US. CPA K--
Wa;,
h'W
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
( ttttil\"\t fin- Improving the Environment
Public Liaison Report
EPA Is Properly Addressing
the Risks of Using Mercury
in Rituals
Report No. 2006-P-00031
August 31, 2006
-------
Report Contributors:
Christine Baughman
Larry Dare
Stephen Schanamann
Abbreviations
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OIG Office of Inspector General
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
Cover Photo: A necklace containing liquid mercury in the pendant. Photo courtesy of EPA's
January 2005 report, Ritualistic Use of Mercury Simulation: A Preliminary
Investigation of Metallic Mercury Vapor Fate and Transport in a Trailer.
-------
V
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
2006-P-00031
August 31, 2006
Cnf(i/y\rfar fnt/>rin'iti<; the Environment
])roblem.
ulso asked us to look into :;
1 whetherEPA had falsified tlie
• results oif a study to measure
; Background .; 1":' •..-.; r;,,
.Some people use mercury as •; V.
1 i' " > 1
religious practices to: attract "
yapore can t^usei; I : 1
as :r;|,,
damage to the netvpus syl^m.
For further I
: contact 9iiri5ffli?
' Congrwstonal and Public
: Liateon at (202) 566^2391. ?
TovfewtiwfuHwpprt, • '
click on the following Unk: . .,
wWw.eoa.bov/Qia/tePort/a06/
EPA Is Properly Addressing the Risks of
Using Mercury in Rituals
What We Found
EPA staff and the Mercury Poisoning Project representative agree that the ritual
use of mercury poses a health risk. Those who use mercury in folk remedies and
religious practices, as well as others who live in buildings where such rituals are
performed, may be exposed to mercury vapors. However, EPA and the
representative differ in how EPA should address the risks. The representative
believes EPA's actions are insufficient and wants EPA to:
• regulate the use of mercury; and
• be prepared to address what he believes are many homes throughout the
United States that are contaminated by the ritual use of mercury.
On the other hand, EPA staff:
• believe that EPA regulations are not warranted at this time, and starting
the process to establish such regulations would drive the practice
underground; and
• have addressed the issue by providing community education and outreach,
sponsoring research and environmental monitoring, and purchasing
63 portable mercury analyzers for measuring mercury levels.
We agree with EPA's assessment about regulating the ritual use of mercury, and
believe the actions taken by EPA are consistent with current legal requirements.
In 2002 and 2003, EPA performed a study measuring the levels of mercury vapors
from "spills" of differing amounts of mercury. One experiment simulated the
ritual use of mercury. According to the representative, if the experiments had
been performed differently, the results may have been more realistic. However,
the report details the experiments as they were performed, and identifies the
related assumptions. We found no evidence that the study was inadequately
designed or the results falsified.
Although we are not recommending additional actions by EPA, we are reporting
the results of our work to further emphasize that the ritual use of mercury poses a
health risk.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
August 31,2006
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
TO:
EPA Is Properly Addressing the Risks of Using Mercury in Rituals
Report No. 2006-P-00031
Susan Parker Bodine
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
This is our report on the subject review conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It describes efforts by EPA to address the
risks of using mercury in folk remedies and religious practices, i.e., ritual uses. This report
represents the opinion of the OIG.
On June 28, 2006, we issued a draft of this report for review and comment. You generally
agreed with our conclusions, and suggested some changes to clarify and correct information in
the report. We made revisions based on your comments as we determined appropriate.
The estimated cost of this report - calculated by multiplying the project's staff days by the
applicable daily full cost billing rates in effect at the time - is $62,274.
Action Required
Because this report contains no recommendations, you are not required to provide a written
response; we are closing this report upon issuance. We have no objection to the further release
of this report to the public. For your convenience, this report will be available at
http://www.epa.gov/oig.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at 202-566-0847
or roderick.bill@epa.gov, or Paul McKechnie, Product Line Director for Public Liaison, at 617-
918-1471 or mckechnie.paul@epa.gov.
Jenck
Acting Inspector General
-------
EPA Is Properly Addressing the Risks of Using Mercury in Rituals
Table of Contents
Introduction
Purpose
Background
Scope and Methodology.
2 EPA Is Addressing Health Risks Posed by Ritual Use of Mercury.
Few Legal Requirements Specifically Relate to Ritual Use of Mercury.
EPA Staff Believe Regulatory Action Is Not Warranted
EPA Has Taken Actions
Conclusion
3 EPA Did Not Falsify Results of Study Measuring Mercury Vapors
1
1
2
3
4
5
8
EPA Study Measured Mercury Vapors 9
EPA Changed Report to Address Some Concerns of Representative 10
Study Team Obtained Input on Study Design 11
No Indication Report Data Was Falsified 12
It Is Difficult to Evaluate Whether Study Results Were Unrealistic 12
Conclusion 13
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits.
14
Appendices
A Agency Response to Draft Report 15
B Distribution 19
-------
Purpose
In February 2005, a representative of the Mercury Poisoning Project (the
representative) asked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of
Inspector General (OIG) to address concerns about the ritual use of mercury. The
Mercury Poisoning Project is a private organization that provides the public with
information on the dangers of being exposed to mercury. The representative said
there was widespread mercury contamination in Latino and Caribbean homes in
the United States as a result of rituals. Because of this belief by the
representative, he wanted the OIG to determine whether EPA had adequately
investigated whether such contamination poses an environmental health threat
and, if so, had EPA substantively acted to address its dangers. Regarding a study
EPA performed simulating the ritual use of mercury in a trailer, the representative
alleged that EPA had falsified the study results, or had deliberately designed the
study to fail.
Background
Mercury, in its liquid metal form, is used in some folk remedies and religious
practices. Certain Latino and Afro-Caribbean traditions, including Santeria, Palo,
Voodoo, and Espiritisrno, use mercury to: attract luck, love, or money; protect
against evil; or speed the action of spells. This is done through a variety of uses,
including wearing in amulets, sprinkling on the floor, or adding to a candle or oil
lamp. In addition, some people add it to detergent or cosmetic products. Mercury
can be obtained from religious supply stores known as botanicas.
Inhaling mercury vapors is hazardous to human health. At high exposures,
through inhalation, mercury vapors can produce severe lung, gastrointestinal, and
nervous system damage. Using mercury in cultural and religious practices
(i.e., ritual uses) can expose people to mercury vapors. At room temperature,
uncontained mercury can evaporate and become an invisible, odorless toxic
vapor. At higher temperatures, these concentrations increase. Very small
amounts of mercury (even a few drops) can raise air concentrations of mercury to
harmful levels, particularly in poorly ventilated spaces. The longer people
breathe the contaminated air, the greater the risk to their health.
EPA staff have been aware of dangers from the ritual use of mercury for over a
decade. In 1993, EPA issued RM2 Assessment Document for Cultural Uses of
Mercury, which identified concerns about the ritual use of mercury. At that time,
EPA considered regulating such use under the Toxic Substances Control Act
-------
(TSCA). Instead, EPA chose to implement a public education campaign that the
three national Hispanic organizations they consulted had encouraged. The danger
posed by the ritual use of mercury was recognized again in December 1997, when
EPA released an eight-volume Mercury Study Report to Congress. Volume 3 of
this study identified mercury used in some ritualistic practices as a miscellaneous
source of mercury exposure.
Scope and Methodology
We performed this review in accordance with Government Auditing Standards,
issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, except that we limited our
review of management controls and compliance to those directly relating to the
issues identified by the representative.
We performed our work from September 2005 through April 2006. As part of our
work, we interviewed EPA employees from the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response and the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances. In addition, we reviewed a variety of documents provided by the
representative, EPA staff members, and others. We also reviewed documents
obtained through the Internet, particularly the Websites of EPA, the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR).
On June 28, 2006, the OIG issued a draft report to the EPA Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response for review and
comment. The Assistant Administrator responded on August 4, 2006. She agreed
with the conclusions presented, and offered comments to clarify and correct
information in the report. We include the Assistant Administrator's memorandum
in Appendix A. As appropriate, we revised the report based on these comments,
as well as less formal comments provided by staff from the Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances.
Although we are not recommending additional actions by EPA, we are reporting
the results of our work to further emphasize that the ritual use of mercury poses a
health risk.
-------
EPA staff agree with the representative that vapors from the ritual use of mercury
are dangerous to people, and the vapors continue to be emitted for some time.
However, while regulating such use might be possible under an existing law, EPA
staff do not agree with the representative that regulations would be appropriate.
This is primarily because EPA staff believe starting the process to establish such
regulations would drive the practice underground. EPA is instead taking other
actions to address the risks, including community education and outreach,
research and environmental monitoring, and responding to mercury releases.
Few Legal Requirements Specifically Relate to Ritual Use of Mercury
The Federal Government regulates mercury in a variety of ways, but these
requirements do not directly address the ritualistic use of mercury. Mercury is
designated as a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act and a pollutant
under the Clean Water Act, and has a safe drinking water standard under the Safe
Drinking Water Act. Mercury is also regulated by the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, which established a limit in the workplace of no more than
0.1 milligrams of mercury per cubic meter of air as an 8-hour weighted average.
Although the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has proposed
residential mercury limits, no one has established similar limits for residential air.
Further, with the exception of radon, EPA does not have clear statutory authority
under the Clean Air Act to regulate indoor residential air.
Mercury is designated a hazardous substance under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, with a reportable
quantity of one pound. Under this Act, a spill or release of a hazardous substance
may be cleaned up to protect the public health or welfare, or the environment.
Thus, EPA can take actions to clean up a spill or release of mercury. EPA has
responded to a number of such incidences, and has guides on what to do in these
situations. General cleanup instructions are also available to the public on EPA's
Website at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/mercury/faq/spills.htm.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission has the authority under the Federal
Hazardous Substance Act to require precautionary labeling for products
containing mercury, Through enforcement letters, the Consumer Product Safety
Commission has taken action against major suppliers of mercury to botanicas and
botanica wholesalers. The large number of small distributors makes further
enforcement activities resource-intensive.
-------
A current law under which EPA might be able to regulate the ritual use of
mercury is TSCA. TSCA provides that chemical substances and mixtures that
present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment may be
regulated. Since TSCA included elemental substances in its definition of a
chemical substance, mercury would be covered under the law and thus could be
regulated.
Under section 6 of TSCA, when chemical substances present an unreasonable risk
of injury to health or the environment, the EPA Administrator may issue
regulations to: prohibit or limit activities that use the substance, limit how much
may be used, require warnings or instructions, require records, establish
requirements for disposal of the substance, or require notices about the risks
posed and information about replacing or repurchasing the substance. Before
promulgating regulations, the Administrator must consider the effects, benefits,
and economic consequences, and select the least burdensome restriction(s) that
adequately protect against the risk. TSCA section 6 requires a high standard of
support, including a risk assessment.
EPA Staff Believe Regulatory Action Is Not Warranted
Little of the information needed for a risk analysis of the ritual use of mercury is
available. Studies have confirmed that mercury is used for rituals in the home,
and there are elevated levels of mercury in some buildings. Also, the New
York/New Jersey harbor is believed to be contaminated by mercury, in part,
because of ritual uses; however, the extent to which ritual uses contributed to this
contamination could not be determined. One study found 5 of 100 children had
elevated levels of mercury, while none of 347 children in another study had
elevated levels. None of these studies were national in scope. In addition, no
studies have directly connected elevated mercury levels in a person (or related
adverse health effects) to the ritual use of mercury.
For several reasons, EPA Staff believe regulating the ritual use of mercury would
not be appropriate:
It would drive the practice underground. One of the most important
reasons is their belief that taking actions to start the regulatory process will
drive the sale of mercury underground. EPA drew this conclusion in its
1993 assessment document. The same conclusion was reached in a 2001
article in Environmental Health Perspectives.1 The authors of this article
reported that a member of their team was able to buy mercury at botanicas
where botanica employees had previously told other team members they
did not sell mercury. From this, the team concluded that the stricter the
enforcement actions, the further underground mercury sales and use will
1 Assessing Elemental Mercury Vapor Exposure from Cultural and Religious Practices, Environmental Health
Perspectives, Volume 109, Number 8, August 2001, pages 779-784, Donna M. Riley, et al.
-------
go. Similar sentiments were expressed to the EPA-sponsored Task Force
on Ritualistic Uses of Mercury, and in two other recent reports.2
It might violate the Constitution. Because some of the rituals are
associated with religious practices, restricting the use of mercury might be
challenged as a violation of the First Amendment.
It can be addressed by local authorities. EPA believes the ritual use of
mercury is not a national problem, but is localized, making action under
TSCA more difficult.
The United Nations is addressing mercury on a world-wide level. The
United Nations has begun a program to reduce the use of mercury, which
may decrease the ritual use of mercury in the United States. The United
Nations program has several components, including conducting studies on
the amount of mercury being traded and supplied worldwide, and
improving the communication of the risks of mercury to vulnerable
groups.
EPA Has Taken Actions
EPA has taken multiple actions to address the ritual use of mercury. In January
1999, EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial Response convened a multi-
agency Task Force on Ritualistic Uses of Mercury to recommend an appropriate
course of action. In forming the multi-agency task force, EPA hoped to gain a
better understanding of these practices and traditions, and their potential public
health and environmental impacts. In December 2002, EPA issued the Task
Force on Ritualistic Uses of Mercury Report (2002 Task Force Report)/ This
report recommended that EPA provide community outreach and education; assist
with research and environmental monitoring, including providing guidance on
instruments that measure mercury; and continue responding to mercury releases.
EPA is doing these things; details follow.
Education and Outreach
EPA has actively pursued greater community education and outreach. In 1994,
EPA published the "Information Fact Sheet: Hazards to Consumers Using
Metallic Mercury in the Home Environment," providing examples of unsafe
household use related to rituals. In April 2004, EPA published a pamphlet,
"Protect your Family from Mercury in your Home." This pamphlet noted that if
mercury is used in a folk remedy or spiritual practice, and "If you store or use
mercury, it is best to do it outside. If you must have it inside, keep it in
2 HIDDEN DANGER - Environmental Health Threats in the Latino Community, October 2002, Natural Resources
Defense Council; and Cultural Uses of Mercury Program, February 2005, National Association of City and County
Health Officials.
3 OSWER 9285.4-07, EPA/540-R-01-005, at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/community/mercury.pdf.
-------
unbreakable, disposable containers. Never put it on the floor, furniture, or
carpet." Such a pamphlet was recommended by the 2002 Task Force Report.
EPA is also preparing a video for use in schools. The reports referenced above
had such recommendations. The representative has also advocated education
programs.
Research and Environmental Monitoring
The 2002 Task Force Report also recommended research and environmental
monitoring. As part of the research, EPA provided funds for a report by the
National Association of City and County Health Officials. The report suggested
steps to be taken by local public health agencies to address the ritual use of
mercury, including methods for identifying and engaging susceptible populations,
building partnerships with leaders within those populations, and working with the
leaders to give joint messages. In addition, EPA recently provided funds for
surveys and focus groups about the ritual use of mercury among Latino residents
in Lawrence, Massachusetts. The study includes indoor air testing of homes and
botanicas.
EPA has funded general research on mercury, such as how it is affected by
atmospheric processes, reducing people's exposure to mercury, and the effects of
such exposure. At the request of EPA, the National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey is collecting information about mercury levels in human hair,
blood, and urine, and EPA is evaluating these results as they become available.
However, because of study limitations, any elevated mercury levels found cannot
be tied directly to ritual uses. Although survey participants are interviewed, there
are no questions about the ritual use of mercury; the survey is intended to identify
mercury trends in the general population of the United States.
EPA performed a study of newer instruments to measure mercury vapor levels;
another recommendation in the 2002 Task Force Report. Additional research
funded by EPA, although not specifically looking at the effect of ritual use of
mercury, is underway on measuring the harmful effects of mercury. One study is
being conducted by the University of Miami; the other by the New York
Department of Environmental Conservation.
Equipment for Responding to Mercury Releases
The complainant noted his belief that when responding to releases due to the
ritual use of mercury, there will be a need for portable instruments to measure
mercury levels as well as air filtering equipment to remove mercury vapors
without evacuating homes. He believes it is inevitable that a large number of
contaminated homes will be found throughout the United States, and it is prudent
for EPA to stockpile instruments and equipment now.
-------
We believe that the current EPA
inventory of mercury analyzers is
sufficient to respond to most
situations that would require
measuring mercury in the air. EPA
owns 63 analyzers that measure
mercury vapors, and plans to buy
2 more. These analyzers cost from
$10,000 to $20,000 each. Most of
EPA's inventory consists of one of
the following two types:
Table 2.1: Relationships of Measures
Metric Mfafuraments for
1 ,000 milligrams
1 ,000,000 micrograms
1 ,000,000,000 nanograms
Source: Federal Standard 3768, Preferred
Metric Units for General Use by the Federal
Government, January 27, 1993
• The Jerome 431 -X mercury vapor analyzer, a portable, hand-held unit that
can measure mercury vapors from 0.003 to 0.999 milligrams per cubic
meter.
• The Lumex RA-915+ mercury analyzer, a light-weight portable unit that
can measure mercury in the ambient air as low as 2 nanograms per cubic
meter.
EPA also owns Mercury Tracker 3000 analyzers. The Mercury Tracker 3000 is a
portable instrument that continuously samples mercury vapors. It measures mean
concentrations from 0.1 to 2,000 micrograms per cubic meter over a time interval
selected by the user.
EPA has conducted minimal testing of filtering equipment. However, its
Environmental Technology Verification Program is capable of such testing. The
program develops testing protocols and verifies the performance of innovative
technologies that have the potential to improve protection of human health and the
environment. Technology vendors are welcome to participate. Among the
protocols already approved under the program is a protocol to evaluate general
ventilation filters, which may be applicable to mercury filtering equipment.
-------
Conclusion
Mercury vapors resulting from ritual uses can pose a health risk. Persons
involved in such rituals should be aware of these risks through precautionary
labels. These labeling requirements are enforced by the Consumer Product Safety
Commission, not EPA. To further increase awareness of the risk, EPA and others
provide community education and outreach materials. EPA's education and
outreach is important and should be continued because, although the ritual use of
mercury may be a minor source with regard to the overall use in the general
population, the vapors resulting from ritual uses can produce highly elevated
mercury levels. Besides education and outreach, EPA has funded some research
on the issue. Thus, within the current legal framework, EPA has addressed the
health risks posed by the ritual use of mercury. Although we are not
recommending additional actions by EPA, we are reporting our results to further
emphasize that the ritual use of mercury poses a health risk.
-------
We found no evidence that a study conducted by EPA to measure the levels of
mercury vapors resulting from spills was designed to mislead, nor did we find that
the results were falsified, as alleged. EPA performed this study, part of which
simulated mercury released during ritual use, in response to a recommendation in
the 2002 Task Force Report. Before starting experiments, the study team talked
with others (including the representative) so the work would correctly reflect the
ritual use of mercury. EPA used analyzers to measure the mercury vapors in the
air during the experiments, and EPA's report presented measurement averages.
Mercury levels are affected by several variables, making it difficult to compare
the results of experiments to real situations.
EPA Study Measured Mercury Vapors
EPA conducted a study4 with the objectives to (1) assess what happens to mercury
vapors in a home, including those resulting from cultural uses of mercury; and
(2) evaluate instruments that quickly monitor mercury vapors. This study did not
explore potential health risks. EPA also used data collected to develop models to
predict how long and at what levels mercury would contaminate indoor air. EPA
conducted this study from January 14, 2002, through March 27, 2003.
In the study, EPA performed 10 experiments that simulated the following
scenarios concerning mercury:
• Spilling or sprinkling 2 to 15 grams of mercury on a carpet in a large and a
small room of a trailer.
• Placing different weights of mercury inside two candles to determine the
relative importance of weight versus surface area on the level of mercury
vapors.
• Spilling mercury from a broken thermometer on a carpet in a small room.
• Shaking drops of liquid mercury, or beads, to simulate mercury being
disturbed by household activities, such as children playing.
The study found that intentionally sprinkling mercury for ritual purposes, or
accidentally spilling mercury, may produce indoor air concentrations above the
The related report, Ritualistic Use of Mercury Simulation: A Preliminary Investigation of Metallic Mercury Vapor
Fate and Transport in a Trailer, OSWER 9285.4-08, EPA/540/-04/006, dated January 2005, is at
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/community/merc_rep05.pdf.
-------
ATSDR-proposed residential occupancy level. This is the level considered safe
and acceptable for people to stay in a building after a mercury spill, provided no
visible mercury is present and the mercury source has been removed. In some
cases, the initial mercury concentration in the air also exceeded the ATSDR-
recommended indoor action level for isolation, a concentration at which steps
should be taken to prevent people from being exposed to the mercury.
The indoor air mercury vapor level depended on the total exposed surface area of
the mercury, the amount of mercury used, and the size of the room. The indoor
air mercury level decreased over time and, in most cases, eventually fell below
the ATSDR-proposed residential occupancy level. Increases in indoor air
mercury concentration were observed when the mercury source was physically
disturbed or shaken, more mercury was added, physical activity occurred near the
source, or temperatures exceeded 90°F. Periodically applying a small amount of
mercury over a long time in the same room could lead to continually exposing
people to levels of mercury vapors above the proposed residential occupancy
level.
EPA developed a model to describe the relationship between the level of mercury
vapors in the air and the evaporation of the mercury source over time. The model
assumes all environmental factors are stable (constant), including temperature,
ambient air pressure, and the effects of static electricity. It also assumes that the
mercury source remains undisturbed. However, the model cannot predict the final
level of mercury vapors due to a lack of information on how time, temperature,
etc., affect elemental mercury exposed to air. Although it cannot predict the final
level, the model indicates that after reaching a maximum value, mercury vapor
levels continuously decrease to a final level typically less than 5 percent of the
maximum level after 50 to 60 hours, assuming the mercury is undisturbed.
EPA developed a second model to give a rough estimate of the average level of
mercury vapors in indoor air over various time intervals. This approach is based
on periodic activity in a room producing additional mercury vapors. The model
may not be appropriate for situations in which the mercury is disturbed on a
regular basis or is repeatedly applied.
EPA Changed Report to Address Some Concerns of Representative
In his complaint to the OIG and his comments on the draft EPA study report, the
representative claimed that EPA falsified the study results simulating the ritual
use of mercury. In his comments on the draft report, the representative said the
study "seriously understates the mercury vapor levels present in actual dwellings
where mercury has been put to ritualistic use." According to him and his
reference to a study5 on gaseous elemental mercury, EPA's results were
inconsistent with measurements from real incidents. The representative believed
5 Gaseous Elemental Mercury as an Indoor Air Pollutant, Environmental Science & Technology, Volume 35,
Number 21, September 2001, pages 4170-4173, Anthony Carpi and Yung-Fou Chen.
10
-------
EPA deliberately designed the study to fail, and criticized the people involved for
preparing a report that was unrealistic. Thus, he believed the results did not
provide useful estimates of residential exposure, which was one of the study
objectives. According to the representative, EPA should repeat the study using
different floor types and include simulations of people moving about in the room.
EPA's January 2005 final report was very similar to the July 2004 draft report on
which the representative commented. Noteworthy additions included clarifying
what happened during the experiments and noting qualifications about the results.
Other changes addressed concerns of the representative, but the report
recommendations were not changed as suggested. In addressing the
representative's comments, EPA replaced its objective about estimating
residential exposure with an objective on evaluating monitoring instruments.
EPA added a reference to the study on gaseous elemental mercury, and included a
paragraph to explain why the results were not comparable, i.e., the sampling
design and methodology used in the study on gaseous elemental mercury differed
substantially from that used in the EPA study. Further, EPA added a sentence
stating it was unlikely mercury in an actual home would be undisturbed.
Study Team Obtained Input on Study Design
We believe that EPA intended the study to simulate the ritual use of mercury, and
did not design it to produce specific results. When developing work products,
EPA believes it can be beneficial to have interaction of subject matter experts
from within and outside EPA, so it encourages staff to obtain peer input when
planning scientific work. However, for this particular study, peer input was not
required as it would have been if, for example, the study was expected to produce
controversial findings. Even so, at least twice before the study started, EPA staff
discussed the study with the representative, who was very enthused about what
EPA was going to do. They exchanged emails about the proposed work and the
representative visited the site of the study to tour the trailer.
In addition, since an important goal of the study was to simulate the use of
mercury for ritual purposes, a team member contacted a practitioner to determine
how mercury is used in rituals in the home. Experiment 1 was designed to mimic
the ritual uses described by the practitioner. EPA staff noted several variables in
Experiment 1 could have been changed. For example, the practitioner offered to
visit the study site and spread the mercury. The study team declined the offer,
believing it would create a credibility problem for the study. The experiments
could have used different types of floors or furniture, or tried to disturb the
mercury in different ways, which may have led to different results. However, the
report describes conditions existing during the experiments.
11
-------
No Indication Report Data Was Falsified
We found no indication that EPA falsified report data. EPA used real-time
monitoring instruments to take readings on the concentration of mercury vapors in
the air for all 10 experiments in the study. In addition, the air was sampled and
analyzed by a laboratory using the modified NIOSH (National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health) Method 6009, which is the standard for mercury
analysis. Averages of the instrument readings were presented in the report.
Although we did not review the actual readings, we reviewed documents showing
reading averages. For one experiment, we compared the averages for the first 44
hours of monitoring to the concentrations identified in the report. We found that
the report correctly showed the average of the readings, although the first
concentration level shown exceeded the average of the 10-minute averages by a
small amount - 0.05 micrograms per cubic meter.
A different study6 on mercury evaporation produced results similar to the EPA
study. The author measured the evaporation rates of two drops of mercury at
room temperature. The smaller drop weighed about 0.2 grams and had a diameter
of roughly 3 millimeters; the larger, nonspherical drop had a mass about 10 times
larger. For the larger drop, but not the smaller one, the size of the drop decreased
over time in a linear manner. A member of the EPA study team reviewed this
study and concluded that results for the larger drop were similar to what happened
to drops in the EPA study that were 0.5 centimeters in size. Given the room
volume and air exchange rate identified in the study, the level of mercury vapors
and the rate at which the mercury decreased, as measured in the study, were in
agreement with those predicted by the models in the EPA report.
It Is Difficult to Evaluate Whether Study Results Were Unrealistic
Results from EPA's study were not consistent with data collected from some
actual mercury spills. EPA's Experiment 3 simulated breaking a thermometer.
The initial mercury reading in the trailer was 7,200 nanograms per cubic meter.
After 162 hours (or 6.75 days) without remediation, the level declined to 80
nanograms. Data from an actual broken thermometer incident, however, showed
that mercury vapors were 5,000 nanograms after 7 days.
Table 3.1 notes mercury vapor measurements taken from the sites of four actual
incidents in which a mercury-containing thermometer was broken in a residential
setting. The period of time after the thermometer was broken and the mercury
vapor level at that time is shown.
6 The evaporation of a drop of mercury, Am. J. Phys., Volume 71, Number 8, August 2003, pages 783-786, Thomas
G. Winter.
12
-------
Table 3.1: Mercury Vapor Readings from Four Residential Spills
:,BiSr ."-i^jVB.!.- .'.^.-;,j«';;, t,§-. « . ,•„. UAH>HPU Vannr I aual
Dresser in bedroom
Vinyl floor in kitchen
Tile floor in bathroom
Tile floor in bathroom
5 days
7 days
6 months
15 years
14,270
5,000
523
45
Sources: Articles cited in Footnotes 1 and 6 of this report, and a 2004 ATSDR Health
Consultation
The measurements in the first three incidents substantially exceeded the final
measurement in EPA Experiment 3. However, many variables affect
measurements of mercury vapors, such as room size, temperature, and air flow.
Thus, these readings may not be comparable and, without further study, the
differences do not prove the EPA experiment was unrealistic.
Conclusion
The report on EPA's study simulating the ritual use of mercury describes the
work performed and related assumptions. We found no indications that the study
was designed to produce specific results, or that the data was falsified. Therefore,
we are not making any recommendations.
13
-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
Rec. Page
No. No.
Subject
Status'
Action Official
Planned
Completion
Date
POTENTIAL MONETARY
BENEFITS (in $OOOs)
Claimed Agreed To
Amount Amount
No recommendations
1 0 = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending;
C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed;
U - recommendation is undecided with resolution efforts in progress
14
-------
Appendix A
Agency Response to Draft Report
August 4, 2006
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to Draft Public Liaison Report:
EPA Is Properly Addressing the Risks of Using Mercury in Rituals
Assignment No. 2005-1655
FROM: Susan Parker Bodine/s/
Assistant Administrator
TO: Paul D. McKechnie
Director of Public Liaison
Office of Congressional and Public Liaison
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a written response on the Findings of the
June 28, 2006 Draft Public Liaison Report: EPA Is Properly Addressing the Risks of Using
Mercury in Rituals Assignment No. 2005-1655. We have reviewed the draft report and agree
with the conclusions presented in the report. Below you will find some general comments that
are intended to clarify or correct points presented in the draft report.
Page 3:
• Summary of legal requirements pertaining to mercury in residential air: The OSHA PEL
of 0.1 mg/m3 for occupational exposure is not currently listed in the OSHA "Z" tables of
legally enforceable standards.
• There is a NIOSH Recommended Exposure Limit (REL) of 0.05 mg/m3 (not legally
enforceable). While it is true that no legally enforceable residential limits have been
established, there are several published advisories or recommendations worthy of note,
specifically:
o ATSDR's proposed residential occupancy level of 1.0 ng/m3 as the mercury level
considered "safe and acceptable" for occupancy of any structure after a spill;
o ATSDR's recommended indoor air action level of 10 ug/m3 at which measures
should be taken to isolate residents from potential mercury exposure;
o ATSDR chronic minimal risk level, or MRL, of 0.2 ug/m3;
o USEPA reference concentration, or RfC, of 0.3 ug/m3.
15
-------
• Both the ATSDR MRL and EPA RfC are estimates of the chronic (long-term) daily
human exposure that is likely to be without appreciable risk of adverse, non-cancer health
effects.
Page 4, bottom:
• "Studies have confirmed that.. .New York/New Jersey harbor is believed to be
contaminated by mercury, in part, because of ritual uses." While studies have been
conducted of mercury contamination of the harbor, the belief that it derives in part from
ritual uses is based on inferences drawn from a single survey of mercury disposal
practices among NYC mercury users, rather than direct evidence.(l)
• A major NY Academy of Sciences study(2) of mercury in the NY/NJ harbor, provided an
estimate of mercury releases from religious/cultural use (representing less than 4% of
total mercury releases in the harbor watershed), but noted the very low confidence level
(90% error) associated with this estimate, and stated: "Given the large error bars and the
lack of a full understanding of the extent of the problem and no data on how this mercury
makes its way to the Harbor, religious and cultural uses will not be dealt with further in
this document."
• Thus, the ritual use of mercury as a significant source of NY/NJ harbor mercury
contamination has not been "confirmed." (It should also be noted that one reference[3]
bases a claim of excess mercury in influent to NYC wastewater treatment plants
"apparently associated with ritualistic mercury use" on a presentation by the NYC
Department of Environmental Protection. [4])
* References for the footnotes above:
o 1. Johnson, C. 1999. Elemental mercury use in religious and ethnic practices in
Latin American and Caribbean communities in New York City. Pop. Environ. 20
(5): 443-453.
o 2. de Cerreno, A.L., M. Panero, S. Boehme. 2002. Pollution Prevention and
Management Strategies for Mercury in the New York/New Jersey Harbor. New
York: New York Academy of Sciences.
o 3. Wendroff, A.P. 2005. Magico-religious mercury use in Caribbean and Latino
communities: Pollution, persistence, and politics. Environ. Practice 7(2): 87-96.
o 4. New York City Department of Environmental Protection. 2004. Mercury
track-down Washington Heights. Power point presentation.
Page 7:
• The description of EPA mercury analyzers should be revised. The Jerome 431-X mercury
vapor analyzer cannot measure mercury down to the nanogram/m3 range, as stated in the
IG Report. The description of this instrument should be revised to read as follows:
o The Jerome 431-X mercury vapor analyzer is a portable, hand-held unit that
reports mercury vapor in mg/m3 (measuring range from 0.003 to 0.999 mg/m3).
• The description of the Lumex RA-915+ should be changed to read as follows:
16
-------
o The Lumex RA-915+ is a lightweight portable unit that can measure mercury in
ambient air in ng/m3 (detection limit of 2 ng/m3).
• Add the following additional bullet to the description of EPA's mercury response
inventory:
o The Mercury Tracker 3000 is a portable, direct-reading instrument that provides
continuous measurement of mean mercury vapor concentrations in ug/m3 (from
0.1 to 2000 ^g/m3) over a user-selected sampling time interval.
Page 9, end of first paragraph:
• This confuses two separate ATSDR recommended residential mercury levels and should be
revised as follows:
o The study found that intentional sprinkling of metallic mercury for ritual
purposes, or accidentally spilling mercury, may produce indoor air concentrations
above the ATSDR proposed residential occupancy level. This is the level
considered safe and acceptable for occupancy of a structure after a mercury spill,
provided no visible metallic mercury is present and the mercury source has been
removed. In some cases, the initial mercury concentration in air also exceeded
the ATSDR recommended indoor action level for isolation, a concentration at
which measures should be taken to prevent exposure to residents.
Page 9, bottom and 10, top:
* The complainant asked the Agency to add a reference to the report, i.e., the Carpi and
Chen study of mercury in dwellings. We recommend the IG report should stress the
reasons why the results of the EPA study were not comparable to the Carpi and Chen
study, i.e., the sampling design and methodology used by Carpi and Chen differed
substantially from that used in the EPA Trailer study. Furthermore, Carpi and Chen's
methodology is open to question; for example, the paper did not explain how specific
residences were selected, or whether residents were told the purpose of the study (or the
results of the sampling) before being interviewed.
• Also, the ascertainment that a mercury spill had actually occurred was strictly anecdotal,
relying on tenant reports of spills (in one case, from many years earlier). If no spill could
be recalled, the investigators simply assumed thai one must have occurred. Areas of
increased airborne mercury in one apartment were attributed to emissions of mercury
from a small area of a wooden floor, even though there was no reported history of a spill;
other possible sources (e.g. the location of this section of floor relative to windows) were
not considered.
• For these reasons, their study cannot be viewed as a study against which the EPA Trailer
Study is to be compared; nor is any inconsistency of results between these two studies an
indication of malfeasance.
17
-------
Page 10, bottom:
• "We found no indication that EPA falsified report data. EPA used real-time monitoring
instruments to take readings on the concentration of mercury vapors in the air..." In fact,
the EPA not only used two types of real-time monitoring instruments, but also took air
samples for laboratory analysis by NIOSH method 6009, the "standard" for mercury
analysis, providing further evidence that study data were valid.
« Although the IG "did not review the actual readings" (page 11), a data package
containing all readings for experiment 3 was provided to the IG Office along with the
EPA Trailer Report.
Page 11:
• There is no reference provided for the data from four spills involving mercury
thermometers. As the IG Report correctly notes, ".. .many variables affect measurement
of mercury vapors, such as room size, temperature, and air flow. Thus, these readings
may not be comparable..." In the absence of additional information on these variables, as
well as flooring type, degree of disturbance of the mercury, sampling methodology and
sampling interval, one cannot conclude that the EPA Trailer Report should have provided
similar results.
Page 11:
• The reference to the Winter study of evaporation of a mercury droplet should include the
following at the end of the existing paragraph:
o When Winter's parameters for room volume and air exchange rate are used with
the mercury concentration prediction model in the EPA report to predict mass loss
rates and mercury concentrations, the results are in good agreement with Winter's
measured mass loss rates and estimated maximum Hg vapor concentrations.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Suzanne Wells at
(703) 603-9925 or Raj Singhvi at (732) 321 -6761. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on
the draft report.
18
-------
Appendix B
Distribution
Office of the Administrator
Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
Audit Coordinator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Audit Coordinator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
Audit Coordinator, Office of Air and Radiation
Chief, Community Involvement and Outreach Branch, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Chief, Emergency Response Team - Edison, NJ
Director, National Program Chemicals Division, Office of Prevention, Pesticides,
and Toxic Substances
Director, Exposure Assessment Coordination and Policy Division, Office of
Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
Agency Followup Official (the CFO)
Agency Followup Coordinator
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
General Counsel
Acting Inspector General
19
------- |