Stakeholder Panel Meetings on Mercury Supplies

Statement by Susan Egan Keane, NRDC Mercury Storage Stakeholder Panel September 20, 2007 I would like to start by reminding everyone why finding a solution to the management of excess US mercury supply is so important. The current practice of exporting excess mercury results in the widespread use of this highly potent neurotoxin in very damaging applications worldwide, such as artisanal and small scale mining. Because mercury is a global pollutant, releases from those applications will not only severely affect the environmental health of local communities but will end up back in US rivers, streams and lakes, harming human health, the environment and economic interests here at home. When weighing any new options for managing excess mercury within the US, EPA must compare those options, including their potential undesirable effects (e.g., potentially less incentive for voluntary recycling) to this harmful environmental status quo. My remarks will focus on four questions posed by EPA to this panel: ? How should the various non-Federal stocks of commodity-grade mercury be managed in the short term and the long-term? The best solution to management of excess mercury supply in the US is a full ban on the export of both federal and non-federal supplies, coupled with long-term above ground storage of mercury in excess of domestic demand. Luckily long- term mercury storage is not particularly challenging technically or environmentally. Eventually, we should all hope for a safe permanent treatment and disposal option, and factor that into our thinking in long-term scenarios. The more challenging issues surrounding mercury management are not technical but are administrative and financial, namely, who should pay for long-term storage and who should accept liability. It is not at all clear that a government solution is needed for the management of this material, nor do we believe that there is anything unique, in principle, about the management of this material. In fact, it could be argued that EPA already has authority under RCRA to regulate and permit the long-term storage of these materials, and needs only to make some minor clarifications regarding the application of the RCRA regulations in these situations. Nonetheless, whether long-term mercury storage is managed privately or by a government entity, and whether it is subject to RCRA or some other regime, there are two critical principles that should apply to the management: first, that generators of this material must pay their fair share of the storage costs, and second, they must remain liable in the event of failure, just as other generators remain liable for their wastes. As for the costs, mercury storage is also not particularly expensive, based upon the estimates we have seen from both DOE and DOD, as well as EPA?s estimates for private storage, and we do not believe long-term storage costs will place an onerous burden on anyone. As for long-term liability, we do not believe there is anything unique about the long- term nature of mercury management. By analogy, US hazardous waste landfills routinely dispose of wastes that are elemental in nature that need vigilance in perpetuity. This is why financial responsibility instruments are required under RCRA. We are confident similar instruments could be developed for mercury that is stored in perpetuity, through insurance, annuities or other mechanisms. ? What mercury source(s) should supply U.S. demand? While any domestic mercury source in the US could supply domestic demand, some incentives could be provided to encourage preferential use of voluntarily recycled mercury, in order to encourage more voluntary recycling of mercury- containing wastes and products. As a practical matter this would likely be very difficult to track and enforce. ? Should changes in the international market for mercury influence answers to these questions; e.g., increasing price for mercury, other co…