Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 35 (Thursday, March 18, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 35 (Thursday, March 18, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H1284-H1310]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

THREAT FROM MERCURY EMISSIONS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) is recognized for
60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am here today with the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and later others of my colleagues to
tell a story. It is not the most pleasant story, but it is an important
story. It is a story of the threat from mercury emissions from coal-
fired power plants around the country to the health of the American
people, and it is a story of how the Clean Air Act requires that
mercury be regulated as a hazardous pollutant, but this administration
has chosen not to do that. In fact, this administration has submitted a
proposed mercury rule which in major respects was written by the
industries it is supposed to regulate. This story is an indication of
what needs to be done to change the direction of the environmental
policy of this administration.
Let me begin by talking about the Clean Water Act and the threat that
mercury emissions pose to people in this country.
Three decades ago, the Clean Water Act promised that America would
have water bodies that were fishable, that were swimmable and
drinkable. Clean water, that was the goal.
But today, all across this country there are warnings that
particularly women and children should not eat the fish from our lakes
and streams and rivers because those fish are contaminated with
mercury. Mercury pollution has contaminated 12 million acres of lakes,
estuaries, wetlands, 30 percent of the national total. Nearly every
State has issued warnings about eating mercury-contaminated fish.
Seventeen States have mercury warnings for every single inland body of
water, and 11 States have issued warnings for mercury in their coastal
areas.
This is an extremely serious health issue for people in this country.
In February 2004, a new EPA analysis found that about 630,000 children
are born in the United States each year with blood mercury levels
higher than 5.8 parts per billion, the level at which the risk of poor
brain development is doubled. The study found one in every six women of
child-bearing age has enough mercury in her bloodstream to threaten the
health of her child.
Where does this mercury come from? Well, it comes mostly from the
burning of coal in electric generating plants; and the mercury goes up
into the air, it travels great distances through the air, and then
comes down and it gets into the food chain in our bodies of water.
According to the National Research Council, effects from prenatal
exposure include mental retardation, cerebral palsy, deafness, and
blindness. Adult exposure can produce sensory and motor impairments
such as slurred speech, blurred vision, tremors, and memory loss.
Members may remember the expression ``mad as a hatter.'' Well, that
expression grew out of 19th century England because hatters then were
literally driven mad because there was a compound containing mercury
that they used in processing the felt that went into their hats.
Mercury can be extraordinarily dangerous in those kinds of concentrated
forms. Mercury also threatens our loons, our ducks, our mammals. Recent
evidence shows that exposure threatens reproductive success, liver
damage, kidney damage, and neuro-behavioral effects.
Like 41 million Americans, I love to go fishing, but it has changed
because fresh water fish in so many instances cannot be eaten without
risk of mercury contamination, and that is why our States have so many
warnings about the risks of mercury.
In Maine, my home State, we have about 26,000 people employed in the
fishing industry, and we have thousands and thousands of recreational
fishermen. Nationwide, recreational fishing generated more than $35.6
billion in expenditures in the year 2001 and $116 billion of total
economic output. It supported more than 1 million jobs.
Now, in December the Bush administration was faced with a court
requirement that it submit a proposed rule to regulate mercury
emissions from power plants. Unfortunately, the rule that they proposed
reinterprets the Clean Air Act, I believe, illegally in order to help
polluters. It dramatically delays by how soon and by how much plants
will have to clean up their act. Under the Clinton administration, EPA
concluded that mercury is a hazardous air pollutant that had to be
regulated under the strict section 112 entitled ``Hazardous air
pollutants.''
Section 112 requires that EPA issue a maximum achievable control
standard which would require every plant, here is one of the key
differences, it would require every plant to reduce mercury emissions
by 2007 to the maximum achievable level. Instead, the Bush
administration proposes to regulate mercury, a hazardous air pollutant
under section 111, ``Standards of performance for new stationery
permits,'' in order to allow the use of tradeable permits.
Senator George Mitchell of Maine and the gentleman from California
(Mr. Waxman), and all of the Members of this body who worked together
in 1990 to write the Clean Air Act amendments, I know intended for EPA
to regulate hazardous air pollutants under the section of the law
entitled ``Hazardous air pollutants.'' It is exactly that simple. But
the Bush administration proposal delays reductions. EPA agreed in court
to regulate mercury emissions by December 15, 2007. This proposal
delays any regulation until 2010 and full implementation to 2030. The
cap-and-trade system they propose requires only a 29 percent reduction
in 2010 and a 69 percent reduction by 2018.
So what we have is a weakening of the Clean Air Act in a way that I
believe is absolutely illegal. But the EPA has not come to this with
clean hands. Their own modeling shows that the 69 percent cut will not
be achieved until 2030 because the trading system encourages many power
plant owners to delay making improvements.
Here is a quote from Jeffrey Holmstead, the assistance environmental
protection administrator in charge of air. This is what he says today:
``What our models now show is we won't get there as soon as we expected
we would.'' That is what he told the New York Times on Sunday, but the
truth is the EPA knew very well

[[Page H1285]]

that their mercury proposal would take well beyond 2025.
The proposal is designed to mirror the President's Clear Skies
initiative. Clear Skies is a classic case of chutzpah, a triumph of
marketing over substance, if I have ever heard one.

{time} 1545

In July 2003, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps) and I wrote to President Bush asking him to
correct the claim made in the State of the Union address that his plan
would mandate a 70 percent cut in air pollution from power plants by
2018. It was not true. In fact, the underlying EPA modeling made it
clear that the reductions that the President proposed would not be
achieved until years after 2018. We simply asked the President to get
back to us and study by what date his proposal would actually reach
that 69 or 70 percent reduction. Jeffrey Holmstead responded to our
letter for the EPA and he wrote, ``The presence of banking will likely
result in some undercontrol for a short period of time after the
decline.'' If he knew that the goal was not going to be achieved, that
the proposal would result in undercontrol, how could he be surprised
today by the agency's predictions that 70 percent reductions would not
come true when they said they would?
These reductions are really embarrassing. I am going to go on shortly
to talk about some of the evidence out there that is absolutely
compelling that, in fact, we can clean up, in most cases, 90 percent of
the pollution from utilities burning coal with existing technology. We
can get very, very close to that standard in a relatively short period
of time.
What I would like to do is to stop my remarks for the moment, to
which I will come back, and thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie
Bernice Johnson) for being with me here today to discuss the Bush
administration's failure to come up with a reasonable proposal to
regulate mercury emissions from power plants.
I yield to the gentlewoman.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
opportunity to be here this afternoon and I thank my colleague from
Maine for being willing to come to the floor and talk about a very
serious issue.
I also applaud my colleagues for their hard work in bringing us
together this afternoon, I think there will be others, to talk about a
serious public health crisis that our country faces. That crisis is
caused by mercury pollution. It is not only a national problem, it is
also a very local one as well. The State of Texas leads the Nation in
mercury pollution. Mercury emission from power plants is the major
culprit. These plants dumped 8,968 pounds in 2001 alone. As a result,
the whole gulf coast region has been placed under a consumption
advisory. Our major fishing lakes are subject to such advisories.
Mr. Speaker, the citizens of Texas are urging us to take prompt and
effective action to clean up mercury pollution from power plants. The
Environmental Protection Agency's current proposals on mercury fall far
short of what the law requires. The agency's proposals fail to protect
the health of our children and our environment. This is especially true
for Texas, where mercury emissions would increase, not decrease, under
the proposed plan. We ask the EPA to carry out the requirements of the
Clean Air Act to protect our Nation from toxic mercury contamination.
We urge the agency to impose a 90 percent reduction in the mercury
leaching from coal-burning power plants.
Last year, EPA proposed two alternative rules to address mercury
emissions. Unfortunately, both of these proposals failed to meet clean
air directives under section 112(d) for cleaning up mercury. EPA's
proposals permit far more mercury pollution, and for years longer, than
the Clean Air Act allows. This is playing games with the health of our
Nation. Time and again scientists around the world have proven the
toxicity of mercury. The agency's own scientists just released a study
finding that approximately 630,000 infants, as my colleague said
earlier, that were born in the United States in the dawn of this
millennium had blood mercury levels higher than what is considered
safe. This is a doubling of previous estimates.
Mercury emissions have also contaminated 10 million acres of lakes
and 400,000 miles of streams. Soaring mercury levels have triggered
advisories warning America's 41 million recreational fishermen that the
fish they catch may not be safe to eat. Furthermore, evidence continues
to mount that mercury causes reproductive problems in wildfowl
populations such as loon and mallard ducks. Other fish-eating wildlife
populations are at risk as well.
Mr. Speaker, we can address this public health and environmental
problem if we just would do it. According to many States, industry
experts and past EPA analyses, the technology to dramatically clean up
these plants is available and affordable. I am concerned that EPA does
not fully analyze the range of controls recommended by State utility
and environmental and public health members of EPA's advisory group on
this rule. I do not know what is holding EPA hostage, but once again
they are failing to fulfill its reasonability to adopt standards that
protect the public health and environment.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to call on EPA to
develop appropriate mercury standards that reduce mercury emissions in
the shortest time possible to protect public health and the
environment. I thank my colleague for this opportunity to make a
statement on this issue.
Mr. ALLEN. I thank my friend from Texas and I appreciate her
willingness to engage in this issue and take a leadership role in
trying to protect our citizens from the effects of mercury pollution.
I want to go back to the issue that we always hear about whenever we
wind up talking about new kinds of environmental controls on a toxic
pollutant. Industry always says, ``It's too expensive, we can't do it''
every single time. But the reduction levels that are proposed by the
EPA are really embarrassing for our country. In February, the Southern
Company, one of the largest mercury emitters in the world, announced
that recently installed mercury control technologies at the Ernest
Gaston coal plant in Alabama are removing about 80 percent of the
mercury right now. Right now. They are very, very close to that 90
percent standard that would be the goal. The company's experts noted
that this would barely comply with some draft versions of a MACT
standard, a maximum achievable control technology standard, but they
are complying. They are there. Furthermore, EPA's own data shows that
most modern coal-fired power plants can and do achieve greater than 90
percent control of mercury and other toxic chemicals.
According to both industry and Department of Energy pilot tests and
testimony in front of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 90 percent
reductions in mercury emissions are feasible and economical today. We
are not suggesting they should be imposed today. There needs to be some
time. But this could all be done between now and 2007 or 2008 and be
completely feasible.
The data from EPA's interim report on the control of mercury from
coal-fired boilers demonstrates that power plants with fabric filters
and wet scrubbers are capturing over 90 percent of their mercury when
bituminous coal is burned. There are a number of technical ways in
which you can actually collect mercury. Carbon injection and a compact
hybrid particulate collector baghouse, so-called, is one way of
achieving the goal. Other industries like hospitals and city waste
incinerators have been required to meet that 90 percent standard for
over a decade.
In February of this year, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) and
I both wrote to the Bush administration asking that Maine people be
given the opportunity to comment on EPA's proposed mercury emissions
rules. There is a reason why those of us in Maine are particularly
concerned about it. There is four times as much mercury in the feathers
of loons in Maine as there is in the feathers of loons in Oregon. The
wind blows west to east. It always has and it always will. Coming
particularly out of those coal-fired power plants in the Midwest,
mercury emissions are traveling east and northeast and contaminating
many of our most scenic areas in the

[[Page H1286]]

country. We do not have a single coal-fired power plant in the State of
Maine, but our mercury is coming from other parts of the country. We
need help.
The gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) and I, as I said, wrote to the
Bush administration in February asking simply that we have the right to
a hearing, that EPA come to Maine and hold a hearing. They refused. The
closest they got to us was Philadelphia. If the EPA would not come to
Maine, I decided, well, we would have a hearing there, anyway; I would
call the mock hearing, I would invite interested members of the public.
And they came, they came in force and their testimony was compelling,
both as to the health risks of mercury and the inadequacy of the Bush
administration proposal.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the testimony given at that
hearing in Maine as a part of the record of this proceeding here.

Testimony of Maine Attorney General Steven Rowe on Standards Proposed
by the Environmental Protection Agency for Mercury Emissions From Power
Plants

Good afternoon. Thank you, Congressman Allen, for the
opportunity to present these comments on a matter of great
importance for the State of Maine and its citizens: the need
for strict federal mercury emission standards for power
plants. My office formally requested that EPA hold a public
hearing on this proposal in New England, but that request was
denied. With that in mind, I especially appreciate your being
here today to draw attention to this matter.
Regrettably, EPA's recent regulatory proposals under the
Clean Air Act tend to fall into two categories: (1) those
that would degrade air quality, and (2) those that would
prevent air quality from improving. The agency's New Source
Review regulations are a notorious example of the first
category. As Attorney General, I have vigorously opposed
EPA's efforts to gut New Source Review, a part of the Act
that requires the nation's worst polluters to install modern
control technology when modifying their plants. These rules
would cause Maine's already serious ozone pollution problem
to worsen significantly. We sued the agency in federal court
to prevent these reforms from going into effect, and won a
major victory on Christmas Eve when the court issued a stay
until the case is decided on the grounds that the rules
appear to violate the Clean Air Act.
EPA's proposed mercury rule falls into the second category:
a new program that will prevent us from realizing the
reductions in mercury emissions that the law promises. This
is not a bold new environmental initiative, but a giveaway to
the owners of coal-burning power plants.
Atmospheric mercury deposition is a serious public health
and environmental problem. Mercury is a powerful neurotoxin
that accumulates in the body. EPA's own studies show that
over 600,000 babies born in this country each year may be
exposed to levels of mercury in the womb so high that it can
affect their brain development. Maine and 44 other states
have issued fish consumption advisories because of mercury
levels found in our freshwater fish. Mercury is also
poisoning the wildlife that feed on those fish. Loons in
northern New England, the classic symbol of our wilderness
lakes, have the highest levels of mercury in the country.
Mercury emissions from power plants to our south and west
are a major source of deposition in Maine, and we desperately
need strong federal regulation to address this problem.
Despite the need for strict federal mercury emission
standards, and the fact that such standards are legally
required by the Clean Air Act, EPA fails to deliver in this
proposal.
As a matter of policy, this proposed rule is flawed for two
basic reasons. First, the levels of reduction in mercury
emissions are far too low. The proposed reductions not only
are insufficient to protect public health and the
environment, but they are considerably less than what can be
achieved through available control technology. Second, the
proposed ``cap and trade'' program is inappropriate for
regulation of a toxic substance like mercury. This approach
allows some sources to accumulate large quantities of
``pollution credits'', which in turn allows them to continue
to pollute at high levels. The result is ``hotspots'' of
deposition in areas downwind. While a cap and trade program
may make good sense for regulating a non-toxic pollutant like
carbon dioxide, it is unacceptable for a hazardous pollutant
like mercury.
As a matter of law, EPA's proposal is defective in several
ways. Three years ago EPA formally concluded that mercury is
a hazardous air pollutant, and therefore it is ``appropriate
and necessary'' to regulate its emissions from power plants
under Section 112 of the Act. However, EPA has now tried to
reverse course, and has announced that mercury may not be a
hazardous air pollutant after all. Instead, the agency
suggests that it may be able to regulate mercury under
Section 111 of the Act, governing New Source Performance
Standards. This idea flies in the face of the plain language
of the statute, which requires that EPA conduct a formal
``delisting process'' before it can decline to regulate a
substance under Section 112 that it has concluded is a
hazardous air pollutant. EPA's proposal to summarily rescind
its prior finding that regulation of mercury is ``appropriate
and necessary'' under Section 112 has no support in the law.
There are numerous other legal defects with this proposal,
and we are describing them in detail in written comments to
be submitted to EPA. For our purposes today, it is enough to
observe that the Environmental Protection Agency is once
again failing to fulfill its responsibility to adopt
standards that protect the public health and environment.
Instead, the agency seems committed to re-interpreting the
laws it administers in an attempt to avoid that
responsibility. If this proposal is finalized in its current
form, we will likely be forced to file another lawsuit in
federal court to force EPA to do its job. I sincerely hope
that will not be necessary. Thank you.
____

Testimony of Senate Majority Leader Sharon Treat, Hearing on Federal
Mercury Emissions Proposals

Congressman Allen, I am Sharon Treat, Majority Leader of
the Maine Senate. I am a member and former chair of the
Mercury Products Advisory Council and an environmental
lawyer. I am here today to testify in opposition to proposals
by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which
will significantly undermine the effectiveness of the Clean
Air Act with respect to control and reduction of mercury
emissions, leading to even dirtier air in Maine and
significant, harmful, health and environmental impacts.
Maine has gone to extraordinary lengths to control mercury
emissions from sources within our State, and for good reason.
It is hard to think of a symbol of the purity and wildness of
Maine's north woods more ubiquitous than the loon. Yet
despite our efforts at the State level, loons in Maine are
threatened with the highest measured mercury levels found
anywhere in the United States, due in large part to our
unenviable position at the tail end of the Nation's
prevailing winds, which sweep mercury and other airborne
pollutants from States to the west and south of us. A quarter
of Maine's loon population is considered to be at ``high
risk'' from the effects of mercury, and studies show that
mercury pollution is the decisive factor in the negative loon
population growth rate in Maine.
Mercury deposition has contaminated our lakes and rivers,
to the extent that Maine's Bureau of Health has issued strict
fish consumption advisories for all of Maine's lakes, rivers
and streams, as well as for coastal bluefish and striped
bass. It is a sad fact, at odds with our pristine image as
``vacationland'' and ``Maine, the way life should be.''
Surveys done both in Maine and nationally, indicate that 10
to 20% of women of childbearing age have blood levels of
mercury considered too high for the safety of a developing
fetus. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention has
found that some four million American women of child-bearing
age have blood mercury levels that exceed E.P.A.'s 5.8 parts
per billion standard. Exposure to mercury puts the babies
born to these women at risk of brain damage, learning
disabilities and motor skills deficits.
It is time for the Federal Government to step up to its
responsibilities in this area. That means at a minimum
enforcing the Clean Air Act to require antiquated coal
burning plants to upgrade to modern pollution control
technology, and to continue to require state of the art
controls on new facilities. It does NOT mean weakening the
already weak law we have to be even more ineffective, as EPA
proposes.
Section 112(d) of the Act sets forth a ``maximum achievable
control technologies'' standard to control emissions from
hazardous air pollution sources equivalent to what is
achieved by the best-controlled similar source in the
industry. When Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1990, it
specifically called for ``maximum achievable'' clean-up of
major sources of toxic air pollution, including mercury. It
is beyond dispute that EPA has the authority under the Act to
adopt a standard requiring a minimum of 90 percent mercury
emissions reductions at all of the Nation's power plants.
Instead, EPA had proposed two alternatives each of which fail
to protect the public health and carry out the requirements
of the Clean Air Act--(1) that the Agency has discretion, but
is not required, to apply a weak emission standard to
existing sources, or alternatively (2) creating a novel
``pooled performance standard'' that is apparently designed
to escape the restrictions of the law entirely. Both
alternatives fall far short of the clean air standards
required and should be rejected.
I think it is important for EPA to recognize the
longstanding efforts of this State to make sure that we have
done everything we can to reduce and even eliminate sources
of mercury pollution here in Maine. We have done so even
though our actions have placed practical and cost burdens on
our citizens, business and government, because we recognize
we must take responsibility for that part of the problem we
have ourselves created.
One of my very first bills in 1990, as a freshman State
representative, was legislation to ban mercury-containing
batteries from garbage incinerators. I subsequently passed a
resolve that required the State to identify all sources of
mercury within and outside of the State and to develop a
strategy to control and reduce that mercury. From that
legislation, a comprehensive report was developed which
provided scientific

[[Page H1287]]

data that established the extent to which mercury deposition
comes from sources outside the State, as well as in-state
sources such as garbage incinerators. That report has led to
a series of laws taking stringent measures to control in-
state sources.
In the spring of 2000, the 119th Legislature passed An Act
to Reduce the Release of Mercury into the Environment from
Consumer Products, (Public Law 1999, c.779). The law defines
mercury-added products to include thermostats, thermometers,
electrical switches, relays or other electrical devices,
scientific and medical devices, and lamps if mercury is added
during manufacture of the product. The law established a
Mercury Products Advisory Committee (Committee) to advise the
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the State
Planning Office (SPO) and the Legislature on actions needed
to prevent and reduce the environmental releases of mercury
from consumer products. The law contains several key
provisions intended to increase the amount of mercury-added
products collected for recycling. These provisions include:
As of July 15th, 2002, businesses and public entities may
not knowingly place a mercury-added product in the solid
waste stream sent for disposal.
As of January 1, 2005 this disposal ban is extended to all
Maine residents.
The development and implementation of an aggressive
education and outreach campaign by DEP to inform Maine
citizens and businesses about the disposal bans and proper
waste management techniques.
State assistance to municipalities and regional
associations to develop collection programs.
A commitment by the State, within available resources, to
develop and implement a capital investment grant program for
public infrastructure development and improvements to enable
municipalities to collect and recycle mercury-added products
and universal wastes.
Since the passage of P.L. 1999, c. 779, the Legislature has
passed additional mercury legislation, including the
following:
An Act to Further Reduce Mercury Emissions from Consumer
Products, P.L. 2001, c. 373. This bans the sale of mercury
fever thermometers and dairy manometers; requires
manufacturers to provide written notice to the Department
before offering a mercury-added product for sale in Maine;
prohibits the purchase of mercury or mercury compounds for
use in schools; and requires manufacturers who sell products
to hospitals to provide a certificate of mercury content upon
hospital request.
An Act To Address The Health Effects of Mercury Fillings
was enacted as P.L. 2001, c. 385. It requires the state
Department of Human Services, Bureau of Health to prepare a
brochure and a poster on alternative dental restorative
materials and procedures and their health and environmental
impacts, and for dentists who use mercury to display the
poster and provide patients with the brochure.
An Act to Prevent Mercury Emissions when Recycling and
Disposing of Motor Vehicle was enacted as P.L. 2001, c. 656.
It prohibits the sale of mercury switches in automobiles as
of January 1, 2003 and establishes a statewide system to
collect, consolidate and recycle the switches. A bounty of $1
is provided to people who remove switches and return them for
recycling, with the money to be provided by the auto
manufacturers. Although challenged in court by the auto
manufacturers (who argued in part that such programs are a
federal, not state, responsibility), this law was recently
upheld by the Federal District Court.
An Act to Phase Out the Availability of Mercury-added
Products [P.L. 2001, c. 6201. It prohibits the sale of most
mercury thermostats used in non-manufacturer applications
(effective January 1, 2006), and requests DEP to submit a
comprehensive strategy to further reduce the mercury content
of products by January 2003.
An Act to Change the Reporting Requirements for the Mercury
Switch Removal Program [P.L. 2003,c. 6] requires the DEP to
file its initial status report on this program by January 1.
2004. The program provides for the removal of mercury
switches from motor vehicles before they are crushed and
shredded for the scrap metals market.
An Act to Reduce Mercury Use in Measuring Devices and
Switches [P.L. 2003, c. 221], bans the sale of most mercury
switches, relays and measuring devices beginning July 1,
2006. Measuring devices include barometers, gastrointestinal
tubes, flow meters, hydrometers, hygrometers, manometers,
pyro-
meters, sphygmomanometers and thermometers. The effective
date of the ban coincides with the effective date of a
similar law in Connecticut, and gives manufacturers time to
phase in non-mercury alternatives or seek an exemption. The
law allows the DEP commissioner to grant an exemption from
the ban if the manufacturer of the mercury product
demonstrates that functional non-mercury alternatives are not
available.
An Act to Require the Installation of Dental Amalgam
Separator Systems in Dental Offices [P.L. 2003, c. 301],
requires the installation of amalgam separator systems in
dental offices by December 31, 2004. The separators trap
amalgam particles to prevent the discharge of mercury in
dental office wastewater. If installed prior to March 20,
2003, the separators must achieve a minimum of a 95%, while
separators installed on or after that date must have a
minimum of a 98% removal efficiency as determined through
testing under ISO 11143.
Maine has also put state dollars into these programs. In
addition to paying for DEP staff to administer these programs
and funding our defense of the auto switch provisions in
court, we have also put funding into municipal mercury
collection programs. In 2000, the Legislature allocated
$438,000 from the Solid Waste Management Fund to jump start
the activities mandated by the legislation. In November 2002,
Maine voters approved an environmental bond request, of which
$900,000 was slated to fund completion of the shed deployment
statewide and the infrastructure/collection needs. We are
still struggling with identifying funding sources to assist
communities with the ongoing costs associated with these
collection and recycling efforts. In the private sector, many
Maine businesses have also incurred costs installing
pollution control equipment to meet tough in-state mercury
emission standards and complying with various mercury product
separation and collection mandates.
Needless to say, Maine has done its part, having enacted
the most sweeping mercury control laws in the country. While
we are more than willing to do whatever we can, our pollution
from mercury is in large part a federal responsibility: it
comes from outside the state, and there is already a
requirement under the Clean Air Act for the federal
government to address it. It is time for the EPA to comply
with the law, not undermine it. It is time for the EPA to
provide assistance to states dealing with this toxic metal
which threatens our children and our wildlife, not make our
efforts more difficult. Thank you.
____

Statement of Everett ``Brownie'' Carson, Executive Director of the
Natural Resources Council of Maine

(On the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Proposed
Rulemaking on National Standards for Reduction of Mercury
Emissions From Coal and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Power
Plants and Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT),
Published in the Federal Register on January 30, 2004 (69 FR
4692), EPA Docket ID Nos. OAR-2002-0056 and A-92-55.)
Presented at Hearing in Augusta, ME March 1, 2004
My name is Brownie Carson. I testify here today on behalf
of the Natural Resources Council of Maine, a citizen
supported environmental advocacy organization with 8000
members and supporters. Thank you to Congressman Tom Allen
for giving us all the opportunity to express our views on the
critical environmental issue of proposed national standards
for mercury emissions from electric utility power plants. We
would like to thank you and the entire Maine Congressional
delegation for your efforts on this and related clean air and
environmental matters. We commend, for example, Senator
Collins strong leadership in introducing legislation that
would eliminate and retire mercury.
On the issue at hand, we conclude that both the two
alternative proposals put forward by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (``EPA'' or ``Agency'') for mercury
emissions standards are environmentally unsound and legally
deficient. These proposals go in the wrong direction.
These things we know:
(1) Power plants that burn coal and oil release mercury and
are the largest source of mercury released to the environment
in the United States;
(2) The mercury emitted from these plants is transported
downwind where Maine and other Northeast states receive a
disproportionate share;
(3) In the environment, mercury from power plant emissions
is converted into methylmercury, the dangerous organic form
of the element;
(4) Methylmercury builds up and is magnified in the food
chain making it a major environmental and public health
hazard; methylmercury concentrations in fish are the worst
pathway for human exposure;
(5) Exposure to methylmercury, a potent neurotoxin, puts
small children, infants and fetuses at risk of brain damage,
learning disabilities and motor skills deficits;
(6) An unacceptably high proportion of women in Maine and
nationally have blood levels of mercury considered too high
for the safety of a developing fetus; and
(7) Mercury also has insidious effects wildlife: Maine's
loon population is at ``high risk'' with a negative growth
rate attributed to mercury exposure. Maine bald eagles have
high mercury body burdens and the lowest reproductive rate of
any major bald eagle population in the country;
These facts are undisputed. EPA's own February 1998 report
to Congress summarized how mercury emissions from power
plants caused toxic exposures and grave threats to public
health.
There is a ready solution both technically and legally. The
technical solution is simply to retrofit each of the 1,100
coal fired power plants with modern emission control
equipment.
Commercially available technologies and techniques in use
today achieve up to 91 percent emissions reductions over
uncontrolled levels--and do so at a cost of approximately 1/
50th of a penny per KWh. Up to 98 percent reductions have
been observed in tests of the most modern mercury controls.
These conclusions are supported by EPA's own analysis in
2001 which found that the use of currently available
pollution controls at each power plant could reduce total
emissions by 90% by 2008. The Northeast States for
Coordinated Air Use Management in 2003

[[Page H1288]]

reviewed the pollution control technologies and affirmed 90%
reductions can be achieved with existing technologies.
Moreover, there are no legal obstacles to achieving these
reductions. Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, that regulates
hazardous air pollutants, sets forth the ``maximum achievable
control technologies'' standard. The Act contemplates control
of emissions from hazardous air pollution sources equivalent
to what is achieved by the best-controlled similar source in
the industry. When Congress amended the Clean Air Act in
1990, it specifically called for ``maximum achievable''
clean-up of major sources of toxic air pollution, including
mercury. It is beyond dispute that EPA has the authority
under the Act to adopt a standard requiring a minimum of 90%
mercury emissions reductions at all of the nation's power
plants.
In Maine, a remarkable consensus on mercury pollution has
led to positive action.
In 1997, the Maine Legislature called for a report and plan
of action to control mercury pollution. The State's goal, set
back then, was ``to ensure that, over time, Maine people and
wildlife are able to enjoy the full use of the state's waters
and fisheries'' and to ``make Maine's fish safe to eat and to
protect our wildlife and other resources.''
Over ensuing years Maine took a series of actions on
mercury, including the following:
Before 2000, we achieved mercury emission reductions of
more than 90% at four municipal waste combustors achieving
substantial reductions, meeting or exceeding federal limits,
or where inapplicable applying equally stringent state
limits;
In 2000, we closed the Holtra-chem, the heavily polluting
chlor-alkli plant. In 2002, we made arrangements for safe
removal and storage of 185,000 pounds of surplus mercury from
the site;
In 2003, we enacted a law that bans the sale of most
mercury-added switches, relays, and measuring devices; and
In 2002, we enacted a landmark law to require automobile
manufacturers to recover mercury-containing switches from
vehicles before they are scrapped.
When Maine's mercury auto switch law was challenged in
Court, the State mounted a legal defense. On February 17,
federal District Judge John Woodcock turned back the
carmaker's challenge and upheld the auto switch law in its
entirety.
The decision rejected all of the carmakers' claims, saying
that burdens were reasonably ``imposed on manufacturers in
recognition of the fact that the need for a mercury switch
recovery program existed solely by virtue of the
manufacturers' incorporation of these mercury-laden
components in their automobiles for roughly ten years after
the industry's cognizance of the mercury disposal problem.''
This is important, because it points the way to what the
federal government should be doing with mercury pollution
from power plants. Utilities should simply be made to clean
up. That would be 90 percent reductions at all existing coal-
fired power plants by 2008, that would bring total mercury
emissions down from the current 48 tons to five tons
annually. ``EPA's proposal would still allow be allowing the
release of 15 tons of mercury from the power plants in
2018.''
Operators of power plants have been dodging pollution
controls for decades. On the verge of achieving what the
Clean Air Act was passed for, legal counsel for the Bush
Administration and EPA say that they fear that if they
require maximum achievable controls, as specified by the law,
the utilities will challenge the rules in court. Threat of a
court challenge must not deter EPA from doing what is
necessary to protect public health and the environment.
We urge EPA to abandon its weak proposals and instead
follow the Clean Air Act as written. Genuine maximum
achievable control standards are technologically feasible,
legally sound and eminently defensible. We urge EPA to
recognize the health, environmental and economic importance
of this outcome to Maine and the nation. Thank you again for
the opportunity to present our views on this important issue.
____

Statement of Lani Graham, MD, MPH, Family Practice Physician and Former
Chief Health Officer of the State of Maine

(On the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Proposed Rulemaking on
Standards for Reduction of Mercury Emissions From Coal and Oil-fired
Electric Utility Power Plants and the Use of Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT), published in the Federal Register on January 30,
2004 (69 FR 4692), EPA Docket ID Nos., OAR-2002-0056 and A-92-55.)

Good afternoon. I come here today to testify on behalf of
the people of Maine, and particularly the children of Maine,
who cannot speak for themselves. I am a Family Practice
physician, but my real love throughout my professional life
has been public health. Two alternative proposals have been
offered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
reduce mercury emissions from electric utility plants.
Neither is acceptable and both will condemn the next
generation of Maine people to adverse health impacts from
toxic levels of mercury in our environment, to say nothing of
the terrible impacts on our wildlife and the natural
resources.
Rather than repeat a lot of the very good scientific
information that you have already heard and will continue to
hear, regarding why these proposals must be scrapped, I want
to provide a little history lesson. It is said that those who
do not learn the lessons of history will be condemned to
repeat them. This appears to be the reckless course that will
be embarked on if these proposals are not substantially
altered.
More than a decade ago, when I was the Chief Health Officer
for this state, I received a letter from a Park Official at
Acadia National Park. The letter revealed that a fish had
been caught in one of the park's lakes and tested for
mercury. I could see immediately that the provided results
indicated that the fish contained mercury at a level many
times what would be considered safe for a child to consume on
a frequent basis. The letter queried whether I was going to
consider ``posting'' the lake, on the assumption that this
particular lake was uniquely contaminated. Needless to say, I
was both shocked and frightened. Who in Maine, or even from
out of state, might have already been affected by eating fish
caught in this lake? It was bad enough that any lake in Maine
might be significantly contaminated by a known neurotoxin,
but that the particular lake would be in the heart of our
widely admired national park was a particular blow.
Tragically, that blow was just the beginning of a lengthy
investigation that revealed that the lake was not uniquely
contaminated, and that it would not be sufficiently
protective of public health to post that particular lake or
even a dozen such lakes. Based on a study of fish caught from
lakes all across Maine, it was clear that a great many lakes
were contaminated, and that the contamination could not be
accounted for by looking for natural sources of mercury or
local pollution. The facts led to a number of conclusions and
actions that were among the most discouraging of my tenure as
Chief Health Officer in Maine.
In collaboration with four Departments of State Government
(Agriculture, Environmental Protection, Human Services, and
Inland Fish and Wildlife), we were forced to issue a
statewide warning recommending a strict limit on the
consumption of fish caught in Maine lakes by women of child-
bearing age and children under 8. To my knowledge ours was
the first such warning in this country, but, sadly Maine is
now one of 28 states that have issued statewide advisories,
including three new states in 2002, Florida, Illinois and
Rhode Island. I also am aware that New Brunswick, Canada has
had to follow suit, making this an international problem. Air
pollution does not respect state or international boundaries.
It is very sad that in these times when childhood obesity
is such a problem and good nutrition is the hope of the
future, that any Health Official must issue warnings on the
consumption of fish, widely respected as healthy food,
because it has become contaminated through our carelessness.
But worse, from a public health point of view the warning
approach to the protection of human health is highly
undesirable. It is not effective. No matter how many lakes
are posted or warnings issued, large portions of the
population are likely to be adversely impacted despite your
best efforts. What about the immigrant populations for whom
fish is a basic part of the diet and who may not speak
English? What about the Native Americans who similarly depend
on locally caught fish? What about people with limited
education who may not understand the advisories or those who
just don't believe there? There is some parallel to the
warnings on cigarette packages. Lead paint is another
example. Parents are warned of the hazard, but children get
poisoned by the thousands anyway. History has taught us that
complicated medical advisories are insufficient to be
protective of the public's health. Despite the warnings
people, particularly children, get sick, become damaged for
life, or die. Yet these proposed rules indicate clearly that
another generation is being asked to repeat this history
lesson. Unless our federal government takes a different
course of action, one designed to move us more rapidly toward
reducing air pollution, the advisories are likely to remain
and the children of Maine will continue to pay the price of
this history lesson not learned.
Another awful lesson that the fish from Acadia National
Park taught us is that Maine was not going to be able to
solve this problem on its own. The extent and distribution of
the mercury contamination indicated to us that local factors
could not account for it. The mercury had to be coming from
somewhere else. We now know that out beautiful state is the
recipient of tons of airborne mercury coming from other
states. Nevertheless on the theory that it is best to ``keep
your own house clean'' first, Maine people have worked hard
over the last decade to reduce all local sources of mercury
contamination. But it will never be enough. Without support
from outside this state, the advisories are likely to remain
in place. More than a decade has gone by since that Acadia
National Park fish brought its warning. I urge you not to
condemn us and other sites around this country to another
twenty years of contamination when real progress can be made
now. I urge you to abandon these proposals and return to the
Clean Air Act as written.
Thank you for your attention.

[[Page H1289]]

Maine Audubon,

Falmouth, ME, March 1, 2004.
Re EPA's proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Pollutants; and, in the Alternative, Proposed Standards
of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources:
Electric Utility Steam Generating Units; Docket ID No.
OAR-2002-0056, 69 Fed. Reg. 4652 (January 30, 2004).

Good afternoon, Representative Allen, members of the
Legislature, fellow
Mainers . . ., my name is Susan Gallo: I represent Maine
Audubon and our 11,000 members and supporters.
Representative Allen, we greatly appreciate your continued
leadership and good work on behalf of Mainers with regard to
the control of mercury pollution. The EPA has put forward
several proposals, none of which provides the degree of
public health protections mandated by the Clean Air Act. We
are here today to share with you our deep concern that the
EPA's proposals are not only many times weaker than what is
actually required by Clean Air Act, but if accepted will
cause irreparable harm to the health of Maine's waters,
wildlife and people, particularly women and children, and
fall far short of what is urgently needed.
Power plants are ``major emitters'' of hazardous air
pollution, which means that each plant emits more than 10
tons per year of one kind of hazardous air pollutant or 25
tons per year of all the 188 hazardous air pollutants listed
in the Clean Air Act. Coal-fired plants are the nation's
largest source of mercury air emissions, emitting
approximately 48 tons of mercury each year. One-third of a
gram of mercury per year is enough to contaminate all the
fish in a 25-acre lake.
Maine, along with the other New England states, bears the
brunt of the nation's airborne mercury pollution. Maine has
more than 30,000 miles of rivers, and almost a million acres
of lakes--but these waters harbor dangerously high levels of
mercury--so dangerous, that in 2002, Maine posted health
warnings for all of our lakes and rivers statewide. The EPA
and 43 states, including Maine, have posted warnings urging
people to avoid or limit consumption of fish. Consuming
mercury-laden fish can damage the developing brain and
nervous system and can lead to birth defects; such as
cerebral palsy, delayed onset of walking and talking, and
learning disabilities. Relying on fish consumption advisories
will not solve the problem. We must reduce the contamination
at its source.
Because Maine is subject to the highest mercury
contamination in the U.S., and given the impact already felt
by both people and wildlife, it is imperative Maine's
concerns be heard.
The accumulation of mercury in Maine's environment has
reached epic proportions, with mercury levels in rainfall in
parts of Maine up to 23 times higher than the EPA standard
for human health. Mercury is also accumulating in Maine lakes
at an alarming rate, creating deadly habitat for fish-eating
birds and mammals. Moreover, people are at risk when they
eat fish containing high levels of mercury. As you know,
it is no longer safe for pregnant women, nursing mothers,
and young children to eat certain fish from our waters. We
must act to reduce children's exposure to mercury as we
have done to reduce children's exposure to lead in the
environment.
A recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention found that one in twelve women of childbearing age
already has mercury levels above EPA's safe health threshold.
Adverse neurological effects of mercury exposure on the
young, has lead both the federal and state governments to
post advisories against consuming certain fish. The state of
Maine along with a majority of other states, advises women
who might get pregnant not to eat most types of freshwater
fish including rainbow trout and bass.
Mercury contamination is also a threat to recreational
fishing--a vital piece of our state economy. Recreational
fishing is a multi-billion dollar industry in Maine; anglers
in Maine spent more than $250 million in 2001 alone. Studies
indicate that mercury contamination has a direct impact on
where people choose to fish, how often they go, and for how
long they choose to fish.
Wildlife that have no choice but to eat fish high in
mercury are at risk from the accumulation of mercury in their
systems as well. Maine's loons have the dubious distinction
of having higher levels of mercury in their blood than loons
in any other state. Nearly 30% of Maine's common loon
population is at ``high-risk'' for mercury contamination and
is less likely to reproduce as a result. Loons accumulate
high levels of' mercury in their blood because their diet
consists primarily of freshwater fish, which often harbors
high levels of mercury. Some loons exposed to high levels of
mercury in Maine's environment do not nest successfully
because they do not spend enough time incubating their eggs.
Others fail to feed their young once they hatch, leaving
chicks to die from starvation. Loons in Maine experience
higher levels of mercury in their blood, feathers and eggs
than in any other state. Also, because loons are able to
eliminate mercury from their system when they lay eggs, loon
eggs from Maine also have higher levels of mercury than those
from any other state. Other fish-eaters like osprey and
kingfisher are subject to similarly high levels of mercury
from eating fish from Maine's waters. It is imperative that
we do what we can now to reduce the impact of mercury on
Maine's loon population and on other fish-eating wildlife. If
we wait until wildlife populations have significantly
declined, it will be too late.
Maine Audubon has been a leader in working to reduce
mercury pollution and protect the health of Maine's people as
well as wildlife. Indeed Maine has made substantial progress
in developing legislation to curb the use of mercury-added
products as well as the collection of household hazardous
waste, for example. But these efforts, while valiant and very
much needed, do not address the largest source of mercury
pollution--emissions from power plants beyond Maine's
borders. The current EPA and Bush Administration proposal
falls far short of what is needed.
The Clean Air Act requires that power plant mercury
emissions be cut by 90 percent by 2008 and ensures that these
reductions occur at each and every one of the nation's oil-
and coal-fired power plants, the country's largest industrial
source of mercury air emissions. In 2000, the EPA listed
power plants as a category for which MACT standards must be
developed. But one of the new proposals would ``de-list''
power plants, without any of the public health and
environmental justifications mandated by the Clean Air Act.
Such de-listing is illegal.
The EPA should uphold the law. Instead of setting a far
weaker standard--in effect treating power plants' mercury
emissions as non-hazardous air pollution--the EPA must abide
by its prior decision that power plants must be regulated
according to Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
levels.
The EPA should continue to regulate mercury emissions from
power plants under the MACT approach required by Clean Air
Act for toxic pollutants, instead of issuing ``New Source
Performance Standards'' for mercury, which are far less
stringent. The EPA's own scientists two years ago concluded
that 90 percent reductions are possible using existing
technologies.
The EPA must abandon the current proposal allowing the
trading of mercury pollution, which lets polluters continue
to poison our air and waters. Trading mercury emissions is
unacceptable from a public health and public policy
perspective, because it creates new local ``hot spots'' of
even mercury contamination--leaving some communities at risk
more than others.
The EPA should not accept guidance from the Bush
Administration which would set rules for power plants that
give big energy special treatment--allowing them to put 6 to
7 times more mercury into the air than the law allows, and
giving them an extra decade to clean up. The EPA should hold
industry to the highest standard, and uphold--not weaken--the
provisions of the Clean Air Act.
We respectfully ask that you convey to EPA Administrator
Leavitt our testimony, urging the EPA to improve protections
of human health and wildlife by strengthening, not weakening
rules regulating mercury emissions to the level that we know
is technologically feasible and morally imperative.
____

Sierra Club, Maine Chapter,

Portland, ME, March 1, 2004.
Re Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center, Attention
Docket I.D. Number OAR-2002-0056.
Why is the Bush Administration rewarding corporate polluters
at the expense of our children's health and safety?
Thank you Congressman Allen, for holding a hearing on this
issue in Maine. My name is Maureen Drouin, I live in
Hallowell, Maine, and I am here representing the 5,000 Maine
members of the Sierra Club.
The Maine Chapter of the Sierra Club calls on Administrator
Leavitt to throw out EPA's proposal to regulate mercury
emissions and instead craft a serious plan that adequately
protects American children from harmful mercury.
Specifically, we call on the EPA to require 90% reductions in
mercury emissions from ALL coal-fired power plants by 2008.
Coal-fired power plants constitute the largest source of
industrial mercury emissions in the United States. This
mercury falls to earth through rain and snow and enters
lakes, rivers, and estuaries. Once there, it changes into its
most toxic form, methylmercury, and accumulates in fish
tissue. Americans are exposed to mercury primarily by eating
contaminated fish.
Mercury poses a serious threat to Maine's families:
As with many toxic pollutants, children are the most
susceptible to harm from mercury.
New estimates by the EPA indicate that one in six U.S.
women of child-bearing age have mercury levels in their blood
high enough to put their babies at risk.
During December 10-11, 2003, the FDA and the EPA issued a
draft joint warning to pregnant women, women who may become
pregnant, and nursing mothers against eating certain types of
mercury-laden fish.
In 2001, the EPA estimated that if current clean air laws
were enforced in conjunction with the use of current
technology, mercury pollution would decrease by 90% by 2008.
Why is the Bush Administration rewarding corporate
polluters at the expense of our children's health and safety?
Congressman, you and Representative Waxman recently sent a
letter to EPA Administrator Leavitt requesting information

[[Page H1290]]

regarding a report in The Washington Post that portions of
EPA's latest mercury air pollution control proposal may have
been ``copied word-for-word from industry lobbying
materials.''
You pointed out that ``Specifically, it appears that EPA
has proposed a regulatory approach to mercury air pollution
that in part is copied word-for-word from memos prepared by
the law firm Latham & Watkins, which represents some of the
largest polluters in the country.''
Both Jeffrey Holmstead, EPA's Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation, and William Wehrum, Mr. Holmstead's chief
counsel, worked for Latham & Watkins prior to assuming their
positions at EPA where they have played key roles in the
mercury pollution rule-making process.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Energy
Industry, which would be affected by these rules, gave nearly
$50 million in campaign contributions to the Republican Party
during the 2000 election cycle. Of that amount, $2.9 million
went directly to the Bush-Cheney campaign.
Perhaps this is why the Bush Administration is rewarding
corporate polluters at the expense of our children's health
and safety.
Last spring, I went fly-fishing with a few friends at
Little Lyford Pond Camps in T7 R10. In the heart of the 100-
mile wilderness of Maine, the ponds there are remote and
pristine and constitute the headwaters of the West Branch of
the Pleasant River. The brook trout fisheries there date back
10,000 years to the retreat of the last glacier. I thought
about how rewarding it would be to catch one of these
primeval fish and cook it for dinner. But even far away in T7
R10, the fish are contaminated by upwind pollution, and
Mainers, especially women and children, are advised to limit
their fish consumption.
Maine is one of 19 states that have issued statewide fish
advisories for all of their inland freshwater lakes and
rivers.
We have the solutions to reduce mercury pollution now and
we should implement them immediately to protect our
communities.
Thank you again for holding this hearing and for the work
you are doing to protect Maine's children by decreasing
mercury pollution.
____

Testimony of Ann Brewster Weeks (Delivered by Jonathan Lewis), Clean
Air Task Force, Boston, MA

(Before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regarding
Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants; and in the alternative, Proposed Standards of
Performance for New and Existing Sources: Electric Utility
Steam Generating Units, 69 Fed. Reg. 4652 (January 30, 2004),
Docket No. OAR-2003-0056.)
Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Jonathan F.
Lewis, and I am an attorney with the Clean Air Task Force. I
am appearing today to provide the testimony of Ann Weeks,
CATF's Litigation Director. Ms. Weeks was an alternate member
of EPA's Electric Steam Generating Units MACT Rulemaking
Working Group of stakeholders from industry, environmental
organizations, and state governments, which offered the
Agency a range of recommendations for the development of a
MACT standard for EGUs, in the Fall of 2003.
Now the Agency proposes both a weak MACT standard and a
radically different alternative approach to the regulation of
power plant hazardous air pollutants. EPA's alternative
approach not only is radically different than the approach
considered by EPA and the stakeholders in the Working Group,
it is radically different than the approach mandated by the
Clean Air Act. Martha Keating, the CATF representative to the
Working Group, is presenting today in North Carolina oral
testimony on the MACT alternative proposed by the Agency in
this rulemaking package. I will therefore limit my remarks to
the inadequacies, both legal and from a public policy
perspective, of the alternative New Source Performance
Standards and cap and trade approach contained in the
proposal.
EPA first listed mercury as an air toxic in 1971. The
public health effects of this toxic are not just coming to
light, we have known for over a century about neurological
disorders stemming from exposure to high levels of mercury in
the environment. Each year, the science improves, and we
learn more, for example, about how eating mercury
contaminated fish leads to children's delayed language
development, impaired memory and vision, problems processing
information and impaired fine motor coordination.
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention has recently
noted that 1 in 12 women of childbearing years in the United
States have unsafe levels of mercury in their blood. EPA's
own Federal Advisory Committee on Children's Health
Protection has noted its concern that this proposed rule
package does not go as far as possible towards reducing
emissions of mercury from the electric utility industry.
Existing coal-fired power plants are the largest
uncontrolled industrial source of mercury in the United
States today. Congress recognized this when it drafted the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, when it listed mercury
under section 112, and demanded to be kept in the loop as
your Agency made its determination whether to regulate
hazardous air pollutant emissions from the electric
generating industry.
EPA now seeks to administratively rewrite section 112 of
the Act in an effort to try to find a way to treat mercury
differently from the other 187 air toxics listed in the Act.
Rather than regulating the power industry under the ``Maximum
Achievable Control Technology'' approach required by the Act,
EPA instead proposes to finalize New Source Performance
Standards under section 111, for mercury emitted by new coal-
fired power plants, and a cap and trade system including caps
of 34 tons of mercury by 2010 and 15 tons in 2018.
This aspect of your proposal is completely without merit.
First, an NSPS approach to regulating hazardous air
pollutants emitted by the utility industry is simply not
authorized by the Clean Air Act. Congress revised section 112
in 1990 in an effort to promote faster regulation of
hazardous air toxics, through the identification and the MACT
regulation of the industrial categories of most concern. EPA
listed coal- and oil-fired power plants under section 112(c)
in 2000, which triggered the requirement to issue MACT
standards for all hazardous air pollutants emitted by the
industry. Congress did not direct the use of section 111 for
utility industry HAP air emissions, as it did for solid waste
combustors in Clean Air Act section 129. If Congress had
meant to grant such authority to the Agency, it clearly knew
how. It chose not to do so.
Second, your attempt to ``de-list'' the utility industry in
order to advance your section 111 proposal does not meet the
express terms of the Clean Air Act, and in any event is
unsupportable on the merits. Section 112(c)(9) of the Act
requires that a listed industrial category can be deleted
from the 112(c) list only if certain specific statutory
criteria are met. Your Agency has not even attempted to
satisfy these criteria. For toxics that ``may result in
cancer in humans,'' as is the case with nickel from oil-fired
units as recognized by the Agency in 1998 and 2000, the
Administrator must determine that ``no source in the category
. . . emits such hazardous air pollutants in quantities which
may cause a lifetime risk of cancer greater than one in one
million to the individual in the population who is most
exposed to emissions of such pollutants from the source.''
For air toxics like mercury, the Administrator must determine
``that emissions from no source in the category or
subcategory concerned . . . exceed a level which is adequate
to protect public health with an ample margin of safety and
no adverse environmental effect will result from emissions
from any source.'' Neither of these determinations is
supportable on the record before the Agency, as we will point
out in our detailed comments.
Finally the proposed cap and trade approach is not
supported by the Act and represents very bad public policy.
The tonnage caps are transparently based on the legislative
targets in the Administrations Clear Skies approach to
utility regulation, and do not go near far enough or fast
enough--either to adequately protect public health, or to
satisfy the requirements set out by Congress to govern the
regulation of hazardous air pollutants.
The Agency asserts broad authority under section 111 to
establish a cap and trade program for listed hazardous air
pollutants, although no such authority is articulated in the
statute. Resorting to the tired and long discredited argument
that since it is not expressly prohibited, an action must be
allowable, the Agency severely overreaches in this proposal.
Furthermore, while the Agency asserts that a 34 ton 2010
target is based on what can and must be achieved to control
other conventional pollutants for the IAQR, the Act requires
far more than this level of effort for the control of a
hazardous air pollutant. Even if EPA attempted to justify
this cap based on the results of its MACT approach, the MACT
floor emissions levels EPA has conjured up in this proposal
to support a 34 ton emissions level are themselves
fundamentally flawed, legally and technically, as Ms. Keating
is testifying in North Carolina today.
Finally, even if it were authorized by the Act, the
Administration's approach in the proposed cap and trade
program is just abysmal public policy. Despite the fact that
60% of the mercury emitted by U.S. power plants is deposited
locally or regionally, the proposal would do absolutely
nothing to avoid the creation of toxic hot spots--geographic
areas that will experience even more mercury contamination
than at present, because local sources are permitted to trade
away the requirement to reduce their emissions levels. The
caps are set at ``no action'' levels, furthermore: on the
final pages of the proposal, the Agency admits that meeting
the mercury caps will require very little (if any) effort
beyond controlling for conventional pollutants. ``Look,'' the
Administration seems to be saying to the industry--``just
control your conventional pollutants a little further, and we
will give you a hall pass on mercury.'' This approach is
taken despite ample evidence, well-known to the Agency, that
much deeper cuts in mercury and other hazardous air
pollutants are achievable cost-effectively from the industry
in the short term. It is taken despite the clear requirements
of the Clean Air Act that a listed industry must be required
to make the maximum reductions achievable, and to do so
within 3, or at most 4 years of a final rule.

[[Page H1291]]

EPA's NSPS cap and trade approach to EGU toxics is simply
unacceptable. It is unacceptable legally, and unacceptable
from a public health perspective.
____

Testimony of Conrad Schneider, Advocacy Director, Clean Air Task Force,
Hearing on EPA's Proposed Mercury Rule

Good afternoon. My name is Conrad Schneider of Brunswick,
Maine. I am the Advocacy Director of the Clean Air Task
Force. CATF is a Boston-based, national environmental
advocacy organization dedicated to restoring clean air and
healthy environments through scientific research, public
education, and legal advocacy. Our primary mission involves
cleaning up the nation's grandfathered power plants.
You know, school vacation week in Maine was two weeks ago
and our family went to Sanibel Island, Florida--our first
``sun and fun'' vacation ever. While down there, I went
saltwater fly-fishing for the first time. This June I am
going with some buddies to fish Grand Lake stream here in
Maine. Although Sanibel was saltwater and Grand Lake stream
will be fresh, there is a common denominator here. Both
Florida and Maine warn us to limit our consumption of the
fish I catch. While I was trying to catch a trophy sport fish
in Florida, I managed to catch only a flounder. However, I
tossed it back because my wife's sister, who is four months
pregnant, and her husband were with us and pregnant women are
warned to eat no fish because the mercury contamination
threatens their fetuses. In fact, while it was bad enough
that she couldn't drink a pina colada in Florida, she
couldn't eat any fish either! That'll be true when she visits
us in Maine this summer too. Maybe you think this is a small
matter. But consider that in Maine, recreational fishing
contributes $250 million to the economy here each year.
I would like to thank Rep. Tom Allen for his leadership in
holding this hearing; the first of what may be many more such
hearings around the country by concerned members of Congress
to hear from citizens about the deficiencies of the Bush
Administration's power plant mercury proposal. We share Rep.
Allen's view that it is outrageous that on an issue of such
critical importance to our people, U.S. EPA chose not to
schedule one hearing on this rule in New England.
The people of our region have always looked to the sea and
our inland water bodies--for commerce, for knowledge, for
recreation and, perhaps most importantly, for food. Ocean and
freshwater fish have been a staple of the New England diet
since the first human settlements here.
But we're here today because that food source is under
threat--from mercury pollution. Due to eating mercury in
contaminated ocean fish and fresh water fish, one in six
women of childbearing age in the United States have mercury
levels above what EPA considers safe. That's nearly five
million women nationally with elevated mercury levels in
their blood. Because mercury travels through the placenta and
breast milk that also means more than 600,000 children born
each year are at risk for mercury's toxic effects.
And those effects are serious. They include poor attention
span and language development, impaired memory and vision,
problems processing information, and impaired visual and fine
motor coordination. Deborah Rice, formerly with EPA, is a
renowned expert on the effects of toxic metals on brain
development that Maine DEP was fortunate to hire. Dr. Rice
last year warned at a U.S. Senate hearing that the threat
posed by mercury is comparable to that of lead. We have too
many children today who struggle to keep up in school and who
require remedial classes or special education. And those of
you who have had even passing involvement with our public
schools know that the cost of these types of programs present
a major fiscal challenge. Adults, too, are at risk. Elevated
mercury levels are linked to fertility issues, high blood
pressure, and heart problems.
As a result, children and women of childbearing age not
just in Maine and Florida are being advised to restrict their
intake of certain fish. Fourty-four states have issued
advisories limiting consumption of fish from certain water
bodies--17 states for every inland water body. Maine, for
example, has an advisory covering every freshwater lake,
stream, pond, and river. Species with specific consumption
advice include our famous brook trout and landlocked salmon.
For our coastal waters, Maine warns about consumption of blue
fish and striped bass. Ten states have issued advisories on
canned tuna. The FDA has told pregnant women not to eat
swordfish, another staple of the North Atlantic fishery.
Later this week, FDA is expected to revise its consumption
warning for the first time to include tuna. It is ironic that
at the very time concerns over the health effects of mercury
are growing, EPA is proposing to weaken the requirements for
mercury reduction from power plants.
There are many sources of mercury in the environment but
most of it comes from human activity such as burning mercury-
containing coal for electricity, mining, and improper
disposal of mercury-containing products. Through these
releases, we've contaminated a large part of our region's and
nation's food supply. This is simply unacceptable.
So what's to be done? The answers are not simple or quick,
but we've already made a start. About 70% of the world's new
annual mercury releases are from coal combustion and waste
incineration.
Fortunately, we have the technology to reduce coal plant
mercury emissions nationally by 90% within the next decade.
The State of Connecticut has adopted this target for its
plants. Massachusetts, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and New
Hampshire are considering similar targets.
But air pollution travels, so the states can't act alone.
We need the federal government to act. We're aggressively
controlling waste incineration in the U.S. by requiring
incinerators to reduce their mercury emissions by 90%. But
the biggest fish to catch--coal-fired power plants--has yet
to be caught. Coal plants account for fully one third of U.S.
mercury emissions and, amazingly, are completely unregulated.
In its proposed rule, U.S. EPA again proposes to let power
plants off the hook. The proposed emissions standards are
transparently based on the legislative targets in the
Administration's so-called ``Clear Skies'' proposal, which is
a broad attempt to rollback the requirements and deadlines of
the Clean Air Act--in large part the work of Maine Senators
Muskie and Mitchell. The Bush Administration proposal does
not go far enough or fast enough--either to adequately
protect public health or satisfy the requirements set out by
Congress.
Frankly, I should not even dignify what EPA has issued as a
proposed rule. It is so blatantly illegal, in the laxity of
the emissions standards and deadlines and in the lack of
legal authority for its misguided emissions trading scheme
that the Bush Administration knows full well that legal
challenges by the coal industry will be successful and leave
us with no rule at all. Which is just what they want. The
environmental community had to sue EPA just to issue a rule.
What they've proposed is just ``smoke and mirrors'' to
satisfy the court that they've proposed something on time.
This cynical ploy should come as no surprise when you
realize that my organization broke a story in the Washington
Post recently that the language of the Bush proposal includes
over a dozen examples where whole paragraphs from industry
memos were lifted verbatim and inserted in the rule. Either
that, or industry lawyers themselves were actually writing
the rules for EPA.
Back in the Year 2001, in the first year of the Bush
Administration, EPA signaled that it would issue a rule
resulting in a 90 percent reduction in mercury emissions--
from 48 tons a year down to 5 tons--per year by 2008. That is
what the Clean Air Act Amendments require. EPA now proposes a
rule, which if implemented, would still allow 34 tons of
mercury emissions per year in 2008 and 15 tons in 2018--
giving us a decade more of delay while leaving three times as
much mercury in the environment as what is achievable with
today's control technology.
We call on U.S. EPA to return to its original compass
bearing, set the hook, and reel in the ``Big One'' by
dropping power plant mercury by 90 percent within this
decade. That isn't likely to happen. So, ultimately, Rep.
Allen, it may be left to you to finish the job Senator
Mitchell thought he had done in Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 (which was signed by the first President Bush)--
requiring the U.S. power sector to do its full share to solve
the problem of mercury contamination.
____

Testimony of Debra Davidson, Maine Chapter--Izaak Walton League of
America, Livermore Falls, ME

(Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Pollutants; and, in the Alternative, Proposed Standards of
Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources: Electric
Utility Steam Generating Units; Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0056,
69 Fed. Reg. 4652 (January 30, 2004).)
I would like to thank Tom Allen for giving Maine the
opportunity to voice our concerns about hazardous air
pollutant emissions from power plants, in particular mercury
emissions.
My name is Debi Davidson and I am here today as a
representative of the Maine Chapter of the Izaak Walton
League of America. We are a national organization of 50,000
anglers, hunters and conservationists committed to
responsible environmental stewardship.
I have attached a letter to my testimony, signed by the
directors of midwest sportsmen's organizations including the
Izaak Walton League of America, and representing over 400,000
people in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Illinois,
Indiana, and Ohio asking the environmental Protection Agency
to strengthen their proposed rule.
Mercury contamination threatens Maine's fishing heritage.
Residents in Maine share a long tradition of outdoor
recreation centering on our lakes, ponds and rivers. We are a
region of camp owners, fishermen, hunters, and outdoor
enthusiasts whose lakes and woods represent a large part of
who we are. Unless we eliminate mercury pollution from our
lakes, ponds, streams and rivers, we cannot safely eat our
fish if we choose to. Even if catch and release is one way to
enjoy fishing, we should not have to limit ourselves to this
method. The effects of mercury pollution on an ecosystem very
much affects the quality of a total fishing experience.
Warnings about eating fish due to mercury contamination very
much detracts from this experience.
Mercury contamination threatens Maine's economy. While
fishing in Maine is clearly a

[[Page H1292]]

long-standing tradition, it is also big business. Figures
show that recreational anglers who fish in our state spend
more than $250 million dollars annually. This includes
everything from fishing lures to special clothing to food,
lodging and transportation for the trips we take.
Economically, Maine cannot afford a contaminated fishery.
We can do better. Mercury contamination of fish in our
lakes and rivers is a serious concern for our members and
their families. The current EPA proposal falls far short of
what is needed to address this threat. EPA's mercury MACT
proposal fails to accomplish what is mandated by the Clean
Air Act for mercury reduction. And the alternative New Source
Performance Standard proposal is a poor substitute to an
adequate mercury MACT standard.
We believe that the proposed mercury MACT rule should
require emissions reductions from all coal-fired power plants
by 2008 equivalent to the level that can be achieved by the
most up-to date pollution controls and resulting in at least
a 90 percent reduction in power plant mercury emissions
nationwide. The technology to achieve these reductions is
being developed and installed in Midwest plants right now.
The EPA should revise the mercury MALT proposal to meet the
Clean Air Act's obligation to require the most up-to-date
pollution controls on all power plants. The EPA should also
reject the alternative New Source Performance Standard
proposal and all mercury trading proposals.
The Maine Chapter of the Izaak Walton League asks that the
EPA adopt a rule that maximizes the protection of human
health and our fisheries by regulating mercury emissions to
the level that we know is technologically feasible and to
please do so now.
Thank you.

February 25, 2004.
Re proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Pollutants; and, in the Alternative, Proposed Standards
of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources:
Electric Utility Steam Generating Units; Docket ID No.
OAR-2002-0056, 69 Fed. Reg. 4652. (January 30, 2004).
Administrator Mike Leavitt,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (Air
Docket), U.S. EPA West (6102T), Washington, DC.
Dear Administrator Leavitt: Sporting groups from Indiana,
Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin have
worked for years to reduce mercury pollution and protect the
health of our families. Today, we write to respectfully
express our concerns over the proposed rule by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to control mercury
emissions from coal-fired power plants.
Fishing has been a tradition in the Midwest for
generations, and sporting groups have been conserving fish
habitat for decades. It has been an important part of family
life and a bond between parents and children. Fishing is also
important for our businesses, with sport-fishing adding $5
billion to our states' economies annually.
Unfortunately, all of our states are under statewide fish
consumption advisories due to widespread mercury
contamination. Catch and release is not just a choice
anymore, it is a practice we must observe to safeguard the
health of our children and grandchildren.
Power plants are one of the largest sources of mercury
pollution in the Midwest. Twenty-three percent of the
nation's coal-fired power plant mercury emissions come from
the six states of Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota,
Ohio and Wisconsin. In order for anglers to once again catch
fish that are safe to eat, it is critical that we
significantly reduce emissions from coal plants in these
states.
Mercury contamination of fish in our lakes and rivers is a
serious concern for our members and their families, but the
current proposal falls far short of what is needed to address
this threat. We know that existing plants using the best
modern technology can achieve mercury reductions of up to 90
percent. The technology to achieve these reductions is being
developed and installed in plants right here in the Midwest.
We urge the EPA to adequately address our mercury problem by
greatly strengthening the proposed mercury rule under section
112 of the Clean Air Act for plants burning all types of
coal. We further urge the agency to reject alternative New
Source Performance Rule in place of a MACT standard.

Mercury and Fish Consumption Advisories

The entire Midwest is affected by mercury contamination to
such a large extent that state health departments have issued
fish consumption advisories specifically for mercury.
Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin
all have blanket statewide fish consumption advisories for
mercury. In addition, Lake Superior and Lake Michigan have
fish consumption advisories because of mercury contamination.
Relying on fish consumption advisories, however, will not
solve the problem. We must reduce the contamination at its
source. Surveys of anglers in the Northeast, Southeast and
Great Lakes have revealed that many anglers may have heard
about the advisories, but anglers with lower income levels
fish more often, eat more fish they catch as part of their
diet, and are generally less aware of advisories than other
anglers. In addition, relying only on advisories to address
the mercury problem leaves a legacy of contaminated fish our
future generations.

Safe-to-eat Fish is Important to Our Families

Women of childbearing age and pregnant women are the most
important members of the population in terms of mercury
exposure. Methylmercury interferes with the development and
function of the nervous system. It poses the greatest hazard
to the developing fetus. This is the reason most fish
consumption advisories warn pregnant women to limit their
fish consumption or avoid fish altogether. However, infants
and children are also at high risk. Infants may ingest methyl
mercury through nursing and children are exposed through
their diet. Children and infants are more sensitive to the
effects of mercury because their nervous systems continue to
develop until about age 14.
Mercury threatens the health of older fishermen, too. New
evidence suggests exposure to methylmercury can adversely
impact blood pressure regulation, heart-rate variability, and
heart disease.

Fishing is an Important Tradition in the Midwest

Residents in the Midwest share a rich tradition of outdoor
recreation centering on our lakes and rivers. We are a region
of cabin owners, fishermen, hunters, and outdoor enthusiasts
whose lakes and woods are as much a part of who we are as our
agriculture, snow and fall foliage. If there is one thing we
love as much as catching fish, it is eating fish. The fish
fry and shore lunch are beloved traditions in the Midwest.
The ability to pass our traditions on to future generations
is threatened by mercury contamination. Unless we eliminate
mercury pollution from our lakes, streams and rivers, our
children's children may not be able to safely eat fresh bass,
walleye, or northern pike--the fish most heavily
contaminated.

Fishing is Important to Our Economy

Fishing in our states is big business. With the Great
Lakes, cold-water streams, and tens of thousands of lakes, it
is no wonder fishing is so popular. Sportfish like largemouth
bass, smallmouth bass, yellow perch, walleye, northern pike
and muskie are just a few of many sought-after species.
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, more than
7.87 million anglers fish in our states and spend more than
$5 billion annually. This includes everything from fishing
lures to special clothing to food, lodging and transportation
for the trips we take. Our region simply cannot afford a
contaminated fishery.
But the value of fishing cannot just be measured in
dollars. Although less tangible and difficult to quantify,
the effects of mercury pollution on an ecosystem can affect
the quality of the fishing experience. A survey of anglers
underscores the importance of the social aspects of fishing.
Some of the main reasons that people fish are to relax, to
spend time with family and friends, and to be close to
nature. Warnings about eating fish due to mercury
contamination detract from this experience. Reducing
environmental contaminants like mercury must be a goal so we
can continue to conserve and protect this resource.

Why is Mercury From Power Plants a Problem?

Goal-fired electric power plants remain the largest
uncontrolled source of mercury in the U.S. Each year,
uncontrolled coal-fired power plants in the U.S. emit nearly
50 tons of mercury to the air in addition to an estimated 33
tons disposed of in waste left over after power plants burn
coal. EPA estimates that coal-fired power plants alone
account for 42 percent of all U.S. mercury air emissions.
Municipal, medical and hazardous waste combustors--which are
stringently regulated by the EPA--account for about ten
percent of U.S. air emissions. Industrial boilers are
responsible for ten percent and chlorine manufacturers for
six percent. The remaining third is made up of incidental use
and products containing mercury.
Existing coal-fired power plants not only remain
uncontrolled, but if left virtually unregulated, over time
they will account for a larger and larger share of mercury
emissions, as other source categories meet their obligations
to reduce their mercury releases.
Coal-fired power plants are found throughout the Midwest.
According to the EPA's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), coal-
fired power plants in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan,
Illinois, Indiana and Ohio together account for 23 percent of
mercury emissions from all coal-fired power plants in the
U.S. Because mercury does not degrade when released and
because the typical coal plant operates for at least 50
years, the accumulation of mercury released by these plants
makes them the most widespread, large-scale, long-lived
generators of mercury in the U.S.
Mercury is emitted from the stacks of coal-fired power
plants, and although it can remain in the atmosphere for up
to one year, a great deal of mercury is deposited on land and
water bodies within 50 miles of the plant. In addition to
being a significant concern in the areas closest to the
plants, the deposition and reemission makes mercury pollution
a regional and global problem. However, we cannot wait for
international cooperation before we start addressing the
emission and deposition problems that occur in the United
States.
After mercury is deposited from the atmosphere, its
greatest adverse impact occurs in the aquatic ecosystem. In a
series of chemical reactions, bacteria in the sediments can
convert mercury to methylmercury.

[[Page H1293]]

Methylmercury is a form of mercury that is especially toxic
to humans and wildlife. Fish absorb methylmercury from the
water as it passes over their gills and as they feed on other
organisms. As larger fish eat smaller fish, methylmercury
concentrations increase in the bigger fish, a process known
as bioaccumulation. Consequently, larger predator fish
usually have higher concentrations of methylmercury from
eating smaller contaminated fish. Humans, birds and other
wildlife that eat fish are exposed to mercury in this way.

EPA MACT Proposal is Inadequate

EPA's mercury MACT proposal fails to accomplish what is
mandated by the Clean Air Act for mercury reduction. Further,
the alternative New Source Performance Standard proposal is a
poor substitute to an adequate mercury MACT standard.
We contend that the proposed mercury MACT rule should
require emissions reductions from all coal-fired power plants
by 2008 that are equivalent to the level that can be achieved
by the most up-to date pollution controls. Based on data
collected by the EPA, that would result in at least a 90
percent reduction in power plant mercury emissions
nationwide.
By contrast, as proposed, EPA's MACT rule will only require
an overall 30 percent cut in emissions, and that not until
2010 at the earliest. In addition, most of the reductions
will come from power plants that burn eastern bituminous
coal, while requiring very little emission reductions from
power plants that burn western subbituminous coal. As a
result, states like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and
Illinois, whose plants use a significant amount of western
coal will see even more limited mercury reductions. Plants in
Ohio and Indiana that use mostly eastern bituminous coal
would have an incentive to switch to western coal. This
could have the perverse effect of potentially increasing
local emissions of mercury from plants in Ohio and
Indiana. It would also create further strain on the coal
industry in the eastern U.S.
The proposed alternative New Source Performance Standard
(NSPS) rule would eventually require deeper reductions, but
not for more than a decade and not to the levels mandated
under a MALT approach. The NSPS alternative also creates
different standards for different coal types and allows for
some electric utilities to avoid making any mercury
reductions, by allowing mercury trading. Treating coal types
differently and allowing for trading raises the risk of
increasing local emissions, exacerbating the problem of
existing mercury hotspots, and creating new mercury hot spots
in the Midwest.
The EPA should revise the mercury MACT to meet the Act's
obligation to require the most up-to-date pollution controls
on all power plants--regardless of the type of coal that they
use--and by so doing achieve stringent and rapid reductions
in emissions of this toxic pollutant. The EPA should also
reject the alternative NSPS and all mercury trading
proposals. These alternatives would cause additional mercury
related adverse health risks through the promotion of
pollution trading, and would allow unacceptable amounts of
mercury pollution to continue.
We respectfully urge the EPA to adopt a rule that maximizes
the protection of human health and our fisheries by
regulating mercury--emissions to the level that we know is
technologically feasible and to do so quickly.
Sincerely,
Jim Bahl, President, Minnesota Conservation Federation, St.
Paul, Minnesota. 3,000 members.
Danny. J. Blandford, Conservation Director, Indiana BASS
Federation, Martinsville, Indiana. 3,000 members.
Jim Doss, President, Ohio BASS Federation, Gallipolis,
Ohio. 1,800 members.
Paul Hansen, Exccutive Director, Izaak Walton League of
America, St. Paul Minnesota. 13,000 members in Midwest states
of MN, WI, MI, IL, IN and OH; 50,000 members nationwide.
Mike Hofmann, President, Wisconsin State BASS Federation,
Weston, Wisconsin. 1100 members.
Brad Maurer, President, Ohio Smallmouth Alliance, Bexley,
Ohio. 160 members.
Edward L. Michael, Chairman, Illinois Council of Trout
Unlimited, Oak Brook, Illinois. 3,000 members.
Larry Mitchell Sr., President, League of Ohio Sportsmen,
Columbus, Ohio. LOOS and its member clubs represent about
200,000 Ohio sportsmen and women.
George Meyer, Executive Director, Wisconsin Wildlife
Federation, Madison, Wisconsin. Representing 83 Wisconsin
hunting, fishing, and trapping organizations.
Kim Olson, New Ulm Area Sport Fishermen, New Ulm,
Minnesota. 150 members.
Bill Pielsticker, Chairman, Wisconsin Council of Trout
Unlimited, Madison, Wisconsin. 4000 members.
Russ Ruland, DNR Liaison & Past President, Muskellunge Club
of Wisconsin, Hales Corners, Wisconsin. 130 members.
Scott Sparlin, Executive Director, Coalition for a Clean
Minnesota River, New Ulm, Minnesota. 600 members.
Vern Wagner, Conservation Director, Minnesota BASS
Federation, Champlin, Minnesota. 14,000 B.A.S.S. members in
Minnesota and 650 enrolled in the Minnesota B.A.S.S.
Federation.
Jay Walton, Iowa BASS Federation Conservation Director
(4,000 member affiliation), Iowa Conservation Alliance Board
(50,000 member affiliation), Ames, Iowa.
Sam Washington, Executive Director, Michigan United
Conservation Clubs, East Lansing, Michigan. A network of
nearly 100,000 men and women and over 500 affiliated
conservation and outdoor recreation clubs.
Paula Yeager, Executive Director, Indiana Wildlife
Federation, Carmel, Indiana. 20,000 members.

[[Page H1294]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18MR04.001

[[Page H1295]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18MR04.002

[[Page H1296]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18MR04.003

[[Page H1297]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18MR04.004

[[Page H1298]]

Testimony: Prof. Ellen K. Silbergeld--EPA Hearings on Regulation of
Utility Mercury Emissions, Philadelphia, February 25, 2004

I am Ellen K. Silbergeld, Professor of Environmental Health
Sciences and Epidemiology at the Bloomberg School of Public
Health, Johns Hopkins University, in Baltimore, Maryland. I
am appearing without compensation as a private citizen, at
the invitation of the Sierra Club, and my testimony is based
upon my research experience on the toxicology and
epidemiology of mercury compounds, as well as my experience
in regulatory risk assessment and risk management, including
the application of ``cap and trade'' mechanisms to achieve
goals in reducing air pollution. My background and training
are outlined in the attached documentation; my PhD is in
environmental engineering sciences from Johns Hopkins School
of Engineering, and I have held research positions with NIH
and the University of Maryland Medical School. I have served
as a member of EPA's Science Advisory Board as well as an
advisor to the Department of Energy, the CDC, the World
Health Organization, the World Bank, the Pan American Health
Organization, the National Toxicology Program, the National
Academy of Sciences, and many other international, national,
and state commissions and expert committees. I was a member
of EPA and NIH committees evaluating the sources and risks of
mercury exposures and I participated by invitation in the
deliberations of the NRC Committee on the Toxicology of
Methyl Mercury. I am currently directing funded research in
my laboratory on mercury compounds, studying exposures and
mechanisms of both organomercury compounds (including
methylmercury and thimerosal) and inorganic mercury. Last
year we published two major research papers: an
epidemiological study reporting that adults may be as
sensitive as young children to the neurotoxic effects of
methylmercury exposure, via fish consumption; and one of the
first studies to show that very low doses of mercury can
accelerate autoimmune disease, in an animal model of lupus.
In this testimony I want to make three points, relevant to
important aspects of your deliberations: (1) mercury
compounds must be considered toxic air pollutants; (2)
exposures to mercury compounds are a serious and significant
health concern for millions of Americans; and (3) it is
dangerously inappropriate to propose a ``cap and trade''
policy for controlling the major remaining anthropogenic
sources of mercury in the US.
Mercury compounds are toxic air pollutants. Mercury
compounds are widely recognized as one of the most serious
public health risks world wide, particularly for children
(see WHO 1990 report; NRC 2000 report). Mercury compounds can
affect many organ systems, including the nervous system,
kidney, heart, and immune systems. However, we have not fully
appreciated the range and severity of mercury toxicity.
Public health policy, including the risk assessments
conducted by federal and state agencies, has appropriately
focused on the developing nervous system as a very sensitive
target for irreversible toxic damage. However, mercury has
multiple effects of many organ systems in addition to the
developing brain. We recently published an epidemiologic
study indicating that adults exposed to methyl mercury via
fish are also at risk for neurocognitive deficits, with a
dose:response relationship very similar to that found for
children exposed prenatally (Yokoo et al 2003):

TABLE 3.--REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS b OF ADULT'S HAIR MERCURY CONCENTRATION AS A PREDICTOR OF NEUROBEHAVIORAL
TRUST RESULTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test b* 95% C1 b** 95% C1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fine Motor Speed.................................. -3.40 -5.80;-1.00 -3.20 -5.40;-1.00
Digit Span........................................ -0.14 -0.29;--0.001 -0.15 -0.29; 0.003
Digit Span backward............................... -0.09 -0.18;--0.001 -0.09 -0.19;-0.009
Digit Symbol...................................... -1.21 -2.8;-0.33 -0.54 -1.2;0.16
Easy Learning..................................... -0.37 -0.70;-0.04 -0.34 -0.64;-0.04
Difficult Learning................................ -0.21 -0.42;-0.001 -0.15 -0.34;-0.03
Logical Memory first story........................ -0.29 -0.51;-0.09 -0.27 -0.49;-0.06
Errors of commission.............................. -1.39 -0.26;-2.5 -1.45 -0.28;-2.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*--bit adjusted; **--adjustsed by age, gender, and education level.

In addition, recent research in our group and elsewhere has
identified the cardiovascular system and the immune system as
important targets for mercury toxicity across the lifespan.
Because these studies have been published since the 2000 NRC
report and risk assessments by FDA and EPA, I will review
these data here. In follow up studies in Minimata and in the
Faeroes study of children exposed perinatally to methyl
mercury via fish consumption, alterations in cardiovascular
function have been reported (Oka et a1 2002; Sorensen et al
1999). In 2003, my colleague Dr Eliseo Guallar reported
that mercury exposures were associated with cardiovascular
disease in adults. In this elegant analysis, Guallar et al
(2002) demonstrated that consumption of fish containing
mercury resulted in loss of the beneficial effects of fish
consumption for cardiovascular function, that is, the
methyl mercury ingested by fish consumers abrogated the
recognized benefits of consuming omega-3 fatty acids of
which fish are an excellent source.
The immunotoxic effects of mercury have long been reported
in experimental studies, many conducted by researchers here
in Philadelphia (Prof. Shenker, Monestier, and Kono). These
researchers and others have shown that administration of
mercury compounds to rats and mice can induce autoimmune
dysfunction similar to that observed in such autoimmune
diseases as lupus and scleroderma. However, there has been
little data to suggest that mercury could cause autoimmune
disease in humans. We have examined these potential risks of
mercury in a different way, to test whether mercury can
accelerate autoimmune disease in the context of triggers of
these diseases, such as genetic susceptibility, infection, or
exposure to antigens. We reported last year that pretreatment
of mice with very low doses of mercury can accelerate and
exacerbate lupus in an animal model of disease, resulting in
premature mortality, more extensive kidney damage, and more
rapid dysregulation of the immune system (Via et al 2003).
To put our experiments in perspective, we are exposing our
mice to doses equivalent to consuming one can of tuna fish
per day with a concentration of 5-10 ppm methyl mercury. In
our current research we are examining interactions of low
dose mercury with infections, such as Coxsackie B virus,
which are major causes of autoimmune cardiomyopathy in
humans. Again, we found that mercury accelerates and worsens
heart disease in the context of viral ``priming'' (Nyland et
al 2004). Autoimmune myocarditis is a leading cause of sudden
heart failure in young persons; the possibility that mercury
exposures could uncover latent disease, or worsen disease, is
very serious.
Based on these studies, and the continued research on
mercury worldwide, it is fair to say that we have not yet
fully comprehended the range of mercury toxicity and its
risks for human health. In many ways, we are still at the
point in evaluating mercury as a toxic air pollutant as we
were in thinking about lead some 25 years ago. We know that
mercury is dangerous, and we know some people may be
excessively exposed. However, we do not fully appreciate its
toxicity and hence we cannot disregard the range of exposures
current in the U.S. population.
Exposures to mercury compounds are a significant threat to
millions of Americans. One yardstick by which to judge the
need for urgent interventions in a public health problem is
to evaluate current levels of exposure to a toxic agent like
mercury. Several recent analyses have been undertaken on
exposures of the U.S. population to mercury compounds, most
recently by Dr. Kathryn Mahaffey and her colleagues at EPA.
(Their report is available on line from Environmental Health
Perspectives, the scientific journal published by NIEHS).
Mercury exposures can be evaluated either by population
studies of mercury concentrations in blood or hair, which was
done by the CDC in 2003 (Schober et al 2003). Exposures can
also be determined by analyzing mercury concentrations in
food, which is the major source of exposure for the U.S.
population. Mahaffey and colleagues have updated the earlier
assessment of U.S. exposures, using information on blood
mercury levels and on diet. Their analyses support the
urgency of taking comprehensive and effective actions to
reduce ongoing inputs of mercury into the environment. For
all U.S. women of childbearing age, half have blood mercury
levels in excess of 0.94 micrograms/L. Nearly 10% have blood
mercury levels greater than 5 micrograms/L, with a range of
2.7 to 25% depending upon ethnicity. The NRC recommendations
in 2000 supported a reference dose for mercury in cord blood
of 5.8 micrograms/L. Mahaffey et al estimate that more than
300,000 infants may be born each year to women whose blood
mercury levels are in excess of this health based guidance.
Clearly, this is an environmental health issue demanding
rapid intervention.
Mercury comes from many sources, natural and anthropogenic,
and each individual is exposed to the sum of all these
sources. For most Americans, the proximate source of mercury
exposure is through the food supply, primarily through
seafood. Finally, the FDA seems ready to adopt the current
risk assessment, developed by the National Research Council
and adopted by EPA. However, this is the proximate source of
mercury, and attempting to reduce exposure by controlling the
foods we eat is an inefficient and ultimately uncertain
public health policy. Moreover, without controlling the
ultimate sources of mercury, we are essentially writing off
seafood as a food source.
The ultimate source of mercury is overwhelmingly from
energy production using fossil fuels. Prudent and effective
public

[[Page H1299]]

health policy requires that we examine options for
controlling this source, rather than eliminating seafood and
some freshwater fish from our diets for now and forever.
``Cap and trade'' policies are not appropriate for mercury.
I am proud that I worked for the environmental organization
Environmental Defense that has developed innovative
strategies for protecting our environment and human health.
One of these strategies has been the careful selection and
implementation of so-called ``cap and trade'' policies for
certain pollutants, notably sulfur oxides. From this
experience, there are criteria we can apply in determining
what policies are appropriate for controlling specific
pollutants. First, trading only works to prevent
environmental impacts and harness efficient private sector
mechanisms under the following conditions: (1) it doesn't
matter where the pollutant is released, so that if one source
accumulated ``trading rights'' and emits more pollution than
a source that sells these rights, there will be no local
impacts around the buyer source. (2) the pollutant should not
accumulate in the environment, such that continuing emissions
do not build up in ecosystems or food pathways. (3) the
current levels of exposure should be acceptable such that it
is not necessary to implement a rapid overall reduction in
exposures at the local or national level.
None of these conditions are met in the case of mercury. It
does matter where mercury is emitted. In an analysis of EPA
data conducted by Environmental Defense, it was shown that in
many states with mercury problems (evidenced by fish
advisories) local sources are the cause of environmental
``hot spots''. If these sources utilize trading rights, then
the problem of local ``hot spots'' will continue. This is
likely, since the reason for these hot spots is current
levels of release, reflecting the fact that it is more
convenient, economically and technologically, for these
sources to emit mercury rather than control their facilities.
Mercury accumulates in the environment and in food pathways
affecting wildlife and humans. Mercury is an element and thus
never disappears. In addition, in the aquatic environment,
inorganic mercury emissions are transformed by bacteria into
methyl mercury, which is bioaccumulated by organisms through
complex food webs resulting in concentrations of
methylmercury in large fish that eat other fish tens of
thousands of times higher than the concentrations in water or
sediments. Current levels of exposure are unacceptable. For
that reason, it is imperative for us to take action to reduce
mercury exposures from all sources, but most expeditiously to
reduce the largest and least controlled sources. We have the
technology to control utility emissions, as has been
demonstrated in this country for other combustion sources and
in Europe for utility plants. Data below show the dramatic
reductions achieved by waste incinerators.
We do not have room for trading, when hundreds of thousands
of adults and babies are at risk because of current levels of
exposure. We do not have time for trading, when consumers
must choose between a healthy diet, incorporating seafood,
and avoiding the hazards of mercury for themselves and their
children.

references cited

Guallar E et al. Mercury, fish oils, and the risk of
myocardial infarction. New Engl J Med 2002; 347: 1747-1754.
Mahaffey KR et al. Blood organic mercury and dietary
mercury intake. Environ Health Perspect 2004: ehponline.org
doi: 10.1289/ehp/6587.
NRC. Toxicology of Methyl Mercury. NAS Press, 2000.
Nyland J et al. Inorganic mercury increases severity and
frequency of autoimmune myocarditis in mice. Toxicol Sci
2004; in press.
Oka T et al. Autonomic nervous function in fetal type
Minimata disease patients: assessment of heart rate
variability. Toh J Exp Med 2002; 198: 215-221.
Rice DC et al. Methods and rationale for derivation of a
reference dose for methylmercury by the US EPA. Risk Anal
2003; 23: 107-115.
Schober SE et al. Blood mercury levels in US children and
women of childbearing age, 1999-2000. JAMA 2003: 289: 1667-
1674.
Sorensen N. et al. Prenatal methylmercury exposure as a
cardiovascular risk factor at seven years of age. Epidemiol
1999; 10: 370-5.
Via CS et al. Low dose exposure to inorganic mercury
accelerates disease and mortality in acquired murine lupus.
Environ Health Persp 2003; 111: 1273-7.
World Health Organization. Methyl Mercury. Geneva: WHO,
1990.
Yokoo E. et al. Low level mercury exposure affects
neuropsychological function in adults. Environ Health 2003;
@; 8-16.
____

Maine Council of Churches,

Environmental Justice Program,

Portland, ME, March 1, 2004.
Re public hearing on mercury emissions ruling.

Congressman Tom Allen,
House of Representatives,
Augusta, ME.
Dear Congressman Allen: The Maine Council of Churches'
Environmental Justice Program asks you, as our representative
to the U.S. Congress, to carry a message to the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Secretary of Energy. With deep
concern for the sustainability of the living web of creation
we oppose the proposed rule change on mercury pollution as
well as the recently announced plan to build 94 new coal-
burning power plants across the nation. Both proposals are
appalling in light of our growing scientific knowledge that
human activity--primarily burning fossil fuels in power
plants and vehicles--is seriously compromising the health of
our environment and all of the earth's inhabitants for
generations to come. We have the technology available today
to reduce mercury pollution by 90%; yet our federal
government proposes to introduce a ``cap-and-trade'' program
for this toxic pollutant and to build more power plants that
will generate mercury emissions.
Living close to the land, most Mainers have experienced
firsthand the effects of mercury and air pollution emitted by
coal-burning power plants to our south and west. At our
rivers and lakes we read the posted fish advisories. We see
inhalers in backpacks reminding us that our children suffer
from the highest asthma rate in the region. We've learned on
hot summer days that the heavy haze that hugs our coastline
is ground ozone and is dangerous for our friends and
neighbors who have respiratory problems. Stay inside and
reduce your level of activity, we are warned.
Concerned about these growing problems in our environment,
congregations and their members across Maine have been
working together to do something. Together we are conserving
energy as we obey the first Commandment and put into practice
our covenant with the Creator ``to care for the garden.''
With support from the state Public Utilities Commission's
Efficiency Maine, congregations are participating in free
energy audits and rebates to install energy-efficient
appliances; individuals are replacing incandescent light
bulbs with compact fluorescent light bulbs at rebated prices
and implementing other technologies that conserve energy in
their homes.
We want to learn and participate in state programs that
collect items containing hazardous wastes like mercury.
And it is not only the faith community. Businesses and the
state have also made commitments, purchasing Maine-produced
``green'' electricity and supporting wind and solar power
development through green tag purchases--all as a result of
Maine Interfaith Power & Light's successful campaign to bring
renewable electricity options to Maine residents.
One by one, community by community, Mainers are making a
difference in the amount and kind of energy consumed in the
state and cleaning up our own contributions to air and water
degradation. But we can't do it alone. We need those who
create policy and oversee the protection of our environment
and its resources--the EPA, especially--to stand with us and
enforce the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, which are
vital to the future of all of our neighbors on the earth.
These leaders must indeed work with us, not against us, and
champion life-sustaining energy and toxic pollution-reduction
policies.
Thank you for your continued efforts on behalf of the earth
and its living inhabitants.
Respectfully submitted,
Anne D. (Andy) Burt,
Director, Environmental Justice Program.
____

Mercury Rule Hearing Sponsored by Tom Allen, Monday, March 1,
Legislative Council Chamber, Room 334, Maine State House, Augusta

Thank you Rep. Tom Allen for holding this shadow hearing to
the Environmental Protection Agency's field hearing in
Philadelphia. We deserve the right to discuss their proposal
to weaken the Clean Air Act's protections against mercury
pollution from power plants, as it is Maine that will
continue to see the high rates of mercury deposition.
My name is Patricia Philbrook. I am here today as a board
member of the Maine People's Alliance (MPA), a statewide
citizen action organization with 22,000 members.
Power plants are the largest industrial source of mercury
in our environment. Mercury emitted from power plant stacks
falls as rain, snow, and even dry deposition here in Maine.
Three and one half years ago MPA co-released a report at the
HoltraChem site in Orrington indicating our rain and other
forms of precipitation, commonly thought to be pure, is
tainted with varying levels of mercury, in some instances
enough to be a threat to aquatic organisms. Remarkably, power
plants are the only major mercury polluters yet to be
regulated under federal clean air standards. Thus, in large
part, our nation's mercury problem is due to the fact that
while other sources must meet strict emission limits, power
plants continue to spew unlimited quantities of mercury into
our air, where the rain and snow wash it into our rivers,
lakes and oceans, and, ultimately, into our food chain.
Public health demands that we act on mercury to reduce
children's exposure, who are especially vulnerable to this
potent toxin, and to protect all members of our population.
Maine also has local mercury problems, which we have been
addressing. Currently, the Maine People's Alliance and many
others have serious concerns about the proposed cleanup plan
at HoltraChem, one of the worst mercury pollution sites in
the country. Basically, Mallinckrodt plans to ``cover and
run,'' leaving many tons of toxic mercury in close proximity
to the Penobscot River. Mallinckrodt chose the best
opportunities for cost cutting rather than the right

[[Page H1300]]

options for eliminating toxic threats. This cheap solution is
neither acceptable to the residents of Orrington, nor to the
people living in the Penobscot Valley. Clearly, Mallinckrodt
is solely responsible for this mess. It built the plant, and
for years it profited while polluting one of Maine's great
natural treasures.
As the sole responsible party left among the many that
operated the plant at one time, Mallinckrodt should be
legally bound to remove all toxic threats to human health and
the environment. To date, it has been operating on a
voluntary basis with the EPA to implement corrective actions
at the site. The government should require Mallinckrodt to
sign a consent agreement, legally binding it to follow
through with a thorough cleanup. The consent agreement should
also obligate Mallinckrodt to address any future problems at
the site that may not be apparent today. While the Maine
People's Alliance has worked tirelessly over three decades to
clean up HoltraChem and has supported the Maine Legislature
in efforts to reduce mercury contained in products sold in
Maine, we will continue to have some of the highest mercury
levels unless power plants are forced to observe strict
standards at the federal level.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration has taken several
steps in the wrong direction. Instead of protecting mothers
and children from exposure to mercury, EPA's proposals would
protect electric utilities by setting targets so weak that
the industry will be allowed to continue polluting. What the
mercury standard should be and what the EPA should be
implementing is current law (Section 112 of the Clean Air
Act), which requires that industries install maximum
achievable control technologies to reduce air toxics such as
mercury.
Two years ago, EPA's own scientists said the existing power
plants could achieve a 90 percent reduction in mercury
emissions using existing control technologies. This means we
can reduce mercury emissions from power plants from 48 tons
annually to roughly 5 tons per year by 2008. We should accept
no less.
____

Mercury Rule Hearing: Teaching the Unthinkable

Hello, my name is Chris Coleman and I am here as a
representative of the Chewonki Foundation. We are a non-
profit center for environmental education located in
Wiscasset, ME. Personally, I am the Assistant Director of our
Travelling Natural History Programs. To put it simply: I am a
teacher. In the course of a year I teach thousands of
elementary school children throughout the state of Maine
about Owls, Hawks, reptiles, amphibians, waste management,
global warming, predators, prey, food chains, mammals, trees,
etc. If it's going on outside we have a lesson that will
teach you about it. In just about every lesson I teach, there
is a time when I explain the problems that the particular
subject of that lesson faces, whether it be plant or animal.
I teach with the understanding that awareness leads to
action. To each problem I offer a solution. Since the
majority of these problems are related to humans, the
solutions deal with things students can do to fix them, i.e.,
picking up trash on the beach, not throwing apple cores out
car windows, buying things in the grocery store that produce
less waste, etc. I feel that it is important that children
understand they are not helpless in the grand scheme of
things just because they are kids.
I pride myself in my ability as an educator to present
issues to students in a nonbias, ``middle of the road'' sort
of way. They deserve to hear both sides of the issue. I think
it is unfair to take advantage of such a malleable mind.
Children need to be given the facts, and then, from there it
is truly an amazing thing to watch as they go through a very
intense deductive process which almost always culminates in
the simple but entirely justified question, ``Why?'' Gone are
the days when as adults we can get away with the answer,
``Because that's just the way it is.'' They have matured far
too much to accept such a thoughtless answer. Even at ten
years of age they need some ``hard science'' to reinforce
every concept within their own environment.
Now I have a new problem to teach: mercury contamination. I
know the problem is not new to most of us here, but upon
researching the topic I have decided that the issue now
warrants a great deal of awareness among children in order to
create the action I spoke of earlier. Afterall, they are the
ones that will be forced to deal with this issue as it
becomes more and more of a problem. First I give them the
``hard science'':
Mercury is a highly toxic chemical with effects on the
central nervous system comparable to those of lead,
especially for unborn fetuses, very young children whose
brains are still developing, and piscivorous animal.
Forty-five states have issued freshwater fish consumption
advisories.
Loons of Maine in high-risk mercury situations have been
observed spending far less time sitting on their eggs in the
nest, foraging for food, and increased time brooding and
resting.
High mercury levels are being passed on to loon chicks.
4.9 million women of childbearing age in the U.S.--that's 8
percent--have mercury levels in their blood that are unsafe.
(Center for Disease Control).
Two years ago, EPA scientists concluded that 90 percent
reduction in mercury output from coal fired power plants is
possible using existing technologies.
The list goes on, and on, and on.
Here is my dilemma though. What do I offer as a solution to
kids? What can they do? Maybe it's a problem better left for
adults to handle. And then they'll ask, ``What are the adults
doing about all of the mercury that goes into our water?''
Now, thankfully I have an answer. Based on recent decisions
made by our government, I can honestly say to them,
``Absolutely nothing.''
What I fear the most though are the questions students ask
that they have no idea are even related to mercury, like, ``
Where are all the loons that used to live on my lake? How
come that bald eagle doesn't come back to its nest anymore? I
used to hear the shrill cries of an osprey every time my
family visited that island. Now everything is so quiet. Where
did the osprey go?'' Do I then explain to them that a deadly
neurotoxin called methylmercury is slowly killing off these
birds and it will only get worse as they grow older.
Don't make me answer those questions. I shouldn't have to
answer them. Those answers should come from the people who
have created and perpetuate the ill effects of mercury
contamination. I always have such high hopes for children,
for the things they are capable of now and in the future, but
why do we constantly stack the deck against them. It is time
to right the wrongs of my generation, your generation, and
generations before us so that the children of today will be
able to swim in their lakes, eat their fish, and enjoy the
wildlife within their forests. I fear we as adults have
created so many problems for them to deal with, so why not
remedy this situation before it becomes catastrophic. My name
is Chris Coleman. I am a teacher. I came here today to speak
for the children of Maine.
____

Testimony by Philippe Grandjean, MD, PhD, at the Mercury MACT Rule
Hearing Sponsored by Rep. Tom Allen

My name is Philippe Grandjean. I am an MD, PhD, and I work
as an Adjunct Professor of Environmental Health at Harvard
School of Public Health in Boston. I am also a Professor and
Chair of Environmental Medicine at the University of Southern
Denmark. I apologize for not being able to be present today
due to commitments in Europe and my field studies in the
Faroe Islands. I am grateful to you for allowing me to
present a short summary of the current status of our studies
of adverse effects of methylmercury in regard to human
health.
I started studying the effects of mercury on human health
almost 20 years ago. Together with Dr. Pal Weihe, I collected
information on births in the Faroe Islands, a fishing
community located in the North Atlantic between Norway and
Iceland. In over 1,000 children, we determined the prenatal
exposure to methylmercury by analyzing the cord blood for
mercury. The mercury originated from the traditional Faroese
diet, which includes pilot whale meat in addition to frequent
meals of fish and shellfish. The pilot whale is a toothed
whale that eats fish and squid, and the mercury concentration
in the meat corresponds to the levels in swordfish and shark,
or higher.
When we examined the children at age 7 years with
sophisticated neurobehavioral methods, we found that
increased prenatal mercury exposure was associated with
deficits in several brain functions, including attention,
language, verbal memory, spatial function and motor speed.
These associations could not be explained away by a multitude
of other factors that we also recorded. In fact, the Faroese
population is relatively uniform, and whale meat is freely
shared when available, so that one would not expect that
socioeconomic or other factors would play any great role.
In 2000, the National Research Council released its report
on the Toxicology of Methylmercury. This report identified
our work as critical evidence in regard to identifying an
exposure limit for methylmercury. The NRC committee used the
so-called benchmark dose for these calculations and agreed
with the U.S. EPA that an exposure limit of 0.1 micrograms
per kilogram of body weight per day was justified.
Since then, our research has made substantial progress, and
I would like to share some of these achievements with you.
One insight comes from efforts in statistical theory by my
colleague, Dr. Esben Budtz-Jorgensen, a Danish statistician
who now works as a postdoc at Harvard. Esben first calculated
the degree of imprecision of the exposure assessments--that
is, in this case, how well the cord-blood mercury
concentrations reflected the ``true'' exposure. Imprecise
exposure assessments result in an underestimation of the true
effect of an exposure, in this case methylmercury. We had
anticipated that our mercury measurements would not be a
precise measure of the dose that the fetus (especially the
fetal brain) had received. But Esben documented that the
measurement error was much greater than we had thought. In
addition, the mercury concentration in the mother's hair was
a poor measure of the ``true'' exposure to the fetus.
Such imprecision of course also affects the calculations of
benchmark doses. Esben has now calculated the influence on
the results that the NRC used in their report. In short, the
benchmark dose has been overestimated

[[Page H1301]]

by a factor of 2. Accordingly, if we were to calculate an
exposure limit today by the same procedure as the one used by
the NRC, now using the adjusted benchmark dose, then the
exposure limit would be only one-half of the limit used by
the U.S.EPA.
Another issue of importance is how you convert mercury
concentrations in hair to concentrations in blood and vice
versa. The calculation originally presented by the NRC was
based on cord blood and needs to be adjusted to the
concentration in adult whole blood. The EPA now estimates the
annual number of births in the US that exceed the EPA
exposure limit to be 630,000. However, the number would have
been even larger, had the EPA used the adjusted exposure
limit.
Current risk assessments have been based on the assumption
that the fetal brain is the most sensitive organ. Brain
development also continues after birth, but we have been
uncertain how long an increased susceptibility to mercury
might last. Accordingly, some states have chosen to warn
against mercury exposure from fish only with regard to
pregnant women, while others have included children up to
various age levels. Our new results, just published in The
Journal of Pediatrics in the February issue shed new light on
the vulnerability of the brain.
We had recently examined the Faroese children again at age
14 years, and the tests carried out included brainstem
auditory evoked potentials. In this test, the child was
hearing a sound from a headset, and we then recorded the
resulting electrical activity in the brain using surface
electrodes placed on the skull. Using standard clinical
procedures, we measured the transmission of the electrical
signal from the acoustic nerve through a series of ``relay''
stations in the brain. We found that the latency, or
transmission time, of the signal from the acoustic nerve to
the brainstem was significantly increased at higher prenatal
exposure to mercury. This was true both at 7 years and at 14
years, suggesting that this effect of mercury on the
developing brain is irreversible.
This mercury-associated delay in transmission appeared to
be parallel to the effects on the child's cognitive functions
that I mentioned before. The measurement of electrical
signals is regarded an objective assessment that is
independent of factors, such as age and socioeconomics. It
therefore represents an important, independent confirmation
of the neurotoxicity of methylmercury from seafood. We are
currently working on the neuropsychological test results at
age 14 years to see whether they too, as we anticipate,
reflect lasting mercury toxicity. So I can't report on these
results yet.
An additional finding at age 14 years was that a subsequent
component of the signal transmission to the midbrain was
delayed at higher current mercury exposures, but in this case
it was not affected by prenatal exposure. Postnatal mercury
exposure up to adolescence therefore also seems capable of
damaging brain functions, although they may not be the same
as those that are sensitive to mercury during fetal
development. This conclusion is entirely plausible and agrees
with experimental animal studies.
It is noteworthy that these children at age 14 had an
average exposure that was similar to the exposure limit used
by the U.S.EPA, and that 95% of them had exposures below the
level which has previously been considered safe by the FDA.
Yet, at these exposure levels, we saw a steady slope of
increasing delays of the electrical signals, the higher the
mercury exposure: The delay in the signals appeared already
at mercury doses below the EPA limit.
All of these results regard cognitive effects and other
changes of brain functions. The autonomic nervous system
performs important, but unconscious functions, such as
regulating the heart beat, the blood pressure, etc. We have
now found that the mercury associated neurological changes
are also linked to decreased nervous system control of the
heart function. At higher mercury exposures, the children
were less capable of maintaining the normal variability of
the heart rate necessary to secure proper oxygen supply to
the body and to maintain an appropriate blood pressure.
This finding has wider potential relevance, because other
research has suggested that mercury from fish may increase
the risk of heart disease and of dying from heart disease.
The most recent reports were published in The New England
Journal of Medicine in November, 2002. We suspect that part
of the reason for these findings is that the mercury affects
the autonomic nervous system and its control of the heart
function. Such effects are of course highly relevant to
Americans in general. These new results therefore suggest
that we should not only be concerned about mercury exposures
of pregnant women and small children. The EPA report that
over 10% of all births every year exceed the exposure limit
should therefore also be considered in regard to the
population at large.
The importance of brain functions means even a small
deficit, whether measured as a decrease in IQ points or
otherwise, is likely to impact on an individual's quality-of-
life, academic success and economic prospects in life. Even
though the children that we examined were all basically
normal, we have documented detectable deficits that appear to
be permanent. I would consider such changes as adverse health
effects that should be prevented. Further, even a small
increase in the incidence of heart disease is important,
because cardiovascular disease is the major cause of death in
this country.
Freshwater fish and seafood are excellent supplies of
energy and essential nutrients. If fish is not contaminated
with mercury, it will help prevent heart disease. I believe
that it is an important effort to support public health to
prevent mercury contamination of the environment.
Thank you.
____

Statement of Rebecca Weinstein, JD, MSW, Executive Director, Maine
Developmental Disabilities Council

(On the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Proposed
Rulemaking On Standards for Reduction of Mercury Emissions
from Coal and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Power Plants and the
Use of Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Published
in the Federal Register on January 30, 2004 (69 FR 4692) EPA
Docket ID Nos. OAR-2002-0056 & A-92-55.)
Good afternoon, my name is Rebecca Weinstein and I am the
Executive Director of the Maine Developmental Disabilities
Council. The Council is an independent advocacy organization
working toward systems change to assure that individuals with
developmental disabilities are fully included, integrated and
involved in their communities and the decisions impacting
them.
It is not often the case that I have the opportunity to
testify on environmental issues; until fairly recently,
discussion of disability meant discussion of health and other
human services. However, increasing knowledge of the
potential role of environmental toxins and other factors in
causing developmental disabilities means that a much broader
spectrum of issues now must be considered as disability
issues.
According to the federal definition, a developmental
disability is a condition which occurs before the age of 22,
has severe impact in three major life areas and is likely to
continue indefinitely. In most cases it is impossible to
identify a direct cause of a developmental disability. The
most current scientific research indicates that complex
interactions between social environment, genetics, and
environmental toxins such as lead, PCBs, and mercury play a
profound role in the causation of developmental disabilities.
While it is extremely difficult to have a measurable impact
on social environments and genetic factors legislatively,
emissions of these kinds of potent neurotoxins can be
substantially reduced and even eliminated through stringent
regulation.
Mercury can have a devastating impact on fetal brain
development. Large exposures can cause mental retardation,
gait and visual disturbances, and even small exposures can
cause impairment in language, memory and attention. When fish
contaminated with mercury are consumed, women of childbearing
age can put their future children at risk for a range of
developmental disabilities. Warnings are regularly issued to
attempt to protect fetuses and young children from these
effects, but even with this warning system in place, the
Centers for Disease Control estimate that 1 in 12 women of
childbearing age in the U.S. has unsafe levels of mercury in
her blood. Women who have become contaminated with enough
mercury to cause substantial harm to a developing fetus may
not themselves have, or show signs of, mercury poisoning.
This is because the developing brain is especially sensitive
to the effects of mercury, where its presence can cause
significant disruption to a variety of processes including
cellular function, protein synthesis, cell division, and
cellular migration.
As an additional cause for concern, recent studies have
shown that methylmercury in combination with polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) act synergistically, raising questions about
the impact of mercury in combination with other neurotoxins
at very low levels. Many water systems in the US are
contaminated with a variety of toxins including PCBs and
other neurotoxicants, raising questions about analyses and
alerts based solely on a single toxin.
The potential damage that mercury emissions pose to
America's children make it imperative that mercury emissions
be limited to the greatest extent possible. The more mercury
that is prevented from entering the environment, the greater
the chances that children will avoid its toxic impacts. Power
plants have been allowed to emit these toxic chemicals for
years, negatively impacting the health of our environment and
the nation's children. It is simply unacceptable not to
demand that these polluters meet anything but the most
stringent emissions standards, especially when technologies
already exist that can remove a large majority of these
emissions.
I urge you to push for the most stringent standards
possible to help protect America's children.
Thank you for your consideration.

[[Page H1302]]

____
Maine Council

of Trout Unlimited,

March 1, 2004,
Re Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Pollutants; and, in the Alternative, Proposed Standards
of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources:
Electric Utility Steam Generating Units; Docket ID No.
OAR-2002-0056, 69 Fed. Reg. 4652 (January 30, 2004).

Administrator Mike Leavitt,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (Air
Docket), U.S. EPA West, Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC.
Dear Administrator Leavitt: EPA's current proposal to
regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by the electric
utility industry does not adequately protect public health or
our fisheries. It is important to Maine Trout Unlimited
members that the electric utility industry takes
responsibility for its harmful emissions.
Congress specifically lists mercury as a hazardous air
pollutant in section 112 (b) of the Clean Air Act because of
its toxic nature and its health effects. Toxic air pollutants
must be regulated so as to require the maximum achievable
control technology (MACT) at every source. The Maine Council
of Trout Unlimited is concerned about EPA's proposal to allow
trading of this toxic material.
All of the New England states have Statewide Mercury
Advisories and within the State of Maine's Open Water and Ice
Fishing Regulations book is a warning about eating freshwater
fish: Warning: Mercury in Maine freshwater fish may harm the
babies of pregnant and nursing mothers, and young children.
The proposed mercury MACT rule should require emissions
reductions from all coal-fired power plants by 2008 that are
equivalent to the level that can be achieved by the most up
to date pollution controls. We strongly urge the EPA to adopt
a rule that will protect human health and our fisheries.
Sincerely,
Greg Ponte,
Council Chair.
____

My name is Marjorie Monteleon. I live on Mt Desert Island
where Acadia National Park is located. I chose to drive
between 5-6 hours round trip to protest the EPA's proposed
relaxing of the regulatory approach to mercury in air
pollution.
Why?
Because: Some tree swallows in Acadia National Park are
more mercury-contaminated than birds at a Superfund site in
Massachusetts, according to Jerry Longcore, of the U.S.
Geological Survey.
Because: ``The mercury in rain falling on Acadia National
Park peaked at . . . close to four times the current EPA
standard and over 23 times higher than the Great Lakes human-
health standard.'' On average, the rain in Maine carries
mercury levels more than three times greater than the EPA's
updated human-health standard for the Great Lakes.
Because: Seal Cove, Hodgdon Pond, and Aunt Betty Pond, in
Acadia National Park are highly contaminated. It may be
unsafe for anyone to eat any fish from these ponds.
Because: 20 to 25 percent of ``loons'' in Maine have high
mercury levels, high enough, in fact, that they are at risk
of neurological and behavioral problems; those loons fledge
40 percent fewer young and we know that mercury levels in
loons are a measuring stick for mercury levels in our
environment. And we know that mercury in our environment
eventually winds up in our bodies.
Because: 3-4 million people come to Acadia each summer. We
year-rounders depend on them for our living. They eat tons of
our seafood, ride in our boats, buy our boats, rent lodging
and campsites, buy souvenirs, gasoline, etc. What happens
when our fish is completely inedible? What about the
fishermen, my son included? What about the boat builders?
Because: Not just Acadia.
The rain in Bridgeton is contaminated with ``more than
twice the generic EPA aquatic life and wildlife standard and
over 14 times the new more protective human-health standard
developed for the Great Lakes,'' according to studies by the
Mercury Deposition Network.
The EPA's motto is Protecting ``Human Health, Safeguarding
the Natural Environment. Pray tell what do they propose to
tell the populace as it slowly dies from mercuy
contamination? What does it take to get them to abide by
their motto?
Apparently it takes many lawsuits to require the EPA to do
it's job.
1. The goal of one case, by Earthjustice is to force the
EPA to require Ohio to tighten the controls on some of the
worst air pollution in the country. Oct. 02
2. Another case: The court settlement requires EPA to
formally determine, by April 2004, which areas have smog that
violates the 1997 national air quality standards for ozone.
Once EPA makes those determinations, state and local
governments will be called on to prepare smog cleanup plans
adequate to meet the standards.
3. Another case: Challenged EPA's authorization of the use
of vinclozolin; a dangerous fungicide linked with serious
birth defects and other health maladies.
Mercury is one of the most toxic substances in the world,
more toxic than lead or arsenic.
So how do we get the EPA to do it's job? Another lawsuit?
We demand an end to airborne mercury pollution. We demand
that the EPA protect over 630,000 infants born every year
with levels of mercury in their blood so high that it can
cause brain damage.
____

Good afternoon. My name is Jon Devine, and I am
representing the Natural Resources Defense Council. I am an
attorney in NRDC's Health and Environment program. Before
coming to NRDC, I defended and implemented the Clean Air Act
in a number of policy and legal positions for both state and
federal agencies. I am also a parent of two young sons. I am
troubled that the agency is shirking its public health
mission and its duties under the Clean Air Act while
consigning states to a future of contaminated waterways and
fish. Beyond that, EPA's mercury proposal offends me as a
parent, because the agency is telling my kids to wait until
adulthood to see fewer mercury reductions than the law
requires to be accomplished before my youngest is in grade
school.
EPA has proposed a program that demands no mercury
reductions in the near term except those that would otherwise
occur, asks power plants to make only modest improvements by
2018, and sets up a trading mechanism that will actually
delay pollution controls far beyond 2018. The agency's
approach stands in stark contrast to what the Clean Air Act
requires--reducing mercury pollution by as much as 90 percent
within three years. My testimony focuses first on EPA's
grotesquely weak section 112 proposal, then its proposal to
revise history and undo the agency's determination that
regulating power plant mercury is necessary and appropriate,
and finally its proposal to find the authority in section 111
of the Act to do exactly what the administration had failed
to accomplish with the so-called ``Clear Skies'' Act. That
bill would establish a cap-and-trade system for mercury in
two phases, with the first phase cap set at the level
expected to occur as a ``co-benefit'' of controlling other
pollutants, and the second phase cap requiring a reduction of
roughly 70 percent in the far distant future.
Starting with section 112, EPA's mercury emission standards
violate the Clean Air Act in several ways. First, EPA used
stack tests and coal data from the lowest-emitting
facilities, and then, in the name of establishing an
``achievable'' standard, subjected these data to a series of
statistical manipulations that resulted in an emission
standard far higher than what the plants achieved as a
regular matter. EPA took several short-term emission
observations from each facility, ranked them from best to
worst, and picked the emission level that was worse than 97.5
percent of the data set, resulting in a figure that
represented virtually the worst performance the plant
experienced. The agency then took this figure for each of its
top-performing sources and applied a second 97.5 percent
adjustment, thus resulting in a number that, as best we can
tell, is meant to represent a prediction of the worst
performance any similar source might experience under the
worst conditions. As a last step (or perhaps I should say
straw), EPA then took this calculation of the worst-of-the-
worst short-term emissions and used the result as the basis
for an annual emission limit. This statistical manipulation
is indefensible--it effectively assumes that the worst
conditions that the worst facility in the group briefly
experienced will exist throughout the year. EPA goes far
beyond ensuring that regulated facilities will be able to
meet the standard under ``reasonably foreseeable
circumstances,'' and instead makes sure that they will meet
them under circumstances statistically certain never to
occur. Even if one accepts some of EPA's assumptions, the
consequences of the agency's most egregious numbers games are
extreme; for example, by using the second 97.5 percent
adjustment and by making the emission limit annual, EPA
weakened the standard for bituminous coal burning units by
more than a factor of four. Had EPA not used these two
devices, we calculate that the agency would have to reduce
emissions from bituminous, subbituminous, and lignite units
to approximately 10.5 tons per year. By contrast, EPA uses
these gimmicks to justify allowing power plants to emit
approximately 34 tons per year, which is precisely the same
level of mercury control that EPA predicts will occur as a
co-benefit of controlling other pollutants. What a remarkable
coincidence that EPA's technical staff performed these
calculations and just happened to find that they required the
exact same level of reductions EPA had sought to achieve
legislatively and that it now proposes to accomplish with its
alternative section 111 proposal.
The second major flaw with EPA's section 112 proposal is
its failure to examine basic emission reduction techniques as
MACT. EPA discards precombustion controls by suggesting that
some sources in the industry might find them difficult to
implement, but it does not undertake a MACT analysis to
evaluate whether the superior performers in the industry
engage in pollution prevention activities that minimize
mercury emissions. Moreover, when one compares EPA's proposed
29 percent reduction to analyses by State regulators and
others, the agency's characterization of its program as MACT
appears laughable. For instance, the Northeast States for
Coordinated Air Use Management recently concluded that
``existing control devices designed to reduce other
pollutants can

[[Page H1303]]

deliver substantial mercury reductions,'' with some
bituminous-fired units achieving 95 percent reductions and
subbituminous units achieving over 70 percent reductions.
NESCAUM also noted that mercury-specific controls, such as
activated carbon injection, were successfully deployed in
U.S. coal-fired plants and achieve over 90 percent control,
and Iowa permitting authorities recently required a new
subbituminous plant to achieve 83 percent control.
Third, EPA's proposal does not set emission limits for
several hazardous air pollutants the agency admits are
released from utility units. Doing so simply flies in the
face of prior court decisions interpreting the MALT
provisions of the Clean Air Act, and nothing in section
112(n)'s ``necessary and appropriate'' language allows the
agency to issue rules only for those pollutants the agency
feels are of concern.
Fourth, EPA proposes to allow sources to participate in a
pollution trading scheme so that plants in the aggregate will
emit 34 tons of mercury annually, but no individual plant
would need to meet any particular emission limit. The agency
suggests that either section 112(n)(1) or 112(d) of the Clean
Air Act might provide it authority to create such a system,
but neither section authorizes such a radical approach.
Section 112(n)(1) does not provide authority to vary the
characteristics of a MACT standard, and section 112(d) does
not permit EPA to create a cap-and-trade program encompassing
multiple sources. The agency itself acknowledged this several
years ago, when it concluded that ``no averaging can be
permitted between sources that are not part of the same major
source.''
Fifth, EPA's proposal arbitrarily defines subcategories
based on coal rank. This choice is flawed because EPA admits
that nearly a quarter of the coal-fired units in the Nation
currently fire different ranks of coal, and because many more
may be capable of doing so. This fact suggests that the
purported differences between units that burn different ranks
of coal are of little real-world consequence.
Perhaps because of these obvious legal problems with the
agency's attempt to shoehorn its desired result into section
112 of the Act, EPA has developed an alternative plan to
avoid section 112--it proposes to undo the December 2000
regulatory determination that controlling mercury from power
plants under section 112 is necessary and appropriate, and
proposes to remove utility units from the list of source
categories subject to MACT. EPA cannot lawfully rescind its
determination because section 112(c)(9)(B) dictates the
specific mechanism that EPA must follow in order to avoid
setting emission standards for listed source categories. That
provision only allows source categories to be removed from
the regulatory list if no individual source is a danger to
health or the environment, but EPA does not even attempt to
make this showing in its proposal.
Finally, I want to turn to EPA's proposed section 111 two-
phase, cap-and-trade, mercury program, which is the
administrative twin of the Clear Skies proposal. This element
of the agency's preferred approach is remarkable because it
is simultaneously audacious and feeble. The proposal is
audacious because EPA purports to find the authority in
section 111 to do virtually anything it pleases in regulating
stationary source emissions. The agency interprets the
section's use of the terms ``best,'' ``system,'' and
``standard of performance'' to allow EPA to devise, so long
as it considers certain factors in doing so, whatever
emission control regime it thinks works best, and to permit
the industry to comply at individual units, across whole
plant sites, or even by averaging throughout whole
industries. This strained interpretation fails because it
threatens to swallow the rest of the Clean Air Act whole and
because other parts of the Act--such as the MACT provisions--
use the same or similar terms and would be rendered absurd if
they were read the way EPA now reads section 111. The
proposal's reach also exceeds its grasp by concluding that
the Clean Air Act can be read to allow EPA to regulate HAPs
under section 111, when the law was clearly intended to
achieve HAP control under section 112.
Most of all, however, the section 111 proposal is feeble.
It concludes that a 29 percent mercury cut by 2010 and a 69
percent reduction by 2018 represents what companies can
achieve, even though greater reductions are possible much
earlier with existing technology. Moreover, EPA intends to
implement this reduction program using a cap-and-trade scheme
that would allow polluters to bank emission credits and
therefore would permit emissions to remain significantly
elevated far into the future. Last summer, EPA performed
modeling analyses of the Clear Skies Act and predicted that
power plant mercury emissions would be cut by only 43
percent, to approximately 27.8 tons, by 2026, despite the
law's 15-ton cap established for 2018. The trading scheme
also raises the specter of toxic hotspots around companies
that buy credits rather than clean up.
This brings me back to where I began. EPA's proposals deny
our children's generation what the Clean Air Act promises.
Rather than deliver dramatic mercury reductions by the time
my sons are 7 and 3 years old, EPA has proposed a program
that will allow emissions to remain at excessive levels at
least until they are well into their twenties. To do so, EPA
will have to violate numerous provisions of the Act, and will
likely provoke litigation that causes additional delay.
Rather than choose this ill-conceived course, the agency can
and must implement the law and require companies to implement
demonstrated technology to reduce toxic mercury pollution
immediately. Thank you.
____

To the Environmental Protection Agency from a Maine
physician:
The EPA must be true to it's mission and fight to the
bitter end against the ``cash and carry'' proposals the Bush
administration has adopted from secret industry memos. We in
Northern New England have a huge stake in this since much of
the toxic mercury that rains down on us originates in
Pennsylvania and a few other big coal States upwind. The Bush
administration will enshrine ``Clear Skies'' into law unless
government agencies sworn to protect public health dig in to
protect the people from these assaults as they did against
arsenic in our drinking water!
Mercury is a persistent poison which is concentrated many
thousand times as it moves up the food chain into the bodies
of ``top predators''--loons, eagles, Florida panthers--and
mothers and babies. Your new EPA guidelines, based on the
latest research, indicate 600,000 babies yearly are at risk
of a wide range of developmental and learning disorders from
mercury. The risks continue into early childhood.
Mercury poisons our bodies by interfering with proteins,
which are the machinery of all cells. They orchestrate every
move of the dance of life. Proteins are long strings of
smaller molecules known as amino acids that must fold up like
origami after creation, then bind to other proteins or
chemicals in our cells. They must maintain their shape
perfectly to do their jobs. Mercury deforms the shapes of
proteins.
Proteins do an amazing number of different jobs. They
transport materials into and throughout our bodies, and
convert food into energy. They enfold and protect the DNA
double spiral staircase. They form the delicate spindles that
pull the chromosomes into the two daughter cells after
division. On immune system cell surfaces, they recognize and
help engulf invading microbes. They help us perceive our
environment and survive through our five special senses.
One of the most amazing things proteins do is control brain
development. The brain does not just start out as a single
cell and grow ever larger. Brain cells actually move around
in the embryonic brain. Some cells are killed off by others.
Brain cells send out axons and dendrites that hook up with
other very specific neurons which are often many inches away.
All these actions must happen at very precise times, measured
in single days or even hours. At every step proteins on the
surface of cells and their outgrowing axons and dendrites
must sense their environment. They react to minute traces of
messenger chemicals released by other brain cells that tell
them where they are and where to go. Thousands of such events
happen during thousands of moments that are ``windows of
vulnerability'', during which bad things can happen.
Each gene makes a protein that interacts with many other
proteins. Fetal brain development is like a symphony with a
hundred thousand instruments. Each must come in at the
perfect time and the perfect pitch or you get a damaged
child. This damage can often be detected by sophisticated
psychological tests such as ``The Boston Naming Test''. These
children can often look superficially normal but have
problems with hearing or motor skills and later problems with
language, attention, and memory. They are often marginalized
and end up in special ed, in prison, and on the welfare
rolls.
Field research summarized in a recent report by the
Biodiversity Research Institute shows multiple adverse
effects of mercury on various fish-eating birds, such as our
beloved Maine loon. Loon fertility in Maine lakes can be 40
percent reduced because of mercury blown in on the prevailing
winds from the Midwest. Stress hormone levels have been shown
to increase as mercury increases. No reproduction occurs when
mercury levels in fish are over a certain threshold. Loon
parents with high mercury levels will spend less time sitting
on their eggs and chicks warming and protecting them, less
time foraging to feed them, and less time in generally high
energy activities needed to support the next generation. They
rest more or swim aimlessly in front of the nest. Present
mercury levels can even cause abnormal loon feathers. Some
fishing birds like the Great Egret have been shown to have
problems catching fish. This is felt to be due to difficulty
seeing. Some fish species with high mercury levels have been
shown to have trouble avoiding predators.
The present administration has a long history of ignoring
science in favor of short term profits for friends in
industry. The EPA must help them accept the truth!
Sincerely,
Paul Averill Liebow MD FACEP, Bucksport, Maine. Maine
Physicians for Social Responsibility, Steering Committee;
Natural Resources Council of Maine, Board of Directors;
National Wildlife Association, Maine Representative to Annual
Meeting March 2004.
____

March 1, 2004.

[[Page H1304]]

Re: proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Pollutants; and, in the Alternative, Proposed Standards
of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources:
Electric Utility Steam Generating Units; Docket ID No.
OAR-2002-00.56, 69 Fed. Reg. 4652 (January 30, 2004).
Administrator Mike Leavitt,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (Air
Docket), U.S. EPA West (6102T), Washington, DC.
Dear Administrator Leavitt: As chefs from Portland, ME, we
are deeply invested in the safety of the seafood we prepare
and serve to our patrons. Today, we write to respectfully
express our concerns over the proposed rule by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to control mercury
emissions from coal-fired power plants.
Every year, people from all over Maine and the country
enjoy the fine seafood offerings of Portland; we pride
ourselves on the wide selection of fresh seafood dishes that
our many visitors enjoy year after year.
Whether preparing a salmon filet or seared tuna, chefs know
that fresh seafood is a critical component of our cuisine,
which is why keeping it safe is so important. Unfortunately,
the levels of mercury in some species of fish such as
swordfish, oysters, tuna, halibut, red fish, pike, sea bass
and others make them unsafe for young women and children.
Mercury pollution poses a real threat to public health.
Right now, power plants across the country are contributing
to a looming mercury crisis, contaminating much of the
seafood that Portland is so famous for. Electric power plants
are responsible for approximately 30 percent of the country's
mercury emissions and are the only major mercury polluters
that remain uncontrolled. Smokestacks spew mercury pollution
into the air, where it rains and snows down into our
waterways and accumulates up the food chain.
The principal way that people are exposed to mercury is by
eating fish, a staple of our restaurants. Maine and 43 other
States, the EPA and the Food and Drug Administration have
issued various advisories warning people, especially women
and children, to avoid or limit eating some types of fish.
Even with such warnings in place, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention estimate that 1 out of 6 U.S. women of
child-bearing age have unsafe levels of mercury in their
blood.
In the interest of our customers, our health and our
environment, we are joining together to ask for action to
keep the mercury levels from increasing. To make sure that
mercury contamination does not affect the popularity of the
restaurant industry in Portland, we write to request stronger
regulations on power plant emissions of mercury.
Officials can, and should, take immediate action to nearly
eliminate the mercury pollution that's spewing into our air
from power plants. Two years ago, EPA's own scientists said
current technologies could achieve a 90 percent reduction
from power plants. The Bush administration should remove as
much mercury from power plants as is technologically
feasible--90 percent.
We respectfully urge the EPA to adopt a rule that maximizes
the protection of human health and our fisheries by
regulating mercury emissions to the level that we know is
technologically feasible and to do so quickly.
Sincerely,

Becky Lee Simmons,

Chef, Owner,
Katahdin Restaurant.
____

Testimony of Dr. Jim Mainer Regarding Airborne Mercury Pollution

Thank you Representative Allen and others for this chance
for Mainers to speak out on this issue!
I'm Dr. Jim Maier, a child and family psychiatrist with
over 25 years experience living and working in Maine. I'm
also the father of two daughters of child bearing age. And
since I've spent most of my professional career helping to
take care of the behavioral and neurological problems of kids
who, for whatever combination of reasons including fetal
brain damage, have been handicapped in school and in life,
this is not just an academic issue for me.
The glaring fact that this is a ``Shadow'' hearing in the
absence of EPA speaks volumes about the moral cowardice and
irresponsibility of this administration. The Feds know a lot
about the toxicity of mercury emissions of coal-fired plants
in the Midwest for New Englanders and others ``at the end of
the tailpipe,'' but seem not to care what we think. It's a
lot like a Bishop who has learned there's a bad priest in his
Diocese sending that individual out of State to some other
parish, and just not wanting to hear how many more children
have been abused and harmed in the new location.
We know mercury is a bad actor. We've taken many measures
here in Maine to clean up our own State. Like 45 other
States, we're warning people not to eat much fish. (The
administration does deserve credit for promoting ``catch and
release,'' but only because it's allowing the fish to become
progressively more toxic to mothers of childbearing age!) But
to delay implementation of the existing technology to reduce
mercury emissions by 90 percent by 2008, and allowing another
decade of relaxed standards in return for fat campaign
contributions from the polluters, is a devil's bargain
Mainers don't accept. This proposed delay, or meaningless
shell games allowing some plants to continue to pollute if
others clean up, means that perhaps 5 percent or more of
women of childbearing age will continue to have unsafe levels
of mercury in their bodies, and be putting tens of thousands
of their babies at risk of damage to their developing brains
or cardiovascular systems. (A long term study sponsored by
Dr. Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard School of Public Health
in the Faroe Islands has published objective evidence about
this in the Journal of Pediatrics.)
Again to use the sex offender analogy, it's as if we are
registering all sex offenders and pedophile priests in Maine,
notifying neighborhoods and churches about the risks of
letting them be in our communities, but then permitting any
other States to send convicted child molesters here, and
turning a blind eye to what damage and trauma these out-of-
state sex criminals may inflict on Maine children.
Like all other medical students, I learned the name
Minimata early in my training. Like Chernobyl, Bhopal, and
Love Canal--other names that live in environmental infamy--it
was the site of an environmental tragedy that taught just how
poisonous high dose mercury can be. Death, blindness,
cerebral palsy, severe mental retardation, seizures and other
severe symptoms occurred in the exposed population around
Minimata Bay, Japan where an industrial spill occurred. But
we also know that subtle but definite brain and central
nervous system effects can happen with exposure to far lower
doses that come from eating even moderate amounts of fish
contaminated by methyl mercury, an easily absorbed compound
that is spread through the body, across the placenta, and is
secreted in breast milk. This is insidious, because mothers
may not even be symptomatic with levels of mercury that can
definitely affect their more vulnerable fetus. Higher mercury
exposure on the developing brain has been correlated with
decreased attention, fine motor impairment, problems with
language and visual-spatial abilities, and memory
impairments. It's hard to pin down just what role mercury
plays in such impairments because the research is less well
developed than with lead, another known bad actor. But as
with lead poisoning, as more research is done, we will
probably become more concerned, and may be lowering what we
think of as ``acceptable'' exposure levels. What's an
acceptable level to a loon? The EPA heard testimony from the
Natural Resources Council of Maine at a recent hearing in
Philadelphia that loons in Maine test 4X higher with respect
to mercury levels than loons in Oregon. What levels are o.k.
for Bald Eagles, whose reproductive success may be
jeopardized by the mercury they concentrate in their bodies.
Unfortunately they don't vote, but we'll be voting on their
behalf in November!
Perhaps if the Bush administration cared to reduce their
blatant hypocrisy about ``No Child left Behind,'' they should
just come out and speak plainly about ``No Child Left
Unexposed to Toxics.''
Representative Allen, we hope that you will pass on to your
colleagues in the Maine Delegation who also care about clean
air and water, and to the EPA which apparently doesn't care
nearly enough, the angry earful you're hearing today from
Maine people!
Respectfully Submitted,

James H. Maier, M.D.,

A.B.P.N. Certified Child
and Adult Psychiatrist.
The rule that I mentioned, the proposed rule that favors polluters,
raises serious questions about this administration's commitment to the
health of our citizens. Regulating hazardous air pollutants is in fact
for many people a life-and-death matter and Congress designed a system
under the Clean Air Act to ensure regulations are developed through an
objective rulemaking process. Yet the attainment dates and level of
reductions exactly match the President's Clear Skies proposal. In other
words, the proposal that he and his staff generated for reductions is
the proposal that has come out of the EPA. But that is not the way the
EPA is supposed to work. The EPA is supposed to do independent,
scientific analyses so that its rules are based on sound science, not
made up as part of a political document.
The Bush administration allowed industry to write part of the rule.
That is profoundly disturbing. The proposal that would allow trading
under section 112 appears to have been written word for word by Latham
and Watkins, a law firm in Washington representing utilities. EPA's
assistant administrator for air and radiation, Mr. Jeffrey Holmstead,
used to be a partner at Latham and Watkins. Mr. Holmstead now says,
well, the Latham and Watkins contribution to the rule was submitted by
the Energy Department. He says it came from the Energy Department. The
White House says Jeffrey Holmstead was the brains behind the cap-and-
trade proposal. But wherever it came from, the Latham and Watkins
language, about three or four paragraphs, submitted to the EPA, is in
the finished rule, word for word.
An EPA career professional told the L.A. Times the other day that
they, the career professionals, were told not

[[Page H1305]]

to undertake the normal scientific and economic studies called for
under a standing executive order in preparing the rule. In other words,
they take the information straight from the law firms representing the
utility industry, they do not do the scientific tests that are required
by law, and they come out with a proposed rule and that proposed rule
is a bonanza for the coal industry and those utilities that use coal.
It is outrageous.
I am very pleased that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee),
the other end of the continent, his loons do not have as much mercury
in their feathers as loons do from Maine but he is here because this is
an issue that he cares deeply about. I thank him very much for being
here.
I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. INSLEE. I appreciate the gentleman from Maine bringing this
important matter to national attention. I do care about the mercury
contamination which this country will be experiencing because of the
attempted sellout by this administration to special interests which
will result in more mercury in the blood of young children in America.
If that sounds like a strong statement it is, and it is true.
But one of my concerns here is this is not just the only instance
when this administration has knuckled under to the interests of special
interests on K Street rather than the public interest which is supposed
to be expressed on Independence Avenue where the U.S. Capitol is
located. I just want to say that this is not, unfortunately, an
aberration of this administration's sellout to special interests, to
ignore science, to ignore clear health implications. It is consistent
with their pattern of neglect of science and they are showing great
attention to special interests. They need to do it the other way
around. We need an administration that will show special sensitivity to
health interests and ignore special interests on occasion. They have
got it exactly backwards. They show exquisite attention to lobbyists
from these industries and ignoring the clear science for health to the
American people. I want to list some of the other places where they
have done this.

{time} 1600

And the oil and gas industry that has attempted to open up these
methane drilling wells in a variety of places, the Rocky Mountains,
including wilderness areas in Utah and in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, they have catered to specialists; and they have ignored the
clear import of science.
We are not the only ones who care about this. There have been some
investigations in the Department of Interior about a fellow who used to
work for the oil and gas industry, then was put as the fox in charge of
the hen house, supposedly regulating. What was the first thing he did,
like in the first few weeks on the job? And what did the investigators
find out? They found out that he hosted a get-together, a little
shindig for all the lobbyists to come down and do business with me,
boys, I am now in charge of the Department. That is not what we expect
from our public officials, and as a result, we have seen some ignoring
of good science, which has caused tremendous problems for ranchers in
Wyoming of contaminating the water supply because they have shown more
interest to K Street than to Main Street.
Second example, we had over a million people testify about whether to
preserve old-growth timber in our remaining 10 percent of our national
forests that have not been clear-cut, and we went out to ask what the
public thought of the President's proposal to open up what we call the
roadless areas to clear-cutting, and the public responded. There were
over a million people who told the administration to keep their
handsaws and their chainsaws from clear-cutting our roadless areas. And
they got maybe three letters from the lobbyists on K Street.
So what did this administration do? They are gutting this protection
of the most pristine, the most precious crown jewels in our national
forest system to allow these 6-foot and 8-foot and 10-foot 600-year-old
trees to be cut down in clear-cuts, violating the clear science that
that is not what we should be doing with the roadless areas. And why
did they do it? They did it because this administration is extremely
sensitive to K Street and not sensitive to the health interests and
well-being, as they should be, of our constituents.
Let me tell the Members why this is important. A lot of people do not
think of forests as a health issue, but we have found out that is where
our clean water comes from, from the forests. This is the greatest
water purification system the planet has. And this administration
ignored 1.2 million people who told this administration to ignore K
Street and fall to the wishes of people, which they did not do.
Third issue, and again I think it is important to note, anyone can
make a mistake and any administration can make a mistake once in a
while, but this is just a long train of abuses, an unbroken chain of
following special interests rather than the health of the American
people. When we are considering lead poisoning levels in the lead paint
industry, which is of some interest to Members of Congress now because
we are drinking water with too much lead in it in the Washington, D.C.
system, which is an issue we are going to have to address, and maybe
that explains some of the bad legislation around here, I am not sure;
but in consideration of lead poisoning levels, in 2002, the CDC's
Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention was preparing
to address the issue, and they had been advising that we need to
address this issue. Did the administration address this issue in an
aggressive, health-oriented way? No. Did they appoint people to the
reflective committees that made their decision? No. They had special
interests on their operation, and they failed the health of the
American people.
We could go on and on, but we are limited by time. This is a system
that has corrupted the democratic process, and some of the best
evidence that I know of, and the gentleman may have talked about this
already, about a month ago, 20 nonpolitical Nobel laureates, and Nobel
laureates usually think about physics and chemistry rather than
politics, and they do not pound a lot of yard signs and they are not
interested in running for public office, but 20 people who won the
Nobel Prize, Americans in various sciences, chemistry, physics, name
it, they were so disturbed by what this administration was doing in
ignoring science to cater to special interests, they got together and
wrote a letter to the President of the United States, and their basic
message was start listening to good science rather than bad special
interests.
And it is a pretty extraordinary event when scientists will get out
of the lab, frankly, where they do tremendous work, and write a letter
like that to the President of the United States. These are Democrats
and Republicans, probably some Green Party members in there too. So I
think it is an indication of how sour and corrupted this system has
become. And so we are down here blowing the whistle on it, and I want
to thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) for his efforts.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Inslee) for his remarks, and I appreciate his leadership on this issue.
And he is exactly right. That group of distinguished scientists was
saying that this administration over and over again manipulates science
to serve the ends of their policy.
I am going to yield to my friend from Maryland in just 1 minute, but
just to pursue this question of who is writing the regulations, we have
already pointed out that the EP professionals were shut out of the
process of doing scientific studies of this proposed mercury rule and
that Latham & Watkins, a Washington law firm, wrote part of the rule.
There is another group involved. This is West Associates, a research
and advocacy group representing 20 power and transmission companies in
California and other Western States. The proposed rule contains exact
language requested by West Associates, and the West language suggests a
standard for determining likely mercury emissions at power plants.
In other words, a provision that was enormously beneficial to the
power plants was put in this proposed rule, an EPA rule, word for word.
So part of it came from Latham & Watkins here, a law firm here, and
part of it came from West Associates in California. How can the public
have any faith that their interests, their health interests, are

[[Page H1306]]

being protected by an administration which routinely violates the Clean
Air Act in developing its regulations, all as a way to try to reduce
expenses for the coal industry and the utility industry, both big
contributors to Republicans and to the administration?
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, just one final note. There is a reason that
the Vice President of the United States refuses to let the people who
hired him, which is the American people, know what went on in this
secret operation that took lobbyist language and put it in our energy
bill. There is a reason for that. And that reason is another symptom of
the sickness that is on our body politic right now. And I want to thank
the gentleman for his efforts
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the problem continues. Justice
Scalia today issued a statement that he would not recuse himself from a
Supreme Court case involving the Cheney documents even though he went
on a hunting trip with the Vice President on Air Force 2 to a preserve
owned by an oil executive. The beat goes on.
It is my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van
Hollen), who has taken a real leadership position on these issues. And
Maryland is next door, it has got a lot of water, and the last thing
they need is contaminated waterways. And I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is right, and I want to
thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) for his leadership and the
gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Inslee). And I want to tell the
gentlemen a little good news/bad news story; and we had some good news
this morning, which is that a group of bipartisan Members of Congress
from the Chesapeake watershed States got together and established the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Task Force. The Chesapeake Bay is one of the
greatest national treasures in the United States, indeed in the world;
and so we got together to pledge ourselves to work together to clean up
the Chesapeake Bay and take the steps that are necessary. But this Bush
administration proposal on mercury that the gentleman has drawn our
attention to takes us in exactly the wrong direction. It takes us
backwards.
We all know that mercury consumption advisories have been issued
throughout the United States; and, in fact, mercury contamination of
fish is, of course, is the number one cause for human contamination,
human poisoning. In my State of Maryland, we have had statewide
advisories. In Pennsylvania and other States in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed, we had a Statewide advisory. And we know that recent studies
have shown that Maryland is one of the States with the highest
deposition of mercury in the country due to airborne mercury emitted
from power plants. And this, as the gentleman has said, is a problem
that is not unique to Maryland and to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. It
is a problem up in Maine. It is a problem in Washington State. It is a
problem around our country. And currently advisories for mercury are
increasing faster than any other pollutant. They now represent 60
percent of all water bodies with fish advisories nationwide. So this is
a national problem. It is a problem obviously in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed, which we have a particular interest in locally; but it is a
problem throughout the country.
And as my colleague from Maine was pointing out, we have an
administration now that when it comes to issues of science, when it
comes to issues of the environment, really the White House has become
an evidence-free zone. I mean, we can get scientists, we can get Nobel
laureates, we can get a consensus of opinion throughout the scientific
community coming down on one side of an issue; and yet time after time
the administration throws out the facts, buries its head in the sand,
and decides to go the other way.

We understand that mercury poisoning is something that affects people
throughout this country. Of course, pregnant women and children are
particularly vulnerable to mercury poisoning. And so this idea that the
EPA now has, the Bush administration EPA, of establishing a cap-in-
trade program for mercury, which may be a very acceptable proposal for
less poisonous contaminants, but when they have a cap-in-trade program
for something as poisonous as mercury, what they are saying to those
people who happen to live right next door to the power plant that is
emitting mercury is it is okay if they get poison; as long as their
power plant buys credits from somewhere else, buys the right to
pollute, they can put as much mercury into the air around their plant
as they want. That is a health disaster for people in the area. Again,
it is one thing to treat less poisonous pollutants that way; but to
take a hazardous pollutant like mercury and say go ahead and pollute,
go ahead and contaminate the water in a particular area, it is going to
mean serious health problems for women and children in that area and
throughout the country.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those comments, and
they are worth elaborating on because in the past sometimes people who
have lived around large power plants, particularly coal-fired power
plants, they may have known that pollution problems were created in
those plants in States far away, but they enjoyed the benefit of lower
rates.
The difficulty with mercury is just what the gentleman said. Mercury
is a substance that does travel some distance, but lots of it comes
down in the vicinity of the power plant itself. So along the Ohio River
Valley in east Texas, in other parts of the country where we have coal-
fired power plants, what the administration's proposal is basically
saying is we do not care if the dirtiest plant in the country stays
just as it is. We are going to develop a system that was developed for
sulfur dioxide that will allow that dirty plant to buy credits from
clean plants, and so the dirty plant can simply continue spewing out
the mercury and poisoning people in the surrounding area. It is the
height of irresponsibility.
That is why I come back to what I said earlier. There is no question
that under the Clean Air Act mercury, which has been found to be a
hazardous air pollutant, was meant to be regulated under section 112 of
the act, entitled ``Hazardous Air Pollutants,'' and all of the work
being done by the administration to date with this proposed rule is a
way to let coal producers and utility companies off the hook so they
will not have to spend the additional money they need to spend to clean
up their act. And in doing that, the administration is simply putting
the health of the American people at risk.
It is absolutely mind boggling. Unless one is down in the middle of
this and seeing this going on over and over again, with this
administration, when the choice is between public health or the
interests of polluters, polluters win.
I yield back to the gentleman.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding to me,
and he is exactly right. The problem with this is we need to make sure
that the American people understand what is happening. That is why I am
glad that he is doing this. Because we have an administration that goes
out and does a lot of photo ops with beautiful landscapes in the
background. There is a lot of rhetoric about the importance of
preserving our environment, protecting areas like the Chesapeake Bay;
but while we have this great public face of environmental protection on
the one hand, on the other hand, when it comes to the regulatory
process, people are very busy unraveling protections that have existed
for years and years and years, and that is what this regulatory assault
is about.

{time} 1615

It is one of many that has taken place in recent years, and it is
very important that we put a stop to it.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, those are excellent points.
I wanted to mention another point here that has just come up. The
administration is starting to feel the heat. The new administrator of
the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, Mr. Leavitt, has now said
that he is going to reexamine this proposed rule. In other words, they
did not do the studies; they issued the proposed rule. Now he is saying
we need to go back and do the studies. This is the exact opposite of
what normally happens.
The gentleman said the administration was an evident-free zone. That
seems to be the case. In past administrations, you do the scientific
analysis first and then come up with a rule. You would not come up with
a rule written

[[Page H1307]]

by industry and then, when the heat got too much, say, well, we have to
go back and do some studies now. But that is exactly what has happened.
I think we need to say to the administration, well, it is about time,
thank you for going back and doing the studies. But they have also made
it clear that they do not really have much of an intention, as far as I
can tell, of producing any results until December, conveniently, after
the election.
I wanted to make a couple of points. Over the past year, I guess I
would say, I have written on numerous occasions, on February 12 of this
year, last October 14, and May 21, 2003, I have written letters to the
EPA about this exact problem, about the importance of doing the
analysis and coming up with a Mercury MACT standard, as it is called,
by the deadline. I never dreamed that they would come up with a
proposal but never bother to do the science.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record at this time the
three letters I sent to the EPA.
Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, February 12, 2004.
Hon. Michael O. Leavitt,
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC.
Dear Governor Leavitt: We are writing regarding reports
that portions of EPA's proposal to address mercury air
pollution have been copied word-for-word from industry
lobbying materials.
Specifically, it appears that EPA has proposed a regulatory
approach to mercury air pollution that in part is copied
word-for-word from memos prepared by the law firm Latham &
Watkins, which represent some of the largest polluters in the
country. This is particularly troubling because two key EPA
officials who worked on the proposal were previously employed
by Latham & Watkins.
On January 31, 2004, the Washington Post reported that an
EPA proposal published on January 30, 2004, ``is similar to
recommendations from two memos sent to federal officials by''
Latham & Watkins. The article explains the remarkable
connections between EPA's proposal and the Latham & Watkins'
memos: ``A side-by-side comparison of one of the three
proposed rules and the memorandums prepared by Latham &
Watkins--one of Washington's premier corporate environmental
law firms--shows that at least a dozen paragraphs were
lifted, sometimes verbatim, from the industry suggestions.''
It does not appear to be in dispute that EPA used the
Latham & Watkins language to make the substantive proposals
that Latham & Watkins advocated. The Washington Post quotes
one Latham & Watkins representative who states that it is
``gratifying'' that the law firm's work had been ``cut and
paste[d]'' into EPA's rulemaking. Additionally, Jeffrey
Holmstead, EPA's Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, confirmed that the language had originated from
outside of the agency. He stated, ``That's not typically the
way we do things, borrowing language from other people.''
However, it is unclear how the Latham & Watkins language
entered EPA's rulemaking process. As you know, Mr. Holmstead
and his chief counsel, Bill Wehrum, worked for Latham &
Watkins before joining the EPA. Both Mr. Holmstead and Mr.
Wehrum have had high profile roles in this rulemaking.
The Administration's public statements on this matter
appear to be less than completely transparent. In the January
31, 2004, Washington Post article, Mr. Holmstead stated ``it
came to us through the interagency process.'' He also stated,
``Neither Bill [Wehrum] nor I had any idea this language came
from Latham & Watkins. . . . Our technical folks . . . used
it.'' The Post reports: ``According to Holmstead, the law
firm's language was part of the public record and was passed
along to the EPA by the White House budget office and the
Energy Department.''
This appears to be at odds with press accounts of this
rulemaking from just over a month ago. On December 30, 2003,
the Washington Post reported that a senior White House
adviser said: ``If you had to pick one person, it was Jeff
Holmstead in EPA's air office who played the key role in
development of the cap-and-trade approach to regulation of
mercury emissions.''
We are deeply concerned that EPA's rulemaking process has
been improperly influenced by industry at the potential cost
of the health of future generations of children. Congress and
the American people need to know how industry lobbyists came
to write a significant portion of an EPA formal rulemaking
proposal.
Therefore we request that you provide us with all
communications (whether written, electronic, or oral)
relating to mercury air pollution between EPA officials and
the law firm Latham & Watkins, other industry law firms,
electric utilities, and other outside parties since January
1, 2003. Additionally, please provide us with information on
any meetings that took place since January 1, 2003, between
EPA officials and representatives or employees of Latham &
Watkins, including a list of the participants and the nature
and purpose of the meeting.
Additionally, please explain if Latham & Watkins memos were
docketed in the rulemaking process. If not, please explain
why such influential documents that formed the basis for
EPA's proposal were not docketed.
Please provide answers to each question and responsive
documents no later than February 18, 2003. Thank you for your
immediate attention to this issue.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman,
Member of Congress.
Tom Allen,
Member of Congress.
____

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, October 14, 2003.
Hon. Michael O. Leavitt,
Governor of Utah, Office of the Governor, State Capitol, Salt
Lake City, UT.
Dear Governor Leavitt: We are writing regarding our concern
that EPA is at risk of violating its legal and public
commitment to control emissions of mercury and other
hazardous air pollutants from power plants by the end of next
year. Given the serious public health and environmental harms
from this pollution, any further delay in regulation would be
unacceptable.
Under a court-approved settlement agreement, EPA is
required to propose a regulation establishing emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants from electric
generating units (electric utility MACT rule) by December 15,
2003. For a ``significant'' rulemaking, such as this one, EPA
must submit a draft of the proposed rule to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for interagency review. OMB may,
and frequently does, take up to 90 days to complete this
review. In numerous public pronouncements, Governor Whitman
and other EPA officials have repeatedly promised that EPA
will issue the MACT rule proposal by the December 15, 2003,
deadline. Yet to our knowledge, EPA has not yet transmitted a
draft utility MACT rule proposal to OMB.
We seek your assurance that, if confirmed, you will act to
ensure that the drafting and review of the proposed rule are
completed on a schedule that will honor the commitments the
government has made to propose a rule by December 15, 2003.
We make this request because of the seriousness of this
issue. Two major Environmental Protection Agency reports to
Congress document how hazardous air pollution from power
plants, most notably mercury pollution, contaminates our
lakes, streams, and other water bodies, concentrates in fish,
and causes serious health risks for pregnant women and
children who eat those fish. A Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention report in January 2003 found that one in
twelve women of childbearing age have mercury levels above
EPA's safe health threshold. In adults, exposure to unsafe
levels of mercury can adversely affect fertility and blood
pressure regulation and can contribute to heart-rate
variability and heart disease. The problem is nationwide:
across the U.S., mercury pollution alone has contaminated 12
million acres of lakes, estuaries and wetlands (30% of the
national total) and 473,000 miles of streams, rivers, and
coasts (13% of the national total). As a result, forty-five
states and territories have issued fish consumption
advisories warning citizens to limit how often they eat
certain types of fish, because the fish are contaminated with
mercury.
We would appreciate receiving a written response to this
letter as soon as possible, given that this is a time-
sensitive matter and that the Senate may be considering your
nomination in the very near future. Thank you for your
attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman,
Member, U.S. House of Representatives.
Patrick J. Leahy,
Senator, U.S. Senate.
Thomas H. Allen,
Member, U.S. House of Representatives.
Janice D. Schakowsky,
Member, U.S. House of Representatives.
____

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, May 21, 2003.
Hon. Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC.
Dear Ms. Whitman: We are concerned by recent reports that
EPA has cancelled key analytical work intended to support the
ongoing rulemaking on mercury and other hazardous air
pollutants emitted by the utility sector (``utility MACT
rule''). The failure to conduct this analysis threatens to
derail this important rulemaking to reduce highly toxic
mercury emissions from power plants, as well as impair
congressional consideration of pending legislation to reduce
air pollution from power plants.
It is particularly disturbing that the Bush Administration
may be seeking to delay the release of this information for
political reasons. Reports indicate that the analysis may
have been cancelled because it could undercut the
Administration's Clear Skies Initiative (CSI) by
demonstrating that implementation of the existing Clean Air
Act toxic air pollution requirements would produce greater
reductions in mercury emissions than CSI, sooner, and at an
acceptable cost. In the absence of EPA analysis, the
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
conducted an analysis, which indicates that recommendations
from all but one of the stakeholder groups would produce
greater reductions of mercury emissions and produce them
significantly earlier than would CSI.

[[Page H1308]]

EPA should conduct timely analysis of mercury control
options identified by the utility MACT rule stakeholder
working group established by EPA. Absent such analysis,
neither the public, EPA, nor Congress will fully understand
the expected environmental benefits from reduced emissions
and deposition of mercury, nor the expected costs to install
and operate control technologies for the various options
under consideration.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Mercury
Mercury is a highly toxic substance. It is a potential
neurotoxin, and it is particularly damaging to the
development of the fetus. Effects from prenatal exposure can
include mental retardation, cerebral palsy, deafness, and
blindness. Even low-dose prenatal exposure can cause
persistent adverse effects on children's development, such as
delayed walking and talking and impaired learning abilities.
Adult exposure can produce sensory and motor impairment, such
as slurred speech, blurred vision, tremors, and memory loss.
In addition, several studies suggest that even small mercury
exposures may cause adverse cardiovascular effects. The
adverse effects of mercury exposure on birds and mammals
include impaired growth and development, behavioral
abnormalities, liver damage, kidney damage, and
neurobehavioral effects.
Mercury exposure is a serious public health concern in the
United States. Forty-two states have issued fish advisories
warning against consumption of fish caught from various
water-bodies based in whole or in part on mercury
contamination. EPA has found that 8 percent of women of
child-bearing age in the United States--about 5 million
women--have blood mercury levels that would put children born
to them at increased risk of adverse health effects.
B. Clean Air Act requirements
Under section 112 of the Clean Air Act, EPA must require
sources of hazardous air pollutants to reduce emissions to
the maximum degree achievable through application of control
technology. These requirements are commonly referred to as
``maximum achievable control technology'' or MACT standards.
For coal-fired power plants, the most significant
hazardous air pollutant is mercury. Pursuant to a court-
approved settlement agreement, EPA must issue a proposed
MACT rule for hazardous air pollutants from utilities by
December 15, 2003. Furthermore, EPA must finalize the rule
by December 15, 2004, and utilities must comply with the
rule by December 15, 2007.
This rule will for the first time require controls of
mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants, which are the
largest source of anthropogenic mercury emissions in the
United States and contribute approximately one-third of
annual mercury emissions.
C. Stakeholder process
Before beginning the rulemaking process, EPA recognized
that promulgating a utility MACT standard would be a
significant and potentially controversial rulemaking that
would attract substantial public interest. In June 2000, EPA
committed to solicit and consider the ideas and comments of
the groups affected by this regulatory process. Subsequently,
EPA has engaged in an extensive process to develop and use
input from states, tribes, local governments, industry
representatives, and environmental representatives throughout
the development of the rule. This process has been carried
out under the auspices of the Working Group on the Utility
MACT, formed under the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee
Subcommittee for Permits/New Source Reviews/Toxics.
As stated in the charge to the Working Group, the overall
goal of the Working Group is to provide input to EPA
regarding federal air emissions regulations for coal- and
oil-fired electric utility steam-generating units that will
maximize environmental and public health benefits in a
flexible framework at a reasonable cost of compliance, within
the constraints of the Clean Air Act. The Working Group is to
``conduct analyses of the information, identify regulatory
alternatives, assess the impacts of the regulatory
alternatives, and make preliminary regulatory recommendations
for the source category.''
The Working Group has met 14 times to date. While the
initial intent was for the Working Group to develop consensus
recommendations, that did not prove possible. However, the
Working Group has done extensive work identifying technical
and policy issues, thoroughly discussing these issues, and
clearly identifying the various stakeholder positions on each
issue. In October 2002, the Working Group presented a report
to EPA laying out eight key issues for the rulemaking and the
stakeholder positions on each of these issues, including
recommended approaches for settling the MACT standard. Since
October, the Working Group has continued to build upon this
work, last meeting on March 4, 2003. Although EPA has
promised at least one if not more further meetings, none have
been scheduled to date.

ii. mercury control option analysis

A. Purpose of IPM analysis of mercury control options
Conducting an Integrated Planning Model (IPM) analysis of
the control options identified by the stakeholders is an
important step in the rulemaking process for the utility MACT
rule. IPM is an electric utility planning model that EPA uses
to estimate air emission changes, emission control technology
choices, incremental electric power system costs, changes in
fuel use and prices, and other impacts of various approaches
to air pollution control. IPM simulates how the utility
industry would respond to an air pollution control
requirement by selecting the least-cost compliance options
for a set of model plants representing all of the power
plants in the United States. IPM indicates where in the
country control technology would be applied, the resulting
emissions reductions, the costs of the technology, changes in
fuel use, any resulting shifts in generation costs, and other
effects.
The results of an IPM run are then fed into EPA's air
quality models to project what a specified emissions control
requirement will produce in terms of air quality effects and,
in this case, the quantities and location of mercury
deposition.
Every major EPA analysis of a rule or legislation related
to the power sector over the past eight years has relied upon
IPM analysis. These include the Ozone Transport Assessment
Group, process, the NOX SIP call, and most
recently CSI.
B. Issues regarding IPM model's simulation of mercury
controls
The Working Group process has addressed the need for
technical adjustments to the IPM model. In May 2002, EPA
heard recommendations from various members of the Working
Group regarding adjustments to the IPM model. In June 2002,
EPA issued a memo indicating how it planned to address such
recommendations and the timeframe for such actions. In July
2002, EPA received further feedback from Working Group
members on the proposal for addressing the recommendations.
For example, the environmental representatives made
recommendations for input assumptions on the effectiveness of
certain mercury control technologies, particularly when
applied to facilities combusting subbituminous and lignite
coals. They also urged EPA to update the model to incorporate
the latest findings on control technology demonstrations,
particularly with respect to activated carbon injection.
C. Cancellation of planned IPM analysis
EPA has indicated that the next step in EPA's intended
rulemaking development process is to analyze regulatory
alternative control options. The members of the Working Group
have expended substantial effort in developing their
recommendations for these options.
Initially, EPA planned to conduct this analysis far earlier
in the utility MACT rulemaking process. The proposed
regulatory development schedule included in the charge to the
Working Group stated that EPA would conduct overall economic
impacts and benefits analyses of regulatory alternatives from
June through August 2002. After a period for the Clean Air
Act Advisory Committee to consider the alternatives and
provide recommendations to EPA by February 2003, the schedule
provided that EPA would select the proposed regulatory
alternative or alternatives in March 2003, and EPA would
draft and review the proposed rule from April through August
2003. OMB would review the draft proposal through November
2003, allowing the Administrator to sign the proposal by
December 15, 2003.
While the initial target date for conducting this analysis
slipped substantially, as of earlier this year EPA planned to
conduct the analysis in time for the Working Group meeting on
March 4, 2003. When EPA failed to complete the analysis by
that date, EPA informed the stakeholders that EPA would
conduct the analysis prior to a scheduled April 15 meeting of
the Working Group. EPA said it would present the results of
this analysis at that meeting. EPA also stated that at that
meeting it would present to the Working Group the changes EPA
had made to the IMP model.
Instead, EPA did not conduct the analysis and cancelled the
April 15 meeting. EPA still has not informed the Working
Group of how the agency has responded to the recommendations
for modifications to the IPM model that stakeholders made
during the summer of 2002, or of any other changes that EPA
has made to the model. EPA also has not scheduled another
meeting of the Working Group.
In addition, there does not appear to be any internal
agency deadline for conducting the IPM analysis of utility
MACT options. Assistant Administrator Holmstead has
reportedly stated that conducting modeling for the CSI is
``higher priority'' than modeling for the utility MACT rule.
EPA's deviation from its announced plan to conduct this
important analysis is sudden and inexplicable. It is simply
not credible for EPA to point to resource constraints in this
instance, as Assistant Administrator Holmstead is reportedly
doing. While agency resources are undoubtedly constrained due
to the Bush administration's budget cuts, EPA is apparently
running the IPM model for CSI. There is no reason why further
analysis of CSI should take precedence over the utility MACT
rule. EPA has been conducting analyses of the CSI for over
two years, and the agency has completed dozens of runs
analyzing variations on CSI options. Yet to date, EPA has
released no analysis of the identified utility MACT
regulatory options, and it is unclear whether EPA has
conducted any analysis of these options. Moreover, there
is no legal deadline for additional CSI work, in contrast
to the utility MACT rules.
Viewed in the larger political context, it appears that the
Bush Administration has a

[[Page H1309]]

strong incentive to delay release of information on the
utility MACT regulatory options. The Administration has been
engaged in a public relations battle to publicize and support
its assertion that the CSI represents an environmental
improvement over, and not a rollback of, the existing Clean
Air Act. Most of the utility MACT regulatory options
identified by the stakeholders would result in a greater
quantity of emissions reductions and all of them would
produce these emissions sooner than CSI would, if it is
enacted. Information on the costs and benefits of most of the
utility MACT options seems unlikely to help the
Administration make its case for CSI.
CSI is the Administration's own initiative, with no
deadline, while the utility MACT rule was required by
Congress under existing law, is already past the statutory
deadline, and is now required under a court-sponsored
deadline. There is no legal or policy-related justification
for deferring the utility MACT modeling in favor of CSI
modeling. To the extent that the modeling delay may be in
furtherance of the White House's political agenda, the delay
is even more troubling.
D. Effect of continued failure to perform analysis
At the point, EPA's continued failure to reconvene the
Working Group and to conduct the IPM analysis threatens the
timing and substance of the utility MACT rule, as well as the
achievement of significant reductions of mercury emissions
from power plants. This analysis is not a legal prerequisite
to EPA's identification of the minimum level at which it may
set the MACT standard (known as the ``MACT floor'') under
section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as the MACT floor is a
technology-based standard. EPA's failure to perform such
analysis would in no way justify delaying issuance of the
utility MACT rule proposal beyond the court-enforceable
deadline. Nonetheless, if EPA fails to complete this analysis
soon and falls further behind schedule in drafting the
proposal, EPA may well try to make the bootstrap argument
that the analysis is necessary and therefore the agency needs
more time for the rulemaking. Moreover, the IPM analysis will
provide critical information, both for understanding the
effects of the options recommended by the stakeholders and
for informing Congress regarding the level of mercury
reductions and environmental effects that may be achieved
under the utility MACT rule. In addition, EPA likely must
complete this or comparable analysis to comply with
Executive Order 12866 prior to issuance of the proposal.
Considering practical constraints, it is clear that EPA is
already in danger of missing a court-approved deadline.
Working backward from the December 15 deadline, EPA must
provide the draft rule to OMB by the end of August 2003 to
allow OMB its mandated 90 days to review the draft prior to
issuance. As you know well, staff drafting and management
review commonly take many months, particularly for a
technically complex rule such as this one. Assuming a minimum
timeframe of several months to draft and review the rule
internally, it appears that EPA should begin this process
immediately, and certainly no later than June. Before the
bulk of the drafting begins. EPA management must select the
regulatory alternative to propose. To the extent that EPA
believes it would be helpful to have information on
technology options, costs, air quality and environmental
effects, and other factors, EPA must conduct the analysis
now.

III. QUESTIONS

We would appreciate your response to the following
questions regarding EPA's planned activities on the utility
MACT rule:
1. Is EPA committed to continuing the stakeholder process
for the utility MACT rule? If so, when will EPA reconvene the
Working Group and present to the Working Group a description
and explanation of any changes EPA has made to the IPM model?
If not, why is EPA abandoning this process for maximizing
public involvement in this controversial and important
rulemaking?
2. Will EPA model mercury control levels identified by the
environmental and state stakeholders (as specifically
recommended in the Working Group report or as subsequently
updated by the stakeholders)?
3. If EPA commits to complete this modeling, by what date
will EPA complete it and present the results to the
stakeholders?
4. Is EPA committed to meeting the court-approved deadline
of December 15, 2003, for issuing the proposal regardless of
the status of EPA's modeling efforts? Please provide EPA's
current schedule (with dates) for completing: all analyses
EPA is planning to conduct; management decision on regulatory
options; a staff draft of the proposal; intra-agency review
of the proposal; and submission to OMB.
5. In making the decision to postpone this analysis, did
EPA officials consult with Administration officials outside
of EPA, such as officials from the White House (including the
Council on Environmental Quality and the Office of Management
and Budget), DOJ, and DOE? If so, which entities were
consulted and what did they recommend? Did EPA officials
consult with any of the stakeholders represented on the
utility MACT Working Group? If so, which entities were
consulted and what did they recommend?
We would appreciate receiving a response to this letter by
June 2, 2003, as this is a time-sensitive and urgent matter.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman,
Member, U.S. House of Representatives.
Thomas H. Allen,
Member, U.S. House of Representatives.
Patrick J. Leahy,
Senator, U.S. Senate.
Janice D. Schakowsky,
Member, U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, one of the times that I raised this, the
gentleman may be interested to know, was at a hearing before the House
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, and Jeffrey Holmstead, the
Assistant Administrator For Air, came before the committee. I asked him
this question. I said, have you done the modeling to do the MACT
standard? In other words, have you done the scientific and technical
analysis to come up with a mercury standard that is based on Maximum
Achievable Control Technology, not on some idea that is dreamed up by
the political people? And here is what he said, and I quote: ``We are
doing all the analysis that we need to do to propose a MACT standard,
to do a proposal on time by December 15, so we are on track to do
everything we need to do, including the evaluation of options, to get
the MACT standard out.
Well, guess what? They did not. They did not have a MACT standard by
December 15; they just had that old Clear Skies proposal which is, in
my opinion, illegal under the Clean Air Act. And on Tuesday, Mr.
Leavitt, the new EPA administrator, told the L.A. Times the process is
not complete, nor is the analysis. Well, as my kids might say, duh, if
you waste the year not doing the analysis, you will not have the
analysis when it comes time to do the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is exactly right. I mean,
the way most people go about planning when they are making major
decisions is to take a look at the facts and then figure out what the
policy is based on the facts, not to come down with a politically
motivated policy and then try and make up the facts to fit that policy,
and this administration has gotten in trouble in many ways with respect
to that approach.
You really do not want to make a mistake when it comes to something
like mercury, because if you make a mistake now, it is something that
is going to live with us for many, many years to come.
Let us just take the Chesapeake Bay for an example. When it comes to
nitrogen, when you are cleaning up nitrogen in the bay, if more
nitrogen is going in today, and we take strong efforts, for example, in
the bay watershed to get rid of that nitrogen, we can do it. We have to
work hard to do it. Mercury, on the other hand, is something that stays
in the ecosystem for a very long time. We cannot get rid of it
overnight. And it stays in the ecosystem, it gets into organisms, it
gets into fish and then, of course, it gets into the human food chain
and gets into the food we eat, and then eventually can get into the
brains of developing fetuses and of children.
This is a very, very serious issue, obviously; and it is one where we
want to make sure we get the science right, we do our homework before
we leap off the cliff. I appreciate again my colleague, the gentleman
from Maine (Mr. Allen), drawing the attention of this body to this
issue. Hopefully, we will pull the administration back from the
precipice on this and, more important than saving the administration
from a bad decision is saving the American people from what could be a
very, very serious health problem in years to come.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I see we have been
joined by my friend and colleague from Maine (Mr. Michaud). It is good
to have the gentleman here, and I yield to him.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
too want to thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) for bringing
this to the attention of Congress. He definitely has been a leader in
environmental issues and prescription drug issues. I appreciate the
gentleman's leadership.
Mr. Speaker, today is March 18; and in my district in Maine, people
who enjoy fishing are counting down on the days until they begin the
fishing season. Again this year, as in the past,

[[Page H1310]]

recreational anglers who fish in Maine's lakes will be unable to feed
their catch to their children.
Mercury has made fish unsafe for children and pregnant women. We have
known for years that many fish caught in fresh water posed a risk to
our health. Now, just recently, we have confirmed that the canned tuna
fish that we buy in grocery stores should not be eaten in large amounts
either. Due to their position downwind of many of the most offensive
mercury polluters, the people in Maine by themselves cannot control the
amount of mercury in their communities.
As someone who enjoys fishing, I can say that the fishing in Maine
remains some of the best in the country, but there was a time when it
was not only about recreation; fresh water fishing also helped feed
families.
In my district, the Maine Environmental Health Unit has a
responsibility to inform the public of this mercury problem. For
children and pregnant women, they have set a consumption advisory of
zero for nearly every species of fresh water fish in Maine. They have
also issued the following warning to the public: ``It is hard to
believe that a fish that looks, smells, and tastes fine may not be safe
to eat, but the truth is that fish in Maine's lakes, ponds, and rivers
have mercury in them. Mercury in the air settles into the waters. It
then builds up in fish. Small amounts of mercury can harm a brain
starting to form or grow. That is why unborn and nursing babies and
young children are most at risk. Too much mercury can affect behavior
and learning. It may cause numbness in hands and feet or change in
vision.''
Mr. Speaker, these words are not mine. These words are not political.
These words are statements of scientific fact from an agency tasked
with protecting our health. Mercury in our environment is dangerous to
our health, and it is particularly dangerous to the health of our
children. It is the responsibility of EPA and this administration to
protect the public from mercury pollution.
Why does the administration not propose real mercury regulations?
Contrary to some claims, it is not because of fear of losing jobs.
Enforcing the Clean Air Act and limiting mercury pollution will not end
the business of generating power in the Midwest. In fact, when the
administration eliminated air pollution controls in August, people with
high-paying jobs, with good benefits were actually laid off because of
pollution control equipment that they installed was no longer needed.
The administration cannot outsource this problem. The responsibility
to control mercury pollution is a challenge our country must face
together. Recently we have heard reports from the Environmental
Protection Agency that in creating its mercury proposal, usual EPA
methods were not used. Sound science was not adhered to. Politics
became more important than defending our health and our environment.
When EPA policy is taken word for word from the industry letters,
there is a credibility problem there. The result of this mismanagement
of mercury by the administration is a mercury plan that may violate the
Clean Air Act and does little to make real, swift reduction in mercury
released in the environment.
Because we have not stopped mercury pollution, the people of Maine
continue to see their lakes and rivers polluted by a poison that cannot
be controlled. The administration must understand that the American
people expect the EPA to introduce a mercury rule that complies with
the Clean Air Act and protects the health of our families. The
administration must work with Congress to create an environment in
which people can have good jobs, a clean environment, and a country
where they can feed the fish that they catch to their children.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on
this particular issue.
Before we close here, it is worth going back to that study I
mentioned at the beginning. In February of this year, just last month,
a new study came out which showed that of the 4 million babies born in
this country every year, some 630,000 have been exposed while they were
fetuses to levels of mercury in their mothers' body that are considered
unsafe. Instead of dealing with that threat, this administration has
written a proposed rule limiting mercury written by the industry
lobbyists.
What is happening is, now the EPA is going to go back and say try to
do it over again, try to fix it up, but we do not know when they will
do it or what they will do. This problem is growing. It is manageable.
I said earlier that the technology is available today so that we
could establish a rule to phase in mercury pollution control equipment;
we could have that rule take effect in 2007. The industry would have
time to make the changes. Ninety percent reductions in mercury
emissions today are feasible, they are possible, they can be done. The
only resistance is coal-fired power plants do not want to spend the
money. So on the one hand, we have the interest of an industry that
have been major, major contributors to the majority party here and, on
the other hand, the health of our children. It is, or ought to be, a
simple choice. And we are here tonight to make sure that people
understand that choice and encourage policymakers here to make the
right one.

____________________