Transcript No Slide Title

U.S. EPA National and
NEG/ECP Binational
Regional Mercury Action
Plans
Status reports
C. Mark Smith PhD MS
Deputy Director, Office of Research
and Standards, MADEP
Co-Chair, NEG-ECP Mercury Task
Force
[email protected]
Mercury Initiatives
Global
Continental
National
Regional
United Nations Accords
UNEP Assessment
Commission for
Environmental Cooperation
North American Regional
Mercury Action Plan
EPA Mercury Action Plan
New England Governors
/Eastern Canadian Premiers
Regional Mercury Action Plan
State
Massachusetts
State Zero Mercury Strategy
Local
Cities and Towns Mercury
bans; collection events
Summary: Why We Are Worried
About Mercury
1. Very Toxic: kidneys; immune
system; cardiovascular; brain.

Fetus/Children particularly at risk

US Centers for Disease Control: Data
on blood levels indicate that almost
400,000 births per year are at risk in
U.S.
2. Mercury bioaccumulates in fish
• up to a million times higher than in water
3. Fish contamination and
consumption advisories across US
and Northeast region
4. Wildlife Is Also At Risk
Loons and other fish
eating birds
Otters/
other Fish
Eating
Mammals
5. Controllable Local and Distant
Sources
1998 Deposition in the Northeast
In region sources: 60%
Out-of-region:
40%
Three Largest Sources of US
Mercury Emissions
Source Category Emissions in
1990 (tpy)
Percent
Reduction
Required*
Municipal Waste
Combustors
42
90
Medical Waste
Incinerators
50
94
Coal-fired
Powered Plants
51
?
* For existing plants
U.S. Actions to Address Mercury
Range of US actions to address mercury
have been taken or are being
implemented
Efforts to limit releases; reduce
exposure; research
 Multiple
agencies: USEPA; USFDA; CDC
etc.
Legislative
Many state/regional efforts
Status of U.S. EPA’s
Mercury National Action Plan
Thanks to the following for material on
EPA programs:
Denise Wright
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
USEPA [email protected]
Ellen Brown
Office of Air and Radiation,
US EPA [email protected]
Ellie McCann
USEPA [email protected]
U.S. National Mercury Action
Plan
National Plan to guide and coordinate
EPA programs that address mercury
 Multimedia/agency
wide approach
 Not a federal wide planKey Areas/Goals
Key Areas
 Reduce/eliminate
 Reduce
release of mercury
exposures
 Reduce uses
 Ensure safe storage and disposal
 Address global issues
Draft Structure
Priorities for Action
Technical Summary
Health
and environmental impacts
Programmatic summary
Strategic Assessment
Evaluation Tools
Future Opportunities for Action
US EPA National Mercury Action
Plan Status
1998: 1st working draft under EPA
PBT Strategy
Spring 2002: revised plan for state
review
Summer 2003: public comment
draft
Late 2003: Plan finalized?
Short Summary of Key U.S. Actions
Taken or Underway

1990
 1992
 1995

1996
 1997
Clean Air Act Amendments
EPA banned use in paints
Universal Waste Rule
streamlined waste management
requirements to promote
recycling
MSWC regulations issued
Use in most batteries banned
EPA Mercury Report to Congress
Binational Toxics strategy
Medical Waste Incinerator Regs.

1998

1999
 2000

2001

2002
1st draft Nation Mercury Action
Plan
TRI reporting threshold lowered
NAS Toxicology Review
Regulatory determination on
coal-fired utilities
CDC Exposure survey- >350,000
newborns per year “at risk”
Ambient water criterion
tightened
Utilities-Clear Skies Initiative
UNEP
Status of US Efforts to Address
Utility Mercury Emissions
2000: US EPA Regulatory Determination
Schedule
 Proposed
MACT Regulation – December 15,
2003
 Final Regulation – December 15, 2004
 Existing units must comply by December 15,
2007
 New sources subject to case-by-case MACT
now- States must determine MACT.
Regulatory and Legislative
Proposals
2/14/02: President announced “Clear
Skies” proposal to control SO2, NOx and
mercury emissions from power plants.
 Would
cap mercury emissions at 26 tons in
2010, and at 15 tons in 2018.
 Trading and banking would be allowed.
 Any adjustments to second phase cap would
require congressional approval.
Other Approaches/ Proposals
Traditional MACT
Several other legislative proposals are under
consideration- none allow trading.
S566 (Jeffords, Lieberman, etc.) and HR1256
(Waxman) would reduce emissions to 4.8 tons by
2007.
 HR 1335 (Allen) would reduce emissions to 7.5 tons
by 2005
 S1131 (Leahy) would reduce emissions to 7.5 tons
within 10 years of enactment.

State efforts also underway: e.g. NEG-ECP/
MA/ NH/ NC
NEG-ECP Mercury Action
Plan: Overview;
Accomplishments;
Current Priorities
NEG/ECP Regional Mercury
Action Plan
Integrated, comprehensive
plan including broad goals
and specific actions
Goals
 By 2003: 50% or greater
reduction in NE emissions
 By 2010: 75% reduction
 Long-term: virtual
elimination
Action Plan Category 1:
Emissions Reductions
Focused on major sources
Preliminary data- will meet/exceed 50%,
2003 overall reduction target
 Trash incinerators: limit 3-fold more
stringent that USEPA. 90% reduction
 Medical Waste Incinerators: limit 10-fold
more stringent >95% reduction
 Utilities and other sources
 Emission assessment and reduction strategies being
developed
Action Category 1: Emission Reduction
Estimated NE Mercury emissions: mid 1990’s
Manufacturing 7%
Miscellaneous 6%
Utilities
14%
Incinerators
55%
Estimated Incinerator
Emission Reductions by 2003
Non-utility boilers
18%
10000
kilograms
Incinerators= Municipal Solid
Waste Combustors; Medical
Waste Incinerators and Sewage
Sludge Incinerators.
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Mid 1990s:
Pre Action
Plan
2003: Post
Action Plan
Action Plan Category 2: Source
Reduction-Waste Mgmt
Overall Objectives
Reduce/eliminate
Nonessential Uses
Segregate and Recycle
Highlights: Extensive Regional Action
Dental
programs
Product legislation
Mercury-free Schools
Mercury collection programs
Mercury Products
Programs to get mercury out of
waste/ homes/schools across region.
Numerous
provincial and state
programs
Over 5,000 pounds of mercury recycled
Mercury Products Legislation:
Components:
Labeling; reporting;
restrictions on unnecessary uses;
recycling
Mercury Products Legislation
Elements adopted in all NE states:
 Vt.
first with labeling;
 RI and CT implementing comprehensive
packages;
 ME- first mercury auto switch take-back.
Interstate Mercury Education and
Reduction Clearing House established
 Regional
data management resource for
mercury products
Outreach and Education
Regional Accomplishments
Outreach
materials developed and
distributed in each jurisdiction

e.g. Fish consumption guidance; Toll free mercury
hotline; school info; fact sheets; Web info.
School
education and cleanouts: over
2,000 lbs. collected across region
Mercury thermometer outreach/
exchanges

VT >40,000; CT > 50,000; MA > 95,000
Research, Analysis, Strategic
Monitoring
Highlights
Regional mercury monitoring
report and recommendations
completed
Improved data management
through the Northeastern
Ecosystem Research Cooperative;
NESCAUM; NEWMOA
Stockpile Management
Overall Objectives
 Safe
management-retirement of excess
mercury
Highlights
 2002
International meeting “Breaking the
Mercury Cycle” held in Boston
 Continued advocacy against sale of US
strategic stockpile (5,000 tons)
 Advocacy for federal mechanism to manage
other large stockpiles- chlor-alkali plants
 ECOS Mercury Stewardship workgroups
Current Priorities: Summary
Emission Reduction
Inventory
Complete update to
evaluate progress re
2003 goal
 Update baseline for
2010 target

Utilities
 Jurisdictional and
regional strategies to
address emissions
from this sector
Pollution Prevention
Implement
legislation
Continue to reduce
releases associated
with dental sector
Eliminate unsafe use
in schools
Current Priorities (Continued)
Outreach/Education
Continue to link P2
and outreach
activities
Survey of
awareness
Translate outreach
materials
Monitoring/research
Continue to evaluate
additional sources
Develop strategy to
implement regional
monitoring program
Implement strategic
indicator monitoring
programs
Conclusions
 U.S. National Efforts Substantial
 NEG-ECP Action Plan a regional success-
importance of regional efforts and
international collaboration
 Measurable progress achieved
 Still much work to be done
Utilities; wastewater/sludge incinerators;
products; management of excess commodity
Hg.
 Need for global actions to reduce
unnecessary use and releases
The NEG-ECP Mercury Task Force Team
CoChairs: Ron Gagnon (RI); Stephanie
D’Agostino (NH); C. Mark Smith (MA); Nabil
Elhadi (NB). Project Director: John Shea
(NEGC). Representatives: Jim Brooks (ME);
Raynald Brulotte (PQ); Carmine DiBattista,
Lois Hager, John Cimochoski and Tessa
Gutowski (CT); Peter Haring (NF); Duncan
MacKay (NS); David Lennett, Ellen ParrDoering and Kevin McDonald (ME); Debbie
Johnston and Glenda MacKinnon-Peters
(PEI); Chris Recchia (VT); Judy Shope (MA);
Terry Goldberg (NEWMOA); Praveen Amar
and Margaret Round (NESCAUM); Jerry
Weiss (EPA); Luke Trip and Cheryl
Heathwood (CA).