United States Solid Waste and OSW# EPA530-R-92-013
Environmental Protection Emergency Response NTIS# PB92-162 569
Agency (OS-305) April 1992
Characterization of
530R92013 Products Containing
Mercury in Municipal Solid
Waste in the United States,
1970 to 2000
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
V
•'1?
-------
CHARACTERIZATION OF PRODUCTS CONTAINING
MERCURY IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN THE
UNITED STATES, 1970 TO 2000
April, 1992
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
1 MERCURY IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE: OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY 1-1
Health and Environmental Effects of Mercury 1-1
Natural and Anthropogenic Releases of Mercury 1-2
Overview of This Report 1-3
Sources of Mercury in Municipal Solid Waste 1-5
Household Batteries 1-8
Electric Lighting 1-10
Paint Residues 1-10
Fever Thermometers 1-11
Thermostats 1-11
Pigments 1-11
Dental Uses 1-12
Special Paper Coating 1-12
Mercury Electric Light Switches 1-12
Film Pack Batteries 1-12
Trends in Discards of Mercury in MSW 1-12
Discontinued Sources of Mercury in MSW 1-13
Mercury in Non-Municipal Solid Waste Products 1-14
Limitations of This Report 1-15
References 1-17
2 MERCURY IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE 2-1
Background Information 2-1
Mercury and its Compounds 2-1
Mercury Consumption in Products Sold in the United States 2-3
Batteries 2-4
Types of Batteries 2-5
Discards of Mercury in Batteries in MSW 2-9
Projections 2-10
Recovery of Batteries 2-12
Electric Lighting 2-14
Paint Residues 2-16
Fever Thermometers 2-19
Residential Thermostats 2-23
Pigments 2-25
Dental Uses 2-31
Special Paper Coating 2-34
Mercury Electric Light Switches 2-35
Instant Camera Film Pack Batteries 2-37
Discontinued Uses of Mercury in MSW 2-38
References 2-41
111
-------
Chapter Page
3 MERCURY IN NON-MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE PRODUCTS 3-1
Introduction 3-1
Agricultural Products 3-1
Paints 3-2
Catalysts for Plastics 3-3
Chlorine and Caustic Soda Production 3-3
Explosives 3-4
Laboratory Uses 3-4
Pharmaceuticals 3-4
Cosmetics 3-5
Electrical Apparatus 3-5
Discontinued Uses of Mercury in Non-MSW Applications 3-6
References 3-8
Appendix
A MATERIALS FLOW METHODOLOGY A-l
B CONSUMPTION OF MERCURY B-l
C BACKGROUND DATA ON MERCURY IN BATTERIES C-l
D HOUSEHOLD BATTERIES THAT DO NOT CONTAIN MERCURY D-l
E WORLDWIDE ANNUAL ANTHROPOGENIC SOURCES OF MERCURY E-l
F MERCURY ASSESSMENT IN ALKALINE DRY BATTERIES F-l
LIST OF TABLES
1-1 Discards of Mercury in Products in the Municipal Solid Waste Stream,
1970 to 2000 (In short tons) 1-5
1-2 Discards of Mercury in Products in the Municipal Solid Waste Stream,
1970 to 2000 (In percent of total discards) 1 -6
2-1 Consumption of Mercury in the United States, 1980 and 1989 2-3
2-2 Types of Household Batteries 2-6
2-3 Discards of Mercury in Household Batteries (In short tons) 2-11
2-4 Discards of Mercury in Household Batteries (In percent of total before recovery) 2-12
2-5 Discards of Mercury in Electric Lamps 2-16
2-6 Estimated Mercury in Discarded Paint Residues 2-18
2-7 Discards of Mercury in Thermometers 2-21
2-8 Discards of Mercury in Thermostats 2-24
2-9 Ratio of CdS:HgS in Cadmium-Mercury Pigments 2-27
2-10 Consumption of Cadmium-Mercury Pigments 2-28
2-11 Consumption of Mercury in Pigments in Plastics 2-29
2-12 Discards of Mercury in Pigments 2-30
2-13 Discards of Dental Mercury 2-32
2-14 Mercury Discards in Special Paper Coating 2-34
IV
-------
Page
2-15 Discards of Mercury in Switches 2'36
2-16 Discards of Mercury from Instant Camera Film Pack Batteries 2-38
2-17 Consumption of Mercury in Paper Manufacture 2-40
LIST OF FIGURES
1-1 Discards of mercury in MSW, 1989 I"7
1-2 Percentage discards of mercury in MSW, 1970 to 2000 I"7
1-3 Discards of mercury in batteries in MSW, 1970 to 2000 1-8
1-4 Discards of mercury in MSW, 1970 to 2000 1-13
1 -5 Sources of mercury in combustible and noncombustible MSW products, 1989 1-14
1-6 Sources of mercury in noncombustible products, 1989 1-14
1-7 Sources of mercury in combustible products, 1989 1-15
2-1 Consumption of mercury in the U.S., 1980 and 1989 2-4
2-2 Flow diagram for discards of batteries containing mercury in MSW 2-9
2-3 Discards of mercury in batteries in MSW, 1970 to 2000 2-13
2-4 Discards of mercury in electric lighting in MSW, 1970 to 2000 2-15
2-5 Discards of mercury in paint residues, 1970 to 2000 2-20
2-6 Discards of mercury in thermometers in MSW, 1970 to 2000 2-22
2-7 Discards of mercury in thermostats in MSW, 1970 to 2000 2-25
2-8 Discards of mercury in pigments in MSW, 1970 to 2000 2-29
2-9 Discards of mercury in dental uses in MSW, 1970 to 2000 2-33
-------
-------
CHARACTERIZATION OF PRODUCTS CONTAINING MERCURY
IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN THE UNITED STATES, 1970 TO 2000
Executive Summary
THE PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS REPORT
The purpose of this report is to identify the products in municipal solid
waste (MSW) that may contain mercury and to quantify, to the extent that
data are available, the mercury present in these products. Since the data are
presented in a time trend (1970 to 1989), the report helps to identify which
products in MSW are making declining contributions of mercury and which
are increasing. The information in this report can thus be used to identify
opportunities for source reduction and removal of mercury from the
municipal solid waste stream.
As in earlier municipal solid waste characterization reports published
by EPA*, the characterization of mercury in MSW relies on a material flows
methodology. By definition in the referenced reports, municipal solid waste is
generated from residential, commercial, and institutional sources. Some
wastes from industrial facilities, such as office waste and packaging, are also
included. MSW as characterized in the referenced reports does not include
other Subtitle D wastes such as municipal sludges, municipal waste
combustion ash, industrial nonhazardous process wastes, small quantity
generator wastes, construction and demolition wastes, agricultural wastes, oil
and gas production wastes, and mining wastes. Subtitle C (hazardous) wastes
also are not included.
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF MERCURY
Human Health Effects
Mercury is a heavy metal with a high toxicity and strong tendency to
bioaccumulate in the food chain. Worldwide, the major route for entry of
mercury in humans is ingestion of mercury-contaminated food, especially
fish. Long-term exposure, or exposure during developmental stages, to either
organic or inorganic mercury can permanently damage the brain, kidneys,
and fetuses. Short-term exposure to high levels of inorganic or organic
mercury can cause similar health effects, which may be reversible. Pregnant
women, fetuses, and children appear to be at highest risk.
The most recent of these reports is Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States: 1990 Update. EPA/530-SW-90-042. June 1990.
ES-1
-------
Environmental Effects
In addition to potential effects on human health, mercury poisoning
can also affect other living organisms. Mercury is unique among the metals
in that it is consistently biomagnified within the aquatic food chain.
Organisms eating mercury-contaminated fish, such as birds, wild mink, and
otter, have been found to have mercury poisoning. In addition, several
countries have reported poisoning of birds through ingestion of seeds treated
with mercury compounds, and of predatory animals through ingestion of
contaminated birds.
MERCURY RELEASES IN PERSPECTIVE
While the products containing mercury in municipal solid waste are
an important source of mercury releases in the environment, they are far
from the only source. Global releases of mercury in the environment are both
natural and anthropogenic (caused by human activity). Relative sources of
mercury are shown in Figure ES-1.
While global releases are not well documented, the best estimate
available is that about 12,000 short tons of mercury are released annually to
the air, soil, and water through anthropogenic sources. These sources include
combustion of various fuels; mining, smelting, and manufacturing activities;
wastewater; agricultural, animal, and food wastes; urban refuse; combustion
ash, and other human activities. Global natural sources of mercury include
volatilization of gaseous mercury from soils, vegetation, oceans, and other
water bodies. The natural sources are thought to release less mercury overall
than the anthropogenic sources, but natural atmospheric emissions may be
higher than anthropogenic atmospheric emissions.
Figure ES-1. Global and United States sources of annual mercury releases.
Global Anthropogenic
(Human) Sources of Hg
Fuel combustion; mining,
smelting, manufacturing;
wastewater, agricultural,
animal, and food wastes;
urban refuse; combustion
ash.
Total annual releases
about 12,000 short tons;
probably higher than
total natural releases.
Global Natural
Sources of Mercury
Volatilization of gaseous
mercury from soils,
vegetation, oceans, and
other water bodies.
Natural atmospheric
emissions probably higher
than anthropogenic
•(mospfMr/c emissions.
1989 Consumption of Mercury
In the United States
\
| 1,338 short tons |
1989 Discards of Mercury
in Municipal Solid Waste
In the United States
i
\ 709 short tons |
Note: Heights of columns are for comparative purposes only. Global anthropogenic and natural sources of mercury are not wel documented.
Due to time lag before products in MSW are discarded, mercury in discards may have been consumed several years previously.
ES-2
-------
Figure ES-2. U.S. consumption of mercury, 1989 (in short tons)
J Chlorine,
Batteries (mostly MSW)
^"t"<"?S&\ I Paint mildew-proofing (Residues are MSW)
Wiring devices, switches (Partly MSW)
Instruments (Partly MSW)
*"""! All other uses (Partly MSW)
^gj^jJ
50 100
150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Discards of mercury in products in municipal solid waste in the United
States are derived from consumption of mercury, with appropriate
adjustments for manufacturing losses, imports and exports of products
containing mercury, and the lifetimes of the relevant products. In 1989, an
estimated 709 short tons of mercury were discarded in the U.S. in municipal
solid waste compared to the 1,338 short tons reported to be consumed in the
U.S. the same year (Figure ES-1). The MSW discards are less than
consumption because mercury is used in several products and processes that
are not discarded as MSW. (The adjustments listed above also partially
account for differences between consumption and discards in any given year.)
There are several uses of mercury in products and processes that are
not classified as MSW discards. The largest use of mercury in the U.S. is in
chlorine and caustic soda manufacture (Figure ES-2); mercury wastes from
these processes are classified as industrial process waste. Another example is
mercury-containing paint that has been applied to indoor or outdoor surfaces.
If the structure is demolished, the waste would be classified as demolition
waste, not MSW. Many batteries, instruments, and electrical devices
containing mercury are used in industrial, communications, transportation,
or military applications that also are not classified as MSW.
SOURCES OF MERCURY IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
Research performed in the preparation of this report identified a
number of sources of mercury in municipal solid waste, with total discards of
mercury in 1989 estimated to be 709 short tons. A summary of the results is
shown in Tables ES-1 and ES-2, and Figure ES-3.
ES-3
-------
Table ES-1
DISCARDS* OF MERCURY IN PRODUCTS
IN THE MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE STREAM, 1970 TO 2000
(In short tons**)
Products 1970 1980 1989 2000
Household Batteries 310.8 429.5 621.2 98.5
Electric Lighting 19.1 24.3 26.7 40.9
Paint Residues 30.2 26.7 18.2 0.5
Fever Thermometers 12.2 25.7 16.3 16.8
Thermostats 5.3 7.0 11.2 10.3
Pigments 32.3 23.0 10.0 1.5
Dental Uses 9.3 7.1 4.0 2.3
Special Paper Coating 0.1 1.2 1.0 0.0
Mercury Light Switches 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.9
Film Pack Batteries 2.1 2.6 0.0 0.0
TOTAL DISCARDS 421.8 547.5 709.0 172.7
* Discards before recovery.
* * Weights in this report are converted to short tons of 2000 pounds.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
The tables show that batteries discarded from households and other
sources of MSW are by far the largest current source of mercury. Light bulbs,
paint residues, thermometers, thermostats, and pigments are estimated to
contribute most of the remainder of mercury in MSW. A few other uses, such
as dental mercury and light switches, were also identified, but these totaled
less than one percent of mercury in MSW in 1989.
Mercury discards in MSW peaked in 1986, and are declining rapidly
(Figure ES-4). In particular, there is projected to be a significant decrease in
mercury in alkaline batteries and paint residues over the next few years. The
decrease in batteries is due to a long-term commitment to research and
development by the battery industry to remove mercury from alkaline
batteries. The removal of mercury from paint residues is the result of bans by
the Environmental Protection Agency, and voluntary cancellations of
registrations by the paint industry, of mercury-based biocides in 1990 and 1991.
The only products identified to be increasing in total tonnage of
mercury discarded are electric lighting and mercury light switches. Fever
thermometers and thermostats, while formerly increasing in tonnage
discarded, are projected to be fairly stable as sources of mercury.
ES-4
-------
Table ES-2
DISCARDS* OF MERCURY IN PRODUCTS
IN THE MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE STREAM, 1970 TO 2000
(In percent of total discards)
Products 1970 1980 1989 2000
Household Batteries 73.7 78.4 87.6 57.0
Electric Lighting 4.5 4.4 3.8 23.7
Paint Residues 7.2 4.9 2.6 0.3
Fever Thermometers 2.9 4.7 2.3 9.7
Thermostats 1.3 1.3 1.6 6.0
Pigments 7.7 4.2 1.4 0.9
Dental Uses 2.2 1.3 0.6 1.3
Special Paper Coating 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0
Mercury Light Switches 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.1
Film Pack Batteries 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0
TOTAL DISCARDS 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
* Discards before recovery.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Each identified source of mercury in MSW is discussed briefly in this
section.
Household Batteries
Batteries containing mercury that are assumed to be discarded into
MSW are mostly of two types:
• Alkaline batteries, which are usually the cylinder-shaped batteries
used in flashlights, radios and other electronics, and toys.
• Mercury-zinc batteries, which are usually in a "button" form, are
used in hearing aids, watches, calculators, cameras, and similar
applications. Mercury-zinc cylinder-type batteries are also used in
some medical applications that were assumed to be discarded in
MSW.
A few other kinds of batteries—carbon zinc, silver oxide, and zinc air-
account for relatively small amounts of mercury in MSW.
Alkaline Batteries. Alkaline batteries accounted for about 419 short
tons, or over 59 percent, of discards of mercury in MSW in 1989. While the
ES-5
-------
amount of mercury used in each battery has been quite small, the large
numbers of alkaline batteries sold have caused these batteries to become the
leading source of mercury in MSW.
The battery industry has been under intense pressure to reduce the
amounts of mercury (and other heavy metals) discarded into MSW. The
industry has announced its intention to reduce mercury in alkaline batteries
to 0.025 percent by weight by 1992, and to eventually eliminate all mercury
from these batteries. Projections made for this report take these goals into
account.
Mercury-Zinc Batteries. Mercuric oxide is used as the cathode material
in mercury-zinc batteries, so mercury comprises a relatively high percentage
of the material in these batteries. They contributed over 196 tons, or nearly 28
percent, of mercury discards in 1989. The amount of mercury discarded in
mercury-zinc batteries has declined over the years as other kinds of batteries
(silver oxide, zinc air) have taken some of their market share.
While mercury can be eliminated from alkaline batteries, it is an
integral part of mercury-zinc batteries. Discards of mercury from this source
were thus projected to decrease but not be eliminated. Based on the
projections, only mercury-zinc batteries will be found in MSW in the year
2000.
Other Batteries. Other batteries that contributed about 5 tons, or less
than one percent, of mercury discards in MSW in 1989 include carbon-zinc
batteries, silver oxide batteries, and zinc air batteries. Production of carbon-
zinc batteries is declining, while use of silver oxide and zinc air batteries has
Figure ES-3. Discards of mercury in MSW, 1989
Lighting 3.8%
Paint Residues 2.6%
Thermometers 2.3%
- Thermostats 1.6%
Pigments 1.4%
All Others <1%
Total mercury discards = 709 short tons
ES-6
-------
Figure ES-4. Discards of mercury in MSW, 1070 to 2000
short tons
800 -p m m
700 . . • " " " "
600 •• •
— •
500 . - . . •
• i(i*
• •
400-p
300' •
•
200 • •
100-
0 1 1 1 1 1—
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
been increasing. It is projected that use of mercury in these batteries will be
discontinued.
Recovery for Recycling. While some programs to recover batteries,
either for recycling or simply to keep them out of the waste stream, were
identified, the quantities recovered were not believed to be significant enough
to affect discards in 1989. It was assumed for this report that 5 percent of the
mercury in batteries will be recovered in 1995 and that 20 percent will be
recovered in the year 2000. These recovery rates are consistent with recovery
rates achieved by many other products in MSW, and lower than some.
Electric Lighting
The second largest source of mercury in MSW in 1989 was estimated to
be electric lighting. This mercury came from two sources:
• The ordinary fluorescent lamps (bulbs) used in residences, offices,
and other commercial and institutional buildings
• Certain high intensity lamps (bulbs) used in lighting streets, parking
lots, and similar sites.
Of these two sources, fluorescent lamps are by far the largest,
accounting for 26 tons of mercury in MSW in 1989, or 3.7 percent of total
discards. All lighting sources were estimated to contribute nearly 27 tons of
mercury in 1989, or almost 4 percent of total discards.
ES-7
-------
The mercury content of these lamps has been reduced over the past 5
years, but increasing sales will cause the amount of mercury from this source
to continue to increase. New energy-efficient fluorescent lamps are being
promoted as a replacement for incandescent lamps at this time, but it is too
early to determine whether sales and discards of these lamps will further
increase the amount of mercury discarded.
While a few attempts to recover mercury from fluorescent lamps were
identified, no basis for projecting a significant amount of recovery from
lamps in MSW in the future was found.
Paint Residues
By 1991, EPA had banned the use of mercury as a biocide in paints for
exterior or interior use. Even though mercury is no longer used in paint
manufacture, paint cans containing residues including mercury will continue
to be discarded. It was estimated that about 18 tons of mercury were discarded
in paint residues in 1989, or 2.6 percent of total discards. These discards are
projected to decline rapidly as paints made after the ban on mercury took
effect begin to be discarded. (Note that these estimates do not include mercury
in paints applied to interior or exterior surfaces, which are not classified as
municipal solid waste.)
Fever Thermometers
The familiar fever thermometer was identified as a source of mercury
discarded from homes and medical establishments. In 1989, an estimated 16.3
tons of mercury were discarded in thermometers, or just over 2 percent of
total discards.
Mercury fever thermometers are being replaced by digital
thermometers, especially in medical applications. It therefore was projected
that there will be a gradual decline in discards of mercury from this source.
Thermostats
The typical thermostat used for temperature control in residences and
other buildings contains mercury that could enter MSW if the thermostat is
discarded. (This mercury could also become demolition waste if the
thermostat is in a demolished house.) An estimated 11 tons of mercury
entered MSW in thermostats in 1989; this was less than 2 percent of total
discards.
Thermostats have a long life—estimated to be 20 years—so there is a
long lag time before they are discarded. Thus, even though mercury
ES-8
-------
thermostats are gradually being replaced by digital thermostats, they are
projected to continue to be a source of mercury in MSW through 2000.
Pigments
Published data on the end uses for pigments containing mercury was
not found. It appears that most of the mercury in pigments is used in plastics,
often in combination with cadmium, but other uses could include paints,
printing inks, rubber, textiles, and others. Based on the data available, it was
estimated that 10 tons of mercury in pigments were discarded in 1989. This
was less than 2 percent of total discards.
Use of mercury in pigments has been declining steadily. Cadmium-
mercury pigments are no longer manufactured in the United States, but some
imports were identified. Since there is continuing pressure on pigment
makers to eliminate metals, it was projected that use of mercury in pigments
will continue to decline rapidly.
Other Sources of Mercury in MSW
Other sources of mercury in products discarded in MSW include dental
amalgams, a special paper coating used with cathode ray tubes, and mercury
electric light switches. Together these uses amounted to less than one percent
of mercury in MSW discards in 1989.
Use of mercury in dentistry is declining, and the manufacturers of the
special paper have announced plans to discontinue use of mercury by 1995. Of
this group, only mercury light switches are a growing source of mercury in
MSW. Their discards are projected to total about 2 tons in 2000, or about one
percent of total discards in that year.
Mercury was formerly a component of batteries used in instant camera
film packs, but this use was discontinued in 1988.
Discontinued Sources of Mercury in MSW
Research for this report identified several products that can be classified
as MSW where mercury has been used in the past. These sources were not
quantified, but are listed below:
Mirrors (discontinued about 50 years ago)
Glass in highly specialized applications
Felt (discontinued in the 1950s)
Textiles intended for outdoor use
Paper (discontinued about 1972).
ES-9
-------
MERCURY IN NON-MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE PRODUCTS
While the purpose of this report was to quantify sources of mercury in
municipal solid waste, other products containing mercury were identified in
the research. Some of these wastes could very likely be managed in a landfill
or combustor intended primarily for MSW.
Agricultural Products
Mercury and mercury compounds have been used as fungicides for
agricultural purposes. These uses were greatly restricted by FIFRA, and
presently only applications for treatment of outdoor textiles, to control brown
mold on freshly sawn lumber, to control Dutch elm disease, and to control
snow mold are allowed. No use is permitted on food crops.
Paints
In the past mercury compounds were widely used as biocides or
preservatives in paint, especially in latex paints. Mercury was also formerly
used in antifouling paints for marine use, but this use was banned in 1972. By
regulatory action taken in 1990 and 1991, EPA prohibited further use of
mercury in indoor or outdoor paints manufactured in the U.S.
Paint containing mercury manufactured before the ban may, however,
still be discarded as a residue (see above), and demolition waste including
mercury in paint will undoubtedly still be discarded.
Chlorine and Caustic Soda Production
Mercury is used in the manufacturing process for the production of
chlorine and caustic soda. In fact, this use was the largest consumer of
mercury in the United States in 1989. This use was classified as industrial, not
MSW.
Other Non-MSW Sources of Mercury
Other uses for mercury not classified as entering MSW include the
catalysis of various plastics, explosives, laboratory uses, residues of
Pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, and certain electrical apparatus.
Discontinued Uses of Mercury
A number of non-MSW applications for mercury that have been
discontinued were identified. These include embalming fluid, photographic
development, soap, and wood preservatives.
ES-10
-------
LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT
The purpose of this report was to characterize the sources of mercury in
municipal solid waste. The characterization applies to the United States as a
whole, and should not be construed to be representative of mercury in MSW
in a particular locality. Local variations in waste composition and in waste
management practices may cause the mercury content at any particular
facility to vary from the United States average.
In many cases, the amounts of historical, current, and projected
mercury in products in MSW are not well documented in any available data
source. The estimates in this report are, therefore, often based on
assumptions, which are documented in the report.
Identification of alternatives and substitutes for mercury in products
was not part of the work scope for this report. Information on these topics
must come from other sources.
ES-11
-------
-------
Chapter 1
MERCURY IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE: OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY
In the past few years, environmentally-sound disposal of municipal
solid waste (MSW) has become a major issue for the United States, especially
at the local and state levels. As more and more landfills are closed and new
landfills become increasingly difficult to site, communities are seeking
alternate methods of disposal. Recovery and recycling of materials and
combustion (incineration) of MSW are two management alternatives that are
being considered and implemented in many locations. In addition, reduction
of both the quantities of municipal solid waste and the toxic constituents of
solid waste has received increasing attention at the local, state, and national
levels.
Mercury has been of particular concern because it has been detected in
the emissions from municipal waste combustion facilities and in the ash
remaining after combustion. Mercury is also an undesirable contaminant
when wastes are managed by other methods such as composting, recycling, or
landfilling.
The purpose of this report is to identify the products in MSW that may
contain mercury and to quantify, to the extent that data are available, the
mercury present in these products. Since the data are presented in a time
trend (1970 to 1989), the report helps to identify which products in MSW are
making declining contributions of mercury and which are increasing. The
information in this report can thus be used to identify opportunities for
source reduction and removal of mercury from the municipal solid waste
stream.
The report projects a dramatic decrease in the amount of mercury
discarded to MSW facilities, due in large part to the successful efforts of the
battery industry to remove mercury from alkaline batteries. This example
emphasizes the effectiveness of source reduction as a strategy for reducing the
toxicity of municipal solid waste.
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF MERCURY
Human Health Effects
Mercury is a heavy metal with a high toxicity and strong tendency to
bioaccumulate in the food chain. Worldwide, the major route for entry of
mercury in humans is ingestion of mercury-contaminated food, especially
fish. Methylmercury in surface waters is rapidly accumulated by aquatic
organisms; therefore, populations eating large amounts of fish can be at risk
of mercury poisoning (1, 2).
1-1
-------
Long-term exposure, or exposure during developmental stages, to
either organic or inorganic mercury can permanently damage the brain,
kidneys, and fetuses. Short-term exposure to high levels of inorganic or
organic mercury can cause similar health effects, which may be reversible (1).
Pregnant women, fetuses, and children appear to be at highest risk (2). The
type and severity of adverse health effects is dependent upon the form,
concentration, and duration of mercury exposure. For example, ingestion of
fish contaminated with organic methylmercury may cause greatest harm to
the brain and developing fetuses; breathed metallic or organic mercury vapor
may cause greatest harm to the brain; and ingestion of inorganic mercury salts
may cause greatest harm to the kidneys (1).
Environmental Effects*
In addition to potential effects on human health, mercury poisoning
can also affect other living organisms. Mercury is unique among the metals
in that it is consistently biomagnified within the aquatic food chain.
Organisms eating mercury-contaminated fish, such as birds, wild mink, and
otter, have been found to have mercury poisoning. In addition, several
countries have reported poisoning of birds through ingestion of seeds treated
with mercury compounds, and of predatory animals through ingestion of
contaminated birds.
NATURAL AND ANTHROPOGENIC RELEASES OF MERCURY**
While the focus of this report is on sources of mercury in municipal
solid waste in the United States, there are many other sources of mercury in
the environment worldwide. These sources are both natural and
anthropogenic (caused by human activity.) A precise determination of
mercury in the environment is very difficult (in part because information on
emissions in the less developed parts of the world is inadequate), but some
data that can be used to place the sources of mercury in context are available.
Anthropogenic Releases of Mercury
An article by Nriagu and Pacyna in the peer-reviewed journal Nature
(3), suggests that global anthropogenic releases of mercury into the biosphere
are approximately 11,000 metric tons (approximately 12,000 short tons) per
The information in this section is from the proceedings of a workshop on metal cycling
sponsored by the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment of the International
Council of Scientific Unions (4).
Sources for this section are the proceedings of a workshop on metal cycling sponsored by the
Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment of the International Council of
Scientific Unions (4) and an article in the peer-reviewed journal Nature (3).
1-2
-------
year. (See Appendix E for a summary table.) Mercury releases to the
atmosphere come mainly from combustion of coal, municipal refuse, sewage
sludge, and wood, and from production of metals. Mercury inputs into
aquatic ecosystems come from electricity production, manufacturing
processes, domestic wastewater and sewage sludge, mining, and fallout of
atmospheric emissions. Mercury emissions into soils come from mining and
smelting activities, coal fly ash and bottom ash, wood wastes, commercial
wastes, sewage sludge, urban refuse, agricultural and food wastes, fallout of
atmospheric emissions, and other sources.
Natural Sources of Mercury
Unlike most of the other heavy metals, natural atmospheric emissions
of mercury may be more significant than anthropogenic atmospheric
emissions. There is some consensus in the scientific community that the
global natural atmospheric emissions are higher than anthropogenic
atmospheric emissions of mercury by ratios of 2:1 to 4:1 (6). A summary of an
international workshop on metal cycling (2) estimated that annual global
atmospheric emissions from natural sources are on the order of 2,700 to 6,000
metric tons (2,980 to 6,600 short tons), while anthropogenic atmospheric
emissions are 630 to 2,000 metric tons (690 to 2,200 short tons). The 1988
Nriagu and Pacyna article, however, estimates anthropogenic atmospheric
releases at 1,003 to 6,834 metric tons, which suggests that natural and
anthropogenic atmospheric releases may be roughly equivalent (3).
The natural mercury sources are mainly volatilization of gaseous
mercury from soils and vegetation, as well as from the ocean and other water
bodies (6).
Summary
Worldwide measurements of natural and anthropogenic sources of
mercury are still imprecise. It appears, however, that global natural
atmospheric emissions are higher than or at least equal to anthropogenic
atmospheric releases of mercury, but global anthropogenic releases into the
biosphere (including inputs into aquatic systems and soils) are greater than
natural atmospheric emissions.
OVERVIEW OF THIS REPORT
This report characterizes mercury in products disposed in municipal
solid waste over the time period 1970 to 1989, with projections of disposal to
the year 2000. A summary of the findings is presented in this chapter.
Chapter 2 includes a more detailed discussion of the products in MSW that
contain mercury, while Chapter 3 provides a brief discussion of products
1-3
-------
containing mercury that are not classified as MSW. (Some of these latter
products could, however, be disposed of in a combustor or landfill.)
Wastes Included in This Report
As defined by EPA in earlier characterization reports (7, 8, 9), municipal
solid wastes come from residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial
sources. These sources include:
Residential wastes Wastes from single and multiple family
dwellings, including yard wastes and bulky
wastes like appliances
Commercial wastes Wastes from office buildings, shopping
centers, warehouses, restaurants, and the like
Institutional wastes Wastes from schools, hospitals, prisons, and
the like
Industrial wastes Packaging from assembly plants, wastes from
offices and lunchrooms at industrial sites.
Wastes Not Included in This Report
Other wastes that EPA classifies as Subtitle D (nonhazardous) wastes
are not quantified in this report. These wastes include (10):
Municipal sludges (e.g., wastewater treatment sludge)
Industrial nonhazardous process wastes
Small quantity generator waste
Construction and demolition waste
Agricultural waste
Oil and gas production waste
Mining waste.
Subtitle C (hazardous) wastes are not included in this report.
The Material Flows Methodology
The material flows methodology, which has been used to characterize
MSW in EPA reports for nearly 20 years, is based on production data (by
weight) for the materials and products in the waste stream. Adjustments are
made for imports and exports and for diversion from MSW (e.g., for products
used as building materials). Adjustments are also made for the lifetimes of
products. Where relevant, adjustments are made for materials recovered for
1-4
-------
recycling. A detailed description of the material flows methodology is
included as Appendix A.
The term "Discards" as used in the EPA material flows methodology
refers to MSW remaining after recovery has taken place. No significant
current recovery of mercury from MSW was identified for this study. Some
increase in recovery is assumed for the projections; these assumptions are
explained later in the report.
SOURCES OF MERCURY IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
*
Research performed in the preparation of this report identified a
number of sources of mercury in municipal solid waste. A summary of the
results is shown in Table 1-1 and Table 1-2.
Table 1-1
DISCARDS* OF MERCURY IN PRODUCTS
IN THE MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE STREAM, 1970 TO 2000
(In short tons**)
Products
1970
1975
1980
1985
1989
Household Batteries
Alkaline
Mercury-Zinc
Others
Subtotal Batteries
Electric Lighting
Fluorescent Lamps
High Intensity Lamps 0.2
Subtotal Lighting
Paint Residues
Fever Thermometers
Thermostats
Pigments
Dental Uses
Special Paper Coating
Mercury Light Switches
Film Pack Batteries
TOTAL DISCARDS
* Discards before recovery.
* * Weights in this report are converted to short tons of 2000 pounds.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
1995
2000
4.1
301.9
4.8
310.8
18.9
0.2
19.1
30.2
12.2
5.3
32.3
9.3
0.1
0.4
2.1
421.8
38.4
287.8
4.7
330.9
21.5
0.3
21.8
37.3
23.2
6.8
27.5
9.7
0.6
0.4
2.3
460.5
158.2
266.8
4.5
429.5
23.2
1.1
24.3
26.7
25.7
7.0
23.0
7.1
1.2
0.4
2.6
547.5
352.3
235.2
4.5
592.0
27.9
0.7
28.6
31.4
32.5
9.5
25.2
6.2
1.8
0.4
2.8
730.4
419.4
196.6
5.2
621.2
26.0
0.8
26.7
18.2
16.3
11.2
10.0
4.0
1.0
0.4
0.0
709.0
41.6
131.5
3.5
176.6
32.6
1.0
33.6
2.3
16.9
8.1
3.0
2.9
0.0
1.9
0.0
245.3
0.0
98.5
0.0
98.5
39.7
1.2
40.9
0.5
16.8
10.3
1.5
2.3
0.0
1.9
0.0
172.7
1-5
-------
Table 1-2
DISCARDS* OF MERCURY IN PRODUCTS
IN THE MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE STREAM, 1970 TO 2000
(In percent of total discards)
Products
Household Batteries
Alkaline
Mercury-Zinc
Others
Subtotal Batteries
Electric Lighting
Fluorescent Lamps
High Intensity Lamps
Subtotal Lighting
Paint Residues
Fever Thermometers
Thermostats
Pigments
Dental Uses
Special Paper Coating
Mercury Light Switches
Film Pack Batteries
TOTAL DISCARDS
1970
1975
1980
1985
1989
* Discards before recovery.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
1995
2000
1.0
71.6
1.1
73.7
4.5
0.0
4.5
7.2
2.9
1.3
7.7
2.2
0.0
0.1
0.5
100.0
8.3
62.5
1.0
71.9
4.7
0.1
4.7
8.1
5.0
1.5
6.0
2.1
0.1
0.1
0.5
100.0
28.9
48.7
0.8
78.4
4.2
0.2
4.4
4.9
4.7
1.3
4.2
1.3
0.2
0.1
0.5
100.0
48.2
32.2
0.6
81.1
3.8
0.1
3.9
4.3
4.4
1.3
3.5
0.8
0.2
0.1
0.4
100.0
59.2
27.7
0.7
87.6
3.7
0.1
3.8
2.6
2.3
1.6
1.4
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.0
100.0
17.0
53.6
1.4
72.0
13.3
0.4
13.7
0.9
6.9
3.3
1.2
1.2
0.0
0.8
0.0
100.0
0.0
57.0
0.0
57.0
23.0
0.7
23.7
0.3
9.7
6.0
0.9
1.3
0.0
1.1
0.0
100.0
Total discards of mercury in 1989 were estimated to be 709 short tons.
Mercury discards in MSW peaked in 1986, and are declining rapidly. In
particular, there is projected to be a significant decrease in mercury in alkaline
batteries and paint residues over the next few years. The decrease in batteries
is due to a long-term commitment to research and development by the
battery industry to remove mercury from alkaline batteries. The removal of
mercury from paint residues is the result of bans by the Environmental
Protection Agency, and voluntary cancellations of registrations by the paint
industry, of mercury-based biocides in 1990 and 1991.
The tables clearly demonstrate that, currently, batteries discarded from
households and other sources of MSW are by far the greatest source of
mercury. Light bulbs, paint residues, thermometers, thermostats, and
pigments are estimated to contribute most of the remainder of mercury in
1-6
-------
Figure 1-1. Discards of mercury in MSW, 1989
Lighting 3.8%
Paint Residues 2.6%
Thermometers 2.3%
- Thermostats 1.6%
Pigments 1.4%
All Others <1%
Total mercury discards = 709 short tons
Figure 1-2. Percentage discards of mercury in MSW, 1970 to 2000
1970
1989
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
1
100%
EH All Others
I Pigments
H Paint Residues
D Lighting
Q Batteries
1-7
-------
MSW. A few other uses, such as dental mercury and light switches, were also
identified, but these totaled less than one percent of mercury in MSW in 1989.
Each identified source of mercury in MSW is discussed briefly in this
section. An overview of mercury discards in MSW in 1989 is shown in Figure
1-1, while Figure 1-2 shows percentage discards of mercury in MSW in 1970
and 1989. A more complete discussion of each source, with tables and figures,
can be found in Chapter 2.
Household Batteries
Batteries containing mercury that are assumed to be discarded into
MSW are mostly of two types:
• Alkaline batteries, which are usually the cylinder-shaped batteries
used in flashlights, radios and other electronics, and toys.
• Mercury-zinc batteries, which are usually in a "button" form, are
used in hearing aids, watches, calculators, cameras, and similar
applications. Mercury-zinc cylinder-type batteries are also used in
some medical applications that were assumed to be discarded in
MSW.
A few other kinds of batteries—carbon zinc, silver oxide, and zinc air—
account for relatively small amounts of mercury in MSW.
Alkaline Batteries. Alkaline batteries accounted for about 419 short
tons, or over 59 percent, of discards of mercury in MSW in 1989. Figure 1-3
Figure 1-3. Discards of mercury in batteries in MSW, 1970 to 2000
short tons
700,.
• All Others
Q Mercury-Zinc
H Alkaline
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
1-8
-------
illustrates that alkaline batteries had a very small market share in 1970, but
they increased rapidly up to the present time. Mercury has been used in
alkaline batteries to deter corrosion and inhibit hydrogen buildup that can
cause cell rupture. While the amount of mercury used in each battery has
been quite small, the large numbers of alkaline batteries sold have caused
these batteries to become the leading source of mercury in MSW.
The battery industry has been under intense pressure to reduce the
amounts of mercury (and other heavy metals) discarded into MSW. This has
occurred both in Europe and, more recently, in the United States. The
industry has announced its intention to reduce mercury in alkaline batteries
to 0.025 percent by weight by 1992, and to eventually eliminate all mercury
from these batteries. Projections made for this report take these goals into
account.
Mercury-Zinc Batteries. Mercuric oxide is used as the cathode material
in mercury-zinc batteries, so mercury comprises a relatively high percentage
of the material in these batteries. They contributed over 196 tons, or almost 28
percent, of mercury discards in 1989. As Figure 1-3 shows, the amount of
mercury discarded in mercury-zinc batteries has declined over the years as
other kinds of batteries (silver oxide, zinc air) have taken some of their
market share.
While mercury can be eliminated from alkaline batteries, it is an
integral part of mercury-zinc batteries. Discards of mercury from this source
were thus projected to decrease but not be eliminated.
Other Batteries. Other batteries that contributed about 5 tons, or less
than one per.cent, of mercury discards in MSW in 1989 include carbon-zinc
batteries, silver oxide batteries, and zinc air batteries. Production of carbon-
zinc batteries is declining, while use of silver oxide and zinc air batteries has
been increasing. It is projected that use of mercury in these batteries will be
discontinued.
Recovery for Recycling. While some programs to recover batteries,
either for recycling or simply to keep them out of the waste stream, were
identified, the quantities recovered were not believed to be significant enough
to affect discards in 1989. It was assumed for this report that 5 percent of the
mercury in batteries will be recovered in 1995 and that 20 percent will be
recovered in the year 2000. These recovery rates are consistent with rates
achieved by many other products in MSW, and lower than some. Since it is
projected that only mercury-zinc batteries will contain mercury in those years,
they would account for all of this recovery.
1-9
-------
Electric Lighting
The second largest source of mercury in MSW in 1989 was estimated to
be electric lighting. This mercury came from two sources:
• The ordinary fluorescent lamps (bulbs) used in residences, offices,
and other commercial and institutional buildings
• Certain high intensity lamps (bulbs) used in lighting streets, parking
lots, and similar uses.
Of these two sources, fluorescent lamps are by far the largest,
accounting for 26 tons of mercury in MSW in 1989, or 3.7 percent of total
discards. All lighting sources were estimated to contribute nearly 27 tons of
mercury in 1989, or nearly 4 percent of total discards.
The mercury content of these lamps has been reduced over the past 5
years, but increasing sales will cause the amount of mercury from this source
to continue to increase. New energy-efficient fluorescent lamps are being
promoted as a replacement for incandescent lamps at this time, but it is too
early to determine whether sales and discards of these lamps will increase the
amount of mercury discarded.
While a few attempts to recover mercury from fluorescent lamps were
identified, no basis for projecting a significant amount of recovery from
lamps in MSW in the future was found.
Paint Residues
For many years, mercury-based biocides were used in paints to control
microbial growth in the paint cans and to preserve paint film from attack by
mildew after it was applied to a surface. This use of mercury was partially
banned by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1990 through
voluntary cancellation of registrations, and the bans were made complete
through voluntary cancellation of the remaining registrations in 1991.
Even though mercury is no longer used as a biocide in the
manufacture of paints, paint cans containing residues including mercury will
continue to be discarded. Since data to document these discards are not
available, an estimation methodology was devised to estimate discards of
paint residues in cans. It was estimated that about 18 tons of mercury were
discarded in paint residues in 1989, or 2.6 percent of total discards. These
discards are projected to decline rapidly as paints made after the ban on
mercury took effect begin to be discarded. (Note that these estimates do not
include mercury in paints applied to interior or exterior surfaces, which are
not classified as municipal solid waste.)
1-10
-------
Fever Thermometers
Mercury is used in a wide variety of instruments, most of which are
used in industrial applications. The familiar fever thermometer was,
however, identified as a source of mercury discarded from homes and
medical establishments. In 1989, an estimated 16.3 tons of mercury were
discarded in thermometers, or 2.3 percent of total discards.
Mercury fever thermometers are being replaced by digital
thermometers, especially in medical applications. It therefore was projected
that there will be a gradual decline in discards of mercury from this source.
Thermostats
The typical thermostat used for temperature control in residences and
other buildings contains mercury that could enter MSW if the thermostat is
discarded. (This mercury could also become demolition waste if the
thermostat is in a demolished house.) An estimated 11 tons of mercury
entered MSW in thermostats in 1989; this was less than 2 percent of total
discards.
Thermostats have a long life—estimated to be 20 years—so there is a
long lag time before they are discarded. (Note that the apparent dip in discards
of mercury in thermostats in 1995 is due to low housing starts in the recession
year of 1975.) Thus, even though mercury thermostats are gradually being
replaced by digital thermostats, they are projected to continue to be a source of
mercury in MSW through 2000.
Pigments
Mercury has a long history of use in pigments, but it is difficult to
quantify the uses for pigments containing mercury. (The Bureau of Mines
withholds data on mercury in pigments, and no other published sources were
found. Estimates were made using a number of assumptions.) It appears that
most of the mercury in pigments is used in plastics, often in combination
with cadmium, but other uses could be paints, printing inks, rubber, textiles,
and others. Based on the data available, it was estimated that 10 tons of
mercury in pigments were discarded in 1989. This was less than 2 percent of
total discards.
Use of mercury in pigments has been declining steadily. Cadmium-
mercury pigments are no longer manufactured in the United States, but some
imports were identified. Since there is continuing pressure on pigment
makers to eliminate metals, it was projected that use of mercury in pigments
will continue to decline rapidly.
1-11
-------
Dental Uses
Mercury is used in dental amalgams for fillings in teeth. Most excess
mercury in dentists' offices is collected for re-refining, but some is discarded,
and a small amount of mercury is assumed to enter MSW in lost teeth and
fillings. It was estimated that 4 tons of mercury (less than one percent of total
discards) entered MSW from these sources in 1989. Usage of dental mercury
has been declining, and this is projected to be a declining source of mercury in
MSW.
Special Paper Coating
A small amount of mercury is used in the coating for a special paper
used for scanning off a cathode ray tube. This might be used in hospitals and
microfiche printers, for example. It was estimated that about one ton of
mercury entered MSW from this source in 1989. The companies making this
special paper have announced plans to phase out the use of mercury, and it
was projected that this would be done by 1995.
Mercury Electric Light Switches
Silent mercury switches for lighting are used in many homes and
commercial buildings. The switches, which have been manufactured since
the 1960s, have a very long life, up to 50 years. This use of mercury was
difficult to quantify (the Bureau of Mines does not report this use separately),
but it was estimated that less than one ton of mercury was discarded in
switches in 1989. These discards are projected to increase to about 2 tons by
1995, however, as more switches reach their life expectancy and are discarded.
Film Pack Batteries
Instant cameras use a film pack powered by a battery. These batteries
contained mercury until 1988, when use of mercury was reportedly
discontinued.
Trends in Discards of Mercury in MSW
Trends in discards of mercury in municipal solid waste are illustrated
in Figure 1-4. Mercury in batteries has dominated the discards for the entire
period analyzed. Discards of mercury in batteries apparently peaked in 1986,
and this source is projected to decline as mercury is eliminated from alkaline
batteries and usage of mercury-zinc batteries declines.
Discards of mercury in electric lighting (primarily fluorescent bulbs),
and mercury switches are projected to continue to increase. Discards in paint
1-12
-------
Figure 1-4. Discards of mercury in MSW, 1970 to 2000
short tons
800,
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
B Thermometers
• Paint Residues
D Lighting
O Batteries
residues, pigments, dental uses, paper coating, and film pack batteries are
projected to decline rapidly or be eliminated. Mercury in thermometers and
thermostats will continue to be present in the year 2000 if present trends
continue, although mercury thermometers and thermostats are gradually
being phased out by digital models.
DISCONTINUED SOURCES OF MERCURY IN MSW
Research for this report identified several products that can be classified
as MSW where mercury has been used in the past. These sources were not
quantified, but are listed below for informative purposes.
• Mirrors were formerly manufactured with mercury in the coating, but
this practice was discontinued about 50 years ago.
• Glass has been made with mercury in highly specialized applications.
• Felt was formerly treated with mercury, but this was discontinued in
the 1950s.
• Textiles intended for outdoor use have been treated with mercury as a
fungicide, but this practice has been discontinued.
• Paper production formerly used mercury compounds as a fungicide.
This use is not allowed under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
1-13
-------
MERCURY IN NON-MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE PRODUCTS
While the purpose of this report was to quantify sources of mercury in
municipal solid waste, other products containing mercury were identified in
the research. Some of these wastes could very likely be managed in a landfill
or combustor intended primarily for MSW. The mercury-containing products
identified are listed in this section. More discussion of these products is
included in Chapter 3.
Agricultural Products
Mercury and mercury compounds have been used as fungicides for
agricultural purposes. These uses were greatly restricted by FIFRA, and
presently only applications for treatment of outdoor textiles, to control brown
mold on freshly sawn lumber, to control Dutch elm disease, and to control
snow mold are allowed. No use is permitted on food crops.
Paints
In the past mercury compounds were widely used as biocides or
preservatives in paint, especially in latex paints. Mercury was also formerly
used in antifouling paints for marine use, but this use was banned in 1972.
By regulatory action taken in 1990 and 1991, EPA prohibited further use
of mercury in indoor or outdoor paints manufactured in the U.S. Paint
manufactured before the ban may, however, still be discarded (see the section
on paint residues). Also, paint applied to indoor and outdoor surfaces can be
discarded along with construction and demolition wastes (which are not
classified as municipal solid waste by EPA).
Catalysts for Plastics
Mercury is or has been used in the catalysis of various plastics,
including polyurethane, vinyl chloride, and vinyl acetate. Apparently there is
negligible residual mercury in any products that would be classified as MSW.
Chlorine and Caustic Soda Production
Mercury is used in the manufacturing process for the production of
chlorine and caustic soda. In fact, this use was the largest consumer of
mercury in the United States in 1989. This use was classified as industrial, not
MSW.
1-14
-------
Explosives
Mercury has had long usage in explosives. The best information
available indicates that for about the past 20 years, only the military has used
mercury in explosives.
Laboratory Uses
Mercury is commenly used in laboratories. Laboratory wastes are
regulated and are not classified as MSW.
Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics
Mercury is an ingredient in a variety of pharmaceutical products and is
allowed in very small quantities in eye-area cosmetics. While residues of
these mercury-containing products no doubt enter MSW, they would be
classified as household hazardous wastes and were not quantified.
Electrical Apparatus
Mercury is used in a variety of ways in electrical apparatus. These uses
include tilt switches, relays, and similar industrial or communications
applications. Except for light switches used in residences and commercial and
institutional buildings, these were not classified as municipal solid wastes.
Discontinued Uses
There are a number of non-MSW applications for mercury that have
been discontinued. Those identified are listed below.
Embalming fluid
Photographic development
Soap
Treatment of Dutch elm disease (allowed but discontinued)
Wood preservatives.
LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT
The purpose of this report was to characterize the sources of mercury in
municipal solid waste. The characterization applies to the United States as a
whole, and should not be construed to be representative of mercury in MSW
in a particular locality. Local variations in waste composition and in waste
management practices may cause the mercury content at any particular
facility to vary from the average. Also, the MSW received at any given waste
management facility varies from day to day and even from hour to hour. A
load of waste that includes cans of paint containing mercury or several
1-15
-------
discarded mercury-containing batteries could have a mercury content far
above the average.
In many cases, the amounts of historical, current, and projected
mercury in products in MSW are not well documented in any available data
source. The estimates in this report are, therefore, often based on
assumptions, which are documented in Chapter 2.
Identification of alternatives and substitutes for mercury in products
was not part of the work scope for this report. Information on these topics
must come from other sources.
1-16
-------
Chapter 1
REFERENCES
1. Clement Associates. Toxicological Profile for Mercury. Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Public Heath Service, and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. December 1989.
2. Hutton, M. "Human Health Concerns of Lead, Mercury, Cadmium and
Arsenic." In Lead, Mercury, Cadmium and Arsenic in the Environment,
edited by T. C. Hutchinson and K.M. Meema. John Wiley & Sons. 1984.
3. Nriagu, J.O., and Pacyna, J.M. "Quantitative Assessment of Worldwide
Contamination of Air, Water and Soils by Trace Metals." Nature. Vol.
333, May 1988.
4. Lindberg, S., Stokes, P.M., Goldberg, E., and Wren, C. "Group Report:
Mercury." In Lead, Mercury, Cadmium and Arsenic in the Environment,
edited by T. C. Hutchinson and K.M. Meema. John Wiley & Sons. 1984.
5. Lindberg, S.E. "Emission and Deposition of Atmospheric Mercury
Vapor." In Lead, Mercury, Cadmium and Arsenic in the Environment,
edited by T. C. Hutchinson and K.M. Meema. John Wiley & Sons. 1984.
6. Pacyna, J.M. "Atmospheric Emissions of Arsenic, Cadmium, Lead and
Mercury from High Temperature Processes in Power Generation and
Industry." In Lead, Mercury, Cadmium and Arsenic in the Environment,
edited by T. C. Hutchinson and K.M. Meema. John Wiley & Sons. 1984.
7. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1990
Update. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OS-305). EPA/530-SW-90-042. June 1990.
8. Characterization of Products Containing Lead and Cadmium in
Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1970 to 2000. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/530-SW-89/015A. January 1989.
9. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1960 to
2000 (Update 1988). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NTIS No.
PB88-232780CBT. March 1988.
10. Subtitle D Study Phase I Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA/530-SW-86-054.
October 1986.
1-17
-------
-------
Chapter 2
MERCURY IN MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
BACKGROUND INFORMATION*
Mercury is a silvery-white metal that exists as a liquid at room
temperature. Also known as quicksilver, mercury was first described by the
Greek philosopher Aristotle in the fourth century B.C., when it was used in a
religious ceremony.
Mercury was used in small quantities primarily for medicinal and
cosmetic purposes until the 16th century, when demand increased with
development of the Patio process for the recovery of silver by amalgamation.
Invention of the barometer in 1643 and the mercury thermometer in 1720
also increased the use of mercury. After World War I, other uses for mercury
were developed. Mercury was used in production of drugs, electrical
apparatus, the dry cell battery, and the mercury cell process to produce
chlorine and caustic soda.
Mercury occurs in nature predominantly in combination with sulfur,
the most important ore being HgS or cinnabar. This ore is processed to
produce 99.9 percent pure prime virgin mercury for industrial use or can be
processed to higher purity for other applications. Mercury can also be
obtained from secondary sources by recycling industrial losses or end
products.
Mercury is a useful product in many applications. It is rated as one of
the best electrical conductors among metals. It has the ability to form alloys
(amalgams) with almost all metals except iron. Its inability to wet and cling to
glass makes it useful for measuring devices.
In spite of its useful properties, mercury can create serious human
health and environmental problems. Ingestion of mercury can affect the
central nervous system, including sensory, visual, and auditory functions and
coordination (3). Inhalation of mercury can affect the nervous system and the
kidneys (4).
MERCURY AND ITS COMPOUNDS"
Some of the more commonly used mercury compounds are listed in
this section. The chemical formula, a general description, and uses are given.
* References 1,2, and 11 were the primary sources for this section.
** References 5 and 6 were used for this section.
2-1
-------
Mercury Metal - Hg
Mercury metal in its liquid state is used in applications such as switches
and thermometers.
Mercurous Chloride - HgCl
Also referred to as mercury (I) chloride and calomel, mercurous
chloride has been used as a fungicide in cosmetics, in agriculture to control
root insects, and on turf to control mold. It also has pharmaceutical value as
a diuretic and an antiseptic and is widely used in laboratories.
Mercuric Chloride - HgCl2
Mercuric chloride is also known as mercury (II) chloride and corrosive
sublimate or is sometimes ammoniated. It was once used as an intensifier for
black and white photography and was first described for use as a fungicide in
agriculture in 1891. It is now primarily used in pharmaceuticals and on turf
to control mold.
Mercuric Oxide - HgO
Mercuric oxide appears as a red or yellow powder. Red mercuric oxide
was utilized more than yellow as a pigment for anti-fouling paints. It has a
major use as a cathode material for mercury batteries and was also listed as an
anti-bacterial chemical for some cosmetics.
Mercuric Sulfide - HgS
Also referred to as vermilion, mercuric sulfide is the most frequently
occurring natural form of mercury and is mined as cinnabar. Mercuric
sulfide red is used as a pigment for plastics, linen, and paper and as an
antibacterial in pharmaceuticals.
Phenylmercuric Acetate - C6H5HgCH3COO
Usually abbreviated as PMA, phenylmercuric acetate has been used as a
bactericide. It was first marketed as a seed treatment for agriculture in 1932,
but the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) restricted
agricultural uses to control of turf diseases such as snow mold. PMA's
registration for use in paints was cancelled by EPA in 1991.
2-2
-------
Mercury Fulminate
Mercury fulminate was used in many explosives due to its high
sensitivity. It served as an initiating detonator for larger chain reaction
explosions.
Thimerosal -
Thimerosal is primarily used as a preservative. It was once applied as a
treatment for agricultural seeds, but is now primarily used in cosmetics and
Pharmaceuticals.
MERCURY CONSUMPTION IN PRODUCTS SOLD IN THE UNITED STATES
A summary of mercury consumption in the United States as reported
by the Bureau of Mines for the time period 1967 through 1989 is included as
Appendix B, and an overview is presented in Table 2-1 and Figure 2-1. These
figures represent consumption of mercury, which should not be interpreted
as discards in municipal solid waste. Some of the mercury is used for other
products (non-MSW), some is used in products that are exported, and other
mercury comes into the United States in products that are imported. All of
these adjustments are made in the process of estimating MSW discards.
Overall, consumption of mercury has been generally declining over
the past decade. Use of mercury in batteries—some of which are used in
industrial, communications, military, and transportation applications rather
Table 2-1
CONSUMPTION OF MERCURY IN THE UNITED STATES, 1980 AND 1989
(In short tons)
Product
Chlorine & caustic soda manufacture
Batteries
Mildew proofing of paints
Wiring devices & switches
Measuring & control instruments
Dental equipment & supplies
Electrical lighting
Laboratory uses
Other uses
Total
1980
360
1,058
328
116
116
68
39
14
142
2,241
1989
420
276
212
155
96
43
34
20
82
1,338
Trend
Increasing
Decreasing
Decreasing
Increasing
Decreasing
Decreasing
Little change
Increasing
Decreasing
Decreasing
Types of Waste
Generated
Industrial process
MSW, industrial, other
Construction & demolition,
MSW (residues in cans)
MSW, industrial, other
MSW, industrial, other
MSW, other
Primarily MSW
Hazardous
MSW, industrial, other
Source: U.S. Bureau of Mines (Appendix B).
2-3
-------
Figure 2-1. Consumption of mercury In the U.S., 1980 and 1989
short tons
2,500.
2,000.
1,500.
1,000-
500.
0
1980
Source: Bureau of Mines
1989
E3 Chlorine, caustic soda mfg
El Batteries
• Paint mildew-proofing
B Wiring devices & switches
I Instruments
O All other uses
than products classified as MSW— declined dramatically between 1980 and
1989. Use of mercury in chlorine and caustic soda manufacture (an industrial
process, not MSW) increased in the decade of the 1980s. Use of mercury for
mildew-proofing paints (no longer permitted) declined even before the new
regulations were in place.
Use of mercury in wiring devices and switches increased somewhat,
while use in measuring and control instruments decreased. Some of these
applications are discarded in MSW (e.g. some thermometers and switches),
but many of these applications are found in industrial, communications, and
military uses that are not classified as MSW.
Other uses of mercury (each consuming less that 100 short tons per year
in 1989) include dental uses, electrical lighting, laboratory uses, and pigments.
Dental uses have been decreasing; a small part apparently enters MSW, while
much of the remainder is presumed to be buried or cremated with deceased
persons. Mercury use in electrical lighting (mostly MSW) has been fairly
stable. Use of mercury in pigments (mostly MSW), although not well
documented, appears to be declining. Use of mercury in laboratories is
regulated and is presumed not to enter MSW.
BATTERIES
Batteries used in households and some other applications are an
important source of mercury in municipal solid waste; over two billion
household batteries are sold in the United States each year (7). The average
consumer uses seven to eight batteries per year (8). (All of these batteries do
not contain mercury, of course.)
2-4
-------
Batteries are electrochemical devices that convert chemical energy to
electrical energy. A cell consists of a positive electrode, called the cathode, a
negative electrode, called the anode, and a liquid solution through which an
electrical current can travel, referred to as the electrolyte (9). Primary batteries
are batteries that are nonrechargeable. Secondary batteries can be recharged
and reused.
Batteries vary in size, shape, and voltage requirements. The choice of
which battery to use depends on the type of product requiring the battery. For
household batteries, two general categories of applications exist. One is the
miniature batteries used in hearing aids, electronic watches, and cameras.
These batteries are usually button sized. The second category includes
batteries used in portable (not corded or plug-in) items, such as test
equipment, radio apparatus, lighting, calculators, and other electrical
equipment (10).
Types of Batteries
A description of small household type batteries is shown in Table 2-2.
The majority of household batteries in municipal solid waste would be in one
of these categories. Mercury is used as cathode material in the form of red
mercuric oxide in the mercury-cadmium, mercury indium bismuth, and
mercury-zinc batteries. In all others, it is amalgamated with the zinc anode
to deter corrosion and inhibit hydrogen buildup that can cause cell rupture
and fire (11).
For each type of battery containing mercury and classified as municipal
solid waste, a table showing best estimates of the weight of mercury in the
battery was prepared (Appendix C). Some batteries that contribute only a
small percentage to total household battery sales were not included.* To
simplify calculations, all of the sizes of button batteries were averaged to
obtain one representative number for each type.
The battery industry has announced that reduction in mercury content
of batteries has been made and will continue to be made in the future. In fact,
a commitment has been made by the battery industry to lower the mercury
content to 0.025 weight percent by 1992. These reductions are reflected in
projections of future mercury discards.
Additional information on each type of battery is included below.
Alkaline batteries and mercury-zinc batteries, which were determined to
contribute by far the majority of mercury discarded into MSW, are discussed
first.
The sizes not included are 6 volt, batteries larger than 9 volt, AAA batteries in all types
except alkaline, and specific sizes of button batteries.
2-5
-------
Table 2-2
TYPES OF HOUSEHOLD BATTERIES
Type
Sizes
Cathode
Anode
Electrolyte
BATTERIES CONTAINING MERCURY
Alkaline
Carbon-Zinc
Heavy duty
Mercury-Zinc
Silver Oxide
Zinc Air
9 volt, D, C,
AA, AAA, button
9 volt, D, C,
AA,AAA
9 volt, D, C,
AA, AAA
D, C, AA, AAA,
button, some
cylindrical
Button
Button
Manganese
Dioxide
Manganese
Dioxide
Manganese
Dioxide
Mercuric Oxide
Silver oxide
Oxygen
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Zinc
Potassium
Hydroxide
Ammonium
and/or Chloride
Zinc Chloride
Potassium Hydroxide
or Sodium Hydroxide
Potassium Hydroxide
or Sodium Hydroxide
Potassium Hydroxide
BAl l tKlES CONTAINING MERCURY; NOT CLASSIFIED AS MSW
Mercury-
Cadmium*
Mercury Indium
Bismuth*
Button, some
cylindrical
Button, some
cylindrical
Mercuric Oxide
Mercuric Oxide
Cadmium
Indium
Bismuth
Alkaline
Solution
Alkaline
Solution
BATTERIES NOT CONTAINING MERCURY
Nickel-Cadmium
Lithium
9 volt, D, C,
AA, AAA
9 volt, C, AA,
coin and button
Nickel Oxide
Various metal
oxides
Cadmium
Lithium
Potassium Hydroxide
or Sodium Hydroxide
Organic solvent
or salt solution
* NH/VT Solid Waste Project
Source: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency except where noted. Classifications into
MSW and Non-MSW by Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Alkaline Batteries. The alkaline battery is the most common
household battery. It has taken over the carbon-zinc market even though the
retail price is greater than five times as much, and the demand is expected to
grow (12,13). In a 1986 market study, it was projected that alkaline batteries
will account for 75 percent of all future purchases (14). In 1985,1.2 billion
alkaline batteries were sold in the United States and an estimated 1.93 billion
will be sold in 1990 (13).
The alkaline battery is recommended for high-rate discharge systems
and low temperatures (12). These batteries are used in flashlights, radios and
other electronics, toys, and portable appliances. Button sized alkaline batteries
are used in watches and digital thermometers.
2-6
-------
The percent and weight of mercury in the various sizes of alkaline
batteries for various years as shown in Appendix C were determined by
averaging data from three companies. In addition, testing to determine
mercury content in a sample of alkaline batteries was carried out as part of
this project. The results of this testing are incorporated in the tables in
Appendix C. (Batteries purchased in 1990 were assumed to have been
manufactured in 1989). A complete report on the battery testing is included as
Appendix F to this report.
Mercury-Zinc Batteries. The mercury-zinc battery contains a large
percentage of mercury in comparison to all the other commonly used
household batteries. This battery is used in many different situations.
Household uses include transistorized equipment, hearing aids, electronic
watches, pocket calculators, cameras, radios, smoke detectors, garage door
openers, and tape recorders (12,15,16). The mercury-zinc cell is also
employed in industrial applications such as regulated power supplies,
radiation detection meters, portable potentiometers, electronic computers,
voltage recorders, scientific and military equipment, depth finders,
sonobuoys, emergency beacons, rescue transceivers, and surveillance sets (12,
15). Usage in cardiac pacemakers was common until a longer-lived solid
electrolyte cell was developed (15).
Mercury-zinc cylinder cells are also produced. These batteries have
applications in medical and military equipment. Uses include pagers, oxygen
and fetal monitors, portable EKG monitors for medical uses, and night vision
goggles for the military (17).
The characteristics of the mercury-zinc battery make it popular. It has a
long life, high capacity-to-volume ratio, steady discharge rate, higher
sustained voltage under load, no recuperation required, and high resistance
to shock, vibration, vacuum, pressure, corrosive atmospheres, and high
humidity (12). Problems include the retail price, which is 26 times as high as
carbon-zinc batteries, and performance that is sub-par at low temperatures
(12).
The demand for the mercury-zinc battery in the consumer market has
been decreasing (8). Currently, it has managed to hold 30 percent of the
button battery market, with most of those sales for use in hearing aids (13).
Other Batteries that Contain Mercury
Carbon-Zinc Batteries. A general purpose and a heavy duty
carbon-zinc battery are made. The general purpose version, hereafter referred
to as carbon-zinc, is also known as the Leclanche battery. It is less expensive
than an alkaline or mercury-zinc cell due to a high volume automated
manufacturing process (12). The heavy duty carbon-zinc battery, referred to in
2-7
-------
this study as heavy duty, is very similar to the Leclanche cell. It is capable of
higher discharge rates and is generally more expensive (7).
The availability and sizes are an attractive feature of the carbon-zinc
batteries. Examples of portable uses include roadside hazard lamps, intruder
alarm systems, fluorescent handlamps, direct reading frequency meters, wide
range oscillators, communication transceivers, tape recorders, and miniature
ignition devices (12). Use of the carbon-zinc battery is, however, declining.
Silver Oxide Batteries. The silver oxide battery is produced in
button form and is used for miniature applications (13). It can easily be
substituted for the mercury-zinc battery. Its demand is increasing as silver
oxide finds a niche in the market for watch batteries. Use in hearing aids is
also becoming more common (13).
Zinc Air Batteries. The zinc air battery also can serve as a
replacement for mercury-zinc button sized batteries. It has a service life twice
as long (18), and although it is more expensive than the mercury-zinc battery,
the consumer market demand is increasing (8).
Problems have occurred with the zinc air battery. It is unpredictable in
too dry or too moist air (18). Also, it has been difficult to produce air-
breathing cathodes of consistent quality (12).
Mercury Indium Bismuth Batteries. This mercury battery is
essentially used for specialized situations only, and was assumed not to be
discarded into MSW. It is recommended for applications requiring high
reliability, including reactor and high temperature processing, telemetry
systems, military uses, and memory core standby supplies (12).
Mercury-Cadmium Batteries. The mercury-cadmium battery is
similar to the mercury-zinc cell (11). It has a similar structure (12) and can be
used in compatible situations. The cost is higher and the voltage is lower
than in an equivalent sized mercury-zinc battery (15).
The mercury-cadmium battery is generally recommended for special
applications only (12). Some of its uses include gas and oil well logging,
telemetry from engines and other heat sources, alarm systems, and operation
of remote apparatus such as data-monitoring devices, buoys, weather stations,
and emergency equipment (15). It can also be used in the same situations as
the mercury indium bismuth battery (12). It was assumed that mercury-
cadmium batteries are not discarded in MSW.
2-8
-------
Imports of
Household Batteries
Retail Sales of
Domestic
Household Batteries
Batteries In Products
(Domestic and
Imported)
Total Retail Sales
of
Household Batteries
Discards of
Batteries
InMSW
Figure 2-2. Flow diagram for discard* of batteries containing mercury hi MSW.
Discards of Mercury in Batteries in MSW
To determine the total discards of mercury in batteries in MSW, retail
sales of domestic household batteries were first obtained. (See Appendix C for
the detailed data.) These basic figures were adjusted for imports of household
batteries and for batteries included in domestic and imported products such as
watches to obtain total discards of batteries containing mercury. A flow
diagram for the components of the discards of batteries containing mercury
into MSW is shown above (Figure 2-2).
Retail Sales of Batteries. Discards of mercury in batteries in MSW were
calculated using numbers for retail sales in the United States supplied by the
National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) (Appendix C). Sales
figures are provided for the years 1983 to 1988 with estimates for 1989 to 1992.
These figures established a trend and enabled estimates to be made for the
sales of each type of battery from 1967 to 1982 and from 1993 to 2000. From
total retail sales, the amount of mercury discarded from batteries was
calculated by adjusting for additional batteries entering the municipal solid
waste stream from sources other than households and determining the
mercury content in each battery type and size.
Data on imports of household batteries were not available for every
year. The Department of Commerce only reports the values of shipments in
their publications. Based on conversations with NEMA and data obtained for
1989 shipments from Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, a 15 percent
addition to U.S. retail sales was considered to be a reasonable estimate for
imports (19, 20). This percentage was applied to every year analyzed in this
study.
2-9
-------
In addition to batteries sold at retail stores, there are other sources of
mercury in batteries in the municipal solid waste stream. Adjustments were
made for batteries already in watches and digital thermometers when
purchased. Only button sized batteries would be used in these sources. Sales
figures for both products were obtained for the years 1984 to 1988 (21, 22).
Digital thermometers, comprising 33 percent of the sales of all
thermometers, including imports, contributed only a small amount of the
batteries from this source, mainly in the form of alkaline or silver (22).
Watches, on the other hand, contributed a significant number of batteries to
the municipal solid waste stream. Imported watches account for
approximately 95 percent of all watches sold in the United States (23). (A
number of these watches contain batteries made in the U.S. that were
exported to foreign countries.) The types of batteries used now are primarily
either alkaline or silver. Mercury-zinc batteries were used predominantly in
the 1970s (24).
Weight of Mercury in Batteries. Total weight of mercury in batteries in
MSW was obtained by combining the data on weight of mercury in each type
of battery with the adjusted retail sales for each type of battery (Appendix C).
An upward adjustment of 15 percent was made to the weight of mercury-zinc
batteries to account for battery sales to hospitals.
An average time lag of one year exists between the manufacture of the
battery and the date of purchase in the retail market. Therefore, the weight of
mercury in the battery used to calculate the total mercury was obtained from
the previous year. This has an effect especially in years where a reduction in
mercury content occurs.
Mercury Discarded in MSW. Tables 2-3 and 2-4 display the amount of
mercury entering the municipal solid waste stream by battery type in short
tons and percentage. It was assumed that 100 percent of all household
batteries sold would be discarded two years following purchase. This is not
quite true, but a large majority of batteries are believed to be discarded in the
first two years after purchase (17). Alkaline batteries contributed the largest
quantity of mercury to the municipal solid waste stream, even though they
contain the smallest percentage of mercury in any mercury-containing battery
discarded in MSW.
Projections
The trends in battery sales are expected to continue to the year 2000
along their present course (Appendix C). The percentages used for imports
and non-retail discards were not altered; they are assumed to follow along
2-10
-------
Table 2-3
DISCARDS OF MERCURY IN HOUSEHOLD BATTERIES
(In short tons)
Heavy Total Net Year
Year Alka- Carbon- Duty Mercury- Silver Zinc Mercury Recovery Mercury Dis-
Purchased line Zinc Carbon-Zinc Zinc Oxide Air Discards (1) Discards carded (2)
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
3.1
4.1
5.2
9.4
14.5
23.5
38.4
57.7
76.3
99.0
125.6
158.2
200.8
240.6
279.6
316.8
352.3
396.3
426.9
377.3
419.4
443.6
390.5
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
1.9
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.3
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
304.5
301.9
299.2
296.6
294.0
291.3
287.8
284.3
280.8
277.3
272.0
266.8
261.5
256.2
249.2
242.2
235.2
224.6
214.1
207.1
196.6
182.5
172.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.8
2.4
2.9
312.4
310.8
309.1
310.6
313.1
319.6
330.9
346.7
361.7
380.9
402.3
429.5
466.9
501.4
533.3
563.5
592.0
625.6
645.6
589.3
621.2
631.9
568.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
312.4
310.8
309.1
310.6
313.1
319.6
330.9
346.7
361.7
380.9
402.3
429.5
466.9
501.4
533.3
563.5
592.0
625.6
645.6
589.3
621.2
631.9
568.7
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1993
1998
41.6 0.4
0.0 0.0
0.5
0.0
131.5
98.5
0.7 2.0 176.6
8.8
0.0 0.0
3.5 19.7
167.8
78.8
1995
2000
(1) Recovery is projected to be 5% of discards in 1995, 20% in 2000.
(2) It is assumed 100% of all household batteries sold are discarded two years following purchase.
Source: Appendix C.
with retail demand and sales. It appears that alkaline and nickel-cadmium
batteries will become the dominant portable source of energy in the future.
Even though battery sales will continue to increase, discards of mercury
in batteries are projected to decline because of the commitment by makers of
alkaline batteries to reduce mercury content. In addition, sales of mercury-
zinc batteries—the other leading contributor of mercury in batteries—have
been declining. The declining trends in discards of mercury in batteries are
shown in Figure 2-3.
2-11
-------
Table 2-4
DISCARDS OF MERCURY IN HOUSEHOLD BATTERIES
(In percent of total before recovery)
Year Carbon- Heavy Duty Mercury- Silver Zinc
Purchased Alkaline Zinc Carbon-Zinc Zinc Oxide Air
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1993
1998
1.0%
1.3%
1.7%
3.0%
4.6%
7.4%
11.6%
16.6%
21.1%
26.0%
31.2%
36.8%
43.0%
48.0%
52.4%
56.2%
59.5%
63.4%
66.1%
64.0%
67.5%
70.2%
68.7%
23.6%
0.0%
.2%
.2%
.2%
.2%
.1%
1.1%
1.0%
1.0%
0.9%
0.8%
0.8%
0.7%
0.6%
0.5%
0.5%
0.4%
0.4%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.0%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.3%
0.0%
97.5%
97.1%
96.8%
95.5%
93.9%
91.2%
87.0%
82.0%
77.6%
72.8%
67.6%
62.1%
56.0%
51.1%
46.7%
43.0%
39.7%
35.9%
33.2%
35.1%
31.6%
28.9%
30.2%
74.5%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.3%
0.4%
0.5%
1.1%
0.0%
Year
Discarded (1)
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1995
2000
(1) It is assumed 100% of all household batteries sold are discarded two years
following purchase.
Source: Table 2-3.
Recovery of Batteries
A number of communities in the United States have set up programs
to recover household batteries, including those containing mercury. The
usual purpose of these programs is to prevent disposal of the batteries, along
with the heavy metals they contain, in landfills or incinerators. Curbside
collection, collection boxes in retail stores, and collection through household
hazardous waste programs have all been used to recover batteries (25, 26). In
addition to household battery collection programs, medical and industrial
batteries have also been collected, and in fact these have been identified as
easier targets for recovery (26, 27).
2-12
-------
Figure 2-3. Discards of mercury in batteries in MSW, 1970 to 2000
Short tons
700-
600-
500.
400.
300.
200.
100,
0 .
• »
•
•
*
. •
. *
« *
.•»»'*
,
•
I i 1 I I 1
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Once mercury-containing batteries are collected, opportunities for
recycling the mercury are limited. Only one U.S. firm (Mercury Refining
Company) has been identified as having the facilities to recycle heavy metals
from household batteries. A limited amount of exporting of recovered
batteries also occurs (26). Based on this information, no significant recovery of
mercury in batteries was estimated for 1989 (Table 2-3).
There is strong interest in recovery and recycling of many materials in
the United States, and recovery of household batteries has an additional
appeal because of the need to remove heavy metals from the waste stream.
Some states, such as Minnesota, New Jersey, and Connecticut, have passed or
are considering legislation aimed at recovery of household batteries (26, 28).
Because of this interest and the pilot programs now in place, recovery of 5
percent of mercury in batteries in 1995 and 20 percent recovery in 2000 was
projected (Table 2-3). (It should be noted that this is an estimate of recovery
and removal from MSW discards, not necessarily of recycling. This is
consistent with the methodology used in other EPA municipal solid waste
characterization reports.)
These recovery estimates, while not based on a history of recovery, are
not inconsistent with recovery rates for other products in MSW. The lead in
automotive batteries is recovered at an estimated rate of about 90 percent.
Other products have achieved rapid increases in recovery rates when interest
was sufficient. For example, recovery of aluminum beverage cans increased
from about 5 percent in 1970 to about 55 percent in 1988, while recovery of
PET beverage bottles increased from essentially zero in 1975 to over 20
percent in 1988.
2-13
-------
Assumptions and Data for Estimating Mercury Discards in Batteries
1. Data on battery sales were obtained from a trade organization. Data on
weights of mercury in batteries were obtained from industrial sources and
from test data (for alkaline batteries purchased in 1990).
2. An adjustment for imports was made based on information from
industrial sources.
3. It was assumed that batteries are purchased approximately one year after
they are manufactured, and are discarded two years after purchase.
4. It was assumed that there was no significant recovery of mercury in
batteries from MSW prior to 1990. Recovery rates of 5 percent in 1995 and
20 percent in 2000 were projected.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING
Mercury is used in several types of electric lamps (light bulbs) with a
multitude of applications. Mercury-containing lamps include fluorescent
lamps and high intensity discharge (HID) lamps such as mercury vapor, metal
halide, and high pressure sodium lamps. Applications include street lighting,
industrial and office lighting, floodlighting, photography, underwater
lighting, insect lamps, and sunlamps (29).
Discards of mercury in electric lamps were estimated using U.S.
Department of Commerce data on consumption of electric lamps that contain
mercury (30), plus industry information on the average amount of mercury
in each lamp.
Within each category of lamp (fluorescent and HID), mercury content
varies with bulb size and wattage. Lamp redesign and improvements in
manufacturing process control have reduced mercury content approximately
25 percent over the last 5 years (31). Estimated average mercury content
figures used were:
Fluorescent lamps
1970-1984 75 mg
1985 - present 55 mg
HID lamps
1970-1984 33 mg
1985 - present 25 mg
2-14
-------
Assumptions and Data for Estimating Mercury Discards in Electric Lighting
1. Apparent consumption of electric lamps as reported by the U.S.
Department of Commerce includes adjustments for imports and exports.
2. Although there seems to be some recovery of mercury from fluorescent
lamps, no recovery significant enough to affect estimates of discards was
identified. It was assumed that no significant recovery will be developed
over the next 10 years.
3. It was assumed that fluorescent lamps are discarded four years after they
are produced based on an average lamp life of 20,000 hours (32). HID lamps
are assumed to be discarded the same year they are produced.
4. Projections were based on past trends. New long-life fluorescent bulbs as a
replacement for incandescent bulbs are being promoted, but it is too early
to determine if these sales will significantly increase discards of mercury.
Estimated historical discards of mercury in electric lamps are
summarized in Figure 2-4 and Table 2-5.
Figure 2-4. Discards of mercury in electric lighting in MSW,
1970 to 2000
Short tons
45-r
40--
35--
30-- ^ . , *
25-- . . . . . *
20J . • * * '
15--
10--
5-.
O-l 1 1 1 1 I 1
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
2-15
-------
Table 2-5
DISCARDS OF MERCURY IN ELECTRIC LAMPS
(In short tons)
Fluorescent Lamps
Year
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1995
Apparent
Consumption (1)
(thousand units)
229,000 e
226,000 e
245,000 e
261,000 e
260,000 e
260,000 e
283,000 e
294,000 e
265,000 e
256,000 e
280,233
290,305
297,263
318,931
324,213
338,062
336,531
376,184
420,668
428,061
446,147
454,381
485,802
497,725
e
Average
Mercury
Content (g)
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.055
0.055
0.055
0.055
0.055
Mercury
Discarded (2)
(short tons)
18.9
18.7
20.3
21.6
21.5
21.5
23.4
24.3
21.9
21.2
23.2
24.0
24.6
26.4
26.8
27.9
27.8
31.1
34.8
26.0
32.6
High Intensity Discharge Lamps
Apparent
Consumption (1)
(thousand units)
6,841 e
7,684 e
8,420 e
9,349 e
9,158 e
8,737 e
10,383
10,853
12,175
13,532
30,187
21,397
20,891
22,146
25,636
25,529
22,206
28,143
24,479
28,090
Average
Mercury
Content (g)
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
Mercury
Discarded
(short tons)
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
1.1
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.8
1.0
Total
Mercury
Discarded (3)
(short tons)
19.2
19.0
20.6
21.9
21.8
21.8
23.8
24.7
22.4
21.7
24.3
24.8
25.3
27.2
27.7
28.7
28.4
31.9
35.5
26.7
33.6
2000 e
39.7
1.2
40.9
(1) Apparent consumption = Domestic shipments - Exports + Imports
(2) Fluorescent lamps discarded 4 years after production.
(3) Total discards = fluorescent discards + HID discards
e - Franklin Associates, Ltd. estimate
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Current Industrial Reports
PAINT RESIDUES
For many years, mercury-based biocides have been added to paints and
other coatings for two purposes:
• To preserve the paint in the can by controlling microbial growth
• To preserve the paint film from mildew attack after it is applied to a
surface (30).
2-16
-------
Four mercury compounds—phenylmercuric acetate (PMA), 3 -
(chloromethoxy) propylmercuric acetate (CMPA), di (phenylmercury)
dodecenylsuccinate (PMDS), and phenylmercuric oleate (PMO)—have been
registered as biocides in interior paint and exterior paint (33).
As of July 1990, all registrations for mercury biocides used in paints and
coatings, except those for PMA, were voluntarily cancelled by the registrants
(33). In May 1991, EPA announced the voluntary cancellation of the
remaining PMA registrations, which were for exterior paints and coatings
(34). This should mean a rapid decline in mercury discards in paint residues.
An EPA Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Fact Sheet (33)
describes the use of mercury-based biocides in water-based architectural
coatings applied to stationary structures (interior and exterior), mobile homes,
pavements, and curbs. None of these uses would be classified as municipal
solid waste by the usual definitions. Paint applied to homes that are
demolished would be classified as construction and demolition wastes,
mobile homes would not be classified as MSW, and paint applied to
pavements and curbs might enter the air, soil, or water as dust or chips, but
not as MSW.
Containers (paint cans) used for paint do, however, enter the
municipal solid waste stream along with any paint residues remaining.
(Some containers undoubtedly go to construction and demolition landfills,
but the amount is unknown.) Mercury discarded in these paint residues was
therefore considered for this report, although residues of products left in
containers have not been considered in previous EPA MSW characterization
studies.
Since insufficient sampling studies to determine amounts of mercury
in discarded paint residues were found, estimates were made based on a series
of assumptions shown in Table 2-6 and Figure 2-5. Data from the Bureau of
Mines on consumption of mercury in paints and mildew-proofing were used
as the basis for the estimates. It was also assumed that no more mercury will
be used in paints after 1991 due to the above-mentioned voluntary
cancellations. However, the length of time it will take manufacturers to
deplete existing stocks of mercury compounds is not known.
These estimates were undertaken only to indicate the relative
importance of these paint discards to the estimates of products containing
mercury in MSW. Data on paint discards have not been well-established.
As Table 2-6 illustrates, mercury consumption in paint peaked in 1979
and, therefore, mercury discards in paint residues peaked in 1984 under the
assumptions used. Even though most mercury use in paints was not banned
2-17
-------
Table 2-6
ESTIMATED MERCURY IN DISCARDED PAINT RESIDUES
(In short tons)
Year
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1995
2000
(1)
(2)
(3)
Mercury
Consumption
in Paints (1)
296.0
300.3
267.0
386.6
360.5
385.7
311.3
311.2
287.7
258.7
263.3
298.1
317.9
340.3
379.2
327.6
267.9
258.2
229.8
176.7
185.9
196.8
218.7
217.4
211.7
24.3
0.0
(6) 0.0
Mercury
Consumption
Adjusted for
Mfg Losses (2)
278.2
282.3
251.0
363.4
338.9
362.6
292.6
292.5
270.4
243.2
247.5
280.2
298.8
319.9
356.4
307.9
251.8
242.7
216.0
166.1
174.7
185.0
205.6
204.4
199.0
22.8
0.0
0.0
Percent
Exported (3)
3.0 e
3.0 e
3.0 e
3.0 e
3.0 e
3.0 e
3.0 e
3.0 e
3.0 e
3.0 e
3.0 e
3.0 e
3.0 e
3.0 e
3.0 e
3.1
2.1
2.1
1.5
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.1
0.0
0.0
Mercury
Consumption
Adjusted for
Exports
269.9
273.8
243.5
352.5
328.7
351.7
283.8
283.8
262.3
235.9
240.1
271.8
289.9
310.3
345.8
298.4
246.5
237.6
212.8
164.3
172.5
182.6
203.3
201.7
196.2
22.6
0.0
0.0
Residues
Discarded
in First
Year (4)
2.4
2.5
2.2
3.2
3.0
3.2
2.6
2.6
2.4
2.1
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.1
2.7
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.8
1.8
0.2
0.0
0.0
Residues
Discarded
in Fifth
Year (5)
27.0
27.4
24.3
35.3
32.9
35.2
28.4
28.4
26.2
23.6
24.0
27.2
29.0
31.0
34.6
29.8
24.7
23.8
21.3
16.4
17.2
2.3
0.5 e
Total
Discards
in
Residues
30.2
29.9
26.9
37.6
35.0
37.3
30.8
31.0
29.0
26.7
26.7
29.4
31.1
32.9
36.1
31.4
26.3
25.6
23.1
18.2
17.5
2.3
0.5 e
Bureau of Mines. Minerals Yearbook (Reference 44).
Manufacturing
losses assumed to be 6 percent (Reference 10).
Percent of water-based paints ex
ported calculated by Franklin Associates based on shipments
and exports of water-based paints in thousand gallons (References 35 and 36).
(4) Assumes that 90% of paint is applied in year of manufacture and 1% remains in cans
discarded the same year.
(5) Assumes that 10% of paint is never applied and is discarded 5 years after manufacture on
average.
(6) Although discards would be zero if all paint residues containing mercury were in fact
discarded in 5 years, some will likely still be present in 2000.
NA= Not available.
e = Estimated by Franklin Associates, Ltd.
2-18
-------
until 1990, the industry had begun reformulating its paints to eliminate
mercury much earlier (37).
Mercury in paint residues in MSW should gradually disappear
following the ban on use of mercury (Figure 2-5). This process could be
accelerated by increased household hazardous waste collection programs,
although this factor was not included in the estimates.
Assumptions and Data for Estimating Mercury Discards in Paint Residues
1. Mercury consumption in paints was based on data from the Bureau of
Mines.
2. Consumption was adjusted downward by a 6 percent factor to account for
manufacturing losses (10).
3. Consumption was adjusted downward to account for exports of water-
based paints, which could have contained mercury. Data on imports of
water-based paints were not available, but overall, imports of paints
amount to less than 10 percent of exports (35), so the amounts of
mercury in imports of paints should be very small.
3. It was assumed that 90 percent of paint containing mercury would be
applied to a surface the same year it is manufactured.
4. It was assumed that after paint is applied, one percent would remain and
would be disposed along with the containers the same year.
5. It was assumed that 10 percent of the paint containing mercury would
never be applied to a surface, but would be discarded in unopened or
partially empty cans five years after manufacture.
6. It was assumed that there is no significant recovery of mercury in
discarded paint.
FEVER THERMOMETERS
While mercury is used in a wide variety of instruments, the only
category of mercury instrument identified to be present in MSW in any
quantity, due to its extremely common use and disposable nature, is the
clinical mercury-in-glass thermometer, or fever thermometer.
Numbers of clinical thermometers produced and imported each year
were obtained from U.S. Department of Commerce records (38, 39) (Table 2-7).
2-19
-------
Figure 2-5. Discards of mercury in paint residues, 1970 to 2000
Short tons
40 -r
35|
30
25.
20-
15-
10-
5-
0-
*
4 *
* 4 *
m » «
*
*
1 1 1 1 1 «
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
The number of thermometers imported relative to the number produced
domestically has increased significantly in the past few years. This trend is
expected to continue. The quantity of thermometer exports could not be
identified and is assumed to be negligible, since fever thermometers are a low
cost item that is assumed to be produced and sold more cheaply by other
countries than the U.S.
Clinical thermometers are assumed to be 100 percent mercury in glass
up to 1984 and 67 percent mercury (33 percent digital) from 1984 through 1990.
Mercury thermometers are estimated to lose one to 2 percent of market share
to digital thermometers each year after 1990.
The quantity of mercury per thermometer was determined
experimentally by purchasing different brands and models of thermometers,
breaking them, and weighing the mercury. The average weight of mercury in
a standard oral/rectal/baby thermometer was 0.61 grams (based on a sample of
two), and the average weight of mercury in a basal temperature thermometer
was 2.25 grams (two samples). Considering the limited number of samples,
these weights should be considered to be approximate. In calculating the
weight of mercury in thermometers, it was estimated that 95 percent of
clinical thermometers are oral/rectal/baby and 5 percent are basal
temperature thermometers.
Some mercury in thermometers is lost due to breakage before the
thermometers are disposed of in MSW. A breakage factor of 5 percent was
used (40). The life expectancy used was 5 years.
2-20
-------
Table 2-7
DISCARDS OF MERCURY IN THERMOMETERS
(In short tons)
Mercuiy
Total Mercury Mercury in Discarded in Year
Year Thermometers (1) Thermometers (2) Thermometers (3) Thermometers (4) Dis-
Produced (million units) (million units) (short tons) (short tons) carded (5)
1965 16.9 16.9 12.9 12.2 1970
1966 22.6 22.6 17.2 16.4 1971
1967 22.9 22.9 17.5 16.6 1972
1968 28.7 28.7 21.9 20.8 1973
1969 32.3 32.3 24.6 23.4 1974
1970 32.0 32.0 24.4 23.2 1975
1971 25.5 25.5 19.5 18.5 1976
1972 25.0 25.0 19.1 18.1 1977
1973 29.7 29.7 22.7 21.5 1978
1974 39.2 39.2 29.9 28.4 1979
1975 35.5 35.5 27.1 25.7 1980
1976 27.2 27.2 20.7 19.7 1981
1977 409 40.9 31.2 29.6 1982
1978 41.2 41.2 31.4 29.9 1983
1979 442 44.2 33.7 32.0 1984
1980 44.8 44.8 34.2 32.5 1985
1981 42.9 42.9 32.7 31.1 1986
1982 46.7 46.7 35.6 33.8 1987
1983 33.1 33.1 25.2 24.0 1988
1984 33.8 22.5 17.2 16.3 1989
1990 35.0 e 23.3 17.8 16.9 1995
1995 38.0 e 23.2 17.7 16.8 2000
"TH Production and imports from U.S. Department of Commerce.
(2) Assumes digital thermometers begin to take market share in 1984.
(3) Assumes 95% of thermometers contain 0.61 grams of mercury; 5% contain 2.25 grams.
(4) Assumes 5% loss of mercury through breakage.
(5) Assumes 5-year life for thermometers.
e - Franklin Associates, Ltd. estimate.
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
Mercury in MSW from thermometers is expected to decrease gradually
over the next decade, due mainly to an increasing market share of digital
thermometers, used primarily in doctors' offices, hospitals, and clinics, and to
new products such as color-changing fever indicators used mainly at home
(Figure 2-6). Most fever thermometers in residential use are expected to
continue to use mercury, because of the higher cost of digital thermometers
and the relatively infrequent home use of fever thermometers. The total
number of thermometers is expected to remain essentially constant, with
increases in demand as population increases being offset by decreases in
quantities of thermometers due to the longer life of digital thermometers. It
is estimated that digital thermometers will gain an additional one to 2 percent
of the market each year from 1990 through 2000, and the mercury content of
mercury thermometers will remain constant.
2-21
-------
Figure 2-6. Discards of mercury in thermometers in MSW,
1970 to 2000
Short tons
35 j
30 •• » » * * •
*
25 ••
• • •
20 •• •
15- • '
10- •
5- •
" 1 1 1 —I 1
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Assumptions and Data for Estimating Mercury Discards in
Fever Thermometers
1. Data on production and imports of fever thermometers were obtained
from U.S. Department of Commerce publications. It was assumed that
there are no significant exports.
2. Average weight of mercury in thermometers was obtained
experimentally, and was estimated to be 0.61 grams per instrument for
oral/rectal/baby thermometers and 2.25 grams per instrument for basal
temperature thermometers. It was estimated that 95 percent of clinical
thermometers are oral/rectal/baby and 5 percent are basal temperature.
3. A breakage factor of 5 percent was used.
4. Thermometers were assumed to have a 5-year life.
5. It was assumed that there is no significant recovery of mercury from
clinical thermometers.
6. It was assumed that digital (non-mercury) thermometers began to replace
mercury thermometers in 1985 and that mercury thermometers will
continue to lose market share by one to 2 percent per year after 1990.
7. Projections were made assuming that the total number of fever
thermometers will remain essentially constant because increases in
population will be offset by the longer life of digital thermometers.
2-22
-------
RESIDENTIAL THERMOSTATS
The only category of electrical mercury device considered to make an
appreciable contribution to mercury in MSW is the residential mercury
thermostat. This category also includes mercury thermostats used in comfort
heating of non-residential buildings such as schools, hospitals, and office
buildings. A telephone survey of heating and air conditioning system repair
shops in a metropolitan area indicated that no special disposal methods are
used for mercury thermostats (41).
In the past decade, mercury thermostats have begun to be replaced by
programmable electronic thermostats, which do not contain mercury. The
trend toward programmable thermostats is driven by the potential for saving
energy and lowering utility bills; however, some consumers resist because of
the substantially higher cost of programmable devices over mercury.
Industry sales figures were not available for thermostats, so numbers
were estimated using construction and housing data (42), information from
thermostat manufacturers (43, 44, 45), and the assumptions below.
Assumptions and Data for Estimating Mercury Discards in
Residential Thermostats
1. Numbers of thermostats were estimated based on an assumption of one
thermostat for every 1000 square feet of new construction, and new
construction data from Statistical Abstract of the United States (42).
2. Quantity of mercury in each thermostat was estimated to be 2.82 grams,
based on experimental data.
3. It was assumed that there are no net imports or exports of thermostats
containing mercury.
4. It was assumed that mercury thermostats have a lifetime of 20 years before
disposal.
5. It was assumed that there is no significant recovery of mercury from
thermostats, and that this will not change.
6. Projections of new construction were made using a five-year average of
new construction. Programmable thermostats were assumed to have
entered the new construction market in 1985 with approximately 5 percent
of the market, and to gain an additional one percent each year through
2000.
2-23
-------
No information in the literature or from industrial sources was
obtained on the amount of mercury in each thermostat. Therefore, this
quantity was obtained experimentally by purchasing several different brands
and models of mercury thermostats, breaking the mercury tubes, and
weighing the mercury. For the sample of six mercury tubes weighed, the
mean weight of mercury was 2.82 grams, with a standard deviation of 0.04
grams (Table 2-8).
Table 2-8
DISCARDS OF MERCURY IN THERMOSTATS
(In short tons)
Year
Installed
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1975
1980
New
Thermostats
Installed (1)
(million units)
1.706
1.504
1.516
1.532
1.930
2.201
2.017
2.003
2.101
2.458
2.258
2.293
2.532
2.862
2.928
3.060
2.860
3.060
3.447
3.619
2.619
3.326
Total Mercury
in New
Thermostats (2)
(short tons)
5.3
4.7
4.7
4.8
6.0
6.8
6.3
6.2
6.5
7.6
7.0
7.1
7.9
8.9
9.1
9.5
8.9
9.5
10.7
11.2
8.1
10.3
Enters
MSW
in Year (3)
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1995
2000
(1)
Calculated based on one thermostat per 1000 square feet of
new construction or mobile home.
Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States (42).
Quantity of mercury in each thermostat estimated to be 2.82 grams.
Lifetime of mercury thermostats assumed to be 20 years.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
(2)
(3)
2-24
-------
Since new construction varies widely from year to year and trends are
unpredictable, the average number of new thermostats installed (based on the
average square feet of new construction and number of mobile homes) over
the last 5 years was used as an estimate for the number of new thermostats
installed each year for 1989 to 2000. Programmable (non-mercury)
thermostats are estimated to have entered the new construction market in
1985 with approximately 5 percent of the market, gaining an additional one
percent each year through 2000. Because of the 20-year life expectancy of
thermostats, significant changes in the quantity of mercury in MSW from
replaced thermostats will not be seen until after the year 2000 (Figure 2-7).
Figure 2-7. Discards of mercury in thermostats In MSW, 1970 to 2000
Short tons
12 T
10- •
8 • •
6 • •
4 •-
2 •
-I 1 1
0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
PIGMENTS
Mercury has a long history of use in the pigment industry. Mercury
sulfide, in the form of cinnabar ore, has been used as a colorant since
antiquity. Mercury sulfide compounds are still being incorporated into
orange and red pigments today. Various types of pigments are described in the
following section. *
Cadmium-Mercury Pigments*
Cadmium-mercury sulfides are manufactured in two grades,
concentrate and lithopone. The lithopone contains BaSC>4, a common
extender pigment. Information obtained for this study indicates that
The primary source of data in this section is the Colour Index (Reference 46).
2-25
-------
cadmium-mercury pigments are no longer manufactured in the United
States, but they are distributed in this country by a worldwide supplier.
Cadmium-mercury sulfide pigments are stable to temperatures around
700 degrees Fahrenheit. They are widely used in plastics, although they are
not recommended for exterior use. Other uses of cadmium-mercury
pigments include paints, enamels, printing inks, rubber, paper and textile
printing.
Mercuric Sulfide
Mercuric sulfide pigment, commonly called English vermilion, is
manufactured synthetically, although mercuric sulfide does occur naturally as
cinnabar ore. The use of vermilion has declined significantly in the past two
decades. "It has been almost entirely displaced by the less expensive and more
reliable cadmium reds" (47). Mercuric sulfide has been employed in inks,
rubber, and elastomers as well as in artists' colors.
Mercuric Oxide
The major use of mercuric oxide pigment in recent history was as an
anti-fouling agent in marine paints. Commercially, red and yellow mercuric
oxides are prepared synthetically beginning with mercurous nitrate and
mercuric nitrate, respectively. Red mercuric oxide was generally preferred for
anti-fouling paints because of its larger crystalline structure. The use of
mercuric oxide declined after World War II due to evidence of its lack of
effectiveness for commercial vessels. In 1972 the use of mercury compounds
in antifouling paints was banned by the EPA.
Mercuric oxide finds some use in the cosmetics industry as an anti-
bacterial agent. There is no evidence in the literature that it is used as a
pigment for cosmetics.
Mercurous Arsenate
Mercury-arsenic compounds were used for antifouling purposes in
marinetpaints. These compounds were also banned from use in marine
paints in 1972.
Mercurous Chloride
Mercurous chloride is widely used as a catalyst for the preparation of
red and yellow mercuric oxide, ammoniated mercury USP, mercuric iodide,
and as an intermediate in organic synthesis.
No uses as a pigment were found in the literature.
2-26
-------
Consumption of Mercury in Cadmium-Mercury Pigments
Cadmium-mercury pigments are one of three cadmium-containing
pigments used and are the primary pigment use of mercury. No published
figures for the consumption of mercury in the production of pigments were
found. Therefore, estimates were calculated using the numbers reported by
the Bureau of Mines for pigment consumption of cadmium.
Six different hues of cadmium-mercury pigments are manufactured,
ranging from deep orange to maroon. Each of these hues contains a unique
ratio of cadmium sulfide and mercury sulfide. The ratios are listed in Table 2-
9. Approximately 80 percent of all cadmium pigments are used in plastics and
about 17 percent of these will be cadmium-mercury (49).
Table 2-9
RATIO OF CdS:HgS IN CADMIUM-MERCURY PIGMENTS
Hue Ratio (wt %)
Deep orange 89.1:10.9
Light red 83.4 :16.6
Medium light red 81.0 :19.0
Medium red 78.5 : 21.5
Dark red 76.1: 23.9
Maroon 73.5:26.5
Source: The Pigment Handbook (47,48)
Using the low and high ends, the cadmium metal content will range
from 57.2 percent by weight for maroon to 69.2 percent by weight for deep
orange. Dividing the cadmium consumption in cadmium-mercury pigments
by each metal content percentage leads to a range for the total amount of the
pigment consumed in the United States minus imports. This is shown in
Table 2-10. This range is converted into a range for mercury metal
consumption by multiplying by 22.8 percent by weight for maroon and 9.4
percent by weight for deep orange (Table 2-11). Overall, the trend in
consumption of these pigments has been downward (Figure 2-8).
Consumption of Mercury in Other Pigments
While it believed that most mercury in pigments is used in plastics,
there are some other uses as mentioned above. Data quantifying these other
2-27
-------
Table 2-10
CONSUMPTION OF CADMIUM-MERCURY PIGMENTS
(In short tons)
Cadmium Cadmium
Cadmium Consumption Consumption Total Cadmium-Mercury Pigments (4)
Consumption (1) in Pigments inCadmium-Hg For 69.2% Cad- For 57.2% Cad-
Year in Pigments for Plastics (2) Pigments (3) mium Content mium Content
1970 845.0 676.0 114.9 166.1 200.9
1971 1005.0 804.0 136.7 197.5 239.0
1972 1224.0 979.2 166 J5 240.6 291.0
1973 1400.0 1120.0 190.4 275.1 332.9
1974 1345.0 1076.0 182.9 264.3 319.8
1975 717.0 573.6 97.5 140.9 170.5
1976 893.0 714.4 121.4 175.5 212.3
1977 661.0 528.8 89.9 129.9 157.2
1978 794.0 635.2 108.0 156.0 188.8
1979 882.0 705.6 120.0 173.3 209.7
1980 606.0 484.8 82.4 119.1 144.1
1981 783.0 626.4 106.5 153.9 186.2
1982 661.0 528.8 89.9 129.9 157.2
1983 661.0 528.8 89.9 129.9 157.2
1984 595.0 476.0 80.9 116.9 141.5
1985 656.0 524.8 89.2 128.9 156.0
1986 773.0 618.4 105.1 151.9 183.8
1987 690.8 501.4 85.2 123.2 149.0
1988 299.3 239.4 40.7 58.8 71.2
(1) Bureau of Mines. Minerals Yearbook.
(2) 80% of total cadmium in pigments consumption.
(3) 17% of cadmium consumption in pigments in plastics.
(4) These numbers represent the range of total cadmium-mercury pigments consumed in
each respective year. (For 1970: 114.92/0.692 = 116.07.)
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
uses were not found, so the mercury consumption in pigments in plastics was
adjusted upwards by an assumed 10 percent to account for other uses (Table 2-
12).
Other Adjustments
Domestic mercury consumption was adjusted downward by 6 percent
to account for losses in the manufacturing process (10). It is known that some
pigments containing mercury are imported, and an adjustment to account for
imports was made (48).
2-28
-------
Table 2-11
CONSUMPTION OF MERCURY IN PIGMENTS IN PLASTICS
(In short tons)
Total
Cadmium-Mercury Pigments (1)
Year
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
For 69.2%
mium Content
166.1
197.5
240.6
275.1
264.3
140.9
175.5
129.9
156.0
173.3
119.1
153.9
129.9
129.9
116.9
128.9
151.9
123.2
58.8
•Mercury
Cad- Fi
tor 57.2% Cad-
mium Content
200.9
239.0
291.0
332.9
319.8
170.5
212.3
157.2
188.8
209.7
144.1
186.2
157.2
157.2
141.5
156.0
183.8
149.0
71.2
Mercury in Cadmium-
r Pigments (2)
9.4%
15.6
18.6
22.6
25.9
24.8
13.2
16.5
12.2
14.7
16.3
11.2
14.5
12.2
12.2
11.0
12.1
14.3
11.6
5.5
22.8%
45.8
54.5
66.4
75.9
72.9
38.9
48.4
35.8
43.0
47.8
32.9
42.4
35.8
35.8
32.3
35.6
41.9
34.0
16.2
Average Domestic
Mercury
Consumption
in Pigments
In Plastics (3)
30.7
36.5
44.5
50.9
48.9
26.1
32.5
24.0
28.9
32.1
22.0
28.5
24.0
24.0
21.6
23.8
28.1
22.8
10.9
(1) From Table 2-10.
(2) When the cadmium content is 69.2% of the pigment, the mercury content is 9.4% of
the pigment. (Example: 166.07x0.094 = 15.61.) Also, when the cadmium content is
57.2% of the pigment, the mercury content is 22.8%. (Balance is sulfur.)
(3) The estimated consumption of mercury in pigments is the average of the high and
low values shown in the previous two columns.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Figure 2-8. Discards of mercury in pigments in MSW, 1970 to 2000
Short tons
60 j
50-
•
40-. .
30 4 4
« » « « 4
• 4
20"
10-. * «
1970
1975
—I—
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2-29
-------
Table 2-12
DISCARDS OF MERCURY IN PIGMENTS
(In short tons)
Average
Mercury Adjustment Domestic Adjustment
Consumption for Mercury for
in Pigments (1) Non-plastic Consumption Manufacturing Imports/
Year
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1995
2000
(1)
(2)
In Plastics Uses (2) in Pigments Losses (3) Exports (4)
30.7
36.5
44.5
50.9
48.9
26.1
32.5
24.0
28.9
32.1
22.0
28.5
24.0
24.0
21.6
23.8
28.1
22.8
10.9
From Table 2-11.
Mercury entering MSW
3.1
3.7
4.4
5.1
4.9
2.6
3.2
2.4
2.9
3.2
2.2
2.8
2.4
2.4
2.2
2.4
2.8
2.3
1.1
33.8
40.2
48.9
56.0
53.8
28.7
35.7
26.4
31.7
35.3
24.2
31.3
26.4
26.4
23.8
26.2
30.9
25.1
12.0
2.0
2.4
2.9
3.4
3.2
1.7
2.1
1.6
1.9
2.1
1.5
1.9
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.6
1.9
1.5
0.7
from pigments used in non-plastic applications is
10 percent of the mercury consumed for
(3)
(4)
(5)
e -
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.8
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.8
10.0 •
3.0
1.5
assumed
Discards of
Mercury
into
MSW (5)
32.3
38.3
46.5
53.4
51.4
27.5
34.1
25.1
30.4
34.0
23.0
30.0
25.4
25.1
22.6
25.2
29.9
24.4
12.1
10.0 e
3.0 e
1.5 e
to be
pigments used in plastics.
Estimated to be 6 percent.
Derived from Table 3-10 of Reference 10.
Domestic consumption -
manufacturing losses
+ net imports
estimated by Franklin Associates, Ltd.
No data were found to use in estimating the lifetime of products
containing mercury pigments, so it was assumed that the products are
discarded the same year they are produced. While this is probably not correct
in all cases, annual fluctuations until very recently were not large, so the
error introduced by this assumption should not be large.
There are strong pressures to reduce or eliminate all heavy metals
from pigments (50, 51), and the general trend is believed to be downward.
2-30
-------
Since domestic production of pigments containing mercury was discontinued
in 1988, it was assumed that cadmium-mercury pigments will continue to be
imported, but that use will decline in the future.
Assumptions and Data for Estimating Mercury Discards in Pigments
1. Reliable data on use of mercury in pigments were not found. Mercury in
pigments used in plastics was estimated based on the amount of cadmium
used in pigments in plastics. An adjustment upward by an assumed 10
percent was made to account for pigments in non-plastic uses.
2. Manufacturing losses were assumed to be 6 percent.
3. Products containing mercury in pigments were assumed to be discarded
the same year they are produced.
4. It was assumed that there is no recovery of these products.
5. It was assumed that there will be a continuing decline in use of mercury
and other heavy metals in pigments.
DENTAL USES
Dental uses have accounted for 2 to 4 percent of total U.S. mercury
consumption since 1980 (generally 3 to 6 percent before 1980) (52). Dental
amalgams used to fill cavities in teeth are approximately 50 percent mercury
by weight. For economic reasons, it has long been common practice for
dentists to collect and save amalgam material (including excess prepared for
fillings, scrapings from packing the fillings, and recovered fillings from
extracted teeth) and sell the material to collectors, who in turn sell the
material to mercury refiners (33). Mercury that is not collected, or mercury in
the form of lost fillings or teeth containing fillings, is very likely to end up in
MSW (54, 55). No more than 10 percent of dental mercury is estimated to
enter MSW in the form of lost fillings, teeth containing fillings, and amalgam
material that has not been collected by dentists.
Of this 10 percent, it is assumed that 8 percent is not collected by
dentists and enters MSW the same year of its reported use, and the remaining
2 percent from lost fillings and teeth containing fillings enters MSW 10 years
after its reported use. To calculate the amount of dental mercury in MSW
each year, 8 percent of the Bureau of Mines consumption figure for that year
was added to 2 percent of the Bureau of Mines consumption figure for 10
years earlier (Table 2-13).
2-31
-------
Table 2-13
DISCARDS OF DENTAL MERCURY
(In short tons)
Year
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1995
2000
Mercury
Consumption
in Dental Uses (1)
(pounds)
230,991
266,452
256,960
283,484
328,529
262,774
162,108
181,336
234,004
218,880
173,736
179,436
226,708
203,604
229,824
177,840
151,240
93,480
38,912
60,268
135,204
122,588
77,444
121^72
108,832
109,744
114,532
122,588
116,432
85,956
Mercury Not
Collected by
Dentists (2)
(pounds)
13,899
14,355
18,137
16,288
18,386
14,227
12,099
7,478
3,113
4,821
10,816
9,807
6,196
9,710
8,707
8,780
9,163
9,807
9,315
6,876
Mercury in
Lost Teeth &
Fillings (3)
(pounds)
4,620
5,329
5,139
5,670
6,571
5,255
3,242
3,627
4,680
4,378
3,475
3,589
4,534
4,072
4,596
3,557
3,025
1,870
778
1,205
Mercury
Discarded from
Dental Uses (4)
(short tons)
9.3
9.8
11.6
11.0
12.5
9.7
7.7
5.6
3.9
4.6
7.1
6.7
5.4
6.9
6.7
6.2
6.1
5.8
5.0
4.0
2.9
2.3
(1) Bureau of Mines.
(2) Estimated to be 8% of current year consumption.
(3) Estimated to be 2% of consumption 10 years previous.
(4) Sum of mercury not collected by dentists and in lost teeth and fillings.
Projections assume a 5 percent reduction per year.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
2-32
-------
Assumptions and Data for Estimating Mercury Discards from Dental Uses
1. Annual dental use of mercury was obtained from data published by the
U.S. Bureau of Mines.
2. Information obtained indicates that most excess amalgam containing
mercury is recovered in dentists' offices. Therefore it was assumed that 8
percent of dental mercury used annually is discarded from dentists' offices.
3. It was assumed that 2 percent of the annual use of dental mercury is
discarded 10 years later as lost filling and teeth containing fillings.
4. Information obtained indicates that use of dental mercury has decreased
due to a variety of reasons. It was assumed that mercury from dental
amalgams in MSW will decrease 5 percent each year from 1990 to 2000.
Dental mercury in MSW has decreased significantly in the past few
years and can be expected to continue to decrease (Figure 2-9). Factors causing
this decrease include more effective cavity prevention (better awareness of
the importance of dental hygiene, water fluoridation, and protective coatings
for children's teeth), development and increasing use of alternate dental
materials such as plastics and ceramics, and increasing awareness of the
environmental and health effects of mercury, leading to more careful use and
collection of mercury and amalgam waste. It is estimated that mercury from
dental amalgams in MSW will decrease approximately 5 percent each year
from 1990 to 2000 (Table 2-13).
Figure 2-9. Discards of mercury in dental uses in MSW, 1970 to 2000
Short tons
12
I.'-'.
10
84
* « * *
6-. « « « «
4-.
2-.
oj 1 1 1 1 1 1
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
2-33
-------
SPECIAL PAPER COATING
Mercury bromide and mercury acetic acid are used in the coating of a
specialized paper and film. The coating, which also contains silver, is applied
to paper that is used when scanning off a cathode ray tube. A very high
resolution is obtained from the process. This type of printing occurs in
hospitals and newspaper publishing, and is utilized in microfiche printers
(56).
Two companies manufacture the paper and film. Consumption of
mercury for this application is estimated as shown in Table 2-14. Plans are
being developed to phase out the use of mercury in the coating, and it is
predicted that by 1995, mercury will be eliminated entirely from use in this
application (57).
Table 2-14
MERCURY DISCARDS IN SPECIAL PAPER COATING
(In short tons)
Consumption/
Year Discards
. 1970 0.1
1971 0.2
1972 0.3
1973 0.4
1974 0.5
1975 0.6
1976 0.7
1977 0.8
1978 0.9
1979 1.1
1980 1.2
1981 1.3
1982 1.4
1983 1.5
1984 1.6
1985 1.8
1986 1.5
1987 1.3
1988 1.1
1989 1.0 e
1995 0.0 e
2000 0.0 e
e - estimated by Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Source: Industrial source.
2-34
-------
Only a small amount of the paper having this coating is recycled.
Quantities of this type of paper waste have been collected to recover the
silver, but this does not occur often (56). Therefore, it is assumed that all the
mercury consumed in the production of this paper is discarded into the
municipal solid waste stream.
Assumptions and Data for Estimating Mercury Discards from
Special Paper Coating
1. Data on use of mercury in special paper coatings were obtained from an
industry source.
2. It was assumed that the coated paper is discarded the same year it is
produced.
3. It was assumed that a negligible amount of this paper is recycled.
4. It was assumed that use of mercury in this paper will be eliminated by
1995.
MERCURY ELECTRIC LIGHT SWITCHES
Mercury electric light switches have been manufactured since the
1960s, with less than one million produced each year (58) (Table 2-15). The
switches could be used wherever lighting is used, e.g., homes, apartments,
offices, schools, etc. The mercury is inside a metal encapsulation, which is
not subject to breakage and is unlikely to leak. Based on the device's design
and applications, the estimated life expectancy is 50 years or more. Of course,
some number of switches will be discarded before the end of their useful life
for some reason like renovation or demolition of homes in which they are
installed. A few will also be discarded due to leakage or some other failure.
Based on information from industrial sources, it was estimated that the
mercury in each switch weighs 3.5 grams.
Reliable information on discards of mercury switches was not
available, so assumptions were made as follows: 10 percent discarded 10 years
after production, 40 percent discarded after 30 years, and the remaining 50
percent discarded after 50 years. Actual quantities discarded will be less than
estimates shown in Table 2-15, since production has been less than one
million per year and is in decline, and some quantities of switches are used in
non-residential applications and would not end up in municipal solid waste.
2-35
-------
Table 2-15
DISCARDS OF MERCURY IN SWITCHES
(In short tons)
Year
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1995
2000
Mercuiy
Switch
Production
(Units) (1)
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
( 1 ) Assumption of 01
Weight of
Mercuiy
in Switches
(Tons) (2)
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
Weight of
Mercuiy
Discarded
(Tons) (3)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
1.93
1.93
based on information from an industrial source.
Actual production is less.
(2) Weight of mercury per switch is 3.5 grams
(based on information from an industrial source).
(3) Assumption that 10% are discarded after 10 years;
40% after 30 years; and 50% after 50 years.
2-36
-------
Assumptions and Data for Estimating Mercury Discards in
Mercury Electric Light Switches
1. Information on numbers of switches produced and weight of mercury in
switches was obtained from industrial sources. No adjustments were
made for imports or exports.
2. It was assumed that 10 percent of switches are discarded after 10 years, 40
percent after 30 years, and the remaining 50 percent after 50 years.
3. It was assumed that there is no recycling of mercury from switches
discarded in MSW.
INSTANT CAMERA FILM PACK BATTERIES
Instant picture photography was introduced in 1948 (59).
Improvements in the technology led to the development of an integral film
camera that ejects the film from the camera for immediate automatic
processing and "instant pictures." The motor in the camera is powered by a
battery that is included in the film pack to insure a fresh power source at all
times (60). The cell is a carbon-zinc battery with a zinc anode that until 1987
utilized mercury to prevent the generation of hydrogen (61).
According to the manufacturer, the quantity of mercury in the film
pack batteries was reduced in 1987, and in April 1988 all mercury was
removed from the film pack batteries (59).
Assumptions and Data for Estimating Mercury Discards from
Film Pack Batteries
1. Data on use of mercury in film pack batteries came from an industrial
source.
2. It was assumed that 10 percent of U.S. households own instant cameras,
and that each camera owner uses 8 packs of film per year, and discards the
batteries the same year they are purchased.
3. It was assumed that there is no recycling of the mercury in these batteries.
4. Based on information from the manufacturer, it was assumed that
mercury was eliminated from these batteries after 1988.
2-37
-------
The estimated amount of mercury discharged into the municipal waste
stream due to disposal of these film packs is given in Table 2-16. Ten percent
of all U.S. households owned instant cameras in 1986 (62). This percentage
was applied to all years. It was assumed that each owner of an instant camera
would use eight packs of Polaroid film containing the carbon-zinc battery per
year and that all disposal would be into the municipal solid waste stream. It
was assumed that there is no recycling or reuse of the batteries or film packs.
Table 2-16
DISCARDS OF MERCURY FROM INSTANT CAMERA FILM PACK BATTERIES
Households Instant Cameras
Year
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
in U.S. (1)
63,401,000
64,944,800 e
66,488,600 e
68,032,400 e
69,576,200 e
71,120,000
73,051,200 e
74,982,400 e
76,913,600 e
78,844,800 e
80,776,000
81,823,333 e
82,870,667 e
83,918,000
85,407,000
86,789,000
88,458,000
89,479,000
90,500,000 e
91,521,000 e
Owned(2)
6340,100
6,494,480
6,648,860
6,803,240
6,957,620
7,112,000
7305,120
7,498,240
7,691,360
7,884,480
8,077,600
8,182,333
8,287,067
8391300
8^40,700
8,678,900
8,845300
8,947,900
9,050,000
9,152,100
Film Packs
Used(3)
50,720,800
51,955,840
53,190,880
54,425,920
55,660,960
56,896,000
58,440,960
59,985,920
61,530,880
63,075,840
64,620,800
65,458,666
66,296,534
67,134,400
68,325,600
69,431,200
70,766,400
71,583,200
72,400,000
73,216,800
Net Discards
of Mercury(4)
(grams)
1,876,670
1,922,366
1,968,063
2,013,759
2,059,456
2,105,152
2,162,316
2,219,479
2,276,643
2,333,806
2,390,970
2,421,971
2,452,972
2,483,973
2,528,047
2,568,954
2,618,357
2,648,578
1,375,600
0
Net Discards
of Mercury
(short tons)
2.07
2.12
2.17
2.22
2.27
2.32
2.38
2.45
2.51
2.57
2.64
2.67
2.70
2.74
2.79
2.83
2.89
2.92
1.52
0.00
(1) Bureau of the Census, United States Department of Commerce.
(2) 10% of households own instant cameras (59).
(3) Assumed that 8 film packs are used per camera annually.
(4) Batteries in each film pack contained 0.037 grams of mercury through 1987; 0.0185
grams in 1988. Mercury was eliminated after 1988.
e - Franklin Associates, Ltd. estimate.
DISCONTINUED USES OF MERCURY IN MSW
In the research for this report, a number of uses for mercury in
products that would have discarded into municipal solid waste in the past
(prior to 1970) were identified. These uses are summarized here without any
attempt to quantify these earlier discards.
2-38
-------
Mirrors
Potassium tetracyanomercurate (II) was formerly used in the
manufacture of mirrors in the silver coating. The mercury compound
prevented yellowing of the coating (6). This procedure has not been utilized
for 50 years (63).
Glass
Mercuric oxide was formerly used as a modifier in the manufacture of
glass under highly specialized conditions only (64). No recent information
about this application was found.
Felt
Mercury (II) acetate was formerly used in the treatment of felt to help
resist against shrinking and to improve the felting qualities of the fur (65).
New technology was developed to enable the use of other chemicals that
would give the same properties as mercury. As a result, mercury was
removed from the manufacture of felt in the 1950s (66).
Textiles
Mercury compounds are allowed by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for the fungicidal treatment of textiles and
fabrics intended for continuous outdoor use (67). Currently, no
manufacturers are using mercury fungicides (68).
Paper Products
Mercury compounds were formerly used as slimicides in the
production of paper. They prevented the growth of green slime on the
manufacturing equipment and the growth of mold and bacteria on pulp
during the months of damp storage (69).
In 1964, the Food and Drug Administration ruled that no mercury
residues could appear in paper food packages. This led to the elimination of
the use of mercury in most American paper mills due to the uncertainty as to
which starting batches of pulp would end up as paper packages for food (64).
Currently, mercury or mercury compounds are not allowed for use as a
slimicide under FIFRA (67).
The Bureau of Mines reported consumption of mercury by the industry
through 1972, when consumption approached zero (Table 2-17). It is assumed
2-39
-------
Table 2-17
CONSUMPTION OF MERCURY IN PAPER MANUFACTURE
(In short tons)
Year Mercury Consumed
1967 16.95
1968 15.85
1969 21.20
1970 8.59
1971 0.08
1972 0.04
Source: U.S. Bureau of Mines (47).
that some of this mercury ended up in the municipal solid waste stream in
the past.
Further evidence that mercury is not currently used in the
manufacture of paper was found in the published results of tests conducted at
Pennsylvania State University to determine the safety of using newspapers as
animal bedding (70). While the presence of several heavy metals was
detected (generally at far below the levels allowed in livestock feed), no
mercury was detected in newspapers (printed with black and colored inks), in
glossy print advertising, in copier paper, or in computer printout.
2-40
-------
Chapter 2
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Mineral Facts and
Problems. 1980.
2. Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Vol. 15. 1981.
3. Hutton, M. "Human Health Concerns of Lead, Mercury, Cadmium and
Arsenic." In Lead, Mercury, Cadmium and Arsenic in the Environment,
edited by T. C. Hutchinson and K.M. Meema. John Wiley & Sons. 1984.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Environmental Fact Sheet:
Mercury Biocides in Paint." July 1990.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development. Mercury. July 1982.
6. Windholz, Martha, ed. The Merck Index, 10th Edition. Merck and Co.,
Inc. 1983.
7. Arthur D. Little, Inc. Marketing Development Strategies for Recyclable
Materials. July 1989.
8. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
Environment Committee. Fate of Small Quantities of Hazardous Waste.
August 1980.
9. Taylor, Kevin, Hurd, David, and Rohan, Brian. "Recycling in the 1980s:
Batteries Not Included." Resource Recycling, May/June 1988.
10. Franklin Associates, Ltd. Characterization of Products Containing Lead
and Cadmium in Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1970-2000,
Working Papers. October 17,1988.
11. Kirk-Othmer. Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 3rd ed. John Wiley
and Sons, 1981.
12. Crompton, T. R. Small Batteries, Primary Cells, Vol. 2. John Wiley and
Sons, 1983.
13. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Household Batteries in
Minnesota: Interim Report of the Household Battery Recycling and
Disposal Study. March 1990.
2-41
-------
14. NH/VT Solid Waste Project. Household Battery Collection Program.
July 1987.
15. Linden, David ed. Handbook of Batteries and Fuel Cells. McGraw-Hill,
1984.
16. Wehrenberg, Robert H. "New Battery Materials Bring Power to the
Power." Metals Engineering. August 1980.
17. Conversation with representative of a battery manufacturer. June 25,
1990.
18. National Electrical Manufacturers Association. Disposal of Household
Batteries.
19. Meeting with representatives of National Electrical Manufacturers
Association. June 18,1990.
20. Letter from a representative of an industrial firm. July 11, 1990.
21. Facsimile letter from a representative of the American Watch
Association. July 19,1990.
22. Conversation with representative of an industrial firm. July 31, 1990.
23. Conversation with a representative of the U. S. Department of
Commerce. July 30,1990.
24. Conversation with representative of an industrial firm. July 23, 1990.
25. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Household Batteries in
Minnesota: Interim Report of the Household Battery Recycling and
Disposal Study. 1990.
26. Reutlinger, Nancy, and de Grassi, Dan. "Household battery recycling:
numerous obstacles, few solutions." Resource Recycling. April 1991.
27. Conversation with representative of an industrial firm. July 17, 1990.
28. Minnesota House of Representatives and Senate. "An Act to Limit
Disposal of Certain Dry Cell Batteries and Set Battery Requirements."
Chapter No. 409. H.F. No. 1921.
2-42
-------
29. Kaufman, John E., Editor. IES Lighting Handbook, 1987 Application
Volume and 1984 Reference Volume. Published by the Illuminating
Engineers Society of North America. New York.
30. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current
Industrial Reports. "Electric Lamps." 1988 and earlier years.
31. Telephone conversations with representative of an industrial
corporation. June 13 and July 18,1990.
32. Telephone conversations with representatives of an industrial
corporation and the National Electrical Manufacturers Association.
November 6, 1991.
33. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs.
"Environmental Fact Sheet - Mercury Biocides in Paint." July 1990.
34. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Communications and Public
Affairs. "Mercury Use in Exterior Paints and Coatings Cancelled."
Environmental News. May 22,1991.
35. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial
Reports. "Paint, Varnish and Lacquer."
36. U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Exports for Consumption. 1965-1990.
37. Rich, Susan, ed. The Kline Guide to the Paint Industry, 6th Ed. Charles
H. Kline and Co. Inc. 1981.
38. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current
Industrial Reports. "Selected Instruments and Related Products." 1988
and earlier years.
39. U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Imports for Consumption and
General Imports, FT 246. 1987 and earlier years.
40. Telephone survey of U.S. thermometer manufacturers. June 7-20, 1990.
41. Telephone survey of Kansas City area heating and air conditioning
repair shops. July 18,1990.
42. U.S. Department of Commerce. Statistical Abstract of the United States.
1989 and earlier years.
43. Telephone conversation with representative of an industrial
corporation. July 26,1990.
2-43
-------
44. Telephone conversation with representative of an industrial
corporation. August 1,1990.
45. Telephone conversation with representative of an industrial
corporation. August 2,1990.
46. The Society of Dyers and Colourists. Colour Index, 3rd Edition, Vol. 4.
1971.
47. Patton, Temple C. Pigment Handbook, Vol. 1, 2, 3. J. Wiley & Sons.
1973.
48. Lewis, Peter A. Pigment Handbook, Vol. 2,2nd Edition. J. Wiley & Sons.
1988.
49. Plastics Engineering. April 1985.
50. Kirkland, C. "Shop Wisely for Heavy-metal-free Colorants." Plastics
World. October 1990.
51. "Pigments and Dyes: Adapting to New Environments." Chemical Week.
October 3,1990.
52. Bureau of Mines. Minerals Yearbook. 1988 and earlier years.
53. Telephone conversations with a representative of Mercury Refining
Company. June 14 and July 18,1990.
54. Council on Dental Materials, Instruments, & Equipment.
"Recommendations in dental mercury hygiene, 1984." Journal of the
American Dental Association, Volume 109. October 1984.
55. Telephone conversation with representative of Missouri Department of
Natural Resources. June 7, 1990.
56. Conversation with representative of an industrial firm. August 2, 1990.
57. Conversation with representative of an industrial firm. August 28, 1990.
58. Conversation with representative of an industrial firm. August 1, 1990.
59. Conversation with representative of an industrial firm. June 11, 1990.
60. "Snap-happy Polaroid Offers Mercury-Free Pictures." New Scientist, Vol.
120. October 15,1988.
2-44
-------
61. Gibbons, J. "Facing America's Trash, What Next for Municipal Solid
Waste?" Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United
States.
62. Edmondson, B. "Polaroid Snaps the Customer." American
Demographics, Vol. 9. February 1987.
63. Letter from a representative of the National Association of Mirror
Manufacturers, June 22, 1990.
64. Kirk-Othmer. Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 3rd ed., Vol. 11.
John Wiley and Sons, 1981.
65. Kirk-Othmer. Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 3rd ed., Vol. 24.
John Wiley and Sons, 1981.
66. Conversation with a representative of an industrial firm. June 4, 1990.
67. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Compliance
Monitoring, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. "Suspended,
Cancelled, and Restricted Pesticides." February 1990.
68. Conversation with a representative of the National Pesticide
Communication Network. June 15, 1990.
69. Montague, Katherine and Peter. "Mercury." Sierra Club. 1971.
70. Temple, Guy. "Newsprint Gets Farmer—and Livestock—OK." BioCycle.
September 1990.
2-45
-------
-------
Chapter 3
MERCURY IN NON-MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE PRODUCTS
INTRODUCTION
It is often difficult to classify products as to whether or not they are
municipal solid waste (MSW), especially when dealing with a substance like
mercury that may be present in very small quantities. In preparing this
report, mercury-containing products have been included in Chapter 2 if they
meet the usual definition of municipal solid waste—wastes discarded from
residences and commercial establishments and certain wastes such as
packaging discarded from industrial establishments.
Other wastes such as agricultural wastes, construction and demolition
wastes, industrial process wastes, military wastes such as explosives, and most
transportation wastes are not classified as MSW by EPA. Wastes from those
sources may, however, be discarded in municipal solid waste landfills or
incinerators. Therefore, those kinds of wastes that could be identified to
contain mercury, currently or in the past, are described in this chapter. They
are not quantified nor are they included in the summary tables characterizing
mercury in MSW.
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Agricultural use of mercury and mercury compounds has been greatly
limited by government regulations in the last 18 years. Originally used
extensively for seed disinfectants applied before planting and for other
agricultural treatments to protect against diseases and insects, mercury
pesticides were eliminated from use on food crops in 1972 (1). In 1978, the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) was amended
regarding the use of mercury and other chemicals (2). Based on these
amendments, the only agricultural applications now allowed for mercury are
in fungicides used for treatment of textiles and fabrics intended for
continuous outdoor use, to control brown mold on freshly sawn lumber, to
control Dutch elm disease, as a preservative in water-based paints, and to
control winter turf diseases such as snow mold (3).
Additional amendments to FIFRA have prohibited the import of food
containing residues of banned pesticides. Also, the United States is required
to notify foreign countries of health hazards before exporting canceled or
restricted pesticides (4).
3-1
-------
PAINTS
Mercury compounds were formerly used as biocides or preservatives in
the production of different forms of paint. However, regulatory actions taken
by EPA in 1990 and 1991 cancelled all registrations for the use of mercury in
paints for interior and exterior purposes. In spite of these actions, mercury-
containing paints manufactured before 1990 or 1991 may still be discarded,
and surfaces coated with these paints will be in use for many years.
Mercury was formerly used in two categories of paints. Marine
antifouling paints utilized mercury as a biocide after application. Latex paints
relied on mercury for biocidal properties and, in addition, used the
compounds as a preservative during storage. A discussion of these two types
of paints follows.
Antifouling Paints
Mercury compounds were a few of a small number of biocides found to
be useful in antifouling paints. Antifouling paints are coatings that are
applied on the bottom of ships to hinder the growth of algae and similar
organisms. They work by releasing a toxin into the laminar layer of water
surrounding the ship (5).
In March of 1972, the use of mercury in marine paints for the purposes
of antifouling was banned by the Environmental Protection Agency (6). It is
assumed that none of this paint would enter the municipal waste stream.
Any paint that is not applied to ships would be disposed of as industrial
waste.
Latex Paints
Mercury compounds were used until recently in water-based latex
paints as a biocide and a preservative. They helped to control bacterial and
fungal growth and to prevent mildew attack after application in exterior
paints (7). The following four mercury chemicals were formerly registered
and used by various manufacturers to obtain the preserving properties (8):
Phenylmercuric acetate (PMA)
3 - (Chloromethoxy)propylmercuric acetate (CMPA)
Di(phenylmercury) dodecenylsuccinate (PMDS)
Phenylmercuric oleate (PMO)
Mercury was primarily an additive in architectural coatings that are
used on stationary structures, mobile homes, pavements, and curbs.
Approximately 500 million gallons of architectural paint are produced per
year, half of the one billion gallons of paints and coatings manufactured by
3-2
-------
the entire industry. About 30 percent of all architectural coatings are oil-based
systems that did not contain mercury. The remaining 70 percent are the
water-based paints that often utilized mercury in the past (8).
In July 1990, EPA issued a notice (8) that all registrations for use of three
mercury compounds in paint (CMPA, PMDS, and PMO) had been voluntarily
cancelled and that the registration of PMA for use in interior paints was also
cancelled. In May 1991, EPA issued a notice (9) that the remaining
registrations (for use of PMA in exterior paints) had also been voluntarily
cancelled. Through these regulatory actions, therefore, no mercury is allowed
in future manufacture of paints in the U.S. (The manufacturers are allowed
to use their existing stocks of mercury compounds in the manufacture of
paint under conditions permitting only exterior use.)
Some paint will remain unused after purchase and could end up in
one of three places upon disposal. First, the leftover paint could be handled
by a household hazardous waste collection program (the recommended
practice). Second, the paint could be poured down a drain or sewer and enter
the waste water system. Finally, the paint residue could remain in the can
and be discarded into the municipal solid waste stream. (Paint residues
containing mercury are addressed in Chapter 2.)
CATALYSTS FOR PLASTICS
Mercury is or has been used in the catalysis of various plastics,
including polyurethane, vinyl chloride, and vinyl acetate (10). Research for
this report indicates that some mercury does remain in certain polyurethanes,
but that these end uses would not normally be classified as MSW. Most vinyl
chloride is currently manufactured by a process that does not use mercury,
and the mercury does not appear in the final product (10). Finally, use of
mercury in the production of vinyl acetate apparently has been discontinued
(11). It was assumed that no mercury used as a catalyst is discarded as MSW.
CHLORINE AND CAUSTIC SODA PRODUCTION
Mercury is used in its liquid form in the manufacturing process for the
production of chlorine and caustic soda. It separates the brine into chlorine
gas and sodium hydroxide. Mercury acts as the cathode in this electrolytic
process. It flows along the bottom of the cell a few millimeters below the
suspended metal anode. The aqueous solution of sodium chloride flows
between the anode and the cathode, releasing chlorine gas at the anode. The
sodium ions form an amalgam with the mercury cathode and flow out of the
cell. Water is added to the amalgam to remove the sodium, forming
hydrogen and sodium hydroxide. The mercury is then recycled back into the
cell to be reused (12).
3-3
-------
Since this is an industrial use of mercury, any wastes from the process
would be classified as industrial wastes. It was assumed that none would
enter the municipal solid waste stream.
EXPLOSIVES
Mercury compounds were used as primary explosives to initiate
detonation (13). Mercury fulminate had the most common and greatest use.
Mercuric thiocyanate was also used, specifically in fireworks called Pharaoh's
Serpents (14). These mercury compounds produce very sensitive explosives
and have not been used, with the exception of military applications, since
before 1970 (15).
In the military, use of mercury fulminate continued after consumer
production stopped. It was only utilized in tiny amounts and has now
essentially been replaced with other compounds. A new explosive based on
mercury tetrazole has been developed, but its use is on a small scale and in
research and development only (16).
Based on this information, the conclusion is drawn that no mercury
from explosives is entering the municipal waste stream or has in the past 20
years. All mercury for use in explosives is diverted to military uses.
LABORATORY USES
Mercury is used in laboratories in instruments, as reagents, and as
catalysts for certain reactions.
The disposal of mercury and mercury compounds is regulated on a
federal level with additional regulations sometimes appearing at the state
level as well (17). It is standard practice for labs to dispose of the mercury as
hazardous waste to be sent to a hazardous waste landfill or a treatment,
storage, or disposal facility. Also, the mercury can be sent for recovery if
larger amounts are present (17). This method removes the need for
hazardous waste disposal.
Based on this information, it is assumed that no mercury from
laboratories will appear in municipal solid waste.
PHARMACEUTICALS
Mercury is an ingredient in a variety of pharmaceutical products (14).
The majority of the drugs are obtained for antiseptic purposes to be applied
topically. Some veterinary drugs also utilize mercury.
3-4
-------
While some mercury could be present in residual pharmaceutical
products discarded into MSW, in accordance with previous practice in
material flows characterizations, these amounts were not estimated.
COSMETICS
Mercury is used in cosmetics as a preservative or antimicrobial.
Although employed prior to 1972 for many different applications, it has been
limited by the food and Drug Administration since 1972 to eye-area ointments
and cosmetics (18).
Currently, two compounds comprise the majority of the mercury
market in the cosmetic industry: mercuric oxide and thimerosal (19). They
are limited to a maximum concentration of 60 parts per million in eye-area
cosmetics and to only one part per million in others (20).
Like pharmaceuticals, some residual mercury could be present in
discarded cosmetics packages. In accordance with past practice, these amounts
were not estimated for this report.
ELECTRICAL APPARATUS
Because of its unique properties, mercury finds use in a number of
types of electrical apparatus. As a conductive metal that is a freely flowing
liquid under a wide range of temperatures and pressures, mercury may be
used to bridge connections in tilt switches, suppress bouncing on contact in
rapidly operating switches and relays, or cushion impact and reduce wear
while maintaining electrical continuity between contact points in electrical
devices.
The majority of electrical devices containing mercury are used in
industrial or commercial equipment such as telephone switching systems and
industrial temperature or pressure control systems, and are assumed to be
disposed of in industrial waste rather than MSW.
Manufacturers of electrical apparatus containing mercury also
commonly recover and recycle mercury from defective devices (their own
production and returns from customers).
It is thus highly unlikely for mercury from most electrical devices to
find its way into MSW. The few exceptions would include devices such as
silent mercury electric light switches and mercury thermostats that are used
in residential and commercial buildings, where they would typically be
replaced by homeowners or repairmen who would most likely dispose of
them in MSW. These devices are included in Chapter 2.
3-5
-------
DISCONTINUED USES OF MERCURY IN NON-MSW APPLICATIONS
Embalming
Mercuric chloride was once used as an embalming fluid (14). As a
result of OSHA regulations, no large companies are using this chemical at
this time. Documentation of the use of arsenic exists from 40 years ago and it
is possible that mercury was also utilized during that time (21).
Photographic Development
Mercuric iodide and mercuric chloride have been used in the
development of black and white photographs. They were applied to intensify
the image density of a negative that was underdeveloped (22). A mercuric
chloride process involving potassium bromide and a silver nitrate/potassium
cyanide solution was given the name of Monckhoven's treatment (23):
Intensification is achieved by displacing the silver image of the
negative with the more dense mercury compound. This process can be
repeated for even greater intensification. If mercuric iodide was used, the
finished image contained metallic mercury and mercuric iodide. Using
mercuric chloride would leave only pure mercury with no mercuric chloride
residue (23).
Mercuric chloride is not used in color photography and has not been
commonly used in black and white photography for over 25 years. Only
references to the application of chromium intensifiers were noted (24).
Soap
Mercuric sodium p-phenolsulfonate has been used as a germicide and a
skin lightening agent in soaps and lotions. The concentration ratio was
usually 1:100 (14). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency does not
mention any allowed use of mercury as a fungicide in the manufacture of
soap in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (25).
The distribution of mercury soaps is also not allowed in the European
Economic Community (EEC), but it can be and is manufactured in England
for export to Africa (26).
Treatment of Dutch Elm Disease
Although the U.S. EPA allows the use of mercury and mercury
compounds for the treatment and control of Dutch elm disease under FIFRA
(25), this use has been essentially discontinued. Dutch elm disease is caused by
a fungus that prevents water from flowing up from the roots. Trees infected
with this disease wilt and die from the tops down. The fungus is spread from
3-6
-------
tree to tree by elm bark beetles and connecting root systems (27). Once
infected, the tree is usually removed to prevent further spreading of the
disease. Mercury is not very effective in killing the beetle and might only be
used to bring back resilient strains of the tree (28).
Wood Preservatives
The EPA allows the use of mercury as a fungicide to control brown
mold on freshly sawn lumber (25). This use has not been common and is not
supported by the trade associations for the lumber industry. Currently no
lumber companies are known to be applying mercury to their lumber (29).
3-7
-------
Chapter 3
REFERENCES
1. Meister, R., Editorial Director. Farm Chemical Handbook '86. Meister
Publishing Co. 1986.
2. Conversation with Mary Jane Wiggett, Pesticides Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7. May 14,1990.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances. "Suspended, Cancelled, and Restricted (SCR) Pesticides."
February 1990.
4. Drabble, N. 'Testicide Legislation Reform: Accord Between Industry and
Environmentalists." Environment. Vol. 27, No. 10. December 1985.
5. Surface Coatings - Paints and Their Applications. Oil and Colour
Chemists Association. Chapman and Hall. 1983.
6. Rich, Susan, ed. The Kline Guide to the Paint Industry, 6th Ed. Charles
H. Kline and Co. Inc. 1981.
7. "Questions and Answers About Mercury in Paint." U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Press Release. June 29,1990.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs.
"Environmental Fact Sheet - Mercury Biocides in Paint." July 1990.
9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Communications and Public
Affairs. "Mercury Use in Exterior Paints and Coatings Cancelled."
Environmental News. May 22,1991.
10. Kirk-Othmer. Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 3rd ed., Vol. 23.
John Wiley and Sons. 1981.
11. Conversation with representative of a chemical company. June 28, 1990.
12. The Chlorine Institute. "Safety Guidelines for the Manufacture of
Chlorine." July 1981.
13. Kirk-Othmer. Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Vol. 9. 3rd ed.
John Wiley and Sons. 1981.
14. Windholz, M., ed. The Merck Index. 10th ed. Merck and Co. Inc. 1983.
3-8
-------
15. Conversation with a representative of the American Pyrotechnics
Association. June 5,1990.
16. Conversation with Dr. Richard Bowen, Energy Materials Research and
Development, U.S. Navy. June 11, 1990.
17. Conversation with a representative of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7, Compliance Department. July 5,1990.
18. U.S. Bureau of Mines. Minerals Yearbook, Vol. I, "Metals and Minerals."
1973.
19. Letter from the Department of Health and Human Services, Food and
Drug Administration. July 18,1990.
20. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development. "Mercury." July 1982.
21. Conversation with a representative of the Embalming Chemical
Manufacturers Association, June 4, 1990.
22. Mason, L. Photographic Processing Chemistry. The Focal Press. 1966.
23. John, D. and Field, G.T. Photographic Chemistry. Reinhold Publishing
Corporation. 1963.
24. Conversation with a representative of a photographic company. May 24,
1990.
25. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Compliance
Monitoring, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. "Suspended,
Cancelled, and Restricted Pesticides." February 1990.
26. "Mercury Peril from Soap Manufacture." New Scientist, Vol. 106. May
16,1985.
27. Thompson, H., Willis, W., and Keen, R. "Controlling Dutch Elm
Disease." Agricultural Experiment Station, Kansas State University.
Undated.
28. Conversation with a representative of the National Pesticide
Communication Network. June 15, 1990.
29. Conversation with a representative of the National Forest Products
Association. July 2,1990.
3-9
-------
-------
Appendix A
MATERIAL FLOWS METHODOLOGY
The material flows methodology is illustrated in Figures A-l and A-2.
The crucial first step is making estimates of the generation of the materials
and products in MSW (Figure A-l).
DOMESTIC PRODUCTION
Data on domestic production of materials and products are compiled
for 1970 through 1988, using published data series. U.S. Department of
Commerce sources are used where available, but in several instances more
detailed information on production of goods by end use is available from
trade associations. The goal is to obtain a consistent historical data series for
each product and/or material.
CONVERTING SCRAP
The domestic production numbers are then adjusted for converting or
fabrication scrap generated in the production processes. Examples of these
kinds of scrap would be clippings from plants that make boxes from
paperboard, glass scrap (cullet) generated in a glass bottle plant, or plastic scrap
from a fabricator of plastic consumer products. This scrap typically has a high
value because it is clean and readily identifiable, and it is almost always
recovered and recycled within the industry that generated it. Thus,
converting/fabrication scrap is not counted as part of the postconsumer
recovery of waste.
ADJUSTMENTS FOR IMPORTS/EXPORTS
In some instances imports and exports of products are a significant part
of MSW, and adjustments are made to account for this.
DIVERSION
Some consumer products are diverted from the municipal waste
stream because of the way they are used. Adjustments are made to the data
where appropriate to account for these kinds of uses.
ADJUSTMENTS FOR PRODUCT LIFETIME
Some products normally have a very short lifetime; these products are
assumed to be discarded in the same year they are produced. In other
A-l
-------
instances, products have relatively long lifetimes. Data on average product
lifetimes are used to adjust the data series to account for this.
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE GENERATION AND DISCARDS
The result of these estimates and calculations is a product-by-product
estimate of mercury generation in products in MSW (Figure A-l). The term
"generation" as used in this report thus refers to the weight of mercury in
products as they enter the municipal waste stream before any recovery for
recycling or any combustion takes place.
Since very little recycling of mercury in MSW was identified,
generation and discards are used interchangeably in this report, except where
recovery in the future is projected.
A-2
-------
Domestic Production
of
Materials/Products
Imports
of
Materials/Products
Conversion/
fabricating
Scrap
Exports
of
Materials/Products
Diversion
of
Materials/Products
Municipal
Solid Waste
Generation
Figure A-1. Material flows methodology for estimating
generation of products and materials in municipal solid waste.
A-3
-------
MSW
Generation
Recovery for
Recycling
Recovery for
Composting
Discards after
Recycling and
Composting
Recovery for
Combustion with
Energy Recovery
1
Recovery for
Combustion without
Energy Recovery
Discards
to Landfill and
Other Disposal
Figure A-2. Material flows methodology for estimating
recovery and discards of municipal solid waste.
A-4
-------
Appendix B
CONSUMPTION OF MERCURY
Consumption of mercury in the United States as reported by the
Bureau of Mines for the time period 1967 through 1990 is shown in Table B-1.
The percentage of total consumption for each use is also shown.
At various points during the time period covered, the Bureau of Mines
changed the method of reporting mercury statistics. Therefore, certain
categories were combined for part of the time and appeared individually
during others. This is apparently a response to changes in consumption that
occurred. Decreases and complete elimination of mercury use in certain
products transpired as a result of increasing awareness of the dangers and
toxicity of mercury and the implementation of federal regulations. Uses for
mercury in 1967 that are no longer reported include antifouling paints,
agricultural chemicals, amalgamation, and slimicide use in paper and pulp
manufacturing.
The top consumer of mercury varied over the years. Electrical uses,
i.e., household batteries, dominated the market until the late 1980s. Chlorine
and caustic soda production and mildew-proofing for paints took the majority
of the remaining mercury. All other uses occupied one percent or less except
for dental supplies, which consumed around three percent of the mercury.
B-1
-------
Table B-l
MERCURY CONSUMED IN THE UNITED STATES, 1967 TO 1989
(In short tons and percent of total)
Chlorine and Caustic
Soda Manufacture Pigments
Year Short tons % of total Short tons % of total
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
543.6
6632
787.4
570.4
461.9
437.7
496.7
642.1
578.4
610.1
4083
4243
462.8
359.9
2783
2372
306.1
2792
258.6
285.0
3425
490.0
420.0
20.6
23.1
26.8
24.4
233
21.8
24.1
28.4
29.9
24.7
175
22.9
26.8
16.1
12.4
12.8
16.4
13.4
13.7
163
215
27.9
31.4
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
c
Catalysts for Plastics
Short tons % of total
Catalysts, Misc.
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
27.1
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
c
1.6
Short tons
94.6
72.7
112.4
85.0
38.5
30.4
25.6
493
31.8
48.0
58.7
633
20.8
29.1
31.0
19.0
18.4
13.6
185
19.6
153
122
c
% of total
3.6
25
3.8
3.6
1.9
15
12
2.2
1.6
1.9
25
3.4
12
13
1.4
1.0
1.0
0.7
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.7
Laboratory Uses
Pharmaceuticals
Short tons
73.7
75.6
73.6
68.6
68.3
22.6
25.0
18.1
12.7
22.6
15.4
16.0
15.6
13.8
125
10.7
10.6
10.2
15.7
21.7
22.4
28.1
19.8
% of total
2.8
2.6
2.5
2.9
3.4
1.1
1.2
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
15
Short tons
10.8
16.1
27.1
26.2
25.9
22.0
23.0
22.7
16.9
2.3
W
W
W
W
W
W
c
% of total
0.4
0.6
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.1
Paints, An tifouling
Short tons % of total
5.8
14.9
93
75
15.7
1.2
1.2
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.8
0.1
0.1
0.0
Source: Bureau of Mines, 1989 and earlier
W - Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data: included in Other from 1969 through 1980; all other years included in Unknown.
a - Included in Catalysts, Miscellaneous
b - Included in Other Instruments and Related Products
c - Included in Other Chemicals
d- Included in Other
e - Included in Electrical and Electronic Uses
Note - Through 1979, Other total included mercury used for installation and expansion of chlorine and caustic soda plants
-------
Table B-l (continued)
MERCURY CONSUMED IN THE UNITED STATES, 1967 TO 1989
Paints,
Mildew-proofing
Year Short tons % of total
Agricultural Chemicals
Amalgamation
09
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
267.0
386.6
3605
385.7
3113
3112
287.7
258.7
2633
298.1
317.9
3403
3792
327.6
267.9
2582
229.8
176.7
185.9
196.8
218.7
217.4
211.7
10.1
135
12.3
165
15.7
155
13.9
11.4
13.6
12.1
13.7
18.4
22.0
14.6
11.9
13.9
123
85
9.8
112
13.7
12.4
15.8
Short Ions
141.8
130.3
102.2
68.8
56.1
69.8
69.5
37.2
22.8
23.1
222
W
W
W
3.0
1.4
% of total
5.4
45
35
19
18
35
3.4
1.6
12
0.9
1.0
0.1
0.1
Short tons
83
10.1
7.4
83
03
0.4
W
% of total
0.3
0.4
03
0.4
0.0
0.0
Pulp and Paper
Manufacture
Short tons % of total Short tons % of total Short tons % of total
Other Chemicals
Electrical and
Electronic Uses
16.9
15.8
21.2
8.6
0.1
0.0
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.0
0.0
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
182
W
W
W
44.1
1.0
3.3
616
746
703
606
642
591
684
748
645
1,045
1,109
233
26.0
23.9
25.9
323
29.4
332
33.1
33.4
42.4
47.6
Source: Bureau of Mines, 1989 and earlier
W - Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data: included in Other from 1969 through 1980; all other years included in Unknown.
a - Included in Catalysts, Miscellaneous
b - Included in Other Instruments and Related Products
c - Included in Other Chemicals
d - Included in Other
e - Included in Electrical and Electronic Uses
Note - Through 1979, Other total included mercury used for installation and expansion of chlorine and caustic soda plants
-------
Table B-l (continued)
MERCURY CONSUMED IN THE UNITED STATES, 1967 TO 1989
Electrical Lighting
Wiring Devices
and Switches
Batteries
Other Electrical Uses
Measuring and
Control Instruments
Dental Equipment
and Supplies
CO
Year Short tons % of total
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
345
19.4
39.4
39.6
31.4
48.4
565
43.6
455
49.4
33.9
342
1.9
1.1
1.8
1.8
1.7
2.6
2.7
23
2.6
3.1
1.9
2.6
Short tons
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
120.8
122.1
116.4
100.4
76.2
88.0
103.7
105.0
113.3
144.8
193.9
155.4
% of total
65
7.1
52
45
4.1
4.7
5.0
55
65
9.1
11.0
11.6
Short tons
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
525.4
303.5
1,0575
1,118.8
945.4
8873
1,128.6
1,049.6
827.0
587.6
493.5
275.6
% of total
28.3
17.6
47.2
49.7
50.8
475
54.3
55.4
47.3
36.9
28.1
20.6
Short tons
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
1.6
40.4
5.5
W
W
W
W
W
8.2
W
W
d
% of total
0.1
2.3
0.2
05
Short tons
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
132.6
136.9
115.9
2155
116.4
93.7
108.5
87.4
69.2
65.3
84.9
95.9
% of total
72
7.9
5.2
9.6
6.3
5.0
5.2
4.6
4.0
4.1
4.8
7.2
Short tons
90.7
117.0
109.4
86.9
89.7
113.4
101.8
114.9
88.9
75.6
46.7
195
30.1
67.6
613
38.7
60.7
54.4
54.9
573
613
58.2
43.0
% of total
3.4
4.1
3.7
3.7
45
5.6
4.9
5.1
4.6
3.1
2.0
1.0
1.7
3.0
2.7
2.1
33
2.6
2.9
3.3
3.8
3.3
3.2
Source: Bureau of Mines, 1989 and earlier
W - Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data: included in Other from 1969 through 1980; all other years included in Unknown.
a - Included in Catalysts, Miscellaneous
b - Included in Other Instruments and Related Products
c - Included in Other Chemicals
d - Included in Other
e - Included in Electrical and Electronic Uses
Note - Through 1979, Other total included mercury used for installation and expansion of chlorine and caustic soda plants
-------
Table B-l (continued)
MERCURY CONSUMED IN THE UNITED STATES, 1967 TO 1989
00
Other Instruments
Year
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
Short tons
283.4
303.2
25i9
183.6
185.1
248.6
271.9
235.7
174.7
192.5
198.4
20.1
33.4
7.2
9.6
7.4
W
W
W
W
W
W
d
% of total
10.7
10.6
8.6
7.9
93
12.4
132
10.4
9.0
7.8
85
1.1
1.9
03
0.4
0.4
Other
Short tons
347.1
222.6
915
161.8
72.7
93 2
665
1105
98.4
154.9
135.4
30.0
92
37.4
515
53.4
10.1
133
16.0
285
38.6
% of total
11.8
95
4.6
8.0
35
4.1
3.4
45
4.2
8.4
7.8
13
0.4
2.0
2.8
2.6
05
0.8
1.0
1.6
2.9
Unknown
Short tons
4885
3145
27.2
8.6
0.1
0.8
3.6
40.4
30.6
36.9
53.0
71.6
1043
805
72.8
925
46.7
93.6
70.6
115.0
% of total
185
11.0
0.9
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.2
1.8
1.6
1.5
23
3.2
4.6
4.3
3.9
4.5
2.5
5.3
4.4
6.6
Total
Short tons
2,641.6
2,866.0
2,940.1
2337.1
1,985.8
2,0105
2,062.8
2,260.2
1,931.8
2,465.1
2327.8
1,853.1
1,726.8
2,241.4
2,2513
1,859.8
1,867.2
2,077.4
1,894.1
1,750.3
1593.8
1,755.4
1338.2
Source: Bureau of Mines, 1989 and earlier
W - Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data: included in Other from 1969
through 1980; all other years included in Unknown.
a - Included in Catalysts, Miscellaneous
b - Included in Other Instruments and Related Products
c - Included in Other Chemicals
d - Included in Other
e - Included in Electrical and Electronic Uses
Note - Through 1979, Other total included mercury used for installation and expansion of
chlorine and caustic soda plants.
-------
Appendix B
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Minerals Yearbook,
Volume I, "Metals and Minerals." 1989 and earlier years.
B-6
-------
Appendix C
BACKGROUND DATA ON MERCURY IN BATTERIES
The tables in this appendix provide the data, sources, and calculations
used in estimating the quantities of mercury discarded in municipal solid
waste. These tables accompany the discussion and summary tables on
mercury in batteries in Chapter 2 of the report.
BATTERY TYPES
Tables C-l through C-5 provide basic information on the weights and
mercury content of various types of batteries: zinc-air, carbon-zinc, heavy duty
carbon zinc, alkaline, silver oxide, and mercury-zinc. These are the types of
batteries that were identified as being discarded into municipal solid waste.
CONSUMPTION OF HOUSEHOLD BATTERIES
Tables C-6 through C-10 provide information on retail sales of
household batteries containing mercury in the U.S. Domestic retail sales of
these batteries are adjusted to account for mercury in imported batteries and
in imported products containing batteries (such as watches and digital
thermometers). The adjusted results are shown in Table C-10.
WEIGHT OF MERCURY IN BATTERIES
Finally, the adjusted data on retail sales of batteries and the data on
weight of mercury in each type of battery were combined to yield estimates of
total mercury discards in each type of battery (Tables C-ll through C-16).
C-l
-------
Table C-l
ZINC-AIR BUTTON BATTERIES
Year
1987
1993
1998
Average Weight
of Battery (g)
1.56
136
1.56
Average % of
Mercury in Battery
2.45%
0.61%
0.00%
Average Weight
of Mercury (g)
0.03822
0.00956
0.00000
Table C-2
CARBON-ZINC BATTERIES
General Purpose
Size Year
D 1987
1993
1998
C 1987
1993
1998
AA
9V
1987
1993
1998
1987
1993
1998
Heavy Duty
Size Year
D 1987
1993
1998
C 1987
1993
1998
AA
9V
1987
1993
1998
1987
1993
1998
Average Weight
of Battery (g)
79.50
79.50
79.50
39.30
39.30
39.30
15.06
15.06
15.06
35.63
35.63
35.63
95.40
95.40
95.40
43.70
43.70
43.70
15.62
15.62
15.62
36.47
36.47
36.47
Average % of
Mercury in Battery
0.0088%
0.0044%
0.0000%
0.0076%
0.0038%
0.0000%
0.0053%
0.0027%
0.0000%
0.0074%
0.0037%
0.0000%
0.0018%
0.0009%
0.0000%
0.0069%
0.0034%
0.0000%
0.0051%
0.0026%
0.0000%
0.0073%
0.0036%
0.0000%
Average Weight
of Mercury (g)
0.00700
0.00350
0.00000
0.00300
0.00150
0.00000
0.00080
0.00040
0.00000
0.00265
0.00133
0.00000
0.00174
0.00087
0.00000
0.00300
0.00150
0.00000
0.00080
0.00040
0.00000
0.00265
0.00133
0.00000
Source: Franklin Associates (1) and industry sources
C-2
-------
Table C-3
ALKALINE BATTERIES
D C AA
Year Percent Hg Weight Hg(g) Percent Hg Weight Hg (g) Percent Hg Weight Hg(g)
n
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
0.516%
0516%
0.516%
0.516%
0.516%
0.516%
0516%
0516%
0516%
0516%
0516%
0516%
0516%
0516%
0516%
0.516%
0.516%
0367%
0.299%
0.299%
0.299%
0.232%
0.136%
1993 0.021%
0.73220
0.73220
0.73220
0.73220
0.73220
0.73220
0.73220
0.73220
0.73220
0.73220
0.73220
0.73220
0.73220
0.73220
0.73220
0.73220
0.73220
052021
0.42442
0.42442
0.42442
0.32928
0.19263
0.02973
1998 0.000% 0.00000
Weight of Battery (g) 141.9
0.466%
0.466%
0.466%
0.466%
0.466%
0.466%
0.466%
0.466%
0.466%
0.466%
0.466%
0.466%
0.466%
0.466%
0.466%
0.466%
0.466%
0.297%
0.259%
0.259%
0.259%
0.192%
0.117%
0.014%
0.000%
031435
031435
0.31435
0.31435
031435
031435
031435
0.31435
031435
031435
031435
031435
031435
031435
031435
031435
031435
020075
0.17462
0.17462
0.17462
0.12967
0.07925
0.00928
0.00000
675
0.524%
0.524%
0.524%
0.524%
0.524%
0.524%
0.524%
0524%
0.524%
0.524%
0.524%
0524%
0.524%
0.524%
0.524%
0524%
0524%
0524%
0.434%
0.434%
0.434%
0.313%
0.298%
0.066%
0.000%
0.11998
0.11998
0.11998
0.11998
0.11998
0.11998
0.11998
0.11998
0.11998
0.11998
0.11998
0.11998
0.11998
0.11998
0.11998
0.11998
0.11998
0.11998
0.09927
0.09927
0.09927
0.07176
0.06825
0.01500
0.00000
22.9
AAA
ercentHg Weight Hg(g)
0.461%
0.461%
0.461%
0.461%
0.461%
0.461%
0.461%
0.461%
0.461%
0.461%
0.461%
0.461%
0.461%
0.461%
0.461%
0.461%
0.461%
0.461%
0.328%
0328%
0.328%
0.244%
0.164%
0.048%
0.000%
0.05345
0.05345
0.05345
0.05345
0.05345
0.05345
0.05345
0.05345
0.05345
0.05345
0.05345
0.05345
0.05345
0.05345
0.05345
0.05345
0.05345
0.05345
0.03810
0.03810
0.03810
0.02829
0.01900
0.00561
0.00000
11.6
9V
Percent Hg
0.362%
0.362%
0.362%
0.362%
0.362%
0.362%
0.362%
0.362%
0.362%
0.362%
0.362%
0.362%
0.362%
0.362%
0.362%
0.362%
0362%
0.362%
0.362%
0.362%
0.362%
0.362%
0.071%
0.003%
0.000%
Weight Hg(g)
0.16887
0.16887
0.16887
0.16887
0.16887
0.16887
0.16887
0.16887
0.16887
0.16887
0.16887
0.16887
0.16887
0.16887
0.16887
0.16887
0.16887
0.16887
0.16887
0.16887
0.16887
0.16887
0.03311
0.00138
0.00000
46.7
Button
Percent Hg Weight Hg (g)
0.409%
0.409%
0.409%
0.409%
0.409%
0.409%
0.409%
0.409%
0.409%
0.409%
0.409%
0.409%
0.409%
0.409%
0.409%
0.409%
0.409%
0.409%
0.409%
0.409%
0.409%
0.409%
0.409%
0.205%
0.000%
0.00855
0.00855
0.00855
0.00855
0.00855
0.00855
0.00855
0.00855
0.00855
0.00855
0.00855
0.00855
0.00855
0.00855
0.00855
0.00855
0.00855
0.00855
0.00855
0.00855
0.00855
0.00855
0.00855
0.00428
0.00000
2.09
Source: Franklin Associates (1) and industry sources. Results of tests done for this report (see Appendix -) are incorporated in the 1989 data.
-------
Table C-4
SILVER OXIDE BUTTON BATTERIES
Average Weight Average % of Average Weight
Year of Battery (g) Mercury in Battery of Mercury (g)
1987 0.92 0.53% 0.00488
1993 0.92 0.13% 0.00122
1998 0.92 0.00% 0.00000
Table C-5
MERCURY ZINC BATTERIES
Average Weight Average % of Average Weight
Size Year of Battery (g) Mercury in Battery of Mercury (g)
Button 1987 1.57 40.07% 0.629
1993 1.57 40.07% 0.629
1998 1.57 40.07% 0.629
Cylinder 1987 35.6 40.07% 14.265
1993 35.6 40.07% 14.265
1998 35.6 40.07% 14.265
Source: Franklin Associates (1) and industry sources
C-4
-------
Table C-6
RETAIL SALES OF DOMESTIC HOUSEHOLD BATTERIES IN THE UNITED STATES
(In millions of units)
Year
1967 e
1968 e
1969 e
1970 e
1971 e
1972 e
1973 e
1974 e
1975 e
1976 e
1977 e
1978 e
1979 e
1980 e
1981 e
1982 e
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989 p
1994 e
1999 e
Alkaline
6.4
8.7
11.0
20.3
31.9
52.8
87.6
134.0
180.4
238.4
308.0
395.0
511.0
627.0
743.0
859.0
975.0
1,150.0
1,266.0
1,381.0
1,530.0
1,663.0
1,795.0
2,474.0
3,159.0
Carbon-zinc
559.4
556.6
553.8
551.0
548.2
545.4
542.6
537.0
531.4
524.4
517.4
509.0
500.6
489.4
478.2
467.0
453.0
388.0
358.0
344.0
324.0
285.0
276.0
214.0
154.0
Heavy duty
375.4
378.4
381.4
384.4
387.4
390.4
392.8
395.2
397.6
400.0
402.0
404.0
406.0
408.0
410.0
412.0
414.0
416.0
393.0
426.0
415.0
437.0
431.0
451.0
461.0
Mercury-zinc
86.8
86.0
85.3
84.5
83.8
83.0
82.0
81.0
80.0
79.0
77.5
76.0
74.5
73.0
71.0
69.0
67.0
64.0
61.0
59.0
56.0
52.0
49.0
39.0
29.0
Silver
7.0
9.5
12.0
15.5
19.0
24.0
29.0
34.0
39.0
44.0
49.0
54.0
59.0
63.0
67.0
71.0
74.0
76.0
78.0
80.0
80.0
81.0
83.0
90.0
95.0
Zinc air
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
3.1
3.6
4.1
4.6
5.3
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.5
12.0
14.0
18.0
22.0
27.0
37.0
49.0
60.0
85.0
110.0
Total U.S.
Retail Sales
1,035.0
1,039.2
1,043.5
1,055.7
1,072.9
1,098.7
1,137.6
1,185.3
1,233.0
1,291.1
1,359.9
1,445.0
1,559.1
1,669.4
1,779.7
1,890.0
1,997.0
2,112.0
2,178.0
2,317.0
2,442.0
2,567.0
2,694.0
3,353.0
4,008.0
Source: National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)
e - Franklin Associates, Ltd. estimate
p - Projections from NEMA
C-5
-------
Table C-7
RETAIL SALES OF DOMESTIC HOUSEHOLD BATTERIES IN THE UNITED STATES
(In percent of total sales)
Year Alkaline Carbon-zinc
1967 e
1968 e
1969 e
1970 e
1971 e
1972 e
1973 e
1974 e
1975 e
1976 e
1977 e
1978 e
1979 e
1980 e
1981 e
1982 e
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989 p
1994 e
1999 e
0.6%
0.8%
1.1%
1.9%
3.0%
4.8%
7.7%
11.3%
14.6%
18.5%
22.6%
27.3%
32.8%
37.6%
41.7%
45.4%
48.8%
54.5%
58.1%
59.6%
62.7%
64.8%
66.6%
73.8%
78.8%
54.1%
53.6%
53.1%
52.2%
51.1%
49.6%
47.7%
45.3%
43.1%
40.6%
38.0%
35.2%
32.1%
29.3%
26.9%
24.7%
22.7%
18.4%
16.4%
14.8%
13.3%
11.1%
10.2%
6.4%
3.8%
Heavy duty Mercury-zinc
36.3%
36.4%
36.6%
36.4%
36.1%
35.5%
34.5%
33.3%
32.2%
31.0%
29.6%
28.0%
26.0%
24.4%
23.0%
21.8%
20.7%
19.7%
18.0%
18.4%
17.0%
17.0%
16.0%
13.5%
11.5%
8.4%
8.3%
8.2%
8.0%
7.8%
7.6%
7.2%
6.8%
6.5%
6.1%
5.7%
5.3%
4.8%
4.4%
4.0%
3.7%
3.4%
3.0%
2.8%
2.5%
2.3%
2.0%
1.8%
1.2%
0.7%
Silver
0.7%
0.9%
1.1%
1.5%
1.8%
2.2%
2.5%
2.9%
3.2%
3.4%
3.6%
3.7%
3.8%
3.8%
3.8%
3.8%
3.7%
3.6%
3.6%
3.5%
3.3%
3.2%
3.1%
2.7%
2.4%
Zinc air
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.6%
0.6%
0.7%
0.9%
1.0%
1.2%
1.5%
1.9%
2.2%
2.5%
2.7%
Total U.S.
Retail Sales
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Source: National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)
e - Franklin Associates, Ltd. estimate
p - Projections from NEMA
C-6
-------
Table C-8
TOTAL RETAIL SALES OF HOUSEHOLD BATTERIES
(In units)
Year
1967 e
1968 e
1969 e
1970 e
1971 e
1972 e
1973 e
1974 e
1975 e
1976 e
1977 e
1978 e
1979 e
1980 e
1981 e
1982 e
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989 p
1994 e
1999 e
U.S. Retail
Sales (1)
1,034,950,000
1,039,220,000
1,043,490,000
1,055,720,000
1,072,870,000
1,098,700,000
1,137,600,000
1,185,300,000
1,233,000,000
1,291,100,000
1359,900,000
1,445,000,000
1,559,100,000
1,669,400,000
1,779,700,000
1,890,000,000
1,997,000,000
2,112,000,000
2,178,000,000
2,317,000,000
2,442,000,000
2,567,000,000
2,694,000,000
3,353,000,000
4,008,000,000
Imports (2)
155,242,500
155,883,000
156,523,500
158,358,000
160,930,500
164,805,000
170,640,000
177,795,000
184,950,000
193,665,000
203,985,000
216,750,000
233,865,000
250,410,000
266,955,000
283,500,000
299,550,000
316,800,000
326,700,000
347,550,000
366,300,000
385,050,000
404,100,000
502,950,000
601,200,000
Total U.S.
Retail Sales
1,190,192,500
1,195,103,000
1,200,013,500
1,214,078,000
1,233,800,500
1,263,505,000
1,308,240,000
1,363,095,000
1,417,950,000
1,484,765,000
1,563,885,000
1,661,750,000
1,792,965,000
1,919,810,000
2,046,655,000
2,173,500,000
2,296,550,000
2,428,800,000
2,504,700,000
2,664,550,000
2,808,300,000
2,952,050,000
3,098,100,000
3,855,950,000
4,609,200,000
(1) From Table C-6.
(2) Assumed to be 15 percent of U.S. retail sales.
e - Franklin Associates, Ltd. estimate.
p - Projections from National Electrical Manufacturers Association
C-7
-------
Table C-9
SALES OF HOUSEHOLD BATTERIES TO MANUFACTURERS
(millions of units)
Imports of
Year Watches (1)
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989 e
1990 e
1991 e
1992 e
1993 e
1994 e
1995 e
19% e
1997 e
1998 e
1999 e
2000 e
147.4
123.0
170.1
177.9
194.0
210.0
226.0
242.0
258.0
274.0
290.0
304.0
316.0
326.0
334.0
340.0
344.0
Total Watch
Salestt)
155.2
129.5
179.1
187.3
204.2
221.1
237.9
254.7
271.6
288.4
305.3
320.0
332.6
343.2
351.6
357.9
362.1
Sales of Digital
Thermometers (3)
12.1
14.9
15.0
15.3
15.5
14.9
14.5
15.1
15.9
16.8
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
Total Batteries
Contained
in Products
167.3
144.4
194.1
202.6
219.7
236.0
252.4
269.8
287.5
305.2
322.5
337.2
349.8
360.4
368.8
375.1
379.3
Alkaline Batteries
(50% of total)
83.7
72.2
97.0
101.3
109.9
118.0
126.2
134.9
143.7
152.6
161.2
168.6
174.9
180.2
184.4
187.5
189.7
Silver Batteries
(50% of total)
83.7
72.2
97.0
101.3
109.9
118.0
126.2
134.9
143.7
152.6
161.2
168.6
174.9
180.2
184.4
187.5
189.7
(1) American Watch Association (2).
(2) Imports of watches divided by 95%.
(3) Industrial source.
Current Industrial Reports
e - Franklin Associates, Ltd. estimate
C-8
-------
Table C-10
TOTAL RETAIL SALES* OF HOUSEHOLD BATTERIES BY TYPE
(In units)
Year
1967 e
1968 e
1969 e
1970 e
1971 e
1972 e
1973 e
1974 e
1975 e
1976 e
1977 e
1978 e
1979 e
1980 e
1981 e
1982 e
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989 p
1994 e
1999 e
Total U.S.
Retail Sales
1,190,192,500
1,195,103,000
1,200,013,500
1,214,078,000
1,233,800,500
1,263,505,000
1,308,240,000
1,363,095,000
1,417,950,000
1,484,765,000
1,563,885,000
1,661,750,000
1,792,965,000
1,919,810,000
2,046,655,000
2,173,500,000
2,296,550,000
2,428,800,000
2,504,700,000
2,664,550,000
2,808,300,000
2,952,050,000
3,098,100,000
3,855,950,000
4,609,200,000
Alkaline
7,360,000
10,028,000
12,696,000
23,368,000
36,708,000
60,720,000
100,740,000
154,100,000
207,460,000
274,160,000
354,200,000
454,250,000
587,650,000
721,050,000
854,450,000
987,850,000
1,121,250,000
1,322,500,000
1,455,900,000
1,588,150,000
1,759,500,000
1,912,450,000
2,064,250,000
2,845,100,000
3,632,850,000
Carbon-zinc
643,310,000
640,090,000
636,870,000
633,650,000
630,430,000
627,210,000
623,990,000
617,550,000
611,110,000
603,060,000
595,010,000
585,350,000
575,690,000
562,810,000
549,930,000
537,050,000
520,950,000
446,200,000
411,700,000
395,600,000
372,600,000
327,750,000
317,400,000
246,100,000
177,100,000
Heavy duty
431,710,000
435,160,000
438,610,000
442,060,000
445310,000
448,960,000
451,720*000
454,480,000
457240000
460,000,000
462,300,000
464,600,000
466,900,000
469200000
471,500,000
473,800,000
476,100,000
478,400,000
451,950,000
489,900,000
477,250,000
502,550,000
495,650,000
518,650,000
530,150,000
Mercury-zinc
99,762,000
98,900,000
98,038,000
97,175,000
96,313,000
95,450000
94,300,000
93,150000
92,000000
90,850,000
89,125000
87,400000
85,675,000
83,950,000
81,650,000
79,350,000
77,050,000
73,600000
70,150,000
67,850,000
64,400,000
59,800,000
56,350,000
44350,000
33,350,000
Silver
8,050,000
10,925,000
13,800,000
17,825,000
21,850,000
27,600,000
33,350,000
39,100,000
44,850,000
50,600000
56,350,000
62,100000
67,850000
72,450000
77,050,000
81,650,000
85,100,000
87,400000
89,700000
92,000,000
92,000,000
93,150,000
95,450,000
103,500,000
109,250,000
Zinc air
0
0
0
0
2,990,000
3,565,000
4,140,000
4,715,000
5,290,000
6,095,000
6,900,000
8,050,000
9200000
10,350,000
12,075,000
13,800,000
16,100,000
20,700,000
25,300,000
31,050,000
42,552,000
56,350,000
69,000,000
97,750,000
126,500,000
* Retail sales of batteries adjusted for imports (Table C-8) reallocated based on percent of total sales (Table C-7).
e - Franklin Associates, Ltd. estimate
p - Projections from National Electrical Manufacturers Association
C-9
-------
Table C-ll
WEIGHT OF MERCURY IN ALKALINE BATTERIES, 1967 TO 1999
Year
1967 e
1968 e
1969 e
1970 e
1971 e
1972 e
1973 e
1974 e
1975 e
1976 e
1977 e
1978 e
1979 e
1980 e
^^
9 1981 e
o 1982 e
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989 p
1993 e
1998 e
Total Alkaline
Battery Sales (1)
(units)
7,360,000
10,028,000
12,696,000
23,368,000
36,708,000
60,720,000
100,740,000
154,100,000
207,460,000
274,160,000
354,200,000
454,250,000
587,650,000
721,050,000
854,450,000
987,850,000
1,121,250,000
1,322,500,000
1,455,900,000
1,588,150,000
1,759,500,000
1,912,450,000
2,064,250,000
2,733,095,000
3,514,837,000
D
% of Sales Weight Hg (g) (2)
3338%
32.55%
31.72%
30.89%
30.06%
29.23%
28.40%
27.57%
26.74%
25.91%
25.08%
24.25%
23.42%
22.49%
21.66%
20.83%
20.00%
18.77%
18.70%
17.28%
14.54%
13.73%
12.71%
8.98%
6.18%
1,798^55
2389,997
2,948,711
5,285323
8,079,450
12,995,490
20,948,474
31,107,958
40,618,873
52,012,006
65,044,142
80,656389
100,771,501
118,737,236
135,511,828
150,664,998
164,196,747
181,757379
141,627,637
116,475361
108,580,662
111,444,704
86391,659
6,860,878
0
C
% of Sales
26.19%
25.88%
2557%
2526%
24.95%
24.64%
2433%
24.02%
23.71%
23.40%
23.09%
22.78%
22.47%
22.06%
21.75%
21.44%
21.13%
18.77%
17.44%
1735%
17.02%
1650%
16.11%
14.49%
12.79%
Weight Hg(g)G)
605,931
815,809
1,020,487
1,855517
2,878,997
4,703,081
7,704,670
11,635516
15,462366
20,166,473
25,708,841
32,528,098
41508,001
50,001,254
58,419,243
66577,241
74,475,249
78,031502
50,970,954
48,116,187
52,293,659
55,102,872
43,121,015
3341,465
0
AA
% of Sales
26.03%
27.14%
28.25%
29.36%
30.47%
31.58%
32.69%
33.80%
34.91%
36.02%
37.13%
38.24%
39.35%
40.36%
41.47%
42.58%
43.69%
47.73%
49.74%
48.99%
53.63%
53.96%
55.28%
60.39%
64.74%
Weight Hg(g) (2)
229,867
326550
430339
823,195
1342,019
2300,749
3,951320
6,249,491
8,689,795
11,848,766
15,779,703
20,841,940
27,745,260
34,917397
42515375
50,468,685
58,777326
75,737,758
86,888571
77,236,670
93,674,558
102,444,021
81,883332
24,964,798
0
AAA
% of Sales Weight Hg(g) (2)
0.89%
1.11%
1.33%
1.55%
1.77%
1.99%
2.21%
2.43%
2.65%
2.87%
3.09%
3.31%
3.53%
3.65%
3.87%
4.09%
431%
5.55%
5.90%
7.29%
6.31%
7.30%
7.48%
8.49%
9.39%
3501
5,949
9,025
19359
34,726
64582
118,992
200,139
293,835
420542
584,966
803,612
1,108,707
1,406,636
1,767343
2,159,423
2582,873
3,922,943
4590,996
4,411,094
4,230,054
5319,125
4,367,618
1,735,449
0
(1) From Table C-10.
(2) Weight of mercury in batteries from Table C-3.
An average of a one year lag from the production of the battery to the time of retail sale exists. Therefore, the weight of mercury used was
obtained from the previous year.
e - Franklin Associates, Ltd. estimate
p - Projection from National Electrical Manufacturers Association
-------
Table C-ll (continued)
WEIGHT OF MERCURY IN ALKALINE BATTERIES, 1967 TO 1999
Button Battery
9V Sales to Manufacturers
Year % of Sales
1967 e 13.18%
1968 e 13.01%
1969 e 12.84%
1970 e 12.67%
1971 e 12.50%
1972 e 1233%
1973 e 12.16%
1974 e 11.99%
1975 e 11.82%
1976 e 11.65%
1977 e 11.48%
1978 e 1131%
1979 e 11.14%
1980 e 10.87%
1981 e 10.70%
1982 e 10.53%
1983 10.36%
1984 8.68%
1985 7.72%
1986 8.59%
1987 8.00%
1988 8.02%
1989 p 7.92%
1993 e 7.13%
1998 e 6.33%
Weight Hg (g) (2)
163,809
220311
275,282
499,969
774,847
1,264,271
2,068,620
3,120,090
4,140,923
5393,558
6,866,505
8,675,666
11,054,758
13,235,496
15,438,878
17365,668
19,615,867
19384,772
18,979,910
23,037,216
23,769,747
25,900,596
27,607,862
134,231
0
(units) (3)
83,650,947
72,211342
97,033,816
101304,079
109,860,263
117,976316
161,231,579
187547368
Weight Hg(g) (2)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
715,216
617,407
829,639
866,150
939305
1,008,698
689,265
0
Total Mercury
in Alkaline
Batteries (g)
2,801,964
3,758,617
4,683,844
8,483364
13,110,039
21328,173
34,792,076
52313,195
69,205,792
89,841345
113,984,157
143505,705
182,188,228
218,298,019
253,652,668
287,436,016
319,648,063
359,549569
387,326,422
342317508
380,448,645
402,454,702
354,240,446
37,726,086
0
(1) From Table C-10.
(2) Weight of mercury in batteries from Table C-3.
An average of a one year lag from the production of the battery to the time of retail sale exists. Therefore,
the weight of mercury used was obtained from the previous year.
(3) From Table C-9.
e - Franklin Associates, Ltd. estimate
p - Projections from National Electrical Manufacturers Association
-------
Total Carbon-Zinc
Year
1%7 e
1968 e
1969 e
1970 e
1971 e
1972 e
1973 e
1974 e
1975 e
1976 e
1977 e
1978 e
1979 e
1980 e
1981 e
1982 e
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989 p
1994 e
1999 e
Battery Sales(l)
(Units)
643310,000
640,090,000
636370,000
633,650,000
630,430,000
627,210,000
623,990,000
617350,000
611,110,000
603,060,000
595,010,000
585350,000
575,690,000
562310,000
549,930,000
537,050,000
520,950,000
446,200,000
411,700,000
395,600,000
372,600,000
327,750,000
317,400,000
246,100,000
177,100,000
D
% of Sales Weight Hg (g) (2)
61.23%
60.08%
58.93%
57.78%
56.63%
55.48%
54.33%
53.18%
52.03%
50.88%
49.73%
48.58%
47.43%
46.28%
45.13%
. 43.98%
42.83%
38.40%
37.43%
34.59%
37.35%
37.19%
33.69%
26.97%
20.17%
2,757,291
2,691,963
2^27,152
2362361
2,499,088
2,435333
2373,0%
2,298,892
2,225,724
2,147358
2,071,289
1,990341
1,911348
1323,279
1,737,284
1353362
1361360
1,199386
1378395
957366
974,163
853,232
748324
232306
0
Table C-12
WEIGHT OF MERCURY IN CARBON-ZINC BATTERIES, 1967 TO 1999
C AA
% of Sales Weight Hg (g) (2) % of Sales Weight Hg (g) (2)
31.84%
31.23%
30.62%
30.01%
29.40%
28.79%
28.18%
27.57%
26.%%
26.35%
25.74%
25.13%
24.52%
23.91%
23.30%
22.69%
22.08%
26.55%
27.65%
23.84%
23.77%
24.21%
22.22%
18.98%
16.28%
614,490
599,700
585,029
570,475
556,039
541,721
527321
510,776
494,266
476,719
459,467
441,295
423,478
403,704
384,401
365370
345,077
355398
341305
282,933
265,701
238,045
211379
70X165
0
1.16%
2.55%
3.94%
5.33%
6.72%
8.11%
9.50%
10.89%
12.28%
13.67%
15.06%
16.45%
17.84%
19.23%
20.62%
22.01%
23.40%
26.55%
24.30%
31.69%
28.70%
27.37%
32.97%
41.66%
50.06%
5,970
13,058
20,074
27,019
33392
40,693
47,423
53301
60,035
65,951
71,687
77,032
82,162
86383
90,716
94364
97322
94,773
80,034
100,293
85349
71,764
83,717
41,010
0
9V
% of Sales Weight Hg (g) (2)
5.78%
6.15%
6.52%
6.89%
7.26%
7.63%
8.00%
8.37%
8.74%
9.11%
9.48%
9.85%
10.22%
10.59%
10.%%
11.33%
11.70%
8.51%
10.61%
9.88%
10.19%
11.23%
11.11%
12.39%
13.49%
98336
104319
110,038
115,695
121,288
126,819
132,286
136,976
141339
145388
149,478
152,791
155,914
157,944
159,722
161,247
161321
100,625
115,756
103376
100,615
97337
93,447
40354
0
Total Mercury
Consumed in
Carbon-Zinc Batteries
(Grams)
3,476,286
3,409,039
3,342^94
3,276,050
3,210,307
3,145,066
3,080,327
3,000,444
2,921364
2,836,116
2,751,921
2,661,660
2372,903
2,471310
2,372,123
2,274,742
2,165,980
1,750,182
1,615,990
1,444,668
1,426,028
1,260,577
1,137,268
383,935
0
"fil From Table C-10.
(2) Weight of mercury in batteries from Table C-2.
An average of a one year lag from the production of the battery to the time of retail sale exists. Therefore, the weight of mercury used was obtained
from the previous year.
e - Franklin Associates, Ltd. estimate
p - Projections from National Electrical Manufacturers Association
-------
Total Heavy Duty
Battery Sales (1)
Year (Units)
n
i—>
w
1967 «
1968 «
1969 <
1970 (
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980 c
1981 c
1982 <
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989 i
1994 (
• 431710,000
> 435,160,000
• 438,610,000
> 442,060,000
445510,000
448,960,000
451,720,000
454,480,000
457,240,000
460,000,000
462,300,000
464,600,000
466,900,000
• 469,200,000
• 471500,000
^ 473300,000
476,100,000
478,400,000
451,950,000
489,900,000
477,250,000
502550,000
> 495,650,000
- 518,650,000
Table C-13
WEIGHT OF MERCURY IN HEAVY DUTY BATTERIES, 1967 TO 1999
AA
% of Sales
46.68%
45.74%
44.80%
43.86%
42.92%
41.98%
41.04%
40.10%
39.16%
38.22%
37.28%
36.34%
35.40%
34.46%
33.52%
32.58%
31.64%
31.01%
27.23%
26.06%
26.02%
22.65%
23.90%
19.82%
16.57%
Weight Hg(g) (2)
350,649
346,333
341,905
337,364
332,710
327,944
322^71
317,109
311,556
305,913
299381
293,774
287,592
281,334
275,001
268,593
262,110
258,132
214,135
222,142
216,074
198,060
206,121
89,433
0
it of Sales Weight Hg (g) (2)
23.77%
23.%%
24.15%
24.34%
24.53%
24.72%
24.91%
25.10%
25.29%
25.48%
25.67%
25.86%
26.05%
26.24%
26.43%
26.62%
26.81%
21.87%
23.16%
22.53%
22.89%
2165%
23.43%
24.50%
25.65%
307352
312,793
317,773
322,792
327,851
332,949
337,570
342,223
346,908
351,624
356,017
360,437
364^82
369,354
373352
378,377
382,927
313378
314,015
331,123
327,728
341,483
348,392
190,604
0
(of Sales V
18.04%
18.89%
19.74%
20.59%
21.44%
22.29%
23.14%
23.99%
24.84%
25.69%
26.54%
27.39%
28.24%
29.09%
29.94%
30.79%
31.64%
37.25%
39.44%
42.02%
41.93%
45.31%
43.16%
46.62%
49.12%
Height Hg(g) (21
62,304
65,761
69,265
72316
76,414
80,059
83,622
87,224
90363
94,539
98,156
101303
105,482
109,192
112,934
116,706
120,510
142,563
142,599
164,685
160,089
182,164
171,138
96,718
0
9V
t of Sales M
11.50%
11.40%
11.30%
11.20%
11.10%
11.00%
10.90%
10.80%
10.70%
10.60%
1050%
10.40%
10.30%
10.20%
10.10%
10.00%
9.90%
9.86%
10.18%
9.39%
9.16%
9.38%
951%
9.03%
8.58%
reightHg(g)(2)
131564
131,462
131,342
131,203
131,047
130372
130,479
130,072
129,650
129,214
128,635
128,044
127,440
126325
126,197
125557
124,905
125,001
121,923
121,904
115,848
124,919
124,911
62,289
0
1999 e 530,150,000
IT) From Table C-10.
(2) Weights of mercury in batteries from Table C-2.
An average of a one year lag from the production of the battery to the time of retail sale exists. Therefore, the weight of mercury used was obtained
from the previous year.
e • Franklin Associates, Ltd. estimate
p - Projections from National Electrical Manufacturers Association
Total Mercury
Consumed in
Heavy Duty Batteries (3)
(Grams)
852,369
856,350
860,285
864,176
868/122
871323
874,244
876,628
878,977
881,290
882,689
884,058
885,396
886,705
887,984
889,234
890,453
839575
792,671
839,855
819,738
846,626
850563
439,044
0
-------
Table C-14
*
WEIGHT OF MERCURY IN MERCURY-ZINC BATTERIES
Year
1967 e
1968 e
1969 e
1970 e
1971 e
1972 e
1973 e
1974 e
1975 e
1976 e
1977 e
1978 e
1979 e
1980 e
1981 e
1982 e
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989 p
1993 e
1998 e
Mercury-Zinc
Battery
Retail Sales (1)
(Units)
99,762,000
98,900,000
98,038,000
97,175,000
96,313,000
95,450,000
94,300,000
93,150,000
92,000,000
90,850,000
89,125,000
87,400,000
85,675,000
83,950,000
81,650,000
79,350,000
77,050,000
73,600,000
70,150,000
67,850,000
64,400,000
59,800,000
56,350,000
43,084,000
32,267,000
(1) From Table C-10.
(2) Assumed
(3) Weight oi
to be 15% of rm
: mercury in ball
Sales to
Hospitals (2)
(Units)
14,964,300
14,835,000
14,705,700
14,576,250
14,446,950
14,317,500
14,145,000
13,972,500
13,800,000
13,627,500
13,368,750
13,110,000
12,851,250
12,592,500
12,247,500
11,902,500
11,557,500
11,040,000
10,522,500
10,177,500
9,660,000
8,970,000
8,452,500
6,462,600
4,840,050
Total Sales
of Mercury-
Zinc Batteries
(Units)
114,726,300
113,735,000
112,743,700
111,751,250
110,759,950
109,767,500
108,445,000
107,122,500
105,800,000
104,477,500
102,493,750
100,510,000
98,526,250
96,542,500
93,897,500
91,252,500
88,607,500
84,640,000
80,672,500
78,027,500
74,060,000
68,770,000
64,802,500
49,546,600
37,107,050
Total Mercury
in Mercury-Zinc
Batteries (3)
(Grains)
276,227,809
273,841,045
271,454,281
269,064,748
266,677,984
264,288,451
261,104,252
257,920,054
254,735,856
251,551,658
246,775,361
241,999,063
237,222,766
232,446,469
226,078,072
219,709,676
213,341,279
203,788,685
194,236,090
187,867,694
178,315,099
165,578,306
156,025,712
119,293,909
89,343,064
An average of a one year lag from the production of the battery to the time of retail sale exists.
Therefore, the weight of mercury used was obtained from the previous year.
e - Franklin Associates, Ltd. estimate
p - Projections from National Electrical Manufacturers Association
C-14
-------
Table C-15
WEIGHT OF MERCURY IN SILVER BATTERIES
Year
1967 e
1968 e
1969 e
1970 e
1971 e
1972 e
1973 e
1974 e
1975 e
1976 e
1977 e
1978 e
1979 e
1980 e
1981 e
1982 e
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989 p
1994 e
1999 e
Silver Battery
Retail Sales (1)
(Units)
8,050,000
10,925,000
13,800,000
17,825,000
21,850,000
27,600,000
33^50,000
39,100,000
44,850,000
50,600,000
56,350,000
62,100,000
67,850,000
72,450,000
77,050,000
81,650,000
85,100,000
87,400,000
89,700,000
92,000,000
92,000,000
93,150,000
95,450,000
103,500,000
109,250,000
Silver Battery
Sales to
Manufacturers (2)
(Units)
83,650,947
72,211^42
97,033,816
101304,079
109,860,263
117,976,316
161,231,579
187^47368
Total Sales
of Silver
Batteries
(Units)
8,050,000
10,925,000
13,800,000
17,825,000
21,850,000
27,600,000
33,350,000
39,100,000
44,850,000
50,600,000
56350,000
62,100,000
67,850,000
72,450,000
77,050,000
81,650,000
85,100,000
171,050,947
161,911,342
189,033,816
193,304,079
203,010,263
213,426316
264,731379
296,797,368
Total Mercury
in Silver
Batteries (3)
(Grams)
39,284
53314
67344
86,986
106,628
134,688
162,748
190308
218,868
246,928
274,988
303,048
331,108
353356
376,004
398,452
415,288
834,729
790,127
922,485
943324
990,690
1,041320
322,973
(1) From Table C-10.
(2) From Table C-9.
(3) Weight of mercury in batteries from Table C-4.
An average of a one year lag from the production of the battery to the time of retail sale exists.
Therefore, the weight of mercury used was obtained from the previous year.
e - Franklin Associates, Ltd. estimate
p - Projections from National Electrical Manufacturers Association
C-15
-------
Table C-16
WEIGHT OF MERCURY IN ZINC AIR BATTERIES
Year
1967 e
1968 e
1969 e
1970 e
1971 e
1972 e
1973 e
1974 e
1975 e
1976 e
1977 e
1978 e
1979 e
1980 e
1981 e
1982 e
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989 p
1994 e
1999 e
Total Discards
of Zinc Air
Batteries (1)
(Units)
0
0
0
0
2,990,000
3,565,000
4,140,000
4,715,000
5,290,000
6,095,000
6,900,000
8,050,000
9,200,000
10,350,000
12,075,000
13,800,000
16,100,000
20,700,000
25,300,000
31,050,000
42,552,000
56,350,000
69,000,000
97,750,000
126,500,000
Total Mercury
in Zinc Air
Batteries (2)
(Grams)
0
0
0
0
114,278
136,254
158,231
180,207
202,184
232,951
263,718
307,671
351,624
395,577
461,507
527,436
615,342
791,154
966,966
1,186,731
1,626337
2,153,697
2,637,180
934,490
0
(1) From Table C-10.
(2) Weight of mercury in batteries from Table C-l.
An average of a one year lag from the production of the battery
to the time of retail sale exists. Therefore, the weight of mercury
used was obtained from the previous year.
e - Franklin Associates, Ltd. estimate
p - Projections from National Electrical Manufacturers Association
C-16
-------
Appendix C
REFERENCES
1. Franklin Associates, Ltd. Characterization of Products Containing Lead
and Cadmium in Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1970-2000,
Working Papers. October 17,1988.
2. Conversation with representative of an industrial firm. July 23, 1990.
C-17
-------
-------
Appendix D
HOUSEHOLD BATTERIES THAT DO NOT CONTAIN MERCURY
Two kind of batteries that are commonly found in households—
nickel-cadmium and lithium—do not contain mercury. These batteries are
briefly described below.
NICKEL-CADMIUM BATTERIES
The nickel-cadmium battery is the most widely used rechargeable
battery in households and demand in the consumer market is increasing.
The majority (80 percent) of nickel-cadmium batteries made are used inside
rechargeable appliances, such as hand drills and portable vacuums. Available
in cylinder and button sizes, the nickel-cadmium battery is ideally suited to
high-rate applications, such as lap-top computers (1). The nickel-cadmium
battery is also replacing the mercury zinc battery in hearing aids and pocket
calculators (2). This battery contributes no mercury to municipal solid waste,
but it does supply a significant amount of cadmium.
LITHIUM BATTERIES
The lithium battery is most commonly available in button size. Its
consumer market demand is increasing as more applications for button
batteries are created and as its use as a replacement for mercury-zinc cells rises
(3). The lithium battery contains no mercury.
Cylinder sizes are becoming available as the lithium battery substitutes
for alkaline batteries. Cost is a factor since the price of lithium batteries is two
to three times higher than alkaline batteries (4).
D-l
-------
Appendix D
REFERENCES
1. Arthur D. Little, Inc. Marketing Development Strategies for Recyclable
Materials. July 1989.
2. Crompton, T. R. Small Batteries, Primary Cells, Vol. 2. John Wiley and
Sons, 1983.
3. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
Environment Committee. Fate of Small Quantities of Hazardous Waste.
August 1980.
4. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Household Batteries in
Minnesota: Interim Report of the Household Battery Recycling and
Disposal Study. March 1990.
D-2
-------
Appendix E
WORLDWIDE ANNUAL ANTHROPOGENIC SOURCES OF MERCURY
This appendix presents a summary of worldwide annual
anthropogenic (resulting from human activity) sources of mercury. The data
source for the summary (Table E-l) is an article in the peer-reviewed journal
Nature (1). Data are presented for atmospheric emissions, inputs into aquatic
ecosystems, and emissions into soils.
The authors of the Nature article estimated that total annual
anthropogenic releases of mercury into the biosphere are approximately
12,000 short tons. This was computed by adding the median values of the
terrestrial and aquatic inputs minus atmospheric emissions.
E-l
-------
Table E-1
WORLDWIDE ANNUAL ANTHROPOGENIC SOURCES OF MERCURY
(In thousand kilogram* per year and short tons per year)
Mercury source
Atmospheric emissions
Coal combustion-electric utilities
Coal combustion-industry/domestic
Lead production
Copper-nickel production
Municipal refuse incineration
Sewage sludge incineration
Wood combustion
Total emissions
Median value
Inputs Into aquatic ecosystems (2)
Domestic wastewater-central
Domestic wastewater-non-central
Steam electric
Base metal mining/dressing
Smelting/refining-nonferrous metals
Manufacturing processes-metals
Manufacturing processes-chemicals
Manufacturing processes-petroleum products
Atmospheric fallout
Dumping of sewage sludge
Total Input, water
Median value
Emissions Into soils (2)
Agricultural and food wastes
Animal wastes, manure
Logging/other wood wastes
Urban refuse
Municipal sewage sludge
Solid wastes-metal manufacturing
Coal fly ash and bottom fly ash
Peat (agricultural and fuel uses)
Wastage of commercial products
Atmospheric fallout
Total Input, soils
Median value
Mine tailings
Smelter slags and wastes
Total discharge on land
Thousand kg/year
155 - 542
495 - 2,970
8 - 16
37 - 207
140 - 2,100
15 - 60
60 - 300
910 - 6,200
3,560
0 -
0 -
0 •
0 -
0 -
0 -
0.02 -
0 -
0.22 -
0.01 -
0.3 -
4,600
180
420
3,600
150
40
750
1,500
20
1,800
310
8,800
0
0
0
0
0.01
0
0.37
0
0.55
0.63
1.6
1,500
200
2,200
260
800
80
4,800
20
820
4,300
15,000
8,300
0.55 - 2,800
0.05 - 280
2.2 - 18,000
Short tons/yr (1)
171 - 597
546 - 3,274
9 - 18
41 - 228
154 - 2,315
17 - 66
66 - 331
1,003 - 6,834
3,925
0 -
0 -
198
463
0 - 3,968
0 -
0 -
0 -
165
44
827
22 - 1,653
0 -
22
243 - 1,984
11 - 342
276 - 9,667
5,070
0
0
0
0
11
0
408
0
606
694
1,720
1,653
220
2,425
287
882
88
5,291
22
904
4,740
16,512
9,150
606 - 3,086
55 • 309
2,425 - 19,841
Mercury into biosphere = approximately 12,000 short tons per year (3).
(1) Conversion from metric units to short tons by Franklin Associates, Ltd.
(2) Units in data source given in million kg/year. Converted to thousand kg/year by Franklin Associates.
(3) Man-induced mobilization of trace metals into the biosphere equals median values of the
terrestrial plus aquatic inputs minus atmospheric emissions (Reference 1).
Source: Nriagu and Pacyna (1).
E-2
-------
Appendix E
REFERENCES
1. Nriagu, J.O., and Pacyna, J.M. "Quantitative Assessment of Worldwide
Contamination of Air, Water and Soils by Trace Metals." Nature. Vol.
333, May 1988.
E-3
-------
-------
Appendix F
MERCURY ASSESSMENT IN ALKALINE DRY BATTERIES
by
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
November 1, 1990
-------
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITIT
425 Volker Bouleva
Kansas City. Missouri 641
Telephone (816)753-76
November 1,1990
Ms. Keri Hoffsonner
Franldin and Associates
4121 W 83rd, Suite 108
Prairie Village, Kansas 66208
Subject: EPA Contract No. 68-W9-0040, Task 06, "Mercury Assessment in Alkaline Dry Batteries.
Dear Ms. Hoffsonner:
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
This report presents the results on measurement of household batteries for mercury content This
work effort is described under Task 06 in the Work Plan Revision No. 1 of EPA Contract
No. 68-W9-0040, Work Assignment No. HOO-18-01.
In this study, MRI prepared and analyzed five different battery cell sizes from two different
brands, Duracell Brand and Eveready Brand for mercury content in the soft material It is
assumed that the soft material is the only source of mercury in these batteries. These batteries,
supplied to MRI by Franklin and Associates, were received in the original commercial packages.
Each brand studied included five different cell sizes: AAA, AA, C, D and 9V. This sample range
represents approximately 90 percent of household alkaline battery sales in the U.S. One
sub-sample was prepared and analyzed for each of the ten batteries. The individual sample
results were calculated for each battery and are represented in Table 1 as mercury weight
percentage of the total battery weight
MRI developed a detailed procedure for quantitative extraction of the soft material from the
discharged batteries to perform this analysis effort
MRI adapted the EPA SW-846 Mercury Method 7471 to be applicable for analysis of the batteries
soft material.
2.0 EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH
The procedures used for this mercury assessment study in battery soft material including cutting
open the batteries, extraction of the soft material, dissolution of the soft material and analysis of
mercury in sample digestate, are described below.
The analytical method used in this study was the USEPA SW-846 Method 7471 "Mercury in Solid
or Semisolid Waste (Manual Cold-Vapor Technique)" instead of Method 7470 proposed in the
Revised Work Plan of September 14,1990. The Method 7470 "Mercury in Liquid Waste (Manual
Cold-Vapor Technique)" does not apply in the case of solid materials.
-------
Ms. Keri Hoffsonner
Page 2
November 1,1990
No information was available regarding an expected range of mercury content for alkaline
batteries. For this reason, internal quality control spike levels were chosen at 0.01% mercury
content for the high level spike.
The experimental approach used to conduct the mercury assessment study on the ten selected
battery samples included sample pre-preparation, sample digestion and sample analysis.
2.1 Sample Pre-Preparation
The sample pre-preparation procedure consisted of discharging the batteries, freezing, cutting the
batteries in two halves, extracting the soft material from each half, and homogenizing the soft
material.
Prior to pre-preparation, a test cutting was performed on three sample batteries which were
previously frozen at -61 °C using a cryogenic freezer to verify freedom of excessive expansion
from the freezing process. Prior to cutting, no visible changes were observed during the three
day storage in the cryogenic freezer.
To avoid difficulties during the cutting and weighing, all batteries were discharged by connecting
the batteries to small appliances. Each appliance was turned on and left until at least one of each
size cell from each manufacturer was drained. Battery voltage after discharge was at least 10%
lower than the initial voltage for the 1.5 V batteries and at least 50% lower than the initial voltage
for the 9 V batteries.
The detailed sample cutting and soft material extraction is outlined in Attachment 1 along with
calculations and assumptions used to convert measured Hg in soft material (SM) data back to Hg
in the total batteries.
The soft material of these batteries was not very homogeneous. The soft material was placed in
zip lock plastic bags and ground in a porcelain mortar to improve sample homogenization. The
plastic bag was used to minimize cross contamination.
2.2 Sample Digestion
Several adaptations were made to the EPA SW-846 Method 7471 in order to accommodate the
reagent quantities and the reaction times to the anticipated manganese dioxide-zinc mixture
matrix.
Sample size was increased from 02 g to 0.3 g due to lack of any information about the expected
mercury concentration in these type of batteries and to help compensate for sample
nonhomogeneity. The detailed sample digestion procedure is outlined in Attachment 2.
-------
Ms. Keri Hoffsonner
Page 3
November 1,1990
23 Standards Preparation
Standards for the analysis were prepared from Spex Industries single element plasma standard
analytical reference material. Calibration standards were digested along with the samples to
assure a matrix matched curve for quantitation.
2.4 Instrumental Analysis
Samples were analyzed by Cold-Vapor manual method using a ARL/GBC AA Spectrometer
double-beam mode with deuterium background correction. The instrumental analyses were
completed according to EPA SW-846 Method 7471.
3.0 RESULTS
This section presents the results of the mercury assessment in household alkaline dry batteries
and the results of the internal quality control samples, including method blank, duplicate and
method spikes.
3.1 Mercury Content of Duracell and Eveready Batteries
Table 1 summarizes the mercury concentration in the soft material as a result of the analysis of
0.3 g of homogenized soft material. The percent mercury in each battery cell size was calculated
based on assumptions presented in Attachment 1.
Table 2 summarizes the losses due to cutting the batteries. As expected, the percent loss is
dependent on battery size. Smaller batteries result in greater cutting losses. This information has
implications related to the reported analysis data. Although the reported mercury in each battery
was calculated in a manner which compensates for this cutting loss (see assumptions in
Attachment 1), a negative bias probably exists for the smaller batteries (true value is probably
higher than the reported value). Calculations of mercury content per battery are based on the
assumption that the percent loss of soft material due to cutting are equal to the percent of soft
material in the remaining two halves. However, this assumption becomes less appropriate with
smaller battery cells. As the battery decreases in size, the percent soft material in cutting losses
will increase relative to the two halves (increased soft material to shell material ratio). The degree
of this increase is dependent on the battery geometry and the width of the cutting blade.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to calculate the actual amount of soft material in the cutting
losses.
3.2 Internal Quality Control Results
The quality control results from the mercury analysis of method blank, a duplicate spike and
method spikes are presented in Table 3. Both low spike and high spike levels were less than 12%
-------
Ms. Keri Hoffsonner
Page 4
November 1,1990
of the native mercury concentration. For proper assessment of accuracy spike levels should be
approximately half of the native level. These low levels do not permit valid accuracy estimates
to be calculated. However, precision can be determined from the results of DUR C, DUR C LS,
and DUR C LS Dup analyses reported in Table 3 (since there is little difference between the
spiked and native mercury levels. Precision is estimated at 7.4%. These low spike levels were
used due to a lack of information regarding the estimated range of mercury in these batteries.
The instrument performance was verified by measurements of a calibration check standard with
an accuracy of 6.7% and performing drift checks for each ten measurements. The instrumental
drift was below the 10% which is in the permissible range.
4.0 CONCLUSION
Mercury levels in five different sizes of alkaline batteries were measured. Mercury data for the
smaller batteries can be expected to be negatively biased (reported value less than actual value)
due to limitations inherent in processing these samples.
Future analysis efforts for metals content in batteries should include a review of the pre-
preparation procedure to see if the negative bias for small batteries can be eliminated. Based on
mercury levels obtained through this work, increased spiking levels will be used to permit a
proper assessment of method accuracy.
Sincerely,
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Gary Dewalt
Senior Chemist
E. Going, Director
lemical Sciences Department
-------
Table 1. RESULTS OF MERCURY ASSESSMENT
IN ALKALINE DRY BATTERIES
Sample CPD
ID
DURAAA
DURAA
DURC
DURD
DUR9V
EVERAAA
EVERAA
EVERC
EVERD
EVER 9V
Mercury1 in
soft material
ugfe
2805
3761
626
1837
432
1098
2061
187
169
97
Percent Hg
per battery
(w/w)
0.204
0.280
0.050
0.151
0.001
0.071
0.149
0.014
0.013
< 0.001
1 The mercury content was obtained from the analysis of 0.3 g
soft material of each battery type.
CPD - Commercial Product Design
DUR - Duracell Brand
EVER - Eveready Brand
-------
Table 2. MERCURY CONTENT OF DURACELL AND EVEREADY ALKALINE BATTERIES
Sample CPD ID
DURAAA
DURAA
DURC
DURD
DUR9V
EVERAAA
EVER AA
EVERC
EVERD
EVER 9V
Initial battery weight
g
10.6097
22.6837
66.1155
133.0434
45.7519
11.1188
22.7404
65.9671
142.1632
45.6959
Total battery weight
after cutting
g
9.1482
20.6155
64.2615
129.8563
45.3423
9.7234
21.1301
63.8637
137.7997
45.1228
Loss percent
13.8
9.1
2.8
2.4
0.9
12.5
7.1
3.2
3.1
1.3
CPD - Commercial Product Design
DUR - Duracell Brand
EVER - Eveready Brand
-------
Table 3. INTERNAL QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS
Sample name
Method Blank
DURC
DURCLS
DUR C LS Dup.
DURCHS
Spike level
mercury (ug/g)
NA
NA
9
8
82
Found mercury
(ug/g)
< 0.01
626
680
725
939
NA - Not Applicable
LS - Low level Spike
Dup - Duplicate
HS - High level Spike
Note: Range of recovery and precision estimates not calculated due to
low spike levels relative to Hg levels found in samples.
0.01 represents the Instrument Detection Limit, defined as 3 times
the Standard Deviation of five low level standard measurements,
divided by the calibration slope.
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
BATTERY SOFT MATERIAL EXTRACTION PROCEDURE
1. Weigh the discharged sample batteries at room temperature; label this initial battery weight
2. Place the weighed battery in a zip lock bag for 24 hours in a cryogenic freezer at -61° C.
3. Cut the frozen battery in two halves using a ban-saw. Place each half in a tared beaker and
weigh; label each weight HI and H2.
4. Scrape the soft material out of each battery half using a teflon spatula into a tared beaker and
weigh.
5. Rinse any remaining soft material out of the two battery half shells. Place them in two tared
. beakers' and weigh; label these weights SHI and SH2 respectively.
The relevant calculations based on this extraction procedure are as follows:
Assumptions:
1. Soft material (SM) collected is representative of all soft material actually in the battery.
2. The percent of soft material lost during cutting is negligable.
3. The rinsing step (step 5) completely removed all remaining soft material from the battery.
4. The average percent of soft material measured in both battery halves is equal to the percent
of soft material in the total battery.
At * Mptr AM,*
He per Battery (\veight %) = **g °f !*g x Est. % SM per Battery x10 8
g of SM 1 \ig
Note: Acronyms Used in Calculations:
SM - Soft Material in Battery
EST. - Estimated
HI - Weight of Battery Half 1 After Cutting
H2 - Weight of Battery Half 2 After Cutting
SHI - Weight of Shell Half 1 After Cutting and Extraction of SM
SH2 - Weight of Shell Half 2 After Cutting and Extraction of SM
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
DIGESTION OF BATTERY SOFT MATERIAL FOR MERCURY ANALYSIS
1. Weigh 0.3 g homogenized soft material sample at the nearest 0.1 mg in a 100 mL Griffin
beaker.
2. To facilitate dissolution of manganese dioxide, add 6 mL cone, hydrochloric acid and allow
sample to dissolve.
3. Add 2 mL cone, nitric acid.
4. Dilute with 5 mL type I water and heat the sample for 30 minutes in a water bath at 95° C.
5. Remove from water bath and allow to cooL Add an additional 40 mL type I water.
6. Add 15 mL 15 % (w/v) potassium permanganate, mix thoroughly and heat the sample in a
water bath for 30 minutes at 95° C.
7. Cool, and add 6 mL of sodium chloride-hydroxilamine sulfate solution. Add more sodium
chloride-hydroxilamine sulfate if purple color persists. Add until purple potassium
permanganate color no longer is present
8. Dilute the digestate to 100 mL in a volumetric flask with type I water and analyze immediately
by cold vapor atomic absorption.
-------
-------
------- |