742D98002
ACTION PLANS FOR PBT POLLUTANTS
INTRODUCTION
To illustrate EPA's approach to PBT pollutants under the PBT Strategy, the draft
Mercury Action Plan is attached. This action plan focuses on regulatory and voluntary actions,
enforcement and compliance, research, and outreach to characterize and reduce risks associated
with mercury. It involves multimedia and cross-office actions, quantitative challenge goals,
stakeholder engagement, international coordination, and long-term emphasis on pollution
prevention. In these ways, the draft Mercury Action Plan is representative of the overall Agency
approach to PBT pollutants. Nonetheless, mercury is different from other PBT pollutants in
terms of the maturity of EPA's knowledge base and program actions. Action plans for banned
substances like canceled pesticides or PCBs, or for substances with less well characterized risk
like octachlorostyrene, may differ significantly in substance and format from the action plan for
mercury. Also, as the Agency moves forward in developing action plans for more PBT
pollutants, opportunities will begin to appear for addressing multiple PBTs at a time, through
orchestrated use of available multi-media, sector-based, and place-based approaches.
Table 1 summarizes the actions within the draft Mercury Action Plan.
Draft - November 16,1998 Attachment 1 -1
-------
-------
Lead EPA Office
OAR, OECA
OSW i
OAR, OPPTS
OAR
OAR
OAR, ORD, OW,
OECA
OW
OPPTS, Regions 1
arid 5
OPPTS
OSW
OIA, OPPTS, ORD,
Regions 1,5, 10
ORD
Region 9, OW
Regions, OAR,
OSW, OW, OECA
Action
Implement .Municipal Waste Combustion
(MWC) And Medical Waste Incinerator
(MWJ) Regulations '
Promulgate Hazardous Waste Combustion
Facilities Regulations .
Develop Recommendations to Limit
Emissions from Additional Source
Categories.
Require, coal fired plants to submit
information pertaining to the quantity and
species of mercury emissions.
Issue standard for mercury cell chlorine
production
Provide States and Tribes with Tools for
Developing and Implementing Enforceable
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) for
Mercury
Revise Mercury Water Criterion
Pursue Voluntary Reductions in Industrial
Use and Releases .
Reduce TRf Reporting Threshold for
Mercury --
Develop Disposal Options for Hazardous
Wastes Containing Mercury
Give High Priority to Mercury in International "
Efforts ' . .
Develop a Mercury Research/Monitoring
Strategy and Implement an EPA Mercury
Research/Monitoring Plan
Develop Options for Addressing
Abandoned Mines Mercury" Problem
Support Regional, State and Local Actions .
to Reduce Mercury - ' .
in ncuuue RISKS Trom Mercury
Milestone
New MWC and MWI units must comply at start
up. Existing MWC units must comply by -:
December 2000, existing MWI units by
September 20O2. '
Final hazardous waste combustion facilities ~ 1
(incinerators, cement kilns, and lightweight
aggregate kilns) regulations by February 1 999
Proposed Industrial Combustion Coordinated
Rulemaking - end of 2000
Public comment period on proposal notice in
Federal Register closes October 22, 1 998
Proposed rule by November 1 999
Complete the pilot TMDL for mercury '
by end of CY 1999 . .
Complete studies on identifying
sources by tracing emissions by end of
CY'2000
Initiate the "National Survey of
Chemical Residues in Fish" in FY 1999
Draft human health' criteria methodology by the
end of CY 1 999; final criterion for methyl
mercury by end of CY 2000.
Ongoing
Region 1 ,;is piloting a recognition program for
hospitals that reduce mercury emissions
Proposed Rule - end of 1998,
Final Rule - end of 1 999
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPRM) in 1999, ' ,
Representation and Leadership .for Heavy Metals
(including mercury) at AMAP Expert and Working
Group meeting, Anchorage, AK, April 20-24, 1998;
Representation and Leadership at Arctic Council
Meeting, London, UK August 1998 '----'
Representing Region 1 in the NEG/ECP Mercury
Action Plan '. , '
Draft Mercury Research Strategy - October 30,
1998 '
ANPRM in 1998 :
Ongoing , . ,. , '.'.'
Draft - November 16,1998
Attachment 1-2
-------
EPA Action Plan for Mercury
Draft - November 16,1998
Attachment 1-3
-------
INTRODUCTION
Mercury has long been known to have toxic effects on humans and wildlife For
centuries, mercury miners have had their work time-limited. In the nineteenth century
observation of toxicity in hatmakers using mercury brought the phraser-mad as hatters" into our
lexicon. Mercury is a toxic, persistent; bioaccumulative pollutant that affects the nervous
system. Methylmercury is the chemical species that bioaccumulates in fish. People who
consume large amounts of fish are at risk of adverse effects of methyimercury on the nervous
system. Because the developing nervous system is more vulnerable to mercury toxicity, children
exposed.to methyimercury through their mother's consumption offish and individuals who. eat
large amounts, of fish from local waters because of economic or cultural reasons are particularly
at risk of adverse effects. Mercury is the most frequent basis for fish advisories, represented in
60 percent of all water bodies with advisories. Forty-one states have advisories for mercury in
one or more water bodies, and eleven states have issued statewide mercury advisories.
Every Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) program, both regulatory and voluntary,
is concerned with some aspect of exposure to mercury. Under these programs, the Agency has'
taken many actions to reduce human and environmental exposure to mercury, but there is still
more work to be done. Both the 1995 and 1997 Great Waters Reports to Congress highlighted-
the risks of mercury in the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, the Gulf of Mexico, Lake Champlain,
and our coastal waters. In April 1997, President Clinton issued an Executive Order requiring" '
each federal agency to assess risks that disproportionately affect children, including risks from
mercury. On April 7,1997, the United States and Canada signed the Binational Toxics Strategy,
developed under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The Binational Toxics Strategy sets'
a challenge of 50 percent reduction by 2006 in the deliberate use of mercury nationwide and-in
the aggregate of releases to the air nationwide and to the water within the Great Lakes Basin.
> . ' ' . , -
Most recently, on February 19, 1998, President Clinton and Vice President Gore released
the Clean Water Action Plan, which provides a blueprint for restoring and protecting the nation's
water resources. The Clean Water Action Plan includes many key actions to ensure that the
nation's waters support healthy people, including specific actions to address mercury and other
contaminants. In the Clean Water Action Plan, EPA commits to developing in 1998, a
multimedia strategy addressing mercury arid other persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic
pollutants thatcanndt be fully addressed through single media controls and approaches;
As required by the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990, in December 1997 EPA
issued the Mercury Study Report to Congress. The extensively peer-reviewed Mercury Study
Report to Congress inventories the quantity "of mercury emissions to the air from a numberof
sources related to human activity; assess"mercury transport and environmental exposure to
wildlife and human populations; estimates the health and environmental impacts associated with
this exposure; and describes the technologies (and associated costs) available to control these
mercury emissions. Recent and planned EPA actions will greatly reduce releases of mercury to
. the environment and mercury exposures. Building on this foundation, more remains to be done.
Draft - November 16,1998 ... Attachment 1-4
-------
The recommendations in EPA '$ Action Plan for Mercury are an example of how the
Agency can work cooperatively across media programs to address persistent, bioaccumulative,
toxic pollutants' that move from land, to air, water and sediment. "
OVERVIEW OF THE MERCURY PROBLEM
As it moves through environmental media, mercury undergoes a series of
complex chemical and physical transformations. These scientific issues were addressed in the
Mercury Study Report to Congress: ' - . '
Mercury cycles in the environment as a result of natural and human
(anthropogenic) activities. The amount of mercury mobilized and released into the
biosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial age. Most of the mercury in
the atmosphere is elemental mercury vapor, which circulates in the atmosphere for up to
a year, and hence can be widely dispersed and transported thousands of miles from likely
sources of emission. Most of the mercury in -water, soil, sediments, or plants and animals
is in the form of inorganic mercury salts and organic forms of mercury (e.g.
methylmercury). The inorganic form of mercury, when either bound to airborne particles
or in a gaseous form, is readily removed from the atmosphere by precipitation and, is also
dry deposited, 'As it cycles between the atmosphere, land, and water, mercury undergoes
a series of complex chemical and physical transformations, many of which are not
completely understood.
Mercury accumulates most efficiently in the aquatic food web. Predatory
organisms at the top of the food web generally have higher mercury concentrations.
Nearly all of the mercury that accumulates in fish tissue is methylmercury.
Fish consumption dominates the pathway for human and wildlife exposure to
methylmercury. The Mercury Study Report to Congress supports a plausible link
between anthropogenic releases of mercury from industrial and combustion sources in
the United States and methylmercury in fish: However, these fish methylmercury
concentrations also result from existing background concentrations of mercury (which
may consist of 'mercury from natural sources, as well-as mercury which has been re-
emitted from the oceans or soils) and deposition from, the global reservoir (which
' includes mercury emitted by other countries). Given the current scientific understanding
of the environmental fate and transport of this element, it is not possible to quantify how
much of the methylmercury infis~&.consumed by the U.S. population is contributed by
U.S. emissions relative to other sources of mercury (such as natural sources and re-
emissions from the global pool).
The typical U.S. consumer eating fish from restaurants and grocery stores is not
in danger of consuming harmful levels of methylmercury from fish and is not advised to
Draft--November. 16,1998 Attachment 1-5
-------
- limit fish consumption. The'levelsof' methylmercury found in the mos'tfrequently
. , consumea'commercialfish are low, especially comparedto levels that might be found in
some non-commercial fish from fresh water bodies that have been affected by mercury
pollution. While most U.S. consumers need not be concerned about their exposure to
methylmercury, some exposures may be of concern. Those who regularly and frequently
, consume large amounts offish -either marine species that typically have much higher
. levels'.ofmethylmercury than the rest ofseafood, or freshwaterfishI that have been
'affected by mercury pollution-are more highly exposed. Because the developing fetus '
; may be the most sensitive to the effects from methylmercury, women of child-bearing age
are regarded as the population of greatest interest.
Cost-effective opportunities to deal with mercury during the product life-cycle,
rather than just at the point of disposal, need.to be pursued. A balanced strategy, which
integrates end-of-pipe control technologies with material substitution and separation,
design-for-environment, andfundamental'process change approaches is needed. In
addition, international efforts to. reduce mercury emissions as well as greenhouse gases
will play an important role in reducing inputs to the global reservoir of mercury. -
. ~ ' - ' -'.".. '.''' f .
STRATEGIC APPROACH
. A successful action plan for identifying and reducing risks from exposure to mercury
requires a new multimedia approach. As first step, EPA has analyzed current regulations,
initiatives,- and programs which manage and control mercury, and has identified a set of cost- r,
effective options to move toward achieving further reductions. The cross-agency work group
that developed'this Action Plan is continuing to look for opportunities to address mercury
through a more integrated multimedia approach The Agency proposes to take the following
actions, in consultation with other federal agencies, and with the involvement of states, tribes and
other stakeholders: .
Control emissions from air point sources. EPA has taken several important steps to
reduce the levels of mercury and other pollutants, including reducing emissions from
municipal waste cornbustors and medical waste incinerators. These actions, once fully
implemented, will reduce mercury emissions caused by human activities by 50 percent
' from 1990 levels. Several other regulations that will limit mercury emission are under
development, as well. Actions to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide to control climate
change will also,have a significant co-benefit in reduced mercury emissions. Additional
work is being done in EPA's Totaj, Maximum Daily Load (TDML) program to evaluate
the linkage of air emissions to water quality impacts, to help determine appropriate
geographically targeted reduction actions. In addition, EPA intends to gather high quality
emissions data on coal^fired electric generating plants to address current uncertainties
. about mercury emissions and support a regulatory action.
Draft-November 16,1998 Attachment 1-6
-------
Revise water quality criteria, and improve measurement of mercury in water. EPA
will revise its water'quality human health criterion-for mercury and publish new
analytical methods for measuring mercury levels in water. .
Seek reductions in uses of mercury and improve information and citizens' right to
know. These use-reduction measures will reduce the levels of mercury in waste streams
as well as the danger of accidental releases. Generally, EPA will look to voluntary rather
than regulatory approaches to reduce mercury use. Additionally, EPA is considering
changing the reporting requirements for mercury under the Toxic Release Inventory
(TRI), which could result in additional reporting of mercury releases.
Develop an environmentally acceptable disposal method for mercury wastes
designated as hazardous wastes. Currently, EPA requires that hazardous wastes
containing high levels of mercury be treated to recover the elemental mercury from the
waste. This requirement may no longer be the preferred approach in all cases since the
demand for mercury has been reduced to the point where the supply of recovered mercury
exceeds it. Also, there are some air emissions of mercury associated with the recovery
process. Therefore, EPA is evaluating alternative treatment technologies which would
permanently stabilize mercury wastes to allow their disposal in hazardous waste landfills.
Seek reduction in exposure to highly exposed populations. Because of the long time
before reductions hi releases will be reflected in lower fish-tissue levels, EPA will
continue public information and outreach programs, including continued support and
strengthening of the states' and tribes' fish advisory programs.
Decrease further environmental contamination from illegal use/disposal of mercury
through focused compliance monitoring and enforcement of mercury restrictions
and requirements. Focus compliance assistance and outreach, monitoring and/or
enforcement on sectors/sources that are significant contributors of mercury loadings to
the environment Where enforcement actions are warranted, use Supplemental
Environmental Projects (SEPs) to encourage pollution prevention activities or mitigate
damage. Expand compliance and enforcement activities for direct and indirect
dischargers of mercury to surface waters.
Continue international efforts to reduce mercury releases. The global circulation of
mercury requires concerted efforts by all countries to solve the mercury problem in any
one country. .
Perform and support further research on all aspects of the mercury problem. A
.research strategy is being developed that will permit targeting of federal and other
research on the most important data gaps. .
Draft--November 16,1998 Attachment 1-7
-------
Support regional, state, tribal and local actions to reduce mercury. Slate, Tribal and
local governments play a key role in achieving mercury reductions. EPA will support '
state andlocal efforts through funding, information sharing, and coordination. For -...-.
example, EPA will expand outreach to publicly-owned treatment wprks about preventing
mercury pollution in sewage discharges. ' '
KEY MERCURY ACTION ITEMS
The list below provides inore detail about the most significant actions that EPA is
undertaking to deal with ^problem of mercury exposure. It is not an exhaustive list, and many
other EPA activities related to mercury, will continue. For further information ori these or other
mercury activities, please contact the offices involved.. : -..
1. Air Regulations
Municipal Waste Combustion Regulation .
v . ' ' '.'.. "''
The.Clean Air Act requkes EPA to establish stringent emission limits for new and
existing municipal waste combustion (MWC) units and medical waste incinerators (MWI). The
limits are to be based on "maximumiachievable cpntrol technology" (MACT) and must address a
range of pollutants including organic emissions (such as dioxin and furans), acid gases emissions
(such as SO2, HC1, and NOJ, and metal emissions (including cadmium, lead, and mercury).
EPA established the emission limits for MWCs in December 1995. New MWC units
must comply at start-up and existing MWC units must comply by December 2000. The control
system used at MWCs is acid gas/PM scrubbing to reduce organic emissions, acid gas emissions,
and metals emissions, other than mercury. To control mercury, the scrubbing system is s
supplemented with activated carbon injection. A number of acid gas/PM scrubbing systems with
carbon injection have been installed and other retrofits are underway: Available data indicates
the controi.systems achieve over 90% mercury control. At the same time, battery, manufacturers
are reducing the mercury content of batteries which will also reduce the -mercury emissions.
Based on available data, overall mercury emissions from MWCs were estimated to b&54 tons
per year (tpy) in 1990, were reduced to 29 tpy in 1995, and will be jess than 5 tpy when all
retrofits are completed. : .
" ' . - , !' .-'," ".""''-'
Office : Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Milestones: New MWC units must comply at start-up and existing MWC units must comply
by December 2000. , ;, : ;
Draft -November 16,1998 _..;_ Attachment 1-8
-------
t;! !*
Medical Waste Incinerators Regulations .
EPA set emission limits for MWIs in September 1997. New MWI units must comply at
start-up and existing MWI units must comply by September 2002. The most common control
system used at MWIs is a wet scrubbing system that reduces organic emissions, acid gas
emissions, and metals emissions, including mercury. Where MWTs are controlled with dry
scrubbing systems, activated carbon must be injected for mercury control. Based on available
data, overall mercury emissions from MWIs were estimated to be 50 tpy in 1990, were reduced
to 16 tpy in 1995 (primarily as a result of state regulations), and will be less than 1 tpy when the
MWI regulations are fully implemented.
Office: Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
Milestones: New MWI units must comply at start up and existing MWI units must comply by
September 2002.
Promulgate Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities Regulations'
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act requires the Agency to promulgate regulations for the
control of hazardous air pollutants emissions from specified source categories, including several
types of combustion units that burn hazardous waste. In April 1996, EPA proposed emission
standards for incinerators, cement kilns, and light weight aggregate kilns that bum hazardous
waste. This proposal, which the Agency anticipates finalizing in December, 1998, requires the
sources to control mercury emissions, as well as other hazardous air pollutants. Since the
proposal, the Agency has received extensive public comment, including new emissions data and
comments on the methodology used to estimate mercury emissions from these facilities.
As required by the Clean Air Act, the final mercury standard will embody the maximum
degree of reduction in emissions taking into consideration, as appropriate, the cost of achieving
the emissions reduction. This strict, protective mercury standard will be based on mercury
feedrate control (in the hazardous waste) and possibly also on other air pollution control
technologies. The final rule is expected to achieve a substantial overall reduction in mercury
emissions from these hazardous waste combustion facilities.
}.
, Office: Office of Solid Waste, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Milestones: Final hazardous waste combustion facilities (incinerators, cement kilns, and
lightweight aggregate kirns) regulations will be promulgated by February 1999.
Draft-November 16,1998 Attachment 1-9
-------
Develop Recommendations to Limit Rmi^iong from Additinri? 1
Based m part on the recommendations of a Federal Advisory Committee, EPA is
developing regulations to limit emissions of hazardous air pollutants, including mercury, and
criteria pollutants for the following five source categories: industrial, commercial, and *
institutional boilers; process heaters; industrial, commercial, and'other non-hazardous solid waste
combustors (excluding municipal waste combustors and medical waste incinerators); gas
turbines; and stationary internal combustion engines.
Office:-
Office of Air and Radiation
Milestones;, Proposed regulations by end of 2000
Mercury Emissions from Power Plants . ' J
Emissions from coal-fired electric power plants. represent me largest source category of
mercury emissions to the atmosphere. EPA has just completed a repSr? to "Cohgreiss that .
examines technologies and strategies to control mercury emissions frorn this sourc^ While there
are currently no cost effective control technologies for mercury that aB" commercially ivallable
for utility boilers, some may become available in a few years. .With implementation of the new
National Ambient Air.Quality Standards for fine participate matter and ozone, and the second
phase of the acid rain program, EPA expects to see a reduction of mercury emissions from utility
boilers. Actions that power plants may take to reduce their emissions of the greenhouse gases
that are responsible for climate change could also reduce mercury emissions from utilities. These
reductions will occur largely as powerplants switch to cleaner fuels and use fuels more '-'
efficiently.
EPA intends to gamer high quality emissions data about coal-fired electric generating
plants to address current uncertainties about mercury emissions and support a regulatory action.
To accomplish this, the Agency is requesting comments on a proposal to require all cdal-fired
powerplants above 25 MWto-provide the results of analysis to determine the mercury content of
the coal they are burning. M addition a sample of plants would be required td-perfdim stack ~
testing for quantity and species'Of mercury emissions. The inforiftatiofiTobtained!fronlthK'effdrt
will allow EPA to'calculate the amount and species of mercury emitted' by^eachreoal>fired plant
above 25 MW., This information will be available to the public. ;
Office:
Office of Air and Radiation
Milestones: Public comment period on notice closes on October 22, 1998
After OMB approval, EPA will send put letters requiring emissions information in.
. '-*. the fall of 1998, :.. . r .
Draft --November 16,1998,
Attachment 1-10
-------
Promulgate Emissions Standard for Chlorine Production Facilities
EPA is developing a rule that would limit mercury emissions from plants that produce
chlorine using the mercury cell method. The rule will include emissions limits based on control
technology and on management practices.
Office: Office of air and Radiation
Milestones: Proposed standard-November, 1999
Final standard - November, 2000. ' - .
2. Linking Air'Emissions to Water Quality Impacts to Prioritize Control Actions
EPA will combine tools in the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act to foster an air
deposition/water quality management approach with state and local partners, including providing
states and tribes with tools for developing and implementing total maximum daily loads (TMDL)
for mercury from air deposition. EPA is also working on improving methods to identify
sources by developing ways to trace pollutants back to sources, distinguishing between.
anthropogenic and natural sources, and attributing atmospheric loads to particular sources.
The goal of the TMDL pilot project is to demonstrate how to develop a TMDL for a
waterbody that receives mercury from air deposition. The project will evaluate how to access
and use existing air and water data to develop the TMDL, as well as how existing air and water
modeling methods can be used. The project will also examine linkages between the Clean Air
Act and Clean Water Act, and specifically, what state, local, tribal, or federal regulatory
authorities that can be used to modify source air emissions to meet needed loading reduction
goals.
To evaluate progress and emerging problems, EPA needs an updated information base on
levels of mercury and other persistent,, bioaccumulative toxics in fish. EPA will conduct a
"National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish". This survey will evaluate the incidence and
severity of mercury and other persistent, bioaccumulative toxicants in fish downstream of
suspected problem areas and in background areas. EPA will work in partnership with state and
tribal Departments of Health and Environmental Protection to carry out the study.
Office: ' Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Research and Development, Office
of Water, Office otEnforcement and Compliance Assurance
Milestones: Complete the TMDL for mercury by end of 1999
Complete studies on identifying sources by tracing emissions by end of 2000
Initiate the "National Survey of Chemical Residues in Fish" in FY 1999.
Draft-November 16,1998 . Attachment 1-11
-------
3. Revision of Mercury Water Quality Criterion
:. Under theClean Water Act, EPA estabHshes water quality criteria, that are used by states
and tribes to establish enforceable water quality standards. Water quality standards may reflect a
variety of site-specific considerations. Water quality standards are reflected in permitsfor
dischargers tq surface, waters and in a variety of other regulatory actions. -
the current national water quality criterion for mercury uses a method for estimating
..fish-tissue levels, the bioconcentration factor (BCF), Which does not include biomagnification in
the food chain. EPA subsequently published a water quality criterion for mercury in the Great
Lakes basin which is based on use of a bioaccumulation factor (BAF), which does include
biomagnification in the food chain. ..--/
The Office of Water (OW) is accelerating development of a revised water quality human
health criterion for mercury* which will reflect two major elements:
A revised Human Health Methodology - this provides for use of BAFs rather than BCFs,
and improved means for estimation of fish consumption;" ':
An updated human health risk assessment
The combined effect of these changes will be to make the criterion more reflective of sound
science and current risk assessment practice; The preferred approach .to the revised criterion will ;
be a methylmercury fish level to be used with measured fish tissue methylmercury levels. States .
and tribes which elect to depart from the. preferred approach will be referred to defaults which
will include mercury and memylmercury water levels. These water levels are likely to be more
stringent than the Current criterion. The direct effect of a more stringent water quality criterion
may be to include new or more stringent discharge limits for direct dischargers to surface water
(both industries and municipalities). Currently, direct water discharges are believed to be small
compared to input from air deposition. Nonetheless, limits oh direct discharges may be an
important part of achieving mercury reduction goals. In parallel with the revision of the water
quality criterion, OW will be revising its required analytical method to be more sensitive (below
the new criterion level) and less subject to sample contamination. Together, these changes will
lead to a more precise measure of mercury levels in water discharges and to more effective water
quality-based effluent limits when the discharges are contributing to exceedances of water
quality standards. EPA expects that permittees will most likely first consider pollution
prevention to find and control sources of mercury into the wastewater, rather than end-of-pipe -
treatment to meet limits. , \_~,;- -..
Indirectly, but no less importantly, revision of the water quality criterion will contribute
to EPA's efforts to integrate assessment of watersheds and airsheds in order to target air
pollution control and other activities to reduce mercury levels in water and ultimately, in fish and
the humans and animals that eat fish. '
Draft--November 16,1998 Attachment 1-12 .
-------
. With the release of the Mercury. Study Report to Congress, the Agency committed to
participate in an interagency review of recent human data on methyhnercury. This review will
concentrate on levels of exposure to mercury associated with subtle neurological endpoints and
is aimed at achieving consensus among Federal agencies on estimates of human risk. A
workshop is scheduled for November 1998. In addition, Congress has required an 18-month
National Academy of .Sciences study and recommendation on the reference dose for methyl
mercury.
Office:- Office of Water '
Milestones: Draft.human health criteria methodology by the end of calendar 1999.
Peer review of application of new methodology to methyl mercury completed by
mid-2000.
Final development of mercury criterion in 1999.
4. Pursue Voluntary Reductions in Industrial Use and Releases
Mercury consumption in the United States is attributable primarily to a few categories of
products and processes, including the manufacture of chlorine and caustic soda, wiring devices
and switches, measuring and control instruments, dental amalgam and laboratories. EPA is
pursuing a number of voluntary reduction initiatives in these industrial uses and releases of
mercury. Ongoing and planned mercury reduction actions include:
collaboration with the chlor-alkali industry to achieve a 50 percent reduction in mercury
use and releases by this sector by 2005, a commitment made by this industry, through its
representative, the Chlorine Institute. In addition, EPA will work with the industry to
develop unproved estimates of releases from this sector;
outreach to hospitals, including Veterans Administration hospitals and other public and
private hospitals to encourage them to discontinue purchases of mercury-containing
devices and products and to properly dispose of existing mercury. In addition, EPA will
explore opportunities to work with the American Hospital Association, other medical
facilities, dentists, and veterinary clinics on reducing use and release of mercury;
outreach to manufacturers and users of mercury switches and relays on mercury-free
alternatives;
outreach to the utility industry to encourage implementation of voluntary efforts to
control mercury release, including elimination of the use of mercury-containing
equipment, and exploration of potentially cost-effective options such as fuel-switching
Draft--November 16,1998 . Attachment 1-13
-------
andoptimization for mercury-reduction of controls whose primary purpose is reducing
emissionsof other pollutants; and " :.
collaboration with laboratories on reduction of mercury use. As part of this effort, EPA
will work with other standard-setting bodies to address mercury pollution prevention
opportunities through revisions to approved analytical methods and directions for
laboratory use, handling and recycling or proper disposal of mercury.
' ' - ' ~ . .':'''' ' \"
Office: Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Regions 1 and 5
5. Reduce Reporting Threshold for Mercury Under Section 313 of the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-tb-Know Act (EPCRAV
Mercury and mercury compounds are currently listed under section 313 of EPCRA and
reports are received from facilities that manufacture, process, use, release into the environment, '
or otherwise manage as waste mercury and mercury, compounds. These reports are made
available to the public through the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). However, to date the reports
have come from a fairly small number of large sources, such as. chlor-alkali plants. In 1997 the
categories of industrial facilities required to report under EPCRA section 313 were expanded'to
cover, among others, electric utilities, and hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal (TSD)
facilities. Combustion of fossil fuels for energy has been identified as a major source of
mercury. Therefore, the facilities expansion could result in significant increases in reporting of
mercury under EPCRA section 313. . .: ...
' " - ' ". ,"-''_, *_
It is likely that, to date, few reports on mercury releases have been received under
EPCRA section 313 because reporting thresholds have been too high to. capture mercury releases
from many covered facilities. In order to ensure that reporting on mercury under EPCRA section
313 will be fully effective, especially taking into account releases from industrial facilities newly
subject to EPCRA section 313, EPA is considering reducing the repbrting threshold for mercury.
EPA can reduce reporting thresholds from the levels set out under EPCRA section 313 as long as
the new threshold "shall obtain reporting on a substantial majority of total releases of the
chemical at all facilities subject to the requirement of this section." EPA is currently reviewing
data on mercury in light of the criteria established in the statute for revision of the TRI reporting
threshold.
EPA expects to propose a rule lowering the reporting thresholds for chemicals that persist
and bioaccumulate (including mercury ard mercury compounds) by the end of 1998. A final rule
is expected by the end of 1999. Reporting under the final rule would be expected to begin in
2000, with the first reports covered by the new rule released in 2001. :
Office: Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
/Draft-November 16,1998; Attachment 1-14 . - V
i
-------
Milestones: Proposed Rule - end of-1998
Final Rule-end of 1999
6. Develop Disposal Options for Hazardous Wastes Containing Mercury
Current'waste treatment standards for many hazardous wastes containing mercury are
based on recovery of mercury through retorting. EPA is planning to evaluate other options
because 1) the supply of recycled mercury is increasing while the demand is decreasing and 2)
there are concerns over potential emissions from retorting. In addition, for organic hazardous
wastes which contain mercury, the current treatment standards are often based .on incineration,
which also raises concerns over air emissions; . .
Therefore, EPA is considering an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking .(ANPRM) to
revise its hazardous waste treatment standards to include alternatives based on permanent
stabilization of mercury. These alternatives could also apply, to elemental mercury. The Agency
hopes to issue this ANPRM in 1999.
'Office: Office of Solid Waste .
Milestones: ANPRM in 1999
7. Give High Priority to Mercury in International Efforts
Mercury's ability to be cycled globally poses both a challenge and an opportunity to the
U.S. As long as mercury is produced, used and released into the environment in other countries,
the U.S. will be on the receiving end of some mercury, thus reducing the overall impact of our
domestic mercury control measures. Yet, this problem represents a real opportunity for the U.S.
to demonstrate leadership internationally on mercury risk characterization and risk reduction.
EPA is participating in bilateral and international fora to encourage the cooperative
development and use of relevant scientific and technical information about mercury. These fora
include the U.S.-Canada Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy, the North American
Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) and its Sound Management of Chemicals
Initiative, the U.N. Economic Commissipn for Europe's Convention on Long-Range
Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) and its legally-binding protocol on mercury and other
heavy metals, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and its
programs on heavy metals risk management and the elimination of environmentally adverse
economic subsidies, the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP), and the New
England Governors/Eastern Canadian Premiers (NEG/ECP) Mercury Action Plan. .
Draft --November 16,1998 Attachment 1-15
-------
On AP^V7,1997, the United States and Canada signed the Great Lakes Binational Toxics
fc Them^>- emissions reduction,goal of the.binational strategy is detailed on page 2 of
action plan. At the present time the EPA and Environment Canada are working with all
industrial sectors that release mercury, States, Tribes, environmental groups and the public, to
help identify and undertake specific mercury reduction activities.
Under the CEC Resolution #95-5 mercury was identified as one of the first four
chemicals selected for the Sound Management of Chemicals Initiative, A North American
Regional Action Plan (NARAP) on mercury has been developed that establishes a number of
cooperative initiatives among Mexico, Canada, and the United States to improve the scientific
understanding of the mass balance of mercury in North America, to promote pollution prevention
actions across the continent, and to assist Mexico in capacity building. By June of 1999, phase II
of the NARAP will be completed. It will establish specific actWoriented commitmerits for
activities addressing mercury use and reductions.
,In February 1998 the U.S.and other Parties to the U.N. Economic Commission for
Europe's Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) concluded
negotiations on a legally-binding protocol ;6n mercury arid other heavy metals. The protocol
includes obligations to control mercury emissions from stationary sources and to establish and
Deport mercury emissions inventories. It also contains obligatory and voluntary provisions
regarding the use of mercury hi products. The U.S. can take a number of steps to encourage
other ECE countries to comply with the protocol.
Through the Arctic Monitoringand Assessment Program and other international
initiatives, the U.S. is collaborating with other countries to better characterize and understand the
international or transboundary nature of mercury sources, transport, deposition and fate. In
addition, the U.S. will continue to encourage other countries to undertake domestic mercury risk
reduction measures, with a focus on pollution prevention approaches: This could involve
working bilaterally on a gdvernmenfc-to-government basis and multilaterally through the OECD,
the LRTAP 'Convention or other international fora.
On June 8,1998 The New England Governors/Eastern Canadian Premiers signed a
resolution concerning mercury and its impacts on the environment. In addition, the Governors
and Premiers adopted the Mercury Action Plan which has as its regional goal, "the virtual,
elimination of the discharge of anthropogenic mercury into the environment" TheNEG/ECP
has established a task force, which includes the New England states, the Eastern Canadian
Provinces', to coordinate and implement the Mercury Action Plan.The action plan identifies 45
specific actions to reduce mercury emissions. Including emission reduction targets from specific
source categories; such as municipal waste combustors, medical waste incinerators, sludge
incinerators, utility and non-utility boilers, industrial and area sources and source reduction and
safe waste managementof mercury. '...- ' "'-."'"
Draft - November 16,1998
Attachment 1-16
-------
f.
Office: . Office of International Activities, Office of Prevention; Pesticides, and
Toxic Substances, Office of Research and Development, Regions 1, 5, and
10
Milestones: Representation for Heavy Metals (including mercury) at AMAP Expert and
Working Group Meeting, Anchorage AK, April 20-24,1998
Representation For Mercury at the Arctic Council Senior Officials meeting,
London, UK, August 1998 .
Signing of LRTAP Heavy Metals Protocol, Denmark, June 1998'
Development and implementation of cooperative mercury monitoring programs
' with other Arctic countries
By June of 1999, phase II of the CEC NARAP will be completed.
The Mercury Task force will report back to the NEG/ECP Committee of the
Environment hi June 1999.
8. Develop a Mercury Research/Monitoring Strategy and Implement an EPA Mercury
Research/Monitoring Plan
The Office of Research and Development (ORD), in cooperation with scientists from
EPA program offices and regions, will develop a mercury research/monitoring strategy to
facilitate coordination and communication on mercury-related research plans and projects
among organizations in the public and private sectors, including other Federal agencies, state
governments, academia and industry. This brief strategy document will be developed using as its
basis the risk-based framework in the Mercury Study Report to Congress and will include the
following summary information: .
(1) description of research needed to better assess potential health and ecological risks, to
more completely document exposures, and to better manage such risks, and
(2) description of ongoing EPA research activities, including various modeling and
monitoring studies, e.g., in South Florida and in the Great Lakes region and participation
in international fora, e.g, the North American Task Force on Mercury (pursuant to the
North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation established under NAFTA).
The strategy will identify the scientific and technical information needs and priorities for
research in the relevant areas. Some of the research areas that may be addressed are: emission
characterization, atmospheric transport arid" fate, deposition, fate in terrestrial and aquatic media,
Draft.-November 16,1998
Attachment 1-17
-------
*.',._ .-;_ ; -,\.,f-^;.C-Vr"iK*: '"'^--f^';-^-, ^ \S'l''' . :, - ' .-', . ''.', ,i\ 'rft\-;...'f'. ;..: >. TrtV. -'">"- :V..,;>"':**.-- ;%; «j*
bip^umulatipn;; ecplogicafctoxicrtv, health effects^ exposure, monitdrihg, risk communication;
and nskman^e^ent-relatedprevention, control, and remediation of mercury and mercury
compounds. OJRuiitiated the strategy development.effort in January 1998 and wm make
available a drap that is ready for peer review by October 30,1998.
Based on the mercury research/monitoring strategy, ORD and other EPA offices in
cooperation with the greater scientific community, will develop and implement an EPA'
research/monitoring plan. The plan will build oh ongoing research efforts in the areas of
mercury fate and transport modeling and monitoring, assessment methods development for
health and ecological impacts, risk communication, and advances in pollution prevention and
other nsk management technologies and approaches. The plan will include consideration of the
following research areas: .. .*' .
the development and evaluation of emission control technology for coal-fired utilities and
other mercury emitters in support of the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) and the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OS WER) programs. This effort will
include attention to speciation issues, control option costs and the ultimatedisposal of the
mercury-contamingwastes resulting from^e control options. '"
- -i. .-.'""' ' ' ...".. ' '..'' -' "' "'.'.'' ' "' " ' '-
* the development of iate, transport and transformation data in support of Office of Water
(OW) determinations of total maximum^^ daily loads (TMDLs) for mercury.
the provision of deposition monitoring technology to determine the effectiveness of
control options.
the virtual elimination of the use of mercury in products and unproved management of
mercury wastes in support of the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Subsfences
(OPPTS), OSWER, and the Regions.
the refinement and improvement of health and environmental risk assessments for
mercury that reflect evaluation of recent studiesof healthand environmental effects of,
mercury exposure, with particular attention to sensitive sub-pbpuiations, e.g., the
developing fetus and children,, to support risk-based decision-making.
Work under this plan will include research conducted in-house by ORD, as well as a
component ofextramural.research supported through ORD's Science To Achieve Results
(STAR) grantsprogram, i
Office: . Office of Research and Development
Milestones: Draft mercury research strategy-October 30,1998 -
Draft -.-November 16,1998 .. Attachment 1-18
-------
9. Develop. Options For Addressing Abandoned Mines Mercury Problem
Mercury at abandoned mine sites is a problem faced by many western States. The
mercury at the abandoned mine sites is either from abandoned mercury mines (No active
mercury mining occurs in the United States), or from gold and silver mining sites, where
mercury was either used as an amalgamation agent in historic large scale placer mining and
traditional hard rock mining operations, or from recent small scale "recreational" placer mining
operations, which continue to flourish in the western states.
i .....
To address the potential for mercury, contamination of watersheds that drain these
abandoned mine sites, EPA will support efforts to fully research the extent and nature of this
problem, including efforts to, characterize and map the sites, and study watershed impacts
downstream. EPA will also support efforts to locate responsible parties where feasible. EPA
will also assist in the cleanup and remediation of sites, undertaken by "Good Samaritans" as
defined by the law in different States. EPA will consider whether it would be appropriate for
certain abandoned sites to be issued NPDES permits, or general storm water permits, where such
permits are not currently required or have not been issued.
Disposal options will also need to be developed for the disposal of mercury contaminated
mining wastes. Currently the common options are to cover the site soils with clean soil, paving,
or some other material, or to excavate and transport the contaminated soil to an offsite landfill.
Another alternative for small and large sites that should be considered is permanent stabilization
of mercury. This has been proposed for an ANPRM in 1998, and the ANPRM could be required
to address the potential use of permanent stabilization as a disposal method for mine wastes,
including a study of its scientific feasibility and costs. Another alternative to control mercury
disposal at small "recreational" placer mining sites, may be to provide specially marked and
designed disposal containers for use in small scale placer mining, and education on how and why
these containers should be used. Methods to safely dispose these containers must also be
developed and implemented.
Office: ' Region 9, Office of Water
Milestones: ANPRM in 1998 ' ;'.' '
10. Support Regional, State and Local Actions to Reduce Mercury
State and local governments are~vital to the achievement of mercury reductions. They
have a central role to play in outreach to the business community and to the general public about
the importance of properly disposing of mercury-containing products and the alternatives to such
products. In addition to this important pollution prevention role, State and local governments
have developed innovative mercury reduction laws and regulations that supplement, and in some
Draft November 16,1998 Attachment 1-19
-------
cases provide jmoo^l ft*, national efforts. EPA .supports S
ol mercury re^ucfroa projects, provision of information abbut mercury sources an^redtiction
opportunities, and coordination of joint efforts. This support will be expanded under .:
implementation of the Great Lakes Binationai Toxics Strategy.
Funding Support; EPA supports State and local efforts through grants to worthwhile projects
Examples of current projects funded by EPA include: an exploration in Minnesota of innovative
ways to regulate the release of mercury comprehensively, including fiom currently-unregulated
sources, such as a mercury emissions "cap-and-trade" program; State mercury task forces, which
are bringing together stakeholders to make and ^^ implementrefiommendations for sectors that use
or release mercury;' mercury "clean sweeps" that collect and properly dfepdse of household and
small business stores of unneeded Mercury; mercury pretreatment programs at sewage treatment
districts; investigation of use of mercury in ethnic practices, and a variety of outreach efforts to
small business. State business outreach efforts funded by EPA include a program to encourage
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning contractors and suppliers to promote the use of non-
mercury thermostats and to properly dispose of mercury thermostats that they replace, and
outreach to hospitals and other medical care facilities to encourage thern to avoid or limit the use
of mercury-containing products and to properly manage me disposal of existing mercury. EPA
will contiriueto fund Stateand local projects ; that create innovative ways to reduce mercury or^
follow a path of proven success. ,: .'.- ,"; '...- '-.'',..
In addition, EPA will work with states to incorporate mercury reduction activities into the
day-to-day, work of state environmental agencies by making these activities a priority in
Environmental Performance Partnership Agreements (EnPPAs). EnPPAs define the working
relationship among state environmental agencies and describe the work that state agencies will
do with federal funds. . : . . .
Information and Coordination: EPA also plays an important role by providing information and
.facilitating information exchange about mercury among States. Currently, this function; is most
highly developed among the Great Lakes States, where EPA leads a Mercury Workgroup that
promotes information exchange about mercury and encourages cooperation among local, state !
and federal agencies in their mercury reduction efforts. The workgroup has allowed participants
to help each other develop more effective programs for the control of mercury, and has helped
educate participants on the latest mercuryrrelated research. Italso provides a fbrurafi^ '-.-
coordination of inercury-related work among staffwith responsibilities fbrdifferentK \. /
environment media. The workgroup ^^ seeks to reduce mercury releases in the Great Lakes states
through the regulatory process and through voluntary pollution prevention programs. Activities
that the workgroup engages in : include: identification of mercury sources; identification of
* For uisfance, Michigan's Mercury; Pollution PreventioaTasfe Force secured ffie^^
commitment of the auto indusuy to eliminate theuseof mercury switches used for convenience
'lighting.'.- '; .'-/JSv .'":"/:'. "^\ -.'_' "''.:'/ - :,;:';.-;;',-.^:/:'.-'.-".:.'-:
Draft - November 16,1998>
Attachment 1-20
,,3
?i
- "-A-
-------
alternatives to mercury use; refinement of public outreach information and materials;
commenting on draft legislation and regulation; development of conferences, and updates on
mercury-related research.
EPA will expand this role nationally under implementation of the Binational Toxics
Strategy, with a Mercury Web Site and list-server to disseminate information about mercury
sources and reduction opportunities more broadly, including to State and local governments
outside of the Great Lakes basin. This effort will include publicizing model pollution prevention
programs that State, Tribal and local governments can adopt.
In addition, EPA will support State, Tribal and local efforts to educate the public on
appropriate ways to reduce mercury exposure. As part of this effort, EPA will continue to
provide State, Tribal and local agencies with technical assistance in the development of fish
consumption advisories that reflect local mercury levels and local fish consumption patterns, and
which balance the risks of exposure to mercury with the health benefits of including fish in the
'diet. : . - .
Finally, the mercury reduction work undertaken through the Binational Toxics Strategy
will be coordinated, as much as possible, with other ongoing national, binational, trilateral and
international efforts, such as the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC).
Legislation and Regulation.: Under the Binational Toxics Strategy, EPA plans to compile and
disseminate information on model State, Tribal and local mercury-related legislation and
regulation. In addition to the pollution prevention programs described above, individual States
have developed legislation or regulations prohibiting incineration or landfilling of mercury-
containing lamps and other devices, phasing out the use of mercury hi dairy manometers and
other products, and requiring manufacturers of mercury relays to develop take-back programs.
Publicizing these innovative laws and regulations will provide a possible model for other
governments to follow. . . .
Recently, Region 5 has begun to coordinate with States on possible expansion of the
"Universal Waste Rule" to cover additional mercury-containing wastes beyond the thermostats,
batteries and pesticides encompassed by this regulation. Inclusion in the Universal Waste Rule
can streamline waste handling requirements and encourage the safe disposal or recycling of
mercury-containing products. EPA will consider expansion of this effort on a national basis.
EPA will assist States hi adoption of regulations to control mercury emissions from
medical waste incinerators and municipaXwaste combustors, and will work with States and
sources to .develop schedules for compliance with the regulations.
Assistance to Sewage Treatment Works: Local sewage treatment works will play an important
role in mercury reduction through implementation of pretreatment programs that encourage or
require industrial users and households to limit mercury discharges. EPA has funded model
Draft-November 16,1998 Attachment 1-21
-------
SQPSE
*ftifiit
"''-S"'~-Vj;'",
SSlfe*-;^
:**»
la Duluth, Minnesota and Detroit, KKs-I
compendium of mercury pollution prevention information useful for pretreatment program
managers. EPA^will provide information to sewage treatment works nationwide on different
strategies to reduce mercury releases. These strategies could be considered for development of.
required pollutant minimization programs, and State and/or Federal compliance assistance
efforts. This outreach to sewage treatment works could be part of a multi-media .approach for
municipalities, including mercury reduction opportunities for all municipal 'Vastestreams":
wastewater, solid waste, and ak emissions.
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement! Decrease furthetenvironmental contamination from
illegal use/disposal of mercury through focused compliance monitoring and enforcement of
mercury restrictions and requirements. Focus compliance assistance and outreacli, monitoring
and/or enforcement ort sectors/sources which are significant contributors of mercury loadings to
the environment Where enforcement actions are warranted, use Supplemental Environmental
Projects (SEPs) to encourage pollution prevention activities or mitigate damage;.
To further the Agency's goals to protect and enhance public health- and me environment,
in applicable circumstances EPA advocates the inclusion of Supplemental Environmeiital
Projects (SEPs) in the settlement of environmental enforcement actions. A SEP is aa r
environmentally beneficial project which a defendant agrees to undertake as part of such a
settlement, but which the defendant is not otherwise legally required to perform. This may
include cleaning up a damaged area beyond the regulatory requirements or providing some
additional protection not required by regulation or statute. A defendant's willingness or ability to
perform a SEP is considered as a factor in establishing the final penalty paid by the defendant
EPA particularly encourages SEPs in communities where there are environmental justice
concerns, to help ensure that persons who spend significant portions of their time in areas, or
depend on food and water sources located near where violations have occurred, are protected.
:;i1^-,tWM
.'-:-i.,p.*t'^
"
8
4
"f
Office:
Regions, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Solid Waste,-Offidef of
Water, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance;
m
Draft - November 16,1998
Attachment 1-22
-------
. ' References
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Agriculture (1998). Clean Water
Action Plan: Restoring and Protecting America's Waters. EPA-840-R-98-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1993). Deposition of Air Pollutants to the Great Waters:
1st Report to Congress. EPA-453-R-93-055
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1997). Deposition of Air Pollutants to Great Waters: 2nd
Report to Congress. EPA-453-R-97-011. . .
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1996). Environmental Goals for America with
Milestones for 2005, Draft for Government Review.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry
(1996). National Alert on Metallic Mercury Exposure. .
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1997). Mercury Study Report to Congress. EPA-452-R-
97-003-009. .
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1997). EPA's Strategic Plan. EPA/190-R-97-002.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1998) The Utility Air Toxics Report to Congress.
CEC (1998). Final Mercury North American Regional Action Plan.
.Draft-November 16,1998 , Attachment 1-23
------- |