&EPA
USEPAOItoolRB[!rchani!D.vt!ep=to!
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington DC 20460
EPA/625/R-00/014
June 2001
Proceedings and Summary
Report
Workshop on Mercury in
Products, Processes,
Waste and the Environment:
Eliminating, Reducing and
Managing Risks from
Non-Combustion Sources
-------
-------
EPA/625/R-00/014
June 2001
Proceedings and Summary Report
Workshop on Mercury in Products,
Processes, Waste and the Environment:
Eliminating, Reducing and Managing Risks
from Non-Combustion Sources
March 22-23, 2000
Baltimore, MD
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with vegetable-based ink on
paper that contains a minimum of
50% post-consumer fiber content
processed chlorine free.
-------
Notice
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through its Office of Research and
Development, funded and managed the research described here under Contract 68-C7-0011 to
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). It has been subjected to the Agency's peer
administrative review and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Statements
captured in the panel discussion summary in Appendix C are those of the participants, not
necessarily reflective of the EPA. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with protecting the
Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the
Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human
activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's
research program is providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today
and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely,
understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from
pollution that threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research
program is on methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air,
land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems;
remediation of contaminated sites, sediments and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air
pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector
partners to foster technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging
problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to environmental problems by: developing and
promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment; advancing scientific and
engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and providing the technical
support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental regulations and
strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research
plan. It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the
user community and to link researchers with their clients.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
111
-------
Abstract
Mercury contamination, both nationally and internationally, has long been recognized as a growing
problem for humans and ecosystems, since mercury does not degrade to simpler compounds. Once
it is released to the environment, it will always be present in one form or another. Mercury is
released to the environment from a variety of human (anthropogenic) sources including plant effluent
discharge, fossil-fuel combustors, incinerators, chlor-alkali plants, mining and landfills. Other
sources of anthropogenic mercury release include industrial processes and the disposal of products
containing mercury. Anthropogenic sources of mercury emissions to the atmosphere include fossil
fuel combustion (containing trace amounts of mercury), municipal incineration, medical waste
incineration, chlor-alkali plants, and landfills. These emission sources represent a significant
contribution to the total mercury released (including natural and re-emitted) in the United States.
A workshop titled, Mercury in Products, Processes, Waste and the Environment: Eliminating,
Reducing and Managing Risks from Non-combustion Sources, was held on March 22-23, 2000,
in Baltimore, Maryland. To facilitate discussions of these issues, the workshop combined a series
of presentations at plenary sessions, moderated technical sessions and panel discussions. The topics
of these presentations focused on treatment and disposal technologies, stockpile management, and
prevention, collection and elimination programs. Presenters were from U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA), Department of Energy (DOE), state agencies, industry, academia,
technology developers, equipment manufacturers, consulting firms, international representatives.
The presentations were followed by two panel discussions: the first addressed treatment and disposal
of mercury-contaminated wastes and the second addressed prevention, collection, and elimination
issues. This report provides a discussion of the overarching issues in mercury treatment, disposal,
prevention, collection, and elimination, and a summary of the panel discussions that took place at
the close of the workshop.
IV
-------
Contents
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
List of Acronyms vii
Acknowledgments viii
Executive Summary
Section 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Workshop Structure, Purpose, and Intended Audience 1
1.2 Background 1
1.3 Need for Eliminating, Reducing and Managing Risks from
Non-Combustion Sources 2
Section 2 Treatment and Disposal Options 3
2.1 Regulations Guiding Treatment and Disposal of Mercury Waste 3
2.2 State of the Science in Treatment Options for Mercury Waste 4
2.3 State of the Science in Disposal Options for Mercury Waste 5
2.4 Additional Topics of Concern from Treatment and Disposal
Panel Discussion 7
Section 3 Prevention, Collection, and Elimination 11
3.1 Current Status of Mercury Prevention, Collection, and Elimination 11
3.2 Issues in Mercury Prevention, Collection, and Elimination 11
3.3 Additional Topics of Concern from Prevention, Collection, and
Elimination Panel Discussion 12
Section 4 Summary and Conclusions 17
-------
Appendices
A Workshop Agenda
B Workshop Abstracts ................................................ 21
C Panel Discussion Summary - Treatment and Disposal .......................... 71
D Panel Discussion Summary - Prevention, Collection, and Elimination .............. 81
E List of Attendees ............................................... 95
VI
-------
List of Acronyms
ANPRM Advance Notice of Potential Rulemaking
BDAT Best Demonstrated Available Technology
DLA Defense Logistics Agency
DOD Department of Defense
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
GAC Granular Activated Carbon
Hg Mercury
HW Hazardous Waste
LDR Land Disposal Restrictions
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NGO Non Government Organization
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
P2 Pollution Prevention
PBT Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SAMMS Self-Assembled Mercaptans on Mesoporous Silica
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
VII
-------
Acknowledgments
Many people contributed their expertise to the preparation and review of this publication. Overall
technical guidance was provided by Douglas Grosse of the U.S. EPA's National Risk Management
Research Laboratory. The document was prepared by Lisa Kulujian and Lisa Enderle of Science
Applications International Corporation. The following people provided guidance and review:
Jonathan Herrmann
Benjamin Blaney
Paul Randall
Josh Lewis
Edward Weiler
Jeri Weiss
USEPA, National Risk Management Research Laboratory
USEPA, National Risk Management Research Laboratory
USEPA, National Risk Management Research Laboratory
USEPA, Office of Solid Waste
USEPA, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances
USEPA, Region I
VIII
-------
Executive Summary
Section 1
Introduction
1.1 Workshop Structure, Purpose, and Intended Audience
A workshop titled "Mercury in Products, Processes, Waste and the Environment: Eliminating,
Reducing and Managing Risks from Non-Combustion Sources," was held on March 22 - 23,2000,
in Baltimore, Maryland.
The purpose of the workshop was to achieve three goals:
1. Convey public, non-profit, and private sector perspectives on the management of mercury in
, products, processes, and wastes;
2. Present ongoing efforts that address mercury prevention, elimination, non-combustion treatment
and disposal; and
3. Identify data gaps and information needs to improve mercury risk management in products,
processes, waste and the environment.
To facilitate discussions of these issues, the workshop featured a series of presentations at a plenary
session, moderated technical sessions and panel discussions. The topics of these presentations
focused on treatment and disposal technologies, stockpile management, and prevention, collection
and elimination programs. Presenters were from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),
Department of Energy (DOE), state agencies, industry, academia, technology developers, equipment
manufacturers, and consulting firms, which included international participants. The technical
presentations were followed by two panel discussions: the first addressed treatment and disposal of
mercury-contaminated wastes and the second addressed prevention, collection, and elimination
issues. Statements captured in Appendix C, Panel Discussion Summary - Treatment and Disposal,
are those of the participants, not necessarily the EPA.
This report provides a summary of the key issues pertaining to mercury treatment, disposal,
prevention, collection, and elimination, followed by speaker abstracts and a transcript of the panel
discussions that took place at the close of the workshop.
1.2 Background
Mercury contamination, both nationally and internationally, has long been recognized as a growing
problem for both humans and ecosystems, since mercury does not degrade to simpler compounds.
Once released to the environment, it will always be present in one form or another. Mercury is
-------
released to the environment from a variety of human (anthropogenic) sources including plant effluent
discharge, fossil-fuel combustors, incinerators, chlor-alkali plants, mining, and landfills. Other
sources of anthropogenic mercury release include industrial processes and the disposal of products
containing mercury.
Anthropogenic sources of mercury emissions to the atmosphere include fossil fuel combustion
(containing trace amounts of mercury), municipal incineration, medical waste incineration, chlor-
alkali plants, and landfills. These emission sources represent a significant contribution to the total
mercury released (including natural and re-emitted) in the United States. The 1997 Mercury Study
Report to Congress indicated that the deposition of atmospheric mercury has increased by a factor
of two to five over pre-industrial levels. Reference: (EPA Document Nos. EPA-452/R-97-003
through 010, http://epa.gov/oar/mercury.html). Furthermore, most atmospherically deposited
mercury is in the form of gaseous or particulate-phase inorganic mercury. Unfortunately, the
inorganic mercury released into the environment can be converted, by naturally occurring biological
processes, into the highly toxic methyl mercury species.
1.3 Need for Eliminating, Reducing and Managing Risks from Non-Combustion
Sources
Mercury has been identified as a persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemical, (Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances) making it a chemical of concern. PBT chemicals are
of great concern because they persist in the environment, bioaccumulate in the food chain, and are
toxic, posing a significant threat to humans, and ecosystems. Many of these chemicals, including
mercury, are of concern because they easily transfer from one media to another in the environment.
EPA is in the process of developing a research strategy which aims to address the mercury problem
through multimedia initiatives.
Controlling the environmental risks associated with mercury is complicated by several issues:
mobility, exposure, and PBT characteristics. Elemental mercury, frequently found in products and
processes, volatilizes readily at ambient and combustion temperatures, leading to air emissions from
almost every process or product using mercury. Elemental mercury can remain in the atmosphere
for long periods of time; thereby being dispersed over a large geographical area. Further, multiple
exposure pathways exist for the various mercury species. The most critical concern is the formation
of highly toxic and bioaccumulative methyl mercury in water bodies. Thirdly, the PBT
characteristics of mercury ensure that it will pose a threat to human health and ecosystems for a long
time to come. For these reasons, safe treatment and disposal, and prevention, collection, and
elimination of mercury are at the forefront of environmental risk management.
This workshop was divided into two major concurrent session which dealt with (1) treatment and
disposal options and (2) prevention, collection and elimination initiatives. Sections 2 and 3 present
summaries of presentations made in each of the two respective sessions. Section 4 provides a
summary and conclusions from the overall workshop. Material and discussions presented at this
workshop reflect the opinions and ideas of the presenters and participants and not the participating
organizations.
-------
Section 2
Treatment and Disposal Options
2.1 Regulations Guiding Treatment and Disposal of Mercury Waste
The EPA defines waste with mercury concentrations above a certain threshold (40 CFR §261.24)
as characteristically hazardous. These wastes are defined as any waste that is characteristically
hazardous based on the concentration of mercury in its leachate, as determined by the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). EPA was required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HS WA) to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in 1984 to establish
treatment standards for all listed and characteristic hazardous waste destined for land disposal. The
First Final Rule (53 FR 31166, August 17,1988) established standards for brine purification muds,
and the Third Final Rule (55 FR 22569, June 1,1990) established treatment standards for five more
wastewater and nonwastewater codes which contain mercury as the primary hazardous constituent.
Some of these standards were revised under the Universal Treatment Standards in the Phase II Land
Disposal Restrictions (LDR) Rule (59 FR 47980, September 19, 1994) and further revisions were
made in the Phase IV Final Rule (63 FR 28556, May 26, 1998). Mixed wastes, which are
radioactive RCRA hazardous wastes, are currently regulated under both RCRA and the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954.
There are two recent proposed updates to the rules governing the disposal of mercury-bearing wastes:
Storage, Treatment, Transportation, andDisposalofMixedWaste,publishedonNovemberl9,1999
(64 FR 63464). This proposed rule would provide flexibility to generators of mixed waste in the
form of a conditional exemption from the definition of hazardous waste for some types of wastes and
activities. The goal of this proposal is to reduce dual regulation for generators, transporters, and
disposers in the management of these wastes. Wastes that fall under the specific areas in the
proposed rule will be regulated and managed as hazardous waste in accordance with NRC
regulations, and will be exempted from RCRA Subtitle C regulations. EPA is currently developing
the final rule.
Potential Revisions to the Land Disposal Restrictions Mercury Treatment Standards, published on
May 28, 1999 (64 Federal Register 28949). This Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPRM) seeks to begin a comprehensive review of the standards for treating mercury-bearing
hazardous waste. The specific goals are to review and update EPA's waste generation and treatment
data for mercury-bearing hazardous wastes, present technical and policy issues for public discussion,
and determine an avenue by which current mercury treatment standards may be revised. The
anticipated proposed rule is scheduled, for late 2001.
-------
2.2 State of the Science in Treatment Options for Mercury Waste
The most common techniques currently used for treating mercury-bearing waste are
roasting/retorting and incineration. These thermal techniques separate the mercury from the rest of
the waste stream and condense it for recovery or removal. The treatment technology used depends
on the type of waste being treated. In many cases, a "treatment train" of technologies is used, where
one technology is used to pre-treat the waste to remove characteristics that inhibit the effectiveness
of another treatment technology.
The need for further research evaluating "treatment trains" was discussed during the workshop.
Participants felt that a combination of the technologies listed below and new technologies discussed
during the sessions, will be the best possible way to treat mercury-bearing wastes.
Roasting and Retorting Mercury Wastes (RMERQ
During retorting, mercury-bearing waste is sealed in a batch vessel, heated, with the volatile gases
released. Mercury vapor is condensed and collected. Roasting mercury-bearing wastes involves
introducing air to the hot waste which oxidizes mercury compounds and helps transport them to a
condenser. In either process, collected mercury may be purified for resale or reuse through
successive distillation. The remaining waste residues derived from the RMERC process must be
retested to ensure sufficient mercury removal. If the mercury content of the waste remains above
the allowable level (260 mg/kg total mercury) the waste must be roasted or retorted again. Wastes
below this mercury content must meet a TCLP mercury standard of 0.20 mg/L prior to land
disposal.
Incinerating Mercury Wastes
During incineration, mercury is volatilized from mercury-bearing wastes and converted to elemental
mercury in the high temperature regions of the furnace. As the flue gas cools, the elemental mercury
is oxidized to ionic forms. Elemental mercury, mercuric chloride, and mercuric oxide, each present
in the vapor phase of flue gas, must be captured by various methods, such as adsorption onto porous
solids such as fly ash, or removed using a wet scrubber. The efficiency of these mercury-removal
methods varies by incinerator and method.
Alternative Treatment Technologies
In recent years, several alternative treatment technologies have been developed to treat mercury-
bearing wastes. The need for developing alternative treatment methods arises from complex waste
characteristics greaterremoval efficiency, and/or cost reduction. Some of these alternative processes
include:
Removal and recovery technologies. This category includes: (1) acid/chemical leaching, where the
mercury is converted to a more soluble form for removal from the waste matrix; (2) carbon
adsorption, where mercury is removed from stack gas or effluents and concentrated; and (3) ion
-------
exchange, where ions in the exchange resins are substituted for mercury ions, facilitating mercury
removal.
Immobilization Technologies. This category includes solidification and stabilization processes,
where the mercury is immobilized in a matrix such as cement or flyash for long-term storage and
amalgamation, where elemental mercury is mixed with a powdered granular metal to form a semi-
solid matrix for long-term storage. Stabilization techniques, such as the combination of elemental
mercury with a sulfur mixture to create insoluble HgS can produce a residual which will pass the
TCLP. Use of these technologies is dependent on the characteristics of the waste treated.
Thermal/Chemical Oxidation. Thermal and chemical oxidation, is a destruction technology that is
frequently used in conjunction with other processes, as part of a treatment train. Oxidation may
prepare the waste for retorting or immobilization for disposal.
' Developing Technologies. Some developing technologies include nonthermal methods, direct
chemical oxidation, acid digestion, and thermal processes such as steam reforming. These methods
may be used separately or in conjunction with other treatment processes, such as stabilization.
Additional Treatment Technologies Discussed at the Conference:
Adsorbents/Calgon F400 GAC. This granulated activated carbon- (GAC-) based adsorbent was
used in a pilot-scale study of removal of mercury from pharmaceutical wastewater generated by the
production of thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative. Treatment with the GAC system
reduced the mercury content of the wastewater by a factor of 400, enabling wastewater that was
previously disposed of as hazardous waste to pass the TCLP and be considered non-hazardous.
Adsorbents/SAMMS. This adsorbent, called SAMMS (Self-Assembled Monolayers on
Mesoporous Materials), is a versatile mercury-philic material that can be used to extract mercury
from contaminated oil and other waste streams. Studies have shown up to 90% mercury removal
using this material, which provides a cost-effective and versatile treatment option. This material was
recently developed, and has not been widely available for use.
2.3 State of the Science in Disposal Options for Mercury Waste
There are two possible destinations for mercury separated from mercury-bearing waste: reuse and
disposal. Many of the treatment options described in Section 2.2 of this report extract mercury from
waste. The extracted mercury is purified for reuse and either returned to the industrial process or
resold through the secondary mercury market. The mercury that remains in the waste after treatment
is disposed. The regulations described in Section 2.1 of this report govern the mercury content of
disposed wastes.
Mercury-bearing waste treatment options are geared towards the type of waste and the disposal
method to be used. Some treatment options aim to lower the mercury content to an acceptable level
-------
for land disposal. However, others such as amalgamation, solidification, and stabilization, seek to
lock the mercury inside a matrix to enable land disposal of higher quantities of mercury. While the
long-term performance of some of these methods may be in question, there are a number of options
for mercury-bearing waste disposal.
Landfill Disposal Wastes that pass the TCLP may be land disposed. The TCLP test is designed to
ensure that mercury will not leach out of the waste matrix under landfill conditions. However,
concerns about the suitability of the TCLP cast some doubt on this practice, as there is debate
whether the TCLP accurately predicts real world landfill conditions. Landfills may be responsible
for air emissions due to the low volatilization temperature of mercury, although these emissions may
be minimal due to the lack of a carrier gas such as methane. There is also the potential for long-term
hazards, such as landfill cracking, with land disposal of mercury. In spite of these issues, landfill
disposal after treatment has long been the preferred method of mercury waste disposal.
' Subseabed Emplacement. This method of disposal seals solidified waste inside a cannister, which
is then placed in deep-sea sediments. The waste form, cannister, sediment, and ocean water should
inhibit the migration of hazardous quantities of waste. This method was developed with the intent
of isolating radioactive materials for long periods of time to allow the radionuclides to decay to
harmless forms. Because mercury is nonradioactive, it presents a permanent environmental threat,
and the long-term stability of this disposal method has not been fully studied.
Stabilization. The stabilization of mercury-bearing waste to provide a durable long-term waste form
is the objective of many treatment and disposal options. Mercury sulfide, chemically bonded
phosphate ceramics are all waste forms which have been used; each having advantages over the
other. For example, mercuric chloride is quite soluble; hence, mobile. This type of treatment often
reduces the mercury vapor pressure and leachability sufficiently to enable the waste to be disposed
of as non-hazardous. However, these are relatively new technologies and there is concern that we
many not know the true long-term durability of these waste forms. It has been shown that laboratory
experiments often do not properly predict the long-term conditions found in landfills. Since
mercury is not radioactive, it does not degrade; thereby, posing a continuous threat to the
environment. Many conference participants felt that further research is needed to ensure long-term
protection of human health and the environment from these technologies.
Surface, Shallow, and Deep Storage. As mercury stockpiles grow from increased recycling and
collection efforts, long-term mercury storage is an option that circumvents some of the uncertainties
associated with disposal practices. Doubts about the performance of land-disposed and subseabed
disposed wastes under real-world conditions, makes long-term storage options appealing. State-of-
the-art surface, shallow, and deep storage have been examined for this purpose.
Deep geological repositories, such as mines, are currently being used in Europe for the long-term
disposal of mercury wastes. These repositories have the advantage of reducing the potential for
exposure that confronts surface repositories. However, there are concerns that deep-disposed
mercury may find a pathway back to the surface in oil and natural gas. Surface storage, has the
6
-------
advantage of easier monitoring for the purpose of intervention in the event that it is needed. While
it is possible to monitor deep-disposed wastes, it is difficult to correct a problem should one arise.
2.4 Additional Topics of Concern from Treatment and Disposal Panel Discussion
The purpose of the panel discussion on treatment and disposal was to discuss a) the state-of-the-art
of mercury treatment and disposal techniques for mercury wastes and stockpiles, and b) to identify
maj or research needs/directions needed to meet the goal of bringing the state of technologies (or any
other options) closer to environmentally safe (including in the long term), cost-effective treatment
and disposal processes. The proceedings of this panel discussion are provided as Appendix C in this
report. This section highlights the recurring themes that drove the discussion of the panel members
and attendees.
The panelists were asked to respond to two sets of questions.
Question A: State of the Art and Significant Advances.
What are two or three accomplishments described in the treatment and disposal session that may
support significant advances in the state of the art in non-combustion options for mercury
waste/stockpile treatment and disposal techniques?
Based on your general knowledge, how would you characterize the state of the art of non-
combustion techniques for mercury treatment and disposal with respect to where we currently
stand in meeting the goal stated above?
Question B: Research Needs.
What are three priority research areas you feel are most important to address so that we can
make significant steps toward reaching the goal stated above?
Accomplishments Supporting Advances
The panelists listed recent accomplishments they felt were specifically supporting of advances in the
state-of-the-art in treatment and disposal. Each of these topics has been discussed in the preceding
section. Selections included both technical accomplishments, such as new treatment processes or
materials, and regulatory accomplishments, such as the formation of partnerships and the
classification of wastes.
Mercury sulfide. The mercury sulfide method of stabilization and disposal is significant
because it essentially puts mercury back where it came from.
Waste type. Recent technologies make a distinction between Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) wastes and mixed waste mercury.
Thermal desorption. Thermal desorption may be the most sensible technology for mercury-
contaminated soils because it can also deal with organics and other species.
-------
Formation of partnerships. The next step in advancing treatment and disposal will come from
the formation of partnerships among waste generators, treaters, and regulators, and getting the
available technologies out to the field.
Electrochemical processes. Progress in developing electrochemical processes, which could
have many future applications, would be welcome. This technology could be improved or
modified for use.
SAMMS material. The newly engineered S AMMS material, which may be useable as a drop-in
replacement for ion-exchange, appears to have potential.
State of the Art
Many of the panelists agreed that the state of the art in mercury treatment and disposal is good.
Effective technologies exist for treating mercury waste containing less than and greater than 260
ppm mercury. These technologies are either commercially available or soon to be available, with
the best treatment determined by the specific market and waste. The available technologies are more
similar than dissimilar in that they focus on keeping mercury immobile or insoluble. There is no
"silver bullet" technology available, or likely to be identified; rather, it is likely that only incremental
changes in technologies will occur in the future.
While the panelists agreed on the state of technological availability, several panelists noted that there
are problems that need to be solved. One of those that was frequently discussed is the performance
and propriety of measurement standards such as the TCLP. Both the technical utility of the test and
the propriety of landfilling wastes with low levels of mercury was questioned. Panelists also noted
that there are technical issues with many of the currently used treatment and disposal options that
require further research, such as the long-term stability of amalgams and macroencapsulation under
real-world conditions.
Research Needs
Panelists and the audience were asked to identify priority research needs for mercury treatment and
disposal. They responded with the following needs:
Alternatives to the TCLP. There is a need to identify alternatives to compensate for the
inadequacies of the TCLP, which a) only concentrates on one pH range, and is therefore not
representative of long-term landfill conditions; b) only provides a static snapshot (18 hours);
c) provides no mechanism information; and d) has artificial particle size requirements.
Furthermore, there is a need for standardization in testing procedures, with the regulatory and
scientific communities in agreement. Standardization will increase confidence in the
measurement results.
Long-term Performance of Disposal Options Under Real-World Conditions. There is a need
for further research into the long-term performance of stabilization, amalgamation and
macroencapsulation due to the effects of pH on storage and disposal of mercury wastes.
Previous testing has assumed a constant pH, which may not be accurate under real storage and
disposal conditions, such as a landfill. It must be determined whether fluctuations in pH will
8
-------
reduce the suitability of some storage and disposal technologies.
Mercury Emissions from Landfills. There is ,'a need for additional research into mercury
emissions from landfills to determine the potential for environmental impact from mercury
waste following disposal. .
Durable Short-term Storage. There is a need for further research into durable short-term
stockpile storage options for elemental mercury.
International Technology Transfer. There is a need for technology transfer to other countries
to communicate the status of the U.S. program on mercury. An international policy forum to
discuss reduction of mercury use and consumption was suggested with the provision of
international incentives to reduce mercury use and pollution.
Non-Intrusive Mercury Measurement. There is a need to develop a non-intrusive method for
measuring or identifying mercury in waste. Non-intrusive identification of mercury will allow
easier identification and disposal of non-mercury wastes.
Transmutation of Radionuclides. There is a need for further research into the transmutation of
radionuclides to discover how can we better identify and treat mercury and mercury wastes.
Characterization of Hazardous Waste Stream. There is a need for economic and
characterization information on the hazardous waste stream. While municipal solid waste
(MSW) is well characterized, hazardous waste identification codes (such as D009) yield little
information about the waste. More information regarding the waste will enable more efficient
recycling, treatment, and disposal.
Treatment of Commingled Waste. There is a need for further research on the treatment of
commingled organics and mercury. Can there be an effective treatment train identified and
designated as the Best Demonstrated Achievable Technology (BDAT)?
Other Issues of Interest
Propriety of the TCLP. Attendees expressed concerns about the TCLP on several levels, including
the representativeness of the test, the testing procedure, and the interpretation of the results.
The TCLP may not be the most appropriate tool to determine the utility of treatment technologies.
The test is also limited by one pH range, which is not necessarily representative of real-world landfill
conditions. The test uses a duration of 18 hours, which may not be sufficient to determine the long-
term stability of a waste form. Other limitations include: (1) the procedure provides no mechanism
information, therefore does not yield sufficient information about the process taking place; and (2)
has artificial size requirements that are not representative of real-world landfill conditions. While
the TCLP can be an effective leach method for assessing treatment and disposal efficiency, under
certain conditions these technical shortcomings may undermine the effort to identify the most
appropriate technologies.
Another issue hampering the utility of the TCLP is the lack of standardization in testing procedures.
Variations in test conditions may significantly skew the test results further hampering the
identification of appropriate technologies. A standardization of the procedure, with the regulatory
and scientific communities in agreement, will increase confidence in the measurement results.
-------
The final issue raised with the TCLP, as well as other leach testing, is the assumption that if a waste
passes the test, it is safe to put in the ground. Aside from the aforementioned concerns that the test
accurately predicts long-term landfill conditions, there is still the question that the big picture is
being overlooked. Wastes that pass the TCLP still contain mercury, and each disposal adds more
mercury mass to the global pool. This maybe a perception issue, rather than a specific shortcoming
of the TCLP.
Stockpile Elimination/Mercury Supply and Demand. The elimination of mercury stockpiles is both
a business and environmental issue. Stockpiles were developed for national security purposes and
for now can be used to ensure a proper balance between supply and demand. There is movement
to eliminate the stockpiles since they pose a potential environmental hazard.
Research and Development. While there have been numerous technologies developed in recent
years to facilitate the treatment and disposal of mercury wastes, there is still a need for further
research and development to improve current technologies and identify new ones. Regulatory
pressure limiting the uses of mercury and enforcement of mercury cleanup regulations would create
a market demand for new and improved technologies. This market demand would in turn stimulate
research and development, which will lead to additional cleanup, treatment, and disposal.
Treatment Train. The next advances in treatment and disposal technology may be in the form of
further development of treatment trains for specific waste types. Waste are commonly treated with
more than one technology; however more research is needed to optimize treatment trains.
10
-------
Section 3 Prevention, Collection, and Elimination
3.1 Current Status of Mercury Prevention, Collection, and Elimination
Mercury prevention, collection, and elimination can reduce the need for treatment and disposal over
the long run. These practices intend to on prevent pollution from currently used mercury products,
collecting discarded mercuryproducts and mercury waste removal from commerce and the reduction
or elimination of mercury use. There are many programs underway in EPA, state and local
organizations to facilitate all three of these practices.
3.2 Issues in Mercury Prevention, Collection, and Elimination
Mercury Waste and Product Collection. Municipalities and international communities have
undertaken mercury-containing product take-back and collection programs designed to remove all
unnecessary mercury from use. These include the voluntary thermometer trade-in programs
operating in many municipalities that offer free or discounted digital thermometers in exchange for
mercury thermometers, as well as large-scale programs such as Sweden's virtual elimination
program which uses inspectors and mercury-sniffing dogs to identify and label mercury-bearing
products. While these programs often remove large amounts of mercury from use, two potential
limitations to these programs have been identified. One drawback is the potential for inefficient
collection practices to result in release of mercury to the atmosphere. This occurs because mercury
volatilizes at ambient temperatures; consequently, great care must be taken to ensure that collected
products do not break. The second drawback is the increasing saturation of the secondary mercury
market. While collection of mercury does remove a potential hazard from the consumer, it may
leave agencies with ever-increasing stockpiles of mercury due to the over-saturated secondary
market.
Mercury Source Reduction. A long-term method for reducing the need for mercury treatment and
disposal along with the hazards from mercury use is source reduction, the preferred method for
pollution prevention. Source reduction is the reduction or elimination of the use of mercury in
products and processes; thereby, reducing the demand for mercury entering the marketplace. Source
reduction efforts may include the utilization of mercury substitutes, such as NewMerc; the
reduction of mercury use in products, such as the low-mercury fluorescent lamps; and the use of
alternative technologies, such as digital thermometers versus conventional mercury thermometers.
These substitutes may not befeasible for all applications, because they do not reproduce the same
characteristics of mercury. However, there are many applications where these substitute chemicals
and technologies will be sufficient.
Identification of Pollution Prevention Opportunities. Since pollution prevention (P2) can be applied
to a wide range of industries, EPA has taken the lead in identifying P2 opportunities for mercury
source reduction. EPA has initiated a P2 Prioritization Assessment which will guide the
development of P2 opportunities.
11
-------
Mercury Dogs. Swedish agencies use mercury-sniffing dogs to identify mercury in products and
wastes.
Middle-level Handling of Mercury. Currently, industries that collect mercury-containing instruments
such as thermostats and thermometers are not regulated. The government is promoting incentives
to encourage collection efforts that are economically viable without releasing mercury into the
environment. Regulation of this collection program is typically done at the state and local level. For
example, Minnesota regulates collectors under the universal hazardous waste rule and have obtained
good oversight of their activities.
EPA received a petition from the Edison Electric Institute to add all mercury-containing devices to
the Universal Waste Rule to help better manage these devices. Utilities also use mercury
instruments such as temperature and pressure sensors within their processes. EPA has not yet acted
on this petition.
3.3 Additional Topics of Concern from Prevention, Collection, and Elimination Panel
Discussion
The panel discussion on prevention, collection, and elimination focused on the need to reduce the
amount of mercury entering the waste stream through improved pollution prevention techniques,
waste collection methods, and source reduction. The proceedings of this panel discussion are
included as Appendix B to this report. This section highlights the recurring themes that drove the
discussion of the panel members and attendees.
The panelists were asked to respond to four questions:
1. What are the two or three most important insights you want to convey to the audience regarding
the management of mercury from non-combustion sources?
2. What are the two or three most critical/essential efforts that need to be undertaken to prevent,
eliminate, treat, or dispose of mercury from non-combustion sources?
2. Name two or three data gaps or information needs for mercury risk management from non-
combustion sources.
4. Prioritize the two or three most important research needs for managing risks from non-
combustion sources of mercury.
12
-------
Conclusions:
Cooperation. Cooperation is essential both within industries and between industry and regulators.
The chlor-alkali industry realized that some plants can manage at mercury control better than others,
and they can all learn from each other without engaging in uncompetitive practices. The industry as
a whole has realized that working with regulators toward a common goal can allow both parties to
maximize their limited resources.
Set Achievable Goals. It is important to set achievable goals in eliminating mercury use and reducing
mercury waste. Total elimination is not practical since mecury is mobile and is persistent in the
environment (i.e., multimedia). A risk-based approach to determining an acceptable and achievable
level of mercury in products processes and waste is more practical. The chlor-alkali industry has
publically committed to a goal of a 50% reduction in mercury use (using a 1990-95 baseline) by 2005.
A few companies, including Vulcan Chemicals, have set a goal of a 50% mercury consumption
' reduction based on a 1999 baseline. The industry intends to achieve these goals through cooperation
with the regulatory community. Most plants are on track to achieving their goals.
Although the U.S. chlor-alkali industry have not planned a phase-out of mercury in the U.S. any
phase-out needs to be well-planned as a cooperative venture between the government and industry.
An immediate phase-out could have unintended consequences. For example, any disruption in alkali
production could force alkali prices to rise and spur increases in production elsewhere in the world,
such as Mexico, where chlor-alkali facilities are subject to less stringent environmental regulations.
Members of the chlor-alkali industry have worked together to address the following issues:
Mercury in Sodium Hydroxide. The chlor-alkali industry's mercury in sodium hydroxide
task group is about to release a draft publication that details the best strategy available on
minimizing mercury in sodium hydroxide.
Mercury Health Issues. The chlor-alkali industry has also convened a mercury health issues
task group that has looked into ensuring that the best science is used to provide worker
safety at chlor-alkali facilities.
Mercury Balance. George Gissel stated that Vulcan Chemicals has assessed its mercury
balance since 1973. Other chlor-alkali companies have looked toward this example to assist
them in establishing a mercury balance. Vulcan Chemicals has given several seminars to
the chlor-alkali industry about mercury balance. Through a multi-year evaluation of mercury
consumption and purchasing, a facility can gain a better understanding of minimizing
mercury consumption and losses.
Cross-plant/Cross-industry Sharing for Continuous Improvement. The chlor-alkali industry
formed the mercury control task group to identify the best management practices. This task
group has produced two in-plant technology exchange workshops in 1999, with a third
planned for 2000. These workshops provide detailed descriptions on using specific
technologies.
13
-------
The chlor-alkali industry has worked with the EPA to address the following issues:
Measuring Cell Room Fugitive Emissions. The chlor-alkali industry formed a mercury
emissions measurement task group to work with the EPA toward a common goal of
measuring cell room fugitive emissions. The EPA at Research Triangle Park (RTP)
developed the protocol. Testing began at the Olin Corporation's Augusta, Georgia, facility.
The Chlorine Institute covered the out-of-pocket costs of Olin Corporation and the EPA is
underwriting the cost of the equipment and measurements.
Revising National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
regulations. The EPA worked with the chlor-alkali industry revising the NESHAP
regulations. They are conducting audits at five facilities.
Pursue Voluntary Efforts. Although voluntary efforts are not always effective, there are more
successes than failures. Experience with the chlor-alkali industry shows that voluntary efforts can
'yield positive results.
Encourage Office of Solid Waste (OSW) Efforts. The EPA should support OSW in researching
alternative disposal technologies.
Enhance Technology Development and Verification Programs. To enhance technology development
and verification of alternative mercury technologies, the EPA should look at complementarity
between ORD's Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program and Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) program.
Support Environmentally Preferable Purchasing. Use federal procurement to achieve
environmentally preferable purchasing by reducing mercury in commerce.
International Mercury Flows. The EPA needs to support efforts to measure international flows of
mercury. Characterizing the international flows are critical to assessing and addressing background
mercury levels. Like many other countries, there is currently neither mercury monitoring nor a
mercury inventory in Mexico. At present, Mexico is building its first large scale coal-fired utility
plant. Mexican environmental officials have identified that they have three mercury cell chlor-alkali
facilities. The Chlorine Institute and Eurochlor are working with their Mexican counterparts to raise
their level of concern toward mercury issues as well as raise plant performance efficiencies. An
unintended consequence of a rapid closure of mercury cell chlor-alkali plants in the U.S., could be
a demand for more chlor-alkali plants in foreign countries with fewer environmental controls.
Virtual Elimination of Mercury Requires Private Sector Cooperation. Previous discussions during
the workshop concluded that new regulations restricting mercury use are not likely. Therefore, if
mercury is to be removed from the marketplace, government must work closely with the private
sector. The challenge is to create positive incentive programs that can encourage the private sector
to make business from phasing out mercury use; both in terms of developing alternative disposal
technologies and developing chemical substitutes (such as NewMerc).
14
-------
Mercury as a Consumer Products Safety Issue. Mercury can be thought of as a consumer products
safety issue where it exists in small amounts, such as in thermometers and electronic displays. The
most common calls to poison hotlines deal with broken mercury fever thermometers. Although,
thermometers and electronic displays represent a small percentage of mercury emissions (especially
when compared with utility coal emissions), they still present a risk. It is recommended that the
Consumer Products Safety Commission could be used to address the mercury safety issue.
Educating the Public about Mercury Exposures. Although most of this workshop has focused on
emissions rather than on exposures, educating the public on exposures is critical. Over 90% of the
calls to a poison control center in a certain state was attributed to broken fever thermometers.Yet,
while most people may know that there is mercury in their thermometers, they may not be aware of
the mercury in their thermostats or cars. The public needs to better understand through
communication the risks of mercury in their everyday life.
' Categorization. A standard categorization scheme for mercury disposition and contamination starting
with products and ending with releases can help communicate risks and corrective action. The
Northeast Model Legislation proposes the following categorization scheme:
Product with elemental mercury
Product with compounds and chemicals
9 Processes
Waste streams of the three above areas of deliberate use
Non-combustion incidental releases, including refining, mining, and cement and limestone
production
Mercury-free Procurement/Buildings by Government. It is important for the government to become
a model for a mercury-free environment by setting an example for the public and industry.
Mercury in Consumer Products. The intentional use of mercury in consumer products should
eventually be phased out, including mercury in lamps. A gatekeeper, such as EPA's hazardous waste
listing determination, would provide some consistency in how regulations treat industry as well as
the consumer. For example, there is no gatekeeper controlling the mercury found in Drano.
Some states have regulations in place, but there is nothing enforced at the national level. Minnesota
has a provision in its regulations that prohibit mercury disposal in its solid wastes and wastewaters,
where solid wastes include construction and demolition non-hazardous industrial, etc.
Data Gaps and Research Needs
Division of Mercury Sources by Deliberate Use and Trace Contamination of Raw Materials.
Categorizing mercury sources by emissions resulting from mercury use and emissions resulting from
contamination of raw materials may be more relevant than categorizing by combustion and non-
combustion for the following reasons:
15
-------
Avoids the disparity of equating combustion emissions with coal-fired utility emissions.
As currently defined by EPA, combustion sources include incinerators. Incinerators,
however, do not make mercury, but receive mercury from mercury-containing wastes as a
result of mercury use in products;.
Normalizes the division of mercury sources. If emissions are categorized on a deliberate use
basis, use-related emissions are about 50% of total emissions;, combustion basis, where
combustion-related emissions constitute about 90% of total emissions.
Better consideration of life cycle emissions. Since incinerator emissions represent the end
of a product's life cycle, this type of assessment makes it easier to look at different points
along a product's life'cycle to assess opportunities to control mercury emissions.
Life Cycle Emissions by Product Type. There is an inadequate understanding of life cycle emissions
by product type. Further research may help prioritize mercury collection efforts and target programs
to critical sectors. There are some data on mercury emissions from mercury-containing products,
'however these estimates do not seem to be based on actual measurements. There are better data from
incinerators, but these data could also be improved. However, there is a paucity of data regarding
emissions estimates from other phases of the mercury product life cycle, in particular:
Accidental emissions that occur during product use;
Emissions associated with collecting, processing, storage, and transport of wastes prior to
incineration;
Emissions that occur from landfills, particularly the working faces of landfills;
Mercury emissions from the use of metal scrap. For example, emissions from mercury
switches placed in automobiles are currently not accounted for in EPA emissions estimates,
though these emissions could be significant.
Increase Focus on Prevention Opportunities. Currently cost effectiveness data are based on cost
effectiveness per mass of mercury collected rather than on the prevention of mercury releases. More
emphasis should be place on the following areas for prevention efforts:
Auto industry. There should be more research on this sector since most of the mercury
associated with automobiles is ultimately released into the environment.
Electrical Switches. Alexis Cain cited data presented by Bruce Lawrence (Bethlehem
Apparatus Company) in the plenary session indicating that electrical products, particularly
mercury relays in capital equipment, are now the largest user of mercury in the U.S. (even
more than the chlor-alkali industry); now estimated at 110 tons per year. Moreover, mercury
use in electrical switches has not decreased over the past 20 years.
Mercury Retirement. As the secondary market grows and mercury use shrinks, an "end-game" for
mercury must be devised for retiring mercury. The EPA should work with the Department of Energy
(DOE) andDepartment of Defense (DOD) to develop mercury stabilization technologies. Ultimately,
all of the mercury in commerce needs to be treated, contained and/or sequestered in a final
disposition.
16
-------
Section 4
Summary and Conclusions
The panel discussions provided a valuable forum for experts to summarize what they saw as the
important findings and future steps to reduce risks from mercury over the next several years. As
discussed, the state of the science for treatment and disposal of mercury wastes has advanced
substantially. Research is now needed to refine the existing technologies and establish cost-effective
treatment strategies using the best available knowledge. Efforts to identify mercury pollution
prevention, collection, and elimination options will promote environmentally sound risk management
practices.
17
-------
Appendix A
Workshop Agenda
Conference Agenda
DAY 1 - Wednesday, March 22,2000
Welcome and Opening Remarks - Douglas Grosse, US EPA/NRMRL
Plenary Session
Moderator: Jon Herrmann/Ben Blaney, US EPA/NRMRL
ORD Research Strategy
The Mercury Marketplace: Sources, Demand, Price and the Impacts of Environmental
Regulations - Bruce Lawrence, Bethlehem Apparatus, Inc.
Waste Minimization and Elimination - Harold Charles, US EPA OSW
EPA's Mercury Action Plan - Greg Susanke, US EPA OPPTS
Disposal of Mercury Waste and Stockpiles - Josh Lewis, US EPA OSW
Mixed Waste Issues - Greg Hulet, US DOE/BBWXT Co. and Grace Ordaz, US EPA
International Perspective - John Diamante, OIA
Mercury Information Management Issues - Jim Ekmann, DOE
National Implementation of the Universal Waste Rule for Mercury Lamps (Industry
Perspective) - Paul Abernathy, Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers
Regional Perspective - Jeri Weiss, US EPA Region 1
State Perspective - John Gilkeson, Minnesota OEA
Model State Legislation - Richard Phillips, Vermont DEC
NGO Perspective - Jane Williams, California Communities Against Toxics
Concurrent Technical Sessions
Session A - Treatment and Disposal Technologies
Moderator - Josh Lewis, US EPA OSW
Mercury Stock Management - Folke Dorgelo, Netherlands Ministry for Housing, Spatial
Planning and the Environment
Subseabed Emplacement: Long-Term Ultimate Disposition of Mercury Wastes - Leo Gomez,
Sandia National Laboratories
Case Study of a Polit Scale System for Removal of Organic Mercury from Pharmaceutical
Wastewater - Patrick Cyr, Advanced GeoServices Corp.
SAMMS Technology - Nick Lombardo and Shas V. Mattigod, Pacific NW National
Laboratory
18
-------
Session B - Overall Reduction of Mercury: Phase out and Mercury Management of
Stockpiles
Moderator: Anita Cummings, US EPA
Stockpile (DLA) - Giles LePage and Dale Wilhelm, DOD, DLA
Mercury Collection Programs in Sweden - Kristina von Rein, Swedish Environmental
Protection Agency
Mercury Stockpile Management - Luke Trip, Environment Canada, Implementation Task
Force
Phase-out of Mercury Containing Products - Folke Dorgelo, Netherlands Ministry for
Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment
DAY 2 - Thursday, March 23,2000
Session A - Treatment and Disposal Technologies: Treatment Technologies
Moderator: Mary Cunningham
DOE Mercury Waste Treatment Demonstrations - Greg Hulet, US DOE/BBWXT Co.
Return and Recycling of Used High Intensity Bulbs for Recycling and Closed-Loop Mercury
Control - Lester Gress and Jeff Lord, Cleveland Fluid Systems Co.
Mercury Amalgamation Demos with the DOE - Clifton Brown, ADA Technologies, Inc.
Deployment of the Sulfur Polymerization and Stabilization Process as Applied to Mercury
Contamination in Soils - Paul Kalb, Brookhaven Natl. Laboratory and Trevor Jackson,
EnviroCare
Session B - Prevention, Collection and Elimination: The Business Side of the Mercury
Problem
Moderator: Ed Weiler, US EPA
Speed Bumps on the Road to Commercialization of New Environmental Technologies -
David Case, Environmental Technology Council ,
Commercializing a Safer Substitute for Mercury - James D. Rancourt, NewMerc Ltd.
The Business of Mercury Pollution Prevention: Identifying Source Reduction Opportunities
and Engineering Trade-Offs - Kenneth Stone, US EPA/NRMRL
A PBT Technology Information Clearinghouse (with special emphasis on information
relating to environmental technology development and commercialization) - Frederic H. K. Booth
and Kay can der Horts, Waste Policy Institute
Session A - Treatment and Disposal Technologies: Disposal Technologies
Moderator: Paul Randall, US EPA
Mercury Stabilization in Chemically-Bonded Phosphate Ceramics - Dr. Arun Wagh, Argonne
National Laboratory
Characterization and Leachability of Stabilized Mercury-Containing Wastes - Linda Reiser,
University of Cincinnati
Treatment of Wastes Contaminated with Mercury - Paul Lear, IT Corp
Treatment of Mercury Bearing Wastes with Thermal Desorption Technology - Dave
Mulkmus, Sepra Dyne Corporation
19
-------
Session B - Impacts of Mercury Collection and Elimination Programs
Moderator: Jeri Weiss, US EPA Region 1
Mercury Sniffing Dogs: The Swedish Experience - Kjell Avergren, Sweden Dog Training
Centre
Mercury Source Reduction and Recycling in Electrical Products - Ric Erdheim, NEMA
DSCP Buying Green - Anthony Armentani, Defense Supply Center Philadelphia
EPA/AHA Agreement: Reduction of Mercury Waste from Hospitals/Health Care Facilities
Chen Wen, EPA and Video Presentation, AHA
Session A - Treatment and Disposal Technologies: Stabilization
Moderator: Paul Randall, US EPA
Permanent Mercury Disposal in Sweden - Kristina von Rein, Swedish Environmental
Protection Agency
Subseabed Emplacement: Long-Term Ultimate Disposal of Mercury Wastes in Geologic
'Formations on Land - Rip Anderson, Sandia National Laboratories
Session B - Impacts of Mercury Collection and Elimination Programs (Continued)
Moderator - Jeri Weiss, US EPA Region 1
New Strategies for Reducing Mercury Discharges from Boston Area Medical Facilities -
Kevin McManus, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
Eliminating Non-Essential Mercury Uses - Michael Bender, Mercury Policy Project
Panel Discussion A - Treatment and Disposal
Facilitator: Ben Blaney, US EPA/NRMRL
Panelists: Paul Kalb, Brookhaven National Laboratory
Paul Lear, IT Corp.
Ed Swain, Minnesota OEA
Greg Hulet, US DOE/BBWXT Co.
Fred Charania, US EPA OSW
Panel Discussion B - Prevention, Collection, and Elimination
Facilitators: Doug Grosse, US EPA, Office of Research and Development (ORD)
Jon Herrmann, US EPA, ORD
Panelists: Alexis Cain, US EPA, Region V
John Gilkeson, Minnesota OEA
George Gissel, Vulcan Chemicals
Edward Weiler, US EPA OPPT
Jane Williams, California Communities Against Toxics
Combined Workshop Session - Presentation of Concurrent Panel Findings
Closing Remarks
20
-------
Appendix B Workshop Abstracts
Table of Contents
Abstracts
The Mercury Marketplace: Sources, Demand, Price and the Impacts
of Environmental Regulations 23
Waste Minimization and Elimination 24
EPA's Mercury Action Plan 25
Disposal of Mercury Waste and Stockpiles 26
Mixed Waste Issues 27
International Perspective 28
Mercury Information Management Issues 30
National Implementation of the Universal Waste Rule for Mercury Lamps
(Industry Perspective) 31
State Perspective 33
Model State Legislation 34
NGO Perspective 35
Mercury Stock Management 37
Sub-Seabed Emplacement: Long-Term Ultimate Disposition of Mercury Wastes 38
Case Study of a Pilot Scale System for Removal of Organic Mercury
from Pharmaceutical Wastewater 39
SAMMS Technology 40
Mercury Collection Programs in Sweden 41
Phase-out of Mercury-Containing Products 43
Demonstration of Mercury Treatment Technologies to Meet DOE Customer Needs 44
Return and Recycling of Used High Intensity Bulbs for Recycling and
Closed-loop Mercury Control 46
Mercury Amalgamation Demos with the DOE 47
Deployment of the Sulfur Polymerization and Stabilization Process as Applied to
Mercury Contamination in Soils 48
Commercializing a Safer Substitute for Mercury 49
The Business of Mercury Pollution Prevention: Identifying Source Reduction Opportunities
and Engineering Trade-Offs 50
A PBT Technology Information Clearinghouse 52
Mercury Stabilization in Chemically Bonded Phosphate Ceramics 55
Characterization and Leachability of Stabilized Mercury-Containing Wastes 57
Treatment of Wastes Contaminated with Mercury : 58
21
-------
Treatment of Mercury-Bearing Wastes with Thermal Desorption Technology 59
Permanent Mercury Disposal in Sweden 60
Sub-Seabed Emplacement: Long-Term Ultimate Disposal of Mercury Wastes in
Geologic Formations on Land 62
Mercury-Sniffing Dogs: The Swedish Experience 63
Mercury Source Reduction and Recycling in Electrical Products 64
DSCP Buying Green 66
EPA/AHA Agreement: Reduction of Mercury Wastes from Hospitals/Health Care
Facilities 67
Mercury Content of Products Commonly Used by Boston Area Hospitals 68
Eliminating Non-Essential Mercury Uses 69
22
-------
The Mercury Marketplace: Sources, Demand, Price
and the Impacts of Environmental Regulations
Bruce Lawrence
President
Bethlehem Apparatus Company, Inc., 890 Front Street
Hellertown, PA 18055
Phone: (610) 838-7034, Fax: (610) 838-6333
brucelawr@ aol. com
Bruce Lawrence
Mr. Lawrence is the President of Bethlehem Apparatus Company, Inc., since 1980, and the principal
stock holder since 1992. Bethlehem Apparatus Company is the leading company supplying mercury
to the U.S. domestic market, as well as the leading mercury retort recycling operation. Mr. Lawrence
has been published in the Engineering and Mining Journal for several years in the annual mineral
section on the Mercury Market. He has also presented work to EPA on the retort distillation of
mercury, 1992.
The Mercury Marketplace: Sources, Demand,
Price and the Impacts of Environmental Regulations
Presentation will provide answers to the following questions. Where does the present market for
mercury get its supplies? How does recycling of mercury waste materials effect the market? What is
byproduct mercury and how does it interact with the more traditional supplies of mercury? Mercury
Mining; Who does it and is it still necessary for the supply to the mercury marketplace? Who still uses
mercury in products and services? How is mercury used in consumer products? How is mercury used
in non-consumer products? How much mercury is in use today? How much mercury is available for
the mercury marketplace? Who owns this mercury? Why are there stockpiles of mercury? What
changes have taken place in the past few years since efforts have been made to limit mercury use?
How much does mercury cost? Has this changed since the onset of environmental regulation? How
does price affect the supply and demand of mercury? Are there other effects of mercury pricing?
23
-------
Waste Minimization and Elimination
Harold Charles
Waste Minimization and Elimination
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Phone: (703)308-8918, Fax: (703)308-8433
charles. harold© epa. gov
Harold Charles
B.S. in Civil Engineering, University of DC, 1986
M.S. in Waste and Environmental Management, University of MD, 1994
'Professional Engineering License with DC and MD, 1997
1987 to 1994, Civil Engineer and Environmental Coordinator, DC Air National Guard at Andrews
Air Force Base, 113th Civil Engineering Squadronl994 to 1995, Environmental Protection Specialist,
Headquarters U.S. Army at the Pentagon, Environmental Programs Directorate, Pollution Prevention
Division
1995 to 1998, Civil Engineer and Environmental Officer, Headquarters Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Response and Recovery Directorate, Infrastructure Division, Engineering
Branch
1998 to Present, Environmental Engineer, Headquarters Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste Management and Minimization Division, Waste Minimization
Branch
Mercury is one of the PBT (persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic) chemicals that EPA has focused
on over the years.
An overview will be given of how mercury in products and production process is found in waste
streams. Subsequently national data of mercury bearing wastes and how they are managed (i.e.
treated, recycled, and disposed of) will be highlighted.
Current EPA initiatives focusing on mercury in wastes will be discussed, including pollution
prevention initiatives.
EPA/OS W supports waste minimization to reduce mercury in wastes and when not feasible, effective
treatment or more Land Disposal Restriction (LDR).
24
-------
EPA's Mercury Action Plan
Greg Susanke
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202)260-3547
susanke. sree @eva. sov
Greg Susanke
Greg Susanke is a biologist, and the manager of EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics'
Mercury Program. He is currently leading a multi-Office workgroup effort in developing a Mercury
Action Plan for the Agency. Greg is also serving as a U.S. representative on the Commission for
'Environmental Cooperation's Mercury Task Force where he has helped implement Phase I of the
North American Regional Action Plan on Mercury, and has assisted in the drafting of its second
phase.
EPA's Mercury Action Plan: An Overview
Among the many pollutants that EPA addresses, persistent, bioaccumaltive and toxic (PBT)
substances are pollutants of primary concern. It has traditionally addressed these and other pollutants
among its single-media offices. However, many pollutants, especially PBTs, can not be fully
addressed in this manner because of their cross-media nature. Accordingly, the EPA is committing,
through the development of a PBT Strategy, to create an enduring cross-office system that will
address the cross-media issues associated with priority PBT pollutants. The PBT Strategy, which is
currently being drafted, will integrate the work being done across media offices and between national
and regional programs more thoroughly. It will align domestic and international activities more
effectively, involve stakeholders, and use measurable objectives and assess performance. This strategy
is intended to make the whole of the Agency's efforts on PBT pollutants more than a sum of its parts.
A central element to EPA's PBT Strategy is the development and implementation of national action^
plans for priority PBT pollutants. Mercury has been selected as one of the first PBT substances to be
addressed under this strategy. The Agency is currently in the process of drafting a Mercury Action
Plan. Although the PBT Strategy will not be discussed in the presentation, an understanding of its
principles, as previously mentioned, frame the context of the action plans.
The presentation will briefly discuss use, release, and risk reduction goals for mercury, as well as the
tools to be used to measure progress in achieving these goals. A listing of the numerous source
categories/sectors to be addressed will be presented, but the focus of the presentation will be on
describing the priority areas of future action. Mention of these priorities at the time of writing this
abstract is not possible, as they are currently being developed.
25
-------
Disposal of Mercury Waste and Stockpiles
Josh Lewis
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste (5302 W)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Phone: (703) 308-7877, Fax: (703) 308-8433
lewis, josh @ evamail. eva.gov
Josh Lewis
Josh Lewis in an Environmental Engineer in the Waste Treatment Branch of EPA's Office of Solid
Waste. He graduated from Cornell University with a B.S. in Environmental Engineering. Josh has
' worked at EPA for two years, during which time one of his main projects has been the reevaluation
of the Land Disposal Restriction treatment standards for mercury-bearing wastes.
Treatment and Disposal of Mercury Hazardous Waste
The original Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) treatment standards for mercury-bearing wastes were
promulgated in 1990. These standards, which are still in place, require high mercury subcategory
wastes (i.e., wastes that contain greater than or equal to 260 ppm total mercury) to be roasted or
retorted to recover the mercury or, if organics are present, the wastes can also be incinerated. Low-
mercury subcategory wastes (i.e., wastes that contain less than 260 ppm total mercury) have to meet
a numerical treatment standard based on the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP). Since
1990, many issues have arisen with the mercury treatment standards, including whether the original
premise of incineration as a pretreatment step to mercury recovery is still true; whether there are
options for treating high-mercury wastes that are not amenable to retorting; and, since mercury use
in industry is on the decline, whether we should still require mercury recovery for high subcategory
wastes, or instead allow treaters the option of stabilizing these wastes. Because of these and other
issues, EPA has begun a reevaluation of the LDR mercury treatment standards. The first step in this
reevaluation was the publication of an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on May
28, 1999, which described the issues we have with the current mercury treatment standards and
discussed some potential options for amending the standards. We are now evaluating the comments
that we received on this ANPRM. In addition, we are involved in two treatability studies that are
researching the efficacy of emerging mercury treatment technologies. The end result of our current
mercury work will be the publication of a proposed rule on changes to the LDR mercury treatment
standards in late 2000.
26
-------
Mixed Waste Issues
Grace Ordaz
Chemical Engineer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
401 M Street, SW (MC 5304W)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (703) 308-1130, Fax: (703) 605-0744
Ordaz. Grace @eva. eov
Greg Hulet
Mixed Waste Focus Area
Bechtel BWXT, LLC
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory
P.O. Box 1625 MS 3875
Idaho Falls, ID 83415-3875
Phone: (208) 526-0283, Fax: (208)526-1061
Hae@inel.sov
Grace Ordaz
Ms. Ordaz has been working on EPA mixed waste proposal for the past two years. Ms. Ordaz has
also worked at US DOE Office of Environmental Management, Office of Research and
Development on mixed waste technology development, and at the MD Department of
Environment administering the State Biomonitoring Program under CWA's municipal NPDES
permit program. Ms. Ordaz also has experience with the AA county pretreatment program under
the CWA, and process design of petroleum plants.
Greg Hulet
Mr. Hulet is the work package manager for the Unique Waste Work Package, which includes DOE's
mercury mixed wastes. As such, he coordinates research, development, and technology deployment
activities to ensure that all the wastes in the Unique category have a path for treatment and disposal.
He has a Masters Degree in Chemical Engineering and ten years experience in waste management and
pollution prevention. He also has considerable experience with Naval Nuclear Propulsion Plants. He
has been a scoutmaster for 15 years, which, after watching scouts cook for that long, has made him
an expert in unique hazardous wastes.
EPA Proposed Rule for Storage, Treatment, Transportation, and Disposal of Mixed Waste
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to provide a conditional exemption from certain
requirements for eligible mixed waste. EPA is requesting public comments on this proposed action.
Mixed waste is a radioactive RCRA hazardous waste. It is regulated under two authorities: 1) the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as implemented by EPA or authorized states for
the hazardous waste component; and 2) the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), for the
radiological component as implemented by either the Department of Energy (DOE), or the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) or its Agreement States.
27
-------
The focus of this proposal is to provide flexibility under RCRA Subtitle C to generators of eligible
mixed waste. We are proposing a conditional exemption from the definition of hazardous waste
applicable to: low-level mixed waste (LLMW) for storage; and LLMW or Naturally Occurring and/or
Accelerator-produced Radioactive Material (NARM) for transportation and disposal. The proposal
is expected to reduce dual regulation for generators in the management and disposal of their wastes.
This flexibility will enable generators of LLMW who are licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) to claim an exemption for storing and treating these wastes in tanks or containers
(using solidification, neutralization, or other stabilization processes) without a RCRA permit. This
proposal will also provide flexibility for the manifesting, transportation and disposal of eligible mixed
waste. Waste meeting the proposed conditions will be exempted from certain RCRA Subtitle C
hazardous waste requirements and managed as radioactive waste in accordance with NRC regulations.
International Perspective
John Diamante
U.S. EPA, Office of International Activities
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202)564-6608, Fax: (315)475-9351
vdemarchi @ secor.com
Marilyn E. Engle
U.S. EPA, Office of International Activities
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202)564-6472, Fax: (202)565-2409
engle.marilvn@epa.gov
John M. Diamante
John M. Diamante is the Senior Science Advisor for the EPA Office of International Activities,
reporting to the Assistant Administrator and Deputy. His responsibilities are to provide advice,
review and oversight on technical and scientific matters and related policy issues concerning the
programs and activities of the Office. He is actively engaged in interagency and international
cooperative projects concerned with radioactive waste management problems in Northwest Russia.
He received his doctorate from New York University based on research in planetary atmospheres
conducted at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. Subsequently, he was
employed at several aerospace companies, including TRW Systems and EGandG, and then went on
to federal employment with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). At
NOAA, he served as a scientific and technical advisor in the National Ocean Service, Oceanic and
Atmospheric Research Office and Climate Change Program Office.
Marilyn E. Engle
Marilyn E. Engle is an International Affairs Specialist in the EPA Office of International Activities.
She presently is the Agency lead on international transboundary transport aspects of mercury, and has
served as lead on international marine and coastal issues, where she initiated Agency activities to
shape a Land-Based Sources of Pollution (LBS) Protocol for the Wider Caribbean. She received her
BA in Zoology and Anthropology from Duke University and her Master's Degree from George
Washington University. Her experiences include being a Senior Research Technician at Duke
28
-------
University Medical Center working conducting research on non-ionizing radiation sublethal effects.
After joining EPA, she was an Environmental Scientist for the Office of Radiation Programs and
supported the regulatory program on ocean disposal of low-level radioactive waste before taking her
present position in the Office of International Activities. She also co-managed the Arctic Nuclear
Waste Assessment Program (ANWAP) while on a recent detail from EPA to the Department of
Defense Office of Naval Research, where she focused on preparing a human and ecological risk
assessment of the potential for transport from Russia to the U.S. State of Alaska of Russian nuclear
wastes dumped into or entering the Arctic Ocean.
Long-Range Transboundary Transport of Mercury: International Dimensions of the
Mercury Problem and Opportunities for Cooperative Solutions
We are becoming increasingly aware that we must address mercury, a persistent and
bioaccumulative toxic, at local, regional and global scales. In addition to the problem of long-range
transport from combustion sources of mercury, such as coal burning, the EPA Office of International
Activities (OLA) also sees a need to focus on the long-range transport from non-combustion sources,
such as the chlor-alkali industry and mercury in waste streams.
There is growing evidence that the U.S. is being impacted by many atmospherically borne,
globally circulating persistent toxics, such as persistent organic pollutants (POPs), and other
atmospheric contaminants, including ozone and particulates. There is reason to believe that mercury
is similarly being transported to the U.S. from abroad, and that U.S. sources are contributing to the
global pool of mercury that is being circulated worldwide. EPA estimates that about one-third of U.S.
anthropogenic mercury emissions are deposited in the contiguous U.S., while the remaining two-
thirds is transported outside the U.S. and enters the global pool. Correspondingly, estimates suggest
that about 35 tons, or 40% of the mercury that is deposited in the U.S. per year, may originate from
sources external to the U.S. With the rapid industrialization and increasing use of coal in Asia, and
re-industrialization in Russia, this trend is expected to increase. Rapid industrialization will also
increase the burden arising from the non-combustion sources.
The mission of OLA regarding mercury is multifold: 1) to improve understanding of
international sources of mercury, and the regional and global-scale transport processes; 2) to influence
international awareness and actions through international fora; 3) to provide international training and
technology transfer in selected countries to bring about reductions in mercury use and emissions; and
4) to facilitate data and information management. Our emphasis to date has been on improving
scientific understanding of long-range transport, and on partnering with other countries in cooperative
solutions, and through regional fora to collectively influence actions in other countries. Currently,
OLA, in cooperation with other EPA Offices, other federal agencies and other governments, is
supporting activities such as speciated mercury monitoring and modeling efforts in Barrow, Alaska
and in the Ohio River Valley and the Florida Everglades to evaluate international contributions of
mercury to U.S. deposition. EPA is also actively engaged in mercury issues and regional action plans
under numerous regional agreements, including the U.S.-Canada Binational Toxics Strategy, the
North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC) involving the U.S., Canada and
29
-------
Mexico, the UNECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) Heavy
Metals Protocol, and the activities of the Arctic Council, which includes the Arctic Monitoring and
Assessment Program (AMAP).
In addition to improving scientific knowledge of transport and fate of mercury sources, we
are working through international fora to find opportunities for international cooperative approaches
to further: 1) source identification and characterization, particularly with the chlor-alkali sector; 2)
pollution prevention, such as taking mercury out of products; 3) environmental capacity building;
4) environmentally sound trade and free market decisions regarding mercury, and 5) informed
international policy making concerning mercury.
Mercury Information Management Issues
James Ekmann
Office of Systems and Environmental Analysis,
National Energy Technology Laboratory,
U.S. Department of Energy
Phone: (412)386-5716
ekmann@netl.doe.gov
James Ekmann
Mr. Ekmann serves as the Deputy Associate Director in the Office of Systems and Environmental
Analysis. This office is part of the National Energy Technology Laboratory of the U.S. Department
of Energy. OSEA assesses the technical, environmental, and cost performance of technologies
developed at or under funding from NETL. Staff in the office conduct environmental assessments,
detailed engineering reviews in support of RDandD projects. The office also provides a focal point
for the laboratory's external communication including technology transfer, and preparation of
materials summarizing technical successes.
Information Tools for Mitigation Strategy Development
The need to link technology costs and a comprehensive risk assessment methodology in the context
of addressing major environmental contaminants, e.g., mercury and other persistent bioaccumulative
toxics (PBTs) has been discussed by a number of authors. Assessments of policy options rely
increasingly on multiple tiers of modeling studies informed by large volumes of data. This tendency
raises the need to manage the use of models and the data needed to ensure analytical results that are
consistent and of sufficient quality. The NETL has been examining the connection between data, and
concepts such as information, knowledge, and wisdom as these relate to the role of advanced fossil
fuel technologies in a carbon managed future. We plan to develop a decision support model that
30
-------
would be an information portal to both process-level data and information and to system-level
analyses. We believe that this linkage will lead to knowledgeable choices about mitigation
technologies and has the potential to clearly communicate results facilitating formulation of wise
policy options. We believe that this endeavor offers useful insights to similar information needs and
structures for other issues such as mercury/PBTs. This paper discusses both the approach being used
to design the decision support system and the linkages between scientific and technical data and
information on societal values that are essential to making such a concept useful.
National Implementation of the Universal Waste Rule for Mercury
Lamps (Industry Perspective)
Paul W. Abernathy
Executive Director
Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers
2436 Foothill Blvd. Suite K
Calistoga, CA 94515
Phone: (707) 942-2197, Fax: (707) 942-2198
abernath @ napanet.net
Paul W. Abernathy
Paul W. Abernathy is the Executive Director of the Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers,
a national non-profit organization representing members of the mercury recycling industry. Mr.
Abernathy has worked for over 25 years in the environmental services industry throughout North
America, representing public and private companies and clients. His background includes extensive
participation in public policy development and implementation for water quality, air and hazardous
substances management. Mr. Abernathy has had experience working with NATO on international
exchange of environmental management programs and technologies; was appointed by a California
governor to serve on the multi-disciplined State Hazardous Waste Facility "Siting" committee; and
presently serves as technical advisor to regional governments in Northern California on hazardous
waste management planning, siting and development issues, water and energy conservation,
regulatory and environmental compliance, pollution prevention and resource recovery. Paul serves
as member of Northern California Green Business Advisory Board.
Mr. Abernathy earned a M.B. A. from Pepperdine University and a B.S. in Biology/Chemistry from
the University of Arizona.
31
-------
National Implementation of the Universal Waste Rule for Mercury Lamps
This presentation includes a brief history of mercury lamp recycling and disposal in the U.S., the
public policies that have influenced lamp disposal, highlights of states' programs regulating lamps,
and it discusses the latest changes to the Universal Waste Rule effective 1/6/00. EPA's goal is to
divert mercury lamps from municipal wastes, and the Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers
is part of a public-private partnership that is forming to work with business and all state and local
governments in the U.S. for implementation of the new rule. This presentation discusses local
government roles and options, business and generator options and the educational and resource
information being developed.
Spent mercury lamps are considered hazardous waste, but for the most part they have not been
managed this way. EPA believes the major reason for the wholesale non-compliance is the lack of
awareness and access to information on the part of lamp owners and local governments, which
' includes nearly everyone. The national recycling rate has been about 12%, which means there are still
500,000,000 mercury lamps disposed in the garbage, potentially exposing people and the environment
to mercury. RCRA has always required the proper management of mercury lamps as hazardous
wastes, but with few exceptions (MN, FL) there has been little or no enforcement by regulatory
agencies. EPA adopted the UWR to include lamps on 7/6/99. (PR July 6,1999, Volume 64 Number
128, pp. 36465-36490, and 40 CFR 273), effective 1/6/00. The goal of the rule is to increase the
recycling rate to 80% and remove regulatory and cost burdens for those who recycle. States may take
several possible actions to achieve consistency with RCRA. States may have more stringent policies,
but the minimum regulatory criteria must not allow the land disposal of mercury-lamps. Local
governments have a responsibility too, through their franchises for solid wastes, HHW programs,
SQG programs, pollution prevention programs, landfill operations.
Our recycling association has formed a partnership with Earth's 911, and along with EPA and
corporate partners is helping provide information and resources to the states, and working with local
governments to adopt and implement programs that encourage recycling and set up a sufficient
infrastructure to divert mercury lamps from municipal wastes altogether by making recycling easy,
inexpensive and available to business and the public.
The new UWR makes it easier than before and less costly to manage lamps properly. Where RCRA
has not been enforced and the compliance rates are low, non-compliant disposal has cost little to
generators. Proper lamp management under the UWR represents a small percentage of total lighting
costs, and it keeps mercury from being released into the environment. To achieve compliance it is
incumbent on states and local government agencies, working with both public and private entities,
to ease the burden on generators by making collection and recycling programs for mercury lamps
readily available. By sharing information, conducting public-private seminars and workshops
throughout the country, offering Earth's 911 resource guide, website and toll-free number we are
helping educate people about their responsibility. The national goal is to recycle as many mercury
lamps as possible.
32
-------
State Perspective
John Gilkeson
Principal Planner
Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance
520 Lafayette Rd. N.
St. Paul, MN 55155-4100
Phone: (651) 215-0199, Fax: (651) 215-0246
John, gilkeson @ moea. state, mn. us
John Gilkeson
John Gilkeson has worked for the state of Minnesota for 10 years and is currently a principal planner
with the Office of Environmental Assistance. During that time John has worked on "problem and
' special wastes," including medical and infectious waste, household hazardous waste, batteries, lead,
electronics, and mercury wastes. John's focus for the past four years has been on the use and
management of mercury in products. John has worked on the Minnesota universal waste rule, the
federal mercury lamp rule, the federal mercury stockpile issue, and represents Minnesota on the
Binational Toxics Reduction Strategy Mercury Work Group. John has also worked with several
industries and sectors that use, manage, or release mercury, including oil refineries, thermostat
manufacturers, relay manufacturers, automobile manufacturers, the state dental association,
demolition contractors, and several mercury recyclers.
Minnesota State Perspective
Minnesota and other states are taking a variety of approaches to understanding, reducing, and
managing mercury that is released from a variety of human activities. Though states have differing
needs and resources, and must take different approaches, they also have much in common and would
benefit from more coordination in laws, rules, programs, and research. Similarly, on a national and
international basis, our common interests would benefit from a more coordinated approach to
research, programs, and policy. Other public and private sector interests are key players in these
processes and have a strong interest in consistent and equitable measures to address mercury
nationally and internationally.
In this presentation, Minnesota state agency staff will present their perspective on impediments to and
opportunities for advancing local to international mercury reduction efforts in the areas of:
Environmental research and monitoring;
Laws and regulations;
Policies and programs;
Education;
Incentives and other measures for voluntary action, including national early reduction credit;
Coordination among governments, businesses, and NGOs;
33
-------
Research and measures for reducing and managing mercury in purposeful use (and waste
management);
Research and measures for reducing emissions from energy and resource sectors;
Research and measures for reducing emissions from other unintentional use or material reuse;
Management and disposition of stockpiles and reserves;
Retirement of mercury removed from commerce; and
Developing and promoting non-mercury products and processes.
The presentation will include an overview of recommendations from the Minnesota Comprehensive
Mercury Reduction Initiative (March 1999) and International Policy Recommendations developed
by attendees of the 5th International Mercury Conference in Rio de Janeiro (May 1999).
Model State Legislation
Richard Phillips
Virginia Department of Environmental Conservation
103 South Main Street
Waterbury,VT 05671
Phone: (802)241-3470, Fax: (802)241-3273
rich @ dec, anr. state, vt. us
Richard Phillips
Richard Phillips spent two years designing and overseeing construction of water systems on the
Navajo reservation. For the last 30 years he has supervised and managed programs for the Vermont
Department of Environmental Conservation. Mr. Phillips managed the construction grant program,
the wastewater operation oversight program, the enforcement program and the P2/Assistance
programs. He has been responsible for the implementation of Vermont's mercury products labeling
and disposal ban law passed in 1998. He has been involved with the development of the regional
model mercury products legislation.
Mr. Phillips has a Bachelor and Master's degree from Northeastern University.
Model State Legislation (Northeast States Model)
This presentation is based on efforts of the Northeast States to develop model state legislation.
This presentation will describe:
1. The basis for creating model mercury product legislation as recommended in the Regional
Mercury Action Plan.
2. The process used to develop the model legislation.
34
-------
The high points of the current draft model legislation which includes the following
sections:
Legislative Findings
Definitions
Interstate Cleaning house
Notifications
Phase-out and Exceptions
Labeling
Disposal Ban and Scrap Facilities
Collection
Sales Restrictions
Disclosure
Limitations on Use
Public Outreach and Education
Universal Waste
State Procurement
Enforcement
State Review
Severability Clause
Effective Date
Administrative Fees
Appropriation
Public Notification and Review
Prohibition
4. The remaining steps to adoption as a regional model.
5. The status of state-by-state legislative initiatives.
NGO Perspective
Jane Williams
Executive Director
California Communities Against Toxics
P.O. Box 845
Rosamond, CA 93560
Phone: (661) 273-3098, FAX: (661) 947-9793
Danloan @ aol.com
Jane Williams
Ms. Jane Williams serves as the executive director of California Communities Against Toxics, a
coalition of 80 community based environmental groups in California. She has a degree in economics
from the University of California, Los Angeles and has eight years experience working on
environmental issues with a focus on persistent, bioaccumulative toxins, Superfund sites, incineration,
and nuclear issues.
She has worked extensively with community-based environmental/public health advocacy groups and
Native American tribes on numerous pollution-related issues. Ms. Williams has also worked in
Mexico on environmental issues with the Secretaria de Relaciones Exterior, the Institute Nacional
de Ecologia, Commision Nacional del Agua, and with non-governmental organizations in Mexico.
She has presented papers at three different conferences in Mexico dealing with pollution and water
policy issues.
35
-------
She is also the Chair of the Waste Committee for the National Sierra Club. This committee has
responsibility over many of the Club's pollution related issues including Toxic and Nuclear Waste,
Superfund, Brownfields, Nuclear and Chemical Weapons, Solid and Medical Waste, Federal
Facilities, and Environmental Justice issues related to waste.
Ms. Williams serves on the board of the California Environmental Research Group, the Clean Air
Network, Greenaction, the California Stop Dioxin Exposure Campaign, the Del Amo Action
Committee, and the Nonstockpile Chemical Weapons Forum. She is a past member of the Federal
Advisory Committee on the Industrial Combustion Coordinated Rulemaking and a former member
of the Regulatory Structure Update Technical Advisory Committee on Superfund for the State of
California Department of Toxic Substance Control.
NGO Perspective
The United States and Canada agreed to the virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances into the
Great Lakes under Article E of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement signed November 18,1987.
The current Mercury Action Plan does not serve as an integrated blueprint for actions that will
achieve the elimination of mercury emissions into the environment. Forty states now have fish
consumption advisories for mercury in fresh water fish due to the continued release of mercury into
the air and water. Non-governmental organizations have become concerned about the lack of
"linkage" between current EPA policy on mercury and the virtual elimination goal. They have set
forth a series of recommendations which they believe would lead to the attainment of this goal,
including steps that the EPA should take both in the short term and the long term. This paper will
present these recommendations along with the rationale for their adoption.
36
-------
Mercury Stock Management
Folke Dorgelo
Internal postal code 655
Directorate-General for Environmental Protection
Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment
P.O. Box 30 945
2500 GX THE HAGUE
The Netherlands,
Phone: + 31 70 339 4908, Fax: + 31 70 339 1297
Folke.Dorselo@DSVS.DGM.minvrom.nl
Folke Dorgelo
'Mr. Dorgelo's role at the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning, and the Environment encompasses
heavy metals policy, negotiations with the metal industry in The Netherlands especially concerning
the reduction of corrosion and run-off of copper, zinc and lead used for construction and building;
recycling of plastics and packaging (waste) containing heavy metals; risk evaluation and risk
management of metals (lead, mercury, cadmium, copper, zinc, chromium, nickel, bismuth, tin) and
PNAs; and chemicals risk reduction programme of the OECD, Environmental Health and Safety Divisi-
on (lead, mercury and cadmium). Mr. Dorgelo also participates in the European Commission DG
Enterprise working group (chemicals, plastics and rubber) on the 'limitations on marketing and use of
dangerous substances and preparations' (Directive 76/769/EEC).
Mr. Dorgelo earned his M.S. in Biochemistry (1974) from the State University of Leiden, has a
Teaching Degree in Chemistry and is a registered toxicologist (Dutch Society for Toxicology).
PARCOM Decision 90/3 (1990) aims at the phase-out of the mercury cell process in the chlor-alkali
industry in Europe by 2010. About 12,000 tons of mercury in Europe are now in use in this process.
It is expected that these mercury stocks from the chlor-alkali industry, when becoming available due
to phase-out of the mercury cell process, will end up in worldwide uncontrollable applications with
diffuse emissions to air, water and soil. This concern for global transportation, application and
emission of mercury is the main reason for the Netherlands to start a project to achieve commitments
with industry for an environmentally proper and sustainable handling, transportation and disposal of
the mercury stocks.
Mercury Stock Management
Mercury mining in Spain produces about 1,000 tons of mercury per year, mainly for export. No
European policy dealing with the primary and secondary flows of mercury exists up to now.
The presentation will focus on the flow of mercury in the Netherlands, including recycling of
mercury-containing waste to technical grade mercury. Experiences with two chlor-alkali production
plants in the Netherlands phasing out their mercury cell process will be presented.
37
-------
The actual situation of the mercury stocks in Europe will be presented with some preliminary policy
options.
Sub-Seabed Emplacement: Long-Term Ultimate Disposition of
Mercury Wastes
Leo S. Gomez, Ph.D.
Sandia National Laboratories
P.O. Box 5800, MS-0779
Albuquerque, NM 87185
Phone: (505)284-3959, Fax: (505)844-2348
lssomez@sandia.sov
Leo S. Gomez, Ph.D.
Dr. Gomez has worked in nuclear waste management at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque,
New Mexico since 1977. He has been the biological research project manager for four ocean disposal
projects and works in the Performance Assessment Department for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, a
transuranic waste repository in southeastern New Mexico. Before going to Sandia, Dr. Gomez worked on
a cancer therapy project at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, and worked on a project to
detect low levels of transuranic elements in workers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee.
Dr. Gomez has served as a U.S. representative on three international ocean pollution commissions. He is
also an editor of the multinational journal, Radioactive Waste Management and Environmental
Restoration. In addition to his work in nuclear waste management, Dr. Gomez has worked with the
Institute of Public Policy at the University of New Mexico investigating the public's perceptions of risk
of nuclear technologies. He has also been involved with Sandia's educational outreach activities from
kindergarten through the college level.
Leo Gomez earned a Ph.D. in Radiation Biology at Colorado State University in 1973.
Emplacement of Mercury Wastes in the Sediments of the Deep-Ocean?
The primary goal of the U.S. Subseabed Disposal Project (SDP) was to assess the technical and
environmental feasibility of disposing of high-level nuclear wastes in deep-sea sediments. Subseabed
disposal, like other geological disposal options, was a multibarrier concept that studied the feasibility
of burial of solidified and packaged high-level nuclear waste or spent nuclear fuel in high-integrity
canisters, tens of meters within the stable geologic formations of the deep-ocean floor. These deep-
ocean floor geologic formations are some of the most stable and predictable on earth. In the
subseabed concept the multiple barriers of the waste form, the canister, the clay sediments, and the
38
-------
ocean waters were predicted to delay migration of radionuclides until they decayed to innocuous
levels.
The SDP was comprised of the following task groups: Site Assessment, Engineering Studies, Near
Field, Sediment Barrier, Physical Oceanography, Biological Oceanography, Radiological Assessment,
and Legal and Institutional. The SDP research team developed biosphere transport models to predict
the oceanic transport of radionuclides. Researchers also developed the capability to determine and
evaluate the risks associated both with normal disposal operations and with potential accidents. Safety
assessments contributed to evaluation of the feasibility of the subseabed concept and helped focus
required work to answer the feasibility questions. Even though the SDP models were developed to
predict the transport of radionuclides, they can be used to predict the biosphere transport of non-
radioactive environmental pollutants, such as mercury products and other toxic metals. Many of these
pollutants cannot be destroyed or broken down through treatment or environmental degradation, and
through physical, chemical, or biological processes will ultimately be deposited in the oceans.
Case Study of a Pilot Scale System for Removal of Organic Mercury
from Pharmaceutical Wastewater
Patrick J. Cyr
Advanced Geoservices Corp.
Chadds Ford Business Campus
Routes 202 and 1, Bradywine One, Suite 202
Chadds Ford, PA 19317
Phone: (888)824-3992, Fax: (610)558-2620
Funded by:
Wyeth Ayerst Pharmaceutical Company and the
Institute for Environmental Engineering Research, Villanova University
Patrick J. Cyr
Mr. Cyr has worked in the environmental industry since 1995, practicing environmental, civil,
and geotechnical engineering. He has served as project/resident engineer for landfill construction
projects and remediation of wetlands. His experience in the environmental field includes removal of
contaminants from wastewater, compiling and evaluating data from contaminated sites, civil design,
and management of a water quality database. He has conducted lab testing of samples in an
environmental and geotechnical laboratory. He also has experience in design, construction, and testing
of pilot plants.
Mr. Cyr earned his Masters degree in Civil/Environmental Engineering (1999) from
Villanova University, and his B achelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering (1996) from Worcester
Polytechnic Institute.
39
-------
Case Study of a Pilot Scale System for Removal of Organic Mercury
from Pharmaceutical Wastewater
Mercury discharged to the environment puts the public health and the environment at risk for toxic
effects. Organic mercury as thimerosal (a benzene mercury sodium salt: C9H9HgO2SNa) is used as
an antiseptic and preservative in topical medicines, cosmetics, and vaccines. Hospitals use thimerosal
for standard lab tests, such as albumin, herpes, hepatitis, and HTV, etc. Thimerosal and trace amounts
of Kg2* are present in wastewater from the manufacture of certain pharmaceutical drugs and quality
analysis/control procedures. The scope of this study was to examine the technical feasibility of using
adsorption technology for removing thimerosal and inorganic mercury from a pharmaceutical
wastewater. Several adsorbents were selected based on their physical and chemical properties and
their adsorption affinity for mercury. Batch isotherm and column studies were conducted to determine
the most suitable adsorbent for removal of mercury. Results showed that F-400 GAG provided the
best results for the removal of thimerosal and Hg2+. A pilot plant was designed, constructed, and
' tested successfully for treatment of wastewater from a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility.
SAM MS Technology
Nick Lombardo
Pacific NW National Laboratory
PO Box 999
Richland, WA 99352
Phone: (509)375-3644
ni. lombardo @ pnl. sov
Shas V. Mattigod
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
PO Box 999
Richland, WA 99352
Phone: (509)376-4311, Fax: (509)376-5368
shas. mattisold@vnl. sov
Self-Assembled Monolayers on Mesoporous Materials (SAMMS):
A Novel Adsorbent for Mercury Removal from Waste Streams
A new class of hybrid mesoporous materials has been developed at the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory for removing toxic heavy metals such as mercury from aqueous and nonaqueous waste
streams. The basis of these novel adsorbent materials are organized monolayers of functional
molecules covalently bound to a siliceous mesoporous support. The mesoporous supports are
synthesized using surfactant liquid crystalline templates. The resulting mesoporous materials have
high surface areas and ordered porosity in the nanometer size range. Functional molecules capable
of selectively binding of mercury (thiol groups) are covalently attached to the mesoporous substrates
as densely populated monolayers. Mercury adsorption data obtained over an eight order range
equilibrium concentrations indicated that thiol-SAMMS can achieve Hg loading as high as -635
mg/g. The high affinity for Hg adsorption by this material was reflected by Kd values as high as IxlO8
ml/g. The data also showed that mercury adsorption by thiol-SAMMS was not affected by the initial
40
-------
form of Hg (nitrate, chloride, and methylated) in solution. A study of mercury adsorption kinetics
indicated that thiol-SAMMS bound Hg rapidly (about 99.9% adsorption occurring within first five
minutes). Tests showed that neither the pH (2 to 10) or the ionic strength (0.01 to 4M) of simulated
waste solutions did not significantly affect the mercury adsorption capacity of thiol-SAMMS. Waste
streams containing Hg also typically contain many other cations (Ca, Cd, Cu(n), Fe(II), Ni, Pb, and
Zn) and complexing anions (Cl, CN, CO3, SO4, and PO4). Tests were conducted to examine the
competitive adsorption effects of these cations, and the complexation effects of anions on Hg
adsorption. The results indicated that the mercury adsorption capacity of thiol-SAMMS was not
impaired by the presence of these cations and anions that would be present in different types of waste
solutions. The reason for this rioncompetitiveness of other cations appears to be due to preferential
binding of a softer cation (Hg) by thiol functional groups. These adsorption characteristics show that
thiol-SAMMS is a versatile and cost-effective material for removing, recovering, and recycling Hg
from various types of waste streams.
Mercury Collection Programs in Sweden
Kristina von Rein
Principal Technical Officer
Section for Chemicals Control
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
S-106 48 Stockholm, Sweden
Tel:+46(0)8-6981127, Fax:+46(0)8-6981222
Kristina. von-rein @ environ, se
Kristina von Rein
Ms. von Rein has been with the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency since 1990, and is the
project leader for the Govermental Assignment that includes both an Action Programme for more
efficient collection of used goods and products containing mercury and preparation of a proposal for
final disposal in Sweden of mercury-containing waste.
Ms. von Rein has a M.S. degree in chemical engineering.
Mercury Collection Programs in Sweden
Phase-out of mercury
Several years ago Sweden decided that the use of mercury should eventually cease altogether, the
target year being 2000. A mercury phase-out means that it is firstly the input of new mercury to
society that is reduced. Still, large quantities of mercury are present in goods and products still in use.
It has been estimated that in Sweden alone (8 million people) there are hundreds of tonnes of mercury
in circulation in products.
41
-------
Action Programme for the collection of mercury
The Swedish EPA was engaged in an Action Programme (1994 - 1999) as instructed by the
government in order to improve the efficiency of mercury collection. The Swedish state had allocated
about 20 million SEK for this purpose. The SEPA has given aid to 49 projects as well as carried out
several projects of their own.
The SEPA programme has focussed on increasing the collection of hidden mercury in the form of:
clinical thermometers containing mercury,
mercury in technical goods and products,
metallic mercury ori shelves and in storage rooms, and
"historic" mercury (in sinks, floor drains, tubes, etc.).
Many efforts undertaken in the action programme have been aimed at mercury inventory, on one hand
identification and labelling of mercury in use and on the other hand collection of worn out mercury
'and discarded goods and products containing mercury.
A total of 10 -11 tonnes of mercury has been identified, 6 - 7 of which have been collected and 3,5
- 4 tonnes have been labelled.
New ways of finding and collecting mercury
In different regions in Sweden, specially trained electricians, so-called mercury detectives, were
visiting companies, local businesses, municipal sewerages to identify and collect or label mercury-
containing products. Also, some projects involved tracing mercury with the world's first mercury
dogs, Froy and Ville. The dogs have been searching for mercury in schools and at universities, finding
mercury while saving both time and money. Several tonnes of mecury have been found this way.
Swedish municipalities and county administrative boards have participated in all projects.
42
-------
Phase-Out of Mercury-Containing Products
Folke Dorgelo
Internal postal code 655
Directorate-General for Environmental Protection
Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment
P.O. Box 30 945
2500 GX THE HAGUE
The Netherlands
Phone: + 31 70 339 4908, Fax: + 31 70 339 1297
Folke.Dorselo@DSVS.DGM.minvrom.nl ,
Folke Dorgelo
Mr. Dorgelo's role at the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning, and the Environment encompasses
' heavy metals policy, negotiations with the metal industry in The Netherlands - especially concerning
the reduction of corrosion and run-off of copper, zinc and lead used for construction and building;
recycling of plastics and packaging (waste) containing heavy metals; risk evaluation and risk
management of metals (lead, mercury, cadmium, copper, zinc, chromium, nickel, bismuth, tin) and
PNAs; and chemicals risk reduction programme of the OECD, Environmental Health and Safety
Division (lead, mercury and cadmium). Mr. Dorgelo also participates in the European Commission
DG Enterprise working group (chemicals, plastics and rubber) on the 'limitations on marketing and
use of dangerous substances and preparations' (Directive 76/769/EEC).
Mr. Dorgelo earned his M.S. in Biochemistry (1974) from the State University of Leiden, has a
Teaching Degree in Chemistry and is a registered toxicologist (Dutch Society for Toxicology).
Phase Out of Mercury-Containing Products in the Netherlands
The pollution by mercury in the Netherlands is largely caused by mercury-containing products. Closer
examination of the Dutch flow of mercury into soil shows that in 1990 over 40% of the flow
originated from mercury-containing products. For surface water, a similar percentage comes from
mercury-containing products and for sewage sludge over 80% originated from mercury-containing
products. This shows that taking product-oriented measures makes a relevant contribution to the
reduction in mercury emissions and in addition to the quality of sewage sludge. To determine which
products contain mercury and which alternatives are available, an inventory research was carried out.
The data from this research partly forms the basis for the Dutch 'Decree on products containing
mercury 1998'. The use of mercury in the Netherlands was estimated at 12.5 tonnes in 1994.
Approximately 45% of this can be accounted for by the use of amalgam in dental surgeries. Since
1991, emissions into the environment have been greatly reduced by the use of special amalgam
separators. Approximately 40% is used in various measuring instruments, electro-technical products
and in lighting. The remaining 15% is used in batteries, chemicals, pharmaceutical preparations and
in the chlor-alkali industry (mercury cell process).
43
-------
The Decree is intended to achieve the mercury emission reduction objective. Through a ban on the
manufacture of and trade in products containing mercury where alternatives are available, the supply
of mercury within the economic circuit will be reduced by approximately 35%, or 4.3 tonnes per year.
This relates to products such as measuring instruments and electro-technical products. As a result of
the Decree, mercury emissions will gradually decrease, because it will take a few years before all the
products containing mercury which are in use are replaced by mercury-free alternatives. Starting from
the Dutch emission levels in 1990, the emission into sewage sludge, soil and water will decrease by
30%, 20% and 15% respectively. Existing facilities are used for the safe disposal of mercury-
containing products.
Demonstration of Mercury Treatment Technologies
to Meet DOE Customer Needs
Greg Hulet
Mixed Waste Focus Area
Bechtel BWXT, LLC
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
P.O. Box 1625 MS 3875
Idaho Falls, ID 83415-3875
Phone: (208) 526-0283, Fax: (208) 526-1061
Hag@inel.gov
Greg Hulet
Mr. Hulet is the work package manager for the Unique Waste Work Package, which includes DOE's
mercury mixed wastes. As such, he coordinates research, development, and technology deployment
activities to ensure that all the wastes in the Unique category have a path for treatment and disposal.
He has a Masters Degree in Chemical Engineering and ten years experience in waste management and
pollution prevention. He also has considerable experience with Naval Nuclear Propulsion Plants. He
has been a scoutmaster for 15 years, which, after watching scouts cook for that long, has made him
an expert in unique hazardous wastes.
DOE Mercury Waste Treatment Demonstrations
Mercury has been used in Department of Energy (DOE) operations in a variety of applications. It has
been used as a catalyst in nuclear fuel reprocessing, as shielding, and as a component of isotope
separation processes. It is still being used in a number of facilities. Because of its widespread use,
mercury contamination can be found at most DOE facilities. Efforts to clean up, treat and dispose the
associated wastes are underway. However, for some DOE mercury wastes, until recently, no treatment
processes were available that had been demonstrated to be safe and effective in a radioactive
environment. The DOE Mixed Waste Focus Area (MWFA) has been supporting research,
development, demonstrations, and technology deployments to ensure that all mercury-contaminated
waste can be safely treated and disposed. These activities have been divided into three main areas:
44
-------
amalgamation, stabilization, and separation. Subcategories of separation include removal of mercury
from water, extraction from solid matrices, and gaseous emission control.
DOE supported the demonstration of two commercial mercury amalgamation processes. Both
successfully amalgamated radioactive waste elemental mercury from DOE sites. The final waste
forms met the Land Disposal Restriction for mercury, O.2 ppm by Toxic Leach Characteristic
Procedure (TCLP). Vapor pressure data for the waste forms are available.
The MWFA coordinated several commercial demonstrations for stabilization of mercury mixed waste
with <260 ppm mercury. Allied Technology Group (ATG), Nuclear Fuel Services (NFS), and
International Technologies (IT) performed bench-scale studies using surrogate waste with several
species of mercury. ATG, NFS, and GTS Duratek demonstrated their respective processes on actual
waste. In all cases the stabilized mercury met LDR limits. Reports covering each of these studies are
available from the MWFA. Demonstrations are presently underway to treat >260 ppm mercury waste
' from Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL). Sepradyne/Raduce is using their vacuum thermal
desorption unit to extract mercury from the waste, while ATG, NFS, and BNL are using stabilization
processes to treat the material. DOE is working closely with EPA on this project to acquire data that
may support a change in the regulations for treatment of >260 ppm mercury-contaminated soils and
sludges. BNL is the only group to have completed testing.
The DOE program for development of a process to extract mercury from solid matrices by non-
thermal means is currently on hold because of funding cutbacks. The Polymer Filtration process
dissolves mercury in shredded matrices and separates it from the solution using a complexing
polymer. The process is ready for pilot-scale demonstration.
Oak Ridge conducted comparison tests of mercury sorbents on mercury-contaminated stream water
from their East Fork Poplar Creek. ADA Technologies also tested their mercury sorbent process on
the creek water with good results. Reports are available that summarize these two projects.
The MWFA is investigating continuous emission monitors for mercury but units are not available yet
for commercial deployment. ADA has made progress in this area and in the area of sorption of
mercury from gas streams.
Budget reductions have impacted work on the DOE mercury problems. Hopefully, funding will be
available in fiscal year 2001 to bring the work to fruition.
45
-------
Return and Recycling of Used High Intensity Bulbs for Recycling and
Closed-loop Mercury Control
Lester Gress and Jeff Lord
Cleveland Fluid Systems Co.
PO Box 41070
Cleveland, OH 4414
Phone: (440)526-7070, Fax: (440)526-0770
lsress@aol.com
Return and Recycling of Used High Intensity Bulbs for Recycling and
Closed-loop Mercury Control
Mercury is recognized as a highly toxic material and is stringently regulated in waste discharges. The
majority of these discharges contain mercury in low concentrations limiting the control and recovery
options. Wastes from a variety of industries generate wastewater containing residual mercury,
including: lighting, medical, photographic, chloralkali, electronics and power generation.
The lighting industry has begun to address control and the reuse of mercury while they are trying to
find substitute materials that adjust the electrical characteristics for the discharge lamp. One company
has instituted a return of used high intensity lamps and the recovery of mercury from them. This
program, helps prevent mercury from entering into the eco-system. Some of the used and crushed
glass is washed to insure the complete removal of mercury.
Typical treatment of wastewater requires multi-step processing ending in polishing steps that
scavenge or trap residual mercury. These processing schemes result in added treatment costs and
generate hazardous waste. A closed-loop mercury control/recovery system can reduce these treatment
and disposal costs. The technology under development provides a means of accumulating sufficient
mercury that recovery is possible and, at the same time, allows the minimization of the process
wastewater by operating in a recirculating loop. Mercury is converted to its ionic form in-situ by
chemical oxidation to improve solubility and is recovered electrolytically. The recovered mercury
is relatively pure depending on the other contaminants present and potentially requires little additional
processing before reuse.
46
-------
Mercury Amalgamation Demos With the DOE
Clifton Brown
ADA Technologies, Inc.
8100 Shaffer Parkway, Suite 130
Littleton, CO 80127-4107
Phone: (303)792-5615, Fax: (303)792-5633
cliff, b rown @ adatech. com
Clifton Brown
Mr, Brown is currently the Vice President of Operations for ADA Technologies, Inc. a Denver-
based technology R&D firm. Mr. Brown has 23 years of experience at Oak Ridge National Laboratory
. managing and performing R&D related to reactor fuel processing, coal conversion, and environmental
processes.
Mr. Brown has B.S. and M.S. degrees in Chemical Engineering. Mr. Brown is also a Professional
Engineer.
Recent Advances in Mercury Stabilization Technology
Since the early 1950s, mercury has been widely used throughout the DOE weapons complex. The
legacy is contaminated solid waste, soils, and water. The main holders of mercury-contaminated waste
are the Oak Ridge Reservation, the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, and
the Savannah River Site.
Nationally, the largest categories of mercury-bearing wastes are sludges, soil, and debris. The
Environmental Protection Agency subdivided mercury-contaminated solid wastes into three
subcategories.
Radioactively contaminated elemental mercury - treatment is amalgamation
Low-mercury subcategory - treatment is stabilization
High-mercury subcategory - treatment is thermal retort, followed by amalgamation if the
recovered mercury is radioactively contaminated
ADA Technologies, Inc., has demonstrated and filed a patent for a process to handle radioactive
elemental mercury. In recent studies this initial work has been extended to soil matrices that are
contaminated with greater than 260 pprn mercury. Results derived from both of these studies will be
presented and discussed.
47
-------
Deployment of the Sulfur Polymerization and Stabilization Process as
Applied to Mercury Contamination in Soils
Paul Kalb
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Environmental and Waste Management Group
34 Railroad St., Bldg. 830, P.O. Box 5000
Upton, NY 11973-5000
-Phone:(631)344-7644
kalb@bnl.sov
Trevor Jackson
EnviroCare Utah, Inc.
46 West Broadway, Suite 116
Salt Lake City, UT 8410
Phone: (801) 532-1330, Fax: (801) 532-
7512
tiackson @ envirocareutah. com
Paul Kalb
Paul Kalb is a Senior Research Engineer at Brookhaven National Laboratory. He has a bachelor's
degree in mechanical engineering from the State University of NY at Binghamton and a master's
degree in nuclear engineering from Polytechnic Institute of NY. Paul has been employed at BNL for
20 years and has concentrated his efforts in the areas of hazardous/radioactive waste management,
environmental restoration, and health and safety aspects of emerging energy technologies. Current
responsibilities include Principal Investigator for programs on D&D and waste form development for
DOE and industry. He has served as a member of several national technical support groups on Final
Waste Forms for DOE and EPA, recently currently chaired a team that wrote a WASTECH volume
on Stabilization/Solidification, is a member of the Program Advisory Committee for Waste
Management Symposia, Inc., and has numerous patents and publications in the area of waste
treatment and encapsulation.
Trevor Jackson
Dr. Jackson received his Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from Oklahoma State University in 1983.
He spent two years as an Assistant Professor at the University of Maryland then progressed into
industry. He was the site engineer at the solar energy plants located in the Mojave desert of Southern
California, responsible for upgrades of existing plants. In 1988 he joined Science Applications
International Corporation (SAIC) in San Diego providing assistance to the EPA in evaluating
innovative technologies for the treatment of hazardous waste in the Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation Program (SITE). He was Project Manager for the evaluation of many different
technologies ranging from novel incinerators to bioremediation. In 1998 Dr. Jackson joined
Envirocare of Utah, Inc., as Technology Development Manager. In this role he is responsible for
reviewing and implementing treatment technologies for mixed low level waste at the Envirocare TSD
facility in Utah. Dr. Jackson also upgrades performance of the existing stabilization, micro-, and
macroencapsulation technologies.
48
-------
Treatment of Elemental Mercury and Mercury Contaminated Soil and Debris by the Sulfur
Polymer Stabilization/Solidification Process
Elemental mercury contaminated with radionuclides (mixed waste mercury) and mixed waste
mercury-contaminated soil and debris, is a problem throughout the Department of Energy (DOE)
complex. This presentation describes an innovative process developed at Brookhaven National
Laboratory (BNL) and currently being commercialized at Envirocare of Utah, Inc., to immobilize
mixed waste elemental mercury and mercury-contaminated soils and debris. The product is a
monolithic solid waste form that is non-dispersible, will meet current and newly adopted EPA
leaching criteria, and has low mercury vapor pressure. The BNL Sulfur Polymer
Stabilization/Solidification (SPSS) process (patent pending) is a two-stage process that chemically
reacts with mercury to form a product of low solubility and vapor pressure and then solidifies the
product in a solid matrix to further reduce leachability and dispersion of contaminants. Waste forms
containing as much as 33 wt% elemental mercury and as much as 60 wt% mercury-contaminated soil
were formulated which successfully passed current Environmental Protection Agency Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) criteria as well as the more stringent Universal Treatment
Standard criteria that has been approved. In addition, the final waste form products exhibit extremely
low leachability when subjected to long-term leaching, and significantly reduced vapor pressure
compared with untreated mercury. Bench and pilot-scale development at BNL is complete and plans
for commercial deployment at Envirocare's Clive UT mixed waste treatment facility are underway.
The process may also be applied for direct and simple treatment of hazardous mercury streams
as-generated or produced as secondary wastes from mercury separation technologies.
Commercializing a Safer Substitute for Mercury
James D. Rancourt, Ph.D.
NewMerc, Ltd
1872 Pratt Drive (MS 1260)
Blacksburg, VA 24060
Phone: (540) 951-2500, Fax: (540) 961-5778
info @ newmerc. com
httv://www. newmerc. com
James Rancourt, Ph.D.
Dr. James Rancourt obtained an undergraduate degree in Chemistry at the University of Lowell in
Massachusetts. He earned a doctorate in chemistry, with an emphasis on analysis and preparation of
electrically conductive plastics, from Virginia Tech. In 1987, Dr. Rancourt founded Polymer
Solutions Incorporated, a company that provides innovative technical solutions to polymer and
materials programs.
Dr. Rancourt led a research team to develop alternative materials for the mercury metal that is used
in electrical switch applications, in 1992, at the request of the Virginia State Government. Dr.
49
-------
Rancourt's team now has four international patents and commercial products. He is the President of
NewMerc, Ltd., a company devoted to producing reliable alternative materials to mercury metal for
industrial and government applications.
Commercializing a Safer Substitute for Mercury
Mercury metal is a fundamental chemical element that has unusual properties: volatile, electrically
conductive, reflective and liquid to low temperatures. Unfortunately, mercury metal, when handled
or disposed of improperly, poses environmental and health risks. It is becoming increasingly
important that mercury be replace in industrial applications with a less toxic and reliable material.
NewMerc, Ltd., has an exclusive, all-fields worldwide license to technology that offers a safe
replacement for mercury in many applications.
This presentation will provide a brief description of the impetus for the nonmercury alloy
' development project, the research approach that was taken and the rationale for the technical solution
that has been developed. The presentation will provide information about the composition of the
alloy, its method of preparation and application areas. In addition, the properties of the NewMerc
alloy, its MSDS sheet and questions remaining for the full-scale implementation of the patented
material will be provided. A brief overview of the company structure will also be provided.
The Business of Mercury Pollution Prevention: Identifying Source
Reduction Opportunities and Engineering Trade-Offs
Kenneth R. Stone
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Phone: (513) 569-7474, Fax: (513) 569-7111
stone, kenneth @ et>a. sov
Kenneth R. Stone
Kenneth Stone is the Engineering Trade-Offs Team Leader for EPA's National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, based in Cincinnati, Ohio. Ken has been with the EPA for 18 years and has
worked primarily in pollution prevention research with an emphasis on federal facilities and
operations. Ken founded and managed the Life Cycle Engineering and Design Program, a cooperative
venture with DoD to apply Life Cycle Engineering and pollution prevention methodology to industrial
systems. Ken's team is conducted research to advance the state of the practice of LCE and has
completed several LCE case histories on both public and private products and operations.
50
-------
The Business of Mercury Pollution Prevention: Identifying Source
Reduction Opportunities and Engineering Trade-Offs
The demand for mercury in the United States is still growing or declining only slightly in a number
of industrial sectors. These include electric lighting, electronic equipment, wiring devices and
switches, measurement and control instruments, dental equipment and supplies, laboratory uses, and
medical uses. About 190 tons of mercury were used by these sectors in 1997. While EPA is pursuing
a number of voluntary initiatives within these industries, information on consumption, use, release
and environmental impact is poor. Therefore, an assessment is underway to collect the data needed
to identify the potential for source reduction across industry sectors. This assessment will determine
in which areas emissions are large and difficult to measure. This assessment will incorporate
collaborative activities with industry, including providing systems analysis tools such as Life Cycle
Engineering (LCE) and Engineering Trade-Offs (ETO) to help industry determine the economic,
energy, and environmental costs and benefits of management options.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) has initiated a Pollution Prevention
Prioritization Assessment (P2PA), based on evaluation of the potential for source reduction of
mercury use in the consumer sector, to identify major needs and opportunities for reduced use and
releases. The P2PA will guide the development of at least two evaluations of pollution prevention
approaches for mercury using life cycle analysis, and determine the reduction in adverse
environmental impacts. The P2PA will also guide the selection of sector activities for evaluation of
engineering trade-offs and input/output modeling.
ORD will use research innovative and emerging technologies for reducing reliance on mercury and
mercury-containing products in these industries. This investigation will focus on source reduction
opportunities. A compendium of technologies and technical solutions will be developed in order to
inform the next step of the plan, prioritization.
51
-------
A PBT Technology Information Clearinghouse
Frederic H. K. Booth
Waste Policy Institute
12850 Middlebrook Rd., Suite 250
Germantown, MD 20874-5244
Phone: (301) 528-1909, Fax: (301) 528-1970
fred booth@st.wpi.ors
Kay Van der Horst
Associate Director, Environmental Security Programs
Waste Policy Institute
12850 Middlebrook Road, Ste. 250
Germantown, MD 20874-5244
Phone: (301) 528 - 1923, Fax: (301) 528 - 1971
Kvanderh @ dark, net or Kay vdh @ st. wpi. ore
Frederic H. K. Booth
Mr. Fred Booth is the senior economist at WPI and has more than 25 years experience in leading
economic, energy and environmental analysis programs. His experience includes analyses and
'optimization of energy, economic, and environmental system interactions; development of global
climate change decision support tools and programs; development of environmental information systems
architectures; systems analysis of local, regional, and national energy policy/regulatory issues; alternative
fuels and electric utility demand forecasting; and technology diffusion analyses of advanced energy
technologies. He has experience in evaluating the economic implications of proposed amendments to
both RCRA and CERCLA. Additionally, his experience includes environmental technology cost
analysis model development, econometric analyses, comparative and parametric life cycle cost
modeling, innovative environmental technology cost-benefit analyses, and evaluation/demand
forecasting for emerging technologies, particularly in energy and environmental markets.
Kay Van der Horst
Mr. Van der Horst is the Associate Director for Environmental Security Programs for WPI, a
Virginia Tech owned not-for-profit organization. He is a specialist on domestic and international
environmental security concerns with a particular emphasis on stakeholder involvement and risk
communication. Currently, he is co-leading for WPI the development of EPA's new "PBT
Information, Communication and Decision Support Clearinghouse". His responsibilities also
include the development and implementation of Stakeholder Communication, Risk
Communication, Training and Community Outreach Programs. Other programmatic areas focus
on the development on risk management response and systems engineering. Prior to WPI Mr. van
der Horst has worked in various capacities on environmental security issues for the University of
Alaska-Fairbanks, Texas A&M University and various international institutions such as the
United Nations and the European Parliament.
The EPA PBT Information and Communications Clearinghouse
Many EPA Offices individually address Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxics (PBTs) in varying
contexts. The basic goal of the PBT Initiative is to identify and reduce risks to human health and the
environment from current and future exposures to priority PBT pollutants and address them in an
integrated manner. Implicit in achieving EPA's objectives in the PBT initiative is effective, efficient,
and focused information management in the context of PBT technical data, scientific data, and
52
-------
communications/outreach efforts. This presentation addresses the key aspects of developing and
implementing an EPA/OPPT PBT Information and Communications Clearinghouse. This concept
evolved from discussions with representatives of the various EPA Offices and programs represented
on the Mercury Task Force.
The structural approach contemplated in the Clearinghouse is straightforward: Develop generic
information management structures and strategies that are sufficiently flexible such that they can be
adapted to accommodate potentially unique informational dimensions of any PBT, yet are consistent,
comparable, and robust. Key features of this approach include: creating processes that support
information flows into and from the Clearinghouse, and providing on-going opportunities for
stakeholder information inputs in a dynamic information management environment. This approach
directly contributes to ensuring cost effectiveness via economies of scale in managing multiple PBT
data sets, and enhances the ability of the Clearinghouse to transparently provide user interfaces to
similar information management activities at other federal agencies, universities, and research
'organizations.
The activities conducted in assessing the aspects of developing and implementing an EPA/OPPT PBT
Information and Communications Clearinghouse will include:
Defining the specific mission, objectives, and goal(s) of the PBT Clearinghouse;
Defining/characterizing alternative PBT Information Clearinghouse structural approaches and
the relative strengths and limitations of each structural alternative;
Identifying preliminary opportunities for programmatic leverage;
Identifying/characterizing the benefits of the PBT Clearinghouse;
Identifying/characterizing existing information management activities that could either
contribute to, or be considered competitive with, the OPPT PBT Clearinghouse;
Identifying/characterizing the specific PBT Clearinghouse pre-implementation activities that
will contribute to a successful, cost-effective, highly functional PBT Clearinghouse;
Defining/characterizing stakeholder audiences (and their needs) for the mercury module of
the PBT Clearinghouse;
Identifying critical PBT Clearinghouse Quality Assurance issues, including information
consistency, comparability, data validation and verification, and systems configuration;
Identify international mercury information activities, including DOE/FETC, UAF, UNEP,
AMAP, and the European Union; and
Consideration of risks (technical, information management, performance, schedule) inherent
in developing and implementing an activity such as the PBT Clearinghouse.
53
-------
The EPA PBT Industry Technology Market Forum
Implicit in achieving the objectives of the EPA PBT initiative's guiding principles is the effective,
efficient, and focused management of PBT information, scientific data, and communications/outreach
efforts. These guiding principles include:
Addressing problems on multimedia bases through integrated use of all EPA tools;
Coordinating with and building on relevant international efforts;
Coordinating with and building on relevant federal programs and agencies;
Stressing cost-effectiveness (amount of PBT removed per dollar spent);
Involving stakeholders;
Emphasizing innovative technologies and pollution prevention;
Protecting vulnerable sub-populations;
Basing decisions on sound science; and
Using measurable objectives and assess performance.
The subject of this presentation is assessing the key aspects of developing and implementing an
EPA/OPPT PBT dynamic, stakeholder driven EPA/Industry Technology Market forum that is an
integral element of an OPPT/PBT Information and Communications Clearinghouse which will
directly contribute to implementing the guiding principles of the PBT Initiative. The EPA/Industry
Technology Market Forum:
Provides Regulatory Compliance Incentives for Industry by Providing Cost Savings
Opportunities;
Eases Regulatory Compliance Support by Providing Industry With Higher Production Efficiency
Opportunities;
Creates a Marketplace for Ihtercomparable/Verifiable Innovative Technologies;
Fosters Development of Innovative Technology Developments by Expanding Hidden Technology
Visibility; and
Fosters Global Environmental Technology Improvement and Exchange.
The initial focus of the EPA Environmental Technology Market Forum will be mercury-related
information, communications products and services. Though initially driven by a mercury focus, the
EPA Environmental Technology Market Forum will be designed to accommodate a larger
environmental technology market that addresses technology needs of all other PBTs.
WPI currently also supports the Department of Energy-National Energy Technology Laboratory
(DOE-NETL) in the design, development and implementation of its Decision Support Center. The
first information module in the Center focuses on DOE's coal combustion-based mercury data
collection and analysis program. The NETL effort is also significantly driven by providing
comparable technology solutions and information. This project represents both a unique opportunity
for OPPT and the Mercury Task Force to apply real-time lessons learned from the NETL program,
and additionally, leverage EPA and DOE mercury program funds to improve the overall
programmatic return on investment. Most significantly, the successful creation and implementation
54
-------
of the Environmental Technology Market Forum, in conjunction with the PBT Clearinghouse
concept, represents the first of an on-going series of opportunities to leverage limited EPA resources.
Mercury Stabilization in Chemically Bonded Phosphate Ceramics
Arun S. Wagh, Ph.D.
Ceramist, Energy Technology Division
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 S. Cass Avenue.
Argonne, IL 60439
Phone: (630)252 4295/5741, Fax: (630)252 3604
wash@anl.eov
Arun S. Wagh
Dr. Wagh is working as a materials research engineer at Argonne National Laboratory and has a Ph.D.
in physics. His expertise includes radioactive waste management, mineral waste management, and
structural ceramics.
With his colleagues who are co-authors of this presentation, he developed chemically bonded
phosphate ceramic program for radioactive and hazardous waste stabilization at Argonne National
Laboratory, pioneered research on bauxite tailings (high volume residue from alumina refineries),
directed projects related to utilization of greenhouse CO2, and hot gas ceramic cross-flow filters at
Argonne National Laboratory, and worked as consultant to alumina industries, that include, ALCOA,
ALCAN, and Virgin Island Alumina Co.
Dr. Wagh was a recipient of the R&D-100 Award given by R&D Magazine in 1996 for 'Ceramicrete
Binder', and the Pace Setter award by Argonne National Laboratory in 1997.
Mercury Stabilization in Chemically Bonded Phosphate Ceramics *
Mercury stabilization and solidification is one of the challenges for the conventional stabilization
technologies. This is because of the stringent limits on leaching of its stabilized products that need
to be enforced. In a conventional cement stabilization process, Hg is converted to its hydroxide at
high pH which is not a very insoluble compound and hence sulfidation of Hg is considered to be a
preferred route which converts it into an insoluble cinnabar (HgS). Unfortunately, efficient formation
of this compound is pH dependent. At a high pH, one obtains more soluble sulf ate of Hg, in a low pH
range insufficient immobilization results due to escape of hydrogen sulfide, while efficient formation
of HgS occurs only in a moderately acidic region. This is the region (pH = 4-8) in which stabilization
using Chemically Bonded Phosphate Ceramics is carried out.
55
-------
This presentation will discuss this kinetics followed by our experience on bench stabilization of
various U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) waste streams containing Hg in the Chemically Bonded
Phosphate Ceramic (CBPC) process. This process was developed to treat DOE's mixed waste
streams. It is a room-temperature-setting process based on an acid-base reaction between magnesium
oxide and monopotassium phosphate solution that forms a dense ceramic within hours. For Hg
stabilization, addition of a small amount (<1 wt.%) of Na2S or K2S is sufficient in the binder
composition.
Here we discuss the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) results on CBPC waste
forms of secondary waste streams generated from Hg-containing wastes such as combustion residues
and Delphi "DETOXSM" residues. The results show that though the current limit on leaching of Hg
is 0.2 mg/1, the results on the CBPC waste forms are at least an order lower than this stringent limit.
This low leaching level provides robustness to the process and allows sufficient margin for the
variability of Hg content in the waste. The efficient stabilization is attributed to chemical
immobilization of Hg as cinnabar followed by its physical encapsulation in a dense matrix of the
ceramic.
Using this process, Argonne-West has eliminated Hg-contaminated light bulbs from its inventory.
These bulbs were slightly contaminated radioactively and hence this Was a typical mixed waste
stream. This presentation will provide a brief review on this work as an example of disposal of Hg-
contaminated actual waste.
* Work supported by U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Technology Development, as a part of
the Mixed Waste Focus Area, under Contract W-31-109-Eng-38, and Delphi Research, Inc., of
Albuquerque, NM.
56
-------
Characterization and Leachability of Stabilized
Mercury-Containing Wastes
Linda Rieser
Academic Director
Accelerated Life Testing and Environmental Research (ALTER) Facility
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, OH
Phone: (513) 556-2060, Fax: (513) 556-3148
Irieser© ucens. uc. edu
Linda Rieser
Linda Rieser joined the University of Cincinnati in 1981. She served as Senior Research Associate
from 1981 to 1991 and as Academic Director of UC's Accelerated Life Testing and Environmental
Research (ALTER) Facility for the last 9 years. Her expertise includes the application of experimental
methods to problems involving the solubility and mobility of hazardous and radioactive elements,
the origin and remediation waters and soil, and the treatment of hazardous and radioactive wastes.
Characterization and Leachability of Stabilized Mercury-Containing Wastes
EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) in collaboration with the
University of Cincinnati established a research program supporting Agency actions on mercury; in
particular, the potential revisions to the Land Disposal Restrictions for mercury-bearing wastes. Over
the past year, research has been conducted on the characterization and leachability of several mercury
waste forms. Wastes studied include mercuric sulfide sludges from several chemical plants, mercuric
chloride catalyst used in the manufacture of vinyl chloride, surrogate mercuric chloride and elemental
mercury wastes This presentation describes characterization of the stabilized waste samples and
analysis of leaching stability. The testing includes TCLP analysis and constant pH leaching tests to
determine the potential mobility and stability of the mercury under simulated landfill conditions.
The work to be presented was performed by Paul Randall (EPA) and Paul Bishop, Haishan Piao,
Renee Rauche, Linda Rieser, Makram Suidan, and Jian Zhang (UC).
57
-------
Treatment of Wastes Contaminated with Mercury
Paul R. Lear, Ph.D.
ET Corporation
304 Directors Drive
Knoxville, TN 37923
Phone: (865) 694.7316, FAX: (865) 694.9573
plear@ theitsrouv. com
Paul R. Lear, Ph.D.
Dr. Lear has over 12 years experience in the treatment of hazardous waste with dewatering, soil
washing and stabilization treatment technologies. He has experience in selecting and evaluating
treatment alternatives and providing data for preliminary design activities and project equipment
'specifications. He has conducted research in the area of innovative stabilization systems, including
systems for the stabilization of organic contaminants in hazardous wastestreams. Dr. Lear has also
conducted research into the stabilization of metals, concentrating on arsenic, mercury, thallium,
vanadium, antimony, and beryllium. He has extensive experience in the stabilization of hard-to-treat
wastestreams, such as hazardous waste incinerator residues. Dr. Lear has hands-on experience with
full-scale remediation activities and specializes in process troubleshooting. He has provided technical
operational support to bioremediation, dewatering soil washing, stabilization, thermal, and wastewater
treatment activities at remedial sites. He has also managed several pilot- and field-scale technology
demonstrations.
Treatment of Wastes Contaminated with Mercury
This presentation will focus on the treatment of wastes contaminated with mercury. Four technologies
(heavy metals bioremediation, surface decontamination, stabilization, and thermal desorption)
applicable for the treatment of mercury wastes will be discussed, along with data from selected case
studies.
Heavy metals bioremediation involves the stimulation of naturally occurring or augmented sulfur-
reducing bacteria. These bacteria produce sulfuric acid and reduce the pH of the waste to below 2.
Leaching of water through the waste removes the solubilized metals. The metals are then precipitated
from the leach solution and sent for metals recovery or disposal.
Surface decontamination combines physical and chemical removal of contamination on the surface
of debris such as concrete, block, and scrap metal. Extraction solutions containing chelants or acids
are applied to the surfaces, allowed to react, and collected. Vacuum techniques are often applied to
remove the extraction solution from semi-porous surfaces such as concrete. Multiple extractions are
often required, especially on semi-porous surfaces.
Stabilization of mercury involves re-speciation of the mercury contamination to mercury sulfides. The
chemistry required for re-speciation depends on the form of mercury in the waste. The solubility of
58
-------
mercury sulfides is on the order of 10 mg/L. The mercury sulfides are then encapsulated in a cement
matrix.
Thermal desorption involves the direct or indirect heating of the waste to volatilize the mercury. The
temperature required for the volatilization depends on the form of mercury in the waste. The
volatilized mercury is then condensed in the air pollution control system for recovery or disposal.
Case histories involve the application of thermal desorption and stabilization treatment technologies
to mercury-contaminated wastes.
Treatment of Mercury-Bearing Wastes
with Thermal Desorption Technology
David B. Malkmus
Applied Technologies Manager
SepraDyne Corporation
72011-35 North
Denton, TX 76207
Phone: (940)243-8203, Fax: (940) 243-9089
Dmalkmus. sevradvne @ iolt. com
David B. Malkmus
Mr. Malkmus received his degree (BS 1979) in Chemical Engineering from Clemson University with
specialization toward Environmental Engineering. He has over 20 years experience in the design,
startup operation and project management of waste processing systems used in the commercial and
energy industries including the Department of Energy and commercial nuclear power plants. Mr.
Malkmus has designed large scale, proprietary waste treatment systems incorporating advanced water
processing and state of the art waste minimization technologies. He has published several technical
papers regarding technology advances through EPRI, US DOE and the International Water
Conference.
High Vacuum Rotary Retort for the Recovery of Products and the Minimization of
Wastestreams
At a Westinghouse subsidiary, Scientific Ecology Group, Mr. Malkmus served as a fellow engineer
responsible for the evaluation, development, and deployment of new technologies for waste treatment
applications in addition to serving as a project manager in the Operations Department. Prior to that,
he held engineering and operation management positions with VECTRA Technologies, the SCANA
Corporation: VC Summer Nuclear Power Plant and the NUS Corporation.
59
-------
The SepraDyne Corporation has commercialized an extremely cost-effective process for removing
and recovering constituents having boiling points below 800°C. The process further provides a highly
efficient reduction in the volume of any remaining non-volatilized media. The process material is
indirectly heated within a rotating vessel under a high vacuum inert environment. The constituents
of concern are volatilized and diffused from the feed material through the off-gas treatment train.
Volatile constituents are condensed to liquid through an advanced impinger, chill water system. By
operating under high vacuum, the material boiling points are significantly reduced thus enabling the
ease of product recovery at lower operating temperatures. There is little decomposition of products
due to thermal energy. Since the desorption and product recovery process is performed in an oxygen-
free inert environment, there is no generation of furans and dioxins as well as any products of
incomplete combustion. All retort off-gases are condensed to liquid eliminating the potential release
of toxic substances to the atmosphere and thus permitting the recovery of the constituents for
beneficial use. In addition, secondary waste streams are not produced because a steam or gas stripping
media is not required to remove and transport chemicals from the processed material.
This paper will provide an overview of SepraDyne vacuum desorption system(s) and outline the
technological advances of the indirectly heated high vacuum retort. Also included are the results of
several commercial and DOE applications for the separation of mercury from previously classified
waste stream sources the minimization of waste sources and the near complete destruction of furans
and dioxins.
Permanent Mercury Disposal in Sweden
Kristina von Rein
Principal Technical Officer
Section for Chemicals Control
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
S-106 48 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: +46(0)8-6981127, Fax: +46(0)8-6981222
Kristina. von-rein @ environ, se
Kristina von Rein
Ms. von Rein has been with the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency since 1990, and is the
project leader for the Govermental Assignment that includes both an Action Programme for more
efficient collection of used goods and products containing mercury and preparation of a proposal for
final disposal in Sweden of mercury-containing waste.
Ms. von Rein has a M.S. degree in chemical engineering.
60
-------
Permanent Mercury Disposal in Sweden
Phase-out of mercury
Mercury is currently being phased out by means of various bans on the use of goods and products
containing this metal, the target year being 2000. Also, the export of mercury as a residual product
has been prohibited since July 1,1997. Exports of mercury waste for reprocessing and reuse abroad
is not a feasible alternative, at the same time as use of mercury in Sweden is being phased out. The
Agency believes that capacity for disposal of mercury-containing waste should exist within the
country.
Mercury is one of the most toxic of all pollutants. The burden of mercury on our environment must
be reduced since every addition is undesirable. The Swedish EPA believes that it is our generation
that must reverse the trend in order to create a healthy living environment for future generations. The
question of how to store waste containing mercury ultimately concerns finding a way of detoxifiyng
our society.
Disposal of mercury-containing waste
Large quantities of discarded goods are currently in storage pending a solution. Large amounts of
waste are also stored in industry, either temporarely or at sites which do not meet long-term
environmental safety requirements. The Swedish EPA considers this situation to be untenable. It is
therefore essential to find a method for the terminal storage of mercury.
In December 1997, the Swedish EPA presented a report, concluding several years of investigations,
to the Swedish government with the conclusion that disposal of waste containing mercury demands
a tailor-made solution. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency believes that mercury-
containing waste should be disposed of in such a manner that the mercury leaks to the external
environment as little as possible, viewed in a long-time perspective.
Deep storage rock - the best alternative
Alternative solutions have been compared, with a view to finding the form of terminal storage which
best fulfils stringent environmental requirements. The alternatives compared are high-quality surface
storage, shallow storage in rock and deep storage in rock. These options differ in philosophy and the
way in which the surrounding environment must be protected against emissions.
The EPA considers that deep storage in rock is the safest method of storage in the long term, since
it is the solution most in harmony with the environment; i.e., nature is used as a barrier and a buffer.
The surrounding bedrock will protect the functionality of the storage facility for thousands of years
or even longer. This solution can and should also be accompanied by technical measures to further
reduce the risk of future emissions and to compensate for our lack of knowledge about the long-term
processes governing the dispersal of mercury.
61
-------
Sub-Seabed Emplacement: Long-Term Ultimate Disposal of Mercury
Wastes in Geologic Formations on Land
D. R. (Rip) Anderson, Ph.D.
Sandia National Laboratories
P.O. Box 5800, MS-0779
Albuquerque, NM 87185
Phone: (505) 284-4600
drander@ sandia. sov
D.R. (Rip) Anderson, Ph.D.
Dr. Anderson has 39 years of experience at Sandia National Laboratories and currently is the Project
Manager for Sandia activities supporting the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Dr. Anderson's
responsibilities include: technical analysis, code development, quality assurance, testing, field and
laboratory data analysis, geotechnical and geochemical analysis, and incorporating the above into
performance assessment calculations for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.
Dr. Anderson is an internationally recognized expert in risk and performance assessment. As manager
of the WDPP Performance Assessment Department, Dr. Anderson led the construction and preparation
of performance assessment analysis for a compliance certification application to EPA which has led
to the opening of the first deep geological repository for radioactive wastes in the U.S. Dr. Anderson
also has led numerous waste disposal and management efforts, including, but not limited to, the Sub-
SeabedHigh Level Waste Project, the FUSRAP Disposal Program, and the Decommissioned Nuclear
Submarine Program.
Dr. Anderson has authored and co-authored more than 50 publications and reports dealing with waste
disposal, performance assessment and risk assessment. Dr. Anderson is also the editor of the
Radioactive Waste Management Journal.
Dr. Anderson earned a B.S. in Chemistry (1957) from Idaho State University, and a Ph.D. in
Theoretical Organic Chemistry and Chemical Oceanography (1961) from Oregon State University.
Land-Based Geologic Emplacement of Mercury Wastes
In 1979, Congress authorized the U.S. Department of Energy to build a research and development
facility - the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WTPP) - to demonstrate the safe disposal of defense nuclear
wastes containing transuranic radionuclides. The WIPP, located near Carlsbad, NM, was opened as
the world's first nuclear waste repository and received its first shipments of transuranic wastes in
March 1999.
The overall process of assessing whether or not a waste disposal system meets a set of performance
criteria is known as a Performance Assessment (PA). The WEPP PA, conducted by Sandia National
62
-------
Laboratories, provided important input to decisions on the safety of a plan of action using a detailed
procedure and scientific knowledge. For radioactive wastes, a computationally demanding set of risk-
based performance criteria was specified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These
were quantitative criteria that specified probabilistic limits that had to be met for the first 10,000 years
of operation of a nuclear waste facility. The WIPP PA group developed a suite of models to predict
future-behavior of the facility. The physical, chemical, and geological processes that determined the
behavior and evolution of the WIPP site were complex and highly nonlinear. The PA models that
describe the processes are complex and technically sophisticated, and can be used to study the
feasibility of the disposal of non-radioactive environmental contaminants with infinite half-lives, such
as mercury product wastes, in a land-based repository.
Mercury-Sniffing Dogs: The Swedish Experience
Kjell Avergren
Environmental Dogs' Manager
The Dog Training Centre in Solleftea, Sweden
+46 302 326 79
kiell. aversren @ swipnet. se
http://www. humanitydog. com
Kjell Avergren
Mr. Kjell Avergren has worked with environmental issues on both a governmental and a
consultant level (local, regional and national) since 1980. He has lead the four Mercury Tracing
Dogs projects within the Swedish EPA's mercury collecting program.
The Dog Training Centre in Solleftea and Mercury Decontamination.
Mercury - An environmental problem
Mercury is one of the world's most serious pollutants. One way to protect the environment is to
remove the mercury and deposit it in safe storage. The Swedish Parliament has concluded that
mercury plays no part in the natural world and the use of mercury should be phased out by the year
2000. In several mercury-collecting projects with the Swedish EPA, the Dog Training Centre in
Solleftea showed that it is possible to obtain low-cost, successful, and rapid results using mercury
tracing dogs. The strategy was to work together with many different actors, rather than using new or
more regulations. The outcome was remarkable..
63
-------
Mercury Dogs - The Cost-Effective Solution
In laboratories and chemical store cupboards, in hospitals, doctors' surgeries and dentists' consulting
rooms and throughout industry, mercury can be found in sinks, drains and sewage systems. The Dog
Training Centre now offers a mercury tracing service using sniffer dogs (The German Shepherd mr
Froy and the labrador mr Ville Sigmund) and dog handlers. The service enables the cost-effective
recovery of the mercury and prevents it from being dispersed in the environment through refuse or
in the sewage system. Using sniffer dogs benefits the environment and the customer's bank balance.
Tests have shown that using the dogs protects the environment, saves time and money, and generates
goodwill.
More than 3,000 kg of mercury were collected from more than 1,200 schools, 20 universities and
many hospitals taking part in different Swedish EPA projects. A number of doctors' surgeries, den-
tists' rooms, laboratories and business premises also participated in the projects. The dogs traced
hidden mercury in sinks and floors in many thousands of buildings. German Shepherd mr Froy and
labrador mr Ville Sigmund from the Dog Training Centre in Solleftea, Ltd., saved at the same time
up to 3-3.5 million U.S. dollars in reduced decontamination costs. On average 5.300-8.800 U.S.
dollars in clean-up costs were saved each working day, resulting in a short pay-off time.
The dogs' achievement has attracted positive publicity from television, radio, newspapers, magazines
and on the Internet in both Sweden and abroad. They have been the subject of more than 2,000 items,
including 90 television programmes.
The Dog Training Centre is part of the Iris Group, owned by the Foundation of the Visually Impaired,
and the company's profit benefits the visually impaired. Humanity Dog trains guide dogs for the blind
and breeds dogs to detect drugs, mould, PCB, oil, fire and mines. As part of its constant effort to
improve the environment, the Centre has joined the "Green Trade network", established by the
Swedish Trade Council.
Mercury Source Reduction and Recycling in Electrical Products
Eric (Ric) Erdheim
Senior Manager/Government Affairs, National Electrical Manufacturers Association
Executive Director, Thermostat Recycling Corporation
National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)
1300 North 17th Street, Suite 1847
Rosslyn, Virginia 22209
Phone: (703) 841-3249, Fax: (703) 841-3349
ric erdheim@nema.ors
Eric (Ric) Erdheim
Ric Erdheim is Senior Manager for Government Affairs at the National Electrical Manufacturers
Association. He represents electrical manufacturers on environmental, occupational health, consumer
64
-------
product safety, and fire safety issues. He also serves as the Executive Director of the Thermostat
Recycling Corporation, an organization formed by the major thermostat manufacturers to operate a
wholesaler take-back program for mercury switch thermostats.
Mr. Erdheim spent ten years as a Congressional aide, most of that time as Environmental Legislative
Assistant to Senator Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey. Mr. Erdheim played a significant role in
enactment of the ozone transport and air toxics provisions of the Clear Air Act Amendments of 1990,
the Pollution Prevention Act, the Ocean Dumping Ban Act, and the Mercury Containing and
Rechargeable Battery Management Act.
Mr. Erdheim graduated from the University of Pennsylvania with a B A in Economics and the George
Washington University Law School.
Mercury Source Reduction and Recycling in Electrical Products
Manufacturers have used mercury in batteries, lamps and thermostats. Each has industry has adopted
different approaches to reducing environmental exposure to mercury that reflect the unique
characteristics of the product.
In the 1980s, battery manufacturers used over 1,000 tons of mercury a year, mostly to make alkaline
batteries. In response to environmental concerns, the industry developed alternatives to mercury in
virtually all batteries. As a result, the only consumer batteries manufactured today that contain any
mercury are button cell batteries. With the phase-out of mercury use by 1993, mercury from alkaline
batteries in the waste stream has dropped from 10,000 PPM to less than 300 PM. This level will
decline by 50% every two years. This significant decline has been partially responsible for the
declines in mercury levels from incinerators.
Lamp manufacturers have reduced the average mercury level in four foot lamps from 48 mg in 1985
to 11.6 mg in 1999. As a result, mercury contained in lamps has dropped significantly. More
importantly, use of mercury-containing lamps results in a net decrease in mercury because of the
energy efficient nature of the lamps as contrasted with no mercury but energy inefficient incandescent
bulbs.
Manufacturers cannot reduce the amount of mercury used in mercury switch thermostats. The average
mercury level in these thermostats is 3-4 grams. To address the problem of disposing of a product
with such relatively high levels of mercury as compared to lamps, manufacturers have established the
Thermostat Recycling Corporation to recapture mercury-switch thermostats. In the first eighteen
months of operations in nine states, the TRC has recovered 270 pounds of mercury. This program
works because of the unique characteristics of thermostats and is not necessarily a model for other
products.
These examples indicate that manufacturers use mercury in a wide range of products for different
purposes. The products differ in: units sold, mercury levels, size and product composition, users
65
-------
(businesses/specialized installers/homeowners) and other factors. Because of these differences, issues
involved in waste management vary for each product necessitating different approaches.
DSCP Buying Green
Anthony Armentani
Program Manager, Lighting Products
Defense Supply Center Philadelphia
700 Robbins Ave
Philadelphia Pa. 19111-5096
Phone: (215) 737-8047, Fax: (215) 697-9093
aarmentani @ dscv. dla. mil
Anthony Armentani
Anthony Armentani is currently the Program Manager for Lighting Products at the Defense Supply
Center Philadelphia. In this position Mr. Armentani is responsible for leading a team of associates
in the acquisition, inventory management, technical and quality support initiatives in the management
of over 60,000 commercial, non-commercial and military unique lighting items.
Mr. Armentani has over twenty years of federal service, all with the Defense Logistic Agency. He
started his career at the Defense Industrial Supply Center (DISC) in Philadelphia as an Equipment
Specialist and quickly moved up to Team leader, Supervisor and Branch Chief of the Miscellaneous
Hardware and Physical Security Equipment unit in the Technical Operations Directorate. Mr.
Armentani spent four years, as the Technical Data Manager at DISC where he was responsible for the
acquisition, management and distribution of all the technical data required for competitive
procurements at the center. Mr. Armentani spent two years on the Commanders staff at DISC,
reengineering the work processes and participated in the development of DSCP's Innovative Logistic
Support units that have allowed for a strong customer focus.
Mr. Armentani is a graduate of Rowan University in Glassboro, NJ.
Buying Green
The DSCP presentation will cover the methods and guidelines utilized by the DSCP Lighting Team
in the acquisition and support of energy-efficient low-mercury lighting products. The presenter will
discuss the DSCP/DLA customer commitment, The advantages and related savings in the use of low-
mercury energy-efficient lamps and the projects and partnerships that we nurture and develop to
ensure widespread energy-efficient lighting use throughout the federal sector. The briefing will
identify Energy and environmental guidelines used in the acquisition of energy-efficient products,
various types of low-mercury lamps available through DSCP and what new technologies are on the
horizon for federal energy users. The presenters will also discuss the different ways to research, select
66
-------
and order these energy-efficient low-mercury products from DSCP. Primary presenter for DSCP will
be Tony Armentani Program Manager-Lighting.
EPA/AHA Agreement: Reduction of Mercury Wastes from
Hospitals/Health Care Facilities
Chen Wen
Program Analyst
Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (MC-7409)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-4109, Fax: (202) 260-0178
wen.chen@eva.sov
Chen Wen
Chen is currently serving as a team member of the EPA Hospitals for a Healthy Environment
(H2E) project, and staffs a number of different workgroups associated with H2E. Prior to
working on H2E, Chen served in a number of diverse posts throughout the EPA, including:
Program manager of the Environmental Justice Through Pollution Prevention Grant
Program;
Program manager of the Pollution Prevention and Insurance Project;
Vice President Gore's Task Force for Government Reinvention;
Agency Task Force for Contracts Management Reform.
Prior to joining the EPA, Chen obtained his Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from the
University of Washington, and his Master of Arts degree in Public Policy Studies from the
University of Chicago.
EPA/AHA Agreement: Reduction of Mercury Wastes from
Hospitals/Health Care Facilities
EPA's Voluntary Agreement with the American Hospital Association and Its Implications on the
Need for Agency Standard for the Disposal of Mercury According to EPA's Mercury Report to
Congress, the healthcare industry is the 4th largest source of mercury release. The mercury
release eventually find its way into the food chain, and back to humans.
The voluntary agreement between the American Hospital Association - which represent some 85
percent of all healthcare facilities in the United States - and the EPA outlines a number of goals.
One of the stand-outs is to "virtually eliminate" mercury-containing waste by 2005.
67
-------
Mercury Content of Products Commonly Used by
Boston Area Hospitals
Kevin McManus
Toxic Reduction and Control Department (TRAC)
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
5313 38 St., NW
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (202)362-6034, Fax: (202)362-6632
Kevin McManus
Mr. Kevin McManus is the Director of the Toxic Reduction and Control Department (TRAC) of the
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority.
Mr. McManus is responsible for implementation of the MWRA's Industrial Pretreatment Program.
MWRA currently regulates approximately 1,100 industrial and commercial dischargers in order to
control the loadings of heavy metals and organic pollutants to MWRA's new treatment plant on Deer
Island. TRAC also works with trade organizations, municipalities and other agencies to reduce toxics
from a wide array of non-industrial sources such as hospitals, laboratories, photoprocessors, dental
facilities and automotive facilities.
Prior to coming to the MWRA in 1993, Mr. McManus worked for seven years with Metcalf and
Eddy, Inc., managing the environmental compliance programs for numerous private and public
construction projects. He also worked as General Manager for Offshore Devices, Inc., a marine
engineering firm specializing in the manufacture and use of offshore oil spill cleanup equipment.
Mr. McManus has an undergraduate degree in Marine Policy from the University of Rhode Island,
a Masters degree in Marine Resource Management from the University of Washington, and a Master
of Business Administration degree from Boston University.
New Strategies for Reducing Mercury Discharges from Health Care Facilities
The five-year MWRA/Hospital Mercury Workgroup is a cooperative effort between the
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) and Boston-area hospitals and medical facilities
to reduce the discharge of mercury-containing products from hospitals to the sewer system. This
workgroup identified mercury in many products that have commonly been used in hospitals and other
medical facilities, such as blood test reagents and cleaning products. The workgroup has actively
researched mercury-free alternatives to many of these products, and developed a mercury products
database which is available to area hospitals and other interested parties.
68
-------
The workgroup also:
Developed standards for replacing piping where mercury can accumulate over time;
Prepared guidance documents for industries detailing mercury compliance problems;
Assessed loadings of mercury from industrial dischargers in the MWR A sewer service area; and
Conducted pilot-scale testing of promising mercury pretreatment systems.
A key factor in gaining the cooperation of facilities in the workgroup was MWRA's Mercury Safe
Harbor Program. Under this program, MWRA will not escalate enforcement (beyond enforcement
orders) against companies that have non-compliant mercury discharges, provided they actively
participate in the program and demonstrate progress in reducing their mercury discharges. Under this
program, the MWRA has divided its non-compliant mercury dischargers into two groups. Group 1
consists of sewer users whose discharge contains 0.004 mg/1 or less of mercury; Group 2 consists of
sewer users whose discharge contains more than 0.004 mg/1 of mercury. Facilities that operate outside
the safe harbor will be subject to escalating enforcement including monetary penalties.
To date, this cooperative effort has resulted in a significant decrease in mercury concentrations from
the facilities permitted by the MWRA in the metropolitan Boston region. The 29 major hospitals and
medical centers (representing 55 individual sampling locations) were a maj or source of mercury from
MWRA's permitted users. Since 1995,77% of these sampling locations have achieved compliance
(1 part per billion or less), and only 9% remain above 4 parts per billion on a consistent basis.
Average mercury discharge concentrations from these hospitals dropped from 22 ppb in 1994 to 2 ppb
in 1999.
Eliminating Non-Essential Mercury Uses
Michael T. Bender
Mercury Policy Project
1420 North St.
Montpelier, VT 05602
Phone: (802) 223-9000, Fax: (802) 223-7914
MTBenderVT@aol.com
httt>://www.mercurvr>olicy. ors
Michael T. Bender
Michael Bender is a consultant to the Mercury Policy Project, a small, nonprofit enterprise
dedicated to reducing human exposures to mercury and the virtual elimination of anthropogenic
mercury releases. The Project identifies strategic opportunities and works collaboratively with
business, government and nongovernment officials toward attaining its goals.
Michael has over 10 years experience in municipal hazardous waste management and has focused
on mercury for the past several. From 1995 to 1997, Michael worked to secure the release of the
Mercury Report to Congress and since then has provided input on the Universal Waste Rule and
the Mercury-Containing Lamps Rule, the New England Governors/Eastern Canadian Premiers
69
-------
Mercury Action Plan, the North American Regional Action Plan on Mercury and the Agency for
Toxics Substances and Disease Registry's mercury reference level.
Michael has a Bachelor of Arts in General Studies and a Masters of Science in Resource
Management and Administration from Antioch New England.
Phasing Out Thermometers and Other Non-Essential Mercury-Containing Products
The top priority of federal, tribal and state waste hierarchies is source reduction, with special
attention paid to eliminating substances in products, like mercury, when they are found to present
some of the most profound risks to human health, wildlife and the environment. For mercury-
containing products, then, whenever viable, environmentally sound and cost-effective alternatives
are identified that contain no mercury, they should become the preference of government
procurement programs and strongly supported as the preferred societal choice. For this to occur
effectively, non-essential mercury-containing products must be "virtually eliminated" over time
by phasing out their manufacture, import and sale. As an interim step, existing products should be
collected and properly managed to prevent the haphazard release of mercury indoors or into the
environment. There are currently a number of initiatives where both voluntary and mandatory
phase-outs of mercury-containing products are being carefully considered, developed or
implemented. This paper will present several case study examples.
70
-------
Appendix C
Panel Discussion Summary - Treatment and Disposal
C.1 Introduction
Two panel discussions were held during the workshop; the first addressed treatment and
disposal of mercury-contaminated wastes and the second addressed prevention, collection, and
elimination issues. Each panel discussion opened with an overview emphasizing key findings
and issues presented during the workshop. After each source panelist briefly discussed what he
or she thought were the most critical and controversial issues, an open discussion period was
initiated. It was assumed that the issues discussed by the panelists and audience would be
based on the list of questions and topics provided to workshop attendees prior to the workshop.
The goal of the panel discussions was to work toward consensus on these critical issues.
Panel A contained one facilitator and five panelists. There was a note-taker present to ensure
the that the product of the discussions was captured. The focus of the panel and any questions
provided to workshop attendees or panelists are included in the written summary generated for
each panel session.
C.2 Focus/Emphasis of Panel Discussion on Treatment and Disposal
The purpose of the Panel Discussion on Treatment and Disposal was (a) to discuss the state of
the art of mercury non-combustion treatment and disposal techniques for mercury wastes and
stockpiles, and (b) to identify major research needs/directions required to meet the goal of
bringing the state of technologies, or any other options, closer to environmentally safe
(including in the long term), cost-effective treatment and disposal processes.
C.3 Treatment and Disposal Panel Members
Ben Blaney of U.S. EPA NRMRL was the panel moderator and Paul Kalb of Brookhaven
National Laboratory, Paul Lear of IT Corp., Ed Swain of Minnesota OEA, Greg Hulet of U.S.
DOE/BBWXT Co., and Fred Charania of U.S. EPA OSW served as panelists.
C.4 Questions/Topics for Treatment and Disposal Panel Discussion
The panelists were asked to respond to two sets of questions in turn.
Question A: State of the Art and Significant Advances.
What are two or three accomplishments described in Session A that may support
significant advances in the state of the art in non-combustion options for mercury
waste/stockpile treatment and disposal techniques?
Note: Statements captured in the panel discussion are those of participants, not necessarily EPA.
71
-------
Based on your general knowledge, how would you characterize the state of the art of
non-combustion techniques for mercury treatment and disposal with respect to where
we currently stand in meeting the goal stated above?
Question B: Research Needs.
What are three priority research areas you feel are most important to address so that we
can make significant steps toward reaching the goal stated above?
C.5 Summary of the Treatment and Disposal Panel
C.5.1 Chair Comments
Ben Blaney, U.S. EPA NRMRL
C.5.2 Panel Member Comments
Paul Kalb, Brookhaven National Laboratory
Paul Kalb presented the following comments in response to Questions A and B.
Regarding the State of the Art:
Effective technologies exist. The state of the art is good from the perspective of where
we are now. Effective technologies exist for treating mercury waste containing both
less than and greater than 260 ppm mercury. These technologies are either currently
commercially available or soon to be available. The available technologies are more
similar than dissimilar in that they focus_on keeping mercury immobile or insoluble.
Regarding Accomplishments Supporting Advances:
Mercury sulfide. The mercury sulfide method of stabilization and disposal is
significant because it essentially puts mercury back where it came from.
Waste type. Recent technologies make a distinction between Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) wastes and mixed waste mercury.
Thermal desorption. Thermal desorption may be the most sensible technology
for mercury-contaminated soils because it can also deal with organics and other
species.
Paul Kalb described the following research needs for performance testing and measurement:
Alternatives to the TCLP
There is a need to identify alternatives to compensate for the failings of the TCLP,
which (a) only concentrates on one pH range, and is therefore not representative of
Note: Statements captured in the panel discussion are those of participants, not necessarily EPA.
72
-------
long-term landfill conditions; (b) only provides a small duration snapshot (18 hours);
(c) provides no mechanism information; and (d) has artificial particle size requirements.
Durability of Solid Matrices
There is a need for more data on the durability of solid matrices used to immobilize
mercury in waste. We need to understand how the forms will hold up over time.
Paul Lear, IT Corp.
Paul Lear presented the following comments in response to Question B.
Regarding the State of the Art:
As good as it will get. There are many treatment and disposal options -
amalgamation, stabilization, thermal treatments - that are almost commercially
available. There is no "silver bullet" technology available, or likely to be
identified; only incremental changes in technologies will occur from now on.
Treatment determined by market and waste. The available technologies are
similar, and for any given case, the best treatment and disposal option will be
determined by the market and waste type.
Regarding Accomplishments Supporting Advances:
Formation of partnerships. The next step in advancing treatment and disposal will
come from the formation of partnerships between waste generators, treaters, and
regulators, and getting the available technologies out to the field.
Paul Lear described the following research needs:
Mercury Emissions from Landfills
There is a need for additional research into mercury emissions from landfills to
determine the potential for environmental impact from mercury waste after disposal.
Shortcomings of TCLP
There is a need for standardization, with the regulatory and scientific communities in
agreement. Standardization will increase confidence in the measurement results.
Ed Swain, Minnesota OEA
Ed Swain presented the following comments in response to Questions A and B.
Note: Statements captured in the panel discussion are those of participants, not necessarily EPA.
73
-------
Regarding the State of the Art:
Are the performance standards appropriate? There is a tendency to draw lines, such as
"insoluble" and "no offgassing" when referring to the treatment and disposal of
mercury-contaminated wastes, but all of these terms are measures of degree. Just
because a waste can pass the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) does
not mean it's environmentally benign, so we need to think of the bigger picture, the
total mercury mass in the atmosphere. If all waste is treated, how much mercury will
join the global or regional pool?
Ed Swain described the following research needs:
Durable long-term storage
There is a need for further research into durable long-term storage forms for sulfides
and matrices.
Durable short-term storage
There is a need for further research into durable short-term stockpile storage options for
elemental mercury.
International Technology Transfer
There is a need for technology transfer to other countries to prevent them from making
the same mistakes as the U.S.. Ed Swain suggested an international policy forum to
discuss reduction of mercury use and consumption, and the provision of international
incentives to reduce mercury use and pollution.
Greg Hulet, U.S. DOE/BBWXT Co.
Greg Hulet presented the following comments in response to Questions A and B.
Regarding the State of the Art:
There are problems that must be addressed. There are some problems in the current
state of the art. Metal amalgams have a vapor pressure similar to elemental mercury, so
there are questions about the long-term stability and potential for vapor release of this
disposal solution. There are questions about the long-term performance of
macroencapsulation methods and materials. While stabilization appears to meet the
disposal standards, it is unknown what happens under real landfill conditions with
changing pH.
Note: Statements captured in the panel discussion are those of participants, not necessarily EPA.
74
-------
Regarding Accomplishments Supporting Advances:
Electrochemical processes. Progress in developing electrochemical processes,
which could have many future applications, would be welcome. This
technology could be improved or modified for DOE use.
SAMMS material. The newly engineered S AMMS material, which may be
useable as a drop-in replacement for ion-exchange, appears to have potential.
Greg Hulet described the following research needs:
Non-Intrusive Mercury Measurement
There is a need to develop a non-intrusive method for measuring or identifying mercury
in waste or matrix. Non-intrusive identification of mercury will allow easier
identification and disposal of non-mercury wastes.
Transmutation of Radionuclides
There is a need for further research into the transmutation of radionuclides to discover
how we can better identify and treat mercury and mercury wastes.
Long-term Performance of Disposal Options
There is a need for further research into the long-term performance of amalgamation
and macroencapsulation.
Fred Charania, U.S. EPA OSW
Fred Charania presented the following comments in response to Question B.
Regarding the State of the Art:
The paradigm is changing. The legal standard is 'minimize threat to human health and
the environment', and recent technological advances allow us to address this more
effectively than in the past.
Minimizing the threat means considering multimedia issues, such as offgassing
and leaching. We must think of the long-term issues, because a waste passing
TCLP to go to a landfill is not sufficiently protective. The effects of pH in
landfills have not been fully examined to determine the true safety of disposal.
We need to address mixtures of organics and mercury together.- Is there a
treatment train that should be designated as the Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BOAT)?
Note: Statements captured in the panel discussion are those of participants, not necessarily EPA.
75
-------
Little data were received when the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPRM) was issued, but data are expected within the next 6 months. Research
is a occurring, and data on treatment processes are needed and wanted. The data
should be incorporated in the rulemaking docket so the designation of a BDAT
can be examined.Fred Charania described the following research needs:
Characterization of Hazardous Waste Stream
There is a need for economic and characterization information on the hazardous waste
stream. While Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is well characterized, hazardous waste
codes such as D009 yield little information about the waste. More information
regarding the waste will enable more efficient recycling, treatment, and disposal.
Treatment of Commingled Waste
There is a need for further research on the treatment of commingled organics and
mercury. Can there be an effective treatment train identified and designated as the
BDAT?
Effects of pH on Storage and Disposal
There is a need for further research on the effects of pH on storage and disposal of
mercury wastes. Previous testing has assumed a constant pH, which may not be
accurate under real storage and disposal conditions, such as a landfill. It must be
determined whether fluctuations in pH will reduce the suitability of some storage and
disposal technologies.
C.5.3 Open Discussion
Deep Geological Repository for Mercury Wastes
Should we be considering utilizing deep disposal for mercury wastes? Is this a better
option than surface disposal?
Deep geological repositories are currently being used in Europe. Mercury
wastes are sent down old mines.
There may be a need to segregate wastes before disposal. A dedicated
repository (mercury wastes segregated from other waste streams) would prevent
co-disposal problems.
If the current problems with surface disposal can be solved, surface disposal
may be preferable to deep disposal because landfills can be monitored. Deep
disposed wastes are difficult to monitor and cannot be moved if they begin to
present environmental problems.
Note: Statements captured in the panel discussion are those of participants, not necessarily EPA.
76
-------
Deep disposal may be preferable to surface disposal, because of the greater
potential for exposure from surface disposal. Long-term geological issues such
as landfill cracking may also make deep disposal more desirable.
Mercury from deep geological repositories may find a way back to the surface in
natural gas and oil. There is a paper in Environmental Progress on this issue by
Dr. Wilhelm.
Mercury in Landfills
Are landfills a feasible long-term option for mercury wastes? If not, what should be
done about mercury wastes previously disposed of in landfills?
Mercury-related environmental issues from landfills may be air emissions,
rather than leachate.
Mercury air emissions from landfills are a only minor problem. Without a
carrier gas, such as methane, slow diffusion of mercury would occur rather than
air emissions.
There are bacteria in municipal solid waste (MSW) which may create methyl
mercury, introducing a major pathway for human exposure as it bioaccumulates
in fish.
There are long-term geological issues with landfill disposal of hazardous wastes,
such as landfill cracking.
If deep disposal becomes the favored option, should previously surface-disposed
mercury wastes be mined from landfills? There is little data regarding mercury
in leachate from landfills, so it is not known if previously landfilled wastes will
be a problem in the future.
Because of the chlor-alkali facilities closing and the Department of Defense
(DOD) eliminating stockpile, handling of existing mercury and mercury waste
will take precedence over landfill mining for the foreseeable future, unless
landfill leachate begins to pose an environmental hazard.
Stockpile Elimination Effect on Mercury Supply and Demand
The long-term effects of stockpile reduction, recycling, and mercury mining should be
analyzed to ensure a proper balance between mercury supply and demand. If the
stockpile is eliminated, will we need to mine more mercury to meet demand?
Secondary and byproduct mercury production meets the current demand. As
long as we mine materials that coexist with mercury and have mercury
recycling, there will always be a plentiful supply of mercury for domestic needs.
The secondary production in the U.S. almost meets the current demand.
Some of the stockpile should be reserved as a cushion for the market and future
needs, but the majority should be eliminated.
Note: Statements captured in the panel discussion are those of participants, not necessarily EPA.
77
-------
Mercury retorters say there is a market for their recycled mercury. If there is a
market and use for the product, why remove the product using questionable
treatment and disposal techniques?
The public wants mercury to be retired rather than recycled for future use. We
need to convey that recycling mercury reduces the amount mined.
As mercury use by the chlor-alkali industry is being reduced (it agreed to reduce
mercury use by 80%), decommissioned mercury will add greatly to the market
supply.
Mercury recovery doesn't necessarily mean recycling. Recovered mercury
could be stored rather than put into use.
The government used to subsidize mercury mining. Perhaps the government
should buy back the mercury to stockpile and dispose.
Congress should limit the uses of mercury by law to encourage alternatives.
There is currently no economic incentive to use mercury alternatives.
Mercury in Wastewater and Direct Discharge
What is the best technology to identify and reduce mercury in wastewater and direct
discharge?
In the Great Lakes, mercury in water can be quantified at 1.0 ng/ml.
There is no treatment option to the direct discharge level.
The treatment technologies presented have not been geared toward wastewater
treatment, but there are other technologies available.
Getting mercury down to ppt levels is difficult, and treatment to that level is
unreliable. The form of the mercury makes a difference in its treatability.
Rather than concentrating on treatment of wastewater, we should focus on
source reduction, which has greater potential for reducing mercury to acceptable
levels in the long-term.
Temporary-/Short-Term Storage for Mercury Wastes and Stockpiles
Has short-term storage been considered for the decommissioned mercury stockpile?
The stockpile is still in the hands of DOD. Additional short-term storage has
not been considered because existing short-term mercury storage is not suitable.
Short-term storage of mercury could be used as a method to regulate the market.
To assess the usefulness of short-term storage as a market regulator, we need
more information on the economics, future use projects, and supply of mercury.
The 90-day rule is limited to generator waste and RCRA sites. Elemental
mercury that can be used as a product may not be classifiable as a waste.
Note: Statements captured in the panel discussion are those of participants, not necessarily EPA.
78
-
-------
Formerly Contaminated Sites
Mercury production or use sites exist around the world. What should be done with
formerly contaminated production sites?
No participants were aware of any of international reclamation efforts.
Mercury cell plants abroad are often converted for alternative uses rather than
cleaned.
Improve Material Collection
Collection of mercury waste materials could be improved to reduce emissions and
facilitate recycling.
Research and Development
Research and development will not take place in a vacuum; we must create a demand
for it. Enforcement of mercury cleanup regulations would create a market for the new
technologies that research and development would bring. Enforcement will lead to
market demand, which leads to research and development, which leads to better
cleanup, treatment, and disposal.
Lessons Learned
All of the problems being addressed at this conference are identical or similar to those
addressed in the past for nuclear waste. We should take care to follow the lessons
learned from those efforts to avoid making the same mistakes.
Applicability of Treatment Technologies
There is currently no one technology which can address all matrix types with significant
volumes of waste. We need to focus on getting technologies to work together in a
treatment train. The available technologies will always need tweaking based on the
type of waste needing treatment. There will never be one technology or approach for all
waste streams. Know what you're treating and verify the performance of your treatment
technology.
Additional Research Needs. Members of the audience contributed suggestions.
Characterization of mercury in sediments and research into ecological impacts.
Methods for faster, cheaper, and better characterization and cleanup, especially
non-intrusive characterization.
Mercury in the presence of radionuclides.
Note: Statements captured in the panel discussion are those of participants, not necessarily EPA.
79
-------
Separation of mercury from matrices without the use of thermal processes.
Chemical-based separation would allow wastes to be incinerated.
Long-term durability of waste forms in surface storage. Disposal conditions
must be reducing, not oxidizing.
Note: Statements captured in the panel discussion are those of participants, not necessarily EPA.
80
-------
Appendix D
Panel Discussion Summary - Prevention, Collection, and Elimination
D.1 Introduction
Two panel discussions were held during the workshop; the first addressed treatment and
disposal of mercury-contaminated wastes and the second addressed prevention, collection, and
elimination issues. Each panel discussion opened with an overview emphasizing key findings
and issues presented during the workshop. After each source panelist briefly discussed what he
or she thought were the most critical and controversial issues, an open discussion period was
initiated. It was assumed that the issues discussed by the panelists and audience would be
based on the list of questions and topics provided to workshop attendees prior to the workshop.
The goal of the panel discussions was to work toward consensus on these critical issues.
Panel B contained two facilitators and five panelists. There was a note-taker present to ensure
the that the product of the discussions was captured. The focus of the panel and any questions
provided to workshop attendees or panelists are included in the written summary generated for
each panel session.
D.2 Focus/Emphasis of the Panel Discussion on Prevention, Collection, and
Elimination
The Panel Discussion on Prevention, Collection, and Elimination focused on the need to reduce
the amount of mercury entering the waste stream through improved pollution prevention
techniques, waste collection methods, and source reduction.
D.3 Prevention, Collection, and Elimination Panel Members
Doug Grosse and Jon Herrmann of U.S. EPA ORD were the panel moderators, and Alexis Cain
of U.S. EPA Region V, John Gilkeson of Minnesota OEA, George Gissel of Vulcan
Chemicals, Edward Weiler of U.S. EPA OPPT, and Jane Williams of California Communities
Against Toxics served as panelists.
D.4 Question/Topics for the Panel Discussion on Prevention, Collection, and
Elimination
1. What are the two or three most important insights you want to convey to the audience
regarding the management of mercury from non-combustion issues?
2. What are the two or three most critical/essential efforts that need to be undertaken to
prevent, eliminate, treat, or dispose of mercury from non-combustion sources?
3. Name two or three data gaps or information needs for mercury risk management from
non-combustion sources.
81
-------
4.
Prioritize the two or three most important research needs for managing risks from non-
combustion sources of mercury.
D.5 Summary of the Panel Discussion on Prevention, Collection, and
Elimination
D.5.1 Chair Comments
Doug Grosse introduced the facilitated panel discussion on prevention, collection, and
elimination issues (Panel B). He emphasized that ORD is interested in the thoughts, ideas, and
suggestions of the workshop, participants.
D.5.2 Panel Member Comments
Alexis Cain, USEPA Region V
Alexis Cain described the following research needs:
Division of Mercury Sources by Deliberate Use and Trace Contamination of Raw
Materials
Alexis Cain felt that although the Workshop's division of mercury sources by
combustion and noncombustion sources is useful, categorizing mercury sources by
emissions related to the deliberate use mercury and the emissions that are related to the
contamination of raw materials with trace amounts of mercury is also informative
because it:
Avoids the confusion of equating combustion emissions with only coal-fired
utility emissions. As currently defined by EPA, combustion sources include
incinerators. Incinerators, however, do not make mercury, but receive mercury
from mercury-containing wastes as a result of mercury use in products.
Evens the division of mercury sources. If emissions are categorized on a
deliberate use basis, use-related emissions are about 50% of total emissions;
when categorized on a combustion basis, combustion-related emissions
constitute about 90% of total emissions.
Improves consideration of life cycle emissions. Since incinerator emissions
represent the end of a product's life cycle, this method of division makes it
easier to look at different points along a product's life cycle to assess
opportunities to control mercury emissions.
Life Cycle Emissions by Product Type
Alexis Cain contended that there is an inadequate understanding of life cycle emissions
by product type. He explained that this research can help prioritize mercury collection efforts.
There are some data on mercury emissions from mercury-containing products, although
these estimates do not seem to be based on actual measurements. There are better data
82
-------
from incinerators, but these data could also be improved. However, he contends that
there is a paucity of data regarding emissions estimates from some of the other phases
> of the mercury product life cycle, in particular:
Accidental emissions that occur during product use.
Emissions associated with collecting, processing, storage, and transport of
wastes prior to incineration.
Emissions that occur from landfills, particularly the working faces of landfills.
6 Mercury emissions from the use of metal scrap, For example, emissions from
mercury switches placed in automobiles are currently not accounted for in EPA
emissions estimates, though these emissions could be significant.
Increase Focus on Prevention Opportunities
Currently cost effectiveness data are based on cost effectiveness per mass of mercury
collected rather than on the prevention of mercury releases. Alexis Cain would like to
see more emphasis on the following areas for prevention efforts:
Auto industry. There should be more research on this sector because most of
the mercury associated with automobiles is ultimately released into the
environment.
Electrical Switches. Alexis Cain cites data presented by Bruce Lawrence
(Bethlehem Apparatus Company) in the plenary session that electrical products,
particularly mercury relays in capital equipment, are now the largest user of
mercury in the U.S. (even more than the chlor-alkali industry) - now estimated
at 110 tons per year. Moreover, mercury use in electrical switches has not
decreased over the past 20 years.
Pursue Voluntary Efforts
Although voluntary efforts are not always effective, Alexis Cain states that it does not
hurt to try, and his experience with the chlor-alkali industry shows that voluntary efforts
can yield positive results.
George Gissel, Vulcan Chemicals
George Gissel looks to the first two questions (questions a and b) as supporting a practical
approach to mercury management and control and the second two questions (questions c and d)
as addressing the longer range issues.
83
-------
Questions (a) and (b)
George Gissel stressed that the guides to answering the first two questions are
cooperation and achievable goals.
Cooperation. Cooperation is key on two fronts:
Cooperation within the chlor-alkali industry. The chlor-alkali industry realized
that some plants are better at mercury control than others, and they can all learn
from each other without engaging in uncompetitive practices.
Cooperation with their respective state agencies and the EPA. By working with
regulators toward a common goal of regulations that reduce mercury, both
parties can maximize their limited resources.
Achievable Goals. The chlor-alkali industry has publically committed to a goal
of a 50% reduction in mercury use (using a 1990-95 baseline) by 2005. A few
companies, including Vulcan Chemicals, have set a goal of a 50% mercury
consumption reduction based on a 1999 baseline. The industry intends to
achieve these goals through cooperation. All plants are on track to achieving
their goals.
Members of the chlor-alkali industry have worked together to address the following
issues:
Mercury in sodium hydroxide. The chlor-alkali industry's mercury in sodium
hydroxide task group is about to release a draft publication that details the best
thinking available on minimizing mercury in sodium hydroxide.
Mercury health issues. The chlor-alkali industry has also convened a mercury
health issues task group that has looked into guaranteeing that the best science is
used to ensure worker safety at chlor-alkali facilities.
Mercury balance. George Gissel stated that his company has assessed its
mercury balance since 1973. Other chlor-alkali companies have looked toward
Vulcan Chemicals to assist them in establishing a mercury balance. Vulcan
Chemicals has given seminars to the chlor-alkali industry about mercury
balance, as well as a seminar to the EPA in Boston. Through a multi-year
examination of mercury consumption and purchasing, a facility can gain a better
understanding of minimizing mercury consumption and losses.
Cross-plant/cross-industry sharing for continuous improvement. The chlor-
alkali industry formed the Mercury Control Task Group to identify the best
industry practices. This task group has produced two in-plant technology
exchange workshops in 1999; it has a third workshop planned for 2000. These
workshops provide detailed descriptions on using specific technologies.
84
-------
The chlor-alkali industry has worked with the EPA to address the following issues:
Measuring cell room fugitive emissions. The chlor-alkali industry formed a
mercury emissions measurement task group to work with the EPA toward a
common goal of measuring cell room fugitive emissions. The EPA at Research
Triangle Park (RTF) developed the protocol. Testing is now underway at the
Olin Corporation's Augusta, Georgia, facility. The Chlorine Institute covered
the out-of-pocket costs of Olin Corporation and the EPA is underwriting the
cost of the equipment and measurements.
Revising National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) regulations. The EPA worked with the chlor-alkali industry revising
the NESHAP regulations. They are conducting multi-day observations at five
facilities owned by four companies.
Questions (c) and (d)
George Gissel emphasized that the key to addressing the final two questions is
continued consistency from the regulatory community so it can prepare for the future.
In particular, he would like to strive toward:
Achievable levels of mercury in products. Total elimination is not practical
because it is now possible to measure mercury to the parts per trillion level. A
risk-based approach to determining an acceptable and achievable level of
mercury is more practical.
EPA and industry consensus on regulations. In the early 1990s, the EPA
required the chlor-alkali industry to install thermal recovery units. After the
chlor-alkali industry has spent in excess of $15 million, the EPA is rethinking
that policy.
Edward Weiler discussed following issues:
Final Disposition of Collected Mercury
Edward Weiler contended that there is a lack of understanding of the final disposition
of mercury. As more mercury-containing products are recovered through take-back
programs, there will be an increasing need to dispose of that mercury.
Emissions from mercury collection. There are likely to be significant emissions
from collection efforts, such as those resulting from accidents, and EPA should
potentially rethink Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT)
regulations.
Alternative disposal technologies. EPA must encourage the development of
alternative mercury disposal technologies. EPA should work with industry to
verify alternative technologies.
85
-------
Business side of mercury problem. Currently it is difficult to raise the
investment capital necessary to establish companies that develop alternative
disposal technologies.
Virtual Elimination of Mercury Requires Private Sector Cooperation
Edward Weiler noted that previous discussions during the Workshop concluded that
new regulations restricting mercury use are not likely. Therefore, if mercury is to be
removed from the marketplace, government must work closely with the private sector.
The challenge is to create positive incentive structures that can encourage the private
sector to make a business of phasing out mercury use, both in terms of developing
alternative disposal technologies and developing chemical substitutes (such as
NewMerc). It is difficult to make inroads with a new technology or alternative
chemical substitute in the absence of a regulatory hammer.
Mercury as a Consumer Products Safety Issue
Mercury can be thought of as a consumer products safety issue where it exists in small
amounts, such as in thermometers and electronic displays. Edward Weiler cited an
earlier Workshop discussion that the most common call to poison hotlines dealt with
broken mercury fever thermometers. Although thermometers and electronic displays
represent a small percentage of mercury emissions (especially when compared with
utility coal emissions), nonetheless they represent a risk. Perhaps an entity like-the
Consumer Products Safety Commission could be used to address the mercury safety
issue.
Critical Efforts
Edward Weiler concluded with the following critical efforts:
Encourage Office of Solid Waste (OSW) efforts. The EPA should support OSW
in researching alternative disposal technologies.
Enhance technology development and verification programs. To enhance
technology development and verification of alternative mercury technologies,
the EPA should look at complementarity between ORD's Small Business
Innovative Research (SBIR) program and Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) program.
Support Environmentally preferable purchasing. Use the power of the federal
procurement dollar toward environmentally preferable purchasing.
International mercury flows. The EPA should support efforts to measure
international flows of mercury. Edward Weiler was particularly struck by the
magnitude of the international flows. Characterizing the international flows are
86
-------
critical to describing background mercury levels.
John Gilkeson, Minnesota OEA
John Gilkeson stated that as a state representative,, he feels that it is important to collect
the mercury-containing products before they are found in wastes and wastewaters.
Once mercury is in solid wastes and wastewaters, it is difficult to control and is often
released in the environment, especially since Minnesota incinerates most of its wastes.
John Gilkeson discussed the following issues:
Categorization. The Northeast Model legislation proposes the following categorization
scheme:
Product with elemental mercury
Product with compounds and chemicals
Processes
Waste streams of the three above areas of deliberate use
Non-combustion incidental releases, including refining, mining, and cement and
limestone production
Hierarchy of Actions for Mercury Control.
Identification of existing uses, sales, and product lines
Separation from uses and separation from wastes
0 Collection and retirement of mercury wastes
Substitution and elimination of mercury in the future
Model Program for Product Lines and Activities To Be Implemented at the State or
Local Level
A model program provides consistency in implementing mercury control efforts.
Prioritization of Mercury Issues
MN OEA prioritizes its mercury issues on the following basis:
Feasibility
Effectiveness
8 Quantity
Available information
Existing working relationship with protected parties and sectors
Opportunities that might arise
Categories of Mercury Issues.
87
-------
"Big easy"
"Little easy"
"Big difficult"
"Little difficult"
Unknown
"Difficult" is based on cost, practicality, infrastructure, or level of information.
Information Gaps
John Gilkeson identified the following information gaps:
Control measures for "big difficult" issues such as coal
The search for a non-mercury dental restorative for dental amalgams
Cleanup of wastewater treatment plant infrastructure. Mercury is found in
hundreds of miles of pipes within buildings and underground
Mercury found in refineries
Mercury found in land application of biosolids
Mercury presence in drugs
Jane Williams, California Communities Against Toxics
Jane Williams reiterated that mercury is a serious threat to the environment. She asked the
Workshop to visualize a "mercury-free future."
Key Points
Jane Williams began her discussion by describing the need for a new paradigm for
dealing with mercury:
National and international implications. The international implications of the
mercury issues such as mercury deposition over the Pacific Ocean should spur
us to look at mercury problems in a more holistic way. The U.S. should adopt a
"clean hands" policy (developed by the New England Governor's Mercury
Action Plan) because even if all mercury emissions ended in the U.S., we would
still have a significant mercury problem.
Mercury in consumer products should be phased out. The intentional use of
mercury in consumer products should eventually be phased out, including
mercury in lamps.
No new mercury should be introduced in commerce. An important step in this
direction was the cessation of sales of the national mercury stockpile in the early
1990s. Mercury trade should not be shifted to other countries, particularly
Mexico.
88
_
-------
Mercury education and awareness is key. It would be difficult to develop the
political consensus necessary to deal with mercury issues until government,
industry, and the public acknowledge that mercury is a serious problem. Public
education is key to raising this consensus.
Interesting Effort
Jane Williams discussed the following interesting effort:
Mercury-free procurement/buildings by government. It is important for the
government to become a models of mercury-free thinking to set an example for the
public and industry.
Important Scientific Questions
Jane Williams identified the following critical scientific questions:
Extent of mercury contamination in ocean fish. The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) has ceased testing the most common ocean fish; as a
result mercury exposures and risks to the public are uncertain.
Educating the public about mercury exposures. Although most of this
Workshop has focused on emissions rather than on exposures, educating the
public on exposures is critical. Jane Williams also referred to the fact that over
90% of the calls to a poison control center of a certain state was for broken fever
thermometers, and while most people may know that there is mercury in their
thermometers, they may not be aware of the mercury in their thermostats or cars.
Once the public understands the ubiquity and risks of mercury in the ,
environment, ultimately the mercury problem may be handled like the tobacco
problem.
Mercury retirement. It is increasingly apparent that an "end-game" for mercury
must be devised for retiring mercury. The EPA should work with the
Department of Energy (DOE) and Department of Defense (DOD) to devise
mercury stabilization technologies. Eventually, all of the mercury in circulation
needs to be pulled out and sequestered from the biosphere and like the nuclear
waste debate, this could become a politically painful experience,
89
-------
D.5.3 Open Discussion
Phase-out of Chlor-alkali Mercury Cell Process
Luke Trip (Environment Canada) asked George Gissel whether the chlor-alkali industry
in the U.S. planned to phase out the mercury cell process.
George Gissel responded that various countries have phased out or are planning to
phase out the mercury cell process. Japan phased out the mercury dell process in 1985,
and Europe is discussing a 2005 or 2010 phase-out.
Although the U.S. chlor-alkali industry has not been informed of a phase-out in the
U.S., he said that it would work with the EPA if asked to do so. However, George
Gissel stated that any phase-out needs to be well-planned and a cooperative venture
between the government and industry. An abrupt phase-out could have unintended
consequences. For example, any disruption in alkali production could force alkali
prices to rise and spur increases in production elsewhere in the world, such as Mexico,
where chlor-alkali facilities are subject to less stringent environmental regulations.
Chlor-alkali Mass Balance
Peter Berglund (Metropolitan Environmental Services, MN) asked George Gissel how
the chlor-alkali industry measures its mercury mass balance.
George Gissel responded that a mercury mass balance at a chlor-alkali facility is not a
simple case of input minus output equals losses because there are internal inventory
points that change on a continuous basis.
Mercury Concentration in Caustic Soda
Peter Berglund noted that an appropriate goal to achieve for mercury concentrations in
caustic would be the caustic from a non-mercury cell chlor-alkali facility.
Gatekeeper for Consumer Products
Lester Gress (CFS Environmental) asked that if EPA's hazardous waste listing
determination is the gatekeeper for industrial hazardous waste, where is the gatekeeper
for consumer hazardous material? If a gatekeeper were in place, there would some
consistency in how regulations treat industry as well as the consumer. For example,
there is no gatekeeper controlling the mercury found in Drano.
John Gilkeson stated that Minnesota has a gatekeeper in its regulations that prohibit
mercury disposal in its solid wastes and wastewaters, where solid wastes include
construction and demolition (C and D) wastes, non-hazardous industrial wastes, etc.
90
-------
He added that they are enforcing these regulations on contractors who do not remove
mercury from buildings prior to demolition.
Ed Weiler responded that the logical gatekeeper would be TSCA, but notes that nobody
would be willing to go down that road.
With regard to mercury use in consumer products, Anita Cummings (OSW) cited
research on recent patent records that finds that there are patented products that still use
mercury. EPA is not certain whether these products are being manufactured, but she
feels that these products should be tracked. John Gilkeson added that his office had
done a patent search of the 1970s and 1980s and uncovered thousands of patents that
used mercury.
Local Actions Are Important
John Ackerman (U.S. EPA Region IV) stated that although mercury is a global concern,
local releases matter, and local efforts do pay off. There is increasing evidence that
local waste incineration and releases are all part of the problem.
Mercury Speciation Is Key
John Ackerman also pointed out that the mercury species is critical to understanding
mercury risks. The water soluble Hg (2+) ionic form of mercury is particularly
dangerous because it quickly becomes biomagnified. Elemental mercury is also
dangerous, but in the near term it does not bioaccumulate. There is a need for speciated
data on mercury releases, and therefore there is also a need for better tools to measure
mercury. More research needs to be done to make the standard methods and equivalent
methods viable tools.
Middle-level Handling of Mercury
John Ackerman raised the issue of regulating middle level handling of mercury.
Currently, industries that collect mercury-containing items such as thermostats and
thermometers are not regulated. The government needs to ensure that this industry is
economically viable and not releasing mercury into the environment. Permitting and
regulating for this industry should be done at the local level. These industries typically
do not fit in the standard categories.
John Gilkeson stated that Minnesota does regulate collectors under the universal
hazardous waste rule and feels they have good oversight of their activities.
Edward Weiler thought that most states probably do not have an answer like
Minnesota's, and he feels that there is not much on the federal level either.
91
-------
Alexis Cain added that EPA received a petition from the Edison Electric Institute to add
all mercury-containing devices to the Universal Waste Rule to help it better manage its
mercury-containing devices. Utilities also use mercury instruments such as temperature and
pressure sensors within their processes. EPA has not yet acted on this petition.
Fate of Amalgam in Sludges
Peter Berglund stated that the fate of amalgams in sludges is a data gap. Sludge is
either incinerated and the mercury released to the atmosphere or applied to land. This
may be an appropriate research area for the Water Environment Research Foundation
(WERF).
Alexis Cain added that University of Illinois research indicates that there is a
considerable amount of mercury that is not in the amalgam form, but as soluble mercury
in the amalgam wastewater.
Mercury Levels in Common Consumer Products
An audience member from the Northeast Region cited a study completed by the
Hampton Roads Sanitation District that found mercury in common household consumer
products. For example:
Toothpaste
Deodorant
Soap
Laundry detergent
Kool Aid
Mountain Dew
3.8 parts per billion (ppb)
1.35 ppb
25 ppb
2.4 ppb
6 ppb
158 parts per trillion (ppt)
He added that domestic sewage now contains 100 ppt background levels of mercury.
He contends that the EPA or FDA needs to begin a regular program of testing these
products for mercury.
Jane Williams responded by stating that she has worked on similar issues with leaded
wick candles. She stated that the FDA seems not to be concerned with consumer
ingestion of mercury based on its track record on fish testing. She suggests raising this
issue with the Consumer Products Safety Commission, reiterating her call for public
education and awareness.
An audience member (Judy Schoefen) said that she would be happy to work with Jane
Williams to help raise this subject at the next New England Governor's Mercury Task
Force Meeting.
92
-------
Dental Amalgam Health Concerns
Freya Koss (DAMS, Dental Amalgam Mercury Syndrome) asked why the EPA was
funding a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study to determine a safe level of
mercury when there is no safe level of mercury exposure.
Freya Koss also added that there is not enough awareness about the hazard of mercury
exposure from dental amalgams. For example, she cited an ongoing National mstitute
of Health (NIH) study that is putting amalgams into children and testing for
neurological damage - a clear violation of the Nuremberg Convention. She calls for a
meeting with the EPA and FDA to discuss the hazards of dental amalgams.
Jane Williams stated that the NAS study was mandated by Congress to review the
methyl-mercury reference dose. She also added that EPA does not regulate consumer
products such as dental amalgams. Jane Williams said that she also shares many of the
questioner's concerns with dental amalgams. Although she noted that a scientific
consensus on dental amalgams has not yet been reached, there clearly is a sub-
population that is more sensitive to mercury exposure. She added that Canadian efforts
to restrict dental amalgam use is a step in the right direction.
Alexis Cain said that establishing a reference dose for methyl-mercury is not an
irrelevant question because mercury exists naturally, and we would have background
levels of mercury even if there were no anthropogenic sources of mercury.
John Gilkeson noted that the NJH study is being conducted at the University of
Rochester. He also stated that the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's
(ATSDR's) toxic profile on mercury estimates of the average exposure to dental
amalgams overlaps the range of concern for adults.
Ann Ferreira (DAMS) asked, as a person with high sensitivity to mercury, if the EPA
had a website listing products that contained high mercury concentrations.
Jane Williams told her that a list is available at www.mercurypolicy.org.
Folke Dorgelo (Netherlands Ministry for Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment)
asked if there is a possibility that the NAS study could show that there is no safe level
of mercury, meaning that even background levels of mercury levels are not safe.
Conference Proceedings
J^ester Gress asked if there will be conference proceedings or a press release to the
public.
Doug Grosse responded that there will be proceedings.
93
-------
Viewing Mercury as a North American Problem
Luke Trip, as a the Chair of the Mercury Task Force for the North American Regional
Action Committee, expressed concern over mercury control efforts in Mexico. There is
currently neither mercury monitoring nor a mercury inventory in Mexico. Now Mexico
is building its first large coal-fired utility plant. Mexican environmental officials have
just become aware that they have three mercury cell chlor-alkali facilities. Luke Trip
urges "clean hands" across North America.
John Gilkeson commented that if Mexico is to address its mercury issues, the U.S. and
Canada will have to directly fund staff time to make that happen. Mexico faces
incredible barriers.
George Gissel noted that the Chlorine Institute and Eurochlor are working with their
Mexican counterparts to raise their level of concern toward mercury issues as well as
raise plant performance efficiencies. He also reiterated that an unintended consequence
of a rapid shutdown of mercury cell plants in the U.S. could be a demand for caustic
from mercury cell plants in foreign countries with few environmental controls. It takes
5 years to bring up capacity from a plant closure.
94
-------
Appendix E
List of Attendees
95
-------
Workshop on Mercury Products, Processes, Waste, & the Environment:
Eliminating, Reducing, & Managing Risks from Non-Combustion Sources
Baltimore, Maryland, March 22-23, 2000
LIST OF
Paul W. Abernathy
OFFICE: 707-942-2197
FAX: 707-942-2198
_ abemath@napanet.net
Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers
2436 Foothill Boulevard
Calistoga, CA 94515 USA
John Ackermann
OFFICE: 404-562-9063
FAX: 404-562-9019
US EPA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
USA
Anthony Armentani
OFFICE: 215-697-5028
FAX: 215-697-9093
aarmentani@dscp. dla.mil
Defense Supply Center Philadelphia
700 Robbins Avenue
ATTN: DSCP-IFB, Building #3C
Philadelphia, PA 19111-5096 USA
Marc Audet
OFFICE: 506-684-6171
FAX: 506-684-5979
maaudet@piona. com
PCI Chemicals Canada Inc.
. 600 Quenn Street
Dalhousie
New Brunswick, ESN 3S9
CANADA
Dominique B. Auigur
OFFICE: 410-436-7958
FAX: 410-436-5237
USACHPPM (Ctr. for Health Promotion & Preventive Medicine)
1677BlackhawkRd.
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010 USA
dominlque.aulgur@apg.amedd.army.mil
Kjell Avergren
OFFICE: 46-302-32-679
FAX: 46-70-203-4579
kjell.avergren@swipnet.se
The Dog Training
Madenvagen 7
FLODA, s-44891
SWEDEN
Mike Bahorsky
OFFICE: 540-562-6749
FAX: 540-562-6725
msbahorsky@deq.state. va. us
VA. Dept. of Environmental Quality
3019 Peters Creek Rd.
Roanoke, VA 24019 USA
Michael Bender
OFFICE: 802-223-9000
FAX: 802-223-7914
mtbendervt@aol. com
Mercury Policy Project
1420 North Street
Montpelier, VT 05602 USA
Peter Berglund
OFFICE: 651-602-4708
FAX: 651-602-4730
peter.berglund@metc.state.mn.us
Met. Council Enviro Services
230 East 5th Street
St. Paul, MN 55101 USA
Susan Berneski
OFFICE: 215-697-5028
FAX: 215-697-9093
aarmentani@dscp.dla.mil
Defense Supply Center Philadelphia
700 Robbins Avenue
ATTN: DSCP-IFB, Building #3C
Philadelphia, PA 19111-5096 USA
Ben Blaney
OFFICE: 513-569-7852
FAX: 513-569-7680
blaney.ben@epa.gov
US EPA, NRMRL
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive, MC 235
Cincinnati, OH 45268 USA
FINAL
96
As of: Monday, April 10, 2000
-------
Workshop on Mercury Products, Processes, Waste, & the Environment:
Eliminating, Reducing, & Managing Risks from Non-Combustion Sources
Baltimore, Maryland, March 22-23, 2000
LIST OF ATTENDEES
Frederic H. K. Booth
J OFFICE: 301-528-1909
FAX: 301-528-1970
fred_booth@wpi.org
Waste Policy Institute
12850 Middlebrook Road, Suite 250
Germantown, MD 20874-5244 USA
Robert Booze
OFFICE: 410-436-8554
FAX: 410-436-5237
robert. booze@apg. amedd. army, mil
USACHPPM
5158 Blackhawk Road - E 1677
APG-Edgewood Area, MD 21010
USA
Michael Borsykowsky, P.E.
OFFICE: 718-595-6072
FAX: 718-595-6027
cwbiga@aol.com
NYC DEP
96 - 05 Horace Harding Expwy.
Corona, NY 11368-5107 USA
Bruce Bowman
FAX:
410-396-9695
410-396-9838
Baltimore City
8201 Eastern Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21224 USA
Leonard Breitstein
OFFICE: 301-652-2215
FAX: 301-656-8059
waslb@dames.com
Dames & Moore, Inc.
7101 Wisconsin Ave., Suite 700
Bethesda, MD 20814 USA
Clifton H. Brown
OFFICE: 303-792-5615
FAX: 303-792-5633
cliff. brown@adatech. com
ADA Technologies, Inc.
8100 Shaffer Parkway, Suite 130
Littleton, CO 80127 USA
Karen Busshart
802-241-3455
FAX: 802-241-3273
karenbu@dec.anr.st. vt. us
Vermont Agency
103 South Main
Waterbury, VT 05671
USA
Alexis Cain
FICE: 312-886-7018
FAX: 312-886-0617
cain.alexis@epa.gov
US EPA Region 5
77 W, Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
USA
Charles (Randy) Case
OFFICE: 608-267-7639
FAX: 608-267-0496
' casec@dnr.state. wi.us
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
101 S.Webster St.
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wl 53707 USA
David Case
OFFICE: 202-783-0870x12
EM: 202-737-2038
dcase@etc. org
Environmental Technology Council
734 15th Street, Suite 720
Washington, DC 20005 USA
Fred Chanania
OFFICE: 703-308-8420
FAX: 703-308-8433
x chanania.fred@epa.gov
US EPA, OSW
Mail Code 5302W
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20460 USA
FINAL
97
As of: Monday, April 10, 2000
-------
Workshop on Mercury Products, Processes, Waste, & the Environment:
Eliminating, Reducing, & Managing Risks from Non-Combustion Sources
Baltimore, Maryland, March 22-23, 2000
LIST OF ATTENDEES
Harold Charles
OFFICE: 703-308-8918
FAX: 703-308-8433
charles.harold@epa.gov
US EPA/OSW/
401 M Street, SW (5302W)
Washington, DC 20460 USA
Chad Cliburn
OFFICE: 312-353-5617
FAX: 312-353-4788
dibum. chad@epa.gov
US EPA Region 5
77 W. Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604 USA
David Colbert
OFFICE: 315-435-2260
FAX: 315-435-5023
dsdcolb@lake. onondaga.ny. us
Onondaga County Department of Drainage and Sanitation
650 Hiawatha Blvd. W
Syracuse, NY 13204 USA
Thomas Corbett
OFFICE: 716-851-7255
FAX: 716-851-7226
Tacorbet@GW.Decistate.NY. US
NYSDEC
270 Michigan Ave.
Buffalo, NY 19203-2999
USA
Matthew Cox
OFFICE: 757-460-7048
FAX: 757-464-3985
mcox@hrsd.dst. va. us
Hampton Roads
1436 Air Rail Ave.
Virginia Beach, VA 23455
USA
Gerard Cox, P.E.
OFFICE: 718-595-6072
FAX: 718-595-6027
cwbiga@aol.com
NYC DEP
96 - 05 Horace Harding Expwy.
Corona, NY 11368-5107 USA
Anita Cummings
OFFICE: 703-308-8303
FAX: 703-308-8433
cummings. anita@epa.gov
US EPA HQ
401 M Street, SW (5302W)
Washington, DC 20460 USA
Mary Cunningham
OFFICE: 703-308-8453
FAX:
US EPA
401 M Street, SW (MC 5302W)
Washington, DC 20460 USA
Patrick Cyr
OFFICE: 888-824-3992
FAX: 610-558-2620
pcyr@agcinfo.com
Advanced GeoServices Corp.
Chadds Ford Business Campus
Routes 202 & 1, Bradywine One, Suite 202
Chadds Ford, PA 19317-9676 USA
Stephanie D'Agostino
OFFICE: 603-271-6398
FAX: 603-271-2867
sdagostino@des.state.nh.us
NH Department of Environmental Services
6 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03301 USA
Swati Damle
OFFICE: 301-496-7990
FAX: 301-480-8056
sdamle@helix.nih.gov
NIH
9000 Rockville Pike, Bldg. 1312W64
Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
FINAL
98
As of: Monday, April 10, 2000
-------
Workshop on Mercury Products, Processes, Waste, & the Environment:
Eliminating, Reducing, & Managing Risks from Non-Combustion Sources
Baltimore, Maryland, March 22-23, 2000
___ LIST OF ATTENDEES
Curtis De Tore
OFFICE: 410-631-3440
FAX: 410-631-S472&
':,. cdetore@mde.md. us
Maryland Department of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224 USA
Vita DeMarchi
OFFICE: 315-475-9204
FAX: 315-475-9351
vdemarchi@secor. com
SECOR International Inc.
120 East Washington Street, Suite 421
Syracuse, NY 13202 USA
John Diamante
OFFICE: 202-564-6608
FAX: 202-565-2407
diamante.john@epa.gov
Office of International Activities
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460 USA
John DiMarzio
OFFICE: 301-353-8342
FAX: 301-428-3482
john.a.dimarzio@saic.com
SAIC
20201 Century Boulevard
Germantown, MD 20874
USA
Dr. Folke Dorgelo
OFFICE: +31 70 339 4908
FAX: +31 703391297
Folke.Dorgelo@DSVS.DGM.minvrom.nl
Netherlands Ministry for Housing, Spatial Planning & Environ.
directoraat-generaal Milieubeheer Ministrie VROM
Interne Postcode 655, Rijnstraat 8, Postbus 30 945
2500 GX DEN HAAG, NETHERLANDS
David Eaton
OFFICE: 208-526-7002
FAX: 208-526-1061
dle@inel.gov
BBWI
Box 1625
Idaho Falls, ID 83402
USA
John Eichner
OFFICE: 301-353-1871
FAX:
eichnerj@saic. com
SAIC
David Eick
FAX:
410-396-9695
410-396-9838
Baltimore City
8201 Eastern Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21224 USA
Jim Ekmann
OFFICE: 412-386-5716
FAX:
.,.-. ekmann@netl.doe.gov
US DOE, NETL
Office of Systems and Environmental Analysis
USA
Steve Elie-Pierre, P.E.
OFFICE: 718-595-6072
FAX: 718-595-6027
cwbiga@aoi. com
NYC DEP
96 - 05 Horace Harding Expwy.
Corona, NY 11368-5107 USA
Holly Elwood
OFFICE: 202-260-4362
FAX: 202-260-0178
elwood.holly@epa.gov
USEPA - Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460 USA
FINAL
99
As of: Monday, April 10, 2000
-------
Wortehop on Mercury Products, Processes, Waste, & the Environment:
Eliminating, Reducing, & Managing Risks from Non-Combustion Sources
Baltimore, Maryland, March 22-23, 2000
LIST OF ATTENDEES
Lisa Enderle
OFFICE: 703-676-7857
FAX: 703-676-7945
lisa, e. enderle@cptnx.saic. com
SAIC
1710 Goodridge Drive, T3-3-1
McLean, VA 22102 USA
Marilyn Engle
OFFICE: 202-564-6472
FAX: 202-565-2409/2411
engle.marilyn@epa.gov
US EPA
Office of International Activities
401 M Street, SW (2660R)
Washington, DC 20460 USA
Ric Erdheim
OFFICE: 703-841-3249
FAX: 703-841-3349
ric_erdheim@nema.org
NEMA
1300 North 17 Street, Suite 1847
Rosslyn, VA 22209 USA
Holly Evans
Electronic Industries Alliance
3FFICE: 703-907-7576
FAX: 703-907-7501
hevans@eia.org
Ann Ferreira
OFFICE: 757-851-4805
FAX:
virginia@portone. com
DAMS, Dental Amalgam Mercury Syndrome
Anne, 22 Neff Drive
Hampton, VA 23669 USA
Chris Ferrigan
OFFICE: 561-338-7333
FAX: 561-338-7345
cfem'gan@ci. boca-raton. fl. us
City of Boca Raton
1501 Glades Road
Boca Raton, FL 33431 USA
Julie A. Fitzsimmons
OFFICE: 215-648-4028
FAX: 215-641-0656
jfitzsimmons@matheson-trigas.com
Matheson Tri-Gas
166 Keystone Drive
Montgomeryville, PA 18936
USA
Errol Fletcher
OFFICE: 513-541-1823
FAX: 513-782-8950
errolfletcher@spn'ntmail. com
Environmental Enterprises, Inc.
10163 Cincinnati - Dayton Rd.
Cincinnati, OH 45241 USA
Quentin Forrest
OFFICE: 410-631-3633
FAX: 410-631-3889
gforrest@mde.state.md.us
Maryland Dept. of the Environment
2500 Broenning Hwy.
Baltimore, MD 21224 USA
Bill Fortune
3FFICE: 202-586-7302
FAX: 202-586-3915
wiltiam.fortune@eh.doe.gov
US DOE
Office of Environmental Policy and Guidance
1000 Independence Avenue, SW (EH-41)
Washington, DC 20585-0119 USA
Jane J. Frank
OFFICE: 302-739-3689
FAX: 302-739-5060
jfrank@dnrec.state.de.us
State of Delaware DNREC
Solid & Hazardous Waste Management Branch
89 Kings Highway
Dover, DE 19901 USA
FINAL
100
As of: Monday, April 10, 2000
-------
Workshop on Mercury Products, Processes, Waste, & the Environment:
Eliminating, Reducing, & Managing Risks from Non-Combustion Sources
Baltimore, Maryland, March 22-23, 2000
LIST OF ATTENDEES
Jim Frankos
FFICE: 410-396-9695
FAX: 410-396-9838
Baltimore City
8201 Eastern Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21224 USA
Twila Frieders
OFFICE: 703-767-7624
FAX: 703-767-7716
twila_frieders@hq.dla.mil
Defense National
8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 4616
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060 USA
James R. Gagnon
OFFICE: 603-623-3600
FAX: 603-624-9463
jgagnon@gza. com
GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.
380 Harvey Road
Manchester, NH 03103 USA
Herman Gibb
OFFICE: 202-562-3334
FAX: 202-565-0059
g.bb.herman@epa.gov
National Center For Environmental Assessment
US EPA
Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20460 USA
John Gilkeson
OFFICE: 651-215-0199
FAX: 651-215-0246
john.gilkeson@moea.state.mn. us
MN Office of Envrionmental Assistance
Problem Materials Program
520 Lafayette Road North, 2nd Floor
, MN 55155 USA
Tristan Gillespie
OFFICE: 212-637-3753
FAX: 212-637-3771
gillespie.tristan@epa.gov
EPA Region 2
325 Court St.
Hoboken, NJ 07030
USA
J. Wade Gilley
OFFICE: 865-405-4892
FAX:
SAIC
2469 Pine Grove Church Road
Knoxville, TN 37921 USA
George Gissel
OFFICE: 715-887-4507
FAX: 715-887-4513
..; george_gissel@vul.com
Vulcan Chemicals
State Highway 73 South
Port Edwards, Wl 54469
USA
Leo S. Gomez
OFFICE: 505-284-3959
FAX: 505-844-2348
lsgomez@sandia.gov
Sandia National Laboratories
P.O. Box 5800, MS-0779
Albuquerque, NM 87185
USA
Michael Greene
OFFICE: 631-344-5217
FAX:
mgreene@bnl.gov
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Peter Greer
OFFICE: 734-324-6168.
FAX: 734-324-6121
greerp@basf. com
BASF Corp.
1609 Biddle Avenue
Wyandotte, Ml 48192
USA
FINAL
101
As of: Monday, April 10, 2000
-------
Workshop on Mercury Products, Processes, Waste, & the Environment:
Eliminating, Reducing, & Managing Risks from Non-Combustion Sources
Baltimore, Maryland, March 22-23, 2000
LIST OF ATTENDEES
Lester Gress
OFFICE: 440-526-7070
FAX: 440-526-0770
Igr8ss@aol.com
Cleveland Fluid Systems Co.
P.O. Box 41070
Cleveland, OH 44141 USA
Doug Grosse
OFFICE: 513-569-7844
FAX: 513-569-7585
grosse.douglas@epa.gov
US EPA
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive, MC G75
Cincinnati, OH 45268 USA
Leah Hagreen
OFFICE: 416-922-9038x25
FAX: 416-922-1028
lhagreen@lourielove. com
Lourie & Love Environmental Management Consulting Inc.
1216 Yonge Street, Suite 201
Toronto, ON M4T 1W1 CANADA
Harry J. Hansen
OFFICE: 410-554-5554
FAX: 410-554-5502
hhansen@mgs.md.gov
Maryland Geological Survey
2300 St. Paul Street
Balitmore, MD 21218 USA
James Harvie
OFFICE: 218-525-7806
FAX:
harvie@isfusa.org
HealthCove Without Harm
c/olSF 5232TiogaSt.
Duluth, MN 55804 USA
Patricia Heck
OFFICE: 410-354-7985
FAX: 410-354-7962
theck@mic-usa. com
Millenium Inorganic Chemicals
3901 Ft. Armistead Rd.
Baltimore, MD 21226 USA
Jon Herrmann
OFFICE: 513-569-7839
FAX: 513-569-7680
herrmann.jonathan@epa.gov
US EPA
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268 USA
Randy Hiebert
OFFICE: 406-494-7233
FAX: 406-494-7230
hiebert@mse-ta. com
MSE, Inc.
200 Technology Way
Butte, MT 59701
USA
Gregory Hulet
OFFICE: 208-526-0283
FAX: 208-526-1061
eag@inel.gov
Idaho National Engineering & Env. Laboratory
P.O. Box 1625 MS 3875
Idaho Falls, ID 83415-3875 USA
Tom Hyatt
OFFICE: 717-787-7382
FAX: 717-787-1904
hyatt. thomas@dep.state.pa. us
Dep - Land Recycling & Waste Management
400 Market Street
Harrisburg, PA 17105 USA
Trevor Jackson
OFFICE: 801-532-1330
FAX: 801-532-7512
tjackson@envirocareutah.com
Envirocare of Utah, Inc.
46 West Broadway, Suite 116
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
USA
FINAL
102
As of: Monday, April 10, 2000
-------
Workshop on Mercury Products, Processes, Waste, & the Environment:
Eliminating, Reducing, & Managing Risks from Non-Combustion Sources
Baltimore, Maryland, March 22-23, 2000
LIST OF ATTENDEES
John James
OFFICE: 207-287-7866
FAX: 207-287-7826
john.james@state.me. us
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
17SHS
Augusta, ME 04330 USA
Daniels Jarad
OFFICE: 202-586-7355
FAX: 202-586-1492
jarad. daniels@em. doe.gov
U.S. Dept. of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20585 USA
Jennifer Johnson
OFFICE: 734-462-0207
FAX: 734-462-0508
ijohnson@gza. com
GZA Geo Environmental
38019 Schoolcraft
Livonia, MI 48150 USA
Paul Kalb
516-344-7644
-AX: 516-344-4486
kalb@bnl.gov
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Sr. Research, Environ. & Waste Mgmt. Group
34 N. Railroad Street, Building 830
Upton, NY 11973 USA
Ron Karaway
OFFICE: 847-688-5647
FAX: 847-688-4279
drglrsk@drg10.med.navy.mil
Naval Dental Research Institute
310-AB Street, Building 1H
Great Lakes, IL 60088-5259 USA
Nicholas Kauffman
OFFICE: 202-535-2305
FAX: 202-535-1338
NVJ@epaibm.rtpnc.epa.gov
District of Columbia EPA Program
51 N Street NE, Room 6001
Washinton, DC 20002 USA
Kirk Kessler
OFFICE: 410-381-4333
FAX: 410-381-4499
kirkk@geosyntec. com
GeoSyntec Consultants
10015 Old Columbia Road, Suite A-200
Columbia, MD 21046 USA
Peggy Knecht
OFFICE: 208-526-8094
FAX: 208-526-1061
mak@inel.gov
MWFA, BBWI, INEEL
P.O. Box 1625
Idaho Falls, ID 83415
USA
Freya B. Koss
OFFICE: 610-649-2606
FAX: 610-649-1938
frekoss@aol. com
DAMS, Dental Amalgam Mercury Syndrome
519 Sussex Road
Wynnewood, PA 19096 USA
Steve Kratzer
OFFICE: 517-373-0939
FAX: 517-335-4729
kratzers@state. mi. us
Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality
333 South Capitol Ave.
Lansing, Ml 489 USA
Robert Krauel
OFFICE: 416-739-5861
FAX: 416-739-4405
" robert.krauel@ec.gc. ca
Environment Canada
4905 Dufferin Street
Downsview, Ontario M3H 5T4 CANADA
FINAL
103
As of: Monday, April 10, 2000
-------
r
Workshop on Mercury Products, Processes, Waste, & the Environment:
Eliminating, Reducing, & Managing Risks from Non-Combustion Sources
Baltimore, Maryland, March 22-23, 2000
LIST OF ATTENDEES
Arnold M. Kuzmack
OFFICE: 202-260-5821
FAX: 202-260-5394
kuzmack. amold@epa.gov
EPA, Office of Water
MC 4301
Washington, DC 20460 USA
Mitch Lasat
OFFICE: 202-564-6826
FAX: 202-564-2446
lasat.mitch@epa.gov
EPA/ORD/NCERQA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460 USA
Bruce Lawrence
OFFICE: 610-838-7034
FAX: 610-838-6333
brucelawr@aol. com
Bethlehem Apparatus Company, Inc.
890 Front Street, P.O. Box Y
Hellertown, PA 18055 USA
Ron Le Tourneau
OFFICE: 248-351-2644
FAX: 248-351-2645
R.G. Enterprises, Inc.
2000 Town Center, Suite 1900
Southfield, Ml 48075-1152
USA
Dr. Paul Lear
OFFICE: 865-694-7316
FAX: 865-694-9573
plear@theitgroup. com
IT Corporation
304 Directors Drive
Knoxville.TN 37923
USA
Gale LeBlanc
OFFICE: 225-751-4200
FAX: 225-752-4208
cale@walshcomp. com
Walsh Environmental, Inc.
727 Highlandia Dr.
Baton Rouge, LA 70810
USA
C.C. Lee
OFFICE: 513-569-7520
FAX: 513-569-7471
lee.chun@pamail.epa.gov
US EPA
26 West Martin Luther King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268 USA
Patty R. Lee
OFFICE: 757-460-4213
FAX: 757-460-6586
plee@hrsd. dst. va. us
Hampton Roads Sanitation District
1432 Air Rail Avenue
Virginia Beach, VA 23455 USA
Giles LePage
OFFICE: 703-767-7642
FAX: 703-767-7716
gilesjepage@hq.dla.mil
Defense National
8725 John J. Klingman Road, Suite 4616
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060 USA
Josh Lewis
OFFICE: 703-308-7877
FAX: 703-308-8433
lewis.josh@epamail. epa.gov
US EPA HQ
401 M Street, SW (MC 5302W)
Washington, DC 20460 USA
George Loeb
OFFICE: 202-260-0670
FAX: 202-260-9960
loeb.george@epa.gov
EPA OCPD
Mail Code 4504-F
1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC 20460 USA
FINAL
104
As of: Monday, April 10, 2000
-------
Workshop on Mercury Products, Processes, Waste, & the Environment:
Eliminating, Reducing, & Managing Risks from Non-Combustion Sources
Baltimore, Maryland, March 22-23, 2000
LIST OF ATTENDEES
Jeff Lord
440-526-7070
440-526-0770
Cleveland Fluid Systems Co.
P.O. Box 41070
Cleveland, OH 44141 USA
Dennis Lynch
OFFICE: 703-767-7609
FAX: 703-767-7608
____" dennisjynch@hq.dla.mil
Defense National
8725 John J. Kingman Rd., Suite 4616
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060 USA
Joseph Malki
OFFICE: 212-637-4101
FAX: 212-637-4437
malki.joseph@epa.gov
US EPA Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007
USA
Dave Malkmus
OFFICE: 940-243-8203
FAX: 940-243-9089
dmalkmus.sepradyne@iolt. com
Sepra Dyne Corporation
7201 I-35 North
Denton, TX 76207 USA
Allen Q. Maples
OFFICE: 703-605-0794
FAX: 703-308-0522
maples.allen@epa.gov
US EPA, OSW
401 M Street, SW (5304W)
Washington, DC 20460 USA
Ralph Marchitelli
OFFICE: 718-595-6072
FAX: 718-595-6027
cwbiga@aol. com
NYC DEP
96 - 05 Horace Harding Expwy.
Corona, NY 11368-5107
USA
Frank Marella
FAX:
201-529-9408
201-512-3472
Sharp Electronics Corp.
Sharp Plaza
Mahwah, NJ 07430
USA
Alina Martin
FAX:
SAIC
11251 Roger Bacon Drive
Reston.VA 20190 USA
Haren M. Master
OFFICE: 484-530-0800
FAX: 484-530-9140
hmmaster@mactec.com
Paul Matthai
OFFICE: 202-260-3385
FAX: 202-260-1580
matihai.paul@epa.gov
MACTEC ETG
5205 Militia Hill Road
Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462
USA
US EPA
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Ariel Rios Building
Washington, DC 20460 USA
Shas V. Mattigod
OFFICE: 509-376-4311
FAX: 509-376-5368
shas.mattigod@pnl.gov
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Richland, WA 99352 USA
FINAL
105
As of: Monday, April 10, 2000
-------
Workshop on Mercury Products, Processes, Waste, & the Environment:
Eliminating, Reducing, & Managing Risks from Non-Combustion Sources
Baltimore, Maryland, March 22-23, 2000
LIST OF ATTENDEES
Donna Maxey
OFFICE: 916-557-7437
FAX: 916-557-5307
dmaxey@spk. usace. army, mil
Army Corps of Engineers
1325 J Street / CESPK-ED-EH
Sacramento, CA 95814-2922
USA
Alec McBride
OFFICE: 703-308-0466
FAX: 703-308-0511
mcbride.alexander@epa.gov
US EPA, OSW
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460 USA
Daniel McCabe
OFFICE: 513-541-1823
FAX: 513-782-8950
errolfletcher@sprintmail. com
Environmental Enterprises, Inc.
10163 Cincinnati-Dayton Rd.
Cincinnati, OH 45241 USA
Bryan McDowell
OFFICE: 972-404-2416
FAX: 972-404-3285
bryan_l._mcdowell@oxy. com
Occidental Chemical Corporation
5005 LBJ Freeway - 14th Floor
Dallas, TX 75244-6119 USA
Michael McKenna, P.E.
OFFICE: 718-595-6072
FAX: 718-595-6027
cwbiga@aol.com
NYC DEP
96 - 05 Horace Harding Expwy.
Corona, NY 11368-5107 USA
Kevin McManus
OFFICE: 617-788-2306
FAX: 617-788-2301
kmcmanus@mwra.state.ma.us
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
Toxics Reduction and Control Program
100 First Avenue
Boston, MA 02129 USA
Greg Merrill
OFFICE: 703-741-5417
FAX: 703-741-6084
greg_menill@cmahq.com
Chlorine Chemistry Council
1300 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22209 USA
Tom Metzner
OFFICE: 860-424-3242
FAX: 860-424-4081
tom.metzner@pa.state.ct.us
Conn. Dept. of Environmental Protection
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106-5127 USA
Melinda Miller
OFFICE: 410-631-3618
FAX:
MDE (Health Risk Asessment Program)
2500 Broening Hwy.
Baltimore, MD USA
Amanda Monchamp
OFFICE: 703-907-7582
FAX: 703-907-7501
amonchamp@eia.org
Electronic Industries Alliance
George Moreau
OFFICE: 315-451-9560
FAX: 315-451-9570
george.h.moreau@parsons. com
Parsons Engineering Science, Inc.
290 Elwood Davis Road, Suite 312
Liverpool, NY 13088 USA
FINAL
106
As of: Monday, April 10, 2000
-------
Workshop on Mercury Products, Processes, Waste, & the Environment-
Eliminating, Reducing, & Managing Risks from Non-Combustion Sources
Baltimore, Maryland, March 22-23, 2000
LIST OF ATTENDEES
Mitchell L. Moss
OFFICE: 484-530-0800
FAX: 484-530-9140
mlmoss@mactec. com
MACTEC ETC
5205 Militia Hill Road
Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462
USA
Jon Nelson
3FFICE: 248-351-2646
FAX: 248-351-2645
rgenterprises@msn.com
R.G. Enterprises, Inc.
200 Town Center, Suite 1900
Southfield, Ml 48075-1152
USA
Diarmuid E. Nicholson
OFFICE: 202-782-3472
FAX: 202-782-9059
diarmuid.nicholson@na.amedd.army.mil
Dept. Clinical Investigation, Walter Reed AMC
6825 16th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20307-5001 USA
Susan Nogas
OFFICE: 703-308-7251
FAX: 703-308-8686
nogas.sue@epa.gov
USEPA
Ariel Rios Building; 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
MC: 5306W
Washington, DC 20460 USA
Tom Nowicki
OFFICE: 414-225-2275
FAX: 414-272-0270
tnowicki@mmsd. com
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
P.O. Box 3049
Milwaukee, Wl 53201 USA
Barbara Nuffer
OFFICE: 518-485-8427
FAX:
bjnuffer@gw. dec.state. ny. us
New York State Dept. of Env. Conservation
50 Wolf Rd.
Albany, NY 12233-3254USA
Jim Ogorek
215-697-5028
FAX: 215-697-9093
aarmentani@dscp.dla.mil
Defense Supply Center Philadelphia
700 Robbins Avenue
ATTN: DSCP-IFB, Building #3C
Philadelphia, PA 19111-5096 USA
Dana Oliver
OFFICE: 225-642-1863
FAX: 225-642-1882
dsoliver@piona.com
Pioneer Americas, Inc.
P.O. Box 23
St. Gabriel, LA 70776 USA
Linda B. Oxendrine
OFFICE: 865-632-3440
FAX: 865-632-6855
lboxencline@tva.gov
Tennessee Valley Authorithy
400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 8C
Knoxville, TN 37902 USA
Jayakumar Pallegar
OFFICE: 313-297-5882
FAX: 313-297-5805
pallegar@dwsd. org
Detroit Water & Sewerage Dept.
303 S. Livernois Ave.
Detroit, Ml 48209 USA
Patricia Papa
OFFICE: 301-353-8218
FAX: 301-428-3482
patricia. e.papa@saic. com
SAIC
20201 Century Boulevard
Germantown, MD 20874
USA
FINAL
107
As of: Monday, April 10, 2000
-------
Workshop on Mercury Products, Processes, Waste, & the Environment:
Eliminating, Reducing, & Managing Risks from Non-Combustion Sources
Baltimore, Maryland, March 22-23, 2000
LIST OF ATTENDEES
AnaMarie Paredes
OFFICE: 703-676-7873
FAX: 703-676-7945
ana.marie.paredes@saic.com
SA1C
1710 Goodridge Drive, T3-3-1
McLean, VA 22102 USA
Vibhakar Patel
OFFICE: 410-396-9695
FAX: 410-396-9838
Baltimore City Pollution Control
8201 Eastern Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21224 USA
Mehran Pazzrandeh
OFFICE: 202-404-6073
FAX: 202-767-9594
mpp@cbmse.ni1.navy.mil
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375 USA
Ernest D. Pederson
OFFICE: 847-688-5647x147
FAX: 847-688-4279
drg1edp@drg10.med.navy.mil
Naval Dental Research Institute
310-A B Street, Building 1-H
Great Lakes, IL 60088-5259 USA
Peter M. Pettit
OFFICE: 518-457-7337
FAX: 518-457-1283
pmpettit@gw.dec.state.ny.us
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233-7253USA
Richard Phillips
OFFICE: 802-241-3455
FAX: 802-241-3273
richph@dec.anr.st.vt.us
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources
103 South Main
Waterbury, VT 05671 USA
M. Saleem Qureshi
OFFICE: 313-297-5862
FAX: 313-297-9429
qureshi@dwsd.org
Industrial Waste Control Div. DWS Detroit
303 S. Livernois
Detroit, Ml 48209 USA
James C. Ragain Jr.
OFFICE: 847-688-5647x104
FAX: 847-688-4279
james.ragain@ndri.med.navy.mil
Naval Dental Research Institute
310 A, B Street, Bldg 1-H
Great Lakes, IL 60088-5259 USA
Norman Rainer, Ph.D.
OFFICE: 804-288-7109
FAX: 804-282-1325
lcpatent@aol. com
Dynaphore, Inc.
2709 Willard Rd.
Richmond, VA 23294 USA
Caleb Rancourt
OFFICE: 540-951-2500
FAX: 540-961-3602
info@newmerc. com
NewMerc, Ltd.
1872 Pratt Drive, MS 1260
Blacksburg, VA 24060 USA
James D. Rancourt
OFFICE: 540-951-2500
FAX: 540-961-3602
info@newmerc. com
NewMerc, Ltd.
1872 Pratt Drive, MS 1260
Blacksburg, VA 24060 USA
FINAL
108
As of: Monday, April 10, 2000
-------
Workshop on Mercury Products, Processes, Waste, & the Environment:
Eliminating, Reducing, & Managing Risks from Non-Combustion Sources
Baltimore, Maryland, March 22-23, 2000
Paul Randall
OFFICE: 513-569-7673
FAX: 513-569-7620
_ randalt.paul@epa.gov
US EPA
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive, MC 443
Cincinnati, OH 45268 USA
Kevin Reilly
OFFICE: 703-767-6522
FAX: 703-767-7716
kevin_reilly@hq.dla.mil
Defense National
8725 John J. Kingman Rd., Suite 4616
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060 USA
John Reinders
OFFICE: 703-767-4430
FAX: 703-767-6187
John_Reinders@hq.dla.mil
Defense Logistic Agency
8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 2638
Ft. Beltvoir, VA 22060 USA
Linda Rieser
OFFICE: 513-556-2060
FAX: 513-556-3148
lrieser@ uceng. uc. edu
University of Cincinnati
Civil and Environmental Engineering
Cincinnati, OH 45221-0071 USA
Terry W. Rogers
OFFICE: 505-292-9315
FAX: 505-292-9316
trogers@delphi-res. com
Delphi Research, Inc.
11930 Menaul Blvd. NE, Suite 105
Albuquerque, NM 87112 USA
James Roof
OFFICE: 717-787-6239
FAX: 717-787-0884
roof.james@dep.state.pa.us
PA Dept of Env. Protection
P.O. Box 8471
Harrisburg, PA 17110 USA
David E. Rugg
OFFICE: 313-556-5258
FAX: 313-556-7629
david.rugg@gm. com
General Motors
485 W. Milwaukee
Detroit, Ml 48202
USA
Arthur L. Russell
OFFICE: 318-741-8379
FAX: 318-741-8369
russella@bossiercity.org
Bossier City Utilities
8000 Shed Road
Bossier City, LA 71111 USA
Jeanette M. Samaritan
OFFICE: 404-562-9339
FAX: 404-562-9224
samaritan.jeanette@epa.gov
US EPA, WMD
61 Forsyth Street, 15th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30303 USA
Bill Schildt
OFFICE: 410-354-7737
FAX: 410-354-7962
wschildt@mic-usa. com
Millennium Inorganic Chemicals
3901 Fort Armistead Road
Baltimore, MD 21226 USA
W.G. Schuetzenduebel
OFFICE: 334-271-9343
FAX: 334-271-9365
wolframgs@aol. com
Montenay International Corp.
801 Timberlane Road
Pike Road, AL 36064 USA
FINAL
109
As of: Monday, April 10, 2000
-------
r
Workshop on Mercury Products, Processes, Waste, & the Environment-
Eliminating, Reducing, & Managing Risks from Non-Combustion Sources
Baltimore, Maryland, March 22-23, 2000
LIST OF ATTENDEES
Mark J. Sharp
OFFICE: 202-223-2575x116
FAX: 202-223-2614
sharpm@panasonic.com
Panasonic
1620 L Street NW, Suite 1150
Washington, DC 20036 USA
David W. Sheaves
OFFICE: 734-324-6836
FAX: 734-324-6775
sheaves@basf. corp
BASF Corporation
1609 Biddle
Wyandotte, Ml 48192
USA
Swati Sheladia
OFFICE: 202-564-6477
FAX: 202-565-2409/2411
ssheladi@naco.org
National Association of Counties
440 N. First Street
Washington, DC 20460 USA
Judu Shope
FAX:
617-292-5597
617-292-5778
Mass Dept. Env. Protection
1 Winter Street, 9th Floor
Boston, MA 02108 USA
Surendra S. Shukla
OFFICE: 313-297-5823
FAX: 313-297-5860
surendrashukla@hotmail. com
City of Detroit - Water & Sewerage Department
303 S. Livernois
Detroit, Ml 48209 USA
Steve Skavroneck
OFFICE: 414-486-1613
FAX:
cranehousesp@msn. c
346 E. Wilson Street
Milwaukee, Wl 53207
USA
Jeff Sloan
OFFICE: 703-741-5183
FAX: 703-741-6183
J8ffrey_sioan@cmahq. com
Chlorine Chemistry Council
1300 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22209 USA
Paul D. Smith, P.E.
OFFICE: 718-595-6072
FAX: 718-595-6027
cwbiga@aol. com
NYC DEP
96 - 05 Horace Harding Expwy.
Corona, NY 11368-5107 USA
Christopher Smoiar
OFFICE: 610-861-2150
FAX: 610-861-2072
smolar.christopher@dep.state.pa
PA Dept. of Environmental Protection
4530 Bath Pike
Bethlehem, PA 18017 USA
Robert Snowden
OFFICE: 225-339-2848
FAX: 225-339-2369
BASF
P.O. Box 457
8404 River Road
Geismar, LA 70734-0457
USA
Carl L. Spadaro
OFFICE: 412-442-4157
FAX: 412-442-4194
spadaro.carl@dep.state.pa.us
PA Dept. of Environ. Protection
400 Waterfront Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15222 USA
FINAL
110
As of: Monday, April 10, 2000.
-------
Workshop on Mercury Products, Processes, Waste, & the Environment:
Eliminating, Reducing, & Managing Risks from Non-Combustion Sources
Baltimore, Maryland, March 22-23, 2000
LIST OF ATTENDEES
Karyn E. Sper
OFFICE: 703-318-4733
FAX: 703-736-0826
karyn. e.sper@saic. com
SAIC
11251 Roger Bacon Drive
P.O. Box 4875
Reston, VA 20190 USA
Jeff Stamps
OFFICE: 501-624-8593
FAX: 501-624-8588
jeff.stamps@weyerhaeuser.com
Weyerhaeuser Company
810 Whittington Avenue
Hot Springs, AR 71901 USA
Douglas Steele
OFFICE: 202-564-6759
FAX: 202-565-2917
Steele.doug@epa.gov
ORD/OSP
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460 USA
William G. Stelz
OFFICE: 202-564-6834
FAX: 202-565-2447
stelz. william@epa.gov
US EPA, ORD, NCER
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Ariel Rios Building
Washington, DC 20460 USA
Kenneth R. Stone
OFFICE: 513-569-7474
FAX: 513-569-7111
stone.kenneth@epa.gov
US EPA/NRMRL
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive, MS 466
Cincinnati, OH 45268 USA
Mark E. Stone
OFFICE: 847-688-5647x122
FAX: 847-688-4279
mark.stone@ndri. med. navy, mil
Naval Dental Research Institute
310-A B Street, Building 1-H
Great Lakes, IL 60088-5259 USA
Vicki Strause
OFFICE: 410-436-3651
FAX: 410-436-5237
vIcki. strause@apg. amedd. army, mil
US Army Center for Health Promotion & Preventive Medicine
5158 BlackhawkRd.
Attn: MCHB-TS-EHM
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5403 USA
Greg Susan ke
OFFICE: 202-260-3547
FAX:
susanke.greg@epa.gov
US EPA, OPPTS
401 M Street, SW (Mail Code 7404)
Washington, DC 20460 USA
David B. Sussman
OFFICE: 202-554-6020
FAX: 202-863-1897
poubelle@erols. com
Poubelle Associates
704 6th St., SW
Washington, DC 20024 USA
Edward Swain
OFFICE: 651-296-7800
FAX: 651-297-7709
edward.swain@pca.state.mn
Minnesota Pollution
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 5515
USA
Jeff Talburt
)FFICE: 940-243-8203
FAX: 940-243-9089
Sepra Dyne Corporation
721 I 35 North
Denon, TX 76201
USA
FINAL
111
As of: Monday, April 10, 2000
-------
Workshop on Mercury Products, Processes, Waste, & the Environment:
Eliminating, Reducing, & Managing Risks from Non-Combustion Sources
Baltimore, Maryland, March 22-23, 2000
LIST OF ATTENDEES
Joy K. Taylor
OFFICE: 517-335-6974
FAX: 517-241-7499
taylorjk@state.mi. us
Ml Department of Environmental Quality
106W. Allegan
Lansing, Ml 48933 USA
Delores Thompson
OFFICE: 703-767-6523
FAX: 703-767-4074
dthompson@ogc.dla.mil
Defense National
8725 John J. Kingman Rd., Suite 4616
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060 USA
Jamie M. Tosches
OFFICE: 401-222-3434x4406
FAX: 401-831-5508
jtosches@dem.state
Rl Department of Environmental Management
235 Promenade St., Suite 330
Providence, Rl 02908 USA
Eric Trinkle
OFFICE: 302-739-3689
FAX: 302-739-5060
etrinkle@dnrec.state. de. us
DE Dept. of Natural Resources &
89 Kings Hwy
Dover, DE 19903 USA
Luke Trip
OFFICE: 819-997-1967
FAX: 819-994-3479
luke. frvp@ec.gc. ca
Environmental Canada
351 St. Joseph Blvd.
Hull-QUE, KIAOH3
CANADA
Tim Tuominen
OFFICE: 218-722-3336x324
FAX: 218-727-7471
tim.tuominen@wlssd.duluth.mn.us
Western Lake Superior
2626 Courtland Street
Duluth, MN 55806 USA
Kay Michael van der Horst
OFFICE: 301-528-1923 or 703-536-4906
FAX: 301-528-1971
kvanderh@clark.net
Waste Policy Institute
12850 Middlebrook Road, Suite 250
Germantown, MD 20874-5244 USA
Carmen Varela
OFFICE: 703-676-7878
FAX: 703-676-7945
carmen, v. varela@cpmx.saic. com
SAIC
1710 Goodridge Drive, T3-3-1
McLean, VA 22102 USA
John Vierow
OFFICE: 703-318-4551
FAX: 703-736-0815
john.b.vierow@saic.com
SAIC
11251 Roger Bacon Drive
P.O. BOX 4875
Reston, VA 20190 USA
Kristina von Rein
OFFICE: 4608-698-1127
FAX: 4608-698-1222
kristina.von-rein@environ.se
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
S-106 48 Stockholm
Stockholm, SWEDEN
John N. Wachtler
OFFICE: 651-297-8333
FAX:
john.wachtler@pca.state.mn.us
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Rd.
St. Paul, MN 55155 USA
FINAL
112
As of: Monday, April 10, 2000
-------
Workshop on Mercury Products, Processes, Waste, & the Environment:
Eliminating, Reducing, & Managing Risks from Non-Combustion Sources
Baltimore, Maryland, March 22-23, 2000
LIST OF ATTENDEES
Arun Wagh
OFFICE: 630-252-4295
FAX: 630-252-3604
wagh@et. anl.gov
Argonne National Laboratory
Energy Technology Division
9700 S. Cass Avenue
Argonne, IL 60439 USA
Edward Weiler
OFFICE: 202-260-2996
FAX: 202-260-0178
weiler.edward@epamail.epa.gov
US EPA HQ
401 M Street, SW (MC 7409)
Washington, DC 20460 USA
Jeri Weiss
FAX:
617-918-1568
617-918-1505
USEPA New England
1 Congress St., Suite 1100 -CME
Boston, MA 02114 USA
weiss.jeri@epa.gov
Laura Weiss
FAX:
503-222-1963x111
503-222-1405
Oregon Environmental Counsil
520 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 940
Portland, OR 97204 USA
laura@orcouncil. org
Chen H. Wen
OFFICE: 202-260-4109
FAX: 202-260-0178
wen.chen@epa.gov
USEPA HQ
401 M Street, S.W. (MC - 7409)
Washington, DC 20460 USA
Timothy R. Westman
OFFICE: 231-724-3440
FAX: 231-724-3588
westmanti@co. muskegon.mi. us
Muskegon County Wastewater Management System
8301 White Road
Muskegon, Ml 49442 USA
Pat Wherley
OFFICE: 301-353-8346
FAX: 301-601-5678
wherleyp@saic. com
SAIC
20201 Century Boulevard
Germantown, MD 20874
USA
David Whipple
OFFICE: 562-699-7411x2909
FAX: 562-692-5103
dwhipple@lacsd.org
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
P.O. Box 4998
Whittier, CA 90607-4998 USA
J. Kenneth Whittle
OFFICE: 610-687-9070
FAX: 610-964-8570
kwittle@aol.com
EPI
996 Old Eagle School Rd.
Wayne, PA 19087 USA
Dale Wilhelm
OFFICE: 410-436-7440
FAX: 410-436-7442
' dwilhelm@c-pmcd.apgea.army.mil
Defense National
8725 John J. Kingman Rd., Suite 4616
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060 USA
Jane Williams
FAX:
661-256-0968
661-256-0674
California Communities Against Toxics
P.O. Box 845
3813 30th St. West
Rosamono, CA 93560 USA
FINAL
113
As of: Monday, April 10, 2000
-------
r
Workshop on Mercury Products, Processes, Waste, & the Environment:
Eliminating, Reducing, & Managing Risks from Non-Combustion Sources
Baltimore, Maryland, March 22-23, 2000
LIST OF ATTENDEES
Winston A. Williams
OFFICE: 202-782-0315
FAX: 202-782-8383
winston.williams@na.amedd.army.mil
Walter Reed Army Medical Center
6825 16th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20307-5000 USA
Elaine Wilson
OFFICE: 703-218-6283
FAX: 703-591-1305
elaine.wilson@parsons.com
Parsons Engineering Science
10521 Rosehaven Street
Fairfax, VA 22030 USA
Arvin Wu
DFFICE: 703-318-4754
FAX: 703-736-0826
an/in. wu@saic. com
SAIC
11251 Roger Bacon Drive
P.O. Box 4875
Reston, VA 20190 USA
Glen M. Wyatt
OFFICE: 253-924-6103
FAX: 253-924-6182
glen. wyatt@weyerhaeuser. com
Weyerhaeuser Company
WTC-2G2, P.O. Box 2999
Tacoma, WA 98477-2999
USA
FINAL
114
As of: Monday, April 10, 2000
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency/ORD
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Please make all necessary changes on the below label,
detach or copy, and return to the address in the upper
left-hand corner.
If you do not wish to receive these reports CHECK HEREQ;
detach, or copy this cover, and return to the address in the
upper left-hand corner.
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
Official Business
Penally for Private Use
$300
EPA/625/R-00/014
------- |