Proposed Mercury Rule generates lengthy discussion in House committee

Chairman Raybould engaged the full House Environment, Energy and Technology Committee in negotiated rulemaking this week, noting it would be more efficient than breaking into subcommittees. The first of eight proposed DEQ rules alone generated enough interest for a 90-minute question and answer session.

This rule would require an analysis of proposed construction of new or modification of existing mercury emissions of greater than 25 lbs per year. Additionally, a Tier 2 operating permit would be required of any existing source that has an emission of greater than 62 lbs per year. Sources already subject to federal standards would be exempt.

The rule was initiated as a result of a petition to the DEQ Board filed by the Idaho Conservation League and Monsanto in Soda Springs. It would address such mercury emitters directly by requiring an analysis and the application of best available control technology to minimize mercury emissions above the threshold.

But, legislators asked, would such an analysis be prohibitively expensive? Industry experts and DEQ representatives said such an analysis would list all possible controls and analyze them according to applicability based upon affordability, and other factors.

A sticking point with many on the committee was the rationale behind regulating activities not already regulated by the federal government.

In addition, they asked, what about other sources of mercury? What is happening to keep every home and business from introducing mercury into landfills by throwing out light bulbs?

“I’m a little bit concerned that we may be going overboard … if you pass this rule, this doesn’t stop mercury,” Chairman Raybould said.

Monsanto’s director of public and government affairs, Trent Clark, addressed the committee in support of the rule – for what he says is a rare moment when Monsanto and the Idaho Conservation League on the same side of one issue.

Clark said the proposed rule came out of an original disagreement with ICL, after which Monsanto brought in internationally recognized Mercury consultant Dr. Steven Lindberg. Lindberg spoke on Mercury deposition for an ICIE panel with representatives from ICL and others. In the course of this dialogue, Dr. Lindberg noted one issue he says we can agree on: very large sources of mercury ought to have best available control technology.

Clark, a past president of ICIE, says Monsanto not only recognizes its role in employing best available control technology, but feels that doing so gives the industry a national advantage in negotiations with competing interests in China to employ such technology themselves.

Clark says this rule also makes sense for the state of Idaho. He notes that the attraction of an uncontrolled industry to Idaho will attract notice of the EPA, promulgating what could be a much more stringent standard. Having a state standard, Clark says, helps Monsanto in its dialogue with the EPA.

Finally, Clark noted, the rule would help put potential businesses investors at ease.
“When we’re talking about volatile compounds,” he said, “for many businesses, having something in place like this is actually helpful in getting financing. With no rule in place, potential financiers assume the worst could happen.”

A motion to accept the rule passed with dissenting votes from Nielsen and Van Der Woude.