AMA Report of the Council on Scientific Affairs..............   151
        AMA Report of the Council on Science and Public Health.......   167
    Rich Nolan, vice president, government affairs, National Mining
      Association, letter of July 6, 2007 to Mr. Wynn................   179
    Michael Tetreault, executive director, the Nature Conservancy,
      letter of June 20, 2007 to Mr. Allen...........................   183
    Michael McCally, M.D., executive director, Physicians for Social
      Responsibility, letter of June 15, 2007 to Mr. Allen...........   184
    Michael F. Hirshfield, senior vice president for North America
      and chief scientist, Oceana, letter of June 21, 2007 to Messrs.
      Wynn and Shimkus...............................................   186
    Mark A. Kohorst, senior manager, Environment, Health & Safety,
      National Electrical Manufacturers Association, letter of June
      29, 2007, to Mr. Wynn..........................................   188

                 H.R. 1534, THE MERCURY EXPORT BAN ACT OF 2007

                                  ----------

                             FRIDAY, JUNE 22, 2007

                  House of Representatives,
                    Subcommittee on Environment
                               and Hazardous Materials,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
    room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Albert R.
    Wynn (chairman) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Capps, Allen, Barrow,
    Green, Schakowsky, Shimkus, and Pitts.
        Also present: Representative Gillmor.
        Staff present: Karen Torrent, Dick Frandsen, Caroline
    Ahearn, Ann Strickland, Rachel Bleshman, Jerry Couri, Garrett
    Golding, Tom Hassenboehler, and Mo Zilly.

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

        Mr. Wynn. Good morning. I would like to call this meeting
    to order. Today, we have a hearing on H.R. 1534, the Mercury
    Export Ban Act of 2007, introduced by one of our distinguished
    members, Mr. Allen.
        For the purposes of making opening statements, the Chair
    and the ranking member of the subcommittee and the full
    committee chair will each be recognized for 5 minutes. All
    other members of the subcommittee will be recognized for 3
    minutes, though members may waive the right to make an opening
    statement and when first recognized to question witnesses,
    those members would then add 3 minutes to their time for
    questions. Without objection, all members have 5 legislative
    days to submit opening statements for the record.
        We are here today to hold a hearing on H.R. 1534, the
    Mercury Export Ban Act of 2007, which, as I indicated, was
    introduced and sponsored by my esteemed subcommittee colleague,
    Mr. Tom Allen from Maine. This very important legislation will
    place an export ban on elemental mercury beginning in year 2010
    and prevents Federal agencies from selling, transferring, or
    distributing elemental mercury.
        The availability of surplus elemental mercury on the world
    market presents a grave risk for our health and environment, as
    well as the global population and environment. Mercury is a
    potent neurotoxin that can cause brain, lung, and kidney
    damage. Mercury poses the greatest risk to our most vulnerable
    population, the fetuses, infants, children, and women of
    childbearing age. Mercury can be transmitted unknowingly by a
    mother to a fetus in utero and to a nursing infant through
    breast milk. In developing fetuses and young children, mercury
    disrupts biological processes critical to brain development.
        Mercury is released into the environment through mining and
    manufacturing processes and leaks or spills of mercury-
    containing products. Mercury emissions can be transported over
    long distances and remain airborne for as long as a year. These
    emissions, through precipitation, deposit into water bodies
    where they are transformed by bacteria into highly toxic methyl
    mercury that accumulates in fish and subsequently in humans who
    eat mercury-contaminated fish. As many as 44 States have issued
    fish advisories warning residents to limit consumption of
    mercury-contaminated fish.
        Annual mercury use in the United States in the last 20
    years has actually decreased from 2,225 to 271 metric tons. The
    United States has an excess supply of elemental mercury from
    both private and Federal sources. This excess supply will only
    increase in future years as the demand for mercury-containing
    products continues to decline and the eight chloralkali plants
    that use elemental mercury close or switch to another
    manufacturing processes.
        As of 2010, there are expected to be five remaining mercury
    chloralkali plants. An estimated surplus of 1,400 to 1,500
    metric tons of elemental mercury would be generated if these
    five plants closed or switched to a non-mercury manufacturing
    process.
        EPA estimates that other mercury-generating sources: gold
    mining, consumer product recycling, and site remediation
    programs combine to generate up to 200 metric tons per year.
        Today, elemental mercury offered for sale from
    decommissioned chloralkali plants and the lesser producing
    sources travels through an unregulated and mysterious chain of
    brokers and processors. Much of this mercury ends up being used
    in artisanal or small scale gold mining by people in developing
    countries, mainly in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. These
    miners use mercury and heat to separate grains of gold from
    small bits of sand and rock in pans. This process releases most
    of the mercury into the environment, exposing people nearby to
    toxic fumes that can cause tremors, memory loss, and other
    symptoms of neurological damage. Between 10 and 15 million
    people, including 4.5 million women and 1 million children, are
    working at small scale mines. According to the United Nations
    Environment Program, artisanal mining results in the release of
    as much as 1,000 tons of mercury per year, accounting for about
    one-third of all global manmade mercury releases into the
    environment.
        Recall the principle that pollution knows no geographical
    boundaries, elemental mercury that we export overseas returns
    back to the United States as toxic pollution contaminating our
    country's air, soil, water and fish. Congress must take action
    now to prohibit the export of mercury to reduce this global
    pollution that imperils the health of our citizens, and also
    contributes to the ongoing degradation of the environment, both
    home and abroad.
        H.R. 1534 addresses the problem of global mercury pollution
    by banning the export of elemental mercury and setting up an
    advisory committee to advise Congress on how this excess
    mercury should be stored and handled for the long term. The
    legislation will also prevent Federal agencies from selling,
    transferring, or distributing elemental mercury. DOD and DOE
    combined store close to 6,000 metric tons of mercury. In fact,
    DOD and DOE's decision to stockpile their mercury grew out of
    their concerns about the impact that mercury releases may have
    on human health and the environment.
        I applaud Congressman Allen for his dedication and
    leadership on this issue, and I look forward to the testimony
    from the panels on this issue.
        At this time, I recognize our ranking member, Mr. Shimkus,
    for an opening statement.

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

        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it has been a
    long week, so if we struggle for words, we have actually been
    working here. It is good to have everybody here on time and
    moving punctually.
        Like you, I am interested in learning more on this subject
    and exploring the views from our witnesses. I appreciate our
    witnesses for coming here. In the last week, I think most of
    our members have learned more about mercury than in the past
    years that I have been here, because as a lot of us know,
    mercury is all around us. It is a natural element that appears
    in every high school classroom's periodic table. However, we
    know that human exposure to mercury can result in very serious
    health issues. When these products are mishandled, damaged or
    broken, we are exposed to vaporized elemental mercury. I even
    played with mercury in this form as a child, which some may
    explain why I am the way I am, and we won't go into that
    detail. Many folks in my era did, and I remember the neighbor
    down the street who had it. We pulled it out, we smashed it, we
    wove it together--scary times.
        Last night, the Senate passed their energy bill. In both
    their bill and the bill we marked up on committee on Wednesday,
    we have encouraged the use of these, compact fluorescent light
    bulbs. This could place mercury in people's homes, schools,
    daycare centers, hospitals, and nursing homes. We had this
    great debate Wednesday night about labeling, which I think we
    should both be embarrassed about. That is why I said it was
    kind of stupid, because it mentions mercury on this package.
    One side didn't want to put it on the package, we said put it
    on the package, and it is on the package anyway. Versus these
    types of light bulbs.
        Now, the Senate and us are going to expansively move to
    expand the use of these bulbs throughout not only our country,
    but we hope the world, which brings out the schizophrenic
    nature of our public policy debate, and I will highlight some
    of those when I get a chance.
        In our quest to be energy efficient, we must be careful to
    ensure that people are aware of the risk associated with
    mercury. My own State of Illinois, like eight other States, has
    passed a law to take mercury containing products out of
    schools. We do not know what the safe level of elemental
    mercury exposure is for our children.
        For the record, there are 144 lights in this hearing room
    filled with at least 8 milligrams, based on the 2002 industry
    standard. That is at least 1,152 milligrams of mercury, and we
    were talking about the baseball game, and I was envisioning
    this in the Wednesday night debate, what if a terrorist came
    into the room armed with 36 baseballs and started throwing them
    at the ceiling, busting the lights and spreading vaporized
    mercury all over the hearing room? Well, when a glass
    thermometer was dropped outside the attending physician's
    office, as was stated in the hearing on Wednesday night, they
    shut down the hallway for 4 hours. And that is less than the
    mercury involved in these light bulbs up here.
        Currently compact fluorescent bulbs are 5 to 6 percent of
    domestic lighting sales, and bulbs in the United States are
    made largely in Asia, specifically in China. As we know, the
    region has lower environmental standards than those in the
    United States. A lot of people would be surprised to find out
    that the United States is the only industrialized country that
    now has standards for mercury emissions. We talk about Europe
    and we talk about everybody else moving on environmental
    standards. United States is the only country that has mercury
    standards, and we will be able to address this in the second
    panel.
        Since mercury is an essential ingredient of bulbs, if the
    United States and the European Union cut off exports to China,
    what will that do for the global mercury stocks? Will the price
    become such that regular Americans who want this technology
    can't afford it? We are encouraging to buy it, but the light
    bulbs are exponentially more costly than regular old
    inefficient light bulbs.
        In addition, if we ban mercury exports, we need to figure
    out what we are going to do with all the mercury we have here.
    I know that some want essential storage facilities. Given the
    last three decades of controversy concerning Yucca Mountain, I
    would urge my colleagues to use caution when pursuing a similar
    solution to mercury. I have actually joked about let us just
    add an additional wing to Yucca Mountain. We can have the
    mercury wing and we can store it there.
        Finally, I want to know what the United States is doing
    from a regulatory and diplomatic perspective to reduce
    dangerous mercury exposures. Before we legislate, we need to
    know if there are gaps in existing law and how any of our
    efforts mesh with existing ones.
        Again, Mr. Chairman, I think we are just starting this
    whole process of informing members. It is a great hearing. I
    appreciate your time, and I yield back.
        Mr. Wynn. I thank the gentleman for his opening statement.
    I, too, played with mercury, so I know. I thought it was pretty
    cool, too.
        Mr. Shimkus. That explains you and me.
        Mr. Wynn. Hopefully we have come a long way since then.
        At this time, I would like to recognize the sponsor of the
    legislation, the distinguished gentleman from Maine, Mr. Tom
    Allen.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM ALLEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MAINE

        Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for
    your concern for this particular area, and for holding this
    hearing on my bill, H.R. 1534, the Mercury Export Ban Act of
    2007. I am pretty sure I played with mercury, too, so that
    makes three of us, but it was elemental mercury and you know,
    the waste issue that my friend Mr. Shimkus raised about any
    products containing mercury is something that needs to be
    addressed, because fundamentally, once elemental mercury gets
    into the waste stream and gets up in the atmosphere and comes
    down, it becomes methyl mercury in bodies of water, and that
    methyl mercury is the major challenge we have in terms of the
    effects on wildlife and the threat to human beings.
        It is a well-established fact that mercury is a powerful
    neurotoxin, harmful at even low exposure levels. It is harmful
    whether it is inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through the skin.
    Once exposed to water, elemental mercury is transformed to
    methyl mercury, which is highly toxic and which has a tendency
    to bioaccumulate in both fish and the humans who eat the fish,
    and I would add, songbirds and other things as well. Very young
    children with developing nervous systems are particularly at
    risk. In addition, pregnant mothers who are exposed to mercury
    pollution can transmit mercury to their unborn children,
    increasing the chances of miscarriage and birth defects.
        My home State of Maine has been a national leader in
    educating people about the dangers of mercury and in reducing
    exposure to mercury through State sources. Maine's 5,800 lakes
    and ponds and our 32,000 miles of rivers, streams, and brooks
    have been under a fish consumption advisory since 1994 because
    of mercury pollution. According to Commissioner David Latell of
    the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, ``In-state
    controls have reduced mercury emissions over 75 percent since
    1990. Seventy-five percent of our State's historic use of
    mercury in products will be eliminated through a series of
    sales and disposal bins; yet because mercury remains in
    widespread use elsewhere in the world, atmospheric transport
    continues to bring mercury into our States. Maine's actions
    alone cannot stop ongoing contamination of our environment.''
        My bill seeks to combat a large source of mercury pollution
    worldwide, namely the export of elemental mercury from the
    United States to developing countries. This mercury is used
    largely for artisanal mining. Exposure occurs when miners
    handle the mercury. It enters the water when miners pan for
    gold, and enters the air through the smelting process, which
    emits mercury vapor.
        According to the United Nations Environment Program,
    approximately 15 million people worldwide, including 4.5
    million women and 1 million children, engage in artisanal
    mining with mercury, exposing them to the poisons that mercury
    produces. Some of this mercury is exported from the United
    States, and that should be unacceptable to us as a Nation.
    Further, this practice harms Americans exposed through the
    global air transport of mercury pollution or through the
    consumption of mercury-contaminated fish.
        The Departments of Defense and Energy are the two largest
    holders of mercury in the United States. The EPA has urged DOD
    and DOE not to sell its mercury stockpiles, due to the serious
    human health and environmental risks associated with mercury.
    DOD and DOE have agreed; however, that ban is not in law, which
    is why my bill prohibits the Federal Government from exporting
    mercury. Further, private companies may still export this
    poisonous and hazardous material, which is why my legislation
    is necessary.
        Finally, I believe we need to develop a long-term solution
    to the problem of mercury storage and disposal, especially if
    we are going to ban the international trade in mercury. My bill
    establishes an advisory committee made up of a wide range of
    stakeholders that is tasked with reporting back to Congress no
    later than 1 year after enactment with recommendations for
    long-term storage options. Long-term storage of mercury is
    relatively easy and cheap, compared to storage and disposal of
    other hazardous materials.
        Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing,
    and I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses.
        Mr. Wynn. Thank you for your opening statement, and again,
    for your leadership on this issue.
        We have actually got a vote on. I would like to see if we
    can get opening statements in. I would like to recognize the
    gentleman, Mr. Pitts, for an opening statement.
        Mr. Pitts. I will waive.
        Mr. Wynn. I would like to recognize the gentleman, Mr.
    Green of Texas, for an opening statement.
        Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, I will waive, but I support my
    colleague from Maine's bill. I have no problem at all with
    being able to develop a site to hold mercury. We do that with
    asbestos and other contaminated items.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much. At this point, the
    subcommittee will recess until the conclusion of votes, and
    other statements will be accepted for the record.. We will
    reconvene immediately after the last vote in this series.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Green and H.R. 1534
    follows:]

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

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today on
    H.R. 1534, the Mercury Export Ban of 2007. As a member of the
    Health Subcommittee and the Foreign Affairs Committee I
    recognize the global and health related benefits of this bill.
        Mercury is a neurotoxin that is very harmful to children,
    fetuses, and pregnant women. Once the true health effects of
    mercury were realized in the United States its use for
    manufacturing and products was decreased.
        However, we are now burdened with reserves of commercial
    mercury that is being sold to recyclers who have no mean of
    disposing of the mercury. The recyclers sell this mercury to
    brokers who distribute this mercury on the global market.
        Once on the global market this mercury is used by small
    scale gold miners who unknowingly allow their miners to
    unsafely expose themselves to mercury.
        Once this mercury is released into the atmosphere or water
    we are allowing other countries to contribute to a global
    mercury contamination problem.
        We essentially are selling mercury to other countries in an
    attempt to get rid of it only to have the mercury come back to
    us in the form of contamination.
        It is time we prohibit the sale of mercury overseas and
    begin safely stockpiling the mercury we have in this country.
        The Department of Defense and the Department of Energy have
    maintained Government mercury stockpiles for years and we
    should do the same with commercial mercury.
        The EPA has been investigating the issue of mercury in the
    United States for quite some time, but with no deadline issued
    by Congress progress on this issue has been slow.
        This bill would ban exporting elemental mercury by 2010 and
    the sale, distribution, or transfer of elemental mercury
    between State and local government, Federal agency, or private
    entity except for storage purposes.
        It would also require the EPA issue a report to Congress 1
    year after the ban to address the issue of mercury in the
    United States and create an Excess Mercury Storage Committee so
    that we can address the storage and health issues related to
    elemental mercury in the United States.
        Some of my colleagues on this committee may say that this
    bill is putting the cart before the horse. To that I say,
    sometimes we need to set deadlines in order to deal with the
    issues at hand.
        I support this bill and I urge my colleagues to do the
    same. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.210

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.211

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.212

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.213

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.214

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.215

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.216

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.217

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.218

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.219

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.220

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.221

        [Recess.]
        Mr. Wynn. The subcommittee will now come to order.
        I believe I saw Mr. Barrow here. I was going to inquire if
    he wanted to make an opening statement, but he apparently
    stepped out.
        That being the case, I believe all opening statements are
    concluded and we will move to hearing from our distinguished
    panel. I would like to introduce Ms. Alice Williams, who is
    Deputy Associate Administrator for Infrastructure and
    Environment for the National Nuclear Security Administration,
    U.S. Department of Energy. We also have with us Mr. Cornel
    Holder, Administrator, National Defense Stockpile Center, U.S.
    Department of Defense, and also Mr. James Gulliford, Assistant
    Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic
    Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
        Welcome. Thank you for coming, and we would like to hear
    opening statements for about 5 minutes. Your entire statements,
    of course, will be included in the record.
        Ms. Williams, if you would like to proceed.

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

        Ms. Williams. Chairman Wynn, Ranking Member Shimkus, and
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    discuss the Department of Energy's management of its stockpile
    of mercury located at the National Nuclear Security
    Administration, NNSA, and I will refer to it as NNSA throughout
    the testimony, at the Y-12 National Security Complex at Oak
    Ridge, Tennessee.
        NNSA was established in 2000 as a separate organized agency
    within the Department of Energy, responsible for enhancing
    national security through the military application of nuclear
    energy. NNSA maintains and enhances the safety, security,
    reliability, and performance of U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile,
    works to continue to reduce global danger from weapons of mass
    destruction, provides the United States Navy with safe and
    effective nuclear propulsion, and responds to nuclear and
    radiological emergencies in the United States and abroad.
        Presently, the stockpile of surplus mercury owned by NNSA
    is in safe, secure storage at the Y-12 National Security
    Complex and the Department has no plans to sell it. The mercury
    in storage was originally acquired by the Atomic Energy
    Commission in the 1950s and 1960s for the separation of lithium
    isotopes. The Cold War production of enriched lithium required
    millions of pounds of mercury. In 1963, the Y-12 lithium
    separation and enrichment program was shut down, and over the
    next several years the production process was dismantled and
    the mercury was recovered. The mercury, some owned by the
    Department of Defense and some by the Department of Energy, was
    placed in storage at Y-12. Over time, a significant quantity of
    the mercury was sold, leaving 1,206 metric tons of the NNSA-
    owned mercury still in storage. The last time the Department of
    Energy sold mercury was in 1994. This is the single-largest
    inventory of mercury in the DOE complex. The DOD owned mercury
    stored at Y-12 was transferred to the DOD storage facility in
    2005.
        In the 1970s, the NNSA mercury inventory was transferred
    from existing seamed flasks into new seamless flasks, each of
    which can hold 76 pounds of mercury. Approximately 35,000 of
    these flasks, which are made of 3L carbon steel and sealed with
    a threaded pipe plug, are stored in groups of 45 on wooden
    pallets. The pallets are stored up to three high in a single
    story solid brick wall constructed building that is used only
    for mercury storage. The building is approximately 150 feet by
    90 feet, and has a concrete floor that is sealed with a leak-
    proof coating. A 6- to 8-inch dike exists around the outer edge
    of the building to contain any material that would be released
    in the event of a spill. In other words, the building is
    constructed to be environmentally protective. In addition, the
    building is equipped with an automatic dry pipe fire
    suppression system and portable fire extinguishers. The
    building is further located within security fences and
    boundaries, as well as within the perimeter intrusion detection
    and assessment system at the Y-12 facility.
        Continuous air monitoring and periodic visual inspections
    of the building are performed on a routine basis. The air
    monitoring is conducted at two locations near the storage
    building, and includes monitoring airborne mercury vapor.
    Measured concentrations are well below the current
    environmental and occupational health standards for inhalation
    exposure of the mercury vapor.
        The visual inspections are performed on a quarterly basis
    for fire safety and to observe for leaks or abnormal
    conditions. There is no history of a flask that has leaked and
    the condition of the flasks appears to be very good at this
    time.
        Providing for long-term storage of mercury at the Y-12
    complex will be costly. It has been estimated that storing the
    mercury for the next 40 years at Y-12 could cost about $42
    million. The costs are related to the maintenance of the
    building, such as installing a new roof, reflasking, if it is
    determined that the flasks storing the mercury have
    deteriorated significantly, air monitoring, visual inspections,
    and securing the building as well as the management.
        Following the decision by Defense Nuclear Stockpile Center
    in 1994 to halt the sale of mercury, NNSA began to explore its
    options for the disposition of the surplus mercury at Y-12. One
    of these options was to sell the surplus mercury, which
    resulted in the preparation of a draft environmental
    assessment. The EA, which tiered from the DOD's Final Mercury
    Management Environmental Impact Statement, analyzed the
    environmental impacts of several alternatives related to the
    management of mercury. Before the EA was finalized, NNSA
    decided in December 2006 to continue to store the surplus
    stockpile of mercury at the Y-12 site. This decision was based
    on several factors, but included mercury's known toxicity to
    living organisms and its mobility in the biosphere, continued
    global efforts to reduce the use of elemental mercury in the
    developing countries, and policies of other countries, for
    example, the countries that make up the European Union support
    long-term storage of elemental mercury.
        At this time, we believe that continuing to store NNSA's
    stockpile of mercury at our Y-12 complex or identifying an
    alternate storage location is the right thing to do. It ensures
    that the mercury will not be released to the global
    environment, thereby minimizing mercury emissions and reducing
    contamination levels in the environment of this toxic chemical.
        This concludes my statement, and I will be pleased to
    respond to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Williams follows:]

                         Statement of Alice C. Williams

        Chairman Wynn, Ranking Member Shimkus, and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the
    Department of Energy's management of its stockpile of mercury
    located at the National Nuclear Security Administration Y-12
    National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. NNSA was
    established in 2000 as a separate organized agency within the
    U.S. Department of Energy responsible for enhancing national
    security through the military application of nuclear energy.
    NNSA maintains and enhances the safety, security, reliability
    and performance of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile; works to
    reduce global danger from weapons of mass destruction; provides
    the U.S. Navy with safe and effective nuclear propulsion; and
    responds to nuclear and radiological emergencies in the United
    States and abroad.
        Presently, the stockpile of surplus mercury owned by NNSA
    is in safe, secure storage at the Y-12 National Security
    Complex and the Department has no plans to sell it. The mercury
    in storage was originally acquired by the Atomic Energy
    Commission in the 1950's and 1960's for the separation of
    lithium isotopes. The Cold War production of enriched lithium
    required millions of pounds of mercury. In 1963, the Y-12
    lithium separation and enrichment program was shut down, and
    over the next several years the production process was
    dismantled and mercury was recovered. The mercury, some owned
    by the Department of Defense (DOD) and some by the Department
    of Energy, was placed in storage at Y-12. Over time, a
    significant quantity of the mercury was sold leaving 1,206
    metric tons of the NNSA-owned mercury still in storage; the
    last time DOE sold mercury was in 1994. This is the single
    largest inventory of mercury in the DOE complex. The DOD-owned
    mercury stored at Y-12 was transferred to a DOD storage
    facility in 2005.
        In the 1970s the NNSA mercury inventory was transferred
    from existing seamed flasks to new seamless flasks, each of
    which can hold about 76 pounds of mercury. Approximately 35,000
    flasks, which are made of 3-L carbon steel and sealed with a
    threaded pipe plug, are stored in groups of 45 on wooden
    pallets. The pallets are stored up to three high in a single-
    story, solid block wall construction building that is used only
    for mercury storage. The building is approximately 150 feet by
    90 feet and has a concrete floor that is sealed with a leak-
    proof coating. A 6- to 8-inch dike exists around the outer edge
    of the building to contain any material that could be released
    in the event of a spill. In other words, the building is
    constructed to be environmentally protective. In addition, the
    building is equipped with an automatic dry-pipe (water supply)
    fire suppression system and portable fire extinguishers. The
    building is located within security fences and boundaries as
    well as within the Perimeter Intrusion, Detection, and
    Assessment System at Y-12.
        Continuous air monitoring and periodic visual inspections
    of the storage building are performed on a routine basis. The
    air monitoring is conducted at two locations near the storage
    building and includes monitoring airborne mercury vapor--
    measured concentrations are well below the current
    environmental and occupational health standards for inhalation
    exposure to mercury vapor. The visual inspections are performed
    on a quarterly basis for fire safety and to observe for leaks
    or abnormal conditions. There is no history of a flask that has
    leaked and the condition of the flasks appears good at this
    time.
        Providing for long-term storage of mercury at the Y-12
    National Security Complex will be costly. It has been estimated
    that storing the mercury for the next 40 years at Y-12 could
    cost about $42 million. The costs are related to maintenance of
    the building such as installing a new roof; reflasking if it is
    determined that the flasks storing the mercury have
    deteriorated significantly; air monitoring; visual inspections;
    security of the building; and facility management.
        Following the decision by the Defense Nuclear Stockpile
    Center in 1994 to halt the sale of mercury, NNSA began to
    explore its options for the disposition of the surplus mercury
    at Y-12. One of these options was to sell the surplus mercury
    which resulted in the preparation of a draft Environmental
    Assessment (EA). The EA, which tiered from DOD's Final Mercury
    Management Environmental Impact Statement, analyzed the
    environmental impacts of several alternatives related to the
    management of mercury. Before the draft EA was finalized, NNSA
    decided in December 2006, to continue to store the surplus
    stockpile of mercury at the Y-12 site. This decision was based
    on several factors which included:

         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 the Department to evaluate alternative
    mercury disposal options or long-term storage.
        Currently, there are 4,436 metric tons of mercury stored at
    depots located in Somerville, NJ; New Haven, IN; and Warren,
    OH. The mercury inventory is stored in 76-pound steel flasks
    and over-packed in 30-gallon carbon steel drums. Mercury has
    been safely stored for over 50 years.
        Annual reductions in the number of quantities of stockpile
    inventory has been occurring since 1994, and has lead to
    corresponding reductions in Defense National Stockpile Center
    infrastructure. The reductions led to the need to develop a
    long-term strategy for continued management of the mercury
    inventory. An environmental impact statement was initiated in
    2001 and completed in 2004. The statement analyzed three
    alternatives for long-term management of the mercury. One,
    leaving the mercury at existing storage locations; two,
    consolidating the mercury storage at one location; and selling
    the mercury inventory. In the record of decision, the Stockpile
    chose the long-term storage alternative. The decision was based
    on a combination of environmental and economic factors, policy
    consideration, and stakeholder's comments. Consolidated storage
    also facilitates the National Defense Stockpile long-term
    closure strategy at the sites in which mercury is removed. The
    chosen sites for consolidated storage is Hawthorne Army Depot
    in Hawthorne, Nevada. The Hawthorne Army Depot, a Government-
    owned contractor-operated facility, will provide storage
    facilities as well as necessary service and support to maintain
    the mercury inventory. The Defense National Stockpile Center is
    working with the State of Nevada and Hawthorne to ensure the
    mercury is properly prepared for transportation to Nevada and
    that the facilities are upgraded to meet Stockpile's high
    standards.
        The Defense National Stockpile Center is fully committed to
    safe, secure, environmentally sound management and storage of
    the mercury. The decision to consolidate and store mercury is
    consistent with the H.R. 1534 prohibition on the sale and
    transfer of mercury by Federal agencies.
        I thank you for the opportunity to testify before the
    subcommittee on this important issue, and I welcome your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Holder follows:]

                         Statement of Cornel A. Holder

        Good morning, Mr.Chairman, and distinguished members of the
    subcommittee. I am Cornel Holder, administrator of the Defense
    National Stockpile Center (DNSC), a field activity of the
    Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). DLA is the Department of
    Defense's only Logistics Combat Support Agency. DNSC is
    responsible for providing safe, secure and environmentally
    sound stewardship for the strategic and critical materials that
    make up the National Defense Stockpile. I to describe DNSC's
    management of the National Defense Stockpile and to
    specifically discuss the management of the elemental mercury
    stored in the National Defense Stockpile inventory.
        The purpose of the National Defense Stockpile is to ensure
    that the United States has a sufficient supply of strategic and
    critical materials to supply military, industrial, and
    essential civilian needs for national defense. The National
    Defense Stockpile was created shortly after World War II to
    acquire and store critical ores and materials to lessen United
    States dependence on foreign sources of supply in times of war
    or national emergency. Between 1949 and 1988, the General
    Services Administration and the Federal Emergency Management
    Agency were responsible for the program. In 1988, Executive
    Order 12626 transferred the responsibility for the National
    Defense Stockpile to the Department of Defense who subsequently
    assigned the management of the program to the Defense Logistics
    Agency. DNSC was established within DLA to manage the strategic
    and critical materials held in the National Defense Stockpile.
    Since 1994, over 99 percent of the NDS has been determined to
    be excess to department needs, and Congress has authorized its
    disposal. The activities of DNSC are governed by the Strategic
    and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act, 50 U.S.C. Sec.  98 et
    seq.
        Elemental mercury has been in the National Defense
    Stockpile inventory since the 1940s. The United States
    government purchased the mercury inventory from a number of
    countries including Spain, India, China, and Italy. Congress
    had authorized the sale of a small portion of the mercury
    inventory in 1981, and DNSC sold mercury to foreign and
    domestic buyers into the early 1990s. In 1994, DNSC suspended
    the sale of mercury in response to congressional concerns
    regarding the potential environmental impact of selling mercury
    and the request that the Department evaluate alternative
    mercury disposal options or long-term storage. The
    Environmental Protection Agency supported our decision to
    suspend mercury sales and to develop environmentally sound
    management options for mercury.
        Currently, DNSC has 4,436 metric tons of mercury stored at
    depots located in Somerville, New Jersey; New Haven, Indiana;
    and Warren, Ohio. The DNSC inventory of mercury is stored in 76
    pound flasks. The mercury in the National Defense Stockpile has
    been safely stored for over 50 years and DNSC is fully
    committed to the safe, secure and environmentally sound
    management and storage of mercury. In 2001, to provide
    additional levels of protection, DNSC overpacked the mercury
    flasks into 30 gallon drums. There are six flasks per drum,
    with the flasks sealed in plastic bags with cardboard inserts
    to keep the flasks apart, and a mercury-absorbent cushion in
    the bottom of the drum. Each drum has a one inch rubber gasket
    in the drum ring that, when tightened, provides a water and
    air-tight seal. The drums are on pallets (five drums to a
    pallet) with drip pans underneath the drums for additional
    protection. Additionally, the warehouse floors where the
    mercury is stored have been sealed, and entry into each mercury
    storage access is controlled. Mercury vapor sampling is
    conducted during routine inspections and every three years
    private auditing companies conduct an environmental review of
    all DNSC storage locations.
        Reductions in the number and quantity of National Defense
    Stockpile inventory have led to a corresponding reduction in
    the DNSC infrastructure. DNSC has reduced its number of
    operating depots, closed out storage sites, and reduced its
    workforce. This reduction in footprint necessitated the
    development of a long-term strategy for the continued
    management of the mercury inventory. This required the
    preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant
    to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). DNSC analyzed
    three alternatives in its Environmental Impact Statement: (1)
    leaving the mercury at the existing storage locations; (2)
    consolidating mercury storage at one location; and (3) selling
    the mercury inventory. The EIS, completed in April 2004,
    indicated all three alternatives would have negligible to minor
    environmental impacts, and that the human health and ecological
    risks from all three would be negligible. In the Record of
    Decision for the Environmental Impact Statement, DNSC made the
    decision that long-term consolidated storage at one location
    was the preferable alternative. This decision was based on a
    combination of environmental and economic factors, policy
    considerations, and stakeholder comments. Consolidated storage
    also facilitates DNSC's long-term closure strategy at the sites
    from which the mercury is removed.
        Site selection for the consolidated storage of the mercury
    then needed to be determined. Hawthorne Army Depot (HWAD) in
    Hawthorne, Nevada, was considered as a consolidated storage
    location in the EIS. HWAD is a government-owned, contractor-
    operated facility whose main mission is the maintenance and
    storage of conventional ammunition. HWAD includes sufficient
    warehouse space for the storage of the DNSC mercury inventory,
    and the EIS concluded that storage there would have minimal
    environmental impacts with negligible ecological and human
    health risks. DNSC signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the
    Army Joint Munitions Command on May 31, 2006, wherein HWAD will
    provide storage facilities and related support to maintain the
    DNSC mercury inventory on a reimbursable basis on behalf of
    DNSC. DNSC is currently working with HWAD and the Nevada
    Department of Conservation and Natural Resources to facilitate
    the transfer of mercury to Hawthorne and ensure the facilities
    are upgraded and safety protocols are in place for the
    continued safe and secure long-term storage of mercury. The
    projected transportation costs to move mercury to HWAD is $1.4
    million and the estimated annual storage cost at HWAD is $505
    thousand. If the Department were authorized to sell its
    existing stockpile of mercury--the estimated sales receipts
    would be $83.6 million.
        DNSC's decision to consolidate and store mercury allows us
    to continue to manage the National Defense Stockpile mercury
    inventory in an environmentally responsible, safe, and secure
    manner. This decision is consistent with the H.R. 1534,
    ``Mercury Export Ban Act of 2007,'' prohibition on sale,
    distribution, or transfer of mercury by Federal Agencies. I
    thank you for the opportunity to testify before the
    subcommittee on this important issue.
                                  ----------

        Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much, Mr. Holder.
        We will now hear from Mr. Gulliford.

       STATEMENT OF JAMES B. GULLIFORD, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
     OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES, U.S.
            ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. Gulliford. Good morning, Chairman Wynn, Congressman
    Shimkus, and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting
    me to testify today regarding the export and storage of
    commodity grade mercury, and H.R. 1534, the Mercury Export Ban
    Act of 2007.
        I have a few opening remarks, but also ask that my written
    testimony be included for the hearing record.
        Mr. Wynn. Without objection.
        Mr. Gulliford. Thank you.
        Let me begin by emphasizing that I share your interest in
    continuing to advance efforts to reduce global and domestic use
    of mercury. I am proud of the work that we have done to date to
    address domestic mercury emissions and use, and to launch a
    number of international mercury partnerships. We are committed
    to working domestically and internationally to reduce mercury
    risk to human health and the environment.
        In July 2006, EPA published the Roadmap for Mercury. This
    document provides the public and all of our stakeholders with a
    clear statement of EPA's commitment to address mercury in the
    environment, and continued collaboration with our Federal and
    State partners is key to addressing the priorities and
    completing the projects that are outlined in the Roadmap.
        With respect to H.R. 1534, the Mercury Export Ban Act of
    2007, I think we all agree that the challenge of global mercury
    is multi-faceted and therefore, there are no simple solutions
    to this complex global problem. However, I believe that efforts
    to reduce mercury use and demand are the most important next
    steps.
        Programs to address mercury demand, both domestically and
    globally, and to eliminate the primary mining of mercury are
    critical. H.R. 1534 would impose a ban on exports of mercury
    from the United States. The prospect of an export ban raises a
    number of important questions that would need to be carefully
    considered. For example, would a ban on U.S. exports lead to
    new efforts of primary mining of mercury elsewhere in the world
    to meet global mercury demand? What effect might a U.S. export
    ban have on efforts to encourage the use of mercury from
    environmentally preferable sources, such as recycled mercury?
    Could an export ban be made consistent with U.S. trade
    obligations, and if such a ban were implemented, what would
    happen to excess stocks of mercury now in private hands in the
    United States? As an alternative to an export ban, the
    administration believes that the first priority should be given
    to pursuing demand management strategies.
        The proposed legislation also includes the establishment of
    an expert panel, and we agree that a stakeholder approach is
    valuable in developing solutions to storage of excess mercury.
    Earlier this year, EPA, in conjunction with a Federal
    interagency workgroup, established a stakeholder group to
    provide the Government with an assessment of options for
    managing non-Federal supplies of mercury. The stakeholder
    participants have been selected to represent a balanced mix of
    academia, industry, States, and nongovernmental organizations,
    and we have asked them to address how domestic, non-Federal
    stocks of mercury could be managed in the short and long term.
        Finally, we agree that the U.S. Government must exercise
    its stewardship responsibilities for the mercury stocks under
    its control, and I applaud both Departments of Defense and
    Energy, with whom EPA works closely, for their decisions to
    ensure that their stockpiles will remain safely in storage.
        Again, our domestic track record is solid. Demand for
    elemental mercury in the United States has declined
    significantly over the past decade, and I expect that trend to
    continue. However, there is still work to be done domestically
    and there are significant international needs as well.
        At the 2005 UNEP governing council, the United States led
    efforts to develop global partnerships to reduce risk for
    mercury internationally. EPA has been instrumental in leading
    the development and implementation of these partnerships which
    aim for tangible mercury reductions by leveraging resources,
    providing technical expertise, technology transfer, and
    information exchanges in various sectors, and we are committed
    to ensuring that these partnerships are both productive and
    effective.
        In closing, the administration places great importance on
    addressing both domestic and international mercury issues. EPA
    is committed to finding protective and comprehensive solutions,
    and I look forward to working with the subcommittee and others
    to achieve this shared goal.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gulliford follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.006

        Mr. Wynn. Thank you, and I would like to thank all of the
    witnesses for their testimony.
        This concludes the opening statement of our panel of
    witnesses, and the Chair would like to recognize himself for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Williams, the first question I have is: isn't it true
    that when DOE was deciding what to do with its 1,200 ton
    stockpile of mercury, that EPA urged NNSA to store the mercury
    and not to place it on the world market because of the harm
    that could result?
        Ms. Williams. EPA provided counsel to us, as did DOD, as
    did other Government agencies, and so we took all of those
    opinions and positions into account.
        Mr. Wynn. Could you describe the environmental and public
    health consequences that EPA shared with you?
        Ms. Williams. There were many of these that have already
    been shared in your opening comments. The fact that it is a
    bioaccumulating element; the fact that it gets into the water
    system and can microbially be changed into methyl mercury; the
    fact that it is very dangerous to women and unborn children.
    All of those were the things that we considered and we also had
    long discussions about artisanal mining and how artisanal
    mining is conducted and perhaps some of the impacts of that.
        Mr. Wynn. Thank you. Mr. Holder, DOD has also decided to
    stockpile its mercury and not sell it on the global market. Is
    it correct that DNSC voluntarily halted mercury sales in 1994
    because of the concerns raised by the EPA and others about the
    effect of mercury on the global environment?
        Mr. Holder. There were concerns also by Congress and EPA,
    and yes, we did suspend sales in 1994, based on those concerns
    about mercury getting into the environment.
        Mr. Wynn. Mr. Gulliford, the question I have is if EPA has
    now advised both DOE and DOD to store rather than sell its
    elemental mercury, when we talk about the private sector, are
    we essentially talking about the same kind of mercury?
        Mr. Gulliford. Yes, we are, same type of mercury.
        Mr. Wynn. Would you have similar environmental concerns
    with respect to this mercury being sold to foreign buyers as
    you expressed to DOE?
        Mr. Gulliford. Absolutely, and those concerns are stressed
    very clearly in both the Mercury Roadmap and in my testimony as
    well.
        Mr. Wynn. Now, you made reference to the possibility that
    there might be some new primary mining of mercury. Do you have
    any evidence of that?
        Mr. Gulliford. The ability to mine mercury exists,
    obviously, in various places in the world. It is currently very
    active right now in Kyrgyzstan and also in China, and clearly,
    the world market responds to the availability and the demand
    for mercury supplies. And while I don't necessarily have
    reasons to believe that mercury mining would or wouldn't
    increase, but I think it is likely, again, given the demand for
    mercury internationally----
        Mr. Wynn. Well, you are saying two things. One you are
    saying you don't know whether it would or it would not, then
    you are now saying it is likely.
        Can I say that you really don't have any evidence that it
    would increase, given that there are existing sources?
        Mr. Gulliford. As I stated in my testimony, I think that
    that's a very important question that would need to be explored
    in considerable detail.
        Mr. Wynn. What is the cost of these mining operations, if
    you were to start a primary mine?
        Mr. Gulliford. I don't know the answer to that question.
        Mr. Wynn. Do you know who finances these mining operations?
        Mr. Gulliford. I don't know the answer to that, but it
    would either be done through government----
        Mr. Wynn. Would someone financing a new mining operation be
    concerned about liability questions?
        Mr. Gulliford. I don't know whether they would or they
    wouldn't. I don't know the condition of actual mining that
    exists in the places that I have described, either Kyrgyzstan
    or China.
        Mr. Wynn. All right. I don't believe I have any further
    questions.
        I would like to turn to our ranking member, Mr. Shimkus,
    for questions.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those are really good
    questions, Kyrgyzstan and China, but we don't have a mining
    association here. They could probably answer the cost of what a
    mine costs, what is the commodity return, and the risk assumed
    and stuff. Maybe we can get them on record. Just a point.
        Mr. Gulliford, do you know that an export ban would reduce
    mercury contamination of air, water, or fish either in the U.S.
    or abroad?
        Mr. Gulliford. It would only reduce any types of emissions
    from mercury sources if it were to result in less actual use of
    mercury worldwide, and we can't be certain of that unless we
    know whether or not there are adequate supplies of mercury in
    the marketplace and other locations, and whether or not there
    would be additional mining initiated as a result of a ban on
    domestic export of mercury from the United States.
        The reality is the amount of mercury that is exported from
    the United States is not a great percentage of the world market
    share.
        Mr. Shimkus. There has to be a comprehensive approach. I
    mean, we are talking about China's mining operations. I think
    the vast majority involved, 99 percent of these are produced in
    China. Obviously--and I like these bulbs. I like energy
    efficiency. I think they are great things, but as we expand
    that, we are sending conflicting signals. We are sending a
    signal, more mercury, until technology--which I think in the
    light bulb industry, is 5 to 10 years away, depending upon what
    type of light bulb it is. I am not picking on it because I have
    got these in my home now. I am replacing them, and as such, we
    are purchasing them in the Federal buildings, but we are
    sending contrary signals if there needs to be a comprehensive
    approach, we are encouraging more mercury in the worldwide
    economy by pushing these bulbs, is that correct?
        Mr. Gulliford. The mercury for those bulbs pretty much is
    supplied by mining that actually occurs in China. China has the
    ability to produce mercury that it needs for its domestic
    purposes and for the development of products that it exports.
    It also exports traditional mercury containing products, such
    as thermometers, other measuring tools, and the like. So the
    Chinese are certainly willing to export mercury and put mercury
    in the various products.
        Mr. Shimkus. Yes. Is there a release in just the operation
    itself of a mine that either is a primary product or a
    secondary product? Is there a natural emission through the
    mining of mercury into the atmosphere?
        Mr. Gulliford. Yes. The mining activities do result in
    releases of mercury.
        Mr. Shimkus. Great. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Williams, according to your testimony, the DOE was left
    with 1,200 metric tons of recovered mercury in storage after it
    decided--Mr. Holder, in storage after it decided to stop its
    sales. How much was actually sold and what led to the decision
    to stop selling?
        Mr. Holder. Between 1980 and 1990s, we sold approximately
    50,000 flasks, which equates to about 3.8 million pounds of
    mercury. We currently have 4,436 metric tons remaining within
    the inventory.
        Mr. Shimkus. Who were the main buyers, do you know?
        Mr. Holder. Main buyers were domestic and international
    companies. Domestic, B.F. Goldsmith, Bethlehem Apparatus,
    Asian, Atlantis and international was Beni Mercurio.
        Mr. Shimkus. Is there any data about what happened to the
    price of mercury domestically and abroad after NNSA halted
    sales?
        Mr. Holder. No, after we basically left the marketplace, we
    did not continue gathering market intelligence of sales of
    mercury.
        Mr. Shimkus. In your verbal statement starting, you
    mentioned that there was also an economic factor in your
    decision.
        Mr. Holder. Yes.
        Mr. Shimkus. So you are saying that economically, your
    department decided--that was part of the variable deciding not
    to sell. Can you tell me about that economic balance----
        Mr. Holder. When we talk about that, we looked at the
    economic scale. Since we are basically selling off the entire
    stockpile inventory, one of the things we had to look at was
    reduction in sites, and so the consolidation of the mercury
    fits right in to our economy of scale of trying to find one
    site in order to move the mercury to one site, which would
    reduce oversight, and right now, it would cost us about $1
    million to store mercury at the three sites. Going to one site,
    the estimated cost is $500,000 per year.
        Mr. Shimkus. Ms. Williams, with the chairman's indulgence,
    any of the questions that I asked Mr. Holder, is there a
    response you have to some of those?
        Ms. Williams. We have not tracked the economics, and also I
    cannot tell you who the mercury was purchased by when we last
    sold it, and if you wish, I could take that for the record.
        Mr. Wynn. Gentleman's time is expired.
        At this time, I would like to turn to the bill's sponsor,
    Mr. Allen, for questions.
        Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Gulliford, from reading the testimony of those on the
    second panel, it seems clear we have got a rare consensus among
    the chloralkali industry, the environmental community, the
    States, and the medical community that we should stockpile our
    elemental mercury to prevent the environmental harm and the
    public health harm that comes from selling large amounts into
    the global economy. Do you disagree with that consensus?
        Mr. Gulliford. I believe that the best way to deal with
    mercury use, as we did domestically and internationally is to
    work on the demand side of the equation, that way we can
    provide technical information to developing countries that use
    mercury, it gives them a reason and it gives them an ability to
    stop using mercury. And the best way to end the use of mercury
    is to work again at the demand side, rather than through some
    type of an action that, again, we can't be certain will lead to
    the result that we are interested in.
        Mr. Allen. But if your reservations about a ban could be
    resolved, and I will come to some of those questions later, but
    if your reservations about a ban could be resolved, would you
    have any problem with stockpiling elemental mercury?
        Mr. Gulliford. I think that it is in our interest to find
    ways to store mercury that isn't needed, and I certainly agree
    with that premise. In fact, working with UNEP over the next
    couple of years, we will be working on examining this overall
    global situation of what mercury is used, where it is produced,
    where it is needed, what products still have value of using
    mercury, as we have discussed. And then ultimately they will
    look at some type of option.
        Mr. Allen. OK, thank you.
        You have indicated that EPA leads the UNEP partnership
    dealing with mercury management in artisanal and small scale
    gold mining, and has participated in the global mercury
    project. In February 2007, the Global Mercury Project reported
    its findings, and one of them was ``Various locations, specific
    Global Mercury Project training programs and assessments have
    demonstrated that when mercury is less available and/or more
    expensive, less mercury is consumed as miners switch to more
    efficient practices, sometimes eliminating mercury use
    entirely.'' What they are saying in that report is that make it
    more expensive, make it less available, and you create an
    incentive to switch to other substances. Do you disagree with
    that, or do you agree with it?
        Mr. Gulliford. I would say that we have not seen evidence
    of mercury use in our gold mining decreasing. In fact, our
    concern is that more artisanal mining is occurring around the
    world as people who have the need to generate income for
    themselves or their families look to mining as a way to
    generate income that they need to survive. And so we have not
    seen evidence of reduction in artisanal mining.
        Mr. Allen. Let me pursue that further. Based on what I
    understand, artisanal mining is occurring in only two places,
    the Kyrgyz Republic and China. At the Brussels Conference in
    October 2006, Kyrgyzstan announced a plan to close its mercury
    mine and would seek financial assistance to switch to mining of
    other metals. China, to my understanding, only mines for
    domestic consumption. I mean, it does make products, but it
    restricts imports of mercury. So I think you said earlier you
    are not aware of any new mining operations or any plans for new
    mining operations. I mean, aren't there things the United
    States could do to prevent or stop or discourage efforts to
    expand this kind of mining?
        Mr. Gulliford. Well, I am not aware that Kyrgyzstan has
    announced any plans to reduce their mining activities. I am
    also confident that China is more than willing to mine to
    produce all of the mercury that they need for any market,
    either domestic or international, on their part.
        Mr. Allen. I just have a few seconds left.
        You had a series of reservations, and I just wanted to deal
    with a couple of them. You asked could an export ban be made
    consistent with U.S. trade obligations, and we are only talking
    about $8 million a year here in terms of our exports. I would
    doubt that that would give rise to a real trade issue. You do
    properly raise the question if a ban were implemented, what
    would happen to excess stocks of mercury now in private hands.
    That is why we have provided for a committee to figure out how
    to store it. We think that issue is relatively easily resolved.
        I see my time is expired. Mr. Chairman, and I thank you.
        Mr. Wynn. I thank the gentleman for his line of
    questioning.
        At this time, I would like to recognize the gentleman Mr.
    Pitts for questioning.
        Mr. Pitts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        For EPA, some countries like China are not committed to
    banning exports of mercury. What environmental good is being
    achieved if the United States bans its exports and other
    countries for financial reasons fill in the gap of the
    displaced commodity? Will banning exports have any positive
    environmental impact on countries that still mine for mercury?
        Mr. Gulliford. No. In fact, our concern is what will happen
    from a mining standpoint were there to be a domestic ban on
    mercury exports from the United States.
        Again, we have worked to actually encourage the use of
    preferable sources of mercury, which is recycled mercury
    products. Again, mercury is necessary. At the same time, we are
    very committed--and you can see that in the actions that have
    occurred domestically, as well as the leadership that we have
    provided to international efforts, through our partnership
    projects, to reduce this demand. We believe that ultimately,
    just as it has occurred in this country, we have reduced our
    use of elemental mercury by 87 percent in this country since
    1980, through education, through technology transfer, and
    providing alternatives to mercury use, that that is the most
    appropriate way to address mercury use internationally as well.
    We have had some success with the initial work of those
    partnership projects internationally.
        Mr. Pitts. Could increasing Federal mandates for energy
    efficient lighting together with an export ban for mercury
    contribute to increased mining of mercury in China or
    elsewhere?
        Mr. Gulliford. I believe that China has the ability and
    will mine as much mercury as they need to meet any opportunity
    that they have to develop industry and to market the products
    of that industry, including the use of mercury. Because they
    don't limit their mercury exports only to the compact
    fluorescent lighting products, they also export other mercury
    products, even such as the traditional thermometers that are
    used in hospitals throughout Asia.
        Mr. Pitts. Is it cheaper to mine virgin mercury in China or
    to buy it from the market? What is the mercury that is produced
    in China being used for?
        Mr. Gulliford. I think in China there are a lot of uses of
    mercury in different products. We talk a lot about the uses for
    artisanal mining, the lighting, and thermometers still being
    produced. Other devices are being produced such as thermostats
    and other types of products. So there are still a lot of uses,
    and all of them I think would need to be factored into a
    decision as to what the effect of a mercury export ban might
    be.
        Mr. Pitts. And again, what are you doing to address
    production and use of mercury by China?
        Mr. Gulliford. We have bilateral negotiations with China on
    a lot of issues. In fact, I have visited China in Shanghai and
    we have two projects with hospitals in Shanghai encouraging
    them to move away from some of the very products that they
    produce. Again, the use of mercury in hospitals, both in
    thermometers and in blood pressure cuffs, which are very
    common, result in spills which are hazardous particularly to
    the people that work there. They require maintenance because
    they leak over time, and there is a lot of mercury use and a
    lot of mercury leakage and problems with mercury exposure in
    hospitals.
        So we are working on issues like that. We are also working
    through the Asia Pacific Partnership on the challenge of
    mercury emissions from power plant generation and we are
    encouraging a responsible action on the part of China. China
    also is a large economic force that is very willing to market
    the types of products that are needed or used around the globe,
    and if they contain mercury, they are willing to export those
    products.
        Mr. Pitts. Now, you said Kyrgyzstan or Kyrgyz Republic is
    also producing. They don't have a lot of resources. What are
    you doing as far as their production?
        Mr. Gulliford. I am not aware that we have any direct
    partnerships with Kyrgyzstan on mining and use of mercury.
        Mr. Pitts. And EPA has a variety of activities underway to
    reduce mercury demand. Just, again, highlight some of the
    projects, both domestically and internationally, that explain
    why it is so important to manage demand as part of an effective
    solution here.
        Mr. Gulliford. Yes, consistent with the five UNEP
    partnership goals that they have set forth, we have
    demonstrations--and the United States has taken the lead on
    artisanal mining, and in the case of artisanal mining efforts,
    we have a project in Senegal where the mining operation there
    has incorporated the uses of hoods in the smelting process to
    capture mercury fumes and vapors as they are released, which
    results in less exposure to workers. It also results in less
    emissions into the atmosphere. I think the number is roughly 60
    of those mines are using that type of an activity to reduce
    emissions and local exposures.
        Another one of the areas of the UNEP partnerships is the
    chloralkali sector. We have a strong partnership in Russia
    where they have already transferred to non-mercury processes in
    a couple of their operations, and they are very substantial.
    Again, the use of mercury in Russia, is a very positive
    demonstration partnership project, and one that is repeatable,
    and Russia tends to continue to move through their domestic
    chloralkali facilities to transfer out of the mercury
    technology, as much as we see here in this country.
        We also have interests and we are working in the private
    sector, including our products and processes in our partnership
    projects. I mentioned the efforts that are in a number of
    countries to look at the use of mercury products in hospitals
    where exposure can be very high, particularly to the working
    staff of those hospitals, doctors and healthcare providers. The
    actual patients can move through hospitals fairly quickly and
    not be exposed for a long period of time, but the actual
    workers are under considerable exposure.
        The other two areas where we don't necessarily have the
    lead, but where we are also providing support internationally
    is to the issue of mercury emissions from coal-fired power
    plants and also then to look at the research components
    appropriate to mercury emissions, international transport of
    mercury.
        Mr. Pitts. And finally, can you speak to any of the recent
    consumer and retail concerns pertaining to the cleanup and
    disposal of CFLs?
        Mr. Gulliford. Yes. On the EPA Web site, we have some very
    specific instructions for consumers who use these bulbs.
    Concern is if they are broken, what should you do. If you look
    at that Web site, it would instruct any homeowner who has, for
    example, dropped one of these lights that resulted in a spill,
    first of all, to aerate the area, to vacate it, open all the
    windows, provide an opportunity to dissipate any emissions that
    might be from that bulb. Next, it instructs homeowners to clean
    up carefully, never vacuum because vacuuming only disperses it,
    but to use some type of a towel or something that will actually
    absorb the mercury, and put it into plastic containers, plastic
    bags, double bag it, that type of thing. Obviously, to be
    careful not to cut yourself when doing that, and then to
    dispose of it properly. There are disposal sites in many of our
    communities, or also it can be put into something that would go
    into a landfill. We would discourage it from going into a
    process that would ultimately result in incineration.
        Mr. Pitts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Wynn. The gentleman's time is expired.
        At this time, the Chair would recognize the gentlelady from
    Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I take this issue
    of mercury very seriously. Some years ago I actually wrote a
    chapter in a book called ``50 Ways to Improve Women's Lives''
    about the danger of mercury. My district sits on Lake Michigan
    and we are concerned about the contamination of fish. I have
    also been concerned, now that you have mentioned power plants,
    the decision on the Bush administration to roll back in 2005
    Clinton administration decisions requiring that all power
    plants reduce mercury emissions to the maximum extent possible
    by 2008.
        I wanted to call your attention, Mr. Gulliford, to the
    Global Mercury Project, the United Nations Global Mercury
    Project, and it delivered its report in February of this year.
    It says that it calls on nations around the world to achieve
    the goal of reducing mercury consumption by reducing mercury
    supply through export controls and other mechanisms that will
    encourage the transition to alternative technologies. Do you
    support the United Nations Global Mercury Project call for a
    mercury export ban?
        Mr. Gulliford. We are working very closely with the UNEP
    Council on their programs for mercury reduction, that is why we
    have made the effort to sponsor and support the five
    partnership projects. We are also working with them to support
    the gathering of the data to look at issues related to the
    mercury use, mercury demand, mercury supply, and the potential
    for any type of policy for the future----
        Ms. Schakowsky. Well, it sounds like you think that there
    are appropriate uses for mercury, and so Mr. Holder, the sites
    that contain mercury right now, we are not releasing anything
    from storage since 1996, right?
        Mr. Holder. Since 1994 we have suspended sales and we have
    not released any mercury from our warehouses.
        Ms. Schakowsky. So if you think, Mr. Gulliford, that there
    are legitimate uses, why would the EPA then say none of it
    could be released from storage?
        Mr. Gulliford. Clearly, the use of mercury in this country
    and our goal for the use of mercury internationally is to
    reduce the use of mercury. That has happened in this country.
    As I indicated, we have reduced mercury use domestically by 87
    percent since 1980, and that is a trend we believe will
    continue to occur. We don't believe there is need for all of
    the mercury and we think that it is very good that we have made
    a decision what to do with Federal sources, and we have
    convened a stakeholder panel to look at options for, again,
    what can we do to store properly domestic supplies.
        Ms. Schakowsky. And that is being all consolidated, the
    storage? Is that part of the plan?
        Mr. Holder. Part of the plan is to consolidate all the
    mercury into one storage site.
        Ms. Schakowsky. And also, Mr. Gulliford, you have been
    talking about efforts to encourage the--wait.
        In your testimony, you say the ban on U.S. exports of
    mercury raises questions such as what effect there might be on
    ``efforts to encourage the use of mercury from environmentally
    preferable sources, such as recycled mercury.'' So is the
    United States engaged in efforts to encourage the use of
    mercury in those ways in the global market?
        Mr. Gulliford. I believe that the use of environmentally
    preferable sources of mercury are preferable to new mining. I
    don't think we should do anything to encourage the additional
    mining of mercury anywhere in the world, and rather we ought to
    use these existing sources of recycled mercury. They are very
    preferable.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Do we have metrics on this? Are there goals
    that you want to achieve? I know you mentioned how much mercury
    has been reduced, but are there specific goals to actually
    reduce the use of mercury, goals that are achievable and that
    we are aiming toward and measuring toward?
        Mr. Gulliford. Yes, there are, in some cases. For example,
    with respect to mercury switches in autos, when we worked with
    the auto industry to stop using mercury switches in automobiles
    and we backed that up and are just completing a rule that will
    prevent those from coming back into use at any future time. We
    also then went forward with the scrappers and the recycling
    industry, trying to get those mercury switches out of
    automobiles before they are shredded and then resmelted, and
    then you would have an air emission associated with that. We
    expect some very significant reductions in mercury, and so we
    do have numbers on those which we can get for you. We are also
    then looking for other products, such as similar devices that--
    --
        Ms. Schakowsky. My time is expired and the chairman is
    gaveling.
        Thank you very much. I thank your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Wynn. Thank the gentlelady for her questions.
        Are there other members seeking to ask questions at this
    time? Seeing none, I would like to thank all the witnesses on
    this panel for your outstanding testimony, and excuse you at
    this time, and ask that the second panel would come forward.
        Also at this time, the Chair is going to ask unanimous
    consent that a memo from Thomas D'Agostino, the Deputy
    Administrator for Defense Programs at DOE, the memo is dated
    December 13, 2006. In the memo, he states that the decision to
    store DOE's in NNSA's mercury inventory is based on several
    factors, including EPA's urging that this mercury be stored and
    not returned to the economy. I would, at this time, ask
    unanimous consent that it be included in the record.
        Mr. Shimkus. Reserving the right to object.
         Mr. Chairman, I don't think I will but I think we would
    like to see that.
        Mr. Wynn. I thought you had seen it but I certainly am
    happy to share it with you.
        Mr. Shimkus. And also, Mr. Chairman, as part of this opens
    up for a colloquy, whether there are insertions by the National
    Electronic Manufacturers Association of Lighting Manufacturers
    and the mining industry, if we would be allowed to submit a
    statement from them into the record, and what time we would be
    allowed to do that?
        Mr. Wynn. I don't have a problem with the submission. I
    would like, of course, to see them if the Democratic side has
    not seen them, so if you would allow us to see them, then I
    would----
        Mr. Shimkus. Yes, if you would just give us a timeframe so
    we make sure they get it here in an appropriate amount of time,
    then----
        Mr. Wynn. Would 5 days be a sufficient timeframe?
        Mr. Shimkus. I think that would be fine. That would be very
    generous, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Wynn. Probably too generous, but having said that, we
    will keep the record open for 5 days to receive the letter. I
    will reserve the right to object, however, pending receipt of
    that letter.
        Mr. Shimkus. We are all getting so smart, aren't we?
        Mr. Wynn. Give me time.
        With respect to the unanimous consent request that I made--
    --
        Mr. Shimkus. I withdraw my objection, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Wynn. I thank the gentleman, and the memo will be
    entered into the record.
         I would also, at this time, seek unanimous consent to
    enter letters of support for H.R. 1534 into the record. I
    believe the minority does have these letters. They are from the
    State of Maine, the American Medical Association, the Nature
    Conservancy, and the American College of Preventative Medicine.
        Mr. Shimkus. No objection.
        Mr. Wynn. Hearing none, the letters are admitted into the
    record.
         At this time, I would like to welcome our second panel. I
    would like to introduce them and thank them for appearing.
        First, we have Dr. Linda Greer. She is a senior scientist,
    National Resources Defense Council. We also have Dr. Michael
    Shannon, chair of the Committee on Environmental Health and
    American Academy of Pediatrics. We have Mr. Mark Smith, deputy
    director, Office of Research and Standards, Director,
    Massachusetts Mercury Program, Massachusetts Department of
    Environmental Protection. We also have with us Mr. Arthur
    Dungan, president of the Chlorine Institute, and finally, Mr.
    Bruce Lawrence, president, Bethlehem Apparatus Company.
        Again, welcome, and we will begin with 5-minute opening
    statements from each of the panelists. The prepared testimony
    that you submitted in advance will be made a part of the
    hearing record. And with that, Dr. Greer.

        STATEMENT OF LINDA E. GREER, SENIOR SCIENTIST, NATURAL
               RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, WASHINGTON, DC

        Ms. Greer. Thank you. Well, good morning. Thank you for the
    opportunity to testify. I direct the Environmental Health
    Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, which is an
    environmental advocacy organization. In that capacity, I focus
    on the most dangerous chemicals that are in the air, in the
    water, in the food, or in our houses, and mercury has been on
    our radar screen as our highest priority pollutant in the food
    supply for the purposes of protecting health in the United
    States.
        For that reason, I have been working personally and with
    some of my staff on both global mercury pollution issues and
    domestic mercury issues here in the United States for about 5
    years. In my oral testimony, let me try to simplify this issue
    for the hearing today and provide my perspective on the need
    for this legislation.
        I think the basic question at hand is: ``Why should we care
    about exporting mercury out of our borders? Why should we care
    about where it goes?'' And there are really two big reasons why
    we should care about this and why we need this bill. The first
    reason, which has been covered in several opening statements,
    is that mercury is a global pollutant, and so the unfortunate
    fact of the matter is that if we ship mercury abroad and it
    gets used in polluting ways, that mercury comes right back at
    us. We don't have the luxury of not caring about mercury
    outside of our borders. We need to worry about the management
    of that mercury all along in order to protect our own health
    and our own food supply.
        The second reason is sort of a dollars and cents reason,
    which is this: States and localities are expending much
    welcomed effort in collecting and recycling mercury-containing
    products because it is very dangerous for those products to
    wind up in municipal trash stream and then get burned in a
    municipal incinerator or break. It doesn't make any sense,
    though, for them to collect all that mercury, to take all that
    time and trouble, just to put it in a bucket, so to speak, and
    send it abroad to highly polluting uses. Recycling for reuse in
    highly polluting industries is not a step in the right
    direction. Because mercury is a global pollutant, if we take
    the time and trouble to collect these small sources, we should
    then not be sending it off to countries in the developing world
    who are then going to mismanage it. Unfortunately, unless we do
    something like the export ban we are discussing today, we do
    not have any control over where this mercury goes.
        In its testimony today, EPA expresses concern about the
    unattended consequences of a mercury export ban on promoting
    environmentally preferable recycled sources of mercury. My
    answer to that concern is this: there really is nothing
    environmentally preferable about collecting mercury just to
    send it abroad to recycling, and I think the problem would be
    to the contrary. I think over a longer period of time, as
    States and localities watch the money and effort they are
    putting in to collect this mercury go for essentially no big
    purpose--that is, just collect the mercury in order to send
    over to Vietnam or India or someplace that will mismanage it--
    that people will become disillusioned about the value of
    recycling and they will feel like they should turn their
    resources to something that makes a bigger contribution in the
    big picture.
        Now let me turn for a minute to an overview of the
    situation of the global mercury trade, which is a very bleak
    situation. It is important for people to take stock of this
    situation, because the magnitude of the problem we have right
    now is very large. It is important to compare this against the
    speculative unintended consequences, such as those that have
    been raised by EPA and others today in their testimony. So much
    of the detail about this is in my written statement. I will
    highlight for you only this. We use between 3,000 and 3,500
    tons of mercury globally per year. That has gone down
    enormously over the past 50 years, but it has been stable for
    the last decade. Usage is not going down fast enough from
    there. The problem is not just the standing amount of mercury
    that we are using, but that in the last decade, there has been
    an enormous shift in where and how that mercury is being used.
    So that in the older days, we in the United States were still
    using mercury, the Western European countries were still using
    lots of mercury. That mercury was, for the most part, much more
    carefully managed than the mercury being used in the developing
    world today. In my testimony, I have a figure, figure 2, that
    shows for one typical year the flow of mercury which is
    basically from the industrialized world to the developing
    world, as the industrialized world has gotten rid of its
    dangerous mercury uses.
        The largest percentage of this mercury goes into that
    practice of artisanal mining that has already been the focus of
    both opening statements, and also some of our witnesses today,
    and I just want to emphasize for you how very dangerous that
    practice is. It is more than roughly a third of the global
    mercury use. It is being used by the poorest people of the
    world, people who have no other means of support. They are
    grossly intoxicating themselves with mercury, such that they
    usually can't do this work for very many years of their life
    because they have become intoxicated, and it is throwing 1,000
    tons of mercury a year, almost all they use, into the air and
    into the global food supply. As has already been mentioned by
    several representatives, UNIDO, which has been in the lead on
    this problem, has called for an export ban as the single-most
    important thing that the world could do in order to reduce this
    practice.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Greer follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.051

        Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much, Dr. Greer.
        Dr. Shannon.

        STATEMENT OF MICHAEL SHANNON, M.D., CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON
       ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PEDIATRICS;
    PROFESSOR AND CHAIR, DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, CHILDREN'S
                          HOSPITAL, BOSTON, MA

        Dr. Shannon. Thank you and good morning. I appreciate the
    opportunity to testify today before the Energy and Commerce
    Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials at this
    hearing, H.R. 1534, the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2007. My name
    is Dr. Michael Shannon, and I am proud to represent the
    American Academy of Pediatrics, a nonprofit professional
    organization of 60,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric
    medical subspecialists, and pediatric surgical subspecialists
    dedicated to the health, safety, and well-being of infants,
    children, adolescents, and young adults. I am chair of the
    Academy's Committee on Environmental Health. I am Chief of
    Emergency Medicine, and co-director of the Pediatric
    Environmental Health Program at Children's Hospital, Boston. I
    am a professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. My
    Board certifications include pediatrics, emergency medicine,
    and medical toxicology. I have been a pediatrician for 30
    years.
        Mercury is a ubiquitous environmental toxin that is capable
    of causing a wide range of adverse health effects in humans.
    The AAP's Committee on Environmental Health describes the
    dangers of mercury in the environment to children in a 2001
    technical report of which I was the lead author.
        Elemental mercury is one of the three forms of this
    substance, the other two being organic mercury and inorganic
    mercury. The elemental form, as you know, is generally liquid
    at room temperature. When heated, however, elemental mercury
    becomes a vapor. This vapor has the ability to contaminate
    large geographic areas, affecting all of those nearby. In the
    United States, the largest source of atmospheric mercury vapor
    is from burning fossil fuels, especially high sulfur coal.
    Other major sources include chloralkali production, a process
    that uses elemental mercury to produce chlorine, bleach, and
    other products, mercury mining, and waste incinerators,
    especially those that incinerate medical waste.
        Elemental mercury in liquid form is found in thermometers,
    barometers, and other medical instruments. Indiscriminate
    disposal of medical devices is a major source of environmental
    mercury contamination when they are buried in landfills or
    burned in waste incinerators, rather than recycled.
    Fortunately, our efforts to eliminate elemental mercury from
    medical devices has been successful in reducing human exposure
    from this source.
        As I mentioned, when heated, elemental mercury rapidly
    vaporizes. Once we inhale it, mercury vapor easily passes
    through the membranes of our lungs, entering the bloodstream
    where it is then primarily distributed into the central nervous
    system and the kidneys. Circulating elemental mercury also
    crosses the placenta and concentrates in the fetus. In adults,
    the half life of mercury, that is, the amount it takes for the
    body to eliminate one-half of the metal, is as long as 90 days.
        Elemental mercury poisoning can produce a broad range of
    effects on the central nervous system, kidneys, skin, and
    lungs. In children, elemental mercury is particularly
    deleterious because of its effects on the rapidly developing
    brain of the child. Children exposed to elemental mercury can
    develop a range of neurocognitive and behavioral effects
    ranging from learning disabilities to devastating neurologic
    problems, including mental retardation, blindness, and
    spasticity.
        History has provided us several important lessons of the
    consequences of severe mercury exposure to children. One
    example is the Minamata Bay incident in the 1950s. At that
    time, a coastal factory discharged large amounts of mercury
    compound into the bay. That mercury was taken up by local fish,
    which was routinely eaten by nearby villagers. An epidemic of
    childhood disease manifested by blindness and spasticity
    appeared among the offspring of women who ate the contaminated
    fish while pregnant. Ultimately, there were 41 deaths and at
    least 30 cases of severe brain damage in these infants.
        There also continue to be case reports describing the
    development of severe mercury poisoning in children and adults
    as a result of mercury spills and even mercury thermometers
    breaking with the mercury being vacuumed or spilling into a
    heating duct. This is rare, but continues to show us how toxic
    this element can be.
        Because elemental mercury that enters the blood, central
    nervous system, and kidneys is so slowly eliminated, toxicity
    can be prolonged. Given that treatment options for mercury
    intoxication are inadequate, prevention of exposure is the
    cornerstone of avoiding long-term health consequences.
        In conclusion, the American Academy of Pediatrics commends
    you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today and calling
    attention to the hazards of elemental mercury. We look forward
    to working with Congress to minimize the exposure of children
    and all Americans to potentially toxic levels of mercury. I
    appreciate this opportunity to testify, and I will be pleased
    to answer any questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Shannon follows:]

                  Testimony of Michael Shannon, MD, MPH, FAAP

        Good morning. I appreciate this opportunity to testify
    today before the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on
    Environment and Hazardous Materials at this hearing, H.R. 1534,
    the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2007. My name is Michael Shannon,
    MD, MPH, FAAP, and I am proud to represent the American Academy
    of Pediatrics (AAP), a non-profit professional organization of
    60,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical sub-
    specialists, and pediatric surgical specialists dedicated to
    the health, safety, and well-being of infants, children,
    adolescents, and young adults. I am Chair of the AAP's
    Committee on Environmental Health. I am Chief of the Division
    of Emergency Medicine and Co-Director of the Pediatric
    Environmental Health Center at Boston Children's Hospital. I am
    also a Professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. My
    board certifications are in General Pediatrics, Emergency
    Medicine, Pediatric Emergency Medicine and Medical Toxicology.

          Elemental Mercury Poses a Serious Health Hazard to Children

        Mercury is a ubiquitous environmental toxin that is capable
    of causing a wide range of adverse health effects in humans.
    The AAP's Committee on Environmental Health described the
    dangers of mercury in the environment to children in a 2001
    technical report, of which I was a lead author.
        Elemental mercury is one of the three forms of this
    substance, the other two being organic mercury and inorganic
    mercury. The elemental form is liquid at room temperature. When
    heated, elemental mercury becomes a vapor; this vapor has the
    ability to contaminate large geographic areas, affecting all of
    those nearby. In the United States, the largest source of
    atmospheric mercury vapor is from burning fossil fuels,
    especially high-sulfur coal. Other major sources include
    chloralkali production (a process that uses elemental mercury
    to produce chlorine, bleach, and other products), mercury
    mining, and waste incinerators (especially those that
    incinerate medical wastes). Elemental mercury in liquid form is
    found in thermometers, barometers, and other medical
    instruments. Indiscriminate disposal of medical devices is a
    major source of environmental mercury contamination when they
    are buried in landfills or burned in waste incinerators rather
    than recycled. Fortunately, recent efforts to eliminate
    elemental mercury from medical devices have been successful in
    reducing human exposure from this source. \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        1 Goldman LR, Shannon MW, and the AAP Committee on Environmental
    Health. Technical Report: Mercury in the Environment: Implications for
    Pediatricians. Pediatrics, 2001 108: 197-205.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Elemental mercury readily vaporizes in the presence of
    heat. When inhaled, mercury vapor easily passes through the
    membranes of the lung, entering the bloodstream, where it is
    then distributed primarily into the central nervous system
    (CNS), and the kidneys. Circulating elemental mercury also
    crosses the placenta and concentrates in the fetus. In adults,
    the half-life of elemental mercury, that is, the amount of time
    it takes for the body to eliminate one-half of the metal, is as
    long as 90 days. \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2 Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Elemental mercury poisoning can produce a broad range of
    effects on the central nervous system, kidneys, skin and lungs.
    In children, elemental mercury is particularly deleterious
    because of its affects on the rapidly developing brain of the
    child. Children exposed to elemental mercury can develop a
    range of neurocognitive and behavioral effects, ranging from
    learning disabilities to devastating neurologic problems
    including mental retardation, blindness and spasticity. \3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        3 Speaking Points for Mercury in the Environment: Implications for
    Pediatricians, http://www.aap.org/moc/pressroom/speaking--points/
    mercury.htm?CFID=1395517&CFTOKEN=64233499.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        History has provided us several important lessons of the
    consequences of severe mercury exposure to children. One
    example is the Minamata Bay incident which took place in Japan
    in the 1950's. A coastal factory discharged large quantities of
    mercury compounds into the bay. That mercury was taken up by
    local fish which was routinely eaten by nearby villagers. An
    epidemic of disease, manifested by blindness and spasticity
    appeared among the offspring of the women who ate the
    contaminated fish while pregnant. Ultimately, there were 41
    deaths and at least 30 cases of severe brain damage in these
    infants. There also continue to be case reports describing the
    development of symptomatic mercury poisoning in children and
    adults as a result of mercury spills and even mercury
    thermometers breaking, with the mercury bead being vacuumed or
    spilling into a heating duct. This is rare, but continues to
    show us how toxic this element can be. \4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        4 Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Because the elemental mercury that enters the blood, CNS,
    and renal tissues and is so slowly eliminated, toxicity can be
    prolonged. Given that treatment options for mercury
    intoxication are inadequate, prevention of exposure is the
    cornerstone of avoiding long-term health consequences.

                                Recommendations

        The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that
    elemental mercury is toxic to the fetus and to children, and
    recommends that aggressive efforts should be made to reduce
    exposure for pregnant women and children as well as the general
    population.

         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.

                                   Conclusion

        The American Academy of Pediatrics commends you, Mr.
    Chairman, for holding this hearing today to call attention to
    the hazards of elemental mercury. We look forward to working
    with Congress to minimize the exposure of children and all
    Americans to potentially toxic levels of elemental mercury. I
    appreciate this opportunity to testify, and I will be pleased
    to answer any questions you may have.
                                  ----------

        Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much, Dr. Shannon.
        Dr. Smith.

    STATEMENT OF C. MARK SMITH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF RESEARCH
      AND STANDARDS; DIRECTOR, MASSACHUSETTS MERCURY PROGRAM; CO-
      CHAIR, NEW ENGLAND GOVERNORS AND EASTERN CANADIAN PREMIERS
         MERCURY TASK FORCE; QUICKSILVER CAUCUS, MASSACHUSETTS
                       REPRESENTATIVE, BOSTON, MA

        Mr. Smith. Good afternoon Chairman Wynn and members of the
    committee. I would like to thank you all for providing the
    Environmental Council of States and the Quicksilver Caucus with
    the opportunity to testify today on this important issue.
        As you may be aware, the Environmental Council of States is
    a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that is comprised of the
    leaders of the State environmental agencies. It has been
    involved in dealing with mercury issues for many years. The
    Quicksilver Caucus is a coalition of interstate organizations
    dealing specifically with mercury, and the interstate
    organizations represent air, water, and solid waste pollution
    prevention organizations from across the country.
        My name is Mark Smith and I am testifying today for ECOS
    and the Quicksilver Caucus on behalf of Arleen O'Donnell, who
    is the acting commissioner for the Massachusetts Department of
    Environmental Protection and is the Chair of the ECOS cross
    media committee. Unfortunately, Arleen could not be here today.
        My background, just for a quick review, is that I have a
    Ph.D. in molecular toxicology and a master's degree in
    environmental health management. I currently direct the
    Massachusetts Mercury Reduction Program; was a founding member
    and currently co-chair the New England Governors and Eastern
    Canadian Premiers Mercury Task Force. I have also been the
    Massachusetts representative to the Quicksilver Caucus since
    its inception.
        As you have heard, mercury is a very important issue for
    the States. We have heard that there are 44 States that have
    fish consumption advisories in effect. Just to put that in
    perspective, that amounts to tens of thousands of water bodies
    across the country, impacting close to 13 million lake acres
    and 760,000 river miles. This is a really big problem for the
    States. Monitoring by the Centers for Disease Control also
    indicates that several hundred thousand newborns each year are
    being exposed to excessive amounts of mercury, primarily
    through their mothers' consumption of contaminated fish, fish
    that have unacceptably high levels of mercury.
        As the father of a son who loves to fish, and even likes to
    eat them on occasion, this is personally an important issue as
    well. It is really a sad state of affairs when we have to tell
    our children that the fish they just caught is not safe to eat
    because it is contaminated with mercury, which is something I
    just had to do last week. We actually did catch a few fish on a
    trip we were on. It doesn't happen frequently, but sometimes it
    does.
        Because of the extent and seriousness of the problem, over
    22 States are developing or implementing State-specific action
    plans to address mercury. Overall, these efforts have been very
    successful. For example, in my State, and as we have heard, in
    the State of Maine, mercury reductions in the order of 70 to 80
    percent have occurred over the past decade or so, as we have
    been implementing State and regional action plans to address
    mercury. Similar reductions are happening in many other States
    across the country.
        Of significance to this hearing, mercury product
    legislation is being adopted in many States, which is reducing
    the demand for mercury, elemental mercury, by reducing
    unnecessary uses and phasing them out. At the same time, State
    recycling programs designed to reduce releases of mercury from
    end-of-life products and to prevent costly spills of mercury
    are also increasing, resulting in increasing supplies of
    commodity mercury here in the United States.
        Because global sources have been found to contribute
    significantly to mercury deposition in our States and because
    many States have these programs to recycle mercury, ECOS and
    the Quicksilver Caucus have had a longstanding interest in the
    management of commodity mercury. To minimize the potential for
    mercury releases on the global scale, ECOS, beginning in 1996,
    has consistently called for the cessation of sales of U.S.
    mercury stockpiles and urged those to be permanently stored;
    has urged nations to end subsidies to mercury mining; and urged
    U.S. EPA to develop a retirement option for the long-term
    sequestration of excess mercury. Most recently, the Quicksilver
    Caucus developed 14 principles that articulate the views of
    ECOS, the National Governors Association, and the Quicksilver
    Caucus regarding the use and management of elemental mercury in
    an environmentally sound manner. These principles include
    provisions designed to reduce unnecessary uses of mercury,
    restrict mercury exports, and safely store excess mercury.
        Of most relevance to today's discussion, the principles
    specifically call for a prohibition on the export of elemental
    mercury to developing countries where the resulting uses can
    result in unsafe exposures, and also call on the U.S. to cease
    the export of elemental mercury except for a very limited
    number of essential uses where it can be demonstrated that the
    receiving country does not have sufficient domestic sources of
    its own secondary mercury. The QSC principles would allow for
    potential exemptions from the suggested export restrictions for
    essential uses under a quite limited set of circumstances.
        It is our position that decisions on these issues should be
    made by knowledgeable experts using an appropriate and
    transparent Federal process. The creation of a national
    committee as called for in the Quicksilver Caucus principles
    is, I think, the ideal and logical place for decisions to be
    made as to whether a particular use is essential and whether an
    exemption should be allowed.
        To conclude, I would again like to thank the committee for
    this opportunity to speak on this issue, and I am available to
    answer any questions that you may have.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

                            Testimony C. Mark Smith

         Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, for
    providing the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) the
    opportunity to present testimony on the States Perspectives on
    Managing Commodity Grade Elemental Mercury. My name is C. Mark
    Smith and I am testifying on behalf of Arleen O'Donnell, the
    Acting Commissioner for Massachusetts Department of
    Environmental Protection and the Chair of the ECOS Cross-media
    Committee. I have been involved in mercury policy and research
    for over 15 years and have been the Massachusetts
    representative to the Quicksilver Caucus since its inception.
    Currently I direct my agency's multimedia mercury program and
    Co-chair the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian
    Premiers Regional Mercury Task Force.
         The Environmental Council of States is the national non-
    partisan, non-profit association of the leaders of state
    environmental agencies. Our members are the officials who
    manage and direct the environmental agencies in the States and
    territories. They are the state leaders responsible for making
    certain our Nation's air, water and natural resources are
    clean, safe and protected.
        Today I am here representing not only my own state, but
    also as a voice for all the environmental agencies in the
    states belonging to our organization and to the Quicksilver
    Caucus.
         The Quicksilver Caucus, formed in May 2001 by a coalition
    of State environmental association leaders to collaboratively
    develop holistic approaches for reducing mercury in the
    environment. Caucus members who share mercury-related technical
    and policy information include the Environmental Council of the
    States (ECOS), the Association of State and Territorial Solid
    Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO), the National Association
    of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA), the Association of State and
    Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA),
    the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA)
    and the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable (NPPR). The
    Quicksilver Caucus' long-term goal is that State, Federal, and
    International actions effectively address mercury pollution.
         Mercury is a public health and environmental health
    problem across the country and the globe. Environmental
    monitoring over the past two decades has demonstrated that
    mercury levels in fish from states across the United States are
    too high. As a result, as of 2004, 44 States had fish
    consumption advisories in effect because of mercury, affecting
    over 13 million lake acres and 767,000 river miles. National
    advisories for saltwater fish, such as shark, tuna and
    swordfish, are also in effect.
        Mercury is such a concern because it is a potent brain
    toxin that adversely affects children and wildlife. Once
    released into the environment mercury persists and does not
    break down into harmless components like many other pollutants.
    It also bio-accumulates, or concentrates, into fish which, when
    eaten, are the major pathway for human exposures to this toxin.
    Although mercury is a natural element, due to human activities,
    the level of this toxin in the environment is much higher today
    than it was 150 years ago--for example mercury levels in
    sediments from many New England and Minnesota lakes were found
    to range from 150 percent - 800 percent higher now compared to
    pre-industrial times.
         The brain and developing neurological system of the fetus
    and children are particularly sensitive to mercury and can be
    damaged by fairly low levels of exposure. Of particular concern
    is the fact that children can be exposed to toxic amounts of
    this pollutant before birth because mercury in a mothers' diet
    crosses the placenta and enters the fetus. Based on data from
    the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, which has measured
    mercury levels in the blood of women across the country,
    several hundred thousand newborns each year are at risk of
    mercury toxicity in the U.S. because of their mother's exposure
    to mercury. Based on this data over 8,000 newborns are at risk
    each year in my state alone.
         Because of its chemical properties mercury pollution knows
    no borders as it can be transported long distances in the
    atmosphere, creating trans-boundary issues that are regional,
    national and global in scope. Mercury is also a multimedia
    pollutant that can readily transfer between air, water and
    soils. Effectively reducing mercury levels in our state
    environments therefore requires effective multimedia programs
    at the regional, national and international level.Because the
    states are being impacted so significantly by mercury pollution
    and deposition, reducing sources of mercury releases at the
    national and international levels is a priority for us.
         To minimize the potential for mercury releases, ECOS and
    the Quicksilver Caucus have had a long-standing interest in the
    management of commodity mercury. ECOS, beginning in September
    1996, has consistently stated its opposition to future U.S.
    mercury stockpile sales and called for a permanent halt to any
    such sales; called on the United States Department of Defense,
    the United States Department of Energy, and the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency to research and evaluate long
    term management, retirement and substitution options in
    cooperation with interested parties; urged all nations to end
    subsidies to mercury mining and sales; and urged USEPA to
    develop retirement options for mercury so that waste generators
    and waste treatment facilities may choose recycling or
    retirement.
         In addition many states have adopted mercury products
    legislation to reduce mercury use and increase the recycling of
    mercury from remaining uses. Numerous states are also
    implementing extensive mercury collection and recycling
    programs, which are contributing to the excess U.S. supply of
    commodity elemental mercury. Exports of mercury concern the
    states because poorly regulated uses in other countries can
    result in direct exposures to their citizens and contribute
    significantly to overall global mercury releases to the
    environment and resulting impacts on our states.
         The Quicksilver Caucus recently developed 14 principles
    that encompass the environmental position on elemental
    commodity mercury of the Environmental Council of States, the
    National Governor's Association and state associations
    representing air, water, waste, and pollution prevention. These
    principles articulate states perspectives for the development
    of comprehensive and effective management of elemental mercury
    in an environmentally secure manner at the local, state,
    national, and international level.
         These principles are presented in their entirety below and
    include a number of provisions to: reduce the unnecessary use
    of mercury (principles Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 11); restrict mercury
    export (principles Nos.6, 8 and 9); and safely store excess
    mercury (principles Nos. 6 and 10). The principles specifically
    call for a prohibition on the export of elemental mercury to
    developing countries where the resulting uses can result in
    unsafe exposures. The principles also call on the U.S. to cease
    the export of elemental mercury, except for a limited number of
    essential uses where it can be demonstrated that the receiving
    country does not have sufficient domestic sources of its own
    secondary mercury. The QSC could only identify a small number
    of essential uses, including fluorescent lighting, some dental
    amalgam applications and, potentially, a select few scientific
    pieces of equipment. These are noted in principle No. 3.
    Although other essential uses were not precluded, the QSC
    believes that these, if they exist, are likely to be very few
    in number and will likely decrease in the future as mercury-
    free alternatives are developed. The QSC principles would allow
    for limited exemptions from the suggested export restrictions
    for such essential uses provided they meet the other criteria
    stipulated in principle No. 8. Decisions on these issues should
    be made by knowledgeable experts using an appropriate and
    transparent Federal process. The creation of a National
    Advisory Committee, as called for in principle No. 13 to
    develop recommendations for action, would provide a logical
    place for decisions to be made regarding the specific criteria
    and process to determine which mercury uses are essential and
    whether exemptions should be allowed in a particular situation.
        The complete set of principles state that:

         (1) The manufacture and sale of non-essential uses of
    mercury-added products should be phased out in the long-term.
    Several mercury-added products can be phased-out in the next
    three to five years including most uses of thermometers,
    manometers, thermostats, switches, relays and novelty items.
         (2) The best opportunities for achieving this goal will be
    to aggressively pursue multi-stakeholder partnerships, educate
    consumers and businesses and leverage Federal and state
    environmental laws and regulations to accelerate such a
    reduction.
         (3) Reuse of elemental mercury should only be utilized in
    processes or products deemed essential. Few essential uses
    remain, but include fluorescent and compact fluorescent lamps,
    some restorations with dental amalgam, and perhaps a select few
    scientific pieces of equipment. For those uses of mercury that
    continue, capture and recycling of mercury-containing products
    at the end of their useful life should be required.
          (a) The United National Environment Programme estimates
    that globally, use of mercury in lamps and dentistry represent
    less than 15 percent of total uses, or even as little as 9
    percent. Research should be conducted to determine whether
    there are any countries that do not have sufficient domestic
    sources of secondary (recycled) mercury for these purposes.
          (b) Federal and state governments should work with
    manufacturers to ensure adequate nationwide infrastructure
    exists for safe collection, storage and disposal of used
    mercury-containing lamps and other products through a product
    stewardship framework. This infrastructure should provide
    flexibility for States to maintain and to continue to develop,
    and implement their own strategies or regulatory programs.
          (c) Research should be supported to find safe
    alternatives to elemental mercury in those products deemed
    essential.
        (4) Research should also be conducted on the use and export
    of mercury compounds, including such mercury compounds as
    mercuric chloride and mercuric oxide, and in finding safe
    alternatives.
        (5) States and the Federal Government should continue to
    work with manufacturing sectors to address current and legacy
    uses of mercury in the manufacturing process (e.g., working
    with the chlor-alkali manufacturers to identify alternatives to
    mercury cell technology and where feasible, phasing out the use
    of the ``mercury cell'' manufacturing process).
        (6) Following the collection and recycling (retorting) of
    used mercury-containing products, the mercury should be
    sequestered and safely stored within the United States.
        (7) The United States should support mechanisms to better
    track international trade of mercury, mercury compounds, and
    mercury-containing products.
        (8) The United States should be a leader in proper use and
    management of elemental mercury by not exporting any mercury-
    containing products to other countries unless it is related to
    an essential use. Exporting surplus elemental mercury to
    developing countries where it can result in unsafe exposure
    should be prohibited. Elemental mercury should only be exported
    to other countries for essential uses where it can be
    demonstrated that the country does not have sufficient domestic
    sources of secondary (recycled) mercury.
         (9) The United States should prohibit imports of elemental
    mercury and mercury-containing products, unless the import is
    for sequestration.
         (10) Until a safe disposal technique is developed,
    temporary storage of elemental mercury should be in a safe,
    secure, continuously monitored location. Industries that
    generate significant amounts of elemental mercury should be
    responsible for the storage of their own mercury until a long-
    term solution in the United States is identified and
    implemented. Additionally, long-term Federal research seeking
    ways to permanently and safely dispose of elemental mercury
    should be supported.
         (11) The United States should assist other countries in
    phasing out uses and applications of mercury and help them
    identify safe storage techniques to use for their mercury
    stockpiles until a long-term solution is identified and
    implemented.
        (12) The USEPA and states need to work together to track
    changes in the use of mercury-added products to measure the
    sources and amount of mercury that is collected. This needs to
    be correlated with (a) monitoring the releases of mercury to
    air, water, and land and (b) monitoring of fish tissue.
        (13) The Congress or the President should establish a
    National Advisory Committee to develop a comprehensive report
    that incorporates the principles set forth in this document and
    make recommendations for action by governments, industry,
    academia, and citizens and a time table for doing so.
         (14) The Federal Government should ensure that there is
    adequate funding to support the above mercury reduction
    activities at the Federal, state, and local community levels of
    government as appropriate.

         The QSC states hope that you consider using these
    principles as you develop the proposed legislation.
         In conclusion, the states urge that:

         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 significantly
    impacted by mercury pollution and has been very actively
    engaged in mercury reduction issues. In MA, over 50 percent of
    the water-bodies tested in the state have one or more species
    of fish with sufficiently high levels of mercury to warrant a
    consumption advisory and our state Department of Public Health
    warns pregnant women, children and nursing mothers to avoid
    consuming any native freshwater fish caught in the State
    (http://www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dph/environmental/exposure/
    fish--mercury--in--ma.pdf; http://db.state.ma.us/dph/
    fishadvisory/). In ``mercury hotspot'' areas like the northeast
    part of MA and southern New Hampshire, close to 100 percent of
    the tested water bodies have fish with elevated mercury levels
    (http://mass.gov/dep/images/fishmerc.doc). We have recently
    estimated that mercury deposition will need to be reduced by
    86-98 percent to achieve water quality objectives in relation
    to mercury levels in freshwater fish in the Northeast states.
    Such steep reductions cannot be achieved without significant
    reductions from national and international sources. In fact,
    mercury deposition modeling results from USEPA and other
    research groups indicate that a large fraction, ranging from
    about 60 percent to over 80 percent, of all mercury deposited
    in the U.S. comes from global sources. A ban on the export of
    U.S. elemental commodity mercury would be an important step
    that the U.S. could take to address the international sources
    of mercury emissions that impact waters of the U.S. Provisions
    can be added to the legislation to address unlikely but
    possible scenarios such as the need for essential uses of
    mercury that cannot be met without tapping U.S. mercury
    stockpiles.
         Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
                                  ----------

        Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much, Dr. Smith.
        We will now hear from Mr. Dungan.

        STATEMENT OF ARTHUR E. DUNGAN, PRESIDENT, THE CHLORINE
                 INSTITUTE, INCORPORATED, ARLINGTON, VA

        Mr. Dungan. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Shimkus, and members
    of the subcommittee, I am Art Dungan, president of the Chlorine
    Institute. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you
    concerning the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2007, and the
    advisability of establishing a Federal stockpile for mercury.
        In the United States, there are currently seven facilities
    that produce chlorine using the mercury cell process. All are
    members of the Chlorine Institute. Two of these facilities have
    announced their intention to close or to convert to another
    technology by the end of 2008. We believe the remaining plants
    can continue to operate until the end of their economic life in
    a manner that is fully protective of human health and the
    environment, and in compliance with all regulatory
    requirements.
        The Chlorine Institute and the chloralkali producers using
    the mercury cell technology have worked aggressively and
    voluntarily to reduce mercury use and releases to the
    environment, and have worked cooperatively with all agencies as
    they set regulatory standards limiting such releases.
         In 1996, the Chlorine Institute and the mercury cell
    producers voluntarily agreed to reduce mercury use by 50
    percent. As indicated in our ninth annual report to EPA, the
    overall reduction in annual mercury usage in the ninth year was
    94 percent.
        The Mercury Export Ban Act of 2007 has two main provisions.
    These are the prohibition on export of mercury, and the
    establishment of an excess mercury storage advisory committee.
    It is premature to establish a ban on mercury exports until the
    United States has a program established and in place for the
    permanent storage of mercury and coordinated with international
    groups to ensure that the reduced supply of mercury from
    countries such as the United States does not result in the
    expansion of existing or the opening of new primary mercury
    mines elsewhere in the world to meet the demand. If the goal of
    the mercury export ban is to reduce mercury use and indirectly
    mercury releases to the environment, a ban established before
    international action to reduce mercury use is implemented, will
    have the opposite effect.
        The Institute supports the establishment of an excess
    mercury storage advisory committee to address issues related to
    surplus mercury. The Institute was also asked to address the
    advisability of establishing a Federal stockpile for mercury.
    For more than 5 years, the Institute has publicly supported the
    establishment of such a Federal stockpile. The Department of
    Defense Logistics has safely stored mercury for more than 50
    years.
        Earlier this decade, the DLA undertook a very public
    process to examine how the long-term storage of its surplus
    mercury should be addressed. The conclusion was that mercury
    could continue to be safely stored for a long-term period by
    the DLA. The Institute does not believe that any viable
    alternative exists to the storage program being implemented by
    the DLA. The Chlorine Institute recognizes that is beyond the
    current mission of the DLA to manage the long-term storage of
    all surplus mercury generated in the United States. However,
    the Institute believes it would be sound public policy for the
    U.S. Government to manage all the surplus mercury in a safe and
    environmentally friendly way, as is being done by the DLA.
        In conclusion, the Institute is opposed to the prohibition
    on the export of mercury, because it is premature to establish
    such a ban until the United States has a program established
    and in place for the permanent storage of mercury. The
    Institute supports the establishment of an excess mercury
    storage advisory committee. The Institute supports the
    establishment of a Federal stockpile for mercury.
        I thank you again for the opportunity to appear before the
    committee and share the Chlorine Institute's views.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Dungan follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.062

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.063

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.064

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.065

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.066

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.067

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.068

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.069

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.070

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.071

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.072

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.073

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.074

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.075

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.076

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.077

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.078

        Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much, Mr. Dungan.
        At this time, Mr. Lawrence, we would love to hear from you.

      STATEMENT OF BRUCE LAWRENCE, PRESIDENT, BETHLEHEM APPARATUS
                 COMPANY, INCORPORATED, HELLERTOWN, PA

        Mr. Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    committee.
        In my opinion, it is not advisable to establish a Federal
    stockpile for mercury. The result would be that more mercury
    air emissions will occur by the removal of secondary mercury
    from the international market.
        The world consumes approximately 2,000 tons of mercury per
    year. Of this, roughly 50 percent or 1,000 tons is provided by
    virgin mercury mining. Reports indicate that virgin mercury
    mining will lose approximately 4 percent of their production to
    air emissions. That makes 40 tons of mercury pollution
    annually. Virgin mercury mining occurs in China and Kyrgyzstan.
    The markets in both China and Kyrgyzstan have shown that they
    will purchase secondary mercury to offset their mining
    production. If the United States were to encourage the sale of
    mercury from caustic soda plants and from the U.S. Government
    stockpiles, then the world would be relieved of the 40 tons of
    mercury pollution annually.
        An export ban on sales of commodity grade mercury will
    result in an increase in world atmospheric mercury pollution.
    The increase will be caused by the increase in virgin mercury
    mining. More troubling is the likelihood that the new mining
    that will occur will be from what is called artisanal mercury
    mining. This type of mining is much less efficient because of
    the small scale and crude equipment. Air emissions could be as
    much as 50 percent of production. An effect of an export ban of
    secondary mercury from the United States and from the European
    Union could result in an increase in global mercury pollution
    by 500 tons a year. Along with the current mercury mining
    pollution, the result of the legislation could be up to 540
    tons per year.
        The argument that the suspension of mercury sales will
    cause prices to increase and thereby cause less artisanal gold
    mining is not valid. As indicated by Mr. Ed Wyler, economist
    for Environmental Protection Agency, ``Demand for mercury by
    miners is insensitive to mercury price. HG cost is very small
    relative to value of recovered gold, approximately 0.1
    percent.'' Mr. Wyler's report, he indicated that it takes a
    pound of mercury to produce a pound of gold by artisanal
    miners. Today's world market price for mercury is about $8 per
    pound. Today's gold price of $650 per troy ounce is equal then
    to $9,477 per pound. Therefore, mercury cost is 0.08 percent.
    If the price of mercury were to increase to $100 per pound
    because of the removal of supplies from U.S. and Europe, then
    the mercury cost would become only 1 percent of the value of
    gold recovered. In my opinion, $100 per pound for mercury would
    be a sufficient incentive to create enough new artisanal
    mercury mines. These new mines would not only supply artisanal
    gold miners with the mercury they want, they will also produce
    much more atmospheric mercury pollution.
        I strongly recommend that H.R. 1534 not be passed. In
    addition, I strongly encourage the resumption of sales of
    mercury from Federal stockpiles. Passage of H.R. 1534 could
    result in 540 tons of mercury pollution per year. Non-passage
    of H.R. 1534 with the resumption of sales of stockpiles could
    result in the elimination of 40 tons of mercury pollution per
    year.
        Thank you. That concludes my statement.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lawrence follows:]

                          Testimony of Bruce Lawrence

        It is not advisable to establish a Federal stockpile for
    mercury. The result would be that more mercury air emissions
    will occur by the removal of secondary mercury from the
    international market.
        The world consumes approximately 2,000 tons of mercury per
    year. Of this, roughly 50 percent or 1,000 tons is provided by
    virgin mercury mining. Reports indicate that virgin mercury
    mining will lose approximately 4 percent of their production to
    air emissions. That makes 40 tons of mercury pollution
    annually. Virgin mercury mining occurs in China and in
    Kyrgyzstan. \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        1 Revich, Boris (1994): ``Mercury Levels in the Atmospheric Air of
    Some of the Former USSR Cities and in Human Blood, Hair and Urine''
    published from the: International Conference on Mercury as a Global
    Pollutant. Whistler, British Columbia, Canada, July 10-14, 1994. Note:
    Mr. Revich indicates that the Khaidarkansky mine in Kirghizia emits 21
    tons of mercury per year. With an average production of 500 tons per
    year the 21 tons represents 4.2 percent.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The markets in both China and Kyrgyzstan have shown that
    they will purchase secondary mercury to offset their mining
    production. If the United States were to encourage the sale of
    mercury from caustic soda plants and from the U.S. government
    stockpiles, then the world would be relieved of the 40 tons of
    mercury pollution annually.
        An export ban on sales of commodity-grade mercury will
    result in an increase in world atmospheric mercury pollution.
    The increase will be caused by the increase in virgin mercury
    mining. More troubling is the likelihood that the new mining
    that will occur will be from what is called artisanal mercury
    mining. This type of mining is much less efficient because of
    the small scale and crude equipment. Air emissions could be as
    much as 50 percent of production. The net effect of an export
    ban of secondary mercury from the United States and the
    European Union could result in an increase in global mercury
    pollution by 500 tons per year. Along with the current mercury
    mining pollution, the result of this legislation could be up to
    540 tons per year of mercury atmospheric pollution
        The argument that the suspension of mercury sales will
    cause prices to increase and thereby cause less artisanal gold
    mining is not valid. As indicated by Mr. Edward Weiler,
    economist for the Environmental Protection Agency, ``Demand for
    mercury by miners is insensitive to mercury price;'' ``Hg cost
    is very small relative to value of recovered gold
    (approximately 0.1 percent).'' \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2 Weiler, E. (2002): ``Can the U.S. act alone on mercury?''
    presented at the US EPA-sponsored conference: Breaking the Mercury
    Cycle: Long-Term Management of Surplus Mercury & Mercury-Bearing Waste,
    Boston, Massachusetts, USA, May 1-3, 2002
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In Mr. Weiler's report, he indicated that it takes a pound
    of mercury to produce a pound of gold by artisanal miners.
    Today's world market price for mercury is about $8 per pound.
    Today's gold price of $650 per troy ounce is equivalent to
    $9,477 per pound. Therefore mercury cost is .08 percent. If the
    price of mercury were to increase to $100 per pound because of
    the removal of supplies for the U.S. and Europe, then the
    mercury cost would become only 1 percent of the value of gold
    recovered. In my opinion, $100 per pound mercury would be
    sufficient incentive to create enough new artisanal mercury
    mines. These new mines would not only supply artisanal gold
    miners with the mercury they want, they will also produce much
    more atmospheric mercury pollution.
        I strongly recommend that H.R. 1534 not be passed. In
    addition, I strongly encourage the resumption of sales of
    mercury from the Federal stockpiles. Passage of H.R. 1534 could
    result in 540 tons of mercury pollution per year. Non-passage
    of H.R. 1534 with the resumption of sales from stockpiles could
    result in the elimination of 40 tons of mercury pollution per
    year.
                                  ----------

        Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much, Mr. Lawrence.
        I would like to thank all the panelists. At this time, I
    would like to ask a few questions.
        First of all, Dr. Shannon, thank you very much for coming
    down from Boston. I certainly appreciate your presence here,
    and also your testimony.
        I want to ask a fairly narrow question with respect to the
    endorsements of this bill, H.R. 1534, that were made by the
    American Medical Association and the American College of
    Preventative Medicine. My question is basically this. I am not
    sure whether you are in a position to endorse on behalf of the
    Association of Pediatrics, but would you say that your position
    is consistent with the endorsements that have been previously
    made by the American Medical Association and the American
    College of Preventative Medicine?
        Dr. Shannon. I would say that the Academy's view is
    absolutely consistent with the principles of this legislation,
    that is, whatever can be done to reduce the global burden of
    elemental mercury.
        Mr. Wynn. Thank you.
        Dr. Greer, the EPA says that--and we have heard this
    testimony today--the administration's position is that we have
    to rely on demand management strategies. A couple of questions
    that are somewhat related. Do you think that just reducing
    demand and not addressing supply will solve the problem is the
    first question.
        The second question, are these mutually exclusive
    strategies?
        Ms. Greer. Actually, when people have taken a hard look at
    this they have concluded that the only real way to solve this
    problem is by ratcheting down supply and demand in a logical
    kind of hinged fashion. If you only reduce demand, then you get
    all this excess supply, the price gets lower and lower, and you
    sort of invite more and more uses. If you reduce supply and you
    don't reduce demand, then you get the problem that the
    gentleman from Bethlehem Apparatus was mentioning, that you
    might spark additional mining of mercury.
        So what needs to happen is a coordinated reduction of
    supply and demand.
        The only other comment I would have on EPA's call to lower
    mercury demand is this. We are on a glide path down of demand
    here in the United States, so that is really not our highest
    priority anymore to get us down to zero. We have really done a
    very good job, and we will be down at the bottom sometime soon.
    Our higher priority should then be to take steps to reduce
    demand abroad, and you are hard-pressed to come up with demand
    reduction strategies for these uses abroad, such as artisanal
    mining, except by constraining supply and making the price go
    up.
        And so I really don't see a demand reduction strategy
    without a supply reduction strategy making any sense in the
    long run.
        Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much. Just a follow-up question.
    Do you agree with the findings of the November 2006 report of
    the United Nations Environment Program that stated various
    location-specific global mercury project, training programs,
    and assessments have demonstrated that when mercury is less
    available and/or more expensive, less mercury is consumed as
    miners switch to more efficient practices, sometimes
    eliminating mercury use entirely.
        Ms. Greer. Well, Representative Wynn, these are the
    experts. That is the agency that has put the experts in the
    field and those people have thrown themselves at this problem
    for more than a decade, and so I think we have to respect their
    expertise along with the technical assistance and training that
    they are trying to do, that they feel that the scale of this
    problem is such that they really need this additional boost
    from worldwide constraining of supply in order to make a
    difference. I just think those are the people that have been in
    the field for more than a decade. We ought to take their
    conclusions seriously.
        Mr. Wynn. Thank you.
        Dr. Smith, I believe you indicated that 60 to 80 percent of
    all the mercury deposited in the U.S. comes from global
    sources. Can you amplify on the need to stop U.S. mercury
    exports and how poorly regulated uses overseas come back to
    impact the resources and public health concerns that we have?
        Mr. Smith. There have been a number of deposition modeling
    studies that have concluded that a substantial fraction of the
    mercury depositing in the U.S. and our States is coming from
    global sources. That may range from 50 to as high as 80, 85
    percent, so it is a very significant fraction.
        With respect to the export of mercury here, we do know that
    the distributive uses for artisanal gold mining and other
    unnecessary uses in third world countries, for example, mercury
    containing jewelry that can still be bought in Mexico provides
    an example of that. It is definitely contributing to releases
    of environmental mercury, which will enter the global
    circulation and impact the United States.
        Mr. Wynn. Thank you.
        Mr. Dungan, a couple of quick questions. I think the
    earliest part of your testimony basically established the fact
    that there are alternatives to mercury use, which is why there
    is such a decline in the United States. Is that correct?
        Mr. Dungan. There are alternatives, yes.
        Mr. Wynn. OK, all right. And second, I think you said
    basically you would support a stockpile, so you are not so much
    concerned about the new virgin mines. You seem to be saying--
    and I don't want to put words in your mouth--but you seem to be
    saying if there is a U.S. stockpile, you are fine with banning
    exports. Is that----
        Mr. Dungan. Well, you may put it that way, but our concern
    is that this bill, as it exists now, really puts the cart ahead
    of the horse. All you have done is ban exports but there is no
    policy that the bill sets to handle surplus mercury. So we are
    concerned about that.
        But let me also go back to the first question. Each
    facility has to look at what its long-term options are, and to
    say that there are alternatives available is one issue. The
    other issue, does this alternative make sense for this
    facility?
        Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much. I believe my time has
    expired.
        I will turn to the ranking member, Mr. Shimkus, for
    questions.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I take my
    questions, I just want to welcome Paul Gillmor here, a former
    chairman of the subcommittee for 6 years. He is on a week
    leave--not leave of absence, but he has joined us for this
    week, and he shows his commitment because he is even here at
    this hearing. Thank you.
        Quick question, I only have a short couple minutes. Good or
    bad, Dr. Greer?
        Ms. Greer. Good. Want to know why, or do you want to keep
    going?
        Mr. Shimkus. No, no, good or--if broken?
        Ms. Greer. If broken, it is a very miniscule amount of
    mercury. I think----
        Mr. Shimkus. So it is OK then?
        Ms. Greer. It is OK.
        Mr. Shimkus. All right, good.
        Dr. Shannon?
        Dr. Shannon. I would agree that if broken, the vapor would
    dissipate quickly and not produce a significant health----
        Mr. Shimkus. Dr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. Yes, good, but if you break millions and
    millions and millions of them, it would add up to quite a bit
    of mercury.
        Mr. Shimkus. And it goes up in the atmosphere and into the
    fish?
        Mr. Smith. And ultimately into the fish.
        Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Dungan.
        Mr. Dungan. I really am not qualified to answer that.
        Mr. Shimkus. All right, Mr. Lawrence?
        Mr. Lawrence. I will say good. The amount of mercury
    consumed by the lighting industry is a very, very small
    fraction----
        Mr. Shimkus. Let me keep going quickly then.
        This is labeled mercury. Good or bad? Just go down the
    line, good or bad, that this is labeled as having mercury in
    it?
        Ms. Greer. I think it is fine that it has a label.
        Mr. Shimkus. Good. Dr. Shannon?
        Dr. Shannon. Agree.
        Mr. Shimkus. Dr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. Agree and it is labeled because of State
    requirements and legislation that requires it to be.
        Mr. Shimkus. Not Federal?
        Mr. Smith. No.
        Mr. Shimkus. We debated that a couple----
        Mr. Dungan. I agree.
        Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Lawrence?
        Mr. Lawrence. I agree.
        Mr. Shimkus. Ad in today's Hill, exposing the benefits of
    fluorescent light bulbs, no labeling of mercury, good or bad?
    Dr. Greer.
        Ms. Greer. I really haven't worked on this issue, so I have
    to say----
        Mr. Shimkus. Is mercury good or bad?
        Ms. Greer. The need for a label, I think it is a good idea
    to have a label.
        Mr. Shimkus. All right. Dr. Shannon?
        Dr. Shannon. I don't think it was necessary to put the word
    ``mercury'' on that ad.
        Mr. Shimkus. Dr. Smith?
        Mr. Smith. Not in the ad, but it should be labeled if they
    are selling them in most of the New England States.
        Mr. Shimkus. And you all don't care.
        OK. Dr. Smith, on March 20, 2007, ECOS approved resolution
    No. 07-1 entitled ``Creating a Partnership for a National
    Vision for Mercury'' which I have right here. This resolution
    was very clear about not having the States preempted in their
    attempt to clarify and address mercury. Massachusetts and my
    State of Illinois have enacted strong legislation and
    implemented other programs to remove mercury from our schools.
    In view of ECOS's resolution and our States' efforts to protect
    public health against elemental mercury exposures, do you and
    ECOS support Federal preemption that compels schools and
    daycare centers to install mercury containing energy efficient
    lighting equipment, even if they do not want to do it, because
    of health risks from mercury?
        Mr. Smith. Well, as a general rule, the States really do
    not like Federal preemption on pretty much anything, so we
    would like to have the alternative of doing what is best in our
    individual circumstances.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
        Dr. Greer, should energy efficient lighting with mercury be
    compelled in schools and daycare centers to reduce electricity
    use if the school or daycare center does not want to use them
    out of public health and environmental concerns over exposures
    to released elemental mercury?
        Ms. Greer. Mr. Shimkus, I do appreciate how much you are
    concerned about the mercury in these bulbs, but I am here to
    tell you that if you are worried about mercury exposure in
    schools, you should worry about what is in their thermometers
    and what is in their chemistry labs.
        Mr. Shimkus. Well, you are right. That is the whole point,
    if you----
        Ms. Greer. Because if you are talking about--what we are
    talking about----
        Mr. Shimkus. Reclaiming my time. If we are talking about
    the problem of mercury, then we ought to be talking about the
    problem of mercury.
        Ms. Greer. I just think we ought to put our----
        Mr. Shimkus. It should be a comprehensive approach, and we
    are promoting thousands of increased light bulbs--and I am not
    saying I disapprove of them, but----
        Ms. Greer. But you are starting at the very smallest use of
    mercury that everybody----
        Mr. Shimkus. Do you know where these come from?
        Ms. Greer. China.
        Mr. Shimkus. Do you know who is mining it?
        Ms. Greer. China.
        Mr. Shimkus. What is the problem with mercury in the air,
    the mining operations that you just promoted? Zero Mercury in
    international organizations, are you part of that?
        Ms. Greer. I am part of that.
        Mr. Shimkus. And you know in this publication it says what
    to do about mercury in electronics equipment?
        Ms. Greer. Right.
        Mr. Shimkus. What does it say?
        Ms. Greer. But in this case----
        Mr. Shimkus. No, what does your organization say in this
    document?
        Ms. Greer. It is zero for electronic equipment, but it is--
    --
        Mr. Shimkus. It says no mercury in electronics. I mean, you
    are a member of this group.
        Ms. Greer. I am.
        Mr. Shimkus. So your testimony is contradictory. When you
    say it is not enough to cause any effect, but then
    internationally you say ban it from all electronic equipment.
        Ms. Greer. Excuse me, I would like to set the record
    straight about my position. This is a big problem of 3,500 tons
    of mercury a year. Policies should start in the big places and
    not in the smallest places. It is my opinion that starting on
    this problem with compact fluorescent light bulbs is starting
    at the miniscule end of it----
        Mr. Shimkus. I am starting at China, and I yield back my
    time.
        Mr. Wynn. The Chair recognizes the bill's sponsor, Mr.
    Allen.
        Mr. Allen. Thank you.
        Dr. Greer, I too think we ought to begin with the major
    problems. I would just add to this debate with the comment that
    compact fluorescent light bulbs, among other things, are
    intended to reduce the demand for new coal-fired power plants,
    which do emit mercury and which is a significant source of
    mercury here.
        But I want to come back to your testimony. Your written
    testimony, and really, pages 15 through 19. When Mr. Gulliford
    was testifying in the first panel, he talked a lot about the
    fear he had that an export ban on mercury would essentially
    lead to increased mining. It seems to me in those four pages,
    you make a very compelling case that it would not do that, and
    I would like to ask you to address that issue directly.
        Ms. Greer. Let me just summarize what I said in that
    written testimony.
        There were two reasons that we don't think that this is at
    all likely. The first is that most places can't mine mercury in
    the world. The largest mine in the world in Spain has been
    intentionally shuttered because the European Union has been
    constraining supply. The mines in Algeria were closed. They had
    technical problems for years and are not expected to reopen.
    This really is leaving only the Kyrgyzstan mine as a mine that
    is in operation for export, and that mine is suffering from
    problems itself. It has not been able to produce more than 500
    tons a year, and according to the World Bank, its deposits
    really aren't very rich.
        This leaves, of course, China, but as we already said,
    China is mining a tremendous amount of mercury but not for
    export. They use it all for their own purposes.
        And so when you look at what is really available through
    more mining, there are just not very many places in the world
    to imagine that this could really happen.
        And then the second reason I put in my testimony is because
    UNEP has just done a very extensive analysis of global demand,
    and they predict that between now and 2015, global demand is
    going to go down. And so as a matter of a financial investment
    by a company or a country, it doesn't seem like a very
    attractive investment to undergo the expense of opening up a
    new mine in the case that global demand is slowly going down.
        Mr. Allen. Two other points. Mr. Gulliford was not aware of
    any steps by Kyrgyzstan, but you mentioned in your testimony
    that at an October 2006 European Commission Mercury meeting in
    Brussels, the head of the mine asked the international
    community for assistance in transitioning through other
    economic activities in the region.
        Ms. Greer. That is right. And NRDC was at that meeting.
    Kyrgyzstan was invited because they are so important to global
    supply of mercury, and what we learned at that meeting is that
    the mine is subsidized by the government. It is not a profit
    making institution. The government would like very much to find
    alternative employment opportunities for people in that mine
    and convert that area to non-mercury mining because it is not a
    very profitable operation for them anyway. They were seeking
    international assistance for development that would enable them
    to close that mine.
        Mr. Allen. And finally, could you speak to the current
    activities in the European Union to ban the export of mercury
    from those countries?
        Ms. Greer. Yes, and in fact, I have a small news
    announcement to make on that. As some of you know, the European
    Union has also been contemplating an export ban, and they
    export much more mercury than the United States. Combined, if
    the European Union and the United States did an export ban, we
    would take a very nice bite out of the global supply of
    mercury. The EU is about a year and a half ahead of us in terms
    of their deliberation, and just on Tuesday their Parliament
    passed the mercury export ban, which will go into effect in
    2010. Now they have the functional equivalent of a conference
    between the Council of Ministers and the Parliament, but that
    should be completed by the fall. There are not big differences
    between the Parliament bill and the Council of Ministers bill,
    and so as you gentlemen can imagine, it won't take too long, I
    think, for them to pass this in the fall.
        Mr. Allen. Thank you.
        Finally, Mr. Smith, I have a quick question. Taking your
    position as you support a ban on the export of mercury,
    providing there is narrowly tailored exemptions for what you
    refer to as essential uses, and I am always concerned when you
    start writing exemptions for essential uses or phrases like
    that, they can be big enough to drive a pretty big truck
    through. So I wondered if you could expand on that. Do you mean
    anything more than dental amalgam and compact fluorescent light
    bulbs, or do you have any thoughts on how we would make that
    point?
        Mr. Smith. Yes, the Quicksilver Caucus group that pulled
    together those principles, when thinking about essential uses,
    could really only come up with the three that are listed,
    dental amalgam uses, uses in fluorescent lamps, and some uses
    for medical equipment where we don't have options that are
    readily available. Those are the ones we could come up with. We
    really couldn't preclude that there may be other ones that are
    out there. We did not have the time to invest a serious
    research effort into it. Because there may be others, we wanted
    to leave that as an option to have exemptions for those
    essential uses that might be identified by a professional
    committee at some future date.
        Mr. Allen. Great, thank you.
        Mr. Wynn. I thank the gentleman.
        At this time, the Chair would recognize the former chairman
    of this subcommittee, Mr. Gillmor, for questions.
        Mr. Gillmor. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is good
    to be back, even if it is for a temporary period.
        Let me ask Mr. Dungan, and you proposed a central storage
    facility. We have had some experience with nuclear waste with a
    proposal with this Yucca Mountain. That has not been
    successful. It is not being done. We have nuclear waste stored
    at about 100 locations around the country. Why do you think we
    will be any more successful, and you might want to jump in on
    this also, Mr. Lawrence, why do you think we would be any more
    successful with this than we have been with Yucca Mountain?
        Mr. Dungan. Well, mercury waste, in my opinion, is not
    nuclear waste. The Federal Government does have a successful
    history of safely storing mercury for 50, 60 years. The concern
    is if private industry were to store this mercury, under
    current U.S. regulations we don't have the authority to do it.
    If you impose an export ban, at some point, there is no market
    for mercury. It no longer becomes a commodity, and then how is
    it handled? Is it handled as waste, and how is this controlled,
    and what are these long-term issues? This mercury is going to
    be around, not just for 40 years as proposed in the bill, but
    forever, and someone has to be able to manage it forever. We
    don't think that there is a private organization that can do
    that.
        Mr. Gillmor. Let me ask you, if the U.S. and the EU ban
    mercury exports and China does not--I mean, frankly, I think we
    know what China's record has been on global warming. They are
    going to be the largest carbon emitter on the planet. They have
    no interest exhibited so far of trying to limit that. We are
    getting food from them that has been poisoned and they don't
    care much about examining that.
        But I guess my question is if the U.S. and EU ban it and
    China does not, what will be the result in terms of total
    mercury in the planet under that----
        Mr. Dungan. Well, I have a hard time believing that China
    will not supply all its mercury needs, whether that be by
    importing mercury or starting new mines. I think they will. And
    while most uses of mercury are declining, mercury use for
    catalysts in chemical plants in China and artisanal mining
    throughout the world are increasing, and as Mr. Lawrence
    pointed out, the economics would appear to indicate that there
    might be an incentive for new mines to be started up. I am not
    saying they will, but I think this is a clear issue that needs
    to be addressed before we impose any kind of export ban.
        Mr. Gillmor. Thank you. Let me ask you another question on
    that. Forty years, do you think that is a relevant and a
    necessary timeline? I mean, mercury is basically eternal.
    Nuclear fuel is not. It does have a finite time, so is 40 years
    a realistic timeframe?
        Mr. Dungan. In my opinion, no. I think in a zillion years
    that nuclear waste may be harmless, and mercury will still be
    there in its current form. I believe that any facility, while
    you might look at a 40-year economic horizon, it ought to be
    designed that you expect that facility be there forever.
        Mr. Gillmor. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Wynn. Thank the gentleman.
        At this time the Chair would recognize Mrs. Capps. I am
    sorry, Ms. Schakowsky.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Smith, while States I understand--and Illinois would
    have an interest in this as well--are not interested in
    preemption, how would you feel about Federal legislation that
    at least lets the States go beyond the level of the Federal
    Government, would it meet national standards?
        Mr. Smith. I think the States would probably be comfortable
    with that, and with respect to the mercury world, there are
    numerous States, including Illinois and my State,
    Massachusetts, and many, many others that are already exceeding
    EPA Federal requirements with respect to pollution controls and
    pollution prevention activities, so that is certainly
    consistent with what we are already doing.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Dr. Greer, a lot has been made of the
    storage issue, and yet, I am looking at your testimony that
    says as a technical matter, it is quite easy to store mercury.
    I wondered if you wanted to respond to this notion, both about
    what an incredible problem it seems to be presented as, and if
    you could talk about that.
        Ms. Greer. Well, in my capacity at NRDC, I work on a lot of
    different toxic chemicals, and I am here to tell you that
    mercury is a dream chemical for storage compared to most of the
    other chemicals that are toxic that are out there. It is not
    reactive, it is not explosive, if you keep it below 70 degrees
    it doesn't volatilize, and so it really is a very simple matter
    to store it in flasks as is going on, or in stainless steel
    tanks in a monitored warehouse. If all the toxic chemicals I
    worked on were this easy to store, we wouldn't have the sort of
    Superfund problems that we have and we wouldn't have the
    controversies that we have about storage piles for other
    hazardous materials.
        Ms. Schakowsky. So would you say that this notion that we
    have to solve the storage problem before we address this export
    issue is necessary? You would disagree with that?
        Ms. Greer. Well, I don't think there is--and probably Mr.
    Dungan agrees, there isn't really a technical problem about
    storage. What he is referring to is we need to decide where we
    want to put it and what happens with the legal liability and
    other issues.
        I think the bill does this by setting up the FACA committee
    and by asking for a recommendation to Congress well in advance
    of when the ban actually goes into effect. So from my
    perspective, that concern is addressed and we do intentionally
    have in the bill something that lines up a storage solution
    before it goes into effect.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
        I am fascinated with your testimony, Mr. Lawrence, because
    it is so precise. You talk about how the net effect of an
    export ban could result in global mercury pollution by 500 tons
    per year. The result of this legislation would be up to 540
    tons per year, and you go on to talk about how much--``Non-
    passage could result in the elimination of 40 tons of mercury
    pollution per year.'' I would be very interested in seeing what
    all your assumptions are and how you arrived at this
    calculation of the 540 tons more and the 40 tons less. And if
    you could just submit that, I would really--if you want to make
    a comment?
        Mr. Lawrence. Well, the only thing that I haven't put in
    what I have submitted already is that the 500 tons is my
    estimate, that there is 500 tons of mercury used in artisanal
    mining, so because of the one-to-one relationship with the
    mercury and gold. So that if we take away the supply sources of
    the artisanal miners, then it is going to be produced someplace
    else, and that----
        Ms. Schakowsky. So you discount the historical experience,
    really, that Dr. Greer referred to that actually decreasing
    mercury availability has not, in fact, created more. Actually
    there has been less. Am I saying that correctly, that some of
    these operations have actually shut down and we haven't seen an
    expansion of mercury mining? Let me just make sure I have got
    that right.
        Ms. Greer. Yes, we might be getting confused between mining
    for gold, artisanal mining for gold and mercury mines, could
    you rephrase the question?
        Ms. Schakowsky. Well, I am trying to understand if the
    basis for deciding that this bill will result in 540 tons of
    mercury pollution and that resumption of sales from stockpiles
    would result in the elimination of 40 tons of mercury
    pollution. I don't know if what you had said relates to this
    calculation, but I mean, that is pretty precise.
        Mr. Lawrence. I took 4 percent of 1,000 tons of virgin
    mining that I mentioned in here. If we were selling 1,000 tons
    from the stockpile, it could displace that 1,000 tons of virgin
    mercury mining.
        Ms. Greer. To weigh these two things, if we were to open
    new mines and we had 40 new tons of mercury pollution out of
    that, that would--setting everything else aside that would be
    worse than using recycled mercury. But what we are really
    comparing is that having an over-supply of mercury in commerce
    and meeting all of those demands, which is 3,500 tons of
    mercury a year.
        So for the speculative outcome that we might cause more
    mining that might cause 40 additional tons of releases, against
    an already existing 3,500 ton demand and consumption every year
    that we are trying to address. And the way to do that is to
    ratchet down supply and demand.
        Mr. Wynn. The gentlelady's time is expired.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
        Mr. Wynn. We have got a vote on. I am going to turn it to
    Mrs. Capps for questions, and I think we will be able to
    conclude the hearing prior to voting.
        Mrs. Capps. Thank you very much.
        I want to address my questions, or at least some of them,
    to Dr. Shannon. Can you help us understand the mercury-related
    symptoms in illnesses that were observed in the small-scale
    gold mining communities discussed in the UN's Global Mercury
    Project?
        Dr. Shannon. Well, I will answer in this way and I hope I
    answer your question. First, the effects of elemental mercury
    exposure are actually quite subtle until the exposure is
    severe, truly at an extreme, and at that point, the primary
    effects are neurologic. That is generally what you will see in
    children, and as I mentioned in my testimony, it can vary from
    very subtle neurobehavioral difficulty concentrating types of
    symptoms to the more severe seizures or life-threatening
    neurologic events.
        Mrs. Capps. You are implying that it isn't readily detected
    perhaps at first, that the intoxication is the end of it?
        Dr. Shannon. That is exactly right. So the point I am
    hoping to make is that at the point that you are seeing
    symptoms in children or adults, their exposure is severe. They
    have an enormous mercury burden.
        Mrs. Capps. Let me ask you then, what will happen and does
    happen to the mothers and children who have been working in
    these gold fields and handling the mercury?
        Dr. Shannon. We believe that most, if not all, of the
    neurologic consequences of elemental mercury exposure are
    permanent. Almost as certainly, some of it as it is eliminated
    from the body, there would be some improvement but there is, we
    believe, no hope of returning to baseline function.
        Mrs. Capps. Finally, if mercury exports from the U.S. are
    banned by 2010, what type of health impact would that have on
    these small-scale mining towns, and do you think H.R. 1534
    would have a positive step in reducing harm from mercury in the
    environment, not only in these countries, but would it even be
    important here in the U.S.?
        Dr. Shannon. Again, let me try to answer your question in
    the following way. Anything that we can do to reduce human
    exposure to elemental mercury will result in vastly improved
    health, vastly improved health outcomes, and in the case of
    children, I am just thinking about the developing brain and
    being able to reduce, if not eliminate, exposure of this toxic
    metal to their developing brain will have a great positive
    impact on health.
        Mrs. Capps. Dr. Greer, you might want to add something. I
    have a little more time and I know we are pressing it with
    votes. If I am allowed, I would ask you to follow on with that,
    if you care to?
        Ms. Greer. I don't have too much to add to that, except to
    strongly agree that we know that the damage that mercury causes
    is permanent, particularly to the developing infant, and it is
    for that reason that it is such a high priority for NRDC, for
    the Zero Mercury Group, and other international groups to
    eliminate large sources of mercury exposure.
        Mrs. Capps. And it would be in the gold mining communities
    that were described in the project, but in this country as
    well?
        Ms. Greer. In this country as well. Wherever there are
    large exposures to mercury.
        Mrs. Capps. That is the end of my questioning. Thank you.
        Mr. Wynn. I thank the lady for her questions. I want to
    thank all the witnesses for coming here today and thank you for
    your testimony.
        I believe this concludes our questions. I want to remind
    members that they may submit additional questions for the
    record to be answered by relevant witnesses, the questions
    should be submitted to the committee clerk in electronic form
    within the next 10 days. The clerk will notify your offices of
    the procedures. I want to thank all the staff for helping us
    this morning.
        Without objection, the subcommittee hearing is now
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.222

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.223

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.224

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.225

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.079

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.080

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.081

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.082

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.083

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.084

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.094

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.095

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.096

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.097

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.098

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.099

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.100

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.101

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.102

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.103

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.104

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.105

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.106

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.107

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.108

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.109

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.110

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.111

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.112

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.113

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.114

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.115

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.116

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.117

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.118

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.119

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.120

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.121

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.085

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.086

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.087

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.088

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.089

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.090

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.091

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.092

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.093

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.128

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.129

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.130

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.131

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.132

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.133

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.134

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.135

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.136

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.137

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.138

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.139

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.140

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.141

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.142

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.143

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.144

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.145

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.146

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.147

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.148

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.149

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.150

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.151

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.152

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.153

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.154

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.155

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.156

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.157

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.158

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.159

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.160

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.161

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.162

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.163

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.164

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.165

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.166

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.167

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.168

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.169

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.170

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.171

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.172

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.173

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.174

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.175

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.176

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.177

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.178

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.179

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.180

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.181

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.182

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.226

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.227

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.228

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.229

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.230

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.231

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.232

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.233

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.234

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.235

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.236

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.237

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.238

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.239

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.240

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.241

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.183

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.184

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.185

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.186

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.187

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.188

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.189

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.190

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.191

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.192

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.193

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.194

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.195

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.196

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.197

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.198

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.199

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.200

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.201

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.202

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.203

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.204

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.205

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.206

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.207

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.208

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.209