EPA-560/3-75-007
Materials Balance and Technology Assessment
of Mercury and Its Compounds on
National and Regional Bases
October 1975
Final Report
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Toxic Substances
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Toxic Substances,
EPA, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
EPA 560/3-75-007
MATERIALS BALANCE AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
OF MERCURY AND ITS COMPOUNDS
ON
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL BASES
October 1975
Final Report
Contract 68-01-2930
Project Officer
David Garrett, P.E.
Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Toxic Substances
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
PREFACE
This study was conducted under Contract 68-01-2930 for the Office of
Toxic Substances (OTS), Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Mr. David Garrett was the EPA Project Officer. Mr. Garrett and Dr. Herbert
Katz of OTS were most helpful in providing guidance and assistance during
the course of the study. Other branches of the Agency were also cooperative
in providing advice and information on studies and data sources used in the
study. Representatives of various industries were contacted for information,
and many were most generous in providing insights and data regarding their
industries and technologies. To all of these who contributed to this proj-
ect, we express our thanks.
This work was conducted in the Hazards Assessment Directorate of URS
Research Company, under the administrative direction of William H. Van Horn,
who also served as project manager. Other URS personnel who contributed
technical inputs to the report include Dr. Wesley Bradford, Leon Crain,
Charles Hamman, Gary Kaufman, Lance Johnson, Michael LaGraff, Eric Schrier,
Ruth Shnider, and William Penn. Research, editorial, and typing support was
provided by Margaret Chatham, Mama Lieberman, Frances Maurier, Lucy Vincent,
and Louise Zwick.
The study covers a very broad spectrum of disciplines, and information
was obtained from many published and unpublished sources, as well as numerous
proprietary contacts. While the authors have attempted to minimize errors,
the type and magnitude of the study mean that some errors have undoubtedly
crept into the report. We assume responsibility for such inadvertent mis-
takes and will attempt to correct important deficiencies upon receipt of
better data.
iii
-------
CONTENTS
Section
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY a
Purpose of Study a
Method of Approach a
Uses of Mercury a
Study Results b
Technology Assessment • e
Regulatory Impacts i
Conclusions j
Findings m
I INTRODUCTION 1
Scope of Work 5
Method of Approach 6
Report Organization 9
II HISTORICAL OVERVIEW AND OUTLOOK SUMMARY 11
Sources of Mercury 11
Present and Projected Mercury Consumption 11
Major End Uses 15
Agriculture 15
Catalysts 15
Dental Preparations 15
Electrical Apparatus 16
Caustic-Chlorine (Chlor-Alkali) 16
Paints 17
Pharmaceuticals 17
Other Uses (including Laboratories) 18
Consumption by Federal Agencies 18
Regional Distribution 18
Final Disposal 20
Ultimate Fate of Mercury in the Environment 25
Legislation and Regulations Applicable to Mercury ... 29
Mercury Crisis: The Early Response 29
Regulatory Guidelines and Actions 31
The Air Environment 31
The Land Environment 31
The Water Environment 31
Interstate Transportation 33
Trends in Legislation and Regulatory Action 33
-------
CONTENTS
(continued)
Section
Page
III INPUT/OUTPUT ANALYSIS 37
Introduction 37
Methodology 38
Development of an Input/Output Model 42
Acquisition of the Data 48
Calculation of Contributions from Natural Sources . . 54
Degassing 54
Runoff 58
Contributions from Final Disposal 58
Sewage 58
Groundwater 60
Results 60
Regional Analyses 62
California Study Region 62
Arizona Study Region 65
Kentucky/Tennessee Study Region 67
Louisiana Study Region 73
New York/New Jersey Study Region 75
National Inventory 79
Risk Analysis 91
Selection of Technologies for Study 98
IV TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 105.
Introduction 105
Microtechnologies 107
Sector I - Mercury Input 107
Mercury Mining and Refining 107
Sector II - Mining 116
Copper Mining and Smelting . 116
Sector III - Miscellaneous Unregulated Sources . . . 128
Power Plants 128
Sector V - Manufacturing and Processing 138
Chlor-Alkali Manufacturing 138
Manufacture of Mercurials 153
Battery Manufacturing 170
Electric Lamp Manufacturing 178
Industrial Instruments 185
Paint Manufacturing. 195
Sector VIII - Commercial and Final Consumption . . . 205
Agricultural Pesticides 205
Nonagricultural Pesticdes 212
Laboratory Uses 217
vi
-------
CONTENTS
(continued)
Section
IV TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT (Cont.)
Sector VIII - Personally Oriented Final Consumption 222
Dental Applications 222
Pharmaceuticals 227
Final Disposal Sector 230
Municipal Waste Treatment 230
Municipal Solid Waste Disposal 237
Macrotechnology 246
Implications 246
V REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS 253
Introduction 253
Methodology 255
Regulation in the Chlor-Alkali Industry 257
Alternative I—Elimination of Substitution of
Product 257
Alternative 2—Alternate Technologies 258
Alternative 3—Increased Control 261
Introduction of New Emission Control Technology . . 263
Cost-Benefit Analysis 267
Risk Analysis 269
Regulation in the Paint Industry 271
Regulatory Alternatives and Effects 272
Cost-Benefit Analysis 280
Risk Assessment 280
Regulation in the Battery Industry 282
Industry Regulation 284
Cost-Benefit Analysis . . . 289
Risk Assessment 292
Overview 292
REFERENCES
APPENDIXES
A. Mercury in the Environment
B. Selection of Study Regions
C. Computer Data Base Format and Use
D. General Methodology
E. Point Source Emissions of Mercury
vii
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
A Percent Distribution of Consumptive Uses of Mercury,
1973 e
Bl Percent Distribution of Estimated Emissions to Air of
Mercury from Man-Related Sources, 1973
B2 Percent Distribution of Estimated Emissions to Water
of Mercury from Man-Related Emissions, 1973
Annual Emissions of Mercury to the Environment from
Man-Related and Natural Sources
1 Study Regions .................... 8
2 Projected Mercury Consumption in the United States,
by End Use ...................... 14
3 Past and Probable Future Trends in Final Disposal
of Mercurials ..................... 22
4 Mercury Cycling through Environmental "Reservoirs" . . 27
5 Variations in Mercury Content of the Environment in
Relation to Existing Standards ............ 28
6 Sources of Mercury and Industrial and Commercial
Usage in the United States, 1973 ........... 39
7 Basic Mercury Inventory Flow Chart .......... 43
8 Materials Balance of Mercury from Coal in the
United States ..................... 52
9 Mineralized Areas and Mercury Deposits in the
United States ..................... 59
10 Mercury Emissions to Land in Kentucky/Tennessee Study
Region, by County, 1973 ................ 70
11 Mercury Emissions to Air in Kentucky/Tennessee Study
Region, by County, 1973 ................ 71
12 Latitude/Longitude Analysis of Mercury Emissions along
Tennessee River, Kentucky/Tennessee Study Region, 1973 72
13 Mercury Emissions to Air in New York/New Jersey
Study Region, by County, 1973 ............. 78
14 Mercury Emissions to Water in New York/New Jersey
Study Region, by County, 1973 ............. 80
viii
-------
FIGURES
(Continued)
Number Page
15 Mercury Emissions to Land in New York/New Jersey
Study Region, by County, 1973 81
16. Latitude/Longitude Analysis Areas in New York/
New Jersey Study Region 82
17 Annual Elevated Mercury Losses to Air 92
18 Annual Elevated Mercury Losses to Water 93
19 Annual Elevated Mercury Losses to Land 94
20 Mercury Emissions as a Function of Population
Density 95
21 Summary of Mercury Losses to the U.S. Environment
by Sector and Class, 1973 99
22 Flow Diagram of Mercury Recovery Using 1973
Technology Ill
23 Mercury Recovery Using 1983 Technology 113
24 1973 Technology for Copper Mining and Smelting . . . 119
25 1983 Technology for Copper Mining and Smelting . . . 122
26 Maximum Mercury Vapor Concentrations for Cases 1-4 . 126
27 Mercury Losses from Typical Power Plants, 1973 ... 133
28 Mercury Losses from Typical Power Plants, 1983 . . . 135
29 Mercury Losses from a Typical Chlor-Alkali Manufac-
turing Plant, 1973 143
30 Mercury Losses from a Typical Chlor-Alkali Manufac-
turing Plant, 1983 148
31 Mercury Balance for the Preparation of Mercuric
Sulfide and Mercuric Chloride 159
32 Mercury Balance for Two Methods for Production of
Red Mercuric Oxide 160
33 Mercury Balance for Synthesis of Phenylmercuric
Acetate ..... 161
34 Wastewater Flow in a Plant Producing Mercurials and
Nonmercurials 163
ix
-------
Number
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
FIGURES
(Continued)
Manufacturing Process for Vinyl Chloride Monomer
Using a Mercury Catalyst
Mercury Loss in Manufacturing, by Type of
Battery, 1973
Plow Diagram of Mercury Losses during Manufacture
of Ruben Mercury Cell Batteries
Flow Diagram of Estimated Mercury Losses during
Manufacture of Fluorescent Lamps
Flow Diagram of Mercury Losses in Typical Control
Flow Diagram of Mercury Losses in Typical Switch
Flow Diagram of Estimated Mercury Losses in
Typical Paint Manufacturing Operation in 1973 . . .
Flow Diagram of Estimated Mercury Losses from
Typical Paint Manufacturing Operations in 1983 . .
Mercury Balance, Agricultural Pesticide Manufac-
Mercury Balance, Nonagricultural Pesticide Manu-
Mercury Losses from Laboratory Usage, 1973 ....
Mercury Losses from Laboratory Usage, 1983 ....
Mercury Balance, Dental Applications, 1973
Mercury Balance, Dental Applications, 1983
Mercury Balance, Pharmaceuticals Manufacture and
Use , 1973 Technology
Path of Mercury in a 100 MGD Sewage Treatment
Plant
Flow of Mercury in the Municipal Solid Waste Stream
of a Tvoical Community of 500,000 in 1973
Page
164
171
175
183
191
192
201
201
209
214
219
219
223
225
229
235
242
-------
FIGURES
(Continued)
Number Page
52 Flow of Mercury in the Municipal Solid Waste
Stream of a Typical Community of 500,000 in 1983 . . 243
53 Sequential Mercury Losses in Electrical Applica-
tions, 1973 248
54 Sequential Mercury Losses in Paint Applications, 1973 249
55 Rate of Introduction of Pollution Control Technology 264
56 Time-Phased Reduction of Mercury Emissions from
Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants, and Associated Costs 268
57 Product and Income Flow for the Production and Con-
sumption of Mercury-Containing Paints 273
58 Price Elasticity of Demand in the Paint Industry . . . 276
59 Consumer and Manufacturing Costs Associated with the
Removal of Mercury from Paint. 279
60 Time-Phased Reduction in Mercury Losses from Paint
Usage, and Associated Costs 281
61 Product and Income Flow for the Production and Con-
sumption of Mercury-Containing Batteries 283
62 Time-Phased Reduction in Mercury Losses from Battery
Recycling, and Associated Costs 290
xi
-------
TABLES
Number Page
A Comparison of Regional and National Inventory Results . d
1 Mercury Consumption in the United States, 1965-
1973, by End Use 13
2 Sales of Manufactured Products Containing Mercury ... 19
3 EPA Mercury Regulations 32
4. Input/Output Model Sectors 44
5 Inputs into the Input/Output Inventory 47
6 Outputs from Various Programs in the Input/Output
Model 49
7 Emissions and Emission Factors for Mercury, by
SIC and Sector 55
8 Natural Degassing Rates Calculated by Various
Workers 57
9 Mercury Emissions to the Environment in the
California Study Region 63
10 Mercury Emissions to the Environment in the
Arizona Study Region 66
11 Mercury Emissions to the Environment in the
Kentucky/Tennessee Study Region 68
12 Mercury Emissions to the Environment in the
Louisiana Study Region 74
13 Mercury Emissions to the Environment in the
New York/New Jersey Study Region 76
14 Per Capita Distribution of Mercury Losses to Air,
Land, and Water in Five Areas of New York/
New Jersey Study Region 83
15 Total Mercury Losses in 1973 for the Coterminous
United States, by Sector and SIC Category 84
16 Total Mercury Losses in 1973 for the Coterminous
United States, by State 86
17 Comparison of Regional and National Inventory
Results 90
18 Production of U.S. Mercury Mines in 1973 109
Xii
-------
TABLES
(continued)
Number Page
19 Estimated Total Production and Mercury Emissions
from Mercury Mining and Refining: 1973 and 1983 . . 115
20 Estimated U.S. Smelter Production of Copper, 1973 . 118
21 Estimated Emissions from Copper Smelting, 1973 and
• 1983 124
22 Power Plant Mercury Losses in the United States,
1972 130
23 United States Chlor-Alkali Manufacturers and Esti-
mated Mercury Losses of Plants, by State, 1973 . . . 141
24 Materials Balance for Chlor-Alkali Plant, 1973 . . . 145
25 Materials Balance for Chlor-Alkali Plant, 1983 ... 149
26 Estimated Mercury Losses from Typical Chlor-Alkali
Plant Operations, 1973 and 1983 152
27 Estimated Mercury Consumption of Mercurials in 1973,
by Plant and Product End Use Category 155
28 Estimated Mercury Losses from Production of
Mercurials, 1973 and 1983 169
29 Estimated Mercury Losses from Use of Manufactured
Catalysts in the Production of Vinyl Chloride
Monomer and Vat Dyes 169
30 Major U.S. Battery Manufacturers' Mercury Losses by
Plants and State, 1973 173
31 Estimated U.S. Battery Manufacturing and Related
Consumer Losses of Mercury, 1973 and 1983 177
32 Estimated Mercury Losses from Electric Lamp Manufac-
turing in the United States, by State, 1973 180
33 Estimated Mercury Losses from Lamp Manufacturing
and Use, 1973 and 1983 184
34 Estimated Mercury Losses from Industrial Instrument
Manufacturing, by State, 1973 187
35 Estimated Mercury Losses from Industrial Instrument
Manufacture and Use, 1973 and 1983 194
xiii
-------
TABLES
(Continued)
Number Page
36 Mercury Losses from U.S. Paint Manufacturing
Operations, by State, 1973 197
37 Estimated Mercury Losses from Paint Manufacture
and Use, 1973 and 1983 204
38 Regional Distribution of Industrial Wastewater
Discharges to Community Sewers in 1968 232
39 Wastewater Discharges to Community Sewers in 1968,
by Industrial Category 233
40 Estimated Mercury Emissions from U.S. Municipal
Sewage Treatment Plants, 1973 and 1983 238
41 National Solid Waste Disposal Practices 239
42 Estimated Mercury Losses to Environment from U.S.
Municipal Solid Waste Disposal, 1973 and 1983 .... 245
43 Mercury Losses for Various Applications, 1973 .... 247
44 Emission Control Technology for Mercury Cell Chlor-
Alkali Industry: Estimated Annual Cost and Emissions,
1973-1983 265
45 Estimated Product and Income Plow for Production and
Consumption of Paints Containing Mercury, 1973 . . . 275
46 Estimated Income and Employment Consequences of a
Shift to Substitutes for Mercury in Paint Manufacture
and Use 278
47 Estimated Product and Income Flow for Production
and Consumption of Batteries Containing Mercury,
1973-1983 286
xiv
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PURPOSE OP THE STUDY
The toxic nature of mercury and its compounds and the relative ease
with which these materials may, when improperly discharged to the environ-
ment, enter into man's food chain and affect him adversely have been rec-
ognized only in recent years. Our understanding of mercury's transfer
mechanisms within nature and of its adverse effects on man is still lim-
ited. Little reliable data are available on quantities of mercury in the
environment and it is difficult to assess whether mercury may actually be
building up in the biosphere. The Office of Toxic Substances of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency has funded this study, recognizing that more
definitive data are needed concerning the amount of mercury entering the
environment each year and on the manner in which this mercury is redistrib-
uted (particularly with regard to introduction into man's food chain).
The Agency also wishes to determine what requirements there may be for
regulatory actions to reduce unnecessary or unsafe discharges of mercury
to the environment.
METHOD OF APPROACH
Quantitative data are generally not available to pinpoint the loca-
tions of mercury in the environment (whether it be in air, water, or land).
Therefore, URS Research Company used a study approach which traced all
sources of introduction of mercury and its compounds into the environment
and then determined where losses were incurred. This input/output study
required that all mercury sources be identified and that the mercury be
traced through usage to final disposition for each source. Five U.S.
regions were selected, each having some unique characteristics with re-
spect to usage of mercury, and an inventory was made of mercury usage in
these regions. A similar inventory was made for the nation, and the
regional and national results were compared. The data base was very large,
so a computer-based inventory model was developed. The regional and na-
tional inventories formed the basis for assessing which were the most im-
portant sources of discharges of mercury to the environment. An addition-
al study was then made of the technology involved with respect to these
identified emitters, and forecasts of possible future trends were developed.
Finally, three technologies were selected for evaluation of the economic
impact of regulatory actions with respect to mercury.
USES OF MERCURY
Mercury and its compounds are used in relatively small quantities (par-
tially because of their high cost), but the uses are distinctive and varied.
Mercury metal is the only common liquid metal; because of its conductive
-------
characteristics it has many specialized electrical applications. Many mer-
cury comppunds are chemically and biologically active and are uniquely use-
ful as chemical reagents and biological pesticides and preservatives. Fig-
ure A shows major uses for mercury and its compounds in 1973. The ways in
which the slightly less than 1,900 tonnes* were used by industry and commerce,
and the resultant emissions, are a major concern in this report. The use
of mercury has been declining in recent years both because of the concern
over its possible hazards and because of its cost (currently about $4 per
pound). Production of mercury in this country has been particularly hard
hit because of control technology requirements and depressed prices. Some
industries — notably paper and gold mining — formerly used mercury or mer-
cury compounds but no longer do so, primarily because of the recognized haz-
ards of the materials.
Mercury also comes from some "unregulated sources" such as power plants
and livestock manure. Mercury occurs in many natural materials, and fossil
fuels are among these sources. Coal in particular is high in mercury (al-
though we are talking about perhaps one part of mercury for every million
parts of coal). With the increasing use of coal as a power source, mercury
emissions — primarily to air — are likely to increase.
Mercury is present in trace amounts in virtually all soils, and these
soils release mercury vapor to the air in trace amounts (the so called "de-
gassing" phenomenon); over a large land mass this degassing effect accounts
for large amounts of mercury.
Mercury and its compounds are notorious for moving from one medium to
another. Thus mercury compounds discharged to a water stream may settle as
insoluble compounds in the sediments, there to be acted upon by bacterial
action ("methylation"), forming soluble toxic mercury compounds which have
been demonstrated to enter man's food chain via fish. Although these com-
pounds generally enter the chain in small quantities, they are undeniably
toxic; hence we must always be concerned with the ultimate fate of mercury.
STUDY RESULTS
Most of the mercury consumed each year eventually reaches the environ-
ment. A summary of the findings of the regional and national inventories
is given in Table A for major man-related sources of emissions. It can be
seen that the study regions deviate, sometimes markedly, from national values*
these deviations are related to specific, known sources of mercury emis-
sions. For example, copper mining in Arizona causes the high emissions
value for "other mining." Chlor-alkali manufacturing (for the production
of chlorine) accounts for the high "manufacturing" loss in the Louisiana
study region. Certainly of interest are the high mercury losses accounted
* The (metric) tonne is about 10 percent heavier than the short ton of
2,000 pounds. One tonne contains 1,000 kilograms (kg), or 2,205
pounds.
-------
Lamps and
Electrical ^
3.2% (60.0)
Chi or-Alkali
24.1% (450.5)
Instruments
13.2% (246.6)
Pharmaceuticals
1.1% (20.9)
Miscellaneous
3.7% (69.2)
Laboratory/Use
1.2% (22.7)
Pesticides
3.4% (63.1)
Catalysts
1.3% (23.4)
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure A PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF CONSUMPTIVE USES OF
MERCURY, 1973 (Tonnes)
-------
TABLE A. - Comparison of Regional and National Inventory Results
(percent)
Sector
Name
Mercury Mining
Other Mining
Unregulated Sources
Manufacturing
Industrial Consumption
Personal Consumption
Total
National
0.5%
4.0
10.0
21.0
19.0
45.5
100.0%
California
11.5%
0.5
5.0
5.0
20.0
58.0
100.0%
Arizona
0 %
64.0
4.0
2.0
6.0
24.0
100.0%
Kentucky/
Tennessee
0 %
1.0
44.5
12.0
0.5
42.0
100.0%
Louisiana
0%
0
5
71
5
19
100 %
New York/
New Jersey
0%
0
21
7
6
66
100 %
Source: URS Research Company
-------
for by the final consumption of mercury-containing products, both by in-
dustry and individual consumers Cfor instance, batteries/ dental fillings).
The high aggregate losses at the consumer level create special control prob-
lems, since they are made up of many small losses by many persons and users.
We are concerned not only with size of the losses but also with points
of loss. Mercury wastes directed to regulated landfills, which do not leach
to groundwaters, are of less concern than are discharges to air or to water,
which are more directly accessible to man and his food chain. (It should be
noted, however, that two-thirds of all solid wastes are disposed of in un-
regulated sites, for which data are lacking.) Figure B shows estimated 1973
losses of mercury and its compounds to these two reservoirs—air and water—
from man-related applications or uses.
The man-related emissions must be viewed in the perspective of all mer-
cury emissions. Figure C shows all mercury emissions to air, water, and
land from both man-related and natural sources. Emissions from natural
sources, which are difficult to estimate, appear to outweigh man-related
emissions. However, these natural sources are relatively uniformly distrib-
uted and do not concentrate specifically in man's habitat. Man-related dis-
charges, on the other hand, concentrate in population centers, and a direct
relationship between total mercury discharges and total population can be
demonstrated. We found that, aside from industrial and mining applications,
as a rule of thumb the estimated emissions* of mercury on a per capita basis
are: air, 1.80 g; water, 0.39 gj land, 4.25 g. It is noteworthy that the
emissions to water are by far the lowest on a per capita basis. This indi-
cates that ongoing practices have been quite successful in reducing these
discharges.
TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
The report considers in some detail current (1973) and forecast (1983)
technologies which may affect the rate of mercury discharge to the environ-
ment. The technology assessment identifies production sites (where appro-
priate) , the point of discharge, alternatives which might be employed to re-
duce reliance on mercury, and estimated total discharges in 1973 and 1983.
Some highlights of the findings are summarized below:
o Mercury mining may increase sharply but improved technology
will prevent concurrent rises in emissions.
o By adopting available technology, copper smelters can re-
claim appreciable quantities of mercury and reduce the en-
vironmental burden from smelting.
o Manufacturers of chlorine who use the mercury cell process
can, by applying available technology, reclaim much of the
mercury that is currently lost (primarily to land). By
1983 more than 75 percent of the mercury used in this process
can be reclaimed.
* In grams (g); 28 grams = 1 ounce.
-------
Unregulated
22.2% (104.5)
Miscellaneous
1.8% (8.76)
Lamps, Tubes, Switches
2.9% (13.6)
Control Instruments
3.5% (16.5)
Chlor-Alkali
3.1% (14.8)
Other Manufacturing
2.4% (1 1.2)
Mining
Unregulated
(Fossil fuels, etc.
Manufacturing
Final Consumption
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure B-1 PE RCENT DISTR I BUT ION OF ESTIMATED EMISSIONS TO AIR OF
MERCURY FROM MAN-RELATED SOURCES, 1973 (Tonnes)
Dental
19.0% (16.6)
Pharmaceuticals
20.3% (17.8)
Miscellaneous
1 1.7% (10.3)
Chlor-Alkal
12.0% (10.5)
Pesticides
23.2% (20.4)
Laboratory/Use
6.8% (5.9)
Mining
3.5% (3.1)
Unregulated
2.5% (2.2)
Mining
Unregulated
(Fossil fuels, etc.
Manufacturing
Final Consumption
Other Manufacturing
1.0", (0.9)
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure B-2 PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF ESTIMATED EMISSIONS TO WATER OF
MERCURY FROM MAN-RELATED SOURCES, 1973 (Tonnes)
-------
TOTAL: 2,732 Tonnes
an-Related Emissions
Natui al Emissions
SOURCE. URS Research Company.
Figure C ANNUAL EMISSIONS OF MERCURY TO THE ENVIRONMENT FROM
MAN-RELATED AND NATURAL SOURCES (Tonnes)
-------
Manufacturers of mercury compounds are currently minor
sources of emissions and will become even less important
in future years.
The battery industry — one of the largest consumers of
mercury — is likely to grow in the future; unless the
current rate of 5 percent mercury recycling is substan-
tially increased, emissions from this source will con-
tinue to rise appreciably.
Lamps are fairly substantial users of mercury, and there
is little possibility of decreasing this usage by re-
cycling mercury from lamps.
Dental usage of mercury will continue, but unnecessary
losses will be sharply curtailed.
The use of mercury in Pharmaceuticals is declining, but
there will continue to be some demand for mercury for
unique applications.
The use of mercury in paints is currently under attack
by the Environmental Protection Agency; even if this
does not result in total banning of mercury in paint,
such usage is at least likely to decrease.
The use of mercurials in agricultural applications has
already been sharply curtailed, and even lower usage is
forecast for the future; nonagricultural usage, primarily
on golf courses, is also likely to decrease.
Mercury emissions from power plants will continue to
grow, and present technology only partially removes
mercury from stack gases.
Sewage plants receive wastes containing mercury from
both natural and man-related sources, concentrate a
portion of this mercury in the sludge, and discharge the
remainder to the receiving waters. If the sludge is
burned, mercury is released to the air; if the sludge
is used as a soil additive, mercury (and other heavy
toxic metals) may build up to dangerous levels.
Of the solid wastes generated in this nation, an average
of about 92 percent are disposed of in landfills and
about 8 percent are incinerated. The trend is toward
greater material and energy recovery, with an attendant
decrease in waste volume. Greater energy recovery
could result in more emissions to air, but increased
-------
material recovery can be designed to decrease mercury
emissions through the segregation and removal of
mercury-containing wastes.
The control of mercury emissions is most feasible at the manufactur-
ing or processing level. For this reason control at this point has progressed
ahead of controls for mercury losses from other sources of emissions. Con-
tinuing attempts to reduce mercury emissions at all points of their entry
into the environment are desirable. (Of course, natural emissions, although
large, are not controllable; however, because of their diffuse nature they
are of less concern than the man-related emissions that collect where man
congregates.)
REGULATORY IMPACTS
An analysis was made of several alternatives that might be imposed by
regulatory action, and of the economic impacts of such alternatives. The
alternatives, designed to reduce or eliminate mercury emissions, include
the use of a substitute product or an alternative technology that does not
require mercury or its compounds; improved emission controls (which may
allow reclamation of mercury); and recyling of mercury from mercury-containing
products. Three case studies were considered: the chlor-alkali manufac-
turing industry; latex paint manufacture and consumption; and battery manu-
facture and consumption.
The portion of the chlor-alkali industry that uses mercury cells, al-
though growing, is resisting attempts to convert to other technologies that
do not use mercury — namely the diaphragm cell. Although the two tech-
nologies are competitive, the conversion costs are at the present time ex-
cessively high. The cost of converting the 28 existing mercury cell plants
in this country to the diaphragm technology, over the ten-year period 1973-1983,
would be roughly $600 million but would result in a 100-percent reduction of
mercury emissions (up to 326 tonnes annually). However, at a cost of a little
over $30 million, these same plants could be fully equipped with emission
control technology which would reduce emissions (and consumption) of mercury
more than 75 percent (still leaving 81 tonnes entering the environment each
year). The best solution seems to lie in phasing out mercury cell technology
only as plant replacement becomes necessary.
For the paint industry only one alternative was considered — complete
removal of mercury from paint and the use of substitute materials. (Mer-
curials are used primarily in water-based paints for preservation purposes
while in the can, and for protection against mildew formation in many ex-
terior paints.) The most immediate impact of the alternative would be an in-
crease in the cost of paint at the consumer level of at least 50 cents per gal-
lon. A likely (but not totally demonstrated) side effect would be lower paint
quality, which would necessitate more frequent painting. The net effect of
substitution on the paint industry and its ancillary industries is actually
a benefit, since additional capacity would be required because of the
-------
demands for more frequent painting tassuming the consumer tolerates the
change). However, the cost to the consumer over the 10-year period would be
an estimated $1.4 billion (accounted for by the increase of 50 cents per
gallon). The benefit derived would be the elimination of more than
180 tonnes of mercury from the environment each year, primarily in the form
of reduced emissions to air. (The loss of mercury from paint occurs pri-
marily after the paint is applied, when the vapor transfers to the air.)
The use of mercury in high-energy-density batteries has become more
prominent in recent years, and the forecast is for even greater usage
in the future. While some substitutes are on the horizon, these are not
seen as an important consideration for the period under study. Hence the
only regulatory action considered was the use of "forced" recycling,
which would have the net effect of reducing mercury losses to the en-
vironment—primarily to land. To "force" the necessary degree of partici-
pation for our case study, a regulatory screen was imposed upon the industry
itself so that in one case 10 percent of all mercury purchases must come
from recycled batteries and in the second case 25 percent of mercury pur-
chases must come from recycling. (The details of the recycling were not
explored, but a variety of schemes, based upon price incentives for
individual returns, can be envisioned.) For 10-percent recycling the esti-
mated reduction in mercury losses over the 10-year period was about 5 per-
cent, while for the 25-percent recycling the reduction was about 20 per-
cent for the same period. The associated costs were $3.8 million and
$9.4 million respectively.
From the results of these two cases it appears that, in the long term,
regulatory policy decisions threaten not so much "costs" as new equilibrium
within the industry. The net effect, then, is not loss or gain, but redis-
tribution. Thus regulations that force contraction of mercury-related inr
dustry will inevitably result in the expansion of other industries (which
may merely represent conversions of the defunct mercury-related industry).
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study lead to the following conclusions:
1. Mercury and its compounds are used in relatively low volume com-
pared to other industrial chemicals, but these uses impact on a variety of
areas and on all phases of the economy. Consequently, mercury discharges
enter the environment at a number of points. Of particular concern is the
characteristic of mercurials to move, after discharge, from one environmental
medium to another and to enter man's food chain through various mechanisms.
2. Present monitoring capabilities for determining the concentration
of mercury in the environment are inadequate, in both scope and reliability.
Therefore the available data on ambient mercury levels do not provide a com-
plete picture of either natural or elevated levels.
-------
3. An input/output model of sources and uses of mercury and its com-
pounds in the economy has proved very useful in determining the location and
magnitude of discharge of material wastes to various environmental receptors.
4. About 80 percent of the almost 1,900 tons of mercury used each
year in the United States is ultimately discharged to the environment; an
additional 8 percent is recycled, and the remainder is permanently in place.
5. Differences are evident in use and discharge patterns betvteen
the various regions studied and the nation as a whole; these differences
can generally be traced to industrial-type activities (which may include
mining and smelting, combustion of fossil fuels, and manufacturing). When
such perturbations are allowed for and discounted, mercury discharges can
be shown to be a function of population density; for the nation overall,
these discharges are estimated to be as follows: to air, 1.80 g per capita;
to water, 0.39 g per capita; and to land; 4.25 g per capita.
6. For the United States as a whole, the percent distribution of mer-
cury discharges from man-related sources to the various environmental
receptors is: 31 percent to air; 6 percent to water; and 63 percent to land.
o Less than 5 percent of the man-related discharges to air
are from regulated industries (i.e., chlor-alkali and
mercury mining). Natural emissions (from degassing of
the earth's crust) are estimated to be three times greater
than the man-related discharges. The fate of mercury and
its compounds in air is not clear (although they do not
appear to present a direct hazard to man because of the
low ambient concentrations), but the mercury eventually
returns to the land and to the water.
o About 13 percent of the man-related discharges to water
are from regulated industries (currently chlor-alkali
and mercurials manufacturing). Natural sources (pri-
marily runoff) contribute about two times as much mer-
cury to water as do man-related discharges. Some mer-
cury is removed from water in sewage treatment processes
as sludge and is either returned to land or incinerated
and returned to air. Most mercury discharged to water
appears to be incorporated rapidly into sediments and may
be released by biological and mechanical action over a
period of time.
o Some 25 percent of the man-related discharges to land (as solid
waste) are from regulated industries. Although mercury and its
compounds appear in trace amounts in virtually all soils, these
cannot be compared with man-related discharges. Solid wastes
incorporated in regulated landfills (which currently receive
about one-third of all solid wastes) do not discharge appreciable
-------
amounts of mercury to water; the discharge of mercury vapors
to air from landfills is a possibility which needs further study.
Also needed is additional study of mercury losses from improper-
ly operated or unregulated landfills. Solid wastes which are
incinerated do release mercury to air and are of major concern
with respect to pollution.
7. The often expressed "threat to man" associated with the current
rate d$ man-related mercury discharges to the environment has not, in fact,
been conclusively demonstrated. Similarly, there is no conclusive evidence
to indicate that a long-term buildup of mercury in the biosphere is occur-
ring. Nonetheless, the potential consequences of a mercury buildup are of
such magnitude that efforts should continue to decrease the quantities of
mercury discharged each year.
8. Regulatory actions are most easily and best carried out at a "point
source" such as a manufacturing or processing facility. However, the final
consumption sector, which represents many points of discharge, accounts for
60 to 70 percent of all man-related discharges to air, water, and land. Be-
cause regulation of these "area sources" is extremely difficult, alternatives
which impose regulation at more accessible points — that is, the manufactur-
ing or processing level — will probably be more effective. Future regula-
tory actions should address the following areas:
o Regulatory action should ensure that man-related
discharges to air and water are minimized by re-
quiring the adoption of the best available technology.
o Federal regulations should serve as the basis for
related state regulations, which can be adapted to fit
with federal criteria.
9. Of the present "unregulated" industry-type discharges, copper
smelters, fossil-fuel-burning power plants, and municipal incinerators are
the most likely candidates for regulation, particularly with respect to
emissions to air.
10. The total elimination of mercury as a way of reducing discharges
is generally a most expensive choice; improved control over losses is much
less expensive and may meet the desired objectives. Long-term regulatory
policy may cause redistribution of industrial capacity but will have little
effect on "costs" per se; however, costs are passed on to the consumer, and
these are inevitably higher.
11. Mercury emissions are almost invariably associated with other types
of toxic or noxious discharges. Multiple discharges from a single source
should be treated as a common problem and attacked as such both at the regu-
latory end and in the technological approach. Mercury discharged to one
-------
environmental receptor may be transferred to another receptor. Such inter-
media transfer is best handled by one cognizant agency to ensure that con-
trols on one medium do not adversely affect another.
12. Natural emissions, although appreciably greater than man-related
emissions, are much more diffuse than are man-related discharges. Thus the
fact that natural discharges are much greater in the aggregate should not
be used as an argument that regulatory controls of man-related discharges
are unnecessary.
13. This study indicates areas where regulations should be considered
and may prove of value. However, such regulations should be developed only
after further refinement of the data, with in-depth analyses of the affected
industries and with the cooperation of these industries.
TECHNICAL FINDINGS
1. At present, there are not sufficient limitations to ensure minimi-
zation of the quantities of mercurial wastes which are discharged to the en-
vironment. The situation is particularly serious with respect to mercurials
from consumer products (primarily batteries) discarded to land. To affect
significant reductions it may be necessary for the manufacturing sector (and
specifically battery manufacturers) to assume responsibility for recycling
mercury-containing products. This would reduce manufacturing needs for
virgin metal and would also reduce the amount of waste going to landfills.
If new regulations are required to achieve such actions, they will need to
be formulated in the light of several implications, including those listed
below:
o Product substitution or elimination of mercury usage
is desirable only when a potential hazard can be cited
and only when it can be clearly demonstrated that emis-
sion control technology will not produce a sufficient
reduction to mitigate the hazard.
o Regulation of mercury discharges from copper smelting,
fossil-fuel-burning power plants, and municipal incinera-
tion would significantly reduce mercury discharges to air.
(EPA has the power, under Section 112 of the Clean Air
Act, to develop mercury emission standards for these
sources because mercury has already been designated as a
hazardous air pollutant.)
o New regulations, if developed in cooperation with the
affected industries, would ensure the lowest redistribu-
tion impact on the specific industry, least cost to the
consumer, and maximum benefits in terms of reducing mer-
cury losses to the environment.
m
-------
o Mercury discharges are generally associated with dis-
charges of other hazardous substances; furthermore,
the movement of mercury from one medium to another is
a recognized phenomenon. An understanding of these
interrelationships is most useful in the formulation
of regulatory actions and technological developments.
2. In-depth data for all media (for selected study areas) would
establish a baseline for ascertaining whether mercury is building up in
the biosphere. (Little value is seen in adding mercury monitoring to
routine analyses or on a nation-wide basis, although additional informa-
tion on the natural mercury content of some widely used raw materials,
such as natural gas, would be useful.)
3. The input/output model utilizing a computerized data base manage-
ment system has been demonstrated to be a valuable approach for assessing
losses of toxic materials to the environment. The model appears to be
readily adaptable for more general use.
n
-------
I
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
Mercury and its compounds have been used by society since antiquity but
did not come into widespread and varied usage until modern times. Mercury,
which is unique because it is the only liquid metal in common use, finds numer-
ous applications which utilize its conductive properties. Its compounds are
some of the most effective mildewcides, pesticides, and preservatives avail-
able; they also have many industrial and agricultural applications. Mercury
compounds serve as unique catalysts for certain reactions and are useful in
some pharmaceutical applications. In addition, mercury's ability to amalga-
mate has led to its widespread use in dental applications.
However, although the use of mercurials* has developed as a necessary
adjunct to society's growth, they have also earned a notorious reputation as
toxic substances, and it is widely recognized that they can cause disabling
sickness and death. While the mercurials have generally been treated with
caution with respect to direct human exposure, it was not recognized until
recent years that when they are discharged to the environment they can enter
man's food chain and lead to illness and fatalities. Hence the unfortunate
episodes in the late 1950s at Minamata and Niigata in Japan when industrial
discharges of mercury to water entered the human food chain via fish, subse-
quently poisoning a significant portion of the population of these areas and
introducing "Minamata disease" into our lexicon.
Alerted by the Minamata experience, governments and industry began inten-
sive investigations of the pathway of mercurials into the environment and of
the threat they might offer to man. It was quickly established that the
* For simplicity, the term "mercury" or "mercurials" will be used henceforth
to mean both mercury and its compounds, unless otherwise specifically noted.
-------
alkylmercury compounds were by far the most toxic to man; they have a long
residence time in the body (a biological half-life of 70 to 74 days) and cross
both placental and blood-brain barriers. In the latter case, disabling damage
can occur. It was further found that the labile substance mercury, through
bacterial or biological action in the environment, can undergo changes from
relatively innocuous forms to the very toxic methylmercury, which can be con-
centrated in the food chain.
As a result of these findings, industrial discharges and many pesticides
and preservatives which heretofore had not been regulated were identified as
being harmful to the environment and to man, and immediate steps were taken both
by the government and by industry to limit or eliminate unsafe and unnecessary
applications. Several problem areas were identified (for example discharges to
water from chlor-alkali plants* using mercury cell technology) and corrective
actions were taken to limit such discharges. Other, more stringent actions
were taken with the suspension of all uses (including manufacture) of any of
the alkylmercury compounds. In yet other instances the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), which had become very instrumental both in identifying
the extent of the problem and in ensuring that industrial discharges were
brought into compliance with standards, had taken action to force the cancella-
tion of the use of mercurials as biocides and preservatives.
As a result of the recognition of the situation and the actions taken to
alter it, the total use of mercury in the United States has dropped significantly
(from 73,560 flasks in 1965 to 54,289 flasks in 1973).** Perhaps more signifi-
cantly, a number of uses of mercury were completely eliminated, in cases where
substitute materials or alternate processes could readily be adopted. For
example, mercury was formerly used (albeit in small quantities) for the recovery
of gold by an amalgam process; mercury is no longer used in this application.
* Throughout the report, when we refer to chlor-alkali plants, unless
otherwise noted we mean plants that use mercury cells.
** A flask of mercury contains 34.4 kilograms (76 pounds); there are
approximately 29 flasks in a metric ton (2,205 pounds).
-------
Likewise, mercurials were long used as preservatives in the lumber, pulp, and
paper industries; today these uses have also been eliminated.
Why, then, since the use of mercury is decreasing, its discharge to the
environment is under better control, and its properties of concentrating in the
food chain are now recognized, is an additional study of mercury necessary?
There are several reasons. First, some researchers are very concerned about
the possibility that any mercury unnecessarily introduced into the environment
becomes available to the so-called "mercury cycle" (which is discussed in
detail later) and leads to increasing concentrations in the environment. In
short, because of its unique properties mercury may continue to recycle indefi-
nitely within the biosphere. According to adherents of this theory, strict
limits should be placed on the introduction of mercury into the environment in
order to minimize the present and potential impacts created by the gradual and
continued increase of mercury in the cycle. (For more detailed descriptions,
see Refs. 1-4.)*
The concern regarding possible increases of mercury in the biosphere has
led to more monitoring for mercury and to its discovery, albeit in low levels,
almost universally.** Appendix A gives more details concerning our present
understanding of mercury sources and cycling and of its effects on the air,
water, and land environments.
The recognition that mercury is widespread, if not ubiquitous, has given
rise to a second school of thought which theorizes that mercury is naturally
present in the environment as a result of degassing from the earth's crust and
as runoff from natural erosion processes. These natural processes add to the
available mercury in the biosphere at a constant rate, but as yet there is no
* Numbered references are listed at the end of this report.
** Until recently, one of the difficulties in evaluating the presence of mer-
cury has stemmed from the use of analytical techniques which often were
limited to 0.5 part per million (ppm) or greater and whose reproducibility
of results was poor. More sophisticated analytical techniques—primarily
thin layer chromatography (TLC)—have now been developed which can reliably
detect mercury in concentrations as low as one part per trillion (ppt).
-------
evidence ,-to support the belief that there has been a sharp increase in global
mercury concentrations in the last 50 to 100 years (Refs. 5-8). Therefore, a
second school of thought has arisen which holds that the processes that maintain
an equilibrium with respect to natural emissions easily handle the small addi-
tional discharges that are man-related. Those who adhere to this theory feel
that the natural processes tend to maintain some sort of equilibrium between
mercury discharged into the environment and that removed by natural processes,
so that even rather large quantities of man-related discharges do not adversely
affect the mercury balance worldwide or over a long period. (However, these
people are not advocating any relaxation of controls on discharges which can
directly or indirectly enter man's food chain.) On this premise, the need to
reduce or eliminate mercurials in certain industrial applications has been
strongly questioned by some industry representatives. In particular, the goal
of eliminating mercurials as biocides and preservatives is contested. Industry
representatives also point out that unregulated emissions from such sources as
power plants burning fossil fuels are permitted—and the quantities involved
are appreciable—whereas the known beneficial uses are to be prohibited.
Man-made emissions, however, are usually localized and thus may result in
localized high concentrations. In the past this was true of emissions to water
from, say, a chlor-alkali plant. Emissions to water have recently come under
strict regulation, but localized emissions to air (for instance from an incin-
erator or power plant) from unregulated sources may indeed pose hazards.
Two questions seem to be still unresolved. First, what are the sources
that contribute mercury to the biosphere, and what are the quantities involved?
If in answering this question it can be shown that certain of these sources can
be limited or even eliminated, then the second question must be addressed.
This question is: what will be the impacts of such restrictions? (We will not
deal at this time with the suggestion that introduction of mercury into the
environment is beneficial rather than detrimental, but will adhere to the
general conclusion that unnecessary introduction of mercury into the environment
is indeed undesirable.) The EEA, seeking answers to these two basic questions,
lias funded the study whose results are reported here.
-------
SCOPE OF WORK
The EPA set forth the following scope of work for the study: "The con-
tractor shall prepare a detailed materials balance on mercury and its com-
pounds. He shall assess quantitatively the distribution on an input/output
basis nationally and for selected geographic regions. He shall include esti-
mates of the environmental fate of the quantities necessary to close, the
balance. In addition, the contractor shall consider current and projected
process technologies for mercury products, indicating how alternative technol-
ogies influence the materials balance. He shall carry out analyses of economic
and market trends that affect the materials balance, and assess the feasibility
of substitute processes and materials that will significantly reduce the amounts
of mercury entering the environment."
This scope of work is designed to answer the two questions posed in the
previous section. By identifying all sources that discharge mercury into the
biosphere and the relative quantities discharged, and by deriving a materials
balance indicating the final disposition of this mercury (fixed in place or
discharged to land, air, or water), the relative importance of both sources
and discharges can be evaluated. A part of this concern is the ultimate fate
of mercury, recognizing that movement between the earth, water, and air is
characteristic of the cycling of mercury.
The study considered both national and regional materials balances;
regional inventories were made to ascertain differences which may exist between
regions and to accent special problems which may be peculiar to certain regions.
The study also considered those points where mercury enters the environment for
which better controls (which may include substitution or elimination) may exist.
Since the introduction of controls is certain to have economic impacts (with
possible social implications) and may also entail certain risks to society,
both the costs and benefits of instituting such controls were considered and
their impact on the marketplace was evaluated. The basic objective of the
study, then, was to determine the need for additional controls on mercury dis-
charges and the cost to the individual and to the overall economy for imple-
menting such controls, as related to the benefits accrued.
-------
METHOD OF APPROACH
A sequential study approach was used, beginning with the inventory
(including an input/output model with a materials balance), which considers
all sources in identifying major perturbations and differentiates major from
minor contributors. Next a technology assessment was made which considers,
for major contributors only, technological actions which might be taken within
the next 10 years to appreciably reduce the emissions of mercury to the
environment. Finally, the economic impact of regulatory controls on major
users of mercury was evaluated.
An input/output model for the mercury economy can be readily derived,
since annual production and consumption figures are available (these include
data with some degree of reliability concerning recycling of mercury and
releases from the national stockpile). At the national level, a number of
material balances had been made previously. A pioneer effort was completed
by Davis in 1968 (Ref. 9), and there have been several updates (Refs. 10-13).
Other independent estimates have been made by other investigators. Thus the
input/output model as a concept is well established and the study inventory
was based upon these earlier results. However, this study, which is keyed to
the year 1973 with estimates for 1983, also afforded an opportunity to include
later and better estimates.
The introduction of a regional inventory is a new concept. It permits
making comparisons of various regions to determine if significant variations
occur, thus making it possible to identify special problem areas. At the same
time, making the regional inventory is very complicated, because the values
utilized for the national estimates must be adapted to the specific region
under study, where national values no longer apply. (The inventory and its
concomitant materials balance utilize emission factors dealing with the propor-
tions of mercury lost to air, water, land, or recycling. In some cases these
factors must also be tailored to the specific region studied, even though the
variations may be slight.)
Five regions were selected for study on the bases of (1) known discharges
as derived from the EPA permits program, (2) known high discharges to air or
water, and (3) to a lesser degree, differing socioeconomic characteristics of
-------
the regions. It was hoped that the discharges identified for a given region
might correlate with ambient mercury values in that region; however, ambient
readings are generally inadequate to permit such correlation. This problem
is discussed in greater detail subsequently.
Study regions were selected on the basis of a map prepared by the Office
of Toxic Substances of the EPA that shows elevated mercury concentrations in
the United States. This extensively researched map showed:
o High and low discharges of mercury to water according to
permit applications in the RAPP file
o High ambient air readings from unknown sources
o High ambient water readings from unknown sources
o Known mercury deposits
o Known gold and silver deposits
From this map it was possible to see that certain regions have a probability
of unusually high discharges of mercury to the environment from natural and/
or man-related sources. These "high discharge" regions, which are shown on
Figure 1, were also selected with a view to geographical distribution, popu-
lation characteristics, and manufacturing activity. A brief discussion of
the regions is given in Appendix B.
Technology assessment is concerned only with those sources of mercury
which can potentially be controlled (and thus excludes natural contributions)
and which are important contributors. This assessment, then, deals with loca-
tion of discharges and quantities involved and with control technology which
is or may become available to reduce discharges. In addition, alternative
materials or processes which would substantially reduce or entirely eliminate
requirements for mercury are assessed. The technology assessment reported
here provides a state-of-the-art study for each source of mercury considered
important and an estimate of the degree to which further controls on that
particular source might effectively reduce the quantity of mercury reaching
the environment. This assessment indicates where additional technological
improvement (including substitution of products or processes) might be of
considerable value. The assessment also identifies for more detailed study
-------
00
^ Estimated 1973 . .
• „ O Area (sq. km)
Population
24,478,200
O 32,813
• 206,343,000
~- O 3,022,260
|_
f
• 7,329,800
6
• 2,144,542 7
O 299,272
•"2,661,700
O 59, 756 i
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure 1 STUDY REGIONS
-------
the major man-related sources of mercury discharged into the environment that
are amenable to regulation.
As an adjunct to the technology assessment, an investigation was made of
the ultimate fate of mercury in the environment—how it may move endlessly
between land, air, and water. Of particular concern here is the adequacy of
present waste disposal techniques (particularly with regard to landfills,
sewage treatment plants, and incinerators) in minimizing the potential for
discharged mercury to recirculate in the environment.
The study of the socioeconomic impacts of imposing regulatory controls to
reduce mercury discharges considered both the assumed benefits and the short-
comings of several use alternatives. These alternatives include using other
chemicals to replace mercury in existing processes and products, alternative
processes to produce the desired products, and alternative final use products
which might obviate the need for mercury precursors. Any of these alternatives
may involve risks such as the introduction of other toxic or undesirable by-
products into the environment or a direct impact on the user in terms of
reduced yield, less satisfactory product performance, etc. Since benefits are
not derived directly but are based on the total reduction of mercury discharged
to the environment, risks must be treated as part of total cost. Total cost
thus includes, in addition to the cost represented by risk, a variety of
economic indicators and techniques which must apply to the specific industry
under investigation. The cost versus benefit analysis, then, reflects the
cost of reducing the amount of mercury entering the environment by a certain
fraction (or absolute number). The willingness of the public to endure such
costs to meet specific goals in reducing mercury emissions must then be
assessed.
REPORT ORGANIZATION
Subsequent sections of the report provide the details of the methodology
and results from which the conclusions and recommendations presented in the
executive summary are derived.
Section II is a historical overview and outlook summary for mercury
usage. This section provides insights into current trends in the consumption
9
-------
of mercury and lays the groundwork for the remainder of the report by giving
a first iteration of future trends. The "mercury economy," which ranges from
mining to manufacturing to consumption to final disposal and then to the ulti-
mate fate of mercury in the environment, is described, as are legislative im-
plications. The section provides much background information but is not essen-
tial to the understanding of the remainder of the report.
Section III describes the input/output model and the methodology employed
in determining losses of mercury to the environment. The results for the five
study regions are presented and compared with those for the national inven-
tory. Implications on possible risk to the population and the importance of
control over emissions which may enter man's food chain are discussed. Fin-
ally, a description is given of the inventory results as the basis for selec-
tion of technologies for more detailed study.
In Section IV technologies which entail unusually heavy usage of mercury
and/or the possibility of substantial losses of mercury to the environment
are considered. Technologies from each sector of the mercury economy — that
is, mining, manufacturing, final consumption, and final disposal — are con-
sidered. For each technology considered, current (1973) and foreseeable
(1983) technology is discussed in detail. Where applicable, the sites of
emissions are specified and alternatives which might be considered to reduce
such emissions are indicated. Finally, estimates of total losses to the en-
vironment for 1973 and 1983 are presented.
Section V deals with the probable economic impact of regulatory actions
designed to lower mercury emissions to the environment. Chlor-alkali plants
using mercury cell technology, which account for large losses in the manufac-
turing sector, are analyzed. In the final consumption sector, two high vol-
ume users of mercury are considered: water-based latex paints and high energy
density mercury-containing dry cell batteries.
Backup materials and additional details of results are presented in
the appendixes.
10
-------
II
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW AND OUTLOOK SUMMARY
Efforts to reduce man's exposure to mercury require an understanding of
ways in which it is lost to the environment and of its ultimate fate. This
section summarizes the recent history of, and projected technical and commer-
cial outlook for, the principal sources, consumption, and final disposal of
mercury. The ultimate fate of mercury in the environment is also summarized
here. This information provides a basis for the analysis of the mercury
input/output balance and the investigation of means of reducing losses of
mercury to the environment. Finally, existing legislation on the regulation
of mercury and its compounds and trends in regulation are discussed briefly
at the end of this section.
SOURCES OF MERCURY
The principal sources of mercury entering U.S. commerce include:
1. Domestic primary production and stockpile
2. Net imports for consumption (imports less exports)
3. Recycled (secondary) mercury
Between 1960 and 1973, domestic primary production dropped from 33,223
to 2,131 flasks; stockpiles ranged widely over the period, reaching a high of
31,764 flasks in 1965, but in 1972 fell to 512 flasks and in 1973 totaled
2,583 flasks. Secondary sources reached highs of 10,000 or more flasks in
some years during the 1960-1973 period, but overall averaged 5,000 to 8,000
flasks annually. Net imports in 1960 were 18,814 flasks; by 1973, net imports
contributed 45,734 flasks.
PRESENT AND PROJECTED MERCURY CONSUMPTION
Between 1962 and 1969, growth in mercury consumption averaged 2.1 percent
per year, but from 1969 through 1973 consumption actually declined by 30 percent
11
-------
overall, at an annual average rate of 8.5 percent. This decline can be attrib-
uted chiefly to (1) the apprehension of mercury users concerning the probable
tightening of legal restrictions, (2) the reduction of emissions by caustic
chlorine (chlor-alkali) producers, and (3) the 1972-1973 business recession.
The low point was reached in 1971, when consumption was 52,725 flasks. In
1973 consumption increased slightly, to 54,283 flasks, and preliminary data
for 1974 indicate a 10.7-percent increase over the 1973 level.
World market prices have been very volatile during the period 1960-1973,
but price trends have not been the .controlling factor in the use of mercury.
Instead, price has depended largely on the production costs of marginal pro-
ducers who have had to demand higher prices for their output. As the demand
for mercury has declined, the price has fallen and mines have closed down.
During the 1960s, when prices topped $700 per flask, 149 mines were in produc-
tion in the United States. However, the Bureau of Mines reports that only
five mines were producing in the first quarter of 1974, when the average price
was about $286 per flask. In part, the decrease in producing mines was caused
by the speculation which took place in mercury (as well as in other metals),
which led to excessive inventories and ultimately drove prices down.
Forecasting the demand for mercury ten years in the future is a complex
task. Population growth is one obvious factor that must be considered, but
the development of new manufacturing processes and substitutes to avoid the
adverse effects of mercury in some applications has introduced new uncertain-
ties in forecasting. For one thing, legal constraints may militate against
the economics of using mercury. In many instances, the substitutes used in
order to comply with governmental regulations are less economic (and sometimes
less effective) than the mercury or mercury compound they replace.
Recent consumption data for the principal end uses of mercury and mercury
compounds in the United States are listed in Table 1, according to use cate-
gories established by the U.S. Bureau of Mines. Figure 2 gives a range of
estimated values for 1985 made by the Bureau of Mines. Forecasts derived by
URS Research Company in the current study are also shown; for the aggregate
demand, they are probably accurate to between ±10 and ±15 percent of the
figures shown. For specific uses, the accuracy is more likely to be in the
±10 percent area.
12
-------
U)
TABLE 1. - Mercury Consumption in the United States, 1965-1973, by End Use
(number of flasks)
End Use
Agriculture
Amalgams
Catalysts
Dental preparations
Electrical apparatus
Caustic chlorine
Laboratories
Industrial instruments
Paint (antifouling)
Paint (mildew proofing)
Pulp and paper
Pharmaceuticals
Other
Total
1965
3,116
3,
18,
8,
2,
10,
8,
16,
73,
••MM
268
924
196
887
753
332
330
255
211
619
418
251
560
1966
2,374
248
1,932
2,133
17,638
11,541
2,217
7,294
140
8,789
612
232
16,359
71,509
1967
3,732
219
2,489
2,386
16,223
14,306
1,940
7,459
152
7,026
446
283
12,856
69,517
1968
3,430
267
1,914
3,079
19,630
17,453
1,989
7,978
392
10,174
417
424
8,275
75,422
1969
2,689
195
2,958
2,880
18,490
20,720
1,936
6,655
244
9,486
558
712
9,134
77,372
1970
1,811
219
2,238
2,286
15,952
15,011
1,806
4,832
198
10,149
226
690
6,085
61,503
1971
1
1
16
12
1
3
8
,478
-
996
,871
,646
,252
,357
,906
414
,192
2
668
4,943
52,725
^^B^HM^HMHHH|
1972
1,836
-
800
2,983
15,553
11,519
594
6,541
32
8,190
-
578
4,280
52,907
1973
1,830
-
673
2,679
18,000
13,070
658
7,155
32
7,571
-
606
2,009
54,283
Source: Ref. 14.
-------
Low
High T Most Probable
Agriculture
Catalysts
for Plastics
Dental
Preparations
Electrical
Apparatus
Chlor-Alkali
Instruments
Paints
Pharmaceuticals
Other (including
laboratory use)
;.
T
W///////A 1
X
W/////////////////////////////////^^^^^^^
J.
T
i -i
w//////////////////////////////////////////^^^^^^ \
\
1
W/////////////////////////////M \
T
W////M \
i
J.
T-
m//////////////////////////m \
J.
r
2.5
5.0
7.5 10.0 12.5
Thousands of Flasks
SOURCES: High and low forecasts: Ref. 14; "most probable" forecast: URS Research Company.
15.0
17.5
20.0
Figure 2 PROJECTED MERCURY CONSUMPTION IN THE UNITED STATES
BY END USE (34.4-Kg Flasks)
14
-------
MAJOR END USES
The following summary discussion of the outlook for the principal use
categories for mercury elaborates on the forecasts presented in Figure 2.
Agriculture
The principal agricultural use of mercury is for seed dressing; lesser
amounts are used for disease control of certain crops. No effective and harm-
less substitutes for these uses have been found to date, but continuing
research should result in the development of equally effective but less poten-
tially harmful substances over the next decade. The EE& has already banned
the use of alkylmercury compounds, and prohibitions on the use of all other
mercury biocides are anticipated. By 1985, agricultural consumption may have
declined to some 800 flasks a year, for some limited applications that will
undoubtedly be under strict governmental supervision.
Catalysts
Catalysts containing mercury have been used in the production of vinyl
chloride monomers, urethane foams, and anthraguinone derivatives. The produc-
tion of urethane foams is expected to continue to increase in the years ahead,
and no wholly satisfactory alternative catalyst has been found, although for
some purposes the organotins have been substituted. Vinyl chloride monomer
production has shifted to increasing use of ethylene rather than acetylene.
It was the acetylene process which used mercury-based catalysts. The URS
forecast anticipates this decrease in use for vinyl chloride monomers, with
some offsetting increases for the urethane foams.
Dental Preparations
Population growth and rising affluence, coupled with the increasing number
of health care plans which cover dental costs, account for much of the projected
increase in mercury use for dental preparations. Newer technologies in dental
15
-------
restorations could reverse this trend; at present, however, it does not seem
t
that replacements for mercury amalgams will be found during the forecast
period. Furthermore, the use of mercury in dental preparations has been shown
to be essentially harmless to humans, and its effectiveness is well known.
Thus, the total probable demand forecast by URS for 1985 is the same as the
high figure shown in Figure 2.
Electrical Apparatus
The projected high demand for mercury in electrical applications reflects
population growth and continued demand for mercury batteries and lamps. Note,
however, that it is not significantly greater than the 1973 consumption figure
shown in Table 1. Declines in military battery requirements have been more than
offset by increased nonmilitary usage. The low forecast in Figure 2 assumes
significant replacement of the battery uses by other systems and further
replacement of mercury rectifiers by solid-state devices. The URS demand
forecast reflects stabilization of recent demand trends and the probable lack
of large-scale, radical departures from current manufacturing materials and
processes over the next decade.
Caustic-Chlorine (Chlor-Alkali)
The Chlorine Institute has forecast a 6-percent annual increase in chlo-
rine production through 1980. In Figure 2, the high production of 19,000
flasks of mercury consumption by 1985 is based on: (1) an extrapolation of
projected chlorine production through 1985; (2) production of about 24 percent
of total chlorine through mercury cells; and (3) a continued makeup rate of
0.37 pound (Ib) of mercury per ton of chlorine produced. The low figure of
9,000 flasks assumes that: (1) the 1985 output of chlorine by the mercury
process will remain at the current level of 2.4 million tons; and (2) mercury
consumption in this process will decline to 0.10 Ib per ton of chlorine
produced.
It is quite likely that the makeup rate will drop to around 0.30 Ib of
mercury per ton of chlorine produced by 1985, due to implementation of EEA
16
-------
standards. In addition, several mercury cell production units have closed
in recent years and the mercury cell plant share of chlorine production has
declined 15 percent between 1968 and 1972. On the other hand, the 13-percent
jump from 1972 to 1973 suggests that the 9,000-flask figure is probably too
low. The 1985 projection of 14,000 flasks derived by URS is believed to be
more realistic. (Note, however, that none of the new plants that will be
producing caustic-chlorine in the near future uses the mercury cell.)
Paints
Increasing use of the less toxic organic fungicides and preservatives is
expected to restrain the use of mercury compounds in the manufacture of paints
over the next decade. The high demand figure (13,000 flasks) in Figure 2 is
based on increased, rather than decreased, consumption of these compounds, in
line with the forecast 3.7-percent annual growth for paint. The low figure
assumes a complete ban on mercury compounds in paints by Em, while the URS
forecast assumes special uses under controlled conditions.
Over the last decade, the development of emulsion paints has led to a
swift rise in the use of organomercurials for mildew prevention to extend the
shelf life and durability of the product. This use will likely continue at
least for the near term—up to five years—since development of fully satis-
factory replacements will take nearly that long. It should also be noted,
however, that this application generally has been declining in recent years.
In marine paints, the mercurials are antifoulants; this use of mercurials
declined, however, to a low of 32 flasks in 1972 and again in 1973, in sharp
contrast to consumption during the preceding five years.
Pharmaceuticals
The high forecast of 700 flasks of mercury for pharmaceutical end uses
in 1985 reflects the impact of expected population increases on present (1972-
1973) demand levels; the low figure assumes elimination of all mercurial
preparations, except for special uses where no substitutes are known. It
appears to URS that a 1985 figure of 500 flasks for this end use is a reason-
able estimate.
17
-------
Other Uses (including Laboratories)
The high and low demand levels shown in Figure 2 for 1985 were based on
Gross National Product (GNP) and population growth factors, respectively. The
URS forecast, which is closer to the low figure, is based on the assumption
that there will continue to be a steady demand for mercurials for general
laboratory chemicals and pigments, and that new uses are also likely to arise.
Consumption by Federal Agencies
In 1971, in a very comprehensive study (Ref. 82), a survey was made of
federal agency usage of mercury that indicated that the Department of Defense
and the Atomic Energy Commission were the largest users. This study was
sufficiently thorough that we were not able to improve upon it during the
present work.
REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION
The two largest outlet categories for manufactured goods in the United
States are merchant wholesalers and manufacturers' sales branches and offices.
The U.S. Census of Business lists totals for product classes passing through
these outlets, and divides these totals into nine Census regions. Table 2
shows results of an attempt to determine regional sales of mercury-containing
products and to relate these data to regional population figures. Some data
are available from manufacturers' associations in the East. However, it is
not always possible to obtain data that differentiate between mercury-containing
and nonmercury-containing products. In such cases, the "mercury portion" of
total production can be estimated from the gross usage figures in Table 2 and
from knowledge of the average mercury content of one unit of product.
In theory, the sum of the regional sales should equal the U.S. total for
each type of outlet. The total of the outlets plus minor distribution systems
should yield an approximation of the total domestic market for any given
product class. In fact, however, relatively few sums "checked" closely or
exactly. Fortunately, one or the other (merchant wholesalers or manufacturers'
18
-------
TABLE 2. -
Sales of Manufactured Products Containing Mercury
(percentage sold, by Census region, compared to
region's share of U.S. population)
U.S.
Census
Region
Hew England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
Totals3
Paints
3.7%
23.2
23.7
6.5
11.1
3.3
7.9
2.1
18.6
100.1%
Pharm.
4.4%
23.7
20.1
8.2
14.1
3.6
9.2
2.2
14.3
99.8%
Agric.
Chem.
0.3%
12.3
24.0
16.1
7.4
10.3
11.0
2.8
15.3
99.5%
Lamps
5.8%
17.8
19.4
8.0
15.5
6.3
9.7
4.4
13.1
100.0%
Switches
and
Rectifiers
6.2%
31.3
15.2
7.1
10.7
2.5
6.8
2.5
18.5
100.8%
Dental
Amalgam
6.4%
27.6
17.4
7.8
10.4
4.4
6.5
3.9
15.6
100.0%
Laboratory
and
Hospital
Supplies
5.7%
23.7
18.6
7.8
12.5
4.5
8.0
2.9
16.1
99.8%
U.S.
Population
(12/73)
5.8%
17.8
19.4
8.0
15.5
6.3
9.7
4.4
13.1
100.0%
a. Totals may not add, due to rounding.
Source: Derived from current Census data, USDA data, and information supplied by the following manu-
facturers' associations: National Paint and Coatings Association; American Hospital Associa-
tion; American Dental Association; and Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association.
-------
sale? branches) checked within reason for all product classes. Only in pharma-
ceuticals did both column totals agree, yielding a consistent picture of the
total market.
Note the significant differences between the consumption of agricultural
chemicals and the proportion of national population in the Atlantic and Central
regions, and the disproportionately large consumption of mercury-containing
products generally in the Middle Atlantic Region. In spite of the statistical
difficulties in estimating the extent of mercury consumption in manufactured
products, the preliminary data in Table 2 are considered reasonable approxima-
tions of the markets for such products.
FINAL DISPOSAL
Prior to the recognition in 1970 that mercury and its compounds had some
unusual characteristics which allowed it to enter man's food chain and
adversely affect him, mercurials had received little more attention than hal9
the other heavy metals. Certain industries had been recognized as sources of
mercury in the environment, and certain pollution controls were in effect.
However, because mercury was usually lost to the environment in smaller quan-
tities than other pollutants, special treatments aimed solely at mercury had
not been developed. At first, the major concern was with mercury discharges
to water, because these led most directly into the food chain. The develop-
ment of controls on water emissions was also expedited because it was rela-
tively easy to monitor for mercury in water in the parts per million (ppm)
range.*
* Even at the parts per million level difficulties were experienced in obtain-
ing consistent and reliable monitoring data (see Ref. 67 for the ROUND ROBIN
evaluation made by the EPA). However, the data obtained were considered
sufficiently reliable to establish standards. Further, water lends itself
to continuous or intermittent sampling whose results, combined with known
flow rates, can be used to calculate total discharge. Such a calculation
cannot easily be made for either air or land emissions.
20
-------
Industrial emissions to air where exposure of workers was a recognized
possibility had been under surveillance, if not regulation, for many years,
so that excessive discharges were at least discouraged (if not prohibited).
However, with recognition of the threat and imposition of stricter control
on air emissions, the quantities emitted to air by regulated industries began
to decrease sharply in the early 1970s. Even so, a number of known mercury
emitters, such as coal-burning steam electric plants and copper smelters, still
remain unregulated and continue to emit quantities of mercury to the air.
These industries are concerned with the control of other pollutants and have
as yet not been very concerned with concomitant emissions of mercury, which on
a mass basis represents only a tiny fraction of the major pollutant, sulfur
dioxide. Thus, at the present time, the unregulated emitters probably repre-
sent the largest "industrial" source of mercury emissions to air, and will
likely continue to do so in the future. However, the increasing concern with
controlling the emission of major pollutants may well result in decreased
emissions of mercury.
Industrial discharges of mercury-containing solid wastes were never con-
sidered as a major problem, since the assumed insolubility and stability of
mercury compounds were well recognized. However, it is now recognized that
mercury can migrate through the soil to the groundwater or even be emitted
directly to the air. This has led to increasing concern with isolating these
industrial landfills by more sophisticated methods, such as the use of imper-
meable liners and other procedures to ensure segregation from groundwaters.
It is anticipated that, as pressure continues to reduce the loss of mercury
to the environment in any form, industrial discharges to land will continue
to decrease—primarily through better process control, which may include
internal recycling.
Figure 3a is the URS estimate of past and future trends with respect to
the discharges of mercurials from industrial and unregulated sources to air,
land, and water. These curves sketch out only trends and relative quantities
involved, but they provide some interesting insights. For example, we have
reason to believe that in 1963 most industrial discharges were directed into
the watercourses. This trend was probably accelerated in the late 1960s by
21
-------
2
CO
to
c •
.1
+j
.2
0)
DC
Land
Air
Land
(a) INDUSTRIAL AND
UNREGULATED SOURCES
(b) MUNICIPAL SOURCES
Water
1963
1973
Air
1983
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure 3 PAST AND PROBABLE FUTURE TRENDS IN
FINAL DISPOSAL OF MERCURIALS
22
-------
the sharp increase in the construction of new chlor-alkali plants using mer-
cury cells. After the imposition of strict controls in early 1970, discharges
to water dropped sharply, but at the same time the discharges to land (which then
became the recipient of much of the material previously discharged to water) rose
sharply. Even today (in 1975) discharges to water are but a fraction of what
they were five years ago. This trend will continue but will taper off by 1983,
because a near-irreducible minimum- will have been reached. The forecast is that
industrial and unregulated discharges to land will level off and thereafter de-
crease sharply as better utilization of mercury in industrial processes is re-
quired. Even so, we feel that land will continue to be the largest single
recipient of industrial discharges of mercury.
Industrial discharges to air are believed to have increased somewhat in the
1963-1973 period, despite the imposition of regulatory standards on chlor-alkali
facilities and on mercury smelters. This increase is primarily attributable to
the increased use of fossil fuels with higher mercury content (for which no
regulatory action as yet has been proposed). The increased use of fossil fuels
(primarily coal) for electric power generation may increase emissions to air over
the next ten years, but regulatory standards will probably be imposed that will
lead to an ultimate decrease in emissions.
Municipal discharges of mercury to the environment had never been con-
sidered to be a significant problem. After the 1970 alert, however, research
on mercury discharges in municipal sewage was instigated and demonstrated that
appreciable quantities can be attributed to that source. It was recognized
that the incoming water source often had a detectable mercury content, which
might represent 10 to 20 percent of the mercury content of the untreated sewage.
The emission of mercury in sewage was still not considered a serious con-
cern. In general, it was thought that discharges through municipal sewage were
probably small in comparison to industrial discharges to water and that the dis-
charges from the municipal sources were in any event scattered uniformly through-
out populated areas (in contrast to industrial discharges, which were not).
Further, the removal of the low levels of mercury found in sewage presented a
formidable—and indeed impossible—task.
Problems with mercury in sewage sludge, which accumulates about half of
the mercury in the influent (raw) sewage, have stirred the most recent concern.
If this sludge is used in landfill operations, no serious problems are likely
to be created. However, if it is incinerated (as is done in a number of
23
-------
municipalities) or used as a soil amendment, the mercury can then be trans-
ferred to the air or to plants. The forecast is that the incineration
of sludges will decrease in the future, because of the now known release of
mercury as well as other toxic materials into the atmosphere, and that the
total quantities released via this route will be lowered. The use of soil
amendments is also likely to come under stricter control.
By far the largest loss to the environment from municipal sources is
that to land, normally in landfill operations. Most mercury used in consumer
products such as batteries or lamps is finally relegated as solid waste to
landfills. The quantities involved in this case probably exceed those from
industrial sources (although, of course, the disposal sites for the two types
of wastes are segregated). There has been little concern with the accumulation
of mercury-containing products in landfills, since there is little or no
evidence to indicate that mercury escapes from properly designed landfills of
types that are coming into common use. Hence the forecast is that municipal
landfills will continue to receive and treat mercury-containing products in
the future much as they have done in the past. However, the total quantity
of mercury disposal to landfills will decrease, for two reasons. One reason
is the probable decrease in the quantity of mercury being incorporated in con-
sumer products because of the forced recognition by industry of mercury's
potential for environmental harm. Second, as recycling becomes more popular
consumer salvage of mercury-containing products, particularly batteries, is more
likely. Nevertheless, the total amount of mercury in landfills is now large
and will continue to grow with the years.
Mercury enters the air as a result of incineration of solid wastes or of
sludges. Incineration and other thermal conversion processes such as pyrolysis
are not general practices today (although incineration is common along the
Eastern seaboard), but they are likely to become more popular as energy sources
in the future. Even today, incinerator stack gases have been identified as con-
taining excessive quantities of mercury. Because they are currently unregulated
sources of mercury, incinerators have no pollutant control devices specifically
to remove mercury, although they do have pollution control devices for such
primary air pollutants as particulates, and these do act to reduce mercury emis-
sions. Hence it is forecast that in the near term discharges to air from
incineration of solid wastes and sludges will continue to rise, but that with
the recognition of the threat this entails, the mercury-containing products
24
-------
will be segregated so that in the future such discharges from municipal sources
will decrease.
Our evaluation of past and future trends with regard to municipal sources
is summarized in Figure 3b. Again, the quantities indicated are purely for
illustrative purposes and, aside from those for land, are considerably less than
the quantities related to industrial and unregulated sources.
ULTIMATE FATE OF MERCURY IN THE ENVIRONMENT
The fate of mercury in the environment is determined by its origin,
the medium into which it is lost, the conditions imposed on that medium,
and transformations occurring within that medium (Ref. 15). For instance,
airborne mercury lost from a chlor-alkali plant disperses rapidly in the
environment, due to diffusion and dispersive action of wind (Ref. 16).
Some mercury concentrates in nearby soil and water sediments, but because most
of it is in a volatile form, the largest percentage of the emitted mercury
becomes part of the regional or global atmospheric burden, with little effect
on ambient regional concentrations. Emissions to the atmosphere from other
large sources such as smelters, incinerators, and coal-fired power plants would
follow similar patterns. In these cases, there would be relatively large
increases in atmospheric, soil, and water concentrations in the local area
(Ref. 17). The cumulative effects of many such sources measurably increase
regional concentrations and may indetectably increase global concentrations,
as shown by recent global modeling efforts (Refs. 1, 15). With regard to
natural atmospheric sources, high ambient air concentrations have been found
near mineralized and geothermal areas (Ref. 18). The fate of this mercury is
similar to that from point sources, but there is less effect on ambient con-
centrations because of the generally dispersed nature of natural sources.
Atmospheric mercury is returned to the terrestrial environment through pre-
cipitation and dry deposition; the ocean and its deep sediments constitute
the ultimate sink for some of this mercury (Ref. 15).
Mercury emitted directly into rivers is usually adsorbed onto suspended
particles in the rivers and consequently is found in the sediments (Refs. 19,
20). However, such deposition is only a temporary fate, as biological and
25
-------
chemical activity leads to volatilization that sometimes reduces the
sediment concentrations to background (equilibrium) levels (Ref. 21).
Also, deposited sediment is continually resuspended and is carried
downriver by periodic floods, eventually reaching the ocean. Mercury
entering estuaries and bays generally remains in such waters longer
than in more rapidly moving streams. Lakes experience even longer
residence times for mercury and tend to accumulate higher concentrations
in both the sediment and the water column. The absence of turbulence
in lakes also slows the exchange of mercury with the atmosphere (Ref. 22).
Man and nature contribute significant quantities of mercury to
the land environment. Directly, mercury-containing industrial and munic-
ipal solid wastes are deposited in landfills. Indirectly, emissions
from atmospheric sources add to the burden of mercury in the land; nat-
ural degassing also contributes indirectly.
Generally, mercury losses from solid waste deposited in landfills
can be well controlled through proper disposal site selection, design,
construction, operation, and maintenance. Improper disposal practices
can contribute mercury to water (primarily groundwater) and air environ-
ments (Refs. 17, 18).
Figure 4 shows the various major environmental "reservoirs" and the trans-
fer paths of mercury among these reservoirs. The critical role of biota in
the mercury cycle is not indicated, but should be emphasized with respect to
its effect on transfer rates and mechanisms and with respect to the potential
health problems related to mercury contamination. In terms of rates and
mechanisms, microbial communities catalyze the formation of the mobile alkyl-
mercurials and volatile methylmercury. The production of methylmercury leads
to the public health concern, because members of the food chain (especially
fish) have the ability to concentrate methylmercury.
Little information has been collected with regard to interreservoir
transfer (except on a global basis), although much information has been col-
lected on the concentrations of mercury in the materials which make up these
environments. Figure 5 is a summary of measurements for both normal and
26
-------
Man-Related
Sources
Land
Surface
J2I 8
LL i LU
J
i
Freshwater
Freshwater
Sediments
I
Continental
Rocks
1
Air
J
Oceans
Oceanic
Sediments
SOURCE: Ref. 19.
Figure 4 MERCURY CYCLING THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL "RESERVOIRS'
-------
to
oo
100,000,000
10,000,000
1,000,000
100,000
03
Q.
C
o
C
CD
u
C
o
o
u
^
-------
contaminated environments. Most of these data were collected from special
studies.
National monitoring data on a regular basis are available only for
mercury in water, as the National Soils Monitoring Program does not monitor
mercury on a regular basis and the SAROAD (Storage and Retrieval of Aerometric
Data) network contains only a few measurements. The water quality monitoring
system, STORET (Storage and Retrieval of Water Quality Control Information),
contains a limited number of mercury measurements for streams and lakes,
with the best data available for the East Coast.
LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO MERCURY
This analysis of legislation and regulations involving mercury and mercury
compounds deals primarily with federal agencies. Prior to 1970 there were no
government regulations specifically applicable to mercury or mercury compounds
as a health hazard to man. Four federal agencies had the authority in existing
legislation for such regulation, but had not used it. The U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) had the authority, under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetics Act of 1938, to control mercury in food products. The U.S. Public
Health Service (PHS) had authority to control mercury in public drinking water
supplies; however, current standards (adopted in 1962) do not consider mercury.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) had authority to control mercury in
pesticides, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of
1947. The Federal Water Quality Administration had authority under the Clean
Water Act of 1966 to establish standards for interstate waters; however, only
the standards of Illinois have a limit on mercury—0.5 part per billion (ppb).
Mercury Crisis; The Early Response
In 1969, 1970, and 1971 a series of unrelated incidents (see listing
below) aroused public concern and prompted action by the U.S. Congress and
federal regulatory authorities. Congress responded to the "mercury crisis"
by incorporating more specific regulatory authority in a variety of new
29
-------
legislation. A series of Congressional hearings in 1970 provided the first
major public forum for an airing of the impacts of mercury on man. Subsequent
hearings on specific legislation also dealt in part with mercury pollution.
The FDA's initial monitoring activities were directed toward mercury contamina-
tion in fish, and in 1970 the agency established a guideline of 0.5 ppm mercury
in fish. This guideline was not a standard, and the only significant action by
FDA was to recommend in 1971 that swordfish not be eaten.
Year
1969
1970
Event
1971
Alamagordo poisoning case
Tuna confiscated by FDA in fall
Mercury found in Lake St. Clair fish (note
sent to U.S. Secretary of State by Canada,
April 2)
FDA recommended that swordfish not be eaten
6,530 persons poisoned in Iraq by mercury-
coated seeds
First reported case of mercury poisoning
from fish consumption in United States
Source: Ref. 15
The EPA was formed in 1970, and was given the responsibilities of the ,IHS,
USDA, and the Federal Water Quality Administration for control of mercury. The
EEA responded to the "mercury crisis" through several regulatory avenues (as
outlined below).
Existing legislation is directed toward controlling discharges of mercury
to the environment as waste matter or in pesticides. Pending toxic substances
control legislation authorizes the EPA to evaluate chemical substances and to
regulate or prohibit the use of those determined to be toxic. Such substances
would include those containing mercury.
30
-------
Regulatory Guidelines and Actions
Early EPA efforts to regulate the discharge of mercury are outlined below,
followed by a. discussion of subsequent legislation that redefined or strengthened
EFA's regulatory authority in each of the environmental sectors considered.
The Air Environment
The Clean Air Act of 1970 authorized EPA to establish national standards
for hazardous air pollutants. The law did not specifically denote mercury as
such a pollutant. However, on the basis of evidence that mercury is emitted
by coal-burning power plants, municipal incinerators, and industrial plants,
in March 1971 the EPA designated mercury as a hazardous air pollutant (36 PR
5931). Standards for mercury were proposed in December 1971 (36 PR 23239) and
were promulgated as regulations in April 1973 for mercury ore processing
facilities and chlor-alkali plants (see Table 3).
The Land Environment
Beginning in 1970, EPA took a series of actions to cancel pesticides that
contained mercury, under authority obtained from the Department of Agriculture.
The Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972 strengthened EPA's
authority to regulate, control, and cancel harmful pesticides, including those
containing mercury.
The Water Environment
Under the Drinking Water Act of 1974, EPA was given the authority to pro-
pose and promulgate standards for mercury in drinking water. The proposed
standard is 0.002 ppm, which is much more strict than the previous standard
of 0.005 ppm. The most widely known action taken by EPA in this early period
involved application of an old law to a new situation. In 1970, the agency
conducted a nationwide survey to determine mercury levels in surface waters.
Based on these results and on the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, EPA proposed
31
-------
TABLE 3. - EPA Mercury Regulations
Federal
Register
38 PR 8820a
38 PR 35388
Date
4/06/73
12/27/73
Applicable to
Mercury ore processing facili-
ties and chlor-alkali plants
Paper and allied products; oil
Standard
2,300 gm/24-hour period
(1) Into streams, lakes,
or
(proposed)
(39 PR 10603
amendment)
38 PR 28610
39 PR 38064
10/15/73
10/25/74
and gas extraction; industrial
organic or inorganic chemical;
alkalis and chlorine; ferrous
metal production; nonferrous
metal smelting and rerefining;
lumber and wood products;
bituminous coal and lignite
mining; storage or primary
battery manufacturing; or metal
mining facility discharging in-
to navigable water
Ocean dumping
Wastewater treatment plant
sludge incinerators
estuaries with flow less than 10
cfs or lakes less than 500 acres
—no discharges; (2) other streams
and lakes—20 yg/fc per discharge
or I/10th this concentration when
low flow is less than 10 times the
waste flow; (3) other estuaries
and all coastal waters— 100 yg/fc
per discharge or I/10th this
concentration where low flow is
less than 10 times the waste flow;
(4) stream—not to exceed 0.000162
times flow in cfs (or) 1.62 Ibs/day;
(5) lake—not to exceed 0.000135
times flow in cfs (or) 1.35 Ibs/day;
(6) estuary—not to exceed 0.00027
times flow in cfs (or) 2.70 Ibs/day;
(7) coastal water—not to exceed
0.000324 times flow in cfs (or)
3.24 Ibs/day
No mercury except as trace con-
taminants
3,200 gm/24-hour period
a. 38 PR 8820 = Vol. 38, Federal Register, page 8820.
Note: This table does not include regulations dealing with pesticides. There have been and continue to
be many such regulations, all involving either cancellation or suspension of pesticide use; how-
ever, limitations of time and space have precluded listing them here.
-------
standards for mercury discharge into surface waters, at rates dependent upon
the type of receiving water body. Since then, several states have enacted
their own limitations on mercury discharges to water from a given emitter or
class of emitters.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments of 1972 gave EPA the
basis for enforcing the regulation of mercury discharges into the water environ-
ment. In September 1973, EPA designated mercury as a toxic pollutant (38 PR
24342), and in December 1973 the agency proposed toxic pollutant effluent stan-
dards, which were amended in March 1974 (Table 3). In October 1973, EPA
issued regulations prohibiting dumping any material containing mercury into
the ocean. The agency has also designated mercury compounds (-acetate,
-ammonium chloride, -bromide, -chloride, -cyanide, -iodide, -nitrate, -nitrate,
-oxide, -sulfate, and -thiocyanate) as hazardous substances, and any person or
entity spilling such substances is liable for cleanup and/or fine (38 FR 30466,
August 1974). In October 1974, standards for mercury emissions from wastewater
treatment facilities were proposed.
Interstate Transportation
One form of governmental regulation not mentioned previously concerns the
interstate transportation of hazardous substances. Many mercury compounds are
designated as Group B poisons by the U.S. Department of Transportation, and
their shipment is regulated in accordance with applicable regulations. Also,
because metallic mercury readily amalgamates with aluminum, the shipment of
metallic mercury by air is restricted by the Civil Aeronautics Board.
Trends in Legislation and Regulatory Action
Toxic substances control legislation has been introduced in Congress
during the last three legislative sessions, but bills introduced in 1971 and
1973 failed to survive House and Senate conferences. In February 1975, a
revised bill (S.776) was introduced in the Senate. The intent of this legis-
lation is to provide more careful evaluation of new chemicals prior to their
33
-------
commercial introduction and to provide adequate federal authority to deal with
toxic substances now in the environment. The EEA will have the primary
responsibility for implementing the legislation if it is passed. The legisla-
tion is being challenged, primarily by the chemical manufacturing industry, as
being too costly for the benefits to be gained, and as restrictive of industry
efforts to develop and market new products. The EIA has responded with much
lower cost estimates and with arguments in support of the legislation as
necessary for both human and environmental protection.
The continuing efforts on the part of Congress and the EEA to enact
legislation for the control of toxic substances indicate that if the legisla-
tion now before Congress is not enacted, other attempts will be made in the
future. In the long run the prognosis for enactment of such legislation is
good; however, compromises made to secure its passage could reduce the effec-
tiveness of the legislation from that now being contemplated. If this did
occur, the legislation would doubtless be tightened over the years, as seems
to be the trend with most environmental legislation.
The major issue is the cost to be incurred by the chemical manufacturing
industry to comply with the federal regulations. The present economic environ-
ment in the United States, coupled with recent administrative positions taken
on environmental legislation that cause industry to incur additional costs,
indicate a very high probability that such legislation, if passed in the
immediate future, would be vetoed. If the economic situation improves, the
justification for vetoing such legislation would decline, of course.
If no new legislation is enacted in the short term, the EEA can be expected
to continue to use control mechanisms that now exist with respect to toxic
substances. The EE& has continued to regulate pesticides and has recently
promulgated controls on other toxic substances through the use of provisions
of the water and air acts. While these are not source controls, EEA actions
taken after introduction of substances into the environment (such as banning
such substances in air and water discharges) will force consumers to consider
more carefully the use of substances with toxics in them.
In summary, the EEA will continue to use existing authority to control
toxic substances. New legislation can be expected that will more explicitly
34
-------
define the EEA's authority in the control, including source control, of toxic
substances, but the probability that such legislation will be enacted in the
next two years is much lower than it is for the succeeding five years.
35
-------
Ill
INPUT/OUTPUT ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
The usefulness of a national inventory of mercury sources and emissions
in deriving rough estimates of the quantity of mercury entering the environment
from man-related sources has been apparent for some time. Davis (Ref. 9), in
a comprehensive effort for the year 1968, used a simple model to estimate
mercury losses to air, land, and water from industrial, consumer, fuel-burning,
and sewage treatment activities; he introduced the concept of an emission factor
(the term "Davis emission factor" refers to values he established). Anderson
(Ref. 10) updated some of the industrial emission factors and provided consider-
able information on emission factors from combustion of fossil fuels. Roy
(Ref. 11) provided additional inputs on the mercury discharges associated with
sewage and sludges. An EPA internal document presented other inputs using the
same model, which were finalized in 1974 in a working paper, "Mercury Pollution
in the United States, by Source Category" (Ref. 12), which served as the point
of departure for the inventory reported here.
These inventories have several points in common:
o Estimates are made on a national basis for emissions for a
stated year.
o Bureau of Mines data on the number of flasks of mercury
consumed in that year are the basic input data.
o Emission factors are applied to determine what fraction of
the total available mercury is lost.
In addition, some of the inventories include estimates for unregulated sources
(primarily fossil fuel burning, sewage, and sludges) and natural sources.
The URS inventory was expanded to incorporate an input/output (I/O)
analysis with a materials balance to ensure that all sources were included
and yet that no double accounting occurred. The basic goals in preparing
this inventory were:
37
-------
. o To verify and update, where required, the latest available
inventory (Ref. 12), including all sources of mercury to
the environment on a national basis.
o To prepare a materials balance for selected regions which
have been identified as having unusually high ambient
mercury readings and/or an unusual number of known mercury
emission sources.
o To determine from the national and regional inventories
where the major losses of mercury to the environment have
occurred and what the nature of these losses was. Under
this item the ultimate fate of mercury in the environment
was to be considered to ascertain if final disposal
(primarily to land) indeed represented the ultimate fate,
or if transfer to other media was a concern.
METHODOLOGY
The development of an input/output (I/O) model which would provide the
information outlined above required the development of suitable methodology
not only for the model but also for establishing a data base to support this
model. Because the two are so closely interrelated, the development of the
methodology for one proceeded simultaneously with that for the other.
First let us consider the state of the art of I/O models available for
mercury at this time. The several models described above were based almost
entirely on data provided by the Bureau of Mines. Our initial efforts also
relied primarily upon the Bureau of Mines data. We first developed a flow
chart (shown in Figure 6) which shows the sources of mercury used in the United
States in 1973, together with the industrial and commercial uses to which this
mercury was directed. In 1973 the double impact of lower mercury prices on
the world market and restrictions on allowable emissions from mercury mining
and smelting operations in the United States had effectively reduced domestic
mercury production to very minor quantities (2,131 flasks, or 3.9 percent of
total domestic usage). The supply/demand gap created by this decreased
38
-------
UI
U.S. 2.131
Production
'"JiP0"1 46,734
Mettl) in rhit
•————» "' ,, ,,„ K
Secondary V4B 64J289
Metal
Gojjpnunent 2383
Releases
Inventory. 3,906
Exports
• Und primarily in thtlnonpnte form.
• Metal
42.482
Organic
10.430
7,397
•eaa
«e»
•mp
aiaMl
r
Industrial
Control*
SUM
7.155
Dental
2.679
668
Electrical
18.000
Chior-Alkali
13.07C
Other
900
' Paint
7.671
Agriculture
1,460
Pharma-
ceuticals
600
Catalyst!
500
aeiaM
Paint
.Pharma-
ceuticals
[
aHM
Switches,
; Relays
Control
Instruments
6,795
SM
.
uw L
Tubes
500
Batteries*
» —
r— Meters
• I Pumps
I— .Misc.
_ <
H
32
r1
L.
—
Turf
Treatment
Seed Treat-
ment, etc.
Urathane
Elastomers,
etc.
1.016
435
100
v-inylcnlorUa
Synthesis
—
Misc.
• Fluorescent
1,170
All Other
HgTypet
70
Ladanche
(Zinc)
4,550
Alkallne-Mn
8.780
Ruben and
Other
Hg Types
Vat Dyes
600 60
19
Agriculture
Other
409
380
r— Preservativet
1 • I Adheilves
L— Misc.
106
Catalytts
179 700
Other
r— Pigments
-4— Stabilizers
L.MISC.
Figure 6 SOURCES OF MERCURY AND INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL USAGE
IN THE UNITED STATES, 1973 (All values in number of 76-pound flasks)
-------
domestic production was primarily filled by imports from other countries.
Secondary metal production (from recycling within the nation) was little
changed from previous years, accounting for 14.3 percent of consumption.
Releases from government stockpiles accounted for another 4.8 percent of
consumption. (Some 3,905 flasks were diverted from supply into inventory
buildup, export, or unaccounted losses.)
Figure 6 also indicates the several categories of usage to which mercury
is assigned and the relative quantities involved. It does not indicate the
losses to the environment from these categories (these losses will be discussed
later in the report). It should be recognized that this flow chart, while
useful, has limitations and inconsistencies which have been resolved to the
degree possible. For example, the Bureau of Mines data reports only usage of
the electrical applications. From a variety of references, none of which agreed
completely with any other, we were able to break this usage down further, into
lamps, power tubes, and batteries. Still further division of lamp and battery
usage was possible. However, in many applications such detailed breakdowns are
at best tenuous. In particular, the "other" category, which represents a
rather heavy usage of mercury, is so broad that further tracing is impossible.
Figure 6 indicates that less than 20 percent of the mercury used is in
the organic form. The vast majority is used in metallic form, and the remainder
is in the inorganic form.* We needed a comprehensive model that would allow
us to track mercury from its introduction (input) into the economy, through
its use at various stages within the economy (including losses during transfer
or by accident), and thence to final disposal of discarded products. In addi-
tion, we had to recognize that a number of unregulated .sources exist that
In the flow chart the battery industry is shown as using only virgin mercury
metal, which is not entirely correct. Battery makers purchase only the
virgin metal and convert it, in their own facilities, to mercury oxide and
other inorganic salts for incorporation into their products (with a minor
quantity for sale to other users). Thus when taking into account the
inorganic mercury usage of the battery industry, the form of mercury dis-
charged to the environment is more likely: metallic 50 percent, organic
19 percent; inorganic 31 percent.
40
-------
contribute to mercury losses to the environment. Finally, we knew that natural
sources also contribute mercury to the environment, although the extent of
their contribution was not clear. And in our study, all of these losses to
the environment had to be traceable not only on a national basis, but also on
a regional basis.
The basic framework of the methodology which we adopted to develop both
a suitable input/output (I/O) model and the necessary inputs to support it is
sketched below:
DATA
MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM
FORTRAN
PROGRAM
COM!
I/
<
TYPE OF I
BELIEVED
BE AVAIL;
"REHENSIVE .
'O MODEL
L
&TA
TO |
LBLE
k STMPT.TT?
I/O MOD
ti
1 1
14
DEVELOPMENT
„ OF DATA
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY
IED
EL
^-
INVENTORY
MODEL
(COMPOTER)
COLLECTION AND
COLLATION OF
DATA BASE
Bureau of Mines
Open literature
Proprietary sources
Consultants, etc.
^ INVENTORY
OUTPUT
As a first step, a systems analyst, working in conjunction with the data
collection team, outlined a comprehensive I/O model, which was "pretested" to
determine its applicability. It was discovered that the model was too cumber-
some for adaptation to computer usage, so a simplified I/O model was derived.
At the same time, the development of the simplified model solidified the data
requirements, which led to the development of the data collection methodology.
Again interaction was maintained between the systems analyst developing the
simplified I/O model and the members of the data collection team (as shown by
41
-------
the dashed lines in the sketch), to ensure compatibility of these two main-
streams. The simplified model was then adapted for use on a PDP-10 computer.
Meanwhile, the data base for the first study region (California) had been
assembled. These data were subsequently analyzed using the inventory model
and the desired output was obtained. (As with any such model, debugging was
necessary, and as with any such large data base, newer information was fre-
quently encountered and had to be incorporated.) Of course, some modifica-
tions were made in both the data collection methodology and the inventory model
during the course of the study. In the following sections, however, we report
only the final versions.
Development of an Input/Output Model
A conceptual model (see Figure 7) was designed to accommodate all possible
inputs and outputs and to track man-related losses of mercury from both regu-
lated and nonregulated sources in the environment. The model is comprehensive
and, with adequate data, it is possible to trace all inputs, regardless of
source, through manufacturing, processing, trade, final consumption, and thence
to final disposition. The model recognizes the possibility of mercury loss
not only to air, water, and land, but also to export (although this is .not a
true loss, of course). In addition, the model considers the possibility of
loss by accident (the probability function) and in transit (the transfer
function).
This model, although useful for conceptual purposes, required a degree
of knowledge concerning regional inputs and outputs which proved unavailable
(tracing the movement of a very small volume product such as the mercurials
through interstate transfer was among the most difficult problems encountered).
The program was therefore modified and simplified so that the materials flow
from one sector to the other was eliminated but losses from each sector were
maintained, and these were then accumulated. The final sectors in this simpli-
fied model are shown in Table 4. (A complete list of all sources under each
section is presented in the discussion of the data base.) In addition to the
six sectors shown in Table 4 which are an integral part of the I/O model, two
42
-------
Input
I L
II L
Ill
4H
•*-
Losses
L,A,W,T
IV L
Losses
L,A,W,E
V L
Losses
L.A.W.E
VI L
Losses
E,P
VII L
Losses
E.P
VIII - L
Losses
L,A,W
*—
Basic Primary
Sources
1
IV
^
1
Secondary
Sources
|1
Manufacturing
Industries
V
Processing
Industries
/I
Wholesale
Stockpile
VII
Final Product
(Retail Stock)
VIII
1
Final
Consumption
«*-
lj
—
Losses Unregulated
L, A, W, T Sources
Recycle
1
t
L
Imports
III . , L
Losses
* L,A,W
«-T
Losses (Legend)
L = Land
A = Air
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
W = Water
E = Export
P = Probability
T = Transfer
Figure 7 BASIC MERCURY INVENTORY FLOW CHART
43
-------
TABLE 4. - Input/Output Model Sectors
Sector
Name
Example
I
II
III
VIIIA
VIIIB
Mercury input
Mining
Misc. unregulated sources
Manufacturing and process-
ing
Commercially oriented final
consumption
Personally oriented final
consumption
Final disposal
Natural sources
Mercury mining and refining
Copper mining and smelting
Livestock manure; fossil-
fuel-burning power plants
Battery manufacturing;
catalysts
Fluorescent tubes; control
instruments
Dental applications; batter-
ies
Sewage treatment; incinera-
tion
Degassing; runoff
Source: URS Research Company
44
-------
other sectors—final disposal and natural sources—are listed. These sectors
are listed separately because they represent neither a true input nor a true
output. Final disposal, which includes sewage treatment, incineration, and
landfill operations, encompasses the treatment and disposal of those mercury
losses previously reported in the numbered sectors; its inclusion in the
overall balance as a separate category could lead to double accounting.*
The massive quantity of data expected to be derived for each study region
dictated that use of the I/O model, even in its simplified form, would require
the speed and accuracy inherent in computer operations. To this end URS
utilized a data management system leased from TYMSHAKE, INC. (an international
computer timesharing system) to store and analyze the mercury data collected
during the study. This system, used on the POP-10 computer, is referred to as
System 1022; it is compatible with the conceptual model described above. System
1022 is a sophisticated, general-purpose, data management, software system.
It allows the user to create, update, and maintain large data bases, features
a very fast retrieval capability, and allows interface with FORTRAN source
programs. The 1022 system categorizes the input data into a form that can be
retrieved and updated quickly and efficiently. Special command files can be
generated to make the system usable by individuals who have little or no com-
puter experience.
Since a basic requirement in the study was to determine the areal distri-
bution discharges of mercury to the environment, an initial problem was to
determine the smallest geographical unit to be considered. The best definition
would, of course, result from using the smallest unit, say a Census tract;
however, the resulting number of units for even a small region would be astro-
nomical. Furthermore, few data are available even at the level of the
city, the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA), or the county (or
parish). Some data, particularly commercial and industrial data, are available
Both sewage and solid wastes do include some mercury in the form of a
natural background; however, these are small in comparison to man-related
losses and do not influence the findings of the study.
45
-------
only at the state or regional level. A compromise was reached in using the
county as the base for which all data would be accumulated. (As will be dis-
cussed later, for specific facilities location by latitude and longitude is
possible for special analyses.)
Just as the county served as the basic unit of area, the Standard Indus-
trial Classification (SIC) served as the basic unit of source. Each known or
suspected emitter was assigned to an SIC which generally related to those found
in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual of 1972. However, we modified
these numbers (which are generally four digits) to meet our own requirements
where necessary. For example, the manual classes SIC 2851 as paints, varnishes,
lacquers, enamels, and allied products and includes establishments primarily
engaged in their manufacture. However, we used 2851M to indicate the manufac-
ture of the phenylmercuric acetate used by the paint industry, 285IF to indi-
cate the formulation of the paint itself, and 285IP to indicate final consump-
tion of the paint.
Each SIC was then assigned to one of the sectors shown in Table 4, in keep-
ing with the I/O model. A list of the inputs into the I/O data management
system is given in Table 5. Those concerned with location or classification
have either been discussed or are self-evident. However, those concerned with
"hard" data on the quantities of mercury and emissions to the environment
require further clarification. The "inventory" input accounts for mercury
which is either stocked by a user or is part of a nonconsuming process (such
as chlor-alkali plant). (In practice, data for this listing proved to be
difficult to derive and were generally not included.) The total quantity of
mercury which is "exposed" for loss to the environment, as estimated by the
data collection team, was input as "PROD." The inventory program then used a
simple function to determine losses to the environment, namely:
PROD X emission factor = loss.*
* Initially, additional entries had been allowed for total loss for a given
facility. However, the few cases where such usage was necessary did not
warrant the retention of this option; the functions listed above were
easily substituted in its place.
46
-------
TABLE 5. - Inputs into the Input/Output
Inventory Program, (for a given
program)
Input
Description
Purpose
Sector
SIC
Name
County
State
Latitude/
Longitude
Inventory
Total
Quantities
Produced or
Processed
(PROD)
Form of
product or
process
Emission
Factors (EF)
Air
Water
Land
Recycle
Generic description of sources
Standard Industrial Classifica-
tion
Used for manufacturer's facility
County (in some cases groups of
counties) or parish
In Mercator coordinates
Estimated quantity of mercury
kept but not consumed
An estimate of the total mer-
cury consumed, in product or
process, annually
Designates major form of emis-
sion — Hg, inorganic or
organic
An EF represents the fraction
lost to each output. (The sum
of all EF's cannot exceed 1.0,
but may be less, due to in-
creased inventory or permanent
retention of the mercury in
PROD.)
To classify similar sources
together
To standardize, in common
usage, each individual source
To differentiate between sev-
eral SIC's at the same loca-
tion
To identify by geographical
location
To permit location, within
±4 km, where desired
To distinguish inventory
from losses
The base value to which
emission factors are
applied
To allow a determination of
the form in which mercurials
are lost to the environment
Used in program to determine
losses to the environment.
For examole: PROD x EFA =
loss to air; PROD x EFW =
loss to water
Source: URS Research Company
47
-------
Emission factors are a widely used concept to represent the fraction of
the total available mercury (that is, EROD) which is lost to a given environ-
ment. (Note that "recycle" has been treated as an emission since this simpli-
fied the computer program.) The sum of the emission factors is 1.0. However,
in those instances where mercury can be shown to be permanently retained (for
example, 75 percent of the mercury used in dental treatment is permanently
retained in the teeth), the true amount lost to the environment is accounted
for by an "availability factor," in this case 25 percent.
Six computer programs were developed, in the FORTRAN IV programming
language, which are used in conjunction with the 1022 system to accept the
indicated inputs and provide the desired outputs. These programs are de-
scribed briefly in Table 6. The bulk of the information which will be reported
on here was derived from ALLSIC, which lists, for a given region, all losses
(by SIC) to the environment; CTYALL, which provides county-by-county listing
of total mercury losses to the environment; and URSLL, which provides, within
any given coordinate points, all mercury losses to the environment. Changes
in the emission factors can be made by simply accessing System 1022 as out-
lined in Appendix C.
Acquisition of the Data
It was recognized that it would be a monumental task to acquire data on
the utilization of mercury and its compounds on any but a gross (that is,
national) basis. The first obstacle is the lack of substantive statistics
on the use of mercury and its compounds; this lack is attributable to the very
low volume of usage. (The Bureau of Mines is undoubtedly the best source of
information, although the Tariff Commission provides some limited data on
organic mercurials.) A second problem arises from the "scare" philosophy
which has grown out of the highly publicized incidents in the early 1970s,
and which has resulted in the reluctance of many users to discuss their
present or projected utilization of mercurials. Many manufacturers are
believed to underestimate their usage of mercury. In order to overcome these
two major obstacles as far as possible, URS assembled a data collection team
which included chemical engineers, a chemical economist, a regional economist,
48
-------
TABLE 6. - Outputs from Various Programs in the
Input/Output Model (for a given region)
Program
Name
Output
Purpose
ALLS1C
CTYALL
URSLL
URSIC
URSCTY
MULFAC
Provides an enumeration of mer-
cury losses, by SIC, to air,
land, water, and recycling.
Provides an enumeration of mer-
cury losses, by county (or
state), to air, water, land,
and recycling.
Provides an enumeration by lat-
itude and longitude,"of all mer-
cury losses within an area desig-
nated by four coordinate points.
Provides a correlation, for a
given SIC, between the number
of emitters and their size.
Five size ranges are considered
from 400 Ibs/yr.
Provides a correlation, for a
given county, between the num-
ber and size of emitters, by
sector. Five size ranges are
considered from <5 Ib/yr to
>400 Ib/yr.
Provides the capability to
change total mercury usage
(PROD) for a given SIC.
Permits identification of
major sources of loss, by
SIC, to each environmental
recipient (air, water, or
land).
Permits identification of
major contributors, by county
(or state), to each environ-
mental recipient
Permits study of losses to
each environmental recipient
in geographical locations of
special interest (such as
a river basin).
Permits an assessment of the
importance of size of emitter
as compared to the total num-
ber of such emitters, by SIC.
Permits assessment of rela-
tive importance of contribu-
tors to environmental losses
from different types of
counties
Allows rapid revisions of
input data
Source: URS Research Company
49
-------
an industrial engineer, and an environmental engineer. Members of this team
had many years of marketing and forecasting experience. The team utilized
published data, the open literature, contacts with trade associations and
individual industries, and other proprietary sources in acquiring the necessary
body of information.
In many cases, excellent sources of data were found, but in others it was
hard to locate and verify data. Thus it sometimes became necessary to make
first estimates for a given SIC and later to revise these as better data
became available. Certainly the quality of the data on the known or suspected
uses of mercury is variable, but because of the rigorous materials balance
procedure followed, we estimate that most of the values used are within plus
or minus 30 percent of actual, and in many cases are much better.*
Inputs on the quantity of mercury entering the economy in 1973 were of
course based on the Bureau of Mines data, which are the best available.** .Tri
determining the sources of mercury from Sectors I, II, III, and V for specific
facilities such as mines, power plants, and manufacturing plants, a number of
industrial sources provided much of the necessary information on location and
production. These varied sources included the Bureau of Mines Mineral Year-
book, SRI's Chemical Economics Handbook, the Directory of Chemical Producers,
and the magazines Chemical Week and Chemical Marketing. Where conflicting
information was encountered (which happened frequently) the best judgment of
the team was exercised. Where the number of facilities was excessive (greater
than 50), as for example paint manufacturers. Census of Manufacturers' data
* Some sources of information initially considered to be most useful were
soon found to be of little or no value. For example, permit application
lists of potential mercury emitters (based on RAPP data) by EPA region
were found to contain spurious data, or data which could not be validated.
We suspect that much of the data was recorded in the wrong units.
** It is true the Bureau of Mines data have some shortcomings in that they
are derived from proprietary reports submitted by industry. Thus there
may be small errors in reporting use category. However, on the input
end, only secondary mercury is subject to such error, so overall, the
input data are considered exceptionally reliable.
50
-------
were used on a state-by-state basis. In all cases the production of a desig-
nated facility was used as a basis for estimating mercury uses and losses; all
values were reported in terms of mercury metal. As an example, a materials
balance for coal usage in the United States is shown in Figure 8. It indicates
total usage (input) of 73,923 kg of mercury, with detailed losses (output) to
the environment thereafter. This chart was derived from a large variety of
sources as well as from Bureau of Mines data (Ref. 23) and assumes an average
mercury content of 0.16 ppm. Similarly, a materials balance for any fossil
fuel for any state or group of states can be made based upon these same data,
with adjustments for the 1973 base.
Two categories have been identified which are amenable to either a case-
by-case study or to the use of regional statistics. Discharges in the first
category are termed "point source emissions" and include mines, smelters,
chlor-alkali plants, other chemical plants that manufacture mercurials, battery
manufacturers, etc. For the second category, a number of "area source emis-
sions" were identified in the final consumption sector. For example, dental
usage applies to the general population, industrial instruments can be applied
to a very wide variety of manufacturing industries, and so on. Since it was
not possible to trace down these very widespread uses, an equation which
derives from national consumption figures was developed which allows us to
estimate regional consumption, as follows:
National consumption X —*•: r°r .— = regional consumption
national population * *
Population serves adequately as a. factor for general consumer products
such as dental preparations, drugs, batteries, and heating fuel. However, it
does not adequately describe other types of consumption patterns which are
related to commercial and industrial activity. Therefore, two other types of
factors—a multifactor, and a manufacturing employment ratio—were developed.
The multifactor, which is based on population and on commercial and
industrial activity, is used to determine a region's usage of mercury in
commercial products (fluorescent lamps, nonfarm pesticides, laboratory items,
paints, "other"). The manufacturing employment ratio is based on manufacturing
activity (which can be either employment or manufacturing value added). This
51
-------
7,349
974
Export Losses
All U.S. Coal |
(1973)
Household and
Commercial Losses
45,249
66,574 46,226 | 45,249 ^ Electric Power Plant
i Losses
20,351
Industrial Losses
I
f 896
Food and
Products
*
Kindred
Losses
J 1,384
Stone, Clay,
and Concrete
Product Losses
1,587 \ 2,341
Paper and Allied
Product Losses
*
Chemical and Allied
Product Losses
10,766 | 3,378
Primary Metals
Losses
Other Mineral and
Manufacturing Losses
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure 8 MATERIALS BALANCE OF MERCURY FROM COAL
IN THE UNITED STATES (kilograms)
52
-------
ratio is used to determine a region's mercury usage for specific processes
only (paint formulation, tubes/switches, control instruments).
Distribution of consumption within a study region can be further broken
down to the county level, based upon the same criteria and factors as for the
region. Emitters, however, by their very definition are diffuse and must be
treated in the computer analysis as point sources. Hence they are assigned
to a county or, in the latitude-longitude program (DRSLL), they are assigned
to the population center of that county.
The total amount of mercury available (PROD in the listing of inputs in
Table 5), whether from an area or point source, must be assigned to an environ^
mental recipient. A second equation applies here:
Total mercury X fraction available X emission factor
= loss to environment
The fraction of mercury'available for use is normally 1.0, but it can be
used to account for the mercury which remains in place (for example, as noted
above, in dental use 75 percent is assumed to remain in the teeth indefinitely)
The emission factor accounts for the fraction of mercury lost to the environ-
mental recipient. As an example, Figure 8 showed that the total estimated
mercury in coal used by electric utilities in 1973 was 45,249 kg, all of which
was assumed to be available. The emission factors used to distribute this
mercury are:
EF = 0.9 (air)
f\
EF-. = 0.0 (water)
EPT = 0.1 (land)
jj
EP = 0.0 (recycle)
Then the annual emissions to air nationwide are:
45,249 kg X 1.0 X 0.9 = 40,724 kg
In a similar fashion, the emissions to land can be found to be 4,525 kg (with
nothing to water or recycling).
53
-------
Emission factors for air, water, land, and recycle were in most cases
based upon prior studies, especially Ref. 12. Those which could not be
validated satisfactorily were researched further, and in some cases substan-
tial changes were introduced.
Table 7 summarizes, for each sector and each SIC study:
o Total mercury available on a national basis, in thousands
of kilograms
o The fraction of this mercury available
o Emission factors for each environmental recipient
Further information on the detailed methodology followed for each particular
SIC is given in Appendix D.
Calculation of Contributions from Natural Sources
Degassing
The calculation of natural degassing rates was based on work performed
by others and on observations and assumptions developed in this study. Various
workers have developed both global and regional degassing rates (see Table 8).
These observations and calculations indicate that (1) the average land degas-
2
sing rate is probably 0.2 microgram per square meter per day (|Jig/m /day);
(2) degassing rates higher than the average are associated with mineralized
deposits; (3) because of biological and chemical activity, over igneous sedi-
ments high in mercury the degassing rate is probably higher than over land;
(4) the ratio between global land and ocean degassing is unknown, but Mackenzie
and Wollast's assumption of equality (Ref. 26) is probably adequate. Using
these concepts of degassing, URS calculated a probable national degassing rate.
Assumptions on which these calculations were based are summarized below:
1. The base national degassing rate was assumed to be
2
0.2 ng/m /day.
2. For moderately mineralized areas a degassing rate of
2
0.4 |jUj/m /day was assumed.
54
-------
TABLE 7. - Emissions and Emission Factors for Mercury, by SIC and Sector
en
en
Sector
II
III
i .. **
V
SIC
1092M
1092P
1021
1031
3331
3332
3333
3241
3274
021
2911C
2911M
2951C
331 2M
4091C
49110
4924C
4911C
• •
2.5B
2819M
285 1M
2879M
2833M
2812
2261
Description
Mercury Mining
Mercury Processing
Copper Mining
Zinc and Lead Mining
Copper Smelting
Lead Smelting
Zinc Smelting
Cement Processing
Lime Processing
Livestock
Fuel Oil
Refineries
Tars and Asphalt
Coke Ovens
Coal
Utilities - Oil § Gas
Burning
Natural Gas - Res., Comm.,
Ind.
Utilities - Coal Burning
Caustic
Catalyst
Paint
Pesticides
Pharmaceutical Manuf .
Chlor-Alkali
Textiles
*
Kg(x 105) of Hg
Available
0.02
8.8
0.11
0.02
45.3
S.3
5.1
2.6
0.5
36.3
17.1
2.4
17.8
10.2
11.2
12.1
6.0
45.3
9.5d
348. 5e
20.9
452.4
7.8
Fraction of
Available
Hg Lost0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.001
0.001
1.00
1.00
Emission Factors for
Air
0.20
0.95
0.20
0.20
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.20
0.20
-
0.999
0.50
0.06
0.70
0.90
0.999
0.999
0.90
-
0.05
0.05
0.035
—
Water
0.10
•"
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.10
QUO
-
-
-
0.09
0.05
-
-
-
-
.80
0.90
0.90
.004
0.02
Land
0.70
0.05
0.70
0.70
0.05
0.05
O.'OS
0.70
0.70
0.50
0.001
0.50
0.85
-
0.10
0.001
.001
0.10
.20
0.05
0.05
0.501
0.98
Inventory
and Recycle
—
~
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.50
-
-
-
.25
-
-
_
-
-
0.46
-
-------
TABLE 7. - Emissions and Emission Factors for Mercury, by SIC and Sector
(continued)
01
Sector
V
VIIIA
VIIIB
SIC
2851F
38291M
3079P
3.0
36292M
36410M
36420M
2.5A
2879C
2879F
38291C
36292C
36410C
7391
2834C
2851C
36420C
8021
Description
Paint Formulation
Control Instrument Manuf.
Vat Dyes
Other
Tubes/Switches Manuf.
Lamp Manuf.
Battery Manuf.
Urethane
Nonagric. Pesticides
Agric. Pesticides
Control Instrument Cons.
Tubes/Switches Cons.
Lamp Cons.
Laboratory
Pharmaceutical Cons.
Paint. Cons. -
Battery Cons.
Dental
3
Kg(x 10*) of Hg
Available
247.7
196.8
7.8
69.2
63.3
46.6
563.6
15.6
44.0
19.1
206.9
53.9
43.4
22.7
20.9
247.1
497.0
92.3
Fraction of
Available
Hg Lost
0.65
0.01
0.001
1.00
0.025
0.04
0.005
0.15
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.70
1.00
0.25g
Emission Factors for
Air
0.45
_
0.5
0.15
_
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.10
-
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.10
_
0.95
0.05
0.04
Water
0.55
_
0.90
0.15
_
-
0.02
«.
0.40
0.15
-
—
0.26
1.00
-
-
0.72
Land
1.00
0.05
0.40
1.00
0.95
0.93
0.95
0.50
0.85
0.56
0.95
0.95
0.07
_
0.05
0.90
"•
Inventory
and Recycle
-
_
0.30
-
-
-
_
-
-
0.40
_
0.57
-
-
0.05
0.24
a. Amount of mercury available on a national basis within the given SIC.
b. Fraction of available mercury that is lost to air, land, or water, or that is recycled or remains as part of an in-plant in-
ventory .
c. Includes secondary processing.
d. Based on 3.7 ppm mercury concentration in caustic sold in 1973.
e. This total represents all the mercury used in the manufacture of organic and inorganic compounds that will be incorporated
in paint and pesticides and used as catalysts. .
f. Emissions to air, land, and water are based on the proportion of solid waste incinerated. On a national average, this is
about 5 percent.
g. The remaining 75 percent stays in the teeth and is considered unavailable.
Source: URS Research Company
-------
TABLE 8. - Natural Degassing Rates Calculated
by Various Workers
Source
Ref.
No.
Degassing Rate
(yg/m /day)
Remarks
Kothny
Weiss
Erickson
Mackenzie and
Wollast
Anderson et al,
McCarthy et al.
24
8
25
26
18
4.0 (Franciscan soils)
0.8 (normal soils)
0.5
10.0
0.5
0.0014
0.064 - 41.86
0.2 (natural back-
ground)
Calculated on the basis of
an apparent increase in reg-
ional ambient air concentra-
tion as the air mass moves
across Western California.
Calculated from the total
global atmospheric burden
(based on global concentra-
tion) and the average global
turnover time (10 days). Emis-
sions were assumed to occur
only over land.
Same calculation method as
Weiss, but assumed background
concentration of 20 yg/m
and about 150 days turnover
time.
Used Weiss's number but
assumed degassing rates over
air and land are equal.
Same calculation procedure
as Weiss but assumed back-
ground concentrations of
0.5 yg/m3.
Measured degassing rate from
both mineralized and unmin-
eralized areas.
Source: Compiled by URS Research Company
57
-------
3. For highly mineralized areas and known mercury deposits
2
a rate of 0.8 jJig/m /day was assumed.
For the purposes of differentiating between areas, Figure 9, which indi-
cates general areas of known mercury and mineralized deposits, was used. Using
the degassing rates shown above and the total surface area (both land and water
for each state), a state-by-state inventory of total annual degassing was made.
On a national basis, the annual degassing rate was estimated, on the basis of
2
0. 36 |Jig/m /year, to be about 1 million kg per year.
Runoff
The other natural source contribution, that of erosion, was determined
by calculating the average annual runoff from each state (Ref. 27) and multi-
plying this figure by the average statewide sediment concentration (Ref. 28).
The total annual sediment load was then multiplied by the average sediment
mercury concentration of 71 ppb (Ref. 29). The state totals were then summed
for the national inventory, for an overall total of about 200,000 kg per year.
An attempt was also made to determine the contribution from urban runoff.
According to this calculation, urban runoff contributes about 10,000 kg per
year to the nation's waters, or about 5 percent of the soil erosion total.
Contributions from Final Disposal
Sewage
In determining mercury losses to air, land, and water from sewage treat-
ment plants, the initial assumption was that the overall sewage generation
rate for sewered communities was 100 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) and
that the rate for areas served by septic tanks was 75 gpcd. The population
percentages served by community sewer systems and septic tanks were found in
the U.S. Census of Housing (Ref. 30). The per capita generation rates were
then multiplied by the specific study area population in question to estimate
the sewage flow.
58
-------
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Mineralized Areas
(Copper, Lead, Zinc, Silver, Gold)
Figure 9 MINERALIZED AREAS AND MERCURY DEPOSITS IN THE UNITED STATES
-------
Fpr each study area, an influent concentration of 2.0 ppb (Ref. 12) and
a removal efficiency of 50 percent (Refs. 31, 32) was assumed. By multiplying
together the estimated total flow, the assumed influent concentration, and a
series of conversion factors, the total annual amount of mercury flowing into
the typical sewage treatment plant was determined.
The environmental receiving medium (air, land, or water) of this mercury
was calculated by multiplying the total annual amount of mercury reaching the
plant by the percentage of the effluent lost to land or water and sludge land-
filled or incinerated. These percentages were derived from the latest national
inventory of municipal treatment plants, which lists the effluent and sludge
disposal practices for each plant in the nation (Ref. 33).
Groundwater
Very little information is available on the mercury concentration of
groundwater; the most widely quoted value is 0.05 ppb (see Refs. 2, 34, 35).
This is a reasonable figure because the generally high adsorptive capacity of
soils should reduce mercury concentrations as water containing mercury perco-
lates to the water table.
Quantities of groundwater withdrawn in a given region were taken from U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) publications for individual states; USGS data were
also used for national figures (Ref. 36). The yearly quantity of mercury was
determined by applying a list of conversion factors to the average mercury
concentration and quantity of groundwater withdrawn.
RESULTS
Tables 9 through 13 summarize the mercury emission data for each study
region. These tables and the discussion to follow point out the significant
contributors of mercury to the environment.
60
-------
These tables have been designed to present the major results of each
regional inventory in a concise form, while still providing the reader with
an overview of important findings. At the far left of each table are listed
the sectors, which correspond to the sectors of the I/O model (Fig. 7) and
which are described in Table 4. In the next column are the sector names, with
important contributors within each sector. Since all results are reported on
a sector basis rather than as individual SIC contributors, the fraction each
SIC contributes to the total emissions of a sector is shown in parentheses in
this column. For example, in Table 9 under Sector V, paint manufacture
accounts for 4 percent of the total emissions (1,839 kg) of that sector. The
next three columns indicate emissions (in both kilograms and pounds) to air,
water, and land, from each sector, with the fourth column showing the totals.
A final column indicates the amount of recycling associated with the sector.
Only recycling which extends beyond plant limits is considered. Thus, for
example, recycle of rejected batteries in a manufacturing facility is not
included. Emissions to air, water, and land are summed under "Totals" in the
row following Sector VIIIB, indicating, for the region, total losses to these
three environments from man-related sources. (These totals, of course,
include mercury introduced into commerce as well as that from unregulated
sources.) The totals have been used to calculate the fraction each sector
contributes to the given environment (shown in each column). (For example,
in Table 9 the total emissions to water are 2,666 kg; for Sector V the con-
tribution to water is 584 kg—or 22 percent of the total, as shown parentheti-
cally.) A similar percentage has been derived for the total column also.
Below the totals and under the heavy line are figures for the two other
identifiable sources of mercury—final disposal and natural sources. Final
disposal, which includes sewage treatment plants and landfills, is not
included as part of the man-related inputs, in order to avoid double account-
ing. In the case of landfills no values have been listed, but it is assumed
that virtually all emissions to land from Sectors V, VIIIA, and VIIIB will be
deposited in either industrial or public landfills. Similarly, in the case
of water, most of the emissions from these same sectors will find their way
into public sewage treatment plant influents. We estimated the mercury con-
tent of sewage influents independently, and these values have been included,
61
-------
as have estimates on the disposal of the resultant mercury-bearing sludge to
either landfills or to incineration (see Section IV for additional detail).
On the assumption that most water-borne mercury wastes are directed to sewage
influents, we presumed that the independent estimate of the mercury content of
sewage would agree, within limits, with the emissions determined by our inven-
tory results. In Table 9 this is the case; that is, we estimate the emissions
from Sectors V, VIIIA, and VIIIB to be 2,605 kg and 1,679 kg was the indepen-
dent estimate—in reasonable agreement. However, this agreement was not found
for the other study regions. We conclude that the error (if it is an error)
is largely in the estimate of the mercury content of sewage influents; the
values were obtained from many sources and the sampling and analytical tech-
niques used were in many cases open to question.
Each table includes estimates of the magnitude of three natural sources—
degassing from the earth's crust, surface runoff, and release through under-
ground waters. The derivation of these estimates was discussed previously;
it was noted in that discussion that these are "best estimates," based upon
rather sketchy data (and in the case of degassing on tentative hypotheses).
We have, however, used conservative estimates in all cases. The totals for
natural sources do not include any man-related sources of mercury and it can
be assumed that the natural sources are not controllable to any degree by man.
Regional Analyses
The following paragraphs present a brief overview of the findings for
each study region and discuss the implications of these findings.
California Study Region
As indicated in Table 9, three sectors (I, VIIIA, and VIIIB) account for
virtually all of the mercury losses in this region. These findings are conso-
nant with the characteristics of the region, which has relatively little heavy
industry (and contains no mercury or mercurial manufacturers or processors)
but which does contain a fair amount of agricultural activity and which is the
only active mercury mining region in the nation at the present time. Looking
62
-------
TABLE 9. - Mercury Emissions to the Environment in the California Study Region
Sector
I
II
III
V
VIIIA
Mercury Mining & Smelting
Imports
Recycling
Air
(1.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)
Other Mining
Copper
Lime
Cement
(0.80)
(0.10)
(0.10)
Unregulated Sources
Livestock
Fossil Fuels,
Comm. 8. Ind.
Household
Electric Power
(0.17)
(0.46)
(0.35)
(0.08)
Manufacturing 8 Processing
Chlor-Alkali
Paint Mfr.
Foam-Caustic
Other
(0.00)
(0.04)
(0,23)
(0.77)
Final Consumption:
Comm. 8. Industrial
Lamps
Controls/ Instr.
(0.06)
(0.29)
3,795 kg
-~(8,360 lb)
(34.6%)*
•14 kg
-(30 lb)
(0.1%)
913 kg
—(2,010 lb)
(8.3%)
195 kg
— ~(430 lb)
(1.8%)
300 kg
-(660 lb)
(2.7%)
Water
5kg
(10 lb)
(0.2%)a
9 kg
(20 lb)
(0.3%)
45 kg
(100 lb)
(1.7%)
586 kg
(1,290 lb)
(22.0%)
468 kg
(1,030 lb)
(17.5%)
Land
232 kg
(510 lb)
(1.1%)
68 kg
(150 lb)
(0.3%)
676 kg
(1,490 lb)
(3.2%)
1,058 kg
(2,330 lb)
(5.0%)
6,229 kg
(13,720 lb)
(29.2%)
Total
4,032 kg
(8,880 HO
(11.5%)D
91 kg
(200 lb)
(0.3%)
1,634 kg
(3,600 lb)
(4.7%)
1,839 kg
(4,050 lb)
(5.3%)
6,997 kg
(15,410 lb)
(20.0%)
Recycle
409 kg
(900 lb)
3,682 kg
(8,110 lb)
/IIIB Final Consumption:
Consumer Goods
Pharmaceuticals (0.03)
Paint (0.31)
Batteries (0.63)
Dental (0.03)
Totals
FINAL DISPOSAL
Sewage
» *_ JJM l 1
li&naxiii
NATURAL SOURCES
• Degassing
• Runoff
• Groundwater
5,739 kg 1,553 kg
—(12,640 lb) (3,420 lb)
(52.4%) (58.3%)
10,956 kg 2,666 kg
(24,130 lb) (5,870 lb)
54 kg 876 kg
(120 lb) (1.930 lb)
13,066 kg
(28,780 lb)
(61.3%)
21,329 kg
(46,980 lb)
749 kg
(1,650 lb)
20,358 kg
(44,840 lb)
(58.2%)
34,951 kg
(76,980 lb)
1.679 kg
(3,700 lb)
26,900 kg
(59.300 lb)
5,200 kg
(12,700 lb)
270 kg
(600 lb)
922 kg
(2,030 lb)
5,013 kg
(11,040 lb)
a. Emission by sector as a percent of total emission to air (or water or land).
b. Percent of all emissions by sector to all emissions in the study region.
c. An estimated one-third (including mercury metal) is in soluble form; remainder moves rapidly into sediments.
Source: URS Research Company
63
-------
further at mercury mining and smelting (Sector I)f it can be seen that these
sources alone accounted for almost 35 percent of the total emissions to air;
considering the depressed state of the mercury mining industry in the subject
year (1973) it can be seen that if mining activity were greatly increased, the
Sector I emissions would be even more important in the overall picture. How-
ever, it should be noted that the mercury mining activity in the study region
at the present time is conducted in very remote areas and is likely to have
little impact on populated centers. (The one exception is the New Almaden
Mine, which is adjacent to the San Jose metropolitan area but which is now
being phased out of operation.)
Contributions from miscellaneous mining and processing (Sector II) were
trivial, and even those from unregulated sources (Sector III) were surprisingly
low. In this sector, emissions related to livestock manure were only marginal
(despite a rather extensive livestock industry in the Central Valley) and
emissions related to fossil fuel usage were small. These low emissions from
fossil fuel usage are to be expected, however, since the study region uses
natural gas (with low mercury content) for most residential and commercial
uses, and for steam-electric power generation. Since the energy "crunch" has
developed, boilers using only natural gas have generally been converted to
dual usage—natural gas or fuel oil—with increasing reliance on fuel oil.
The use of coal, with its relatively high mercury content, is virtually unknown
in the region.
The contributions from the final consumption sectors (VIIIA and VIIIB)
accounted for most of the man-related losses in the region, and were quite
typical for this sector. These losses were primarily to landfills (incinera-
tion of solid wastes is not practiced in the region) which are well regulated,
ensuring that movement of mercury from the final disposal sites is minimal.
The region was found to contribute above-average quantities of mercury to
the air from degassing of the earth's crust. The region consists of mercuri-
ferous soils in general, and is therefore estimated to degas at about two
times the national average, resulting in emissions to air estimated at 26,900
kg annually—about two and one-half times higher than the total man-made emis-
sions to air. Runoff (primarily from mercuriferous soils) was about two
times higher than were man-related water discharges. Groundwater usage is
64
-------
relatively high in some parts of the region, but groundwater is very low in
mercury content and contributed little.
Two potential sources of mercury were initially considered: (1) the
fumaroles and geysers in the region, and (2) the spent mercury used during the
Gold Rush days in the amalgamation of gold. However, neither of these sources
proved to be important. Steam from the geysers, which is currently being used
commercially by the local electric utility, was found to contain low concen-
trations of mercury, as was runoff associated with the geysers. (The geysers
are surrounded by abandoned mercury mines, but of course their source of steam
is far below ground.)*
It has been estimated that millions of flasks of mercury were mined and
used in processing gold in the early days of California. Even today it is
reported that, in digging among the gold tailings, metallic mercury may be
uncovered. However, we were unable to find any substantive data which indi-
cated that this residual mercury impinges in any way on man or his food chain.
We hypothesize that most of this mercury has either been leached away or has
vaporized over the intervening century.
Arizona Study Region
The State of Arizona was chosen for study primarily because of its signifi-
cant copper mining and processing industry. Copper ores contain mercury in
trace quantities, and this mercury is released during the smelting process.
From Table 10, it is evident that copper smelting operations are the major
contributors to the air and water emissions in this region. Nevertheless, the
copper industry poses no significant or even appreciable hazard in terms of
adverse health effects. Smelter emissions do lead to ambient mercury levels
in air which are substantially above background but well below levels con-
sidered deleterious to health.
* Some geyser activity and much volcanic activity have high mercury content;
however, the quantities emitted are low, except for extreme volcanic activity,
and in general cannot be considered to be important mercury contributors to
the natural environment.
65
-------
TABLE 10. - Mercury Emissions to the Environment in the Arizona Study Region
Sector
I
II
III
V
VIIIA
VIIIB
Mercury Mining ft Smelting
Copper Mining & Smelting
Copper Mining
Copper Smelting
Unregulated Sources
Livestock
Fossil Fuels; Res.,
Comm. 8 Ind.
Elec. Utilities
Manufacturing and
Processing
Foam Caustic
Other
Final Consumption:
Comm. 8 Industrial
Lamps
Controls/ Instr.
Tubes/Switches
Laboratory
Pesticides
Final Consumption:
Consumer Goods
Pharmaceuticals
Paint
Batteries
Dental
Totals
FINAL DISPOSAL
Sewage
NATURAL SOURCES
o Degassing
o Runoff
o Groundwater
(0.004)
(0.996)
(0.06)
(0.92)
(0.02)
(0.20)
(0.80)
(0.07)
(0.29)
(0.47)
(0.09)
(0.08)
(0.03)
(0.34)
(0.52)
(0.11)
Air
h -
19,622 kg
*.(43,168 Ibl
(84.3%)*
70S kg
-+ (1,552 Ib)
(3.0%)
114 kg
»• (251 Ib)
(0.5%)
20 kg
(44 Ib)
(0.0%)
2,825 kg
-»-(6,216 Ib)
(12.2%)
23,286 kg
(51,231 Ib)
23 kg
(51 Ib)
Water
--
1,088 kg
(2,393 Ibl
(53.8%)*
144 kg
(316 Ib)
(7.1%)
127 kg
(280 Ib)
(6.3%)
96 kg
(211 Ib)
(4.7%)
568 kg
(1,249 Ib)
(28.1%)
2,023 kg
(4,449 Ib)
227 kg
(499 Ib)
Land
--
1,119 kg
(2,461 Ib)
(12.8%)*
433 kg
(953 Ib)
(5.0%)
385 kg
(847 Ib)
(4.4%)
2,055 kg
(4,520 Ib)
(23.6%)
4,723 kg
(10,390 Ib)
(54.2%)
8.715 kg
(19,171 Ib)
278 kg
(594 Ib)
Total
—
21,829 kg
(48,022 Ib)
(64.2%)D
1.282 kg
(2,821 Ib)
(3.8%)
626 kg
(1,378 Ib)
(1.8%)
2,171 kg
(4,775 Ib)
(6.4%)
8,116 kg
(17,855 Ib)
(23.8%)
34,024 kg
(74,851 Ib)
528 kg
(1,144 Ib)
84,400 kg
(192,200 Ib)
5,600 kgC
(12,400 Ib)
296 kg
(652 Ib)
Recycle
--
144 kg
(317 Ib)
(7.6%)
1.552 kg
(3,414 Ib)
(82.3%)
190 kg
(417 Ib)
(10.1%)
1,886 kg
(4,148 Ib)
a. Emission by sector as a percent of total emission to air (or water or land).
b. Percent of all emissions by sector to all emissions in study region.
c. An estimated one-third (including mercury metal) in soluble form; remainder moves rapidly into sediments.
Source: URS Research Company
66
-------
Most of the major copper smelters are located some 40 to 100 miles east
of the two major metropolitan areas. Phoenix and Tucson. The prevailing winds
are from the east, so the Phoenix and Tucson areas could be exposed to mercury
emissions. However, diffusion modeling results indicate that the amounts of
mercury reaching highly populated areas would be trivial. (Further discussion
of this hazard is included in Section IV.)
The region displayed no unusual anomalies with respect to emissions
from other sectors. However, the state has many ore deposits; as discussed
elsewhere, these are a source of mercury via degassing and contribute heavily
to the total quantity of 84,400 kg emitted in the region. The total emis-
sions to air from natural sources are four times higher than those from
man-related sources. The mercury content of runoff is unusually low,
chiefly because the region is so arid. Because of the highly variable flow
rates of the few streams in the state (which are dry much of the year), the
probable fate of mercury in sediments may well be different from that in
streams that maintain flow the year around. This point was not investigated,
however.
Kentucky/Tennessee Study Region
This study region contains a number of large, coal-fired power plants of
the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). Table 11 shows that almost 45 percent of
the total mercury emissions to air are due to Sector III sources, and that the
bulk of the Sector III contribution comes from the utilities plants. However,
despite the large volume of mercury from these sources, the resultant ground
level concentrations of mercury vapor are very small—in fact, the levels are
not much greater than that contributed by natural background.
This area also contains two chlor-alkali plants which account for more
than 90 percent of the Sector V emissions. Manufacture of various electrical
apparatus, and catalyst use, which initially were thought to contribute sig-
nificantly to the mercury loss in this region, proved to be only minor sources.
By discounting the losses assigned to the chlor-alkali plants in the
region (whose major losses are to industrial landfills), a truer picture
of other losses can be obtained. Without chlor-alkali losses, man-related
67
-------
/TABLE 11. - Mercury Emissions to the Environment in the Kentucky/Tennessee Study Region
Sector
I
II
III
Air
Mercury Mining ft Smelting
Other Mining 6 Smelting
Zinc Mining
Copper Smelting
(0.01)
(0.99)
Unregulated Sources
Livestock
Electric Utilities
Natural Gas
Tars and Asphalt
Refineries
(0.02)
(0.71)
(0.04)
(0.10)
(0.00)
— * -
257 kg
»• (566 Ib)
(1.0%) a
9,114 kg
».(20,050 Ib)
(44.5%)
Water
14 kg
(31 Ib)
(0.5%)a
120 kg
(264 Ib)
(4.0%)
Land
14 kg
(31 Ib)
(0.0%) a
2,112 kg
(4,646 Ib)
(4.0%)
Total Recycle
285 kg
(628 IbJ
(0.5%)°
11,346 kg
(24,960 Ib)
(16.0%)
Manufacturing 8
Processing
Foam-Caustic
Catalysts
Other
Chlor-Alkali
Paint
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.07)
(0.91)
(0.00)
2,428 kg
—»-(5,341 Ib)
(12.0%)
857 kg
(1,885 Ib)
(27.5%)
20,620 kg
(45,364 Ib)
(44.0%)
23,905 kg
(52,590 Ib)
(34.0%)
VIIIA
Final Consumption:
Commercial and Industrial
Lamps
Controls/Instr.
Tubes/Switches
Laboratory
Pesticides
Foam/Plastics
(0.06)
(0.27)
(0.43)
(0.05)
(0.16)
(0.03)
100 kg
• (220 Ib)
(0.5%)
530 kg
(1,165 Ib)
(17.0%)
9,600 kg
(21,120 Ib)
(21.0%)
10,230 kg
(22,505 Ib)
(14.5%)
VIIIB
458 kg
(1,009 Ib)
(6.0%)
6,589 kg
(14,495 Ib)
(81.0%)
Paint (0.34)
Batteries (0.59)
Dental (0.04)
Totals
FINAL DISPOSAL
Sewage
Landfill
NATURAL SOURCES
o Degassing
o Runoff
o Groundwater
8,497 kg 1,585 kg 14,191 kg
-K18.694 Ib) (3,487 Ib) (31,220 Ib)
(42.0%) (51.0%) (31.0%)
20,396 kg 3,106 kg 46,537 kg
(44,871 Ib) (6,832 Ib) (102,381 Ib)
24,273 kg
(53,401 Ib)
(35.0%)
70,039 kg
(154,084 Ib)
1,691 kg
p1720 Ib)
15,300 kg
(33,700 Ib)
7,400 kgc
(16,200 Ib)
32 kg
(70 Ib)
1,024 kg
(2,252 Ib)
(13.0%)
8,071 kg
(17,756 Ib)
a. Emission by sector as a percent of total emission to air (or water or land).
b. Percent of all emissions by sector to all emissions in the study region.
c. An estimated one-third (including mercury metal) is in soluble form; remainder moves rapidly into sediments.
Source: URS Research Company
68
-------
emissions to air account for almost 38 percent of all emissions; these air
emissions are almost entirely from the coal-burning power plants (Sector III).
(However, the quantities involved are still far less than those emitted by
degassing, even though a degassing rate about one-fifth of that for California
and Arizona study regions was assumed.) The large TVA coal-burning power plants
are in most cases located in or are contiguous to populated areas. However,
our analyses indicate that ground level concentrations are well within safe
standards. The added load of some 7,000 kg to the global burden is, of course,
another matter.
The Kentucky/Tennessee region was also analyzed on a county-by-county
basis. This analysis was carried out only for emissions to land and air, as
losses to water in the area are quite small, because of the rigorous standards
in effect for mercury discharges into this medium.
Figures 10 and 11 show where the greatest losses of mercury are occurring
in the Kentucky/Tennessee region. As would be expected, losses to land are most
substantial where population density is the highest, particularly near Louis-
ville and Memphis. The probable major source of these emissions is disposal
to landfills. The high values in southwestern Kentucky and southeastern
Tennessee (see Fig. 10) are due to chlor-alkali plant sludges that are disposed
of in landfills. Nashville, Chattanooga, Knoxville, and northern Kentucky are
high population centers where significant amounts of mercury are lost to land,
primarily from battery disposal but also from disposal of mercury-containing
lamps, tubes/switches, and control instruments.
Figure 11 is a graphic summary of air emissions for the region. Most of
the emissions are from Kentucky, where the greatest number of large power plants
are located, as well as two chlor-alkali facilities. Note that the highest
emissions are adjacent to areas of greatest population (e.g., Memphis, Louis-
ville, Nashville, and Knoxville).
In order to determine where mercury losses are occurring in areas that do
not conform to political boundaries, a portion of the Tennessee River between
Knoxville and Chattanooga was chosen for analysis. The area was arbitrarily
broken up into five "boxes," each covering approximately 250 square miles (see
Fig. 12). Boxes 1 and 5 surround the metropolitan areas of Knoxville and
69
-------
<1000
1000-5000
5000-10,000
>10,000
CINCINNATI
KENTUCKY
TENNESSEE
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure 10 MERCURY EMISSIONS TO LAND IN KENTUCKY/TENNESSEE
STUDY REGION, BY COUNTY, 1973 (pounds) "
-------
CINCINNATI
<500
500-1000
1000-2000
TENNESSEE
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure 11 MERCURY EMISSIONS TO AIR IN KENTUCKY/TENNESSEE
STUDY REGION, BY COUNTY, 1973 (pounds)
-------
1437 (A)
1078 (L)
10 (W)
Losses
to
Air 1003
Land 2116
/ Water 244
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Scale: I" = 30 Miles
Figure 12 LATITUDE/LONGITUDE ANALYSIS OF MERCURY EMISSIONS
ALONG TENNESSEE RIVER, KENTUCKY/TENNESSEE STUDY REGION, 1973
(pounds)
-------
Chattanooga, respectively. These two boxes account for most of the emissions
to air, primarily because of the presence of power plants that use mercury-
bearing coal for fuel.
No emissions are shown for Box 4, but this is not entirely accurate.
Emissions that are based on either population, manufacturing employment, or
a multifactor are represented by a point in the center of a county (or group
of counties) and may not always be picked up in a "box" representing two points
of longitude and two points of latitude. In contrast, specific emitters such
as power plants, chlor-alkali plants, smelters, and manufacturers of consumer
goods (e.g., batteries) can be so located.
Louisiana Study Region
This region was selected because it contains one of the largest petro-
chemical and oil refinery complexes in the nation. In support of this complex,
several chlor-alkali plants are also located in the region; among these are
three large mercury cell plants. As shown in Table 12, these three plants are
the chief contributors of mercury emissions in the study region, particularly
of emissions to land, which represent 79 percent of the total. However, these
losses are to industrial landfills, which are normally lined with barrier
material to ensure that the high water table in the state does not cause leach-
ing problems. Thus the emissions can be considered as nonavailable to man's
environment.
Aside from the chlor-alkali plant emissions, the unregulated discharges,
which include those from industrial uses of natural gas (which are very high
because the state is a major producer) and from refineries are important con-
siderations, particularly with respect to air. However, the total quantities
involved are relatively small, and it does not appear that petrochemical an'd
refinery operations are of special concern.
Disregarding the chlor-alkali contributions, the final consumption sectors
(VTIIA and VIIIB) are about on a par with those in the rest of the nation.
Pesticides, primarily for nonagricultural applications, are important mercury
emitters. Incineration is fairly widely practiced, so that mercury contribu-
tions to air (from Sector VIIIB in particular) are a bit above the national
average.
73
-------
TABLE 12. - Mercury Emissions to the Environment in the Louisiana Study Region
Sector
I
II
III
V
VIIIA
Air Water
Mercury Mining $ Smelting
Other Mining 8 Smelting
Unregulated Sources
Livestock
Electric Utilities
Nat. Gas Industr,
Nat. Gas - Comm.
and Res. '
Tars and Asphalt
Refineries
Fuel Oil
(0.02)
(0.18)
(0.42)
(0.06)
(0.12)
(0.13)
(0.07)
Manufacturing and
Processing
Foam-Caustic
Other
Chlor-Alkali
(0.01)
(0.02)
(0.97)
Final Consumption:
Comm, 1} Industrial
Lamps
Controls/ Instr.
Tubes/Switches
(0.08)
(0.20)
(0.31)
1,519 kg 56 kg
-* 3,343 Ib) (124 Ib)
(21%) a (6%)
2,855 kg 310 kg
»>(6,282 Ib) (683 Ib)
(40%) (32%)
26 kg 163 kg
» (57 Ib) (379 Ib)
(0%) (17%)
Land
'.
333 kg
(733 Ib)
d%r
27,838 kg
(61,243 Ib)
(79%)
2,027 kg
(4,460 Ib)
(6%)
Total
1,908 kg
(4,200.1b)
(5%)b
31,003 kg
(68,208 Ib)
(71%)
2,216 kg
(4,876 Ib)
(5%)
Recycle
_
~
125 kg
(275 Ib)
(8%)
1,032 kg
(2,269 Ib)
(68%)
VIIIB
Pharmaceuticals (0.02)
Paint (0.32)
Batteries (0.64)
Dental (0.04)
Totals
FINAL DISPOSAL
Sewage
Landfill
NATURAL SOURCES
o Degassing
o Runoff
o Groundwater
2.753 kg 426 kg
».(6,056 Ib) (937 Ib)
(39%) (45%)
7,153 kg 955 kg
(15,738 Ib) (2,103 Ib)
43 kg 259 kg
(95 Ib) (570 Ib)
5,114 kg
(11,251 Ib)
(14%)
35,312 kg
(77,687 Ib)
273 kg
(601 Ib)
8,293 kg
(18,244 Ib)
(19%)
43,420 kg
(95,528 Ib)
573 kg
(1,266 Ib)
4,400 kg
(9,590 Ib}
550 kgc
(1,210 Ib)
264 kg
(580 Ib)
36,7 kg
(808 Ib)
(24%)
1,524 kg
(3,352 Ib)
a. Emission by sector as a percent of total emissions to air (of water or land).
b. Percent of all emissions by sector to all emissions in the study region.
c. An estimated one-third (including mercury metal) is in soluble form; remainder moves rapidly into sediments.
Source: URS Research Company
74
-------
Because the degassing rate assumed for the state was low, degassing
from the earth's crust (which in this region includes a substantial
amount of water bodies) contributed much less mercury to the environment
than did man-related sources. Runoff contributions were also somewhat
less than man-related discharges. (As discussed earlier, these runoff
values do not include any mercury content of water "imported" into the region.
Thus the Mississippi River, which has a mercury burden of its own accumulated
through its passage through many states, does not show up as a major natural
source within the study region. However, it is estimated that the total emis-
sions to water for the study region are actually less than 5 percent of those
carried through the study region by the Mississippi itself.)*
Industry in Louisiana deserves credit for undertaking the necessary control
measures to reduce mercury discharges to meet the standards established by the
EPA. Nevertheless, it must be noted that the state itself seems to have a
laissez-faire attitude toward industrial waste dischargers. Perhaps the reli-
ance of the state economy on the vast petrochemical and allied industries is
responsible for this attitude. In any case, there is a considerable contrast
in the matter of mercury emissions from industrial complexes in this region
compared with those in other states where regulatory actions are even more
strict than those mandated by the EPA.
New York/New Jersey Study Region
Table 13 gives the results of the analysis of the New York/New Jersey
study region. The study area includes parts of New York, New Jersey, Pennsyl-
vania, Delaware, and Connecticut and contains a varied range of mercury
contributors.
It has been argued by some dischargers of mercury to the Mississippi River
that for this reason alone it is foolish to be concerned about the discharge
of low-level mercurial wastes to the Mississippi. We cannot condone this
viewpoint, since widespread adoption of this attitude could only act to
increase rather than to stabilize or decrease the mercurial burden presently
carried by receiving waters.
75
-------
TABLE 13. - Mercury Emissions to the Environment in the New York/New Jersey Study Region
Sector
Air
Water
Land
Total
Recycle
I
II
III
VIIIA
VIIIB
I Mercury Mining and Smelting
Other Mining and Smelting
Unregulated Sources
Livestock
Electric Utilities
Natural Gas
Tars and Asphalt
Refineries
Fuel Oil
Coal
Blast Furnaces
CO. 00)
(0.37)
(0.06)
(0.14)
(0.02)
(0.27)
(0.13)
(0.01)
Manufacturing and
Processing
Foam-Caustic
Catalysts
Other
Chlor-Alkali
Organic Chemicals
Inorganic Chemicals
Medicinal Chemicals
Tubes/Switches
Lamps
Batteries
Controls/Instruments
(0.03)
(0.01)
(0.28)
(0.58)
(0.01)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.05)
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.03)
Final Consumption:
Comm. and Industrial
Lamps
Controls/Instruments
Tubes/Switches
Laboratory
Pesticides
Foam/Plastics
(0.17) •
(0.38)
(0.21)
(0.04)
(0.17)
(0.03)
Final Consumption:
Consumer Goods
Pharmaceuticals
Paint
Batteries
Dental
(0.03)
(0.27) -
(0.67)
(0.03)
10,473 kg
(23,040 Ib)
161 kg
(354 Ib)
(2%)a
2,021 kg
(4,447 Ib)
(2%)a
12,655 kg
(27,841 Ib)
(8%)5
3,489 kg
(7,693 Ib)
(7%)
2,467 kg
(5,439 Ib)
(24%)
16,608 kg
(36,621 Ib)
(18%)
22,564 kg
(49,753 Ib)
(15%)
3,306 kg
(7,290 Ib)
(6%)
2,992 kg
(6,598 Ib)
(28%)
26,394 kg
(58,198 Ib)
(28%)
32,692 kg
(72,086 Ib)
(21%)
a. Emission by sector as percent of total emissions to air (or land or water).
b. Percent of all emissions by sector to all emissions in study region,
c. An estimated one-third (including mercury metal) in soluble form; remainder moves rapidly into sediments.
Source: URS Research Company
1,745 kg
(3,840 Ib)
(8%)
16,339 kg
(36,028 Ib)
(76%)
Pharmaceuticals (0.03)
Paint (0.27)
Batteries (0.67)
Dental (0.03)
Totals
FINAL DISPOSAL
Sewage
Landfill
NATURAL SOURCES
o Degassing
o Runoff
o Groundwater
32,901 kg 4,844 kg
— » (72,547 Ib) (10,680 Ib)
(66%) (46%)
50,169 kg 10,464 kg
(110,570 Ib) (23,071 Ib)
107 kg 5,063 kg
(235 Ib) (11,164 Ib)
47,985 kg
(105,806 Ib)
(52%)
93,008 kg
(205,072 Ib)
2,491 kg
(5,494 Ib)
85,730 kg
(189,033 Ib)
(56%)
153,641 kg
(338,713 Ib)
7,661 kg
(16,893 Ib)
4,800 kg
(10,550 Ib)
170 kgc
(375 Ib)
137 kg
(301 Ib)
3,360 kg
(7,391 Ib)
(16%)
19,875 kg
(47,259 Ib)
76
-------
Chemical manufacturing facilities, which are highly concentrated in north-
eastern New Jersey, contribute relatively small amounts of mercury, principally
because their water discharges are closely monitored by regulatory agencies.
Electrical equipment manufacturing, although it too is concentrated here, also
contributes relatively small amounts of mercury to the environment.
Mercury emissions to air from other sources are more significant. New
York City and communities in its vicinity incinerate up to 40 percent of their
solid wastes. Via incineration, mercury-containing batteries, lamps, control
instruments, tubes, and switches contribute significant amounts of mercury to
the atmosphere. For example, in a test conducted of New York's 73rd Street
incinerator, mercury concentrations ranged from 4.8 to 9 ppm (Ref. 106).
With 635 metric tons of solid waste incinerated daily at the facility, this
amounts to approximately 3.0 to 5.7 kg of mercury per day, or 1,100 to 2,100
kg of mercury per year released to the air from this incinerator alone. (This
assumes that all the mercury becomes volatilized, which of course is not the
case, but the figures do provide a range that probably encompasses the true
value.) For all seven New York City incinerators, the mercury emitted to the
air could range from 10,000 to 19,000 kg per year. Our inventory of the city
and adjacent areas indicated that just over 17,000 kg of mercury are emitted to
the air from all sources. Assuming our inventory is reasonably accurate,
incineration is obviously one of the prime contributors of emissions to air.
In contrast to the other study regions, in the New York/New Jersey region
natural sources contributed substantially less than did man-related sources.
This is attributable to the very high population density of this relatively
small area. The implications of population density, and of population-at-risk
with respect to exposure to mercury in one form or another, will be discussed
later.
As for the Kentucky/Tennessee study region, the New York/New Jersey region
was also analyzed on a county-by-county basis, in order to pinpoint zones of
relatively high or low mercury losses. This analysis was completed for all
three environmental parameters, even though water losses, because of rigorous
controls, are quite low.
Figure 13 shows that the greatest loss of mercury to the air occurs in the
Philadelphia and New York metropolitan areas. One of the primary sources is
77
-------
CONNECTICUT
PENNSYLVANIA
STUDY REGION
•• STATE BORDERS
COUNTY BORDERS
DELAWARE
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure 13 MERCURY EMISSIONS TO AIR IN NEW YORK/NEW JERSEY
STUDY REGION, BY COUNTY, 1973
(thousands of pounds)
78
-------
consumer paint usage. Other major contributors are fossil fuels and incinera-
tion. Figure 14 shows that emissions to water are also highest in the New York
and Philadelphia metropolitan areas and in northeastern New Jersey. Mercury
emissions to water are well controlled by law, and our analysis indicates that
dental and pharmaceutical uses, "other," and vat dye manufacture contribute the
greatest quantities to this medium.
Figure 15 shows that land emissions follow the same general pattern. The
principal losses arise from the disposal of electrical apparatus and chlor-
alkali plant sludges.
A latitude/longitude analysis was undertaken to compare various sections
within the area to identify "hot spots" of emissions. Figure 16 shows the
areas chosen for analysis and Table 14 presents the results, showing mercury
losses per 1,000 population. The most striking feature of the table is the
large per capita loss to land in eastern New Jersey (Box C). Primary contribu-
tors in the point source category are a chlor-alkali plant, sludges from chemi-
cal plants, and users of nonfarm pesticides.
The upper and lower portions of the Long Island Sound estuary (Boxes D
and E) were compared. The upper estuary contributes much more mercury, on a
per capita basis, then does the lower. Since the upper estuary (primarily
Connecticut) is much more industrialized than the lower (Long Island), this
result is not surprising.
National Inventory
Mercury emissions in the coterminous United States were determined in a
manner similar to that employed for each study region. However, these estimates
were reached independently and are not a summation of results for the study
regions. The results for the national inventory are found in Table 15, which
shows mercury losses by sector and SIC category, and in Table 16, which shows
losses by state, with total losses to land, water, air, and recycling (with
contributions from sewage, urban runoff, and natural sources).
A study of Table 15 indicates that in 1973 the total man-related losses
in the United States were an estimated 1,525,100 kg. Of this total 31 percent
was directed to air, 6 percent to water, and 63 percent to land. An additional
79
-------
CONNECTICUT
PENNSYLVANIA^.-}*'
STUDY REGION
........... STATE BORDERS
COUNTY BORDERS
DELAWARE
.'.•"•".•. •••"•'
'.•••.••• •(
• ••••••••'
.*.*».*.*«•«,
1-1.5
.5-1.0
«=: .5
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure 14 MERCURY EMISSIONS TO WATER IN NEW YORK/NEW JERSEY
STUDY REGION, BY COUNTY, 1973
(thousands of pounds)
80
-------
CONNECTICUT
PENNSYLVANIA'
STUDY REGION
•••••• STATE BORDERS
COUNTY BORDERS
DELAWARE
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure 15 MERCURY EMISSIONS TO LAND IN NEW YORK/NEW JERSEY
STUDY REGION, BY COUNTY, 1973
(thousands of pounds)
81
-------
CONNECTICUT
PENNSYLVANIA'
STUDY REGION
STATE BORDERS
COUNTY BORDERS
DELAWARE
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure 16 LATITUDE/LONGITUDE ANALYSIS AREAS IN
NEW YORK/NEW JERSEY STUDY REGION
82
-------
oo
u»
TABLE 14. - Per Capita Distribution of Mercury losses to Air, Land, and Water
in Five Areas of New York/New Jersey Study Region*
(kilograms per 1,000 population)
Losses from .
Point Sources to
Air
Land
Water
Totals
Losses from
All Sources to
Air
Land
Water
Totals
A
New York City
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.9
2.1
2.8
0.4
5.3
B
Philadelphia
1.0
0.4
0.1
1.5
2.0
3.9
0.4
6.3
C
Eastern
New ^Jersey
1.1
5.4
0.5
7.0
2.4
9.8
0.9
13.1
D
Upper
Estuary
0.6
0.9
0.1
1.6
2.1
3.8
0.5
6.4
E
Lower
Estuary
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.6
1.1
1.5
0.2
2.8
a. See Figure 17 for area delineation.
b. Includes losses from Sectors I, II, HI, and V.
c. Includes losses from all sectors.
Source: URS Research Company.
-------
TABLE 15. - Total Mercury Losses in 1973 for the Coterminous United States,
By Sector and SIC Category
(thousands of. kilograms)
Sector SIC No.
I
1092M
1092P
II
1021
1031
3331
3333
3241
3274
3332
III
021
29 11C
291 1M
2951C
3312M
4091C
49110
4924C
491 1C
r
2. SB
2819M
2851M
— 2879M
^ 2833M
2812
2261
28S1F
38291M
3079P
__ 3.0
36292M
36410M
^_ 36420M
[IIA
2.5A
2879N
— 2879A
38291C
36292C
26410C
7391
Description
Mercury Mining fi Smelting
Mercury Mining
Mercury Processing
(including secondary)
Subtotals
Other Mining
Copper Mining
Zinc and Lead Mining
Copper Smelting
Zinc Smelting
Cement Processing
Lime Processing
Lead Smelting
Subtotals
Unregulated Sources
Livestock
Fuel Oil Residential, Com-
mercial, Industrial
Refineries
Tars and Asphalt
Coke Ovens
Coal - Residential, Commercial,
Industrial
Utilities - Oil and Natural Gas
Natural Gas - Residential, Com-
mercial, Industrial
Utilities - Coal
Subtotals
Manufacturing 8 Processing
Caustic
Catalyst Manufacture
Paint Manufacture
Pesticide Manufacture
Pharmaceuticals Manufacture
Chlor-Alkali
Textiles
Paint Formulation
Control Instrument Manufacture
Catalyst Usage
Other
Tubes/Switches Manufacture
Lamp Manufacture
Battery Manufacture
Subtotals
Final Consumption:
Comn>. 6 Industrial
Urethane Pt Misc.
Nonagricultural Pesticide Use
Agricultural Pesticide Use
Control Instrument Consumption
Tubes/Switches Consumption
Lamp Consumption
Laboratory Usage
Subtotals
Total Losses
Air
0.01
7.84
7.85
(1.7%)
0.02
0.00
40.77
4.59
0.50
0.08
4.75
50.71
(10.8%)
0.00
16.94
1.15
1.10
7.16
9.97
11.99
15.46
40.71
104.48
(22.2%)
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
14.84
0.00
0.29
0.00
0.05
10.28
0.00
0.40
0.13
26.00
(5.5%)
0.12
4.39
0.00
16.54
7. S3
6.07
2.28
36.93
(7.8%)
Water
0.00
0.00
0.00
(0.0%)
0.01
0.00
2.26
0.25
0.25
0.04
0.26
3.07
(3.5%)
0.0
0.00
0.00
1.67
0.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.18
(2.5%)
7.61
0.02
0.20
0.06
0.02
2.93
0.15
0.35
0.00
0.10
10.23
0.00
0.00
0.05
21.72
(24.8%)
0.00
17.56
2.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.92
26.31
(30.0%)
to
Land
0.01
0.41
0.42
(0.0%)
0.08
0.01
2.26
0.25
1.76
0.29
0.26
4.91
(0.5%)
17.70
0.02
1.15
14.99
2.56
1.11
0.01
0.01
4.52
42.07
(4.4%)
1.90
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
226.83
7.63
0.00
1.97
18.85
8.70
1.57
1.34
2.49
271.33
(28.1%)
2.22
21.95
16.02
107.50
46.26
37.31
1.59
232.85
(24.1%)
Total
Mercury
Lost
0.02
8.25
8.27
(0.5%)
0.11
0.01
45.29
5.09
2.51
0.41
5.27
58.09
(3.8%)
17.70
16.96
2.30
17.76
10.23
11.08
12.00
15.47
45.23
148.73
(9.8%)
9.51
0.02
0.26
0.06
0.02
244.60
7.78
0.64
1.97
19.00
29.21
1.57
1.74
2.67
319.05
(21.0%)
2.34
43.90
18.85
124.04
53.79
43.38
9.79
296.09
(19.4%)
Total
Recycled
0.00
0.00
0.00
(0.0%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(0.0%)
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
0.00
0.00
1.97
0.00
20.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
20.66
(14.1%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
82.69
0.00
0.00
12.98
95.67
(65.2%)
84
-------
TABLE 15. - Total Mercury Losses in 1973 for the Coterminous United States,
By Sector and SIC category)
(thousands of kilograms)
(continued)
Sector
SIC No.
Description
Total Losses to
Water
Land
Total
Mercury
Lost
Total
Recycled
VIIIB
Final Consumption:
Consumer Goods:
2834C
2851C
36420C
8021
Total
Final Disposal
Sewage
Urban Runoff
Natural Sources
o Degassing
Pharmaceuticals Consumption
Paint Consumption
Battery Consumption
Dental Applications
Subtotals
o Runoff and Groundwater
1.04
173.61
69.71
0.93
245.29
(52.0%)
471.26
4.01
0.00
1,018.70
0.00
17.77
0.00
0.00
16.65
34.42
(39.2%)
87.70
19.92
11.70
0.00
188.30
2.09
9.14
403.30
0.00
414.53
(42.9%)
966.11
22.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
20.90
182.75
473.01
17.58
694.24
(45.5%)
1,525.07
46.80
11.70
1,018.70
188.30
0.00
0.00
24.89
5.55
30.44
(20.7%)
146.77
-
-
*•
a. The values of losses in some cases vary slightly from those given in Section IV (Technology Assessment) because of
refinements in the data base that are reflected in the latter section. However, such differences as do occur are
small and do not affect the findings of the report; hence no attempt has been made to adjust the values in this
table.
Source: URS Research Company.
85
-------
TABLE 16. - Total Mercury Losses in 1973 for the Coterminous United States,
by State
(thousands of kilograms)
00
Ol
State
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Losses
Land
41.02
6.88
7.09
65.22
7.76
11.72
10.58
20.59
28.17
2.63
47.60
21.12
10.87
11.02
29.45
46.15
7.36
13.25
20.93
33.03
from Man-Made Sources to
Water
1.56
1.76
0.72
7.57
0.94
1.29
0.35
2.41
1.92
0.40
4.56
2.27
1.04
1.41
1.35
1.53
0.45
1.57
2.32
3.72
Air
9.89
22.28
3.04
36.75
3.51
6.05
1.93
12.07
9.53
2.78
22.44
12.17
5.65
3.66
10.51
8.38
2.54
7.56
11.37
18.83
Recycling
2.46
0.96
1.32
13.10
1.17
2.85
0.44
3.35
3.46
0.48
9.21
4.79
1.77
1.25
2.12
1.76
0.82
2.64
4.71
7.77
Losses from
Natural Sources to
Degassing
9.59
85.77
9.82
118.25
39.24
1.84
0.37
10.25
21.96
31.27
10.54
6.82
10.58
15.46
7.50
8.49
5.85
3.74
2.96
10.74
Runoff
4.14
11.33
1.97
26.30
6.01
0.01
0.01
0.77
2.73
6.30
1.41
3.22
5.88
5.68
2.18
1.18
0.49
0.30
0.14
0.63
Losses
from Sewage
0.59
0.46
0.89
5.20
0.51
0.58
0.13
1.53
0.96
0.15
2.78
1.12
0.64
0.52
0.65
0.82
0.19
0.96
1.32
2.01
Losses from
Urban Runoff
0.39
0.19
0.15
1.40
0.20
0.15
0.05
0.71
0.35
0.08
0.64
0.36
0.28
0.15
0.11
0.27
Of A
.10
0.40
0.26
0.45
-------
TABLE 16. - Mercury Losses for 1973 for the Coterminous United States,
by State
(thousand of kilograms)
(continued)
CD
>4
Losses from Man-Made Sources to
State
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
\f*l^*r »
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
• •_•_ <_
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Land
• 13.94
7.59
17.24
4.17
6.15
1.89
2.94
41.90
2.98
78.44
25.28
6.39
43.48
10.50
7.13
46.22
3.94
12.98
3.44
31.67
59.43
+}& • T^»*
3.62
IXC
• **o
15.33
22.43
Water
1.51
0.82
2.02
0.74
0.71
0.32
0.32
3.37
0.51
7.14
2.17
0.97
4.49
1.27
0.81
5.12
0.41
1.15
0.42
2.27
4.70
0.72
0.15
w • * **
1.76
1.50
Air
7.02
5.11
13.78
3.97
2.31
5.64
1.44
14.57
4.87
35.47
12.23
0.91
25.33
4.57
3.61
34.83
1.82
5.49
1.11
10.00
25.89
7.84
0.69
8.14
8.98
Recycling
2.51
1.41
3.29
0.28
0.78
0.20
0.67
6.18
0.37
13.03
4.65
0.19
9.51
1.38
1.33
10.27
0.90
2.27
0.27
3.18
6.68
0.57
0.29
3.05
2.13
Losses from
Natural Sources to
Degassing
14.94
8.94
13.04
55.01
14.46
83.10
3.42
1.42
45.91
18.10
18.46
13.10
7.75
13.00
72.74
17.00
0.20
5.71
14.36
7.81
49.56
31.03
.2.19
15.04
25.18
Runoff
0.81
5.97
4.28
4.56
1.87
4.18
0.10
0.17
20.66
0.61
1.25
0.91
1.80
25.47
2.60
0.83
0.02
1.14
1.27
5.24
18.53
2.98
0.15
1.07
0.87
Losses
from Sewage
0.89
0.42
0.95
0.15
0.36
0.13
0.15
1.80
0.24
4.38
0.94
0.14
2.49
0.61
0.45
2.72
0.21
0.49
0.15
1.05
2.78
0.28
0.09
0.99
0.74
Losses from
Urban Runoff
0.26
0.13
0.38
0.07
0.10
0.07
0.05
0.18
0.10
0.59
0.33
0.05
0.57
0.65
0.13
0.43
0.03
0.45
0.09
0.39
1.43
0.12
0.02
0.39
0.14
-------
TABLE 16. - Total Mercury Losses in 1973 for the Coterminous United States,
by State
(thousands of kilograms)
(continued)
State
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Losses
Land
31.22
20.71
1.18
966.08
from Man-Made Sources to
Water
0.80
2.31
0.11
87.73
Air
5.36
8.39
0.74
471.05
Recyling
1.01
3.68
0.13
146.60
Losses
from
Natural Sources to
Degassing
9.10
10.30
36.76
1,018.67
Runoff
0.58
0.92
2.90
192.42
Losses
from Sewage
0.34
1.02
0.08
46.55
Losses from
Urban Runoff
0.11
0.11
0.04
13.37
00
00
Source: URS Research Company
-------
146,800 kg were recycled. Sector VIIIB (personal consumption) accounted for
45.5 percent of the total, followed by 21 percent for manufacturing (Sector V)
and 19 percent for industrial and commercial consumption (Sector VIIIA). Total
losses through sewage were estimated to be 46,800 kg, as compared with a total
of 87,700 kg from all man-related emissions to water—a reasonable comparison.
The estimated emissions from natural sources were slightly more than 1 million
kg (as compared to 471,000 kg to air from man-related sources) from surface
runoff and 188,000 kg from underground waters (as compared with 87,700 kg from
man-related losses to water). Finally, on a national basis, an estimated
12,000 kg of mercury are lost as a result of urban runoff.
In Table 17 the results for the national inventory are compared with those
of the various regions. In Part A of the table the comparison is by sector
and indicates the differences found in the regions studied. As discussed
earlier, there were significant variations attributable to specific sources
in each region. This suggests that the choice of regions for study was very
valuable in terms of highlighting different use and discharge patterns.
In Part B of the table, total man-related losses (by environmental recep-
tor) are compared on a national and a regional basis. Again significant
differences between regions can be noted. However, if the major perturbations
in a given region are recognized and discounted (for example copper smelters in
the Arizona region), the results for the regions approach the national norm.
In Part C of the table, total man-related losses versus total mercury
losses from natural sources are listed for both the national and regional
results. As anticipated, the ratios between man-related and natural (degassing)
emissions to air vary widely, as do those for man-related emissions to water
versus those for runoff plus groundwater. On a regional basis these ratios are
strongly affected by the amounts of man-related emissions (amounts that are
primarily related to population density and to manufacturing activities that
utilize mercury) and by the relative size of the region. The New York/New
Jersey study region, with the highest population density and the smallest total
land area of the selected study regions, is greatly above the national average
with respect to both ratios.
89
-------
TABLE 17. - Comparison of Regional and National Inventory Results
A. Total Man-Related Losses, by Sector
Percent of Total Losses
Sector
I
II
III
V
VIIIA
VIIIB
Name
Mercury Mining
Other Mining
Unregulated
Manufacturing
Consumption- Ind .
Consumption-Pers .
Total
B.
Losses to
Air
Water
Land
Total
National
0.5%
4.0
10.0
21.0
19.0
45.5
100.0%
California
11.5%
0.5
5.0
5.0
20.0
58.0
100.0%
Arizona
0%
64.0
4.0
2.0
6.0
24.0
100.0%
Kentucky/
Tennessee
0%
1.0
44.5
12.0
0.5
42.0
100.0%
Louisiana
0%
0
5.0
71.0
5.0
19.0
100.0%
New York/
.New Jersey
0%
0
21.0
7.0
6.0
66.0
100.0%
Total Man-Related Losses, by Environmental Receptor
National
31.0%
6.0
63.0
100.0%
C. Ratio of Total
Ratio
Man-Related (air)
Degassing
Man-Related (water)
Runoff
National
0.46%
0.47
California
31.0%
8.0
61.0
100.0%
Man-Related
California
0.41%
0.49
Percent of
Arizona
68.0%
6.0
26.0
100.0%
Losses to
Arizona
0.28%
0.34
Total Losses
Kentucky/
Tennessee
29.0%
4.5
66.5
100.0%
Losses from
Kentucky/
Tennessee
1.37%
0.42
Louisiana
16.5%
2.5
81.0
100.0%
New York/
New Jersey
33.0%
7.0
60.0
100.0%
Natural Resources
Louisiana
1.69%
1.17
New York/
New Jersey
10.47%
34.08
Source: URS Research Company
90
-------
Because population density is an important consideration, the emission
data in Table 16 were normalized on the basis of population. The mean and
standard deviations, in terms of kilograms of mercury emitted per 1,000 popu-
lation, were as follows: air, 1.81 ± 0.53; water, 0.41 ± .08; land, 4.55 ±
1.20. The results for each state were then plotted on maps that showed the
average case as ± 1 standard deviation, variations as greater than 15.0, and
hot spots as greater than 25.0. These results are shown in Figures 17 through
19. In all cases, it was possible to identify hot spots as being related to
either chlor-alkali plants or copper smelting facilities. However, the
presence of such activities in a given state did not necessarily result in
overall elevated concentrations for the region.
Risk Analysis
In general our findings indicated that final consumption (Sectors VIIIA
and VIIIB) represented relatively constant emissions on a per capita basis both
nationally and for each study region. Indeed, the more highly populated study
regions have proportionately higher total mercury losses. But at the same
time we recognized that total mercury emissions might also be related to land
area. To test this possible relationship we plotted, for various study
regions and for selected states, emissions to land, air, and water (in terms
of kilograms of mercury per square kilometer) as a function of population
density (in terms of thousands of persons per square kilometer). Initially
the correlation was not obvious, but when we discounted the hot spots identi-
fied in Figures 17 through 19, we obtained the surprisingly good correlations
shown in Figure 20. Emissions per square kilometer increase proportionately
to the population, but the rate of increase is markedly different for land,
air, and water emissions.
The relationships shown in Figure 20 can be reduced to a simple equation:
2 2
Emissions (in kg)/km = K (population/km )
where the value of K is:
91
-------
NO
Kg per 1,000 population
>4.0
>2.34
<1.28
2.34-1.28
Hot spots (due to copper smelting)
> Standard deviation
I deviation
Mean
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure 17 ANNUAL ELEVATED MERCURY LOSSES TO AIR
-------
01
Kg per 1 ,000 population
>0.8
<0.33
0.49-0.33
Hot spots (due to copper smelting)
?ig;gsj3 >Standard deviation
RTTT33 < Standard deviation
Mean
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure 18 ANNUAL ELEVATED MERCURY LOSSES TO WATER
-------
ID
Kg per 1,000 population
>9.0
>5.7
<3.4
5.7-3.4
Hot spots (due to chlor-alkali)
l > Standard deviation
]< Standard deviation
Mean
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure 19 ANNUAL ELEVATED MERCURY LOSSES TO LAND
-------
en
I I I F~~lI
Note: O indicates selected study region
• indicates state data (from Table 16)
N.Y.-NJ.^ —I
I I I I
I I I II
7i m _~ TJ
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 480 520 560 600 640 680 720 ~760
Number of Persons/Square Kilometer
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure 20 MERCURY EMISSIONS AS A FUNCTION OF POPULATION DENSITY
-------
Air = 0.00180
Water = 0.000385
Land = 0.00425
This equation can be further simplified by eliminating areal considerations,
so that we obtain the following per capita emission factors:
Per Capita
Receiving Emission Factor
Medium (grams/per son)
Air 1.80
Water 0.385
Land 4.25
These factors make it possible to estimate quickly the expected emissions from
any population base.*
From this simple model it is possible to show the impact on a community
of new activities that emit mercury and to assess the importance of emissions
from natural sources on a given population—notably the population at risk.
To illustrate, consider two cities with the following characteristics:
City A City B
Area (km2) 100 200
Population 50,000 500,000
2
Density (pop./km ) 500 2,500
Per capita air
emissions (kg/person) 0.00180 0.00180
Total annual mercury
contribution to air (kg) 90 900
* The usefulness of the regional and national inventories is again demonstrated
by these per capita emission factors. Based on national values only, the
per capita emission factors were found to be 1.40g/person for air, 0.304 for
water, and 3.24 for land. The values derived from Figure 20 then more nearly
represent the average case (which includes the effects of metropolitan areas)
and can safely be used to estimate per capita emission factors for the higher
population densities found in metropolitan areas.
96
-------
Now consider the addition of a new industrial activity designed to release
to the air no more than 0.1 kg of mercury per day (36.5 kg per year). For City
A this added burden represents an increase of over 40 percent, but for City B
the added burden is only 4 percent. In other words, the added burden has a
much more noticeable effect on the quality of the air in the smaller community.
But contributions from natural sources must also be considered. Using the
national average degassing rate of 0.337 kg/km2 per year, City A will add
another 33.7 kg from this source to its man-related base contribution of 90 kg
per year—or an additional 37 percent. For City B the additional burden from
natural degassing within its own boundaries will equal 67.4 kg per year, an
increase of only 7.5 percent over man-related contributions.*
In terms of a population exposed to an additional mercury burden, it would
appear that City B (high population density) would be least affected. However,
if mercury vapor concentrations are already high, a small incremental increase
would merely perpetuate an already bad situation, at the same time exposing a
large group of people. On the other hand, if a mercury-emit ting activity is
established in an area of lower population density, this new source adds sig-
nificantly to the assumed low concentrations which are already present. There-
fore the impact is small in terms of people exposed and resultant concentra-
tions, although the relative increase in mercury burden is unquestionably high.
The problem then, in evaluating new or existing emitters, is to limit emissions
to the environment to the greatest extent possible, so that the resultant
impacts are as negligible as possible.
This case study illustrates the fact that the population itself could be
the major source of the mercury pollution it experiences (obviously point
source and industrial discharges, if not well controlled, could be much
greater—at least locally—than population-derived emissions). The case study
We recognize that metropolitan areas will almost certainly degas at different
rates from those for the general countryside, and that "incoming" air carries
a global mercury burden. However, we use degassing within the corporate
boundaries for illustrative purposes and to indicate the importance of various
sources of mercury to the inhabitants.
97
-------
also suggests that natural sources and background can be important factors in
the total picture. On a regional basis natural sources also have some interest-
ing implications. Figure 20 shows that, the average annual degassing rate for
the nation is 0.34 kg/km , which can be equated with the contribution from a
population density of 190 persons per square kilometer—that of the State of
Ohio, say. The average annual contribution from runoff from surface waters
2
plus groundwaters accounts, on the national basis, for 0.062 kg/km , equivalent
to the contribution from a population density of 150 persons per square kilo-
meters.* Thus, even in smaller but heavily populated states, natural sources
are important.
SELECTION OF TECHNOLOGIES FOR STUDY
One of the reasons for developing regional and national inventories is to
identify emitters that, on either a local or a national basis, generate suffi-
cient waste products that are emitted to the environment to be of special con-
cern. For mercury, these emissions are summarized, for the national basis, in
Figure 21. From the figure certain obvious emitters can be identified; these
require further consideration as far as technologic and economic evaluation is
concerned (for example, chlor-alkali in the manufacturing sector and battery
consumption in the final consumption sector). A brief discussion of the infor-
mation shown in Figure 21 and detailed in Table 15 follows.
In Sector I, mercury mining and processing contribute only 0.5 percent of
the total mercury lost in the nation annually, although for the State of Califor-
nia this value rises to 11.5 percent. Because mercury production is an essential
link in this study and because its production in the United States may well
increase significantly in future years as market demand grows, it was selected
* We hesitate to place much importance on applying a contribution factor from
natural waters to even regional comparisons because of the variations in
stream flow, geology, etc. of different regions. However, the value for the
national average, encompassing all types of situations, is believed valid and
can be used cautiously for purposes of making comparisons.
98
-------
to
to
SECTOR I
Mercury Production
SECTOR II
Smelting and Processing
SECTOR III
Electric Utilities
Refineries and Coke Ovens
All Other Fossil Fuels
Livestock
SECTOR V
Chlor-Alkali
Chemical Manufacturing
and Processing
Electrical Manufacturing
Miscellaneous ("Other")
SECTOR VIII
Control Instrument Use
Tubes, Switches, and Lamps
Nonagricultural Pesticides
Laboratory
Dental Uses
lint Consumption
-**-
2
:•*••
;j_
.•A'.-'-'--'/-.''Vr:?:.-''.-.--'.;M ' h££gSESftS&:Ctlvv T-'^-y^J
Water
I | Air
ES£oEl Land
254
3C
3€3*EF2ZSS3 473
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Thousands of Kilograms of Mercury
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure 21 SUMMARY OF MERCURY LOSSES TO THE U.S. ENVIRONMENT
BY SECTOR AND CLASS, 1973
-------
few: study. However, the secondary mercury processing industry—that is, the
recovery of mercury from its final use—is not considered. This industry was
well covered in a previous study (Ref. 38). Also, contacts with representatives
of the industry indicated that no substantial changes have occurred in recent
years. Certainly the industry is well aware of the hazards of mercury, and
total (estimated) emissions are very small.
In Sector II, copper smelting accounts for more than 75 percent of all
emissions. For this reason, copper mining and smelting were selected for
further study. However, it was not considered necessary to study zinc and
lead mining and smelting, since the mercury content of these ores is similar
to that for copper and the technology is not very different with respect to
the ways in which mercury is released to the environment. (It might be noted
that some recovery of mercury from zinc smelters is currently under way in the
country.) Cement and lime processing were considered initially as a possible
source of mercury release to the atmosphere, but it was soon found that the
total quantities involved are low and that the impact, even on a regional basis,
is insignificant. Phosphate rock, which may be heated in the kiln or applied
directly to land as a fertilizer, was also considered as a possible source of
serious losses to the environment. While it is true that phosphate rock does
have a background mercury content, even with the high volume of usage the total
quantities of mercury involved do not present any problem with respect to
processing or concentration in soils. A more serious problem, discussed under
Final Disposal Technology fin the next section, is the possible accumulation of
heavy metals (one of which;is mercury) in soils in which sewage sludges are
used as an additive.
Sector III, which includes miscellaneous unregulated mercury sources,
considers emissions from the numerous applications of fossil fuels in the
economy; it also includes the item of livestock manure. This manure, which is
estimated to account for losses of almost 18,000 kg of mercury per year, pri-
marily to land, represents about 1 percent of the total mercury losses in the
nation. However, this loss is in a dilute form and is generally restricted to
areas of low population. Also, the livestock industry is actively pursuing
means of preventing animal discharges from reaching public watercourses where
100
-------
they might have serious consequences (the emphasis in this search, of course,
is on disease and BOD). For these reasons it did not seem profitable to
investigate this particular "technology."
Of the emissions associated with fossil fuel consumption, electric utili-
ties account for the largest portion—over 55,000 kg per year. Most of this is
emitted to air. This usage includes natural gas (which is on the decline) and
fuel oil and coal (which are on the upswing). Electric power utilities are
likely to become even more important as emission sources in the future as coal,
which typically has the most mercury of any of the fossil fuels on a weight
basis, comes into more prominent use. Hence utilities were selected for tech-
nological evaluation.
Fossil fuels are also used for residential and commercial heating and in
miscellaneous industrial applications. While these uses represent a significant
source of mercury emissions to the environment (again primarily to air), these
emissions in general are so diffuse and individually small that the possibility
of controlling them at the source of release is poor. Hence it was decided
that further study of these sources was not warranted.
Refineries, which process crude oil containing traces of mercury, and coke
ovens, which destructively distill coal containing mercury, represent a rela-
tively small source of mercury emissions. Moreover, these emissions are some-
what controlled by the emission control devices or vapor recovery systems that
accompany each process. Therefore, emphasis upon mercury release and control
did not seem warranted, and these sources were dropped from further consideration.
It appears that a fair quantity of the mercury in crude oils remains in
the residuals following distillation; these residuals directly or indirectly
supply tars and asphalts for numerous applications, such as highway and building
construction. We hypothesize that in such usage a fraction of the mercurial
content is released each year by continuing erosion; most of this eroded material
would end up on a land surface, but some of the mercury would reach watercourses.
(Certainly a portion of the mercury in the 11,700 kg estimated to be present in
urban runoff comes from this source.) Although the slow loss of mercury from
tar and asphalt surfaces might be of concern in some special cases, we cannot
see that there would be serious consequences in general, because of the very
diffuse nature of this loss. Perhaps of most concern would be direct losses to
101
-------
watersheds, but we estimate that such loss is relatively small; in addition,
new highway construction techniques tend to channelize runoff to minimize
possible pollution of receiving waters.
In Sector V, manufacturing and processing, the chlor-alkali industry
clearly predominates as the major contributor of mercury emissions. Further
consideration of this technology and of possible regulatory controls was
indicated. Losses from other manufacturing activities involving mercury (these
include catalyst, paint, pesticide, and Pharmaceuticals manufacture) were
found to be surprisingly low. The apparent bases for this finding were that
the size of these manufacturing facilities is small (allowing better manage-
ment of emissions), the quantities of mercury are low, and the high cost of
the mercury itself leads to close attention to control of losses. Nonetheless,
because the manufacture of mercurials is an essential intermediate step in
control of mercury throughout the economy, these technologies were selected
for study.
Processing, which included paint formulation, catalyst usage (such as in
vat dye manufacture and vinyl chloride production), was dominated by the large
"other" category. This "other," or miscellaneous, use was found to consist of
many small, diverse uses, often by small manufacturers or processors; conse-
quently losses are very difficult to trace. However, it can be assumed that
since such usages are widespread and diverse, there will be no appreciable
local concentrations. Hence no attempt was made to trace final usages or to
discuss the technologies involved with such usage. It may well be that, since
the "other" category represents a considerable mercury loss to the environment,
a toxic hazard label might be required for sale of mercury and its compounds to
such consumers. Such a label would state the hazardous nature of the material
and emphasize the importance of proper disposal of wastes.
Electrical manufacturing, which includes tubes, switches, lamps, and
batteries, releases relatively small quantities of mercury to the environment
in the manufacturing process. (A great deal of internal recycling is charac-
teristic of these industries.) Nevertheless, because these industries repre-
sent a major source of final disposal losses, it was decided to look further
at their technologies and perhaps to determine if regulatory actions might be
102
-------
taken at the manufacturing level to reduce the quantities of mercury which
ultimately enter the environment from these products.
In Sectors VIIIA and VIIIB, the final consumption of various electrical
products accounts for very large losses in final dispoal—primarily to land.
Hence these uses were lumped together under final disposal, which is a primary
concern.
Pesticide usage accounts for rather substantial losses, particularly in
nonagricultural applications, and considerable quantities of mercurial pesti-
cides may move to receiving waters. Both agricultural and nonagricultural
applications were considered in the technology assessments.
Laboratory usage, while relatively small, was believed to be another
point where changes in technology might well reduce the quantities of mercury
emitted to the environment. Therefore, laboratories were also considered in
the technology assessments.
Pharmaceutical usage represents fairly substantial losses of mercury to
water. This usage is already slight, and demand for mercurial drugs seems to
be dropping as new and equally effective substitutes are discovered. Even so,
it seemed advisable to consider trends in pharmaceutical usage in the technology
assessment.
The use of mercurials in paint is decreasing, and an EPA action is now
under way to curtail this usage even more. However, this action has drawn
strong criticism from the paint industry and others. Hence the technology of
paint and the implications of regulatory actions were considered.
103
-------
IV
TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
INTRODUCTION
The DRS inventory identified a number of man-related sources of mercury
which can and do enter the environment. All of these sources can be identified
in terms of an SIC category. Each of these industries (including those in the
trades and services) can be identified with respect to a technology or process
involved. In this section these technologies are described, with emphasis on
the mercury emissions that accompany the technology and on changes foreseen in
the technology by the year 1983.
Technologies are discussed by sector, as described in Section III of the
report. A detailed technology assessment is reported only for major contribu-
tors for which regulatory controls might prove advantageous. Because the con-
cern here is focused on loss of mercury to the environment, the technologies
of the individual industries are described only in general terms and for a
typical facility or case. (Minor technologies are generally not discussed.)
Composite technologies are described by use category. This presentation
considers those industries and users of mercury that are found in several sec-
tors and possibly in disparate geographical locations, but that are related to
a single use category. Paint is an example of such an industry: phenylmercuric
acetate (PMA) as a preservative is discussed under mercurial compound manufac-
turing, and the losses in a typical facility are described. But PMA is used by
many paint formulators across the nation, and additional losses occur in the
formulation process. Finally, paint is sold to and used by a large segment
of the population, and the emission characteristics for such usage are, again,
different. Hence, in this presentation the overall losses as of 1973 at each ,
of these various steps, for the entire paint industry, are aggregated to clearly
identify the point of major losses, and to indicate where control measures might
be of value.
Finally, 1973 and 1983 technologies and emissions are compared, to see what
possible requirements for regulatory actions may arise. Since the concern in
105
-------
this entire report section is to provide an overview of many industries and
many emitters, a broadbrush approach must be taken.
In the discussion of technology by facility, the background of the indus-
try of interest is given, including its relative size and importance in the
economy, its general location, and regulatory status with respect to mercury
(if any). Pertinent references are cited to give additional information to
the interested reader.
Facility sites are also discussed. For mining and manufacturing, where
the number of sites is relatively small and where information is available,
tabular data are given, including name of company, location (county and state),
estimated production or output, and type of process used. While these data
are generally reliable, many have been derived from a variety of sources whose
agreement often seems to be merely fortuitous. In many cases, particularly
with respect to production and processes, the figures are best estimates.
Next, the 1973 (current) technology is shown in a simplified flow sheet
which indicates only the basic process or technology most commonly found in
that industry—that is, a typical facility. Superimposed on this technology
is a best estimate of mercury input and losses throughout the process. For
simplification, and to allow the reader to readily compute fractional losses
throughout the process, we have used a nominal input such as 100 or 1,000.
These inputs are tied in each case either to a specific plant size or to a
specific usage value. Outputs always equal inputs; no unaccounted losses have
been recognized, even though such losses are frequently encountered in the real
world.
The 1983 (projected) technology discussion presents a similar flow sheet
but includes our best estimate of changes that may occur during the 1973-1983
period and of the possible effects of emissions of mercury to the environment.
Often the changes are less in the technology than in the pollution control
which is exercised. At best it is difficult to forecast technological changes.
Therefore we have generally adopted the procedure of considering that the
latest and best technology available (that is, in 1974) in terms of minimizing
mercury losses or emissions is that which can and will be generally utilized
in 1983. This may be a bit optimistic, but it is equally possible that
106
-------
regulatory requirements and technological advances may result in even greater
reductions than those indicated.
Alternative processes or products which could be substituted to either
reduce or eliminate the use of mercury are discussed briefly. In most cases,
unless the transition is already under way (as in pesticides), alternative
technologies which are only now appearing would be unlikely to have much impact
by 1983. However, where a novel or interesting technology has been encountered,
it is mentioned.
In a final subsection the estimated emissions for 1973 and 1983 by all
users of a particular technology are presented. In some instances, high and
low forecasts are included to account for variations which are foreseeable.
Usually the 1983 estimates do not take into account market increases, since
these would be small in comparison with errors which otherwise accompany the
technological forecast. In seme cases, the values for the 1973 emissions may
differ slightly from those derived by the URS inventory (see Section III).
These differences usually reflect modifications based upon better information
obtained after the completion of the inventory* but in no way affect the over-
all findings of the report.
MICROTECHNOLOGIES
Sector I - Mercury Input
Mercury Mining and Refining (SIC 1092)
Cinnabar ores (which have an average mercuric sulfide content of less than
5 pounds per ton of ore) are refined by heating the ore in a furnace and condens-
ing the mercury vapors that are released. Mining and refining operations are
nearly always adjacent to each other. Major mercury-containing ore bodies are
found primarily in the Western states, although some deposits are found else-
where. At present, mining is largely concentrated in California and Nevada.
Domestic mercury production has plummeted from a high of 29,640 flasks in
1969 to 2,131 flasks in 1973 (Ref. 37). This decrease is primarily attributable
107
-------
to the imposition of regulations on the quantity of emissions allowed and to
the general decrease in the price of mercury, from a high of about $600 per
flask to around $250 per flask. As will be discussed later, the introduction
of new technology and increased economic incentives could rapidly reverse this
picture. Industrial consumption of mercury decreased somewhat over the 1969-
1973 period, but there is still a gap between domestic production and demand
which has been filled by imports from other producing nations. Secondary
mercury (from recycling)* and release of mercury from stockpiles are also
important supply sources.
The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that mercury is one of the scarcest
domestic natural mineral resources (Ref. 39). It is estimated that domestic
resources can supply approximately 10 percent to 35 percent of the minimum
anticipated cumulative domestic demand through the year 2000. However, this
estimate is price-sensitive, and the same source indicates that if the value
of mercury were to rise sharply, the minable reserves would almost triple.
In April 1973, EPA promulgated regulations permitting the release of no
more than 2.3 kg (5.1 Ibs) of mercury per 24 hours for any size of operation.
For the mining and refining industry as a. whole, it has been estimated that
2 percent to 3 percent of the mercury is lost as vapor from stack emissions
(Ref. 13).
In addition to the publications noted above, additional in-depth informa-
tion on mining history and development, particularly for the State of California,
can be found in Refs. 40 and 41.
Production Sites. Table 18 lists the U.S. mercury mines which were active
in 1973 and their estimated production rates. Since production rates were at
an all-time low in that year, it is obvious that a number of mines were shut
* The mercury reprocessing industry has not been identified as an important
contributor of mercury to the environment and therefore has not been con-
sidered in detail in this study. Clark and Fulkerson (Ref. 38) conducted
a survey in 1968-1970 of this industry and their report provides some
interesting and definitive information on the location of reprocessors and
the source of scrap.
108
-------
TABLE 18. - Production of U.S. Mercury Mines in 1973
Mine
County
State
Estimated Annual
Production
(flasks)
New Almaden
Guadalupe
Chilino Valley
Corona
Oat Hill
Manhattan-One-Shot
Mt. Jackson
Culver- Baer
Abbott
Cardero
Ruja
Study Butte
Alice and Bessie
Total
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
Marin
Napa
Napa
Napa
Sonoma
Sonoma
Lake
Humboldt
Humboldt
Brewster
Kuskokwim
California |
California 1
California
California \
California I
California )
California \
California )
California
Nevada \
Nevada *
Texas
Alaska
720
80
110
250
59
678
180
54
2,131
Source: Ref. 42.
109
-------
down; if the economic climate were suitable these, as well as the presently
operating mines, could undoubtedly become more active. To assess the proper-
ties which might become active under such a situation, we compared the largest
mines reported in the Bureau of Mines Mineral Yearbook in 1971 with those
reported in 1966 (Ref. 43). The turnover in mines is highly volatile. Of the
24 mines producing 100 or more flasks each in 1966 (five of these produced
1,000 flasks or more), only five are retained on the list in the 1971 census.
Of the 13 producing mines in 1973, all were on the 1971 list, although their
production in all cases was greatly reduced.*
Future production of mercury in the United States is projected by some
sources (including the Bureau of Mines) to zemain near its 1973 low point.
However, a very large mine has recently opened in Humboldt County, Nevada.
The McDermitt Mine, which will be described in greater detail below, is expected
to produce at least 20, 000 flasks per year of virgin mercury, with a maximum
capacity of up to 60,000 flasks per year. This large mine will obviously have
a significant effect on both domestic and world markets.
1973 Technology. Figure 22 is a flow diagram of a typical mercury recovery
unit in operation in 1973.** The ore may be obtained by either surface or
underground mining and in recent years has contained about 2.3 kg (5 Ibs) of
mercury per ton of ore. Dust from the mining operation is generally a very
minor problem and since the tonnages are low, emissions from this source are
trivial (estimated in Ref. 12 to be less than 0.02 ton annually). Generally,
the ore is crushed and fed from a storage bin into a rotary kiln (in a few
locations, screen or table concentration is employed). Hot gases are fed into
the lower end of the kiln; the ore is thus heated to well over 1, 200°F and the
mercuric sulfide is decomposed with an efficiency of about 96 percent. Mercury
* A small amount of mercury is recovered as a by-product from a gold mine in
Eureka County, Nevada and from a zinc smelter in Monoca, Pennsylvania.
** Although the size of the units involved for any given operation may vary
considerably, the same basic configuration is used in all recovery,
facilities.
110
-------
Ore
from
Mine
Mercury Vapor, Gases
Iron or Steel
Condensers
Combustion
Gases
Redwood ,
Expansion
Chamber
Liquid Mercury
Collected in
Rubber Buckets
under Water Seal
Crushing
House
Prime Virgin
Mercury Flask
34.6 Kg (76 Ibs)
Net, 99.9% Pure
Bottled
Calcines Dump
1000 Units Kg
J
-»»
Crush
1000
(5 Ib Hg/ton of ore)
i
K
•In
0.5 |10
Dust
I
Land
989.5
Tailings
Condenser
1
Stack
1
Air
986.5 virgin
Mercury
SOURCE: Ref. 40; URS Research Company.
Figure 22 FLOW DIAGRAM OF MERCURY RECOVERY USING 1973 TECHNOLOGY
111
-------
vapor, sulfur dioxide, combustion products, and dust are then passed off. The
dust is separated in a cyclone unit and the vapors are passed through a simple
water-cooled iron or steel condenser. Liquid mercury is collected as shown on
Figure 22 and is bottled on-site in 34.4-kg (76-Ib) flasks. Exhaust gases
contain sulfur dioxide and traces of mercury vapor (which are not allowed to
exceed 2.3 kg per day total discharge, by EEA standards) and are then discharged
through a low stack. The calcined tailings are collected and dumped in a nearby
waste pile; they typically contain about 5 ppm of residual mercury (Ref. 40).
The tailings do not appear to present any leaching problems. The water used
in the condensers does not come in contact with the mercury and is discharged
or reused. The mercury exhausted from the stack can be assumed to remain pri-
marily in the air, although there is doubtless some local deposition on the
land surface; however, no harmful effects from this have been reported.
In the past, some very small operations have relied on the retort, or
batch, processing of the ore. These operations are less efficient and probably
are not in use at all today.
The simplicity of recovering mercury using the modern technology, coupled
with low operating costs when controls were less rigid, accounts for the many
small operations that were active in the recent past. Many marginal operations
were activated briefly in response to higher prices and were just as quickly
abandoned when prices declined.
1983 Technology. Figure 23 is a flow diagram of a mercury recovery unit
which can be considered the prototype for 1983 technology. This flow chart is
for the new McDermitt Mine, which has several unique features. The ore, which
has an unusually high mercury content (about 4.6 kg per ton), is obtained from
an open pit.* After being fed through crushers and a mill, it is concentrated
* Added emissions resulting from open pit mining techniques (as contrasted
with the more conventional underground techniques) are unlikely. Emissions
resulting from dust are trivial and can be easily controlled. The vaporiza-
tion of mercury or its compounds from surface works is predicted by McCarthy
(Ref. 18) to be of the same order as vaporization from the underground
deposits.
112
-------
Front End Loader
Rock
Media
Feeder
Clean Gas
to
Atmosphere
A
50-ton
Clay
Hopper
Gas
Cooler
Venturi
gQ Scrubber
Scrubber Mercury
Impinger Condenser
Mercury
Cleaning
No. 1 Cleaner Flotation
t2£j|B77733ZR
Ulo.
- + T
I 1 a •-'
2 Cleaner Flotation
O'Flo
Screw Filter
Conveyors m
6 Hearth
Furnace
Sealed
Calcine
Stock
Tank
\ O'Flo 1 Discharge _ ]
} U' Flo
T Mercury Con
Thickener
Waste
Mercury
Bulk
Storage
Solutions
Mercury
Bottling
Reclaimed Water
to Mill
Tailing to Storage
Pond for
Decanting &
Evaporation
Tailing Dam
1000
Water
Concentrate
i
100
f
Tailing
Pond
i
I
Land
(fixed)
900
Furnace
I
f
Stack
«
r
Air
899
• Maximum discharge of 2.3 kg (5.1 lbs)/day. For a production rate of 2,000 kg/day
of mercury (equivalent to 20,000 flasks per year), the discharge to air represents a
loss of 0.1%.
SOURCE: Placer-Amex Corporation; URS Research Company.
Figure 23 MERCURY RECOVERY USING 1983 TECHNOLOGY
113
-------
by flotation processes to about 60 percent mercury content. It is then fed at
a rate of some 2,200 kg (1,000 Ibs) per hour through a six-hearth furnace and
the calcined tailings are discharged, through a seal, to a waste solution system
and carried to a tailing pond for permanent storage. The reclaimed water is
returned to the mill for further use. (All makeup water comes from underground
wells.) The vapor from the furnace goes through tube condensers that continu-
ously collect most of the mercury, which is then fed through a cleaning process
to bulk storage (a unique feature of this mine is that it will use 1,000-kg
shipping containers).
The vapor is further cleansed of mercury and the sulfur dioxide is removed;
final traces of mercury are removed in a refrigerated gas cooler (utilizing the
principle that mercury is very insoluble in air at temperatures of less than
100°F) and are discharged to the atmosphere. The discharge is designed to
meet the EPA standard of 2.3 kg per day maximum. Although the technology
used in this new mine is not yet proven, it appears to meet high standards in
minimizing discharges to the environment. The cost of the mine and facilities
construction was approximately $9 million, according to the developers (Placer-
Amex Corporation).
The technology outlined above for 1983 obviously applies only to new
installations. Capital costs to control emissions for installations using
1973 technology are estimated to range from $228,000 to $260,000, with annual
operating costs of about one-third of capital costs (Ref. 15). The authors
of Ref. 15 conclude that "... considering the 'fragile1 condition of this
industry, it is doubtful if they can sustain even minimal control costs." They
also state that break-even production costs average between $300 and $400 per
flask, which is well above the current average price per flask of about $250.
Therefore it can be expected that small mercury producers will not be an impor-
tant factor in the 1983 marketplace.
Estimated total emissions with high and low values from mercury mining and
refining for 1973 and 1983 are shown in Table 19. Assuming that larger opera-
tions are the trend of the future and that stringent regulations will minimize
the number of active operations, it is likely that total emissions from mercury
mining and refining will not increase appreciably by 1983 despite the possibil-
ity of a 10- to 50-fold increase in production. However, if for some reason
114
-------
TABLE 19. - Estimated Total Production and Mercury Emissions
from Mercury Mining and Refining: 1973 and 1983
(kilograms)
Value Range
High
Low
1973
Production
73
73
,600
,600
Emissions
11
8
,000a
,290C
1983
Production
2,000
700
,000
,000
Emissions
21,
12,
150b
700d
Source: URS Research Company
a. Assuming 2.3 kg/day discharge from each of 13 sites.
b. Assuming 2.3 kg/day discharge from each of 15 sites.
c. Assuming a lower than allowable discharge, and averaging 3 per-
cent of throughput.
d. Assuming 2.3 kg/day discharge from each of 25 sites.
115
-------
small operators were to increase appreciably in number, they could contribute
unduly to the total discharge of the industry (due to the clause in present
regulations which regulates discharge by a given facility on total quantity,
not as a fraction of the throughput of the facility). A simple change in the
regulations, however, would suffice to correct such a situation were it to
arise.
Alternative Technologies. Some study has been made of the possibility of
obtaining mercury either by leaching the ore or by electrolytic oxidation of
sulfide ores (the latter is a project of the U.S. Bureau of Mines). However,
these processes have not advanced beyond the pilot stage and do not appear to
be serious contenders for the forecast period.
Sector II - Mining
Copper Mining and Smelting (SIC 1021 and 3331)
The United States accounts for about one-quarter of world copper produc-
tion. Copper is mined in eight states, primarily in the West, with Arizona
alone accounting for almost half of the total U.S. production.* Copper is
produced primarily from low-grade sulfide ores from open pit mines. The ores
are concentrated mechanically, smelted, converted to blister copper, and finally
electrolytically refined. Copper is also produced from low-grade copper oxide
ores using hydrometallurgical methods which employ leaching, usually followed
by electrolytic refining. Of major concern are the pyrometallurgical (smelting)
methods, since they represent the most commonly used technology, utilize ores
with higher average mercury content, and in the course of heating and smelting
emit mercury as a vapor to 'air. Therefore the concern in this section is with
smelter operation.
* The URS regional inventory indicated that the copper industry (mining and
smelting) in Arizona accounted for almost all of the mercury emissions to
air in the state and contributed appreciably to those to land and water.
116
-------
Little concrete information was found on the manner in which the mercury
of copper ores is ultimately released to the environment. Attempts to discuss
this problem area with representatives of the industry proved fruitless; in
general the response was that mercury was not a problem in copper smelting.
However, a rough estimate of the total quantities of mercury likely to be
released by pyrometallurgical operations is 100 metric tons per year of mercury
(as Hg). This value is based on 203,411 metric tons of ore processed in 1973,
with an average mercury content of 0.5 ppm (Ref. 87 indicates a range for copper
sulfide ores of 0.1 to 40 ppm).
In recent years the copper industry has invested heavily in pollution
control technology to reduce sulfure dioxide (SO ) emissions to the environ-
ment. EEA regulations requiring the industry to lower SO discharges to air
have also aided in somewhat reducing the mercury emissions, because the SO
recovery system removes a small portion of the mercury in the gas stream.
Since data are not available on this removal rate, we have made estimates which
are presented in the technology sections below.
Production Sites. Table 20 lists the producer, location, and estimated
production for copper smelter operations in 1973. The production values for
this year are fairly typical, although the industry1s output fluctuates con-
siderably from year to year depending upon demand, world supply, and labor
relations.
1973 Technology. A simplified flow diagram showing estimated losses of
mercury in the various major processes in the mining and production of copper
is presented in Figure 24. The input value of 100 could represent the 100
metric tons of mercury estimated to be present in the copper ores mined in the
United States in 1973, or it could represent the flow in a typical facility.
Typically, copper ore is obtained from large, open-pit mines and trucked
to the mill. A small amount of mercury is no doubt lost in the dust generated
from this operation. (An additional small amount of mercury might be released
directly to the air as a result of the increased degassing due to the exposure
of the mineral deposit; however, as discussed elsewhere, this increase over
background is small.) At the mill the ore is crushed, ground, and mixed with
water and selective reagents; selective flotation concentrates the copper
117
-------
TABLE 20. - Estimated U.S. Smelter Production of Copper, 1973
State and Producer
Location
Thousands of
Tonnes
Arizona
Phelps Dodge
it ti
Magma
Kennecott
ASSRC
Inspiration
Montana
Anaconda
Michigan
White Pine
Nevada
Kennecott
New Mexico
Phelps Dodge
Kennecott
Utah
Kennecott
Texas
ASSRC
Washington
ASSRC
Total
791
Morenci
Ajo
Douglas
San Manuel
Hayden
Hayden
Miami
Great Falls
Ontonagon Co,
McGill
Hidalgo
Hurley
Bingham
El Paso
Tacoma
118
63
96
131
244
100
108
1,651
Source: URS and U.S. Bureau of Mines.
118
-------
Air
Air
(Mercury)
100
i
Land
.1".
Fly Ash
Dry Rock
Mining
Grinding
1
50
Electrostatic
Precipitator
1
3 (Sales)
Reactor
Cyclone
Flux
Concentration
Dust
I
95
1
Sulfuric Acid
(<20ppm
Mercury)
Stock
(4%S02)
Flux
Reverberatory
Furnace
(Smelter) 1480° C
Tailings
<1
T
Air.
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Land
I
Converter
10 (Matte)
<1
Electrolytic
Refining
(Blister Copper)
Slag
Metallic
Copper
Slag
Land
Figure 24 1973 TECHNOLOGY FOR COPPER MINING
AND SMELTING (showing mercury input and output)
119
-------
content in the froth—the concentrate—which is then recovered. The worthless
residue (gangue), which contains some mercury, is discharged to a tailing pile.
The concentrate, which has about a 20-percent copper content, can then be
economically moved to the smelter even if it is not located nearby.
The copper concentrate is fed into a reverberatory furnace (smelter) which
is heated with hot combustion gases and which is also charged with slag from
the copper converter and with limestone and siliceous fluxes. (The use of
electrical furnaces, another form of smelting, to replace the reverberatory
furnace is a rather recent innovation.) The operating temperature of about
1480° Celsius drives off some of the sulfur, which is oxidized to sulfur
dioxide and escapes with the flue gases. Excess iron is eliminated in the
slag. The copper matte, which is periodically withdrawn from the furnace,
consists of a mixture of copper sulfide and iron sulfide. In Figure 24 we
indicate that most of the mercury goes up the stack along with the sulfur
dioxide, but that a small amount remains in the slag and some is carried
forward in the copper matte. Considering the operating temperature of the
reverberatory furnace, it is more likely that almost all of the mercury is
emitted from the stack at this point, but for want of definitive information,
the division shown in the figure was used.*
The stack gases from the reverberatory furnace are approximately 1 percent
sulfur dioxide (SOo)> this is too dilute for economical production of sulfuric
acid. On the other hand, the stack gases from electric furnaces usually con-
tain 3 percent to 4 percent S02 , from which sulfuric acid can be economically
produced. The gases from the furnace are passed through cyclonic dust collec-
tors and electrostatic precipitators. Thus, an estimated two-thirds of the
mercury content is released to the air (through the typically high stacks used
by copper smelters) and the remaining one-third is assumed to be caught in the
fly ash and deposited on land.
* Older technologies often had a roasting step prior to the smelter to reduce
both the sulfur and iron contents to desired levels. Roasting is rarely
used in newer installations, although it does have the advantage of producing
a more concentrated sulfur dioxide stack gas which is more readily converted
into sulfuric acid.
120
-------
Prom the smelter the molten matte is transported to the converter, where
it is treated with air or oxygen which reacts with the copper sulfide to dis-
charge S02 (in concentrations of about 4 percent out the stack). As part of
the conversion process, iron sulfide is oxidized, creating additional S02 , and
the iron combines with the siliceous flux to form a slag which contains copper
and other precious metals and is returned to the reverberatory furnace. The
resultant "blister" copper is 99.5 percent pure and is normally further puri-
fied, usually by electrolytic refining. It can be assumed that at this point
the mercury content of the copper is virtually nil, since most of the mercury
was exhausted to the stack during the smelting stage in the reverberatory or
electric furnace. Any remaining mercury in the gases would find its way into
the sulfuric acid, probably in concentrations of less than 20 ppm. A minute
quantity of mercury would go out the stack.
It should be noted that approximately 80 to 90 percent of the mercury
exhausted remains airborne for at least 10 km downwind and may become part of
the global burden (Ref. 16). However, the remaining 10 to 20 percent is assumed
to be deposited evenly on either land or water surfaces. At least half of this
mercury eventually reaches the watercourse, either directly or by runoff from
land surfaces (Ref. 44).
1983 Technology. Figure 25 is a flow diagram of the technology which will
probably be in use in 1983 for the pyrometallurgical processing of copper.
Again, an input of 100 units of mercury is assumed, since better forecasts are
not available. The major changes for 1983 will occur in the pollution control
technology associated with the treatment of the stack gases and in the use of
electric furnaces which produce a higher SO. gas concentration. In this flow
diagram it is assumed that the SO2~laden gases from the smelter and converter
are combined and that a considerably larger fraction of these gases is then
reacted to form sulfuric acid. The remainder of the stack gas stream undergoes
further treatment for recovery of mercury, and discharges to air and land are
greatly reduced. Mercury is also recovered from the sulfuric acid produced,
thus adding to the revenues of the facility.
While it is impossible to describe in detail the technology likely to be
used in 1983 for control of mercury emissions and for recovery of mercury itself.
121
-------
(Mercury)
I 100
Dry Rock
Mining
Air
Land
Air
1
Mercury
Recovery
(32)
40
Grinding
Electrostatic
Preciptator
Cyclone
Concentration
Dust
T
95
84
Electric
Furnace
Tailings
<1
T
Land
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Land
10
Slag
Mercury
Recovery
(49)
Reactor
Converter
Slag
Land
H2S04
3 I (Sales)
50
Purifier
53
53
Sutfuric
Acid
Electrolytic
Refining
Metallic
Copper
Figure 25 1983 TECHNOLOGY FOR COPPER MINING
AND SMELTING (showing mercury input and output)
122
-------
current literature suggests various possibilities. For example, the Gortdrum
mines in County Tipperary, Ireland, now recover mercury from copper concen-
trates. However, more interest has been displayed in a technology involving
recovery of mercury from flue gases. For example, Ref. 45 suggests the use
of a countercurrent sulfuric acid wash to recover up to 90 percent of the
mercury content of the stack gases. The Outokumpu Oy zinc plant at Kokkolla,
Finland, is reportedly recovering 600 flasks per year of mercury as a by-
product of the roaster gases in a process which should be adaptable for copper
smelting (Ref. 46).
As indicated above, the mercury content of the stack gases may be removed
prior to the sulfuric acid unit. However, if such technology is not employed,
mercury will appear in the concentrated sulfuric acid. This problem has
apparently been successfully attacked by the Bunker Hill Company, which reports
that it has reduced the mercury content of by-product sulfuric acid to less
than 1 ppm at its Coueur d'Alene (Idaho) smelter (Ref. 47). Other processes
are reported to be under development for removal (and recovery) of mercury
from by-product sulfuric acid.
Alternative Technologies. Smelting appears to be the preferred route for
extraction of copper sulfide ores. However, a hydrometallurgical approach has
been proposed by the Power Plate Corporation of Salt Lake City (Ref. 48). In
this patented (but not yet proven) process, the sulfide ore is mined, crushed,
ground, concentrated, and then processed in the Power Plate cell. "Here, copper
dissolution and electrodeposition occur simultaneously at high current densi-
ties, and in the presence of ferric sulfate, sulfuric acid, and oxygen." The
author claims that this process results in a cost of $376 per ton of installed
capacity per year, which is only 34 percent of the smelter cost it replaces.
However, the likelihood is remote that this process, even if proved commercially
feasible, will become an important part of the production pattern by 1983.
Implications. Table 21 shows the estimated total emissions from all U.S.
copper smelters to various receiving media for the year 1973 to 1983. Drastic
changes are forecast which are primarily related to the continuing concern of
the copper industry with cleaning up major pollutants, especially sulfur dioxide.
It is presumed that this concern will coincide with the realization that recovery
123
-------
TABLE 21. - Estimated Emissions from Copper Smelting, 1973 and 1983
(tonnes)
Receiving Medium 1973 1983
Air 53a 3a
Land 40 (2.6)a 8 (0.15)a
Water (2.7)a (0.15)a
Product 7 4
Reclaim - 85
Total 100 100
a. Ten percent of emissions to air are expected to
fall out locally and to be equally distributed
between land and water.
Source: URS Research Company
124
-------
of the mercury associated with SO is economically feasible and will serve to
improve the environment. If this forecast is correct, an estimated 85 percent
of the mercury currently lost (primarily to air and land) may be reclaimed for
resale.
However, it must be noted that a case cannot be made for regulation of
these mercury emitters on the basis of safety or hazard alone. To assess the
potential airborne hazard which might be represented by each smelter, isopleths
of mercury vapor concentration were constructed from the results of a simple
Gaussian diffusion model. (Complete results are shown in Appendix E.) Three
runs were made; two were of maximum short-term concentrations under worst-case
and average meteorological conditions, and the third was for an 8-hour averag-
ing time under worst-case meteorological conditions. Pertinent stack informa-
tion was provided by the EPA National Emission Data System (NEDS) Program. The
assumed mercury content in the stack gas was approximately 167 micrograms per
cubic meter (jig/m ), corresponding to an average concentration in the ore of
0.5 ppm, all of which was assumed to reach the atmosphere (i.e., the cyclone
and electrostatic precipitators did not remove any of the mercury and all of
it was volatilized during the smelting process in the reverberatory or electric
furnace).
As shown in Figure 26, all three cases studied exceed the average back-
ground level for nonmineralized areas. However, only the short-term worst case
exceeded the background level expected for mineralized areas such as would be
found near copper smelters (~30 ng/m near A jo, California; see Ref. 18). And
most importantly, even the maximum recorded level, at approximately 2.5 km
downwind, was approximately l/25th of the EPA designated exposure level for 30
days of continuous exposure. Thus, in light of the fact that copper smelters
are located in the very lightly populated areas, neither the quantity of
material emitted nor the population exposed to these somewhat elevated (above
background) levels is actually of great concern.
125
-------
ACGIH* Occupational
Exposure Standard
(8 hours)
EPA Designated
Exposure Level
for 30 days
75
c
o
c
8
o
o
50
Average
Meteorological
Case
25
Case 1 Case 2
* American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists.
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Case 3
Case 4
Average over Copper
Mine at
Ajo, Arizona
Average Background
Levels over
Nonmineralized Areas
Figure 26 MAXIMUM MERCURY VAPOR CONCENTRATIONS FOR CASES 1-4
126
-------
However, since it is suspected that continued deposition of toxic materials
from airborne plumes can lead to an accumulation of such materials in the soil,*
an estimate of such a cumulative effect was made. Certainly, elevated values
for land have been observed around copper smelters (greater than 200 ppb versus
71 ppb for background on similar terrain; see Ref. 29), which suggests that
buildup may be occurring. In our estimate (see Appendix E) the principal
assumptions were that 10 percent of the mercury in the plume reaches the ground
within a radius of 10 km from the smelter, remains there, and accumulates for
a period of 20 years.
Using these relatively gross assumptions and the average case shown in
Figure 26, we calculate that the smelter would contribute an additional 111 ppb
to the existing background of 71 ppb. By changing the assumptions somewhat to
assume that 10 percent to 100 percent of the mercury released from the smelter
reaches the ground within 10 km, and 20 percent to 100 percent of this remains
in the soil, the range of mercury concentrations above background could be
from 70 to 890 ppb. However, even the highest of these values has not been
demonstrated to present a health hazard to people or animals. (Uptake by
plants and presumably from there to animals is certainly likely,- again, however,
the impact cannot be demonstrated to be of great significance.)
Aside from the mercury that settles locally, the balance of the emissions
from copper smelters is assumed to become part of the global mercury burden.
Even so, the quantities involved for the area bounded by the coterminous United
States are less than 10 percent of all emissions to air from man-related
sources, and are insignificant in comparison with degassing emissions.
* Lawsuits have resulted from the identified buildup of lead in vegetation and
people located downwind of lead smelters. However, it is most difficult to
establish the smelter as the cause of these observed effects; hence the use
of the word "suspected."
127
-------
Sector III - Miscellaneous Unregulated Sources
Power Plants (SIC 49110 and 4911C)
The electricity generated by power plants for transmission and distribu-
tion to consumers is obtained from several energy sources. Fossil fuels account
for 81 percent, hydropower for 15 percent, and nuclear power for 4 percent of
this energy (Ref. 49). Of these, the only significant unregulated source of
environmental mercury pollution is fossil fuels.
Electric power is usually generated by superheating water in a boiler and
passing the resultant steam through turbine generators. The three types of
fossil fuels used to heat the water are coal, oil (distillates or residuals),
and natural gas; these fuels account for 44 percent, 16 .percent, and 21 percent
respectively of total U.S. electrical power generation in 1973 (Refs. 49, 50).
Local utilities' choice of fuel usually depends on what is most available and
most economical in the immediate area. For example, the Appalachian and Mid-
west regions depend on coal as the major, fuel, but the Gulf states and the Far
West depend on petroleum or natural gas.
The rate at which mercury is emitted to the environment by a power plant
depends on the size of the plant, the type of fuel, and the mercury content of
the fuel. Mercury content varies according to geographical region and even
according to layer within the fuel bed. Appalachian coal, for example, has an
average mercury content of 0.2 ppm (range of 1.46 ppm to 0.07 ppm), but coal
from the mountains of the West has a mercury content of 0.06 ppm (Ref. 51).
In general, the national average content of mercury in fossil fuels is as
follows:- coal, 0.2 ppm; distillate oil, 0.066 ppm (Ref. 12); residual oils,
0.13 ppm (Ref. 10); natural gas, 0.04 ppm (Ref. 12).
The cost of petroleum and natural gas is escalating because of the deple-
tion of domestic reserves and increased dependence on foreign supplies. There-
fore, other fuel sources are being increasingly utilized for electric power
generation. Coal is unquestionably the leading contender for the short term,
because there are abundant reserves in the United States—-estimated at 421
billion tons in 1973 (Ref. 49). The other possible energy sources are breeder
128
-------
and thermal reactors and oil shale deposits (in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming).
It is difficult at this time to determine what fuel source will dominate in the
long term. Environmental constraints, the long lead times required for research
and development, uncertainties in predicting capital investment by utilities
or government, and mining constraints all combine to make forecasting in this
area extremely hazardous and unreliable.
Production Sites. Table 22 lists power plant emissions by type of fuel
and by state. Most large power plants are located near heavily populated and
industrialized centers. Plants that use coal and natural gas tend to be very
large facilities (in the megawatt generation range), but petroleum-using plants
vary from small municipal to large facilities.
Most power plants in the Atlantic region use coal-fired furnaces because
of the rich Appalachian coal deposits. States that rely primarily on this
energy source are Florida, Georgia, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Pennsyl-
vania, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. The other Atlantic states
balance coal use with petroleum and natural gas.
In the North Central region, power generation relies chiefly on coal, with
lesser amounts of petroleum and natural gas. The leading coal-using states are
Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, and
Wisconsin. In contrast to the Atlantic region, the North Central region has
many small municipal utility companies that rely on diesel power.
The predominant energy source in the South is natural gas, because of the
rich deposits found in the Gulf states. Petroleum also supplies some Southern
power generation needs. The Mountain region has a relatively good balance of
energy sources. The West derives most of its energy from petroleum and natural
gas, since large reserves of these resources are available there.
1973 Technology. Two flow diagrams for typical power plants are shown in
Figure 27. The only difference between the two diagrams is in the mercury
emission factors of the fuel consumed for electricity generation. The emission
factors for coal are 90 percent to air and 10 percent to land (Refs. 51, 52, 53)
Natural gas and petroleum, because of their cleaner burning characteristics,
emit 99 percent to air and 0.1 percent to land (Ref. 54). The principal reason
for the high air emissions is the low boiling temperature of mercury—685°F
129
-------
TABLE 22. - Power Plant Mercury Losses in the United States, 1972
(kilograms)
U)
o
Fossil Fuel Source
Region and State
Atlantic
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
Subtotal
North Central
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Total Energy
Output
(millions of kwh)
15,619
5,400
67,081
30,204
2,985
27,802
29,327
4,121
30,327
68,133
51,162
96,034
1,284
17,262
163
28,441
48,466
523,811
70,214
53,843
14,652
16,953
49,891
No. of
Plants
9
5
4
6
2
12
0
2
4
22
18
33
2
9
1
15
12
156
28
24
23
8
16
Coal
Mercury
Loss
15
99
1,598
1,029
59
324
0
45
221
1,209
3,063
6,994
56
931
27
323
1,258
17,251
2,165
1,760
1,159
45
4,452
No. of
Plants
17
4
51
10
18
14
33
8
29
44
6
64
7
21
12
11
2
351
48
21
138
111
5
Oil
Mercury
Loss
537
80
1,248
79
107
525
888
44
852
1,632
87
447
52
35
2
470
11
7,096
197
14
10
10
6
Natural Gas
No. of
Plants
3
4
33
6
5
5
18
0
8
18
7
4
1
6
2
3
1
124
18
7
11
9
4
Mercury
Loss
<1
2
138
31
<1
6
6
0
20
61
14
5
<1
20
<1
4
<1
308
59
* f*
15
49
146
8
-------
TABLE 22. - Power Plant Mercury Losses in the United States,
(kilograms)
(continued)
1972
Fossil Fuel Source
Region and State
North Central
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
South Dakota
Tennessee
Wisconsin
Subtotal
South
Alabama
Arkansas
Louisiana
Mississippi
New Mexico
Texas
Subtotal
Mountain
Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Total Energy
Output
(millions of kwh)
57,339
15,752
32,404
7,066
5,495
92,553
25,571
705
40,690
25,096
508,224
39,550
9,539
39,348
12,141
18,192
129,912
248,682
12,204
I
1,245
Coal
No. of
Plants
26
19
16
2
3
42
2
7
9
22
247
8
2
0
8
2
3
23
12
1
2
Mercury
Loss
1,482
854
2,861
30
181
4,738
41
195
3,424
759
24,146
1,742
69
0
1,115
124
267
3,317
154
29
27
No. of
Plants
62
114
61
71
28
47
32
39 •
1
42
820
3
6
31
8
13
57
118
15
3
5
Oil
Mercury
Loss
147
29
•9
6
<1
40
1
5
3
10
487
7
55
21
42
9
21
155
11
<1
<1
Natural Gas
No. of
Plants
11
6
7
5
4
5
25
4
5
14
135
5
14
27
10
10
89
155
14
0
2
Mercury
Loss
48
42
48
40
<1
14
211
3
13
23
719
2
59
310
82
48
1,043
1,544
55
0
1
-------
TABLE 22. - Power Plant Mercury Losses in the United States, 1972
(kilograms)
(continued)
Fossil Fuel Source
Region and State
Mountain
Utah
Wyoming
Subtotal
West
Alaska
w Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
Subtotal
Totals
Total Energy
Output
(millions of kwh)
2,145
7,065
22,659
1,271
9,279
90,357
4,756
11,441
55
23
117,182
1,420,558
No. of
Plants
4
2
21
1
5
0
0
2
0
0
8
455
Coal
Mercury
Loss
22
206
438
12
58
0
0
•27
0
0
97
45,249
No. of
Plants
13
19
55
28
9
32
15
10
7
12
113
1,457
Oil
Mercury
Loss
24
2
37
5
28
896
155
2
<1
2
1,088
8,863
Natural Gas
No. of
Plants
4
1
21
11
10
30
0
7
2
0
60
495
Mercury
Loss
3
2
61
10
63
492
0
33
<1
0
598
3,230
Source: URS Research Company, based on Ref. 49 and "Electrical World - Dictionary of Electric
Utilities," 1972-1973.
-------
1.4x 1013 BTU
Air
I
900 Kg
Mercury
in Coal
1,000 Kg
Boiler
\
100 Kg
Landfill
(a) COAL-BURNING PLANT
3.8 x 1014BTU
jo.
Air
1
999 Kg
Mercury
in Fuel
1000 Kg
Boiler or
Diesel
Engine
t
I
Natural Gas
1.3x1015 BTU Landfill
(b) PETROLEUM- OR NATURAL GAS-BURNING PLANT
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure 27 MERCURY LOSSES FROM TYPICAL POWER PLANTS, 1973
133
-------
(Ref.' 55). The air emissions are primarily in the metallic form, with minor
losses in the oxide form. Losses to land come from bottom ash, which ranges
between 4 percent and 20 percent by weight of coal (Refs. 54, 56) , and fly ash
(stack emissions). To date very little effort has been expended by the govern-
ment or the utilities to reduce mercury losses from fossil fuel power plants.
Technology in 1983. Figure 28 is a flow diagram for the partial recovery
of mercury from power plant operations. These diagrams, which represent proto-
types for 1983, are patterned after a sulfur dioxide (SO2) scrubber pilot plant
operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The Colbert plant, which
burns high sulfur coal, was equipped with a S02 scrubber to remove the sulfur
gases from stack discharges, but preliminary tests conducted by the EPA found
that it also removed about 33 percent of the stack mercury discharges (Ref. 57).
The reasons for the high mercury recovery are that the scrubber removes the
fly ash (total emission 0.7 kg mercury per 10 kg ash) and that heavier mer-
cury vapor particles are found in the flue gas (total emission 0.08 kg mer-
cury per 10 kg gas) (Ref. 10).
2
Because of increased constraints placed on SO emissions to meet clean air
standards, scrubbers probably will be installed on most fossil fuel power plants
by 1983. This should result in about a one-third decrease in uncontrolled
mercury emissions to the atmosphere. This quantity of mercury will then accrete
in controlled landfills.
Fossil fuel consumption is expected to increase about 50 percent between
1973 and 1983 (at a 3.4-percent annual rate compounded), if current demands
and usage continue, with coal increasing 55 percent and natural gas and oil de-
creasing 5 percent (Ref. 144). Mercury emissions, however, should increase
only 15 percent for the low prototype technology and should decrease by 14 per-
cent for highly developed technology. Mercury emissions are not expected to
increase at the same rate as fuel consumption because mandated control of S02
emissions by 1983 will coincidentally lead to removal of part of the mercury.
Alternative Technologies. Due to the cost of developing an effective re-
covery system for mercury alone, it appears that complete mercury recovery from
stack discharges will not occur in the foreseeable future. However, fuel sources
which do not release appreciable amounts of mercury to the environment may be
developed before the year 2000. Nuclear power (especially breeder reactors) is
134
-------
1.4xltf3 BTU
J_
Air
t
SO,
603 Kg
Scrubber
Mercury
in Coal
1000 Kg
297 Kg
Landfill
Boiler
lOOKg
Landfill
(a) COAL-BURNING PLANT
Air
669 Kg
3.8 x 1014 BTU
S02
Scrubber
1 Oil
Mercury
in Fuel
1000 Kg
I
Boiler
330 Kg
Landfill
1Kg
Landfill
T
Natural Gas
1.3x1015 BTU
(b) PETROLEUM- OR NATURAL GAS-BURNING PLANT
SOURCE: URS Research Company, based on TV A Colbert plant process.
Figure 28 MERCURY LOSSES FROM TYPICAL POWER PLANTS, 1983
135
-------
an excellent long-term possibility for supplementing fossil fuels.
A minor development is that mercury is used in sterilizing the
control rods in the reactors (Ref. 58). However, the chief constraints
to full development of nuclear power plants are other environmental
considerations*—radioactive waste disposal, mine and smelter tailing
wastes, plant safety, thermal heat dissipation, and so on.
Another alternative to fossil fuel usage is geothermal power.
Geothermal steam has proved to be an available energy source (albeit
small to date) in the United States. Mercury is released along
with the spent steam, but the amounts are insignificant. Like
most of the alternatives, constraints other than mercury content
may limit the full development of this energy source. Also,
thermal energy is not evenly distributed across the United States.
Solar energy also offers an alternative to fossil fuels. The
full development of this energy source, however, will require
large expenditures for research and development. Other energy
sources for electric power plants are possible, but are not expected
to materialize in the foreseeable future.
The energy sources most likely to be used to alleviate the
present shortage appear to be shale oil and coal. These materials,
which are found abundantly in the United States, can be treated
by a variety of processes to yield synthetic crude oil or synthetic
natural gas. Although both materials contain mercury, no informa-
tion is available on the fate of mercury in shale oil or coal
which is converted to a synthetic product. However, based upon
our knowledge of the candidate processes, we can make some very
preliminary estimates about the final disposition of such mercury
to the environment.
The processes for recovering product from shale oil or coal
involve heating to relatively high temperatures. Since mercury
boils at about 360°C (and its compounds either boil or decompose
at or below this temperature) mercurials are likely to be found
136
-------
increasingly in the gaseous phase as the process temperature
increases. For the recovery of oil from oil shale, some of the
older processes (such as the U.S. Bureau of Mines gas combustion
retort) which operate at over 900°C should certainly drive most
of the mercury off with the combustion gases. However, some
more recent processes, such as TOSCO II, operate at much lower
temperatures (480°C), so that considerably more mercury is likely
to be found in the residual wastes. Nevertheless, the presence
of mercurials in waste from shale oil processing is of minor
concern compared with the major problem of disposing of the vast
quantities of wastes themselves. If oil is a major processing
product, the likelihood that mercury will concentrate therein
is fairly small, but if a synthetic natural gas (SNG) is a major
product, the probability of mercury occurrence therein is consider-
ably higher.
Some consideration has also been given to in_ situ retorting
of deep-lying beds of shale. It appears unlikely that the mercury
content would concentrate in the resulting oil product, and the
mercury that did appear there would probably be vaporized with
stack gases in subsequent refining processes.
Three general classes of coal liquefaction processes typify
the manner in which mercury might be distributed to the environment.
In pyrolysis processes, pulverized coal is heated at atmospheric
or low pressures to release its oil content. In several such
processes (for instance that developed by FMC Corporation) tempera-
tures above 800°C are reached; this suggests that the mercury
content is almost totally released, probably ending up in the
gaseous fraction (which is a low heating value SNG). The TOSCOAL
retorting process operates at around 500 C, so considerably more
mercury may remain in the oil product or in the residual matter.
137
-------
The direct hydrogenation of coal occurs at rather low tempera-
tures (450 C) and at very high pressures (greater than 2,000
psi). Mercury would probably concentrate in the oil product,
and to a lesser degree in residual matter, with little appearing
in lighter fractions. In the solvent extraction of coal the
temperatures are low (somewhere above 400°C) and pressures are
moderate to high. Thus little mercury is likely to be found
in off-gases. Mercury and its compounds are unlikely to be vapor-
ized and as a result, most of the mercury content could remain
in the waste material.
The removal of sulfur from solid fossil fuel materials is a part
of the developing technology described above. Mercury can be expected
to "accompany" sulfur and may be extracted with it. While the recovery
of mercury from such processing does not appear feasible at this time,
it should be noted that mercury is now being recovered from the sulfur
residues from at least one copper mining operation (see discussion
under Copper Smelting Technology). It is certainly not inconceivable
that, if extensive development of shale and coal resources occurs,
the recovery of the mercury content may become economically justifiable.
It is most unlikely, however, that this would happen in the period
prior to 1983 (see Ref. 145) .
Sector V - Manufacturing and Processing
Chlor-Alkali Manufacturing (SIC 2812)
In 1973 the chlor«-alkali manufacturing industry consumed 13,070
flasks (450,967 kg), or 24 percent, of the mercury used in the United
States (Ref. 59). According to a report by Versar, Inc. (Ref. 60),
the loss of mercury to land was approximately 7,834 flasks, or 60
percent of the mercury used by this industry. The largest loss,
6,590 flasks, occurred when the chlor-alkali sludges were deposited
in industrial landfills. The remaining environmental mercury losses
were to air and water, representing 672 flasks and 125 flasks
138
-------
respectively. The remaining 5,683 flasks of mercury consumed by the industry
were used in plant expansions, system buildups, inventories, etc.
The production of chlorine gas (C12) and caustic alkali (called caustic
soda or sodium hydroxide) is accomplished using the mercury cell, which was
discovered in 1892. However, the diaphragm cell plant (the diaphragm cell
process filters a salt brine and then electrolyzes the brine without mercury
to form chlorine and caustic alkali) dominated the world's chlor-alkali indus-
try until the late 1930s. In that decade rapid progress in mercury cell tech-
nology was made by I. G. Parbenindustrie of Germany because of the growing
demands for rayon-grade caustic. It was not until the end of World War II,
however, that other nations realized the technical superiority of the mercury
cell over the diaphragm cell. In the United States, the diaphragm cell process
still dominates, but since 1945 mercury cell plants have increased. In 1945,
mercury cells accounted for only 4 percent of the chlorine production in the
United States; by 1959, chlorine production using the mercury cell had increased
to 19 percent of the total, and by 1973 this figure had increased to 24 percent
(Ref. 61). Because of recent problems with mercury discharges to the environ-
ment, however, it is not certain how much the mercury cell process will grow.
The key to such growth will be the ability of the industry to control mercury
emissions.
Mercury cell production of chlorine and caustic alkali is accomplished
using an electrolyzer and a decomposer. In the electrolyzer a sodium chloride
solution (brine) is subjected to an electric current, making use of an anode
(positive pole) and a flowing mercury cathode (negative pole). Chlorine gas is
evolved and collected at the anode, and a liquid alkali metal amalgam (NaHg)
is formed with the flowing mercury cathode. The alkali metal is transported
to a decomposer where the amalgam reacts with water to form caustic (NaOH) and
hydrogen gas (from which excess mercury is removed); the purified gas is
normally flared.
Production Sites. Fifteen companies in the United States used the mercury
cell to manufacture chlorine in 1973. Of these. Allied Chemical Corporation,
139
-------
Olin Corporation, Stauffer Chemical Company, Diamond Shamrock Corporation, and
PPG Industries, Inc. accounted for approximately 62 percent of the chlor-alkali
production using the mercury cell process (Ref. 62). Table 23 lists the loca-
tion of mercury cell plants by state and gives their approximate mercury losses
to the environment in 1973.* Thirty-eight percent of the mercury loss in
chlorine manufacturing occurred in the Atlantic region, 20 percent in the North
Central region, and 38 percent in the South. Five states account for 54 per-
cent of the mercury loss: New York (8 percent), Kentucky (8 percent), Alabama
(13 percent), Louisiana (16 percent), and Texas (9 percent).
Most of the chlorine produced in Alabama, Georgia, Maine, North Carolina,
Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin is used in paper production. The
chlorine produced in the other states is used by the industrial chemical indus-
try, except that in Louisiana chlorine sales are balanced between paper produc-
tion and industrial chemicals.
Chlor-alkali plants are generally found on navigable rivers or near ports
because chlorine is most safely and economically transported by barge. However,
some users (for example paper and pulp producers) are located in rather remote
areas, and since transporting chlorine for great distances is not practice1,
small chlor-alkali plants, generally with mercury cell technology, are found
in such scattered locations.** Larger plants (with more than 500 tons/day
capacity) are more efficient and are built wherever demand and transportation
factors permit.
As shown in Table 23, there are 28 plants in the United States that manu-
facture chlorine using mercury cells. The types of mercury cell used by these
* The land losses shown in this table are due to sludge only. Sludge losses
are singled out because the remaining losses, representing approximately
2,035 flasks, cannot be treated and remain fixed through 1983.
** The direct production of 50 percent caustic which is also used by the paper
industry from mercury cells probably accounts for the popularity of the
mercury cell process in these remote locations. The absence of salt in the
caustic, which was at one time the major advantage of mercury cell technology,
does not apply in this case nor for that matter, in any but a very few other
chemical processes. (The production of rayon, once the major user, is no
longer an important factor.)
140
-------
TABLE 23. - United States Chlor-Alkali Manufacturers and Estimated
Mercury Losses of Plants, by State, 1973
Annual
Estimated
Chlorine Prod.
Estimated Mercury Losses to the
Environment (kg)
Region and State
Atlantic
Delaware
Georgia
Maine
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
West Virginia
Subtotals
North Central
Illinois
Kentucky
Ohio
Tennessee
Wisconsin
Subtotals
South
Alabama
Louisiana
Texas
Subtotals
West
Washington
Subtotals
U.S. Total
Company
Diamond
Olin
Allied
Sobin
Linden
Hooker
Olin
Allied
Allied
Allied
PPG
Monsanto
Goodrich
Pennwalt
Sobin
Olin
BASF
Stauffer
Olin
Diamond
Diamond
PPG
Stauffer
BASF
Diamond
Al. Co. of Am.
Georgia- Pac.
Weyerhaeuser
28 Plants
(thousands of tons)
133
93
63
71
154
56
56
56
56
176
56
970
84
100
104
33
124
57
502
116
70
70
71
218
167
48
56
157
973
45
88
133
2,578
Land9
8,385
5,776
5,611
3,778
15,059
5,171
5,171
6,895
9 »— •*
3,867
20,441
5,110
85,264
5,990
8,674
9,021
2,120
16,004
2,966
44,775
7,897
8,017
4,523
8,137
17,838
12,538
5,240
7,621
13,910
85,721
3,624
7,671
11,295
227,055
Air
827
827
827
827
827
827
827
827
827
827
827
9,097
827
827
827
827
827
827
4,962
827
827
827
827
827
827
827
827
827
7,443
827
827
1,654
23,156
Water
235
150
90
115
280
80
80
80
80
325
80
1,595
130
170
175
50
220
80
825
200
110
110
115
415
310
55
80
285
1,680
55
140
195
4,295
Total
9,447
6,753
6,528
4,720
16,166
6,078
6,078
7,802
4,774
21,593
6,017
95,956
6,947
9,671
10,023
2,997
17,051
3,873
50,562
8,924
8,954
5,460
9,079
19,080
13,675
6,122
8,528
15,022
94,844
4,506
8,638
13,144
254,506
a. Land losses included in this table are sludge only and do not include other mercury waste mate-
rials such as filter cake, anode graphite, etc.
Source: URS Research Company; Ref. 60, 62, 63.
141
-------
manufacturers are the DeNora (13 plants), Olin (6 plants), Solvay (4 plants),
and Uhde (5 plants) (see Ref. 63).
1973 Technology. Figure 29 is a flow diagram of a "typical" chlorine and
caustic soda plant which manufactures 500 tons of chlorine gas and 570 tons
of caustic per day. The basic unit in the plant is the mercury cell, which
theoretically recirculates the same mercury continuously. However, mercury
losses do occur from this cell, and makeup mercury must be added occasionally.
The Uhde cell, which may contain 2,651 kg of mercury, is typically 2.0 meters
by 17.6 meters and is constructed of heavy gage steel to which hard rubber-
covered channels are bolted to form the sides. The bottom has a slight slope
(4 to 5 millimeters/meter) so that mercury, which is introduced at the top of
the cell through an end box seal, flows uniformly down the flat bottom of the
cell to a depth of about 0.003 meter and is removed (with an amalgam content
of less than 0.5 percent sodium) through an outlet end box. Together with the
mercury, purified brine is introduced at the top of the cell, covering the
flowing mercury to a depth ranging from less than 0.03 meter at the top of the
cell to almost 0.12 meter at the bottom of the cell. Multiple anodes extend
down from the cell cover (which may be attached to the body of the cell with a
flexible gasket or with a firm connection). A high-density, low-voltage current
2
(less than 0.5 amp/cm ), which is carried by massive bus bars from cell to cell
in series connection, activates these anodes. The anodes then electrolyze the
brine to form chlorine, which is collected at the top of the cell or at slots
in the anode. The sodium amalgam is deposited in the moving mercury cathode.
After leaving the end box, this amalgam enters a decomposer (also called a
denuder) which is typically affixed to the end of the cell.
The decomposer is a small reactor that is normally packed with pieces of
graphite which, in the presence of trickling water, cause the sodium amalgam
to decompose, forming 40- to 60- percent caustic and releasing the mercury for
return to the inlet of the cell. Hydrogen is also formed (99.9 percent pure).
Its temperature of over 80°C allows mercury vapor to be incorporated in the
gas. To minimize losses, the hydrogen is cooled at the decomposer to about
55°C; this removes over 98 percent of the mercury, which is then returned to
the cell. The remainder of the hydrogen stream is further purified so that
142
-------
Mercury
Input
10,000
Air Lai
< • 0)'
0) ^
^ in
If) CO
t"~ »••
id Wai
1 >
CO
^ Electrolvzer
Kg «*»>
T
Return System
Air
'? Kg
276
t.
Returr
Brine Saturator
and Purifier
Return
ter
System
1
i System
79 Kg
Hydrogen » Air
i
231 Kg Land
1 *" La0d |2709Kc
Decompo!
and
Cooler
r 2627 Kg
System Buildups,
Theft, etc.
er _
Caustic
* Purifier
I 200 Kg
Product
8 Kg 1 36 Kg
Land Water
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure 29 MERCURY LOSSES FROM A TYPICAL CHLOR-ALKALI
MANUFACTURING PLANT, 1973
143
-------
99 percent or more of the mercury is ultimately removed. The gas is then
normally flared.
The brine which leaves the cell is depleted of its sodium chloride con-
tent and it carries some mercury with it. This depleted brine is returned to
the brine saturator and is treated to remove undesirable chemicals (primarily
calcium and magnesium salts) which are introduced in that operation. This
purification step results in the formation of sludges which incorporate signifi-
cant quantities of mercury. These sludges must be segregated for further treat-
ment and disposal. The purified and saturated brine is recycled to the cell.
A materials balance for mercury in a "typical" chlor-alkali plant is shown
in Table 24. With the 1973 technology, mercury consumption is assumed to be
0.4 pound of mercury per ton of chlorine produced, or 31,780 kg per year for
the 500 tons/day plant. Table 24 shows the environmental mercury losses of
the "typical" plant by source and form of emission.
In this materials balance certain assumptions have been made to account
for all mercury losses. For example, a buildup of the mercury "inventory"
within each cell occurs over time as a result of changing operating conditions;
these may include the formation of a mercury "butter" which effectively reduces
the mercury available for reaction temporarily, or the need to operate at higher
current densities to increase production, which requires a higher mercury level,
etc. Mercury also accumulates in piping and other equipment and is an apparent
loss. Other poorly defined losses, for example theft, can occur. We have made
estimates to cover all known or suspected losses so that the amount of mercury
introduced (i.e., 0.4 Ib per ton of chlorine produced) is accounted for.
Actually, such accounting is not possible in a typical mercury cell chlor-
alkali plant. Instead, for the industry as a whole, only about 50 percent of
its annual mercury consumption can be accounted for. This does not imply that
mercury is indiscriminately lost to the environment; rather, it is most diffi-
cult to estimate where mercury may accumulate in the system and to what extent.
For example, we estimate that each year, in this typical plant, 523 kg of
mercury enter structural members and can only be recovered when the plant is
disassembled after its active lifetime. The industry is concerned with this
lack of accountability and is continuing to seek better results. Many plants
now run radioactive inventories of the mercury content of each cell at least
144
-------
TABLE 24. - Materials Balance for Chlor-Alkali Plant (500 tons of chlorine per day)
with a Mercury Efficiency of 0.40 Pound per Ton Chlorine, 1973
(kilograms)
Mercury Remaining in
Process Loop
Cell
Stored Inventory
Uncontrolled Traps
Equipment Holdups
. Gases
. Liquids
Within the Brine
Mercury Consumed dur-
ing Manufacture
Product
. Caustic Soda &
Sodium
Hypochlorate
. Chlorine
Air
. End Boxes \
. Hydrogen ft |
Waste Air )
. Cell Room
Water
Solids
. Sludges
. Filter Cake
. Anode 6 De-
composer
Graphite
. Misc. Solids
Other
. Recycling
System
. Mercury Flask
. Theft
Long-Term Structural
Subtotal (kg)
(percent)
total (31,780 kg)
(percent)
Plant Losses
Air
xjsses
350
455
22
827
(2.6)
Water
Losses
276
276
(0.9)
Land
Losses
14,695
61
895
3,541
19,192
(60.3)
Other Losses
Product
636
1
637
(2.0)
Theft
184
184
(0.6)
HLwa
21,116
(66.4)
Plant Inventory
System
Buildups
(265,227)
8,859
(9,171)
(22V)
65
(2,724)
783
(1,362)
392'
(136)
0
' 10, 099
Escapage
42
(5,312)
523
565
(31.8) | (1.8)
10,664
(33.6)
Source: URS Research Company
a. High-Level Waste
Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate total mercury in system in previous years. The number below
is the amount of mercury added during the study year. For example, the cell contained
265,227 kg in 1972 and 271,586 kg in 1973.
145
-------
once a year, but this expensive technique is only accurate to about ±1 per-
cent.
Losses to air from a typical chlor-alkali plant occur chiefly at the end
box, the electrolyzer cell, from hydrogen and waste air flaring, and from the
brine recycling system. Except for the brine recycling system, air losses are
assumed to be within EE& requirements of 2,300 grams per day (Ref. 64). The
small recycling system losses, however, occur at a variety of uncontrolled
locations within the plant (brine purifier and saturator, leaks at fittings
and seals, and settling ponds).
As a part of good housekeeping practice, the inevitable mercury leaks
which occur under the cell house are regularly collected, by hosing with water,
into sumps. The collected mercury is returned to the system and the mercury-
containing water is sent to the water purification plant where it is joined by
the supernatant liquid from the sludge settling pond. The collected waters
are usually treated with sodium sulfide, forming the very insoluble mercuric
sulfide which is easily removed by filtration prior to discharge to a local
receiving water body.
The amount of mercury that can be discharged to the aquatic environment
depends on the type and size of the water body. Proposed EPA regulations
limit the maximum mercury discharge to 0.735 kg/day for streams, 0.612 kg/day
for lakes, 12.2 kg/day for estuaries, and 14.7 kg/day for coastal waters
(Ref. 65). The mercury discharge for the typical plant was conservatively
assumed to be 0.79 kg/day (276 kg per year).
Mercury losses to land are the most significant waste problem for chlor-
alkali plants. Most of this waste is discharged in sludge (approximately 200
ppm of mercury) generated by the brine and caustic purifiers. The sludge is
concentrated in settling ponds and deposited in local industrial landfills.
Other solids with higher mercury levels include spent graphite (anodes and
decomposer), filter cakes (sludge and water treatment residues), and miscella-
neous solids (discarded wood and plastic cell room flooring, machinery, pipes,
fittings, etc.). These solids may be incorporated in the sludge or shipped to
high level industrial disposal sites.
Chlorine gas contains, at most, trace amounts of mercury (assumed to be
0.005 ppm). However, caustic, even after treatment, contains approximately
146
-------
3.7 ppm of mercury. Most of this caustic is shipped out of the plant to other
manufacturers and is consumed in their products.
Theft of mercury from traps, flasks, sumps, and other sources is a problem
at most chlor-alkali plants. It is believed that most of this mercury is sold
to local salvage firms for resale. Complete elimination of this problem is
impossible because of the quantity used at the plants and the accessibility of
mercury.
The system buildups shown in Table 24 indicate the amount of mercury known
to be in the system the previous year (number in parenthesis) and the unknown
amount of mercury trapped within or added to that system. For example, uncol-
lected traps contain 227 kg of mercury on inventory day, but an additional 65
kg are in "miscellaneous" and "other" traps or adhere to equipment. The system
buildup is not an environmental mercury loss.
Small amounts of mercury will remain in empty mercury flasks, because they
are discarded rather than recycled. We estimated this loss at approximately
0.0454 kg per flask (3 to 4 drops). The other loss in this category, long-term
structural, occurs as mercury vapor or metal is absorbed into a building's
superstructure. This loss remains within the plant until the structure is
discarded.
1983 Technology. Figure 30 is a flow diagram for the technology which
will probably be used in 1983 by the "typical" chlor-alkali plant (500 tons
of chlorine per day). Table 25 is a materials balance for this facility.
Mercury consumption in chlor-alkali plants by 1983 is estimated to be reduced
to 0.10 Ib of mercury per ton of chlorine produced, for a total of 7,945 kg
per year. This reduction is expected to be brought about by the industry's
efforts to control mercury emissions to conform with federal, state, and local
regulations. Individual plants are expected to have almost complete account-
ability of their mercury consumption, which will enable them to control internal
plant discharges. Also, technological changes by 1983 are expected to help
chlor-alkali plants in the recovery and final disposition of mercury waste.
Mercury losses to air may be reduced 40 percent, or to 492 kg, for the
typical plant by 1983. Most of this reduction will occur at the end boxes and
hydrogen streams when the waste gases are chilled, demisted, and put through
147
-------
Mercury
Input
L_
2,500
Return
Air
1 Kg
456 H
\ •
Land
Air Land W
ii ii i
O) O)
^ Electrolyzer
Kg (cell)
t t
System Retu
Brine Saturator
and Purifier
Cg |4Kg
Water
Return System
ater
i
«•- 1
141 Kg
Hydrogen __». Air
i
78 Kg U"d
1 *" La"d |27Kg
Decompo
and
Cooler
rn System J g27Kg
System Buildups,
Theft, etc.
ser _
-------
TABLE 25. - Materials Balance for Chlor-Alkali Plant (500 tons of chlorine per day)
with a Mercury Efficiency of 0.1 Pound Per Ton of Chlorine, 1983
(kilograms)
Mercury Remaining in
Process Loop
Cell
Stored Inventory
Uncontrolled Traps
Equipment Holdups
. Gas
. Liquids
Within the Brine
Mercury Consumed dur-
ing Manufacture
Product
. Caustic Soda ft
Sodium
Hypochlorate
. Chlorine
Air
. End Box |
. Hydrogen ft I
Waste Air J
. Cell Room
Water
Solids
. Sludges
. Filter Cake
. Anode ft De-
composer
Graphite
. Misc. Solids
Other
. Recycling
System
. Mercury Flask
. Theft
Long- Term Structural
Subtotal
(Percent)
Total (7,945 kg)
Air
Losses
35
455
2
492
(6.2)
Plant Losses flee)
Water
Losses
16
16
(0.2)
Land
Losses
403 ••-
61 —
249 "
3,541 '
4,254
(53.6)
Other Losses
Product
75
1
76
(1.0)
Theft
19
19
(0.2)
HLW3
-to a
^to> a
-to a
-to a
Plant Inventory (kg)
System
Buildups
(265,227)
2,703
(4,585)
0
(272)
13
(2,724)
156
(1.362)
79
(136)
0
2,951
C37.1)
Escapage
10
(1,326)
127
137
(1.7]
4,857 3,088
(61.2) (38.8)
Source: URS Research Company
a. jpf (High-Level Waste) - Some or all of the final wastes which are greater than 400 ppm and cannot be
further treated are sent to controlled disposal sites or scavengers.
N6te: Numbers in parentheses indicate total mercury in system in previous years. The number below is the
amount of mercury added during the study year. For example, the cell contained 265,277 kg in 1982
but 267,930 kg in 1983.
149
-------
microsieve filters. Also, with tighter internal plant controls on mercury
consumption, losses in the recycling system will be reduced.
Losses to water will be reduced substantially because of waste water puri-
fication technology advances. This advancement will be brought about by govern-
ment regulations requiring industries to meet best practical waste treatment
standards by 1977 and best available waste treatment standards by 1983. There-
fore, the mercury discharge for the typical plant should be approximately
0.05 kg/day, or 16 kg per year.
The major changes in the 1983 technology occur in pollution control tech-
nology associated with the treatment of sludges. Two attractive processes are
now under development for recovery of mercury from sludges. One, developed
and patented by Georgia-Pacific, involves retorting the sludge with condensa-
tion of the released mercury. The other, which is reported in the literature,
involves the dissolution of the mercury in the sludge in a solution of sodium
hypochlorite, with possible further purification steps and subsequent return
to the system. It is forecast that some high level wastes will continue to be
generated; these will continue to be segregated in special industrial reposi-
tories. It is expected that sludge treatment will reduce the mercury entering
the environment to 403 kg in 1983 for the typical plant.
Other significant land loss reductions (Table 25) will occur in decomposer
graphite emissions. (Anode losses are expected to be eliminated by 1983 as the
industry completes the switch from the graphite anode to the dimensionally
stable anode.) Also, reductions in decomposer graphite discharges to the
environment are likely to result from adoption of good housekeeping practices
such as treating the waste graphite with hypochlorite solution.
Mercury losses to product (almost entirely caustic soda) will decrease
significantly. This reduction will take place at the caustic purifier where
the mercury enters the sludge system for treatment. Technological changes are
expected to reduce the residual mercury content of caustic alkali to 0.4 ppm
by 1983.
»
Losses due to theft, systems buildups, and miscellaneous escapage will
decrease by 1983 because more attention will be concentrated on locating these
sources and eliminating them. Also, leaks will be fixed promptly, traps will
150
-------
be collected regularly, and plant structures will be sealed properly. Generally,
the attitude will change from moderate concern to major concern with controlling
internal plant mercury consumption.
Estijnated mercury losses from a typical chlor-alkali plant's operation in
1973 and 1983 are compared in Table 26. The 1983 technology values are based
on a mercury consumption rate of 0.1 Ib per ton of chlorine produced and no
expansion or decrease in mercury cell chlorine production. Mercury loss to the
environment is expected to decrease by 78 percent during the decade.
Alternative Technologies. Chlorine and caustic alkali cannot be economi-
cally or practically eliminated from the U.S. inorganic chemical industry.
However, two alternatives could be implemented in the future to eliminate or
reduce mercury pollution. (The economic impact of these two alternatives will
be dealt with at some length in the next section.)
The first alternative is to switch from the mercury cell process to another
process. The diaphragm cell process is the most attractive, because it is the
major chlorine process used in the United States (accounting for 69 percent of
chlorine production in 1973). Other processes generate chlorine as a by-
product (7 percent of 1973 chlorine production).* Like the mercury process,
the diaphragm process generates hazardous wastes—most significantly asbestos,
lead, and chlorinated hydrocarbons. Asbestos waste, however, is expected to
be largely eliminated by 1983 as plastic membranes are developed to replace
asbestos. Continuing development of improved diaphragm cells, accelerated by
the current disfavor of mercury cells, is likely to result in even higher
efficiencies and lower discharges of noxious or hazardous substances, further
enhancing the competitive position of diaphragm cells. However, complete
replacement of existing mercury cell facilities within a 10-year period is
most unlikely.
The second alternative—and the more practical—is to regulate the dis-
charges to air, water, land, and product. By 1983 mercury pollution control
* The most significant of these processes is the Downs' cell (electrolysis
of molten sodium chloride to obtain sodium as the principal product and
chlorine as the minor product).
151
-------
TABLE 26. - Estimated Mercury Losses from Typical Chlor-Alkali Plant
Operations, 1973 and 1983
(kilograms)
Mercury Losses to
Air
Water
Land
Product
Totals
1973
15,869
1,951
244,875
8,661
271,356
1983
12,527
113
48,310
1,035
61,983
Source: URS Research Company
152
-------
technology is likely to be well developed, and, as indicated by Table 26,
environmental mercury losses should be reduced to acceptable limits. A signi-
ficant reduction in mercury consumption by 1983 is likely; several plants
already have consumption rates approaching 0.1 Ib of mercury per ton of chlorine.
Manufacture of Mercurials
The manufacture of mercury compounds (mercurials) accounted for almost 20
percent of total U.S. consumption of mercury in 1973. Some 10,718 flasks were
consumed in making organic and inorganic mercurials in the following Bureau of
Mines usage categories: agricultural, 17.1 percent; catalyst, 6.3 percent;
paint, 70.9 percent; and Pharmaceuticals, 5.7 percent. Mercurials for any or
all of these categories are often manufactured in a single facility. Hence, in
this section we consider the manufacture of inorganic and organic mercurials as
a single technology, but one with broad applications.
The manufacture of mercury compounds can be assigned to several SIC groups
(for example, 2818 organics; 2819 inorganics; 2833 medicinals). The process
initially involves conversion of the metal into one of several inorganic
mercurials which in turn is used to produce other inorganic, or a variety of
organic, mercurials. There are only about 16 manufacturers of mercury compounds
in the country, and often the same facility manufactures both inorganic and
organic compounds.
Mercury compounds, although essential in a variety of uses, are a very low-
volume chemical for which statistical data are virtually unobtainable. However,
we have made an estimate, based on available information, that the total value
of shipments for all mercury compounds (including both intermediates and final
product) was about $30 million in 1973 and required about 500 production workers.
In contrast, the relatively small inorganic pigments industry (SIC 2816) employed
8,900 production workers -in 1967, with a total value of shipments of over $500
million.* Despite their low volume, some 45 mercury compounds are regularly
manufactured in the United States, according to the Directory of Chemical
The production of mercury compounds is not an industry per se. In most cases
the production of mercurials is almost a sideline—to a much larger chemical
facility. Even in facilities that specialize in mercurials', the production
of nonmercurials is usually an important consideration.
153
-------
Producers (Ref. 88). Of these, however, only four (mercuric chloride, red and
yellow mercuric oxide, mercurous chloride, and ammoniated mercury) are of
sufficient commercial interest to merit a listing in the Chemical Marketing
Reporter.
The price of mercury compounds is quite dependent upon the selling price
of mercury metal (although a time lag between changes in the price of the
metal and of the compound can be observed); as a rule of thumb, inorganic
mercurials sell for one and a half to two times the billing price for mercury
metal, whereas organic compounds sell for three and a half to four times the
cost of the metal. The higher price for the organics is primarily attributa-
ble to their usage of intermediate inorganics and of more complicated syntheses.
For example, the quoted price of mercuric chloride (with a 73.9 percent mercury
content) varied between $7.17 and $8.66 per pound in July 1975, whereas the
price for phenylmercuric acetate (with a 59.6 percent mercury content) is
estimated to be $14 per pound.
Because the mercurials are mature chemicals with a long history of manu-
facture and because, in most cases, their production is a simple process,
manufacturing facilities are generally simple and use standard technology.
These facilities tend to be small—for example, a 1,000-gallon reactor is con-
sidered average for the industry; the adoption of small batch processes was
dictated by the high cost of the materials (primarily of mercury) and the
instability of the market. For reasons which are not completely clear, the
major manufacturing center for mercury compounds lies within a rather small
region in New Jersey which accounts for almost 90 percent of all mercurials
made in the nation.
Catalysts represent a small, but important, secondary manufacturing usage
of mercury compounds. Mercury catalysts are still used to a small extent in the
synthesis of vinyl chloride (from acetylene and hydrogen chloride) and in the
synthesis of vat dyes. These secondary manufacturing usages are described
briefly in the following subsections.
Production Sites. The 16 U.S. mercurials manufacturing plants and their
estimated production in terms of use category are listed in Table 27. As
mentioned above, these production sites are highly concentrated in the New
Jersey industrial region, which, except for pharmaceutical end uses, accounts
154
-------
TABLE 27. - Estimated Mercury Consumption of Mercurials in 1973, by Plant and Product End Use Category'
(kilograms of Hg consumed)
en
Location
Plant
Tenneco
Eli Lilly
Becton, Dickinson
Strem
Mallinckrodt
City Chemical
W. A. Cleary
Cosan
Mallinckrodt
Merck
Richardson-Merril 1
Tenneco
Troy
Ventron
RSA-Ardsley
Pennwalt
Totals
State
California
Indiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Missouri
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New York
Oklahoma
City
Long Beach
Indianapolis
Baltimore
Danvers
St. Louis
Jersey City
Somerset
Clifton
Jersey City
Hawthorne
Phillipsburg
Garfield
Newark
Woodridge
Ardsley
Tulsa
Catalysts
1,378
-
-
-
-
3,447
-
-
1,723
3,447
1,723
3,447
3,447
3,447
345
999
23,403
Agriculture
3,447
1,723
-
1,723
5,170
3,447
10,340
-
4,137
8,961
-
8,617
10,340
5,170
-
—
63,075
Paint
17,234
-
-
-
-
-
20,680
79,274
-
6,893
-
68,934
41,464
27,574
-
"•
262,053
Pharmaceuticals
-
2,964
4,136
-
3,447
-
-
-
5,170
5,170
-
-
-
-
-
~
20,887
Total
22,059
4,687
4,136
1,723
8,617
6,894
31,020
79,274
11,030
24,471
1,723
80,998
55,251
36,191
345
999
369,418
a. Values are based on estimated usage, in flasks, and were rounded to the nearest kg.
Source: URS Research Company
-------
for about 88 percent of total mercurials production. (The known concentration
of these producers in New Jersey was one reason for selecting that state as
part of a study region; however, as discussed earlier in connection with the
inventory results, the combined impact of these numerous producers was found
not to be significant for that region.) More quantitative data on the tech-
nology involved, by-products produced, etc., are not available and would in
any case have little meaning, since these statistics can readily change as
markets change for specific compounds.
Mercury compounds are used as catalysts in two major types of chemical
syntheses—the manufacture of vinylchloride monomer (VCM) and that of anthro-
quinone "vat" dyes. (Mercury catalysts are also used in foaming polyurethane
plastics in place and in other minor applications related to urethane. How-
ever, the use of mercurials in these operations is small when compared to the
whole industry, and the manufacturing plants are widely dispersed around the
nation; therefore, a use-site tabulation has not been attempted for them.) The
few production sites for the two principal uses of mercury catalysts are shown
in the tabulations below. These rough estimates indicate again that New Jersey
is an important manufacturing center (for vat dyes), but that the production of
VCM is limited to the Southeast petrochemical complex. In both cases production
involving mercury as a catalyst is small in comparison with the manufacture of
other mercurials.
Use Sites for Production of Vat Dyes
Estimated Use of
Mercury in 1973
State Company (kg)
New Jersey American Cyanamid 270
G.A.F. Corporation 270
Otto B. May Company 270
Mobay Chemical 270
Toms River Chemical 270
(Ciba-Geigy)
Pennsylvania American Color & Chemical 250
Massachusetts Nyanza, Inc. 240
North Carolina Soll-Tex Chemical 230
Total 2,070
156
-------
Use Sites for Production of Catalysts for Vinyl Chloride Monomer
1973 Production Estimated Use of
of VCM Mercury in 1973
State (City) Company (millions of kg) (kg)
Louisiana (Geismar) Monochem 136 9,800
Texas (Houston) Tenneco 102 7,400
Total 238 17,200
1973 Technology. Although mercury compounds have been synthesized since
time immemorial, the quantities involved are small and the general interest
level in commercial processes is likewise small. Therefore the literature
essentially ignores commercial processes for the production of mercurials.
But at the same time, manufacturers are reluctant to release details concern-
ing their processes, possibly because of this very dearth of information.
However, based upon an analysis of similar inorganic reactions and on the
information that could be extracted from the available literature,* we have
concluded that the inorganic and organic syntheses involved are straightforward
and require only simple equipment such as corrosion-resistant atmospheric
reactors, column stills, and so on. We therefore felt that consideration of a
few commercial processes for which details are known should suffice to typify
the industry as a whole.
The main concern in this portion of the study was to determine the emissions
to air, water, and land from the various processes used in making mercurials.
Accordingly, we selected four inorganic processes and one organic process for
consideration. The inorganics selected are among those most commonly used, and
they provide intermediates for production of organic mercurials.
* Ref. 68, which is one of our basic sources of information, provides additional
flow charts for alternate ways of producing mercuric sulfide, mercuric
chloride, and red mercuric oxide. It also includes flow charts for the
manufacture of yellow mercuric oxide and mercurous chloride.
157
-------
Figure 31a is a flow diagram of a common production method for black mer-
curic sulfide which utilizes an aqueous phase reaction. In this and subsequent
diagrams we have assumed yields of between 95 percent and 98 percent, although
some sources claim even higher yields. We then assigned mercury losses to air,
water, or land, depending on the type of reaction. As can be seen in Figure
31a (a typical case) most of the loss is recaptured in the treatment process
where the mercury wastes are precipitated by sodium sulfide treatment, removed
by filtration, and then recycled (after further purification) back into the
process. Losses to water from the treated aqueous wastes are low, and losses
to air are minimal.
Figure 31b shows a common production method for mercuric chloride (known
as corrosive sublimate) in which mercury metal is reacted in a closed, glass-
lined or stainless steel vessel with an excess of chlorine. Heat is applied
to promote a gas phase reaction which results in high yields of the mercuric
chloride. Unreacted mercury and chlorine are trapped in a caustic scrubber
and this waste effluent is treated to recover small amounts of mercury (as
mercuric sulfide).
Figure 32 shows two alternate, and common, methods for producing red
mercuric oxide (widely used in battery manufacture and as an intermediate in
the synthesis of other mercurials). Both of these aqueous phase reactions
produce high yields, and waste effluents are treated to recover most of the
mercury losses.
Figure 33 is a flow diagram of the manufacture of the most widely used
organic mercurial—phenylmercuric acetate. Here again yields are high and
mercury losses are small, and most of the mercury that is lost is recycled
from the waste effluent. (It should be noted that the very high value of the
waste mercury is in itself an incentive to recover it; in this case the
recovered mercury represents a savings of over 2 percent on raw material costs
alone. In contrast, in the chlor-alkali industry the amounts of mercury losses
are much larger, but the additional cost per kilogram of product produced is
insignificant.) The finished phenylmercuric acetate is sold either as a dry
powder (100 percent) or as a dilute suspension.
158
-------
1000(asHg)<
H2S Gas-
SOURCE: Ref.60.
Reactor
1000
Filter
45
HgS
46
950 Black Mercuric
Sulfide •
HCI
50
Na2S-
Treatment
1 I'
Solid Waste Water
Effluent
1
Land
(a) MERCURIC SULFIDE
Vent to Air
M.,r\l I _i
mm /**l-ll *
1 ,
1
<
.
bber
CI2
Reactor
1
Land
i .
«1
980
I .
Heat
19
20
Waste Effluent 4
NaCI + NaOCI UU
-------
C02 Air
«1
Water
Land
I
luuu (as rig;
HgCI2 *
Water »
i
Reactor
i
t
Na2S
35
1000
Filtration
and
Washing
i
960 960
40
t
Waste
Treatment
36
Solid Waste
HgS
1-
Land
\- .
NaCI 4 » Water
Effluent
(a) FROM MERCURIC CHLORIDE
1000
Hg >
CI2 *
NaOH— »•
2
Air
t«,
IHCI
Glass-Lined
Reactor
i
i
35
Air Air
]
1000
Wash
«1 |<1
Tank
1000 Filter 960
Purification
40
Solid
Wastes
J
_ 36 Wastewater 4
* Treatment * Wdlt)l
1
Land
SOURCE: Ref. 60; URS Research Company.
(b) FROM MERCURY METAL
Figure 32 MERCURY BALANCE FOR TWO METHODS FOR PRODUCTION
OF RED MERCURIC OXIDE
160
-------
«1
n • 485 ^ Phenylmercuric
Mercury 1QOO
Oxide
Benzene
Acetic Acid
L—^| Mixing | 470 Phenylmercuric
Acetate (10%-30%)
Acetate (100%)
955
Water
Land
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure 33 MERCURY BALANCE FOR SYNTHESIS OF PHENYLMERCURIC ACETATE
(using 1973 technology)
161
-------
In general, mercurials are manufactured in small reaction vessels, pro-
ducing a slurry in an inert liquid which can conveniently be filtered to
recover the desired product (which may be further purified); after treatment,
the filtrate is discharged. In the 1973 technology, the filtrate, which may
contain unreacted mercury compounds, is treated with sodium sulfide to pre-
cipitate mercuric sulfide and, after a second filtration, is discharged to the
sewer. Because these effluent flow rates are so small and the removal rate
for residual mercury is so high, the total quantities of mercury discharged
are low. Figure 34, which was supplied by the Ventron Corporation, shows the
control capability currently in use by this major manufacturer of mercury com-
pounds which results in a final effluent containing less than 0.23 kg of
mercury per day. We estimate that, on the average, about 0.4 percent of the
total mercury used in a given plant will be lost to the environment, primarily
to water.
As mentioned earlier, vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) was still being produced
in 1973 from acetylene and hydrogen chloride, using a mercuric chloride catalyst.
Figure 35 is the flow diagram for this reaction, and indicates the resultant mer-
cury losses to the environment. It is believed that most of the mercury losses
occur when the carbon pellets impregnated with mercuric chloride are discarded
but, as indicated on the figure, other small losses to product and to air can
occur. However, the overall loss is of the same order as that for other chemi-
cal reactions involving mercury—less than one-half of 1 percent of throughput.
It seems likely that the losses for synthesis of the anthroquinone dyes would be
of the same order, although this belief cannot be verified because of lack of
knowledge concerning the processes actually employed.
Both of these uses of mercury as a catalyst are on the decline. According
to available information, the Tenneco plant in Texas has changed its production
route for vinyl chloride monomer and stopped using mercurial catalyst in 1974.
Usage of anthroquinone, which is sulfonated in the presence of mercuric sulfate
to yield two important dyestuff intermediates—1,5- and 1,8-disulfonic acid—is
also declining. (The anthroquinone vat dyes are of a class that can be easily
reduced to a soluble, colorless form in which the fibers are readily impregnated;
after this the dyes are oxidized to produce the insoluble color in the fibers.)
162
-------
Utility
Water
Utility
Water
Organic
Mercurials
Production
Inorganic
Mercurials
Production
Process Water
1000 to 2000 GPD
20 to 80 ppm Hg
Process Wa
5,000 to 12,00
50 to 150 ppi
\
Men
Rem
Pro
ter '
OGPD
TiHg
Continuous
Sample and
Flow Measurement
i .
i
cury
cess Total Plant 1
' * c nnn tn At
' Less than 0.5 L
Continuous
Sample and
Flow Measurement
< ,
Effluent -
),OOOGPD;
b/Day Mercury
Process and
Utility
Water
Nonmercurials
Production
SOURCE: Ventron Corporation.
Figure 34 WASTEWATER FLOW IN A PLANT PRODUCING
MERCURIALS AND NONMERCURIALS
163
-------
Acetylene and HCI
Catalyst (as HgCI2)
1000
"1
Re
Acetylene -»•
Hydrogen Chloride—
1000
efrigerated
Column
c
3
*• Land
t
Phenol
Vinyl chloride (stabilized)
Bottoms to Pot Still
Note: Use of 1,000 kg of mercury as catalyst would account for vinyl production of about 26 million kg —
about 10 percent of the production of the industry by this route in 1973.
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure 35 MANUFACTURING PROCESS FOR VINYL CHLORIDE MONOMER
USING A MERCURY CATALYST
164
-------
The emergence of new synthetic fibers and new dyeing technologies is expected
to reduce demand for anthroquinone dyes, with a corresponding decline in
mercury usage.
1983 Technology. No important changes or improvements in the technology
for making mercurials are forecast. Individual facilities may upgrade equip-
ment in an effort to reduce possible sources of mercury loss to the environment
and to improve process efficiency. However, the production of mercurials is
small and is not in a growth phase, so that there are no pressures to improve
the technology beyond its present limits. Also, the costs involved in the
small batch processes now generally in use are dominated by the raw materials
cost (primarily for mercury) and small batch sizes allow a degree of flexibil-
ity which is quite important to this small industry.
Improvements in the pollution control technology associated with the indus-
try are likely. Although the mercury losses are presently small, continued
emphasis upon a clean environment will undoubtedly lead to even more reduction
of these losses. For example, rather than directly discharging liquid wastes
to sewers after treatment, some plants are now using holding tanks which effec-
tively isolate any accidental spills and prevent their inadvertent discharge
to sewers. For 1983, then, we predict that total quantities will be lower and
that discharges from production will be about half as great as those for 1973—
that is, 0.2 percent of throughput. Examples of the technology which we see as
helping to effect this change are discussed briefly below.
Improved methods for removing traces of mercury from water effluents are
now in use (see chlor-alkali technology discussion). Basically, these systems
depend on the precipitation of mercuric siilfide (by the injection of sodium
sulfide) from the waste stream, with collection of the precipitate on a suitable
filter. The mercury content of the precipitate is usually recovered either
by a retorting process (with control of air emissions) which returns mercury
metal to the system, or by a dissolution process which returns mercuric chloride
to the system. With either of these technologies, discharges of mercury to the
receiving water are reduced to the parts per billion range, and total quantities
discharged are well below E£A standards.
165
-------
Removal of mercury from gas streams (which is not a particular problem in
the manufacture of most mercurials) has been of special interest to the chlor-
alkali industry. Final traces of mercury in the hydrogen stream from these
operations are frequently removed by a final pass through a molecular sieve.
Another possible technology involves the use of sulfur-impregnated carbon
filter bed. The manufacturer (Pittsburgh Activated Carbon Division of Calgon
Corporation) claims its Type HGR activated carbon will reduce mercury concen-
trations in hydrogen streams from 3 ppm to 1 ppb or less at all gas velocities
up to 59 feet per minute (fpm). A mercury recovery of over 95 percent is
obtained by retorting.
Development of pollution control devices for a variety of heavy metals
is continuing and is likely to accelerate as regulations and standards are
developed and applied. Mercury manufacturing and using industries will bene-
fit from these developments, which will likely be aimed at heavy metal emitters
with far larger total losses than those involving mercury. As processes are
developed which can remove a variety of pollutants in a single pass, the con-
cept of centralized industrial waste treatment facilities may perhaps become
a reality; this would increase removal efficiency and decrease overall costs.
Other Considerations. The manufacture of mercurials will continue and
will of necessity involve the use of mercury, even though alternative
technologies and products are now reducing the total demand for mercurials.
(For example, the production of vinyl chloride monomer using other tech-
nologies will eliminate the need for mercuric chloride catalysts.) Mer-
curials are presently a nongrowth industry, with further recession likely
in the future.
Mercury losses through theft, a particular problem when a high-value
product is involved, will undoubtedly continue to plague the industry.
Iricreased security is one possible answer. Another, perhaps more practical
and considerably cheaper answer, is for manufacturers to place increased empha-
sis upon yields and material balances. Since the processes involved are well
known and well documented, expected yields are also well known. Furthermore,
analytical techniques are now well developed for tracing mercury losses in
166
-------
waste matter (mostly as an inorganic or organic material in water). Thus the
bases for tracking all mercury into and out of a process are now available.
If such simple balances were maintained at all times within the plant, abrupt
or even subtle changes in balance would immediately alert management to the
existence of trouble—probably theft. (While theft may not necessarily indi-
cate a loss of mercury to the environment, the consumer of stolen mercury or
mercury compounds will probably have little regard for regulations concerning
the control of mercury losses to the environment.)
The storage, handling, and shipping of mercury and its compounds involves
a very low volume flow, with only a limited possibility of accidental spills
or losses. Mercury metal is almost universally shipped in 76-pound lots, in
iron flasks equipped with screw plugs. Flask breakage is virtually impossible,
although reports have been received of plugs being loosened with subsequent
loss of mercury in transit. However, because of the value of mercury, every
effort is made to minimize such losses. According to Ref. 89, the regulations
are minimal for surface transport; however air transport is prohibited because
of the vulnerability of the aircraft's aluminum structure to amalgamation.
Mercury compounds are generally-shipped as solids, typically in 50-pound
fiberboard drums. Because of the density of the mercurials and the consequent
ease of handling, there seem to be very few accidents. The Interstate Commerce
Commission (ICC) requires a poison B label on all solid mercury compounds, with
a maximum container size of 200 pounds. The International Air Transport Asso-
ciation (IATA) also requires the poison B label for a maximum shipment of 25 kg
in the passenger section and 95 kg in the cargo section of a plane. Liquid mer-
curials (normally a solution or suspension of solid material) are usually ship-
ped in small containers such as 55-gallon drums). According to the ICC they
must carry the poison B label, but there is no restriction on container size.
The IATA also requires the poison B label, with the same weight limitations as
for solid mercury compounds.
Mercury and most of its compounds do not present fire or explosion hazards.
(The most obvious exception to this is mercury fulminate, which is a prohibited
explosive and is no longer used or available in this country.) However, fires
or similar catastrophes involving mercury or its compounds could generate
mercury vapor clouds, which could be very dangerous to firefighters or other
167
-------
persons in the immediate area. The use of chemical gas masks, while unlikely
to be fully effective against mercury vapor, would certainly be indicated
for people downwind of a fire. (In other types of fires involving mercury-
containing products, for example a paint warehouse fire, mercury vapors might
be released, but the concentrations would probably be so dilute as not to be
of major concern.)
Implications. Total estimated mercury losses to the environment from the
production of mercurials and from the use of mercurial catalysts in the manu-
facture of vinyl chloride monomer and vat dyes are shown in Tables 28 and 29,
respectively. The estimate for the manufacture of mercurials assumes good
control in the present (1973) time frame, with an average loss for each step
of production of 0.4 percent of the mercury input. Virtually all of this loss
is assigned to water; even for the largest plant identified the estimated dis-
charge to water would not exceed 1 kg per day on this basis (and this does not
imply that this manufacturer's losses are necessarily that high). Losses to
air are small and, because of industrial safety requirements, these discharges
are vented to the atmosphere. Very little solid waste accumulates (as in
discarded filter materials), and the solids that do accumulate would be directed
to industrial disposal sites.
By 1983 the production of mercurials will have fallen sharply as demand
declines, particularly for paint and agricultural usage. Also by 1983, control
technology will be adopted that should halve total mercury losses, particularly
with respect to water. Thus by 1983 losses to water will be well regulated and
controlled.
The losses from the use of mercurial catalysts are only estimates and are
based on the assumption that no catalyst recovery is undertaken but that the
spent catalyst is discarded to industrial landfills. Hence the total loss for
1973 from catalyst usage is seen as higher than that from all mercurial manu-
facture (Tables 28 and 29). Of course the final disposal site for catalysts—
industrial landfills—is less likely to impinge on man's habitat than is the
case for the other mercurials. By 1983 the use of mercurial catalysts for
producing VCM and vat dyes will certainly be greatly curtailed, but in our
estimates we again assume total loss of the mercury content of the spent
catalyst. If recovery processes are instituted, these losses would be greatly
decreased.
168
-------
TABLE 28. - Estimated Mercury Losses from Production
of Mercurials, 1973 and 1983
(kilograms)
Losses to 1973 1983
Air 80 10
Water 2,800 450
Land 80 20
Totals 2,960 480
a. Estimated losses are based on 0.4 percent and 0.2 percent of through-
put for 1973 and 1983 respectively. Throughput is calculated as the
total usage of mercury in the Bureau of Mines' use categories of agri-
culture, catalysts, paint, and Pharmaceuticals, which for 1973 totaled
369,419 kg and for 1983 are estimated at 120,000 kg. However, these
values have been doubled to account for the numerous intermediate
steps in the manufacture of mercurials, which result in double han-
dling (by our estimate) of mercury consumed.
Source: URS Research Company.
TABLE 29. - Estimated Mercury Losses from Use of Manufactured
Catalysts in the Production of Vinyl Chloride
Monomer and Vat Dyes,
1973 and 1983
(kilograms)
Losses to . 1973 1983
Air 50 15
Water 100 30
Land 18,850 6,955
Totals 19,000 7,000
Source: URS Research Company
169
-------
Battery Manufacturing (SIC 3692)
The battery manufacturing industry consumed approximately 16,260 flasks,
or 30 percent, of the mercury used in the United States in 1973.* According
to a recent report on the industry by Versar, Inc. (Ref. 69), in the battery
manufacturing process the loss of mercury to the environment was only about 82
flasks, or 0.5 percent of the mercury used by the industry. Most of the
mercury lost in this manner was deposited in landfill sites near the manufac-
turing plants. Some 95 percent of the mercury lost from the battery manufac-
turing and use cycle occurs when the batteries are thrown away by the consumer,
with 92 percent of this going to landfill and 8 percent to public incineration.
The remaining wastes are recycled by the government, industry, or manufacturers.
Mercury is used in the manufacture of zinc-carbon dry cells, alkaline-
manganese dioxide dry cells, mercury cells (Reuben, Weston, and mercury-cadmium
cell), zinc-silver oxide cells, and carbon-zinc air cells. All of these
batteries are manufactured within SIC group 3692 (primary batteries), except
for the zinc-silver oxide battery, which is in SIC group 3691 (storage batter-
ies). In the following technological analysis, however, only the zinc-carbon,
alkaline-manganese dioxide, and Ruben mercury batteries are considered, because
they account for 99.5 percent of the industry's mercury losses (Ref. 69).
These mercury losses, by battery type, are shown in Figure 36.
The average annual growth rate of the battery industry from 1963 to 1973
was 4.3 percent. The industry is expected to grow at about 4.5 percent annually
from 1973 to 1985 (Ref. 71). Developments in battery technology and new appli-
cations for batteries will be the prime motivators for this continued growth;
for example, battery uses will expand with the development of electric vehicles
as a means of avoiding the increasing costs of fossil-fuel burning vehicles.
* Best estimates based on Ref. 14. This value is approximately one-third
higher than that reported in Ref. 69.
170
-------
757 Kg
(28.3%)
Mercury Purchased
564,140 Kg
I
Battery
Industry 2,674 Kg
1 Loss
561 ,466 Kg
Mercury in
Product
1,446 Kg
(54.1%)
457 Kg
(17.1%)
469 Kg 10 Kg
(17.54%) (0.39%)
2 Kg
(0.05%)
1Kg
(0.01%)
2 Kg -
(0.05%)
SOURCE: Ref.70.
Zinc-Carbon Dry Cell
Alkaline-Manganese Dioxide Dry Cell
Ruben Cell
Weston Cell
-•»• Mercury Cell
Mercury-Cadmium —
Zinc-Silver Oxide Cell
Carbon-Zinc Air Cell
Figure 36 MERCURY LOSS IN MANUFACTURING, BY TYPE OF BATTERY, 1973
171
-------
The three major consumer categories for the battery industry are the
public, industry, and government. In 1973, 70.5 percent of U.S. battery
shipments went to the public, 19.4 percent to industry, and 10.1 percent to
the government. By 1983, shipments to these sectors are expected to be 72.7
percent to the consumer, 19.7 percent to industry, and 7.6 percent to the
government (Ref. 71).
For over a century, until the early 1960s, the primary battery market
was dominated by the zinc-carbon battery. Recently, however superior elec-
trode materials have been developed that pose a competitive threat to the
zinc-carbon cell. This type of battery represented 54 percent of the primary
battery market in 1973, but it is expected that by 1985 it may account for
only 36 percent of the market (Ref. 71).
In contrast, the alkaline-manganese dioxide battery's popularity increased
very rapidly during the last decade. In 1973 this battery accounted for 22
percent of the mercury battery market, and it is expected to account for 34
percent of the market by 1985 (Ref. 71). The chief causes of this growth are
the superior energy characteristics and less expensive costs.
Mercury cells are expected to account for some 7 percent per year of the
primary battery market between 1973 and 1985 (Ref. 71). These cells will have
a steady share of the market because of their specialized uses as small,
reliable, and long-life power sources. The remaining primary batteries should
continue to account for about 23 percent of the market over the next decade
(Ref. 71). The batteries included in this group are silver-zinc, ammonia-
activated, cadmium-mercury, metal-air, solid-state, organic electrolyte,
lithium, and sodium-bromine.
Production Sites. In the United States there are 21 plants that manufac-
ture zinc-carbon batteries, 7 plants that manufacture alkaline-manganese dioxide
batteries, and 7 plants that manufacture Ruben mercury batteries (Ref. 69).
Of these, Union Carbide, ESB Inc. (Ray-0-Vac), P. R. Mallory, and Gould Corpora-
tion (Burgess) accounted for 85 percent of the battery sales in 1973 (Ref. 71).
Table 30 shows plant locations of the principal manufacturers, by state, and
indicates the approximate mercury losses to the environment from these plants
172
-------
TABLE 30. - Major U.S. Battery Manufacturers' Mercury
Losses, by Plants and State, 1973
(kilograms)
Region and State
Atlantic
Connecticut
Vermont
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Subtotal5
North Central
Illinois
Iowa
Missouri
Ohio
Tennessee
Wisconsin
Subtotal5
Total
Manufacturer and
Type of Battery
Manufactured
C-Z
C-Z, A-M, Hg
C-Z, Other
C-Z
C-Z, Other
C-Z
Hg
C-Z, A-M, Other
C-Z, A-M, Hg
C-Z, A-M
Other
C-Z, Hg
•
C-Z, Hg
C-Z
Other
C-Z, Other
C-Z
A-M
A-M
C-Z, A-M, Hg
C-Z
C-Z, Other
Losses
Land
<1
29
3
9
<1
8
127
129
439
36
43
3
6
833
101
27
3
224
93
135
34
998
14
14
1,643
2,476
to the
Environment
Water Air
_
<1
-
-
12
_
3
3
9
1
1
-
-
29
2
<1
-
5
2
3
1
20
-
—
33
62
_
2
<1
<1
<1
<1
7
7
19
2
2
-
<1
42
5
2
-
12
5
7
2
54
1
1
89
131
Total
Losses
<1
32
4
10
13
8
136
138
467
39
46
3
7
902
109
29
3
241
101
145
36
1,073
15
15
1,767
2,670
a.. In some instances, a manufacturer may have more than one plant in a state,
Battery types are designated as follows: C-Z = carbon-zinc dry cell; A-M =
alkaline-manganese dioxide dry cell; Hg = Ruben mercury cell.
b. Totals may not add, due to rounding.
Source: Derived by URS from Ref. 70.
173
-------
in 1973. (As previously mentioned, only plants manufacturing zinc-carbon,
alkaline-manganese dioxide, and Ruben mercury cells are considered in this
analysis.) As the table shows, all of the significant mercury-consuming plants
are located in the Atlantic and North Central regions of the country. About 34
percent of the mercury losses in battery manufacturing occurred in the Atlantic
region and 66 percent in the North Central region. (Note the predominance of
manufacturing and losses in Wisconsin and North Carolina.)
1973 Technology. The present battery manufacturing technology is most
readily discussed in terms of types of batteries.
Zinc-Carbon Dry Cells. Although mercury is frequently used to amal-
gamate zinc, its primary use in this process is as a paste (mercury chloride)
applied to paperboard separators. Mercury losses during these operations are
comparatively small.
The major loss of mercury during the manufacture of zinc-carbon
batteries occurs when batteries are rejected during inspection, testing, and
packaging. Normally, these rejects are sent to local landfill sites for dis-
posal. The amount of mercury wastes from rejected batteries represents
7.3 x 10~ kg of mercury per kilogram of batteries produced. The total annual
mercury loss from all plants that manufacture zinc-carbon is 756.4 kg (1,668
Ibs) (Ref. 70). Presently there is no technology to allow economical recycling
of these rejected batteries. However, the zinc-carbon batteries that are
thrown away by the ultimate consumer represent the most significant loss of
mercury to the environment (mostly to landfills or public incineration).
Alkaline-Manganese Dioxide Dry Cells. Mercury is amalgamated with
powdered zinc to form the anode. This is normally done in a closed system, so
that there is very little mercury loss. Again, the primary loss of mercury
occurs when rejected batteries are disposed of in landfill sites. This esti-
mated loss is 7.6 x 10* kg of mercury per kilogram of battery (Ref. 70).
Annual mercury losses of all the U.S. alkaline-manganese dioxide battery plants
are estimated to total 1,445 kg (3,187 Ibs). Rejected batteries are not
recycled by the manufacturers, because such recycling is not economical.
Ruben Mercury Batteries. A typical flow diagram for a Ruben mercury
cell battery plant is shown in Figure 37. The anode of the mercury cell is
174
-------
Mercury
Input
100,000
Land
HgO
16 4
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Water
Figure 37 FLOW DIAGRAM OF MERCURY LOSSES DURING
MANUFACTURE OF RUBEN MERCURY CELL BATTERIES
175
-------
produced by amalgamating zinc with metallic mercury. The cathode is fabricated
by pressing red mercury oxide with graphite. As shown in the diagram, during
these operations very little mercury is lost to the environment. In contrast
to the manufacture of the other two types of batteries, however, 95 percent of
the rejected Ruben cells are processed to reclaim mercury. The other 5 percent
are sent to landfill sites. Mercury is recovered from the rejected cells by
incineration in a reclaim furnace; the recovery of mercury here is approximately
1.6 x 10~3 kg mercury oxide and 0.39 X 10"3 kg mercury per kilogram of product
(Ref. 69). Any unreacted residue containing mercury is disposed of in a land-
• 3
fill. In this process, the total loss of mercury to landfill is 1.88 x 10 kg
of mercury per kilogram of product (1.49 X 10" kg from mercury oxide and
0.39 x 10~ kg from metallic mercury). Estimated total annual mercury losses
from Ruben mercury cell plants are 457.4 kg (1,009 pounds). Again, however,
the most significant losses occur when consumers discard the spent batteries
(in public landfill sites or incinerators).
Technology in 1983. Because relatively small amounts of mercury are lost
during battery manufacture, few changes in manufacturing processes are expected
by 1983. However, there will probably be more recycling of rejected batteries
during the next five to ten years. The major reason for this is that the cost
of zinc is rising so rapidly that recycling is becoming economically justifiable.
In addition, if industry and consumers follow the lead of the many federal
agencies that now sell spent mercury batteries for scrap value, the total
mercury loss to landfill and incineration should decrease markedly in the next
ten years.
Estimates of mercury losses from primary battery production and consumption
for 1973 and 1983 are given in Table 31. Primary battery production is expected
to increase 45 percent during the decade, but tight mercury controls should keep
annual manufacturing losses down to about 0.5 percent of the mercury used (for
an estimated manufacturing loss of 3,876 kg in 1983). Mercury losses to land-
fill that result from consumers disposing of old batteries will grow by 31 per-
cent if recycling approaches 10 percent (currently it is about 5 percent) and
decrease by 27 percent if extensive recycling (50 percent) is implemented.
176
-------
TABLE 31. - Estimated U.S. Battery Manufacturing and Related Consumer
Losses of Mercury, 1973 and 1983
(kilograms)
-a
-4
Type of Primary 1973 Losses
Battery Manufacturer Consumer
Zinc-Carbon 756 15 7 , 84 7
Alkaline-Manganese 1,445 301,752
Mercury 469 98,165
Total 2,671 557,764
1983 Losses
Consumer
Technology
Manufacturer Level
926 High
Low
2,270 High
Low
680 High
Low
3,876 High
Low
Losses
97,190
174,940
240,170
445,200
71,640
116,060
409,000
736,200
Source: URS Research Company
-------
Alternative Technologies. Battery manufacturers have done an excellent
job of controlling mercury losses during manufacture. However, substantial
losses to the environment occur when the consumer disposes of old batteries.
If these losses cannot be controlled by recycling, and if such losses cannot
be tolerated, substitutes may have to be found for most mercury cells.
Batteries which do not require mercury are expected to account for 23
percent of the primary battery market by 1983, even in the absence of controls
on mercury use (Ref. 71). If environmental controls are enacted to eliminate
mercury from batteries, of course, the manufacturing picture will be drasti-
cally altered. Primary batteries which might be substituted for most of the
mercury cells include silver-zinc, ammonia-activated, metal-air, solid-state,
organic electrolyte, lithium, and sodium-bromine cells. However, many of the
materials (cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, and zinc, among others) used in
these cells also have adverse environmental properties, and no other material
has been developed that has the electrolytic properties of mercury. Extensive
research and development will be required before alternate types of cells will
be able to compete seriously with mercury.
Electric Lamp Manufacturing (SIC 3641)
The electric lamp manufacturing industry consumed approximately 1,258
flasks (43,360 kg), or 2.3 percent, of the mercury used in the United States
in 1973 (Ref. 14). During electric lamp manufacture, however, only 50 flasks
(1,723 kg) of the mercury used by the industry were lost to the environment
(Refs. 10, 12). Most (95 percent) of the mercury lost in manufacturing went
to. nearby industrial landfill sites; the remaining losses were to air. The
greatest losses occurred when lamps were discarded by consumers, with 95 per-
cent going to landfill and 5 percent to incineration, according to the URS
inventory.
Mercury has been used in lamp manufacture since the late 19th Century, but
its use in this application was not significant until 1938 (Ref. 72). Prom
then until 1963 total lamp shipments increased at an annual rate of 6.5 percent.
From 1963 to 1973, however, lamp shipments increased only 2.9 percent annually,
178
-------
and by 1983 they are expected to increase only 2 percent annually (Ref. 73).
The chief reasons for the slowdown in lamp shipments are the increased popular-
ity of long-life lamps and the use of larger lamps with more lumens per watt
(more light output at lower cost). It is important to note, however, that these
larger lamps (most of which are fluorescent) have had an annual rate of increase
in shipments of 5.5 percent, and this figure is expected to increase to 5.7
percent (Ref. 73).
Discharge lamps which use mercury are of the fluorescent, mercury vapor,
metal halide, and high-pressure sodium types. These lamps, which are manufac-
tured within SIC group 3641, are used primarily for lighting streets and high-
ways, high-ceiling rooms, motion picture projection, photography, dental exami-
nations, photochemistry, heat lamps, and water purification.
Typically, discharge lamps require the following amounts of metallic
mercury: a 40-watt, 4-foot fluorescent lamp requires 40 mg of mercury and a
75-watt, 8-foot lamp uses 50 mg; a 400-watt mercury vapor lamp contains 60 to
76 mg of mercury; a 400-watt metal halide lamp requires between 50 and 60 mg
of mercury; and a 400-watt high-pressure sodium lamp needs 20 to 30 mg of
mercury (Ref. 74).
In the following technological analysis, only fluorescent lamps are con-
sidered, because they utilize 95 percent of the mercury used in lamp manufactur-
ing. Also, fluorescent lamps comprise 30 percent of total lamp shipments, com-
pared to about 2 percent for any of the other mercury lamps; all mercury lamps
contain about the same amount of metallic mercury; and manufacturing procedures
for all the mercury lamps are fairly similar.
Production Sites. Approximately 69 U.S. plants manufactured electric lamps
in 1973 (Ref. 75). Of these, 47 manufactured mercury lamps. GTE-Sylvania,
Westinghouse Electric, General Electric, and North American Phillips accounted
for about 90 percent of the total SIC 3641 sales (Ref. 73). Table 32 lists the
number of mercury lamp manufacturers, by state, and shows approximate mercury
losses to the environment. As the table indicates, most of the mercury lamp
manufacturing plants are located in the Atlantic and North Central U.S. regions
of the United States. The five states that together account for 73 percent of
the mercury losses are Ohio (23 percent), Massachusetts (15 percent), Kentucky
(13 percent). North Carolina (11 percent), and New Jersey (11 percent).
179
-------
TABLE 32. - Estimated Mercury Losses from Electric Lamp Manufacturing
in the United States, by State, 1973
(kilograms)
No. of Major
Mercury Lamp Estimated Losses to the Environment Total Environmental
Region and State Manufacturers Air Land Loss
Atlantic
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
^ Subtotal 20 41 776 817
oo
North Central
Illinois
Kansas
Kentucky
Missouri
Ohio
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Subtotal 22 41 767 808
3
1
6
1
1
7
1
13
3
9
2
1
10
3
244
57
180
38
14
185
58
257
60
189
40
15
195
61
3
1
6
1
8
1
2
4
1
12
1
20
_
3
76
14
219
20
386
5
47
80
15
231
21
406
5
50
-------
TABLE 32. - Estimated Mercury Losses from Electric Lamp Manufacturing
in the United States, by State, 1973
(kilograms)
(continued)
00
Region and State
South
Alabama
Arkansas
Mississippi
Texas
Subtotal
West
California
Subtotal
United States Total
No. of Major
Mercury Lamp
Manufacturers
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
47
Estimated Losses
Air
2
2
1
1
6
-
0
88
-
to the Environment
Land
31
33
20
14
98
4
4
1,645
Total Environmental
Loss
33
35
21
15
104
4
4
1,733
Source: URS Research Company
-------
1973 Technology. A flow diagram for a typical fluorescent lamp plant is
shown in Figure 38. The metallic mercury, starting gas (normally argon), and
other materials are injected into a quartz tube which is then sealed. During
this process, very little mercury is lost to the environment. Small losses to
air occur when the mercury is spilled (and later vaporized) and when tubes are
broken during manufacture and testing, which represent perhaps 5 percent of
total manufacturing losses. The greatest manufacturing losses occur when
rejected tubes are sent to industrial landfills for final disposal. Such esti-
mated annual losses total about 1,733 kg, or 95 percent of the manufacturing
losses. The fluorescent tubes that are thrown away by the ultimate consumer,
however, represent the most significant loss of mercury—some 41,660 kg
annually—to the environment (mostly to landfills or public incineration).
1983 Technology. Because mercury losses during manufacturing are rela-
tively small, few changes in the use of mercury during lamp manufacture are
expected by 1983. Of course, recycling or careful disposal of spent fluores-
cent tubes could occur by that date, but it seems likely that the economics of
recovering the mercury from spent tubes would not warrant recycling. The only
possible reduction of mercury usage by this industry would come from substitu-
ting some other, as yet unknown, material for mercury.
A comparison of estimated mercury losses from lamp manufacturing and use
in 1973 and 1983 is given in Table 33. The proportion of electric lamps using
mercury is expected to increase about 50 percent by 1983, but due to tight
controls, mercury loss during manufacture is expected to be only 4 percent of
the total input, or perhaps 2,700 kg. If recycling approaches 5 percent of
all lamps sold to consumers, mercury losses to landfill by consumers will
increase by 43 percent.
Alternative Technologies. Manufacturers of mercury lamps have done an
excellent job of controlling internal plant losses of mercury. Substantial
losses to the environment occur, however, when consumers discard spent tubes.
If such losses are not tolerable, substitutes for mercury or mercury lamps
will have to be developed, but most mercury lamp manufacturers indicate that
no other satisfactory substitute for mercury in discharge lamps has been found
(Refs. 74, 76). With extensive research and development and increased
182
-------
Air
20kg
Metallic
Mercury
10,000 Kg
Fluorescent
Tube
Manufacture
9,600 Kg
Consumer
Landfill
380 Kg
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure 38 FLOW DIAGRAM OF ESTIMATED MERCURY LOSSES
DURING MANUFACTURE OF FLUORESCENT LAMPS
183
-------
00
TABLE 33. - Estimated Mercury Losses from Lamp
Manufacturing and Use, 1973 and 1983
(kilograms)
1973 1983
iyptt ut Lamp Manufacturing Losses Consumer Losses Manufacturing Losses Consumer Losses
Fluorescent
Mercury Vapor
Total
1,671 40,227 2,623 57,324
62 1,437 74 2,048
1,733 41,664 2,697 59,372
H* a. Assuming a 5-percent recycling rate.
Source: URS Research Company
-------
expenditures, a substitute may be developed in the future, but the efficiency
of such a substitute is only conjectural at this time.
Other lamps which do not require mercury are available, and in fact com-
prise most of the current market. Most of these are incandescent metal fila-
ment lamps and cannot match mercury lamps in electrical efficiency or for many
specialized purposes. Although fluorescent lamps operate under a higher voltage
than other nonmercury lamps, they give off more lumens per watt of energy, thus
requiring less overall energy consumption. Fluorescent lamps also portray
colors more accurately, have a longer life than most other tubes, and have a
higher efficiency than conventional lamps (Refs. 72, 74, 77, 78). If other
lamp types without improved efficiency were substituted for fluorescent lamps,
the United States would require more energy output from its electric power
plants in order to maintain current lighting levels.
Another advantage which conventional lamps have not duplicated is that
mercury vapor lamps can give off high levels of ultraviolet radiation. Ultra-
violet ray lamps are used extensively for therapeutic purposes, improved photo-
copying, photochemistry, and as germicides (most notably for water purification)
(Ref. 77). If these special-purpose lamps were removed from the market, sub-
stitutes would be needed to replace them.
Industrial Instruments (SIC 3613 and 3821)
The industrial instrument industry in the United States comprises many SIC
groups, including electric measuring instruments (3611); switchgear and switch-
board apparatus (3613); industrial controls (3622); engineering and scientific
instruments (3811); mechanical measuring and control instruments (3821);
environmental controls (3822); process control instruments (3823); fluid meters
and counting devices (3824); and photographic equipment and supplies (3861).
This report, however, deals directly with only two of these groups, SIC 3613
and SIC 3821.
In 1973 the entire industrial instrumentation industry consumed approxi-
mately 7,155 flasks, or 13 percent, of the mercury used in the United States
(Ref. 14). For several reasons, this mercury consumption was limited almost
exclusively to metallic mercury. Metallic mercury is liquid at ordinary
185
-------
temperatures (melting point -38.87°C), with high electrical conductivity; it has
excellent high thermal conductivity and regular thermal expansion. Because of
these properties, mercury metal is readily adaptable for use in many instru-
ments. Some of the major types of instruments that use mercury are thermometers,
thermostats, and thermoregulators; flowmeters (manometers); pressure-sensing
devices and barometers (now largely the nonmercury aneroid types); gages; valves;
pump seals; switches and relays; navigational devices (gyroscopes, artificial
horizons, etc.); and medical devices (red blood cell counters, blood CO2 analy-
zers, etc.).
URS estimates that 81 percent, or 199,932 kg, of the 246,612 kg of mercury
consumed in instrument manufacturing in 1973 was used by the control instrument
industry (SIC 3821) and 19 percent (46,680 kg) was consumed by the switch and
relay industry (SIC 3613). About 55 percent (133,908 kg) of the mercury con-
sumed by the instrument industry was recycled or reclaimed (secondary) mercury
(Ref. 10). The control instrument industry losses during manufacture are
estimated to be 1 percent (2,000 kg), and the switch and relay instrument losses
are estimated to be 2.5 percent (1,169 kg).
Overall, the mercury-using industrial instrument manufacturing industry is
expected to grow 14 percent between 1973 and 1983. With the introduction of
solid-state devices and new designs, however, the consumption of mercury for
manufacturing switches is expected to decline 20 percent between 1973 and 1983.
The relay and other instrument industries, on the other hand, are expected to
increase their consumption of mercury by 14 to 20 percent.
Production Sites. Table 34 lists the industrial instrument manufacturers
for SIC 3613 and 3821 by state and shows estimates of their mercury losses to
the environment in 1973. It is difficult to determine specifically what instru-
ment manufacturers are of concern, because of the number of SIC groups involved
and the varied types of instruments marketed within each SIC group. The basis
for this table, however, was the value of shipments added by manufacture for
the switch and relay industry (SIC 3613) and for industrial control instruments
(SIC 3821). The results indicate that although the switch and relay manufac-
turers used only 19 percent of the two groups' total mercury consumption in
1973, their losses (1,169 kg) represented 37 percent of the total mercury losses
186
-------
TABLE 34. - Estimated Mercury Losses from Industrial Instrument
Manufacturing, by State, 1973
(kilograms)
00
Region and State
Atlantic
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Vermont
Virginia
Subtotal
North Central
Illinois
Indiana
TfMiffl
JtUM 0>
Kentucky
Michigan
Losses
Land
79
5
38
12
12
28
5
71
28
28
271
-
4
-
12
593
111
28
28
52
13
from Switch and
Manufacturing
Air
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
15
-
-
-
1
32
6
1
1
3
1
Relay
Total
83
6
39
13
13
29
6
75
29
29
286
-
4
-
13
625
117
29
29
55
14
Losses
Land
161
8
19
-
-
310
-
57
298
19
298
19
-
19
1,208
218
19
21
6
46
from Control Instrument
Manufacturing
Air
9
-
1
-
-
16
-
3
16
1
16
1
-
1
64
12
1
1
2
Total
170
8
20
-
-
326
-
60
314
20
314
20
-
20
1,272
230
20
22
6
48
Total
Losses
253
14
59
13
13
355
6
135
343
49
600
20
4
20
13
1,897
347
49
51
61
62
-------
00
00
TABLE 34. - Estimated Mercury Losses from Industrial Instrument
Manufacturing, by State, 1973
(kilograms)
(continued)
Region and State
North Central
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
Ohio
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Wisconsin
Subtotal
South
Arkansas
Mississippi
New Mexico
Texas
Subtotal
Mountain
Colorado
Subtotal
Losses from Switch and Relay
Manufacturing
Land Air Total
12
61
12
39
-
5
28
389
5
12
-
26
43
-
1
3
1
2
-
1
1
21
1
1
-
1
3
-
13
64
13
41
-
6
29
410
6
13
-
27
46
-
.
Losses from Control Instrument
Manufacturing
Land Air Total
*•
6
6
133
4
4
34
497
_
-
6
40
46
40
40
_ ..
6
6
7 140
4
4
2 36
25 522
-
^-
6
2 42
2 48
2 42
2 42
Total
Losses
13
70
19
181
4
10
65
932
6
13
6
69
94
42
42
-------
TABLE 34. Estimated Mercury Losses from Industrial Instrument
Manufacturing, by State, 1973
(kilograms)
(continued)
00
Losses from Switch and Relay Losses from Control Instrument
Manufacturing Manufacturing Total
Region and State Land Air Total Land Air Total Losses
West
Arizona
California
Oregon
Washington
Subtotal
Total
6
68
4
5
83
1,108
1
3
-
1
5
61
7
71 104
4 6
6
88 110
1,169 1,901
7
6 110 181
6 10
6
6 116 204
99 2,000 3,169
Source: Derived by URS from 1967 Census of Manufacturers.
-------
to the environment. The control instrument manufacturers, on the other hand,
used 81 percent of the mercury but their in-plant losses were only 63 percent
(2,000 kg) of the total.
1973 Technology. Figure 39 is a flow diagram of mercury losses during a
typical control instrument manufacturing process, and Figure 40 is a flow dia-
gram of relay and switch manufacturing losses. During control instrument manu-
facture, mercury is lost primarily in the filling process, when the tubes or
receiver bodies are loaded with accurately measured amounts of mercury. Losses
occur through spillage (to land), volatilization (to air), and in cleaning old
instruments that require servicing (to land). Minor mercury losses, mostly
air, also occur when leaks develop during testing and storage of the instru-
ments. In total, however, we estimate that only about 1 percent of the mercury
consumed by the control industry is lost in the manufacturing process. About
95 percent of this loss is to land, and the remaining 5 percent is to air.
(Mercury losses to water are insignificant, because water is not required during
the filling process and the number of instruments that must be water tested is
very small.)
In the switch and relay manufacturing process, the principal mercury losses
occur during filling and testing (see Fig. 40). Because switches and relays are
smaller and use less mercury than do most of the control instruments, losses to
land during filling total only about 50 percent of the manufacturing loss, and
this loss is only 1.2 percent of the total mercury used in the manufacturing
process. About the same percentage of the total mercury used in manufacturing
is lost to land when switches and relays are tested. The remaining very slight
manufacturing losses (0.1 percent) are to air and are evenly divided between
the filling and testing processes.
The overwhelming majority of mercury losses to the environment that are
associated with industrial instruments occur during consumer use and disposal
of the finished products. Industrial consumers recycle substantial amounts of
mercury back to the manufacturers (approximately 55 percent), usually when
instruments are traded in for new models or are serviced. The most significant
consumer losses occur when individual small consumers discard instruments—such
as thermometers, small manometers, or switches—after they have served their
purpose.
190
-------
Mercury
Input
Land Air Air
"t t4 'I
10.000 Filling 9,901 Testing
i " Process " Storage
t
\ '
9,900
5,445
Industrial 4,455 ^ Environmental
Consumer Loss
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure 39 FLOW DIAGRAM OF MERCURY LOSSES IN TYPICAL CONTROL INSTRUMENT
MANUFACTURING PROCESS
-------
Is)
Mercury
Input
Land Air
'-t t-
10.000 _ FHIina £
i
Process
1 1
Land Air
119} fe
'•875 Testing and
" Storage
1 1
1 1
9,750
5,362
Industrial 4,388 Environmental
Consumer Loss
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure 40 FLOW DIAGRAM OF MERCURY LOSSES IN TYPICAL SWITCH AND
RELAY MANUFACTURING PROCESS
-------
1983 Technology. Little or no change is expected in the mercury-related
technology of instrument manufacturing by 1983. Except for increases that
accompany the normal and expected growth of the industry, mercury consumption
and losses to the environment should remain stable through 1983. A 14-percent
growth rate is expected for the industry (and hence for its consumption of
mercury) between 1973 and 1973. Therefore, Table 35 is based on the assumption
that mercury losses to the environment will also increase by about 14 percent.
Alternative Technologies. Very little mercury is discharged to the environ-
ment during industrial instrument manufacturing (1.0 percent of the mercury con-
sumed by the control instrument industry and 2.5 percent of that consumed by the
switch and relay industry). The significant mercury losses to the environment
occur when consumers dispose of instruments to local landfills. Either mercury
would have to be replaced by other materials, or mercury-containing instruments
would have to be completely recycled, in order to reduce present loss rates
significantly.
Many substitute devices for certain mercury instruments are presently
available. Temperature-sensing devices which can be substituted for mercury-
in-glass thermometers (probably the most significant mercury-consuming instru-
ments) include alcohol-in-glass thermometers; thermistors (devices in which
current changes are directly proportional to temperature); thermocouples (most
popular are copper-constantan, iron-constantan, chromalumel, and platinum/
platinum-rhodium); bimetallic strips; and pyrometers (optical and radiation).
Replacements for mercury manometers (a device for measuring fluid pressures
under steady-state condition) and mercury barometers (a type of manometer used
to measure atmospheric pressures) include Bourdon tubes, diaphragms and bellows,
Bridgman and Pirani gages (using electrical resistance), ionization gages (in-
cluding a vacuum tube), and alphatrons (radioactive ionization tubes). Many
solid-state devices are also in development or production which may replace
other mercury instruments. The problem in the use of these devices is to get
consumers to accept them as desirable alternatives. Because mercury instru-
ments are generally cheaper and are highly reliable, instrument users are
reluctant to change quickly to newer, more expensive, and less proven instru-
ments .
193
-------
TABLE 35. - Estimated Mercury Losses from Industrial
Instrument Manufacture and Use, 1973 and 1983
(kilograms)
Losses
to
Land
Air
Total
1973 Losses
from
1983 Losses from
Manufacturing Consumer Use
3,009
160
3,169
100
8
109
,780
,763
,543
Manufacturing
3,430
182
3,612
Consumer Use
114,895
9,991
124,886
Source: URS Research Company
194
-------
The other alternative for controlling mercury losses to the environment—
complete recycling of used mercury instruments—would be difficult to accom-
plish. As indicated earlier, most industries already recycle many of their
instruments. If more emphasis is placed on recycling, industries may increase
their recycling rate from the 1973 figure of 55 percent to as much as 75 per-
cent by 1983. However, many private and small consumers (who break instruments
and spill mercury on the ground or down the sink) cannot recycle instruments,
and such losses will doubtless continue to represent a major discharge to the
environment.
Paint Manufacturing (SIC 2851)
The paint manufacturing industry consumed 7,603 flasks, or 14 percent, of
the mercury used in the United States in 1973 (Ref. 14). A small amount (32
flasks) of this was used for mildewproofing substances, and the remainder
(7,571 flasks) went into paint additives. According to the URS inventory
results, the total loss of mercury to the environment from paint manufacturing
was only about 95 flasks (3,272 kg), or 1.2 percent of the mercury used by the
industry. The largest environmental loss occurs when the paint is used by the
ultimate consumer; overall losses for all paint usage are discussed under
"Macrotechnology."
The use of phenylmercuric compounds as preservatives and mildewcides dates
back to the late 1930s, but their use in latex paint did not become significant
until after World War II. In the early 1950s, when paint film defects were
diagnosed as mildew growth, the paint industry started using phenylmercuric
compounds extensively. However, latex paint did not become popular as a house-
hold paint until the early 1960s. Various ingredients based on other nonmercury
compounds were used but were abandoned because of adverse physical characteris-
tics and inadequate performance (most noticeably fluorescence, yellowing, and
viscosity changes within the paint). Phenylmercuric compounds were found to be
more reliable and less expensive, and it was possible to use them in low con-
centrations. Today, phenylmercuric compounds are used chiefly as a preserva-
tive in water-thinned paint (latex) to prevent bacterial growth, and as a
195
-------
mildewcide in both latex and solvent paints for exterior surface protection to
prevent fungus growth on the applied paint film.
Phenylmercuric compound additives are used in small amounts (less than
0.02 percent by weight in interior paint and less than 0.2 percent in exterior
paint) with supposedly low orders of toxicity. The most common mercuric addi-
tives in paint are phenylmercurie acetate and phenylmercuric oleate (Ref. 79).
Phenylmercuric acetate contains approximately 18 percent mercury and is
slightly soluble in water (about 600 ppm), while the phenylmercuric oleate
contains approximately 11 percent mercury and is insoluble in water.
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act requires that all
pesticide products be registered with the EPA before they can be marketed in
interstate commerce. Phenylmercuric compounds used in paints are included in
this category. Because of the high mercury content of many U.S. harbors (Ref.
13), which was suspected to be connected to losses of mercury from antifouling
paints, most mercury compounds used in marine antifouling paints had been
removed prior to March 22, 1972, when the EPA published an order in the Federal
Register (PR Notice 72-5) to suspend or cancel all alkylmercury pesticides
because of their highly toxic and cumulative effects on living organisms.
Recently the EPA has reviewed this use and has taken action to ban the mercu-
rials completely. The paint industry and other groups, however, are appealing
this ruling, and hearings are under way to determine if the use of mercury
should be curtailed.
Nonmercury paint additives have been recently marketed; most of these
products contain tin, copper, or boron. There are presently several disadvan-
tages to using these substitutes in paint: the cost of the substitutes is
higher (estimated to be as much as 25 percent higher); they must be used in
high concentrations; their effectiveness in paint, both in the can and on applied
surfaces, has not matched that of mercury; and their long-term environmental
safety has not been established.
Production Sites. Table 36 lists approximate mercury losses to the environ-
ment from U.S. paint manufacturing operations in 1973. As the table shows,
there are a great many manufacturing plants, relatively evenly distributed in
196
-------
TABLE 36 . - Mercury Losses from U.S. Paint
Manufacturing Operations, by State, 1973
(kilograms)
Number of Establishments with
Region and State
Atlantic
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
Subtotal
North Central
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
Less than
20 Employees
15
4
71
37
3
28
52
3
154
151
18
68
10
4
2
18
3
641
150
30
10
6
23
67
24
62
2
1
More than
20 Employees
2
2
14
17
1
18
21
1
69
47
11
36
3
2
1
12
1
258
73
11
6
3
18
31
9
28
0
0
Mercury Losses to
Land
52
7
40
55
15
40
80
11
106
201
84
177
15
40
7
45
15
990
158
84
26
15
33
136
40
52
7
2
Air
6
1
5
7
2
5
10
1
13
25
10
22
2
5
1
5
2
122
19
10
3
2
4
16
5
6
1
<1
Water
14
2
11
15
4
11
23
3
30
56
24
52
4
11
2
12
4
278
44
24
7
4
9
33
11
14
2
I
Total
72
10
56
77
21
56
113
15
149
282
118
251
21
56
10
62
21
1,390
221
118
36
21
46
190
56
72
10
3
197
-------
TABLE 36. - Mercury Losses from U.S. Paint
Manufacturing Operations, by State, 1973
(kilograms)
(continued)
Number of Establishments with
Region and State
North Central
Ohio
Oklahoma
South Dakota
Tennessee
Wisconsin
Subtotal
South
Alabama
Arkansas
Louisiana
Mississippi
New Mexico
Texas
Subtotal
Mountain
Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
Subtotal
West
Alaska
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Less than
20 Employees
101
15
1
19
31
542
14
8
9
6
2
89
128
12
5
2
5
1
25
0
2
217
1
2
More than
20 Employees
52
5
0
7
9
252
6
2
3
2
0
42
55
5
2
0
3
1
11
0
1
90
0
0
Mercury
Land
172
15
2
55
62
859
40
22
22
22
2
91
199
15
7
2
7
2
33
0
9
191
0
2
Air
21
2
<1
7
8
104
5
3
3
3
<1
11
25
2
1
<1
1
<1
4
0
1
23
0
<1
Losses
Water
48
4
1
15
17
239
11
6
6
6
1
26
56
4
2
1
2
1
10
0
3
53
0
1
to
Total
•
241
21
3
77
87
1,202
56
31
31
31
3
128
280
21
10
3
10
3
47
0
13
267
0
3
198
-------
TABLE 36. - Mercury Losses from U.S. Paint
Manufacturing Operations., by State, 1973
(kilograms)
(continued)
Number of Establishments with
Region and State
West
Oregon
Washington
Subtotal
Total
Less than
20 Employees
16
25
263
1,599
More than
20 Employees
9
11
111
687
Mercury Losses
Land
17
33
252
2,333
Air
2
* 4
30
285
Water
5
9
71
654
Total
25
46
353
3,272
Source: Derived by URS from 1973 Census of Manufacturers.
199
-------
proportion to population across the United States. Analysis of the table
indicates that 42 percent of the mercury losses in paint manufacture occurred
in the Atlantic region, 37 percent in the North Central region, 9 percent in
the South, 1 percent in the Mountain region, and 11 percent in the West.
The U.S. paint industry has a large number of small "mom and pop" manu-
facturers (less than 7,000 gallons per day). However, the larger manufacturers
account for the majority of production. Establishments with an average of 19
or less employees account for only about 8 percent of the value of shipments
added by manufacture, even though such plants comprise 70 percent of all manu-
facturing establishments.
In 1973 more than 180 million gallons of exterior paint (98 million gal- .
Ions of latex and 82 million gallons of oil/alkyd) and 160 million gallons of
interior latex paint were manufactured by the paint industry.* The industry is
expected to grow at a 5-percent annual rate through 1983. On this basis, 178
million gallons of exterior paint and 211 million gallons of interior paint will
be formulated and sold in 1983.
1973 Technology. Figure 41 is a flow diagram showing mercury losses during
typical paint manufacturing operations. The principal loss occurs during formu-
lation when the ingredients are mixed in large metal vessels. (The size of
these vessels varies from a few hundred to several thousand gallons.) Two
types of losses occur during the process—bad batch losses and losses due to
cleaning of the vessels. Industry representatives indicate that upwards of 3
percent of product is lost during formulation. However, we estimate (conserva-
tively) that only 1.2 percent of the product contains mercury. (This lower
level of loss was selected because phenylmercuric compounds, which are very
expensive compared to the other paint ingredients, are added in the later steps
of paint formulation; therefore most of the bad batches will have been detected
before the phenylmercuric compounds are added.)
The largest share of the manufacturing loss of mercury (some 71 percent of
total manufacturing losses) is to land. Most of this type of loss is from the
* Interior oil-based paints are not included because they contain relatively
little mercury.
200
-------
Phenylmercuric 1000 _
Compound
Air Water
't t«
. - Q8
•I
Landfill
9 Inventory 9E
Spoilage
. 1
Landfill
8
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure 41 FLOW DIAGRAM OF ESTIMATED MERCURY LOSSES
IN TYPICAL PAINT MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS IN 1973
(for manufacture of 250,000 gallons of latex paint)
Air Water
J
fill vvaiczf
iL_t
Phenylmercuric 1000
Compound
Formulation
886
Inventory
Spoilage
880
Consumer
10o| J6
Landfill Landfill
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure 42 FLOW DIAGRAM OF ESTIMATED MERCURY LOSSES FROM
TYPICAL PAINT MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS IN 1983
(for manufacture of 250,000 gallons of latex paint)
201
-------
settled solids collected from bad batches and vessel washwater. Other losses
to land are from inventory spoilage, spillage, and discarded washwater filters.
These solids are generally disposed of in nearby landfill sites.
Approximately 20 percent of paint manufacturing mercury losses are to
water. Most washwater and bad batch water is allowed to settle (to remove
solids) and is then filtered (for more solids removal) and discharged into the
sewer system. Phenylmercuric acetate, the mercury additive used most in paint,
is slightly soluble. Phenylmercuric oleate, however, is nonsoluble in water.
Cumulatively, the most significant offenders in water discharges are the small
"mom and pop" manufacturers, who tend to flush waste down sewers rather than
collecting the solids for proper disposal. Mercury dissolved in solvents is
generally not a major problem, because most manufacturers store these waste
liquids in 55-gallon drums for recycling back to solvent distributors. Except
in very large plants (80,000 gallons of paint per day) it is not economically
feasible to recycle washwater for use in subsequent batches.
The remaining 9 percent of the manufacturing loss is to air. These losses
are brought about by volatilization of mercury from water, paint formulation,
spillages, etc.
Final consumption accounts for the major loss of the mercury used in
paint. Of the 7,571 flasks used as water-based paint additives in 1973, an
estimated 65 percent of the mercury was emitted, probably as Phenylmercuric
acetate or similar compound, to air. Minor quantitities were discharged to
water (via sewers) and to landfills; the balance remained in the applied
paint. Estimated losses to air after paint application are 3.8 to 4.0 yg/m
immediately after painting, 1.3 to 1.7 yg/m up to 200 hours after painting,
and 0.07 yg/m after three years (Ref. 80). Mercury emissions from latex
paint have been observed to occur seven years after application; the rate of
emission is proportional to temperature increases. Losses to land occur when
paint is spilled in the soil, or when paper, rags, cans, and brushes are dis-
carded, or when old, partially used paint is thrown away. Losses to water
occur when paint brushes and cans are cleaned; these residues are flushed
directly into sewer systems.
1983 Technology. Figure 42 is a flow diagram of estimated mercury losses
during paint manufacture in 1983. It is assumed that the 1983 technology is
essentially the same as the 1973 technology, but that paint manufacturers will
202
-------
add flocculents to washwater to settle out dissolved mercury. This residue,
along with other solids, will be disposed of in nearby sanitary landfills. It
is estimated that in total, the manufacturing mercury losses will be about 89
percent to landfill, 8 percent to air, and 3 percent to water.
It must be noted here that the EEA is considering the complete curtailment
of all mercury pesticide use in the United States. If this occurs, mercury
will no longer be used by the paint industry in 1983, and Figure 42, of course,
would not apply.
Table 37 compares estimated losses of mercury from paint manufacturing and
consumer use for 1973 and 1983. The "low technology" level shown in the table
would occur if the paint industry grows at an annual rate of 5 percent and
mercury usage decreases by 50 percent. If this situation did indeed material-
ize, the use of mercury would remain stable at approximately 7,600 flasks
annually.
Alternative Technologies. Very little mercury is discharged during paint
manufacture (1.2 percent of the mercury consumed), but substantial discharges
to the environment occur when consumers use the paint. If these losses cannot
be tolerated in the future, less toxic or nontoxic additives will have to be
substituted for mercury.
Many nonmercury substitutes are currently being used by manufacturers;
the more promising substitutes contain tin, copper, or boron. Some of the
additives that are considered less toxic than mercury are tributyl tin oxide
(or esters), .triaryl bismuth, triaryl boron, cuprous oxide, copper 8-hydroxy-
quinalinalate. zinc chromate, and metal chelates of acetoacetic ester (Ref. 77)
However, many paint representatives are not completely satisfied with mercury
substitutes. The disadvantages cited include: substantially higher cost;
higher concentrations required (1 to 2 percent by paint weight); substitutes
are not as effective in preserving paint in the can; paint properties are
sacrificed (pigment discoloration, viscosity changes, bad odors, fluorescence,
etc.); substitutes are not as effective in preventing mildew growth on painted
surfaces; and sufficient field testing has not been done. Another problem in
finding a quick pesticide substitute for mercury is that the product should
have no adverse long-term environmental properties. However, it should be
203
-------
TABLE 37. - Estimated Mercury Losses
from Paint Manufacture and Use
1973 and 1983
(kilograms)
Losses
to
Land
Air
Water
Total
1973 Losses
from
Manufacturing Consumer Use
2,333
285
654
3,272
8,140
173,610
1,000
182,750
1983 Losses
from
Manufacturing Consumer Use
2,890
285
97
3,272
8,140
173,610
1,000
182,750
Source: URS Research Company
204
-------
noted that most paint manufacturers recognize that effective substitutes
will be developed and are actively—even though reluctantly—looking for
them.
Most states have ignored the use of mercury in paint, although these
same states generally have stringent limits on the use of mercurial pesti-
cides. According to Ref. 146, only Connecticut has an outright ban on the
use of mercurials in paint (however, this ban is not being rigorously en-
forced) . In New York all mercurial pesticides are banned, except those in
paint. In Illinois all manufacturers who use 15 or more pounds of mercury
product per year must register with the Air Pollution Board; also, discharges
to water must not exceed 1 ppb. However, neither of these constraints is
an outright ban and mercurial-containing paints continue to be manufactured
(by obtaining exceptions to discharge criteria) and used in Illinois. In
general it appears that the use of mercurials in paint is either ignored or
discouraged. But, coupled with the action of the federal government, the
manufacturers themselves have moved to switch to nonmercurials in expectation
of increasingly stringent regulations. But as discussed elsewhere, manu-
facturers-have had problems in using the substitute additives, and as a result
the state has already allowed a number of exceptions. Texas also has dis-
charge requirements on the release of mercury to water which are not as strin-
gent as those in Illinois. No adverse impact on paint manufacturers in Texas
has been reported, possibly because of nonenforcement of the law.
Sector VIII - Commercial Final Consumption
Agricultural Pesticides
Agricultural use of pesticides for seed dressing is based on the
necessary control of about 1,100 disease-producing (pathogenic) and 95 dis-
coloring organisms found in or on seed (Ref. 2). Of all chemicals developed
in the last 50 years, none possess as broad a spectrum of fungicidal activity
as do the mercurials. Organomercurial dressing of wheat, barley, oat, and
rye seed is generally recognized as a factor contributing to increased cereal
grain production throughout the world. Though effective substitutes
exist for all antipathogenic functions of the organomercurials, the
205
-------
mercurials are effective at considerably lower concentrations (Ref.
81) and therefore cost less than most (if not all) alternatives.
After the 1970 USDA ban on all alkylmercury pesticides, phenylmer-
curic acetate (PMA) emerged as the dominant organomercurial used
in agriculture. Though PMA does not have the antifungicidal range
of the alkylmercurials, it is demonstrably less persistent and
less toxic to terrestrial and aquatic life, and it has efficiency
advantages over substitute compounds in many limited seed treatment
applications. Nonetheless, awareness of the environmental factors
involved, together with the development of viable alternatives, has
led to a significant decrease in use of mercurial chemicals in agri-
culture. Even before the 1970 ban the agricultural use of mercury was
lessening—it declined 10 percent in 1968, 20 percent in 1969, and
33 percent in 1970 (Ref. 35). Mercury use in 1971 was only one-third
as much as in 1966 (Ref. 83). The 1970 suspension of alkylmercurials
and the probability of additional action against the remaining organo-
mercurials have accelerated this trend. In 1973 usage was only about
21 tons* and an even lower tonnage is expected in 1975.
PMA is manufactured almost exclusively in the New Jersey region,
and most of the PMA for seed treatment is ultimately dispersed through-
out the major wheat and barley producing states in the Midwest. Accord-
ing to the URS national inventory, the largest mercurial pesticide
users in 1973 were North Dakota, Kansas, Montana, and Oklahoma.
At present, PMA and all other mercurial pesticides are under
cancellation by EPA. These compounds can be distributed, however, un-
til the EPA administrator officially suspends them, providing that
evidence presented at the pesticide hearings in Washington does not
warrant reversal of the cancellation. Whatever the result, the can-
cellation has had a marked effect upon the mercurials. Manufacturers
have dropped most of their mercury registrations and dealers have
curtailed their supplies to avoid holding quantities of "inevitably
restricted" material.
* ORS reapportionment of Bureau of Mines" statistics.
206
-------
As more efficient and less expensive compounds are developed,
and as the mercurial threat to the environment is more clearly
demonstrated, usage will decline with or without the ban. By 1983,
this usage could be less than 9 tons annually, even without further
EPA restrictions.
The Bureau of Mines predicts a 75.8-ton annual "agricultural"
use by 1985 without any further EPA restrictions (Ref. 14). When
the URS 70/30 nonagricultural/agricultural ratio is applied to the
75.8—ton estimate (which includes both agricultural and nonagri-
cultural mercury biocides), a 1985 forecast of about 23 tons for
seed treatment is established. The URS 10-ton forecast for 1983
is based primarily on the current downward trend in agricultural seed
treatment use of the mercurials. Because of the efficiency and eco-
nomics of mercuric pesticides use, that trend would gradually be re-
versed, unless there is an EPA suspension. Thus, consumption can be
expected to exceed 9 tons and to approach 23 tons after 1983.
Assuming a further EPA action against the mercurials, the
Bureau of Mines estimates a probable usage of 17 tons and a low of
10.3 tons for all mercuric pesticides. These figures are based on
continued utilization in some applications under strict governmental
control, almost exclusively for industrial purposes where foodstuffs
are not involved. Thus, there will probably be no consumption for
seed treatment by 1983, if the 1975-1976 EPA suspension materializes.
Because there is a large supply of organomercurials, elimination
of these pesticides from agriculture will not be abrupt. The least
damaging means of disposing of them would be through the standard
treatment of wheat and barley, seeds. Draw-down of the organomer-
curial stores could take several years, but by 1983 mercurial pesti-
cide usage in agriculture would be effectively zero, if there is an
all-inclusive EPA suspension*
207
-------
The beneficial and detrimental factors associated with the seed
treatment are more thoroughly discussed in the following references:
Ref. No.
2 Overview of mercuric pesticide usage—especially
translocation in plants and bioaccumulation
84 Technical summary of chemical form, method of
application and fate of the organomercurials in
agriculture
85 Translocation and bioaccumulation
86 Efficacy, application, bioaccumulation, and re-
sults of the methylmercury ban in Sweden
81 Relative effectiveness of PMA
1973 Technology. The path and fate of mercury in agricultural pesticide
usage are diagrammed in Figure 43. The manufacture and formulation of mercuric
pesticide compounds (principally PMA) result in a limited loss to water. In
the figure, the 98-percent efficiency value assigned to formulation represents
a worst-case situation. Development of new processes in the last 20 years
which are responsive to the properties of the chemicals used has made the seed
treatment process extremely efficient. The 2-percent loss to soil is attribut-
able to cleansing of the seed-treater (a "mistomatic" when PMA is used), dis-
posal of PMA-30 containers, and washing of trucks used to transport treated seed.
Most of the mercury lost to the environment is lost after the seed is
planted. Depending on the chemical composition of the pesticide used, and thus
on differing affinities for individual components of the soil, a portion of
the organomercurial compound on the seed will be leached out of the soil and
lost to water. The phenylmercurials are not immobilized in the upper few inches
of soil as are the alkylmercurials. Consequently, the phenylmercurials penetrate
208
-------
t
t
1
28
Wildlife
1 '
1000 999 . 979 959
1 1 20 20 144 1 J57
Water Water Soil Water Soil
!O • _fT... _..__ , „_-„, -I, - _ , M
O
VD
1
1
2
Man
•L
211
5 19
1
Water !
•
190
i !
Soil
Losses to
Water 185
Soil 785
Wildlife
and man 30
1000
—— Secondary losses to air =145
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
*
Figure 43 MERCURY BALANCE, AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDE MANUFACTURE
AND USE, 1973 TECHNOLOGY
-------
deeper into the surface and can be leached more readily. Approximately 22
percent of the mercury on the seed is incorporated in the plant tissue, though
only 1 percent of that quantity is ultimately translocated into the edible
grain portion (Ref. 85). More significant translocation occurs after foliar
application of mercuric pesticides to control a wide range of fruit and vege-
table pests (residues in crops four to six times higher than unsprayed controls;
Ref. 2). Recognition of the environmental factors involved led to an EPA sus-
pension of PMA as a foliar crop spray. Thus, the use of mercury compounds for
this purpose is assumed to have disappeared by 1973.
Despite leaching, translocation, and loss to seed-eat ing birds, more than
half of the mercury on the treated seed remains in the soil. In addition, most
of the mercury transferred to the plant is plowed under after harvest and
returns to the soil via decomposition. Overall, more than 80 percent of all
mercurials used for agriculture in 1973 were incorporated in the soil.
Not all the mercury lost to the soil or to water remains there indefinitely.
Approximately 15 percent of the mercury in the soil is lost as volatile mercury
vapor to air each year (Ref. 90). A comparable loss figure is postulated for
mercury in water. Similarly, the quantities of mercury assigned to wildlife
and man in Figure 43 do not connote the ultimate fate of the mercury. Most of
the mercury entering the biological food chain is lost as waste, with the per-
sistence of the phenylmercurials substantially below that of the alkylmercuric
compounds commonly regarded as hazardous to aquatic and terrestrial life.
1983 Technology. Without a mercuric pesticide ban, a flow sheet for 1983
would reflect 1973 types and percentage losses. Because agricultural pesticides
are produced expressly to be applied to the environment, little can be done to
control mercury dispersion through that environment short of restricting the
initial application. Control of mercury loss during formulation and seed treat-
ment would be counterproductive, in view of the negligible loss and the high
payoff in increased yields. The only major difference between the 1973 and
1983 technologies would be in the initial quantities of mercuric pesticides
entering the system. As mentioned previously, it is likely that the 1983
figure will be less than half of the 1973 consumption.
Alternative Technologies. The EPA contends that there are viable alterna-
tives to organomercurial seed treatment for disease control. In most seed
210
-------
treatment applications, the American farmer has switched to substitute com-
pounds. These substitutes and effective combinations thereof are registered
with the EEA (FIFRA Docket No. 246 et al.f USEEA, before the Administrator:
Notice of Substitutes for'Mercurial Seed Treatment, 1975). Unfortunately, the
safety of many of the alternative compounds presently used in agriculture
remains in question (Ref. 15). A growing number of farmers have also opted to
plant untreated seeds in recent years and, as a result, reports of unharvested
acres due to a variety of diseases (e.g., smut) that are normally controlled
by seed treatment have increased. As more effective alternatives are developed
and produced and as these alternatives gain acceptance, the loss in cereal
grain yield will be diminished and/or eliminated. Until the efficacy and quan-
tities of substitutes required match the efficiency of the mercurials, though,
there will be increased costs to the commercial seed treater (e.g., machine
replacement), the farmer (e.g., mercuric pesticide/substitute price difference),
and the consumer. The cost of mercury substitutes for seed treatment can
range from a savings of $1 million to a $15 million increase (for 108 million
acres of grain, assuming 50 percent treated seed). Costs to consumers are
estimated at 10 cents per capita per year.*
Most, if not all, of the problems with mercuric pesticides in agriculture
have been a result of improper use of, or accidental exposure to, alkylmercury-
treated grain. Undeniably, methylmercury in seed dressings did represent a
direct hazard to wildlife and an indirect hazard to man. Comparable problems
with the other organomercurials (FMA) are feared. The EEA contends that the
risk associated with the use of mercurial pesticides outweighs any benefit of
such use and that the existence of preferable alternatives mandates mercuric
pesticide removal. For most uses of the mercurials, such a contention is
realistic, but so far not all available alternatives are "preferred" by the
farmer. Farmers sold on the efficiency of mercury treatment contend that,
until the economic and efficacy gap between the mercurials and best substitutes
is closed for all seed treatment applications, a governmentally supervised
* Hertzmark (1974), as quoted in Ref. 15.
211
-------
"limited use" approach might be more productive, in view of the world food
shortage. At the International Congress on Mercury (1974), L. J. Goldwater
summarized the basis for this contention:
"More than twenty years devoted to studying the effects
of phenylmercurials on humans had convinced me that these
compounds, when properly used, present no hazard to the
user nor to the environment. In agriculture the phenyls
can replace the alkyls in protecting seed before germina-
tion and in controlling a number of plant diseases caused
by fungi. I am not an expert in plant pathology, but I
am told by competent authorities that the phenylmercurials
cannot be matched by other fungicides and that their use
adds substantially to yields of food and fibre. Senseless
and unnecessary curtailment of the use of these valuable
chemicals resulting in decreased production and consequent
increase in prices would be one more victory for the anti-
mercurialists."
Nonagricultural Pesticides
In 1973, larger quantities of mercury-bound fungicides were used for non-
agricultural turf treatment than for agricultural seed treatment. The nonagri-
cultural/agricultural (70/30 percent) pesticide breakdown in the UBS national
inventory reflects the ubiquity and frequency of nonagricultural use. Mercurial
fungicide treatment of turf is practiced throughout the United States and
requires a continued series of applications to be effective. The cost, range,
and effectiveness of the mercurials have led to their widespread use as turf
fungicides. In addition mercury-containing pesticides have a limited applica-
tion to control Dutch elm disease. Except in paint, other nonagricultural uses
of mercuric pesticides (e.g., as wood preservatives) are assumed to have declined
to insignificant proportions by 1973.
Parasitic fungi are the major disease-causing agents that are effectively
controlled by mercuric compounds. The mercurials act as protective-contact
fungicides. Application to seed, foliage, or soil can provide a surface shield
against fungus spores. Foliar spraying, which treats the turf soil indirectly,
is the principal means of application; treatment of grass seed is extremely
rare. Commercial turf operations depend heavily upon the organomercurials.
212
-------
Golf courses, parks, cemeteries, and lawns historically have received most of
the nonagricultural inorganic and/or organic mercury fungicide treatment. By
1973, only golf course greens, tees, and fairways were still receiving signifi-
cant amounts of mercury.
The 1970 alkylinercury ban, the current mercuric pesticide cancellation,
and the rapid emergence of substitute compounds have reduced the nonagricul-
tural use of mercury-based fungicides. Recognition of mercury accumulation in
the fish in golf course lakes due to runoff and percolation, coupled with a
general concern about the hazards of mercury's entrance into the biological
food web, has accelerated the abandonment of these chemicals.
The 1973 figure of 44.0 tons of mercurial fungicides assigned to nonagri-
cultural use is considerably below the consumption averages of the 1960s. User
dependence upon these fungicides will decrease still further during the next
few years as major producers continue their cutbacks but, without an EPA ban,
it is likely that this use will stabilize at a level only slightly below the
1973 total. Nonagricultural turf treatment with the mercurials probably will
not decrease as much as agricultural seed treatment, principally because (1)
the nonagricultural threat to man and the environment is not as direct, (2)
considerably more money is invested in the turf industry, and (3) the activity
range of the alternatives has not yet been as thoroughly proven as have the
seed-treatment alternatives. The Bureau of Mines (Ref. 14) forecasts a high
of 53.1 tons of mercurial fungicides for 1985.
If a suspension is imposed, usage will definitely diminish, but not all
organomercurials may disappear immediately. Use of stored mercurials to combat
severe disease problems will continue at least through the 1970s. Though
alkylmercurials were banned in 1970, these stored mercury compounds are still
used occasionally in 1975. As mentioned previously, gradual use of the organo-
mercurial stores in this manner is the least damaging method of removal. The
Bureau of Mines does not expect a complete elimination of all nonagricultural
uses of mercuric pesticides and consequently predicts a probable consumption
of 14 tons per year for limited nonfoodstuff applications.
1973 Technology. Figure 44 shows the movement of mercury into the environ-
ment as a result of nonagricultural pesticide uses. Because other pesticide
213
-------
10
»••
*.
Losses to
Air 98
Soil 519
Water 383
1000
"•—•"• Secondary losses to air« 135
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
*
Figure 44 MERCURY BALANCE, NONAGRICULTURAL PESTICIDE MANUFACTURE
AND USE, 1973 TECHNOLOGY
-------
sources contribute a relatively insignificant amount of mercury to the environ-
ment, the figure shows only the mercury lost in turf treatment. Manufacture
and formulation of the inorganic and organic (FMA) chemicals required for turf
application parallel the agricultural loss figures. After formulation, though,
the similarities between agricultural and nonagricultural usage end.
As the inorganic and organic fungicides are applied, a portion of the
mercury is lost in aerosol form directly to air during the spraying process.
Similarly, mercury is lost to air as volatile mercury vapor during the weeks
following application. The total amount lost to air depends on climatic condi-
tions during application and on the chemical form of the fungicide. The URS
10-percent estimate used in Figure 44 represents a maximum average loss to air.
Uptake of mercury by plants treated with protective-contact materials is
much less than plant absorption of the systemics. Though as much as 50-percent
absorption of PMA has been reported following foliar application to rice plants
(Ref. 2), a 20-percent figure is more realistic for grasses, considering their
morphology and the limited residence time of the pesticide on their surface due
to runoff loss. Most of the 20 percent may actually remain at the base of the
grass blade or in the upper portion of the turf mat. Nonetheless, even signifi-
cantly reduced levels of the pesticide spray on the plant's surface can afford
effective protection. Repeated applications ensure the continued presence of
adequate pesticide residues.
The key aspect of Figure 44 is the amount of mercury lost to water (approxi-
mately 40 percent). The initial presence of the pesticide on exposed surfaces,
the high frequency of watering, and the unusual configuration of golf course
terrain combine to make mercury-loaded surface runoff a significant factor.
Results from a University of Missouri study on golf course lake contamination
indicate .significant pollution of the lakes due to greens treatment (Ref. 91).
A portion of the mercury not immediately carried to the water environment moves
down through the soil. A fraction of this mercury will, in turn, be leached
from the soil and enter the groundwater system. Leaching from the soil is sub-
stantially increased when organically bound mercury is used in the treatment.
Inorganic mercury tends to be more efficiently bound by the soil and to remain
in the top few inches of earth. Because of these factors that encourage mercury
215
-------
movement into the water, equal and significant loss to land and water during
and immediately following application is postulated.
The overall loss to soil (> 50 percent) exceeds the mercury loss to water
(< 40 percent) because most of the mercury tied to turfgrass is mowed and
removed every few weeks. The grass cuttings are either returned to the soil
as mulch or dumped. Approximately 10 percent of the mercury associated with
the cuttings is leached from the soil during and after decomposition.
Though there is no direct consumption of mercury by man, there is evidence
that a portion of the mercury which enters the water environment is eventually
accumulated in the aquatic food web of golf course streams and lakes. The type
and extent of such bioaccumulation are not significant enough to threaten man
but, if preventive measures are needed, they are readily available (e.g.,
prohibition of fishing in such lakes and streams).
1983 Technology. No changes in the ultimate fate pattern of nonagricul-
tural pesticides are expected by 1983. As previously stated, initial amounts
of mercuric pesticides used for turfgrass treatment may be slightly lower by
1983, but control of the mercury as it is dispersed through the environment is
not possible, due to the general nature of pesticide use.
Alternative Technologies. Successful growth and upkeep of disease-free
turfs depend more upon organomercurial availability than do growth and upkeep
of cereal grains. Nonetheless, alternatives for turfgrass fungicides do exist
and are being used throughout the country (FIFRA Docket No. 246, et al., USEFA,
before the Administrator: Notice of Substitutes for Mercurial Turfgrass
Fungicides). Unfortunately, the economic burden and doubts concerning efficacy
of these alternatives hinder their complete acceptance. Though no health
problems have been attributable to turfgrass use of mercuric pesticides, the
EEA position on mercury use for nonagricultural purposes is consistent with
its position regarding agricultural seed treatment: the risks associated with
the use of mercurial pesticides outweigh any benefit of such use, and the
existence of preferable alternatives mandates mercuric pesticide removal.
216
-------
Laboratory Uses
Metallic mercury and mercurial compounds are used for many laboratory pur-
poses. They are standard laboratory items as reagents and indicators, for
calibration anc3 sealing, and in vacuum pumps (Ref. 68). Mercury is used pri-
marily for radioactive diagnosis and as a fixative for tissues in hospitals.
According to Ref. 68, radioactive mercury is available for brain scanning for
tumors and for renal scanning. Mercuric chloride has been used in the preven-
tion of suture line recurrences in anterior resections for colonic cancer
(Ref. 68).
University and high school chemistry laboratories use mercury in class
experiments and independent research projects. Due to a growing awareness of
the potential adverse effects of mercury flow into the natural environment,
research into the chemical properties and toxicity of mercury apparently has
increased during the last decade. Use of mercury compounds in university and
high school chemistry programs, however, is generally acknowledged to be
decreasing.
According to Ref. 12, 22,680 kg of mercury were consumed in U.S. labora-
tories in 1973. This tonnage was considerably below the 1971 use (62,325 kg)
and about one-half the 1965-1968 average annual consumption of 43,546 kg
(Ref. 43). The marked consumption decrease between 1971 (62,325 kg) and 1972
(20,503 kg) is not explained by any governmental restrictions or variations in
method of accounting. Significant fluctuations, though not of this magnitude,
were evident in other years. The general decline in consumption in the last
ten years probably reflects a more conservative approach to mercury use in the
laboratory and more efficient recycling of the mercury that is used.
Current laboratory uses for mercury will not diminish markedly by 1983.
Consumption will decline gradually as efforts to recover and recycle mercury
efficiently are accelerated. This decline may be countered, however, by
increased demands from hospital and research laboratories caused by population
growth and expanded research efforts on mercury. Considering all these factors,
URS forecasts a 1983 laboratory consumption of approximately 18,000 kg.
217
-------
1973 Technology. The flow of mercury into and through the laboratory is
diagrammed in Figure 45. The diagram represents a cumulative accounting of
the different types of laboratory usage: university and high school, indepen-
dent research, and hospitals. Thus, the percent loss to a particular medium
is indicative of laboratory use in general and not of specific laboratory
applications.
Mercury emissions to air resulting from hospital uses probably exceed 10
percent of the mercury consumed in these applications because of the hospital
practice of incinerating tissues, bandages, and other used supplies, some of
which may contain traces of metallic mercury or a mercuric compound. Univer-
sity and high school laboratories and independent research laboratories prob-
ably lose less than 10 percent of their mercury to air. Overall, therefore,
•
the 10-percent loss to the atmosphere assumed in the URS inventory is probably
realistic.
Mercury losses to land could occur through the disposal of mercury con-
tainers, toweling used to absorb spilled mercury, and defunct vacuum pumps,
among other substances. Such losses would tend to be greater for university
and high school laboratories, where incineration is not practiced and inexper-
ience with the handling of chemicals is greatest. URS estimates that as much
as 7 percent of the mercury used in laboratories may ultimately be lost to land.
Most laboratory mercury that is not recovered and recycled is lost to
water. Fixative solutions (mercuric chloride) are commonly flushed down sinks.
Antiseptic applications of mercuric compounds in the hospital operating room
are also eventually washed away. Accidental spills and the cleansing of labora-
tory containers and instruments used in mercury experiments also contribute to
mercury discharges to water. Extensive precautions against dumping mercury
solutions down sinks can prevent the largest potential source of mercury contami-
nation from reaching the water environment. University and high school labora-
tories, cognizant of the environmental factors involved, are extremely efficient
at collecting and recycling most of the mercury they use. However, occasional
dumping of residual mercury-containing solutions will continue to occur as long
as mercury and mercury derivatives are used in the laboratory.
218
-------
Losses to
Air 100
Land 70
Water 260
Recycle 570
1000
1,000
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
570
260
Figure 45 MERCURY LOSSES FROM LABORATORY USAGE, 1973
Losses to
30
Water 120
Recycle 800
1000
800
120
SOURCE: URS Research Company,
Figure 46 MERCURY LOSSES FROM LABORATORY USAGE, 1983
219
-------
Laboratory recycling prevents more than half of the incoming mercury
stock from being discharged to air, land, or water. University laboratories
have achieved an efficient level of mercury recovery through the use of stock-
room regulations requiring that fresh mercury be issued only in amounts equal
to the mercury being returned. Though initial requests for mercury are filled,
control of any additional requests is facilitated by this type of exchange
approach. In many instances, individual laboratories in chemistry and biology
building are monitored in a similar fashion, though the use of mercury in small
research projects is more easily controlled than are miscellaneous and class-
room uses.
With the emphasis on recycling during the last decade, the university
stockrooms can survive on a "fresh" mercury supply purchased every five to ten
years. Thus, for a typical usage of 200 pounds of mercury and its compounds,
the individual university laboratory loses 20 to 40 pounds per year (10 to 20
percent). These yearly losses appear in the national inventory only in the
years when restocking occurs. The 200 pounds which would appear in those
years, however, would not represent the real mercury use, just as zero consump-
tion in the years between restocking does not represent actual mercury use.
Therefore, the yearly national consumption total is influenced by the number of
laboratories that must replace their mercury stock in that year, and by the
amounts needed. The fluctuations in annual laboratory mercury consumption
mentioned previously might be partially explained by an uneven distribution of
"fresh" mercury requests.
Hospital recycling efficiency is considered to be below that for non-
hospital laboratory use. In general, hospital requirements for mercury are
more constant and replacement of lost mercury is more frequent than for uni-
versity and contract research laboratory uses.
After mercury and mercury-containing wastes are collected, they are sent
to a chemical recovery center for triple distillation. This process means
that ultimate losses are trivial.
1983 Technology. The conclusions reached in Ref. 68 regarding the need
and ability to control mercury use in the laboratory are in accordance with
the URS findings and fully express the basis upon which Figure 46 was
established:
220
-------
"Because of the nature of laboratory and hospital operations,
there is almost no danger of continuous large effluent flow
containing unacceptable concentrations of mercury. The dan-
ger is in careless or accidental disposition of relatively
small amounts of expended metallic mercury. In a laboratory
and hospital context, the best available level of treatment
and control consists of conscientious practice of routine
methods such as:
(1) Precipitation of dissolved mercury compounds or
safe disposal as solid wastes.
(2) Separation of suspended mercury compounds for
recovery or safe disposal of solid waste.
(3) Chemical treatment or fixation of spilled metallic
mercury before vacuuming or washing, with subse-
quent precipitation or separation of mercury for
recovery or safe disposal as solid waste."
As these practices are more completely incorporated into labora-
tory operations, the recycle factor will increase and mercury losses
to air, land, and water will decrease. Any restrictions placed upon
hospital incineration would further increase the 1983 recycle esti-
mate of 80 percent. To achieve 100 percent recycling is not possible
because of uncontrollable emissions to air, accidental spills, and user
carelessness, which will always characterize the laboratory use of
mercury. Nonetheless, mercury losses to air, land and water will
probably drop 50 percent or more by 1983 as control measures are in-
creased during the late 1970s and early 1980s.
Alternative Technologies. Alternatives to general laboratory use of
mercury either do not exist or are not readily available. Mercury is used
sparingly and only in the absence of suitable substitutes. Ref. 68 mentions
that nonmercurials might be able to replace particular mercury compounds used
as chemical reagents, but no specific examples are cited. Regarding hospital
use, Ref. 68 reports that techneitium ( ""TC), radioactive potassium carbonate
(42K), and diiodof luorescein ( I) may be used in place of radioactive
mercury for brain scans. Centrimide (1-percent solution), which has been shown
to be effective in preventing the growth of tumor cells in experimental wounds,
could serve as an alternative to mercuric chloride.
221
-------
An alternative for a specific mercury application in the hospital may be
feasible in certain cases and not in others. Thus, any restrictions based on
alternative availability and directed toward a particular mercury use would
possibly interfere with best medical practice.
Sector VIII - Personally Oriented Final Consumption
Dental Applications
Mercury has been used as an amalgam in the dental profession since the
early 1800s. Historically, this use has been the subject of controversy (Ref.
70), particularly with regard to the potential hazard it poses to the health
of the dentist and the patient. Dentists are especially subject to chronic
mercury poisoning, because they usually prepare the fillings and thus have the
most direct contact with the mercury. Patient contact is limited to a few
minutes during amalgam preparation, and only minute quantities are ingested
once the restoration is in the teeth. Estimates place the average daily inges-
tion for people in the United States at 0.2 to 1.5 micrograms ([Jig) per day per
person from dental restorations, based on an average of 0.5 gram per year per
person of mercury placed in the teeth and on normal erosion of the restoration
(Ref. 92).
The U.S. dental profession's demand for mercury has fluctuated quite
erratically over the last 15 years (Refs. 41, 93). Current demand is estimated
at roughly 4 percent of total U.S. mercury consumption. Demand for the years
to 1983 will probably be tied to population growth; for 1983 a high of 3,600
flasks and a low of 2,100 flasks for dental uses are projected. The most likely
value for 1983 is on the high side—approximately 3,500 flasks—because the
dental profession is expected to continue using mercury in tooth restorations.
However, by 1983, mercury recycling should somewhat slow the net growth rate.
1973 Technology. Figure 47 illustrates the procedure in manufacturing a
mercury amalgam for tooth restoration, and indicates the associated losses of
mercury at various stages of the process. Restorations are prepared by combin-
ing a silver-tin alloy in powdered form with metallic mercury. These ingre-
dients, and a mortar, are placed in a tightly closed capsule mounted on a
222
-------
Silver-Tin
Alloy
(powder)
Grinding
Old
Fillings
necycie
Air
Water
Combine
Ingredients
Capsule
with
Mortar
Shaking
to
to
OJ
Mercury
Metal
1000
Open
Containers
Air 10
Silver-Mercury Cpd.
Tin-Mercury Cpd.
Silver-Tin
Alloy (residual)
Metallic Putty
Permanent Tooth
Restoration
710
Squeezing
Excess Hg
Condensing
and Polishing
» Water 210
Total Use (Loss)
Teeth 710
Recycle 60
Air 20
Water 210
1000
Excess
Amalgam
Recycled
10
Air 10
Excess
Amalgam
Recycled
50
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure 47 MERCURY BALANCE, DENTAL APPLICATIONS, 1973 TECHNOLOGY
-------
machine which vigorously shakes the ingredients. A metallic putty is formed,
composed of silver-mercury and tin-mercury compounds and some residual silver-
tin alloy. This putty is then placed in the drilled tooth cavity. The semi-
hardened putty is later condensed and polished, and the excess amalgam is
removed during the condensing process.
Typically, the mercury is stored in and dispensed from a one- to five-
pound container. If the container is improperly sealed or is uncovered, there
will be some vaporization. The powder and liquid mercury are mixed in a closed
capsule, so no losses occur at this stage. However, after the shaking is com-
plete, the dentist may knead or squeeze out any surplus mercury in the amalgam.
If these droplets fall to the floor or onto the work bench, the mercury can
become volatilized. Also, when the patient expectorates during shaping of the
filling, unless a trap is installed in the plumbing, the excess amalgam and
mercury are released into the wastewater system. 4
1983 Technology. The postulated 1983 technology (Pig. 48) assumes that
all dental practitioners are well aware of the potential mercury hazard and
have taken all possible steps to reduce mercury loss. "Premixes" are already
available in which the metallic mercury and silver-tin alloy can be purchased
in measured quantities, so that no open containers of mercury are needed. The
mercury is contained in a capsule that, upon shaking, ruptures and permits
amalgamation with the alloy. Thus, no mercury need be lost while making the
metallic putty.
During installation of the filling, excess amalgam will be trimmed off
and must be spit out by the patient. To minimize mercury loss, water basins
should be equipped with traps to collect much of the excess amalgam; the
mercury so recovered could be recycled.
Mercury can be lost to air and/or water when a filling is removed. Removal
is accomplished by drilling through the old filling; small particles of the
amalgam are thus emitted to the air and may be inhaled by the patient and
dentist. Other bits of the restoration are spit out into the basin. Drilling
old fillings is not frequently done, however, as mercury amalgam restorations
are intended to stay in place for up to 25 years.
224
-------
Silver-Tin Alloy
(Powder Form)
Combine
Ingredients
ro
to
en
Capsule with
Mortar
Shaking
Silver-Mercury
Compound
Tin-Mercury
Silver-Tin Alloy
Metallic Putty
Mercury
Metal
1000
Permanent Tooth
Restoration
750
Condensing
and
Polishing
I
Water
100
Excess Amalgam
Recycled
10
Excess Amalgam
Recycled
140
Total Use (Loss)
Teeth 750
Recycle 150
Water 100
1000
Grinding
Old
Fillings
neuycie
Air
Water
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure 48 MERCURY BALANCE, DENTAL APPLICATIONS, 1983 TECHNOLOGY
-------
Alternative Technologies. In terms of actual quantities of mercury lost
to the environment, dentistry-associated losses are very small. However,
since these losses can occur in confined work and office space, harmful con-
centrations could build and pose hazards to dentists, technicians, and (less
likely) patients. Proper handling techniques and an acute awareness of the
potential danger associated with mercury use should mitigate this hazard.
There are a number of ways in which dentists can prevent unusually high
mercury concentrations in offices or clinics. The Council on Dental Research
sponsored a review of mercury in dental practice which indicated that there
will be no hazard to dental personnel or their patients if proper office pro-
cedures are followed and scrap amalgam is collected and salvaged. The proce-
dures suggested include storing mercury in unbreakable, sealed containers,
confining any inadvertent spills to an easily cleaned tray or similar work
area, and working in an uncarpeted area. A drain trap to collect solids should
be installed and all amalgam scrap should be collected and stored in a tightly
sealed container. Other suggestions include being sure that the area is well
ventilated; avoiding heating of mercury or amalgams; using water spray and
suction when grinding dental amalgams; coating the restoration surface with
a varnish or base; and eliminating the indiscriminate use of mercury-containing
solutions.
In sum, careful handling and use of mercury in dental offices are neces-
sary to prevent accidental mercury poisoning, but given present technology,
the usefulness of mercury as an amalgam, and the relative ease with which
mercury losses can be controlled, it should not be necessary to curtail mercury
use in dental restorations. There are, of course, a number of substitutes
available for mercury amalgams, although none is as permanent or as economical
as mercury. Possible substitutes include silicate/zinc phosphate cements or
aerylate and epoxy resins (Ref. 41), as well as gold. None of these is expected
to supplant mercury amalgams unless the price of mercury becomes prohibitively
high or its use is banned.
226
-------
Pharmaceuticals
The use of mercury in medicine is a part of the history of man (Ref. 70).
Many of the historical applications of mercury have retained a surprising
level of popularity and use throughout the 1960s and early 1970s. Organic
mercury compounds are used in diuretics and antiseptics; inorganic mercury
salts are used in solutions for sterilizing instruments; ammoniated mercury,
oxides of mercury, and metallic mercury are used in skin preparations; and
phenylmercury compounds are used as preservatives in cosmetics and soaps (Ref.
68). The antimicrobial properties of mercurials make these compounds desirable
components of drug, cosmetic, and soap base emulsions, while the fast action
and effectiveness of the mercurial diuretics have contributed to their survival.
Phenylmercuric acetate is used as a contraceptive jelly.
The pharmaceutical industry used some 20,900 kg of mercury in 1973 (Ref.
37). This level of usage reflects a return to a declining trend in mercury
consumption that characterized this industry between 1950 and 1973 (from 207,000
kg in 1950 to 20,900 kg in 1973). The decline is primarily due to the discovery
and effectiveness of nonmercurial substitutes, but the toxicity of mercury
compounds has also contributed to the marked decrease in their use. In general,
mercury compounds have been replaced by drugs which are safer (fewer side
effects) and/or as effective as the mercurials. Drugs more specific in their
activity are available in many cases.
Mercury-containing Pharmaceuticals are produced chiefly in New Jersey.
The U.S. market for mercurials as antiseptics has generally followed population
growth. As long as mercurial antiseptics are available to the public, there
will probably be a constant demand for them, at least through 1983. Mercurial
diuretics probably will be maintained as a last-resort alternative to non-
mercurial diuretics; thus their use will not decline to zero. However, mercury
use in skin preparations and preservatives will almost vanish by 1985 (Ref. 14).
Cammarota predicts a consumption high of about 27,000 kg of mercury for
Pharmaceuticals in 1985 and a low of about 14,000 kg (Ref. 14). The high fore-
cast is based on expected population growth, and the low forecast is based on
elimination of mercurials in the pharmaceutical industry except for special
uses for which there is no substitute. A probable consumption level would be
227
-------
about 17,000 kg; this is contingent upon trends in pharmaceutical applications
and the possible development of new uses for mercury. This consumption level
would be slightly below the present pharmaceutical mercury use of 20,900 kg.
1973 Technology. Figure 49 shows estimated (relative) mercury usage for
pharmaceutical applications and corresponding losses to air, land, and water.
The loss attributable to production of mercury Pharmaceuticals* is limited to
residue amounts not exceeding 0.1 percent of the quantity of mercury used in
the end product (Ref. 68). These residues are disposed of using a state-
approved system of dry-fill burial. Groundwater contamination from the buried
mercury residues is assumed to be negligible.
The use figures in Figure 49 approximate the 1968 marketing research find-
ings of the Panel on Mercury of the National Materials Advisory Board of the
National Research Council for 1968 (Ref s. 94, 95). The losses assigned to each
category represent URS estimates of mercury emissions to air, indiscriminate
disposal of mercury-containing drugs to land, and waste treatment plant disposal
to water. The loss to air from mercury antiseptics and skin preparations
probably does not exceed 10 percent of the total mercury content. Most of the
mercury used in topical applications is ultimately lost to the water environ-
ment through cleansing of the mercury compounds attached to the body's surface.
URS estimates that 95 percent of the mercury in mercurial diuretics is carried
to water via human wastes. In all applications, a 5-percent loss to land
reflects indiscriminate disposal of mercury-based drugs and containers by the
American consumer. Overall, almost 90 percent of the mercury used by the
pharmaceutical industry is lost to the water environment.
1983 Technology. No changes in the ultimate fate of mercury pharmaceuti-
cals are expected by 1983. The use figures for the different applications
will doubtless shift as the availability of alternatives, demands, and govern-
mental restrictions change. The relative losses to air, land, and water, how-
ever, will probably be much the same as the 1973 figures.
* The manufacture of Pharmaceuticals is discussed under organic and inorganic
mercurial manufacturing.
228
-------
Mercury 1000
Input
Manufacture
1
Land
Losses to
Air 80
Land 52
Water 868
399 "
150
350
100
Antiseptics
Diuretics
Skin
Preparations
Miscellaneous
(Preservatives,
contraceptives, etc.)
tu
__, -._ ^ MHtrr
339 W3tCr
8
142 W"
35
"• *•» -^ i ^.^^i
297
5_K. 1 Tnrl
on
1,000
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure 49 MERCURY BALANCE, PHARMACEUTICALS MANUFACTURE
AND USE, 1973 TECHNOLOGY
229
-------
Alternative Technologies. According to Ref. 68, one factor which hinders
development of nonmercurial substitute Pharmaceuticals is the need for certi-
fication of products by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Aside from the
costs of development and testing, there is a significant time lag in processing
new drug applications. Nonetheless, effective nonmercurial substitutes are
available (Ref. 68). Considering that only limited amounts of mercury are
used and eventually lost to the environment, though, it appears that the need
for immediate controls is not critical.
The FDA has already ordered the removal of mercury from skin bleaching
products and has limited the mercury content in cosmetics to less than 1 ppm
in most cases. Because of the FDA fear that mercury compounds used for cos-
metic preservation may be harmful to man as a result of permeation through the
skin, controls on cosmetics would depend on the efficacy of weak static action
substitutes. Similarly, the availability of antiseptic mercurials should be
examined in terms of the antimicrobial alternatives that already exist. In
cases where a particular mercurial pharmaceutical offers the physician a viable
and unique alternative to a nonmercurial solution, restrictions might be
counterproductive. As Goldwater (Ref. 70) explains, however, promotional
advertising and the "mystery, magic, and mysticism of quicksilver" have con-
tributed more to the perpetuation of the mercurials than have considerations
of the irreplaceability and effectiveness of mercury medicine. Further
research would probably reveal a number of areas where the use of mercury
Pharmaceuticals could be reduced or eliminated with no significant loss to
"best practical" medical treatment.
Final Disposal Sector
Municipal Waste Treatment
The development of municipal waste treatment plant technology grew out of
the need to protect community health. As citizen and governmental concerns
broadened, these plants were improved to protect the environment and particu-
larly the water that receives sewage discharges. This environmental awareness
230
-------
led to studies to determine the fate of heavy metals in such plants. Most of
this Work has been directed at lead, copper, cadmium, chromium, and nickel;
very little work has been done on. mercury.
In 1968, there were 12,565 municipal (community) treatment plants in the
United States, treating the residential and industrial wastes of some 65 per-
cent of the U.S. population (Ref. 96). Of these plants, 2,384 provided only
primary treatment (removal of particulate matter only), 9,951 provided secon-
dary treatment (primary treatment plus biological oxidation of most of the
remaining organic matter, and 75 provided intermediate (between primary and
secondary) treatment. These plants accounted for more than 99 percent of the
total number of U.S. treatment plants, and served about 64.5 percent of the
total population.
According to Ref. 97, in 1968 slightly more than 7 percent of industrial
wastewaters were discharged into municipal treatment systems. Table 38 shows
that community sewers in the Eastern Great Lakes region received the largest
amounts of industrial wastes, and sewers in the Great Basin region (Nevada,
Utah) received the least. The actual amounts may be a bit higher than the
figures in Table 38 indicate, because those figure reflect only industries
whose water intake was greater than 20 million gallons a year. As shown in
Table 39, food and kindred products plants discharge the greatest amounts of
wastewater to sewers, while lumber manufacturers discharge the least.
Although industry is generally responsible for large concentrations of
heavy metals in sewage influents, the URS inventory results indicate that in
the United States about 50 percent of the mercury in influents probably derives
from the disposal practices of hospitals, dentists, and laboratories. A lesser
proportion (possibly 25 percent) comes from the discharge of mercury-using
manufacturing industries. Even less (15 to 20 percent) is attributable to
human additions and other industrial contributions, and approximately 5 per-
cent to 10 percent of the mercury in sewage influent is a result of natural
background concentrations. Recent measurements (Ref. 98) have shown that the
concentration of mercury averages about 1.5 ppb in sewers that receive resi-
dential discharges exclusively; in contrast, the national average mercury
concentration in sewage influent as used in this report is 2.0 ppb.
231
-------
to
u>
10
TABLE 38. - Regional Distribution of Industrial Wastewater Discharges to
Community Sewers in 1968
(billions of gallons)
Industrial Water Use Region
New England
Delaware and Hudson
Chesapeake Bay
Ohio
Eastern Great Lakes
Tennessee-Cumberland
Southeast
Western Great Lakes
Upper Mississippi
Lower Mississippi
Missouri
Arkansas -White-Red
Western Gulf
Colorado Basin
Great Basin
California
Pacific Northwest
National*
Total Industrial
Wastewater
Discharges
558.4
1,191.9
754.7
2,295.4
1,459.7
535.9
1,099.6
1,811.3
581.6
744.6
141.9
184.6
1,899.1
18.3
26.8
314.1
532.5
14,150.4
Percent Dis-
to Community
Sewers
8.4%
7.3
4.3
7.5
13.9
2.6
5.2
7.4
18.5
3.1
17.8
7.9
0.8
20.2
6.3
16.8
5.7
Total Industrial
Discharge to
Community Sewers
46.9
87.0
32.5
172.2
202.9
13.9
57.2
134.0
107.6
23.1
25.2
145.8
15.2
3.7
1.7
52.8
30.4
1,152.1
a. Excluding Hawaii and Alaska.
Source: Ref. 97
-------
TABLE 39. - Wastewater Discharges to Community Sewers in 1968, by
Industrial Category
(billions of gallons)
OJ
U>
Industrial Category
Total Industrial
Discharges
Percent Discharged
to Community Sewers
Total Industrial
Discharges to
Community Sewers
Food and kindred products
Textile mill products
Lumber
Paper
Chemicals
Petroleum and coal
Rubber
Leather
Stone, clay, and glass
Primary metals
Fabricated metals
Machinery
Electrical equipment
Transportation equipment
752.8
136.0
92.7
2,077.6
4,175.1
1,217.0
128.4
14.9
218.4
4,695.5
65.0
180.8
118.4
293.1
31.6%
37.2
2.7
3.5
4.3
0.6
17.4
68.0
9.4
3.1
59.4
24.6
62.8
26.3
237.9
50.6
2.5
72.7
179.5
73.0
22.3
10.1
20.5
145.6
38.6
44.5
74.4
77.1
Source: Ref. 97
-------
1973 Technology. There are various ways of treating municipal sewage, but
as of 1973 most plants used secondary treatment processes—either activated
sludge or trickling filters. As indicated above, about 65 percent of the
community sewer systems surveyed by the Federal Water Quality Control Adminis-
tration (FWQCA) in 1968 provided secondary treatment (Ref. 96). To comply with
Public Law 92-500 (the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972),
all municipal waste treatment plants will have to provide secondary treatment
by 1977.
Figure 50, a schematic of a typical activated sludge plant, shows the
ultimate fate of influent mercury. Because mercury tends to adsorb on particu-
late matter, about 45 percent of the influent mercury is removed from the waste
stream by the primary clarifier. The remaining mercury enters the aeration
basin where aerobic bacteria metabolize the organic components of sewage. It
has long been known that slugs of heavy metals can degrade or halt the proper
function of these bacteria. However, experiments with mercury indicate that
only abnormally high concentrations of influent mercury (probably over 10 ppm)
would reduce bacterial efficiency (Refs. 99, 100). Similarly, high concentra-
tions of mercury (between 1,000 and 2,000 ppm) in the biological sludge inhibit
the sludge.
Because most of the biological sludge produced in the aeration basin is
recaptured in the secondary clarifier and recycled, very little mercury (about
5 percent as a result of activated sludge wasting) is actually removed from
the waste stream. The remaining mercury in the waste stream (about 50 percent)
is then lost to the receiving waters (Refs. 101, 102). This mercury is both
in solution and adsorbed onto the particulates that are not captured in the
secondary clarifier (Ref. 103).
The digester, then, receives about 50 percent of the incoming mercury.
Recent experiments have shown that almost all of the mercury remaining in the
digester is in or on the solid phase (Ref. 104); consequently Figure 50 shows
only a 1-percent recycle of mercury in digester supernatant (liquid formed on
top of the digested solids as a result of settling and biological degradation)
to the primary clarifier. Work by Bisogni and Lawrence (Ref. 100) indicates
that at growth rates common to most digesters (residence times between 10 and
234
-------
Influent (2 ppb)^ Prjmary 154 Kg _ Aeration _ Secondary 140 Kg _ f ™U6nt .
280 Kg /yr '
1 Kg
N)
U>
in
Clarifier 55% ' Basin ' Clarifier 50% ' w.iuimiuun
&!>% 50% and Disposal
127 Kg
Pri
Slu
i
45% Waste Activated
Sludge
14 Kg
141 Kg
mary '
dge 91 Kg
Return ,
Sludge
-^^- Incineration (100% to Air)
— ^- Land Disposal (Most Remains in Land)
49 Kg
*
To Air as Off-gas Flare
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure 50 PATH OF MERCURY IN A 100 MGD SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
-------
30 days) about 35 percent of the mercury coming into the digester on solids
would be lost through volatilization; the remaining 65 percent would remain
with the digested solids.
The remaining mercury in digested sludge may be disposed of in one of
three ways—in landfill, as a soil amendment, or by incineration. The ultimate
fate of this mercury depends on the disposal practice chosen. In brief, the
mercury in digested sludge that is disposed of in sanitary landfills has reached
its ultimate fate. Mercury in digested sludge applied as a plant fertilizer or
soil amendment is bound somewhat less tightly as some may be lost through
volatilization or erosion. Published studies indicate that all of the mercury
in sludge that is incinerated reaches the atmosphere, and that assumption is
used here.
1983 Technology. The municipal waste treatment technology that will be
in effect by 1983 is also mandated by PL 92-500. According to this law,
municipal plants must provide treatment that will protect the fish, shellfish,
and wildlife of receiving waters and that will allow recreation in and on such
waters. If present funding and construction trends continue, in 1983 the bulk
of these plants will still be secondary treatment plants but a few plants will
provide tertiary treatment (mainly phosphorus removal and multimedia filtration)
in order to achieve higher quality of certain receiving waters (Ref. 105).
Therefore, there will probably be no major changes in 1973 process technologies
by 1983. However, the trend toward regionalization means that plants will tend
to be larger, but there will be fewer of them than in 1973.
The major process difference will be in the final disposition of digested
sludge. Greater use of sludge for fertilizer and soil amendment is expected,
depending on the results of research on the fate of sludge-applied heavy metals
and on the amount of vegetative uptake. Initial research indicates that the
buildup and subsequent uptake of cadmium, copper, zinc and boron may limit the
land application of sewage sludge, but that mercury causes no problem (Ref.
106). Greater control of industrial wastewaters influent to sewage treatment
plants and recycling of mercury-containing compounds could reduce the concen-
trations of such heavy metals in sewage sludge. As industrial emissions account
for about 35 percent of the mercury input, industrial reductions could have a
236
-------
significant effect. An even greater reduction would occur if institutional
mercury users recycled more mercury. Although it is difficult to determine
the extent of such reductions, URS assumes a 25-percent reduction in municipal
sewer mercury disposal by 1983 as a result of the above reductions. URS also
assumes that sludge incineration will decrease by 50 percent because of air
pollution regulations (mercury and others) and energy conservation problems.
Using these assumptions and the 1973 national inventory results, we have pre-
pared Table 40, which lists estimated mercury losses to air, land, and water
from sewage treatment facilities for 1973 and 1983.
Municipal Solid Waste Disposal
Municipal solid waste disposal systems are responsible for the collection,
processing, and ultimate disposal (either in landfills or by incineration) of
solid waste from residential, commercial, and light industrial areas. As with
sewage treatment plants, these systems were developed to protect public health.
Recently the design and operation of these facilities has also been directed
at minimizing environmental harm, especially in the control of leachates from
landfills and particulate emissions from municipal solid waste (Ref. 24).
Because mercury has been found in landfill leachates (Ref. 107) and incinerator
emissions (Ref. 108), these disposal practices must be examined in terms of
their ability to introduce mercury in the environment. Collection and process-
ing, on the other hand, contribute little (if any) mercury to the environment
and therefore will not be discussed further.
Table 41 summarizes a recent national survey of solid waste management
practices, listing the number and types of municipal landfill disposal sites
by states and the number of municipal incinerators over 100 tons capacity (Ref.
109). These figures indicate that over half of the landfill sites do not meet
regulatory requirements and might be apt to lose mercury to groundwater at a
greater rate than do sanitary (regulated) landfills. The table also shows that
incineration, which emits mercury directly to the atmosphere, is a common
disposal practice on the East Coast.
The components of municipal solid wastes and their percent contribution by
weight are paper products (60 percent), food wastes (8.5 percent), glass and
23*7
-------
TABLE 40. - Estimated Mercury Emissions from U.S. Municipal
Sewage Treatment Plants, 1973 and 1983
(kilograms)
Emissions to
Air
Land
Water
Total
1973a
9,563
17,327
19,923
46,813
1983b
7,255C
16,346
17,482
41,083
Percent
Change
-24%
- 6
-12
-12%
Source: URS Research Company.
a. Derived from URS inventory.
b. Based on expansion of total U.S. population by 17 percent during
1973-1983 period and 25 percent reduction in mercury losses to muni-
cipal sewers by 1983.
c. Assumed 50 percent reduction in sewage sludge incineration.
238
-------
TABLE 41. - National Solid Waste Disposal Practices
States
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
Total
Landfill
Sites
143
160
450±
441
255+
144
150
500
625
190
404
151
500
•500
147
387
367
91
324
888
600
274
390
514
400
120
180
307
1,000
800+
162
412
290
507
241
379
38
276
369
250
1,525
272
95
188
397
300+
1,314
80 ±
18,539+
Landfill
Sites
Meeting
Regulations
134
70
47
302
380
209
39
204
275
50
225
220
36
160*
147
61
0
106
171
379
131
54
136
70
123
120
180
276
450
800+
156
270
354
313
129
7
276
32+
112
346
7
75
346
73
66
1,200
~
9,212
Municipal
Incinerators
0
0
6
1
0
23
0
10
0
0
4
1
0
0
2
4
0
4
18
10
0
3
0
0
-
4
3
0
39
0
0
13
2
0
20
2
0
0
1
4
1
1
4
0
0
6
0
189
Source: Ref. 109
239
-------
ceramics (8.0 percent), metals (8.0 percent), plants and grass (6.5 percent),
plastics (3.5 percent), and others (5.5 percent). Although most of these
materials may contain traces of mercury, the major contributors—all found in
the "other" category—are batteries, control instruments, fluorescent and
other mercury-containing lamps, and tubes and switches. They account for only
a small percentage of the "other" solid waste category yet are believed to
account for virtually all of the estimated 2 to 6 ppm mercury content of solid
wastes. (Paper products, before mercurials were banned in this usage, also
represented an appreciable source of mercury in solid wastes, but by the year
1973 the amount of such treated paper products in solid wastes was assumed to
be low.) Furthermore, these "concentrated" solid wastes represent, on the
average (based on all study regions inventoried by DRS), 96 percent of all
mercury wastes which are rejected to land.
1973 Technology. The 1973 technology for solid waste disposal is based
upon the usage of well accepted sanitary landfill and municipal incinerator
technology in simple combinations. Important aspects of sanitary landfill
practice with regard to potential mercury contamination include site selection,
design, and operation. Landfill sites should be selected to ensure minimum
contact with groundwater. Designs should provide for adequate drainage and, if
groundwater is a problem, should provide for the placement of impermeable clay
barriers and gravel drains to prevent groundwater intrusion. Impermeable
linings are also being used more extensively to seal landfills, but as of 1974
only 21 (out of more than 18,000) were in place.
Operations and maintenance activities should be such as to guarantee the
placement of adequate daily and final cover which ensures sanitary operations.
While there is no evidence that ground cover will stop the leakage of mercury
to air, the topsoil layer has been shown to be effective in controlling the
release of decomposition gases (primarily methane and carbon dioxide) which
undoubtedly contain trace amounts of mercury.
Recent work done on sanitary landfills indicates that the mercury concen-
tration of leachate within the landfill varies between 0.05 and 16.3 ppb, with
a considerable number of data points above the proposed EEA Drinking Water
Standard of 2.0 ppb (Ref. 107). However, other work indicates that the attenu-
ating action of soil effectively lowers the mercury content of leachate as it
240
-------
passes through the lower soil boundary. These results lend credence to the
acceptability of the modern sanitary design, operation, and maintenance princi-
ples now being followed by the individual states and to the ability of sanitary
landfills to provide safe, long-term storage sites for mercury contained in
municipal solid waste.
The municipal incinerator, on the other hand, is a direct emitter of
mercury to the atmospheric environment. Recent work indicates that about 90
percent of the incoming mercury is volatilized and lost to the atmosphere (Ref.
109). The remaining 10 percent remains in the ash for ultimate disposal in a
sanitary landfill. The flow of mercury in municipal solid waste from a typical
city of 500,000, using typical 1973 technology, is shown in Figure 51, which
indicates that most of the mercury remains bound within the landfill.
1983 Technology. As shown in Figure 52, solid waste disposal technology
and practice by 1983 will probably be considerably different from what was
commonly being practiced in 1973.* The greatest difference will be in the
fields of material and energy recovery, hazardous material disposal and fate,
and the regulations under which solid waste disposal now operates. Increased
resource recovery—particularly materials recovery—would have the greatest
effect on mercury emissions by reducing the amount of concentrated mercury-
containing wastes going to incinerators and possibly to landfills. As was
mentioned previously, the mercury content of solid waste appears to be concen-
trated in discarded batteries, fluorescent lamps, tubes and switches, and con-
trol instruments. Therefore separation of the light and heavy solid waste
fractions influent to a municipal incinerator would result in a significant
reduction in atmospheric mercury emissions. At the present time there are
about 38 major resource recovery facilities, not all of which are connected
to incinerators (Ref. 109). The main process for such separation would be the
air classification method.
* The same input of mercury into solid wastes is assumed for 1983 as for 1973
because, although total quantities of solid waste are projected to grow, the
amount of mercury-containing wastes discarded is likely to level off or
decline.
241
-------
100*
Community
500,000 Population
3.32x10s Kg/yr
of Municipal
Solid Waste
1330
Processing
• Shredding
• Air Classification
• Metal Recovery
• Glass
10
1220
Incinerator
Material
Recovery
10
i
S
:
1 I
anitary 1
Land
Msposal
Air
10
10
1220
• Air
•Water
"Remains in Land
* Assumes 8 percent of all solid waste is incinerated.
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure 51 FLOW OF MERCURY IN THE MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE STREAM
OF A TYPICAL COMMUNITY OF 500,000 IN 1973
(kilograms per year)
242
-------
Community
500,000 Population
3.32x10° Kg/yr
of Municipal
Solid Waste
1330
100 Municip
Processing
• Shredding
• Air Classification
• Metal Recovery
• Glass
Conve
230
1000
al Incinerator —
nal or Other
Tsion Process
Material
Recovery
100
(
*
Land
Disposal
50
MMMMM
Ash
10
—10
1131
•*• Air
50
-».Air
•*• Water
r*" Remains in Land
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure 52 FLOW OF MERCURY IN THE MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE STREAM
OF A TYPICAL COMMUNITY OF 500,000 IN 1983
(kilograms per year)
243
-------
Whether increased material recovery would result in significantly less
mercury loading to landfills would depend upon the possibilities for extracting
mercury from the nonferrous metal waste stream. As mercury is highly volatile,
it is possible to extract mercury metal from that fraction by roasting and sub-
sequent condensation. However, the economics of this process versus virgin
sources and other recycled material are not promising, and its adoption appears
unlikely.
Much research is now being funded to determine the fate of hazardous
materials in landfills and to develop procedures for reducing their adverse
impacts, if any. Measurements of mercury from landfill leachates outside of
the landfill have not shown anomalously high mercury concentrations, which
indicates that sanitary landfills, when properly designed and operated, effec-
tively remove the mercury contained in municipal solid waste from the environ-
mental cycle.
Changes in government regulations could affect the kinds of material in
solid waste and the disposal practices. The success of sanitary landfills in
retaining mercury from municipal solid waste probably indicates that regulations
removing mercury from solid waste destined for such landfills are not needed;
however, upgrading unregulated landfills should be speeded up. On the other
hand, forces fostering the construction and operation of resource recovery and
thermal conversion facilities would cause more mercury to reach the atmosphere.
If regulations were promulgated which mandate the removal of most of the mercury
from the process stream, mercury emissions to air could be reduced significantly.
Because sanitary landfills are more economical to run than incinerators,
and because strong demand for recycled waste streams is still unproven, sanitary
landfills will probably remain the dominate final disposal method. In 1973
land disposal accounted for about 93 percent of all solid wastes, while in 1983
land disposal will probably receive only about 75 percent of total municipal
solid wastes. This reduction in the percent of disposal to land is a result
of increases in material and energy recovery and reclamation. URS combined
these trends in solid waste disposal with improvements in pollution control
(better capture of mercury emissions from thermal conversion units, landfill
upgrading) to derive Table 42, which shows estimated environmental losses of
mercury from solid waste disposal activities for 1973 and 1983.
244
-------
TABLE 42. - Estimated Mercury Losses to Environment from U.S.
1 Municipal Solid Waste Disposal, 1973 and 1983
(kilograms)
Losses to 1973 1983a
Air 40,000 24,000b
Water 18,000C 6,000
Land 466,000 448,000
Reclamation - 52,000
Totals 530,000 530,000
Source: URS Research Company
a. Assuming total amount of mercury in solid waste stream will remain
constant, even though the total quantity of solid waste will in-
crease.
b. Assuming a 100 percent increase in thermal conversion processes (in-
cineration, pyrolysis, etc.), all operating with front-end material
recovery units and air pollution control units capable of 50 percent
mercury recovery.
c. Assuming improperly operated landfills and dumps lose mercury to
water at twice the rate of regulated fills.
245
-------
MACROTECHNOLOGY (1973)
For industries that manufacture primarily consumer goods, the losses of
mercury to the environment may extend from the manufacturing process itself,
to other (secondary) manufacturing and processing, to final consumption and
disposal. To obtain the necessary perspective on these losses from the various
sectors involved, composite flow charts showing overall losses have been pre-
pared for the applications of mercury that involve sequential losses. Table
43 summarizes total mercury losses for five such applications. Flow charts
indicating the details of these losses to the environment are given in Figures
53 and 54 for the two largest consumers of mercury—electrical applications
and paint. (Details on the source of discharges for other applications can be
obtained by referring to the appropriate subsections in the preceding discus-
sion of microtechnologies.)
With the exception of catalyst usage, most losses occur in the final con-
sumption sector. Recycling is an important consideration only for industrial
instruments; here recycling accounts for almost half of the mercury used by
the industry. In general it can be concluded that while manufacturing and
processing represent the most logical and the easiest points at which to apply
controls over mercury losses, they also are the least rewarding in terms of
significant reductions in mercury emissions.
IMPLICATIONS
With respect to the various technologies and composite technologies des-
cribed in this section, it is generally forecast that there will be appreciable
reduction in mercury emissions between 1973 and 1983. Most of these reductions
will come about from improved utilization of mercury (through recycling either
within the plant or of products containing mercury) or by the imposition of
effective pollution controls. In some of the lesser technologies, for example,
livestock manure, specific reductions were not discussed, the implication
being that the loss to the environment, while large in aggregate, is diffused
geographically and hence pose no threat to human safety.
246
-------
TABLE 43. - Mercury Losses for Various Applications, 1973
Application
Electrical
Paint
Industrial Instruments
Pharmaceuticals
Catalysts
M
Total Usage
(kilograms)
620,408
260,330
246,612
20,887
23,403
Total Losses in Kilograms to
Environment during
Manufacture
4,932
1,312
3,169
126
17,473
Processing Final Consumption
587,433
3,272 182,750
124,040
126 20,000
1,766 1,945
Ratio of
Total Loss
to Total Use
0.955
0.720
0.516
0.970
0.905
-------
itk
00
Mined
Mercury
232,505
Land
2476
563,537
620,408
Water
63
Air
131
Battery
Manufacturing
560,867
Land Air
1637
43,360
86
Electric
Lamp
Manufacturing
13,511
Power
Tube
Manufacturing
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
513
Land
r
27
Air
Government
131,345
41,637
12,971
210,005
Recycled
(28,043)
Industrial
Other
All
Consumers
All
Consumers
22,500
5543
125,802
197,017
Disposal
Sites
(587,432)
41,687
12,971
Air
Land
46,995
540,437
Figure 53 SEQUENTIAL MERCURY LOSSES IN ELECTRICAL APPLICATIONS, 1973 (kilograms)
-------
Air
to
•Ck
VO
Mined
Mercury
262,054
UdllU "
1103
260,951
^"•»™
1
261
I
1
I
Inorganic
Mercury
Organic
Mercury
I
2
I
•
4
1044
>
^ water
1098
259,644
>• Watpr
Air
Air «« 1 1 » Water A
285 654 173,610
260,742 Paint 257,470 A)| 1000
Manufacturing Consumers
2333 18140
| 1
Land Land
Air
SOURCE: URS Resaarch Company.
Figure 54 SEQUENTIAL MERCURY LOSSES IN PAINT APPLICATIONS, 1973 (kilograms)
-------
In general, it appears that users and emitters of mercury have been
thoroughly alerted to the inherent dangers of such emissions and have taken
the necessary actions to limit or eliminate them entirely. While this trend
is indeed praiseworthy, it must be recognized that it may not be sustained
without effective enforcement. Hence, even in industries which can demonstrate
or forecast adequate self-policing, regulations may be necessary to ensure
continued compliance.
Even with improved technology, increased recycling, and concern on the
part of the industries involved, high losses to the environment will still
persist in some categories:
o The chlor-alkali industry, assuming the continued operation of
existing plants with vastly improved pollution control technology
and utilization of mercury, will in 1983 continue to emit appre-
ciable quantities of mercury to the environment in localized areas.
o The paint industry, assuming continued use of mercurials and even
with the best of controls, will continue to be a major contributor
of man-related emissions to air in 1983.
o Electrical usage (including batteries, lamps, and tubes and
switches), even with vastly improved recycling, will continue to
contribute vast quantities of mercury to landfills and, unless
stringent regulations are imposed, to incinerators and thence to
the air. To a lesser extent, the same comments apply to control
instruments.
Since these three categories have been identified as important and continu-
ing emitters of mercury to the environment, albeit to safe disposal sites, these
industries are considered in Section V in a detailed analysis with respect to
the impact of regulatory actions which would serve to further reduce their
emissions to the environment.
It is difficult to assess the hazard posed to man and his environment by
man-related emission sources as contrasted to the hazard posed by natural
sources. As has been shown, continuing action has reduced man-related emissions
significantly and will continue to do so for some years in the future. However,
natural emissions of mercury, from degassing and runoff, will remain unchanged
250
-------
(or could even increase appreciably iff for example, unusual volcanic activity
occurred). It is legitimate to ask: Why spend millions of dollars to reduce
mercury emissions from, say, a power plant when such emissions to air are very
small compared to those from degassing from the earth's crust? First, we must
admit that man can control only his own release of mercury to the environment,
and that if he believes that mercury releases should be minimized, he must
concentrate on that which is controllable. Second, and perhaps more important,
natural sources of mercury into the environment are diffuse and relatively
uniformly distributed (across the nation and the world), and have not been
demonstrated (or even inferred) to concentrate to the extent of interfering
with man's food chain. On the other hand, man's wastes do follow his habitat.
They do concentrate where he lives, and have on certain unusual occasions
concentrated sufficiently to enter the food chain and threaten man's well-being.
Hence, man-related discharges of mercury, even though small, interact with man
and his environment more directly than do natural sources.
251
-------
V
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
In this section we discuss the ways in which regulatory actions might be
used to reduce the quantities of mercury discharged to the environment by man-
related activities. Three major emissions contributors—chlor-alkali plants,
final consumption of paint, and final consumption of batteries—are examined.
These three examples also provide insight as to how controls might be applied
in related industries or usages.
Chlor-alkali plants represent a manufacturing industry that uses large
quantities of -mercury each year and loses appreciable amounts of this mercury
to the environment (although in a form that has not been shown to be unsafe).
In this small but important industry mercury losses are limited to the manufac-
turing process only; thus this example can be used to illustrate how controls
might be applied to clearly defined point source emitters.
Final consumption (and disposal) of batteries creates mercury losses
primarily to landfills and incineration. This example typifies the solid
waste losses of several other electrical applications, including tubes/switches,
lamps, and industrial control instruments. In the case of batteries, manufac-
turing losses are small but overall losses, including those created by ultimate
disposal of the used product, are large. These latter types of discharges are
considered to be area sources (as contrasted with point sources), and regula-
tion at their points of release (or disposal) may be impractical. Therefore
we explore the usefulness of regulation at the "point" source—that is, at the
manufacturing level—as a way of reducing losses at the consumer's end. This
type of regulation relies heavily on recycling. However, the impact of such
regulation of point sources affects the entire economic chain from mercury
production through final sales, and is therefore considered as a part of the
derived costs in our cost-benefit analysis.
253
-------
Relatively little mercury is lost in the manufacturing and processing
of paint. Most of the mercury emissions from paint occur after its final
application, and most of these losses are to air. No control is possible at
this point (and again there is little or no evidence to indicate a hazard to
health). Therefore only one regulatory action—the elimination of mercurials
from paint—can be envisioned. The impacts of such a regulation would be felt
by suppliers of mercury, manufacturers of mercurials, paint formulators, whole-
sale and retail distributors, and ultimately the consumer.
Three cost-benefit analysis (CBA) alternatives have been proposed (although
not all are applicable to any given case):
o Substitution of a nonmercury-containing material or end product
for one that contains mercury or uses mercury in its production.
o Use of alternative processes that can produce the desired mate-
rial or end product without the use of mercury.
o Imposition of mercury emission controls that will substantially
decrease the losses of mercury to the environment, either in
production processes or in end uses.
Because there is virtually no knowledge concerning the health hazards
which may be associated with exposure to low levels of mercury (that is, levels
far below the published standards shown in Figure 5), it is not possible to
demonstrate a benefit for reduction of mercury emissions when they are initially
below established "safe" limits. In lieu of a demonstrated benefit we have
elected to use a stated benefit—the estimated reduction in the quantity of
mercury emitted that is attributable to the implementation of a given alterna-
tive. This accrued benefit may be expressed as a fraction, thus:
Total mercury release with the alternative
Total mercury release without the alternative
Each alternative has costs attached to it. These costs, both direct and
indirect, are determined as the second step of the CBA.
Finally, each alternative is considered in the light of the possible risks
it may entail. One type of risk is that the alternative may in itself lead
to the introduction of other toxic or hazardous materials into the environment;
the second type of risk is that disbenefits, in terms of acceptability or
effectiveness of the substitute, may result. Since benefits are not treated
254
-------
METHODOLOGY
Benefits are extremely difficult to identify, much less to quantify. In
the case of mercury this is doubly true, since its toxicity can only be demon-
strated at relatively high emission levels—far beyond those considered safe
for continued exposure—yet the quantifiable benefit of reducing intake below
"unsafe" levels cannot be demonstrated. Also, mercury enters the environment
from natural sources that contribute to the total mercury burden. Although
definitive data on benefits are lacking, it can be presumed that unnecessary
introduction of mercury into the environment, and thence into the food chain,
is undesirable. We have therefore chosen as our criterion for benefit the
reduction in the amount of man-related mercury which enters the environment
that can be effected by employing a given alternative. This reduction is
estimated in terms of projected mercury consumption by the contributor under
study over the 10-year period 1973 to 1983. (Since mercury consumption in
general is going down for certain consumers, it is necessary to include this
declining curve.) The reduction is then compared with the estimated consump-
tion for each alternative. An example of how such a curve might look is
sketched below.
1973 TECHNOLOGY
cs
oc
I
o
cc
UJ
-------
For a given year, the reduction in the amount of mercury used under the
control situation versus that for the alternative is plotted. A second curve
can then be derived (see sketch below) which indicates the percent reduction
in mercury use versus time. For each curve a cost can be attached for the
total period (in this case, 10 years). The CBA results then become a problem
of choice for the planner in terms of the willingness and ability to allocate
sufficient money to reach the desired objectives.
100X -
rs «/»
O *H
ui a
as
UJ O
o oc
0
ALTERNATIVE 2
ALTERNATIVE 1
BASE CASE
i i i
468
YEAR
10
Costs are not as difficult to estimate as are benefits in this case, but
cost estimating is still difficult. Costs may include costs to the manufacturer
who may have to change his technology or his product, costs to society in terms
of displaced workers and equipment, cost to the consumer in terms of a less
effective product, etc. In short, a ripple effect can be traced. However,
other alternatives (which are less complicated but which will suffice for the
present analysis) are used as appropriate for each of the three major industries
studied.
256
-------
Cost estimates for the chlor-alkali industry were limited to those that
could-be identified as manufacturers' capital investments for adoption of new
technology which could be mandated specifically for the industry. Costs for
the battery and paint industries were extended to include all associated costs,
since regulations, even though imposed at the manufacturer's level, have impli-
cations at all levels from mercury mining through final consumption of the end
products.
The risks associated with each alternative could reduce the overall bene-
fit associated with that alternative. But we are not directly identifying
benefit, so risks identified for an alternative are treated as part of that
alternative's costs. For example, the removal of lead discharges from diaphragm
cells that replace mercury cells for the production of chlorine would be treated
as a cost — primarily an operating cost.
REGULATION IN THE CHLOR-ALKALI INDUSTRY
Chlor-alkali producers who use mercury cell technology are already subject
to regulation with respect to allowable emissions of mercury to the environment
and, although some producers are still not in compliance, the necessary actions
to comply are under way. But the industry still emits large quantities of
mercury, primarily to land, and in this section we consider regulatory actions
that might be taken to further decrease such emissions. The alternatives that
might involve regulatory actions include:
1. Eliminating the demand for chlorine and caustic soda by
substituting other chemicals and/or other end-use technologies.
2. Altering the technology of producing chlorine and caustic soda
to end the use of mercury altogether.
3. Tightening enforceable controls or regulations to minimize the
emissions of mercury to the biosphere.
Alternative 1—Elimination or Substitution of Product
Chlorine is one of the basic "building blocks" of chemistry and is one of
the largest volume industrial chemicals. More than 10 million tons of chlorine
257
-------
were used in the United States in 1973; about one-fourth of this was produced
using mercury cell technology. Almost 50 percent of all chlorine produced is
used in the synthesis of miscellaneous organic chemicals, and an additional
19 percent in the synthesis of vinyl chloride—another organic. Elimination of
chlorine or substitution of another material for these uses is not feasible.
Substitutes for chlorine have been developed for some smaller volume uses.
Sanitation and water treatment use an estimated 5 percent of all chlorine pro-
duction. The use of ozone and iodine (or compounds) has been adopted by some
users in place of chlorine for water treatment, but to date the acceptance level
is low, and there has been only a minor impact on the demand for chlorine.
Caustic soda and caustic potash, which are produced simultaneously with
chlorine in approximately equivalent quantities, are also basic chemicals that
are used in a variety of industrial applications. Some substitution is possible
here; for example, the choice can often be made between caustic soda (NaOH) and
soda ash (Na2CO-). However, the choice of caustic soda is often determined by
economics: its supply is dictated by chlorine production patterns and the
resultant caustic soda must be sold, often at prices which beat out other
competitive chemicals.
It is our conclusion that elimination of these products—chlorine and
caustic—or substitution of other materials is not feasible and can be discarded
as a possible alternative.
Alternative 2—Alternate Technologies
The use of alternate technologies is already feasible, because more than
three-quarters of the chlorine and caustic soda produced comes from diaphragm
electrolytic cells which use no mercury. Mercury cells and diaphragm cells
have often been compared, and the mercury cell is the most favored choice.
However, the advantage of the mercury cell (which is basically the production
of a concentrated, salt-free caustic) has been largely negated by the major
disadvantage of mercury emission problems. Mercury cell technology does not
have a clear economic advantage over diaphragm cell technology and does have a
disadvantage with respect to requirements for control of mercury emissions—
some unregulated discharges prior to an understanding of the problems entailed
258
-------
resulted in some bad publicity for the industry. Therefore the industry has,
on its own, shifted to the diaphragm cell for new plant technology. In 1968
about 30 percent of the chlorine produced came from mercury cells. In 1970
this had dropped to around 28 percent; in 1972, to 24 percent; and in 1973, to
less than 24 percent. It is noteworthy that all new caustic chlorine units are
diaphragm cells (Ref. 140). And even with the technology of the diaphragm cell,
there are substitute materials that improve power utilization while eliminating
the asbestos (itself a pollutant source) in the diaphragm. DuPont's Nafion,
a nonasbestos material, is now in commercial use, and in Japan both Asahi Glass
Company and Tokuyama Soda Company have their own nonasbestos synthetic membranes
under development.
In this case straight substitution of the diaphragm technology for the
mercury cell process is deemed technically feasible. Since no unreasonable
differences in the final products result, there are no impassable barriers to
the changeover other than the costs of making the change. The major disadvan-
tage of the conventional asbestos diaphragm cell is that it produces a more
dilute caustic which contains salt. To produce a generally useful product,
concentration of the caustic from 11 percent to 50 percent and lowering the
salt content from 15 percent to 2 percent must be achieved. This process
requires large amounts of thermal energy, offsetting much of the cost advan-
tage of the higher electrical efficiency of the diaphragm cell.
To change the mercury cell chlor-alkali plants to diaphragm or synthetic
membrane plants would involve significant costs. These costs would include
new capital investment for land and facilities, the assumption being that
existing mercury cell plants would be kept operating to meet market demands
for product until the replacement units were on-stream.
Data for 1971 from Ref. 63 give the capital investment required for a
100-ton/day plant as $8 million. (This includes a $540,000 credit for mercury
recovered.) Also for 1971, the annual operating costs for such a plant are
given as being in the range of $2.4 million, equivalent to about $73 .per daily
ton of chlorine. Later data (1974) from unpublished sources give an operating
cost (raw materials, energy, labor and maintenance) for such a diaphragm cell
259
-------
plant of $84 per daily ton of chlorine.* These sources also provided cost data
on mercury cell plants which indicated that operating costs per ton of product
are virtually identical for either route when the costs include those for the
purification and concentration of caustic from diaphragm cell plants.
Using these 1974 data, it was assumed that the only major cost for convert-
ing from mercury cells to diaphragm cells would be the capital investment. At
$8 million per 100-ton/day capacity, it would require new investment on the
order of $610 million to produce the 2.5 million tons now produced by mercury
cell technology; assuming a 15-year depreciation period, the depreciation cost
would average $16 per ton of chlorine** (compared to the current estimated pro-
duction cost of $84 per ton). The changeover to diaphragm technology would
represent a hardship on mercury cell producers only if imposed over a brief
and arbitrary period, forcing simultaneous monetary requirements for old plant
operation and new technology investment.
The benefits of the conversion would be the removal of as much as 326,000
kg of mercury discharges to the environment each year. Since the total man-
originated contribution for all sources studied in this analysis amounts to
1,525,000 kg annually, this would represent a decrease of about 21 percent.
At the same time, the dismantling of all mercury-using chlor-alkali plants
would release an estimated 3.6 million kg of the metal to the market. (As
previously noted, the value of this mercury has been credited in accounting for
the capital investment required to convert to diaphragm cells.)
* Confidential information obtained during field contacts by URS Research
Company.
** Depreciation costs are, of course, included in total cost. In the case of
chlorine from mercury cell plants it must be recognized that most of these
plants are at least six years old and on the average are probably at least
half depreciated. Also, a portion of the $16 per ton might be charged to
the co-product, caustic soda, but since chlorine demand is normally the
determining factor, such an allocation would be difficult and ultimately
arbitrary.
260
-------
Alternative 3—Increased Control
The present technology of control of mercury emissions is recognized as
being capable of reducing mercury emissions to the biosphere from the 1973
average 0.37 Ib/ton (0.185 kg/metric ton) of chlorine to about 0.25 Ib (0.125
kg) and, with more stringent controls, to a level of 0.04 Ib/ton (0.020 kg/
metric ton) (Ref. 141). However, a more realistic goal for 1983 is 0.10 Ib/ton
of chlorine (0.05 kg/metric ton). To relate such a reduction to the individual
losses to air, water, and land, we have examined certain control technologies
which will reduce emissions:
Air. Molecular sieves for use on hydrogen and end box ventilation streams
have the capability of reducing the mercury content of these streams by 95
percent over current EEA standards (from 1.0 kg/day to 0.045 kg/day). Cell
room ventilation losses, which currently are set at a maximum of 1.3 kg/day,
are unlikely to be affected by new technology (although the amount of daily
emissions may be lowered through better housekeeping).* Hence daily overall
losses to air, assuming an operating removal efficiency for the molecular sieve
unit of 90 percent, cannot be reduced by more than 40 percent.
Water. Sulfide precipitation treatment for final polishing of water
effluent from the plant has the capability of reducing discharges to water by
more than 94 percent.
Land. High temperature roasting of sludges in multiple hearth furances
can recover more than 99 percent of the mercury content. Other solid waste
losses, such as graphite from decomposers and miscellaneous contaminated wastes,
are not considered amenable to such recovery practices, however; since these
represent about 23 percent of solid waste losses, the maximum reduction possible
is 78 percent, assuming a conservative recovery of mercury from sludge of 97
percent.
* Concentrations of mercury vapor in cell rooms might be appreciably reduced if
the industry as a whole were to adopt the "open air" cell room concept now in
use at PMC's Squamish, British Columbia, plant (Ref. 142). However, this
concept would not reduce total emissions to air.
261
-------
The cost of pollution control equipment was derived from several sources
and the total cost (in constant dollars) for the industry was estimated using
the familiar "0.6" rule (Ref. 63). Operating costs were similarly estimated
where possible. The basis for these cost estimates is discussed briefly below.
Reference 63, which provides a comprehensive analysis of the cost of con-
trol and conversion for the chlor-alkali industry, indicates a capital cost in
1973 of $349,000 for a molecular sieve unit for a 100 ton/day facility, with
annual operating costs of $105,000. The total cost of equipping all 28 mercury
cell chlor-alkali plants with such devices is calculated to be $8.6 million,
with total annual operating costs of $2.6 million. A review of the trade
journals and contacts with representatives of the industry indicates that these
are reasonable estimates. The use of other control technologies, such as
treated activated carbon, would have similar values attached for cost and
efficiency.
The use of sodium sulfide to precipitate the very insoluble mercuric
sulfide seems to be generally accepted as the least expensive, most trouble-
free, and most effective method for removing traces of mercury from effluent
waters prior to discharge. References 68, 141, and 143 describe several varia-
tions of this treatment, including results for both pilot and operating plants.
Cost data were conflicting—Ref. 141 indicates a capital investment of $500,000
for a sulfide treatment unit for a 175 ton/day (chlorine) capacity plant,
whereas Ref. 143 indicates a capital cost of only $143,900 for what appears to
be a plant of the same size. Hence in our estimate we assume an average capital
cost of $300,000, with an annual operating cost of about $100,000. Thus the
estimated total capital cost for equipping all 28 plants in the nation with
this type of technology would be $10.1 million, with total annual operating
costs of $1.5 million.
The use of sodium borohydride treatment is considered an acceptable alter-
nate to the use of sodium sulfide (Ref. 143), but the costs are somewhat higher
and the efficiency is slightly less. Activated carbon has also been tested
but appears to be less suitable than sodium sulfide.
Two competitive technologies have been identified for the recovery of
mercury from sludges: high-temperature roasting of sludges (the so-called
Georgia-Pacific process, described in detail in Ref. 143) and solubilization
262
-------
of mercury and its compounds by a hypochlorite solution and subsequent reduc-
tion of the dissolved mercury to elemental mercury in the chlorine cell (as
described "in U.S. Patent 3,691,037, 12 September 1972, assigned to FVC. Corpora-
tion, Squamish, B.C.). Capital costs for the roasting technology (from Ref.
143) are estimated at $364,500 for a 200-ton/day (chlorine) facility with annual
operating costs of about $100,000. Costs for the alternative technology,
hypochlorite dissolution, were not considered, but since some plants are even
now adopting this or similar technologies, it can be assumed to be cost-
competitive.
The total investment over the 10-year period 1973-1983 for control of
mercury emissions to land is an estimated $12 million, with annual opera-
ting costs of about $3.3 million.
Introduction of New Emission Control Technology
Reduction of mercury emissions by using the newer recovery techniques is
not likely to occur suddenly. Some time will be required for the engineering
design, construction, and bringing on-stream of the added facilities. It is
estimated that, in general, three years would be a maximum time for these new
recovery and control facilities to be put into operation. It is also probable
that not all of the mercury-cell plants would undertake or complete the instal-
lation of such new facilities simultaneously.*
Figure 55 indicates the assumed rate of adoption of pollution control
technology, and Table 44 summarizes the total cost of such technology and the
total emissions, prorated in the manner shown in Figure 55. As can be seen
from Table 44, over the 10-year period the total cost for control of emissions
to each receiving environment is on the same order ($8 million to $12 million).
* Plants suffering the greatest losses would probably be the first to make the
improvements. However, this is an assumption and cannot be proven before the
fact. Many plants will not have to make additional investments in order to
meet the projected average 1983 emission levels.
263
-------
100
90
80
70
c
O
•o
£ 50
20
10
76%
81%
67%
- 56%
32%
21%
1 1
1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979
Year
1980
1981
1982
1983
SOURCE: URS Research Company. '
Figure 55 RATE OF INTRODUCTION OF POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
-------
TABLE 44. - Emission Control Technology for Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Industry: Estimated Annual Cost and Emissions, 1973-1983
Year
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
Water Land
Percent Emissions Capital Cost
Reduction (kg) ($ x 10 )
0% 4,295 $ 0
20 3,436 2.26
38 2,663 4.47
54 1,976 6.34
68 1,374 8.07
80 859 9.51
90 430 9.85
94 250 10.10
94 250 10.10
94 250 10.10
94 250 10.10
Percent Emissions Capital Cost
Reduction (kg) ($ x 10 )
0% 298,310 • $ 0
22 232,682 3.47
37 187,935 5.72
54 137,223 8.32
64 107,392 9.81
73 80,544 11.29
78 66,362 11.98
78 66,362 11,98
78 66,362 11.98
78 66,362 11.98
78 66,362 11.98
Air Total
Percent Emissions Capital Cost
Reduction (kg) ($ x 10 )
0% 23,156 $ 0
11 20,610 2.42
18 18,988 4.54
27 16,904 6.24
32 15,746 7.50
36 14,820 7.94
38 14,357 8.30
40 13,894 8.60
40 13,894 8.60
40 13,894 8.60
40 13,894 8.60
Percent Emissions Capital Cost
Year Reduction (kg) ($ x 10 )
1973 0% 325,761 $ 0
1974 21 256,728 8.15
1975 36 209,586 14.73
1976 52 156,103 20.90
1977 62 124,512 25.38
1978 70 96,223 28.74
1979 75 81,149 30.13
1980 75 80,506 30.68
1981 75 80,506 30.68
1982 75 80,506 30.68
1983 75 80,506 30.68
to
01
in
Annual
Operating
Cost
$1,500,000
$3,300,000
$2,600,000
$7,400,000
Source: URS Research Company
-------
but greatest overall reductions are achieved for water (94 percent) and the
least for air (40 percent). However, the extent of reduction is of less impor-
tance, overall, than are the absolute quantities involved. Thus the total
quantity of mercury discharged to air drops from some 23,156 kg in 1973 to
13,894 kg in 1983; this represents a decrease in the air burden of almost
10,000 kg. On the other hand, the absolute decrease in emissions between 1973
and 1983 with respect to water is less—about 4,000 kg—but of course their
removal from receiving waters is an important contribution (note that further
decrease of emissions to water is most unlikely, and probably most unnecessary).
Emissions to land, while not of serious concern as far as exposure to man
and his environment are concerned (at least in the short term), are reduced
significantly (78 percent) with an absolute value of more than 230,000 kg
"saved."* In terms of cost-effectiveness the industry gains most, dollar-wise,
by investing in control technology for its mercury-laden sludges. And because
these sludges are removed from a repository which might eventually release
their contents to the environment, the general public also benefits.
In Table 44 capital costs, although calculated on a year-to-year basis,
are shown as cumulative, whereas operating costs are shown only on an annual
basis. The omission of operating costs from the year-to-year values is accept-
able because it is the capital equipment that is the more significant cost and
the one which weighs heavily in management decisions.** The availability of
internal capital resources and the cost of capital in external money markets
also enter the picture. A calculation was made to assess the inflationary
effects of two interest rates—6 percent and 10 percent (these rates consider
the time value of money in constant dollars). At the expenditure rate indicated
* A recent report (Ref. 60) projects that mercury cell solids will decrease
from 270,000 kg in 1973 to 120,000 kg in 1978 and to 4,000 kg in 1983. This
latter value, which is far below our estimate, appears to include effective
treatment of high-level mercury solid wastes (the URS estimate considers such
wastes as untreatable).
** Also, much of the new equipment represents an upgrading of present practices
and this new equipment is very likely to be operated by little or no addi-
tional labor (a potential disbenefit).
266
-------
in Figure 55 and for the total cost of -new emission control technology in
current dollars ($30.7 million), the effective investment for the 6 percent
rate at the end of the 10-year period is $48.7 million, and for the 10 percent
rate it is $65.7 million.
The imposition of additional emission controls is seen by the industry as
representing an investment of funds which does not contribute to productivity—
or to profits. However, the savings of mercury recovered through control
measures can offset some of the operating costs. Over the ten-year period
considered, more than 2 million kg of mercury would be recovered; at a cost of
$8.80/kg this amounts to almost $18 million dollars.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Two practicable alternatives have been identified—conversion of mercury
cell plants to diaphragm cell technology, and the reduction of emissions from
present mercury cell plants by the imposition of stiffer emission controls.
The cost-benefit results for these two alternatives are presented in Figure
56. The figure also includes a base case which assumes no growth within the
industry and emissions continuing to meet present EIA standards. The benefit
accrued is shown as the percent reduction in emissions of mercury to environ-
ment and the costs as total capital costs.*
Alternative 1, conversion to diaphragm technology over a 10-year period,
ultimately produces the maximum benefit—100 percent reduction in mercury
emissions. However, the associated cost of more than $600 million is clearly
of a magnitude that would have major impact on money markets, to say nothing of
the effects on corporate growth.
* It must be recognized that capital costs do not necessarily equate with
social costs. For example, if the capital costs can be absorbed through
higher prices (a common occurrence), the "cost" will only appear at the
consumer's end, probably magnified—appearing as a reduction of prior
consumer surpluses (also known as "foregone benefits"). If the consumer is
unwilling to pay for these nonproductive investments, several other cost
effects might occur, including plant closures and resultant unemployment;
lower net income; or no plant expansion and a resultant constriction of
supply.
267
-------
100 r
Alternative 1
(Convert to Diaphragm Cell)
Cost: $610 million
Alternative 2
(Reduce Emissions to 0.1 Ib/ton CL2
Cost: $31 million
-10
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Year
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure 56 TIME-PHASED REDUCTION OF MERCURY EMISSIONS FROM
MERCURY CELL CHLOR-ALKALI PLANTS, AND
ASSOCIATED COSTS
268
-------
The second alternative can be effected more rapidly, since it represents
only a minor modification of an existing structure, at a cost which can probably
be assimilated easily (if not willingly). However, even with this vastly
improved control over emissions of mercury, the residual losses (primarily to
land and air), would still be significant, and pressure might continue for the
removal of even these amounts.
A third alternative (not shown) is likely if pressures for control continue.
This alternative involves the gradual phasing out of mercury cell plants, start-
ing with marginal plants which cannot economically justify the cost of higher
level emission control technology and/or which cannot compete with chlor-alkali
produced in diaphragm cells.* To some extent this third alternative is in
effect even now, since all new expansions in chlor-alkali are in diaphragm cell
technology. However, any effort to force too short a time frame on this third
alternative could have serious consequences for the industry and its customers.
But if reasonable latitude is allowed in recovering investment on existing
plants, the impact on the industry should be minimal.
Risk Assessment
Alternative 2, increased use of emission control technology, has no fore-
seeable risks associated with its adoption. But Alternative 1, conversion to
diaphragm cell technology, does carry risks, .since diaphragm cells are in them-
selves a source of toxic pollutants. Reference 60 estimates that chlor-
alkali plants using diaphragm cell technology will produce solid wastes
as follows:
* The competitive advantage of one type of cell over the other is not clear and
appears to depend heavily upon utility costs and the type of product required.
Also, advances in the efficiency of the diaphragm (both in terms of electrical
efficiency and the concentration of the caustic produced) may give it an even
better competitive advantage. Even so, mercury cell technology may still be
the obvious choice for plants where steam costs are prohibitive, or where
customers require salt-free caustic, and so on.
269
-------
Thousands of Kilograms
Year Asbestos Lead
1973 2,300 980
1978 3,800 900
1983 2,000 490
If mercury cell production of chlorine accounted for 20 percent of total
production by 1983, complete conversion to diaphragm cells would apparently add
400,000 kg of asbestos and 98,000 kg of lead to these solid waste totals.
However, new technology in diaphragm cells is eliminating the use of asbestos
diaphragms and reducing the reliance on lead. Hence the additional waste load
could be rather small. (As an aside, it is interesting that discharges from
the diaphragm cell technology are decreasing less rapidly than those from
mercury cell technology, even accounting for the growth of the diaphragm cell
technology. The difference, we suspect, has to do with the value of the
recovered waste; neither asbestos or lead has sufficient value to spur its
recovery, but mercury does.)
Emissions from mercury cell chlor-alkali plants to water and air are of
most concern, since these can directly affect the surrounding environment.
Therefore, we made an estimate of the population which might be affected by
such discharges. We determined the resident population (using 1970 Census data)
within a 5-mile radius of each of the 28 mercury cell chlor-alkali plants (a
total of 8,029,000 persons) and then estimated per capita emissions as follows:
Milligrams
Year Kilograms per Capita
1.86
1.50
1.17
0.89
0.62
0.44
0.39
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
14, 910
12, 007
9,361
7,195
4,948
3,567
3,131
2,973
2,973
2,973
2,973
270
-------
The per capita emission factor (primarily from final consumption of
mercury-containing products) amounts to 2.185 mg/person for air and water
combined. Thus the 1973 emissions of 1.86 mg/person from the chlor-alkali
plants do unpose an appreciable added burden on the affected 8 million popula-
tion. However, with reduction of chlor-alkali emissions to a projected value
of 0.37 mg/person by 1983, the added burden would be only 17 percent, and is
of less concern.
REGULATION IN THE PAINT INDUSTRY
The use of mercurials in the paint industry is largely confined to water-
based product manufacture. The scope of this analysis, accordingly, is limited
to two product groups: exterior water-type paint products and tinting bases
(SIC 28512) and interior water-type paint products and tinting bases (SIC 28514),
Figure 57 relates mercury to its host economic process, exterior and
interior latex paint manufacture. In terms of product flow, the integration
of this element into the paint manufacturing sequence may be viewed in five
distinct stages.
1. Production. Approximately 7,600 flasks of mercury were produced
during 1973 for use in water-based paint manufacture. This represents about
14 percent of the total 1973 mercury supply. Since only a small portion of
the U.S. supply derives from domestic mining operations, it can be safely
assumed that a similarly small U.S. mining revenue (perhaps $100,000 in 1973)
generates from paint-related requirements/ and that very little mining employ-
ment (perhaps the equivalent of 10 to 15 workers) is paint-dependent.
2. Process. Before it is incorporated in water-based paint, mercury is
subjected to an intermediate process. It is converted into phenylmercuric
acetate (PMA)* for use as a preservative and mildewcide. Approximately one
million pounds of PMA were processed from mercury during 1973 for use in paint
manufacturing. The related value realized by the PMA industry is estimated as
$13 million to $14 million. Related employment may range from 200 to 250
workers.
* Other types of phenylmercurics are less commonly used, but the differences
are of no importance in this analysis.
271
-------
3. Paint Manufacture. Mercury, reconstituted as PM&, contributes to the
manufacture of water-based interior and exterior paints. Approximately 260
million gallons of these paint products were produced in 1973. Mercury (as
PMA) therefore contributed to the generation of nearly $1 billion in revenues
and to employment support for approximately 15,000 workers.
4. Paint Distribution and Marketing. The distribution and marketing of
mercury-bearing paints occupies another economic sector. Wholesaling and
retailing functions are intermediate between the manufacturing process and the
consumer. Following the same 260 million gallons of water-based paint through
this activity reveals total revenues of $1.2 billion in 1973, and an implied
associated employment of perhaps 25,000.
5. Consumption. U.S. consumers, through their demand for latex paints
or for products or services which require such paints, stimulated the produc-
tion and provision of the 260 million gallons of water-based paints in 1973.
Consequently, consumers ultimately had to pay the bill. This bill may be
disguised by the indirect channels through which it reaches the individual
consumer (for instance as a component of furniture cost, or housing cost, or
of his government tax bill), but eventually the entire revenue flow—from
$1.2 billion in final product cost to $100,000 in mercury mining revenues—
will generate from the individual consumers.
Regulatory Alternatives and Effects
For purposes of this analysis, only one regulatory option is examined:
the staged (phased) elimination of all mercury use in water-based paint manu-
facture. The analysis assumes the accomplishment of the transition to substi-
tute technology within five years. This regulating policy is examined relative
to a theoretical base condition defined as "no regulation."
Mercury regulation would have the effect of cutting off the flow of a
significant ingredient, PMA, in the water-based paint manufacturing process.
In Figure 57, a barrier may be visualized midstream in the product flow diagram.
Two consequences are immediately apparent. First, all product flow, revenue,
and employment that previously were realized behind that regulatory screen will
272
-------
to
-J
CO
PRODUCT
FLOW
INCOME
FLOW
DIRECT
EMPLOY-
MENT
MERCURY
PRODUCTION
MERCURY
PROCESSING
INTEGRATION TO
MANUFACTURING
MERCHANDISING
OF PRODUCT
Convert
to
PMA
Water-Based
437,800 Kg} Paint
Manufacture
7571 Flasks
(U.S. Mines)
Water-Based
U.S. Mines ( $90 000
Manufacture
CONSUMPTION
Distribution- j \ Water-
258,000,000\ Wholesale- 1258,000,000\ Based
Gallons / Retail | Gallons / Paint
/
Consumer
Cost
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Regulation
Figure 57 PRODUCT AND INCOME FLOW FOR THE PRODUCTION AND
CONSUMPTION OF MERCURY-CONTAINING PAINTS
-------
be jeopardized. Second, if product supply is to be maintained, substitutes
for the regulated ingredient must be incorporated into the process.
As stated earlier, the mercury production and processing aspects of water-
based paint manufacture generated total revenues in excess of $13 million and
total paint-related employment of perhaps 265. Table 45 indicates the scale
of product, income, and employment that would attend a base-case condition
expanded at a 5 percent rate of growth between 1973 and 1983.
The elimination of mercury and mercury-dependent processes from the paint
industry might eventually threaten the jobs of 430 workers and a business
income of approximately $22 million per year. Under worst-case circumstances
and within a very narrow frame of reference, this may in fact reflect some
small part of the industry's future.
In a broader sense, though, other compensatory changes will be created by
these disruptions. Some PMA plants, together with their revenue and employment
bases, will be preserved by accomplishing the transition to substitute processes.
In addition, a major new domestic industry—that of substitute process—will be
catalyzed around them.
Few secure predictions can be made regarding the development of a substi-
tute process industry and its incorporation into the water-based paint industry.
Recent substitute technology experience, however, indicates several areas of
potential impact:
o Increase in Manufacturing Cost/Product Price. Paint industry repre-
sentatives estimate that the utilization of current mercurial substitutes would
result in increases ranging from $0.15 to $0.25 per gallon in manufacturers'
product prices. Retail prices may increase $0.60 to $1.20 per gallon.
o Degradation in Product Quality. Tests of the service life of water-
soluble paints containing substitutes for PMA. indicate potentially significant
reductions in paint permanence.
o Market Ramifications. The demand characteristics of the American paint
consumer have been relatively stable over the last 10 years. Figure 58 portrays
the historic pattern of consumer demand behavior in the face of price levels.
For purposes of comparison, approximately 10 years of monthly price/supply
relationships were calculated and normalized to 1973 market proportions and
274
-------
TABLE 45. - Estimated Product and Income Flow for
Production and Consumption of Paints
Containing Mercury, 1973-1983: Base
(No Regulation) Case
A. Product Flow
Year
1973
1978
1983
B . Income
Year
1973
1978
1983
Total
Supply
(flasks)
7,571b
9,663b
12,333b
Flow (thousands
U.S. Mine
Production
$ 90.0
114.9
146.6
Process
(000 Ibs)
965. 4
1,232.1
1,572.5
Mfg.
(000 gal)
258,000.0
329,285.4
420,267.0
Retail/Wholesale
(000 gal)
258,000.0
329,285.4
420,267.0
of 1973 dollars)
Related
Process
(PMA)
$13,500.0
17,230.1
21,990.7
Related
Mfg.
$ 912,000.0
1,163,985.6
1,485,594.8
Related
Retail/Wholesale
$1,200,000.0
1,531,560.0
1,954,730.0
C. Related Employment (number of workers)
Year
1973
1978
1983
U.S. Mine
Production
15
19
24
Related
Process
(PMA)
250
319
407
Related
Mfg.
15,000
19,145
24,434
Related
Retail/Wholesale
25,000
31,908
40,724
a. Assumes a growth rate of 5 percent per year.
b. This total includes foreign and domestic sources,
uted only 4 percent.
Source: URS Research Company
U.S. mines contrib-
275
-------
a\
5.10
4.85
4.60
5
r-
o>
J
ro
01
4.35
4.10
3.85
3.60
* Adjusted using historic consumer price indexes for all items from "Survey of Current
Business," U.S. Department of Commerce.
** Adjusted to neutralize historic differences in the scale of the marketplace.
September-December
Units
30
60
78
90
99
Relative Volume of Demand**
SOURCE: Derived by URS Research Company from data in "Currant Industrial Reports;
Volume and Sales of Paint and Varnish/' 1964-1974.
Figure 58 PRICE ELASTICITY OF DEMAND IN THE PAINT INDUSTRY
-------
1973 dollar values. As shown, the consumer's price thresholds vary with the
seasons: during the summer he will tolerate price changes of up to 25 percent
before his demands will shift; during the fall/winter period his demands are
naturally lower but his willingness to accommodate price changes is also
reduced—perhaps to 15 percent; during winter/spring his demands are typically
higher, but so is his willingness to tolerate price changes—down to 10 to 12
percent.
From these data it would appear that demand for paint products may be
adversely affected by imposed substitutes, particularly in off-peak seasons.
It is ironic that another adverse quality of mercurial substitution—
shortened product service life—may (at least as far as the industry is con-
cerned) serve to offset the price-stimulated contraction of demand. It remains
to be seen, though, whether the consumer's desire for equal product service
can be reconciled with his limited disposable income and his reluctance to
surrender other valued goods and services. As of this moment there are not
enough behavioral precedents to enable quantification of this aspect of con-
sumer behavior.
Table 46 estimates the income and employment consequences of a transition
from current mercurial processes to substitute technology. The higher cost
of mercurial substitutes results in significantly greater income to the process
industry in general, and through the effects of marginal pricing also results
in greater income to the activities that follow manufacturing. Employment is
expected to be tripled by 1983 from the base case within the process industry
(from about 400 for the PMA process to more than 1,200 for substitute processes),
while remaining essentially unchanged in related manufacturing and merchandising.
These gains are both small (relative to the industry that surrounds them) and
highly tentative until the price-pull, quality-push forces on consumer demand
are resolved. The estimated 1983 price per gallon penetrates the $5.10 per
gallon (1973 dollars) threshold beyond which demand diminution has historically
been experienced. To place this threat in perspective, a 10-percent contraction
in demand in 1983 would jeopardize the jobs of more than 6,000 industry workers.
By way of summary, Figure 59 graphically displays these various effects in
net terms. Relative to the baseline condition detailed in Table 45, mercury
277
-------
TABLE 46. - Estimated Income and Employment Consequences of a Shift
to Substitutes for Mercury in Paint Manufacture and Use
A. Income Flow (thousands of 1973 dollars)
U.S. Mine
Year Production
1973 $90.0
1978
1983
Related Processes
PMA Substitute
$13,500.0 $ —
83,090.0
106,050.0
Related
Mfg.
$ 912,000.0
1,253, 100. Ob
1,539. 135. Ob
Related
Retail/Wholesale
$1,200,000.0
1,691,980.0°
2,159,063.0°
B. Employment (number of workers)
U.S. Mine
Year Production
1973 15
1978
1983
Related Process
PMA Substitute
250
978d
l,248d
Related
Mgf.
15,000
19,145
24,434
Related
Retail/Wholesale
25,000
31,908
40,724
a. Assuming substitute price 20 cents/gallon above PMA.
b. Assuming maintenance at an operating margin of 35 percent.
c. Assuming that the collective margin requirement with the merchandising
chain will approximate 80 percent.
d. Assumes an average value per worker of $85,000 per year.
Source: URS Research Company
278
-------
1973 0
to
-J
ID
Consumer Costs — dollars
-431
204.3M
SOURCE: URS Research Company
Fiaure 59 CONSUMER AND MANUFACTURING COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH
THE REMOVAL OF MERCURY FROM PAINT
-------
regulation can be seen to impose negative consequences upon mercury miners and
PMA plant workers but at the same time to make a positive contribution in terms
of substitute technology employment. Ultimately, though, the consumer will
incur the largest unrelieved disbenefit. By 1978, if mercury substitutes are
adopted, consumers will have spent $160 million more, for products that may
yet be inferior in service value, than would be true for mercury-containing
paints. By 1983, this annual net cost (loss of prior consumer surplus or
"foregone benefit") would amount to more than $200 million.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
One alternative—the elimination of mercury from paint—and two base cases
have been considered. Base case 1 assumes that mercury usage in water-based
paints will remain constant despite a forecast growth in paint sales; that is,
all new market growth will be for substitutes. Base case 2 assumes that mercury
use will grow at the same rate as total paint sales. These three curves are
shown in Figure 60, which indicates the percent reductions (or increases) in
mercury emissions over time. No costs are assigned to the base cases, and only
costs to the consumer are assigned to the alternate. (As noted in the previous
discussion the elimination of mercury from paint will cause some redistribution
of revenues within the mining, manufacturing, and final consumption sectors,
but the net change will be an increase in the total number of workers in the
associated industries.) These consumer costs are estimated to amount to more
than $1.4 billion over the 1973-1983 period. (This is reflected as an additional
constant-dollar cost of 50 cents per gallon to the consumer by 1983.) The
benefit, of course, is the elimination of paint as a source of mercury emissions
to the environment—a source that discharged some 183,000 kg of mercury in 1973
alone.
Risk Assessment
No risks associated with the elimination of mercury from paint have been
quantified, but some possible risks which merit further consideration have been
noted. The materials used in place of the mercurials in paint are, of themselves,
.280
-------
Alternative 1
(Complete Elimination of Mercury)
10-Year Cost to Consumer: $1.4 billion
Base Case 1
(Stability of Mercury Use)
Base Case 2
(Continued Increase of Mercury Use)
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure 60 TIME-PHASED REDUCTION IN MERCURY LOSSES
FROM PAINT USAGE, AND ASSOCIATED COSTS
281
-------
toxic to a degree, but unlike mercurials they do not appear to migrate from
the painted surface to air. The introduction of these mercurial substitutes
into receiving waters is undesirable, but as shown by our inventory results,
the amount of paint that enters sewers is small. Dermatitis resulting from
the use of latex paints containing mercurial substitutes has been reported by
some persons, but the extent of the problem is rather limited.
Some representatives of the paint industry report the growth of
Pseudomonas species on walls painted with nonmercurial, water-based paints.
They suggest that such growth could have serious consequences in some settings,
such as hospitals. However, confirmed instances have not been recorded.
Virtually all loss of mercury associated with paint occurs soon after the
paint is applied, and these losses are almost entirely to air. Concentrations
can be high during and immediately following painting, but the consequences, if
any, do not appear to concern the general population, whose frequency of
exposure to newly painted rooms is undoubtedly low. However, we can compare
the per capita emission to air with the per capita values for paint alone.
The first value is 1.80 mg/person/year; the emissions to air from paint usage
account for 0.87 mg/person/year—roughly half of the first value.
REGULATION IN THE BATTERY INDUSTRY
The use of mercury in the battery industry centers in three product areas:
zinc-carbon, alkaline-manganese dioxide, and Ruben mercury batteries. Collec-
tively, these manufacturing activities required 30 percent of the mercury used
in the United States in 1973. The larger industry group from which these
products derive is SIC 3692, Primary Batteries, Dry and Wet.
Figure 61 relates mercury to these three principal product manufacturing
processes. Mercury can be traced from its source of supply or production to
its terminus (consumption) in five developmental stages.
1. Mercury Production. Approximately 16,260 flasks of mercury were
produced by domestic and foreign suppliers for use in battery manufacture in
1973. Only a small fraction of that supply was developed from then-current
domestic mining operations. Indeed, U.S. producers contributed only 4 percent
282
-------
00
LJ
MERCURY
PRODUCTION
BATTERY MANUFACTURING
SIC3692
16,260
455
,
8 Workers
878(
y
U.S. Mines ^S
f"
16 Workers
2927
3 Flasks
1 *
$60,000
J~
mm* j
) Flasks
1i»l
mo,oo<
ip
™» f»
Flasks
Process
160,000
MERCHANDISING
Mfg.
Carbon-Zinc
^ $4.3 M
-Y
78 M Kg \
CONSUMPTION
>
78 M Kg \
*«or, i Wholesale/ _
$187M ' Retail < $243M
Consumer
Cost
Process
300,000 Kg^
Mfg.
Alkali-
Manganese
6.7 M Kg
^ $8.0 M
-Y—
<$77M
,
6.7 M Kg ^
Wholesale/
Retail
Process
Mfg.
100,000 Kg > Ruben
Mercury
esa'e/ /$^7T
tail X
—V
2100
Consumer
Cost
1.9 M Kg \
1.9 M Kg \
U.S. Mines ^ $36,000
$2.7 M
$29 M
Wholesale/
Retail
$38 M
Consumer
Cost
Regulation
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure 61 PRODUCT AND INCOME FLOW FOR THE PRODUCTION AND
CONSUMPTION OF MERCURY-CONTAINING BATTERIES
-------
to the total U.S. supply in 1973. Therefore, although approximately $5 million
was spent for mercury by the battery industry in that year, only slightly more
than $200,000 accrued to U.S. entrepreneurs and workers. Battery-associated
mining employment was probably in the range of 30 persons.
2. Processing. Most preliminary processing of mercury is accomplished
within the vertically integrated structure of the battery industry itself.
Processing, though legally invisible, may be statistically approximated. The
scale of this activity is of significance to this analysis.
o Carbon-zinc battery manufacture requires the processing of approxi-
mately 160,000 kg of mercury. Employment for this purpose may be
70 persons.
o Alkaline-manganese dioxide battery manufacture requires approxi-
mately 300,000 kg of mercury and provides support for perhaps
130 workers.
o Ruben mercury cell manufacture requires approximately 100,000 kg
of mercury and occupies approximately 40 workers.
3. Manufacture. Mercury contributes to the production of almost 85
million kg of carbon-zinc, alkaline-manganese, and Ruben mercury cells.
Collectively these batteries represent an economic value of nearly $300 million
at producers' prices. Almost 7,000 workers derive their support from the manu-
facture of these types of cells.
4. Merchandising. Distribution, wholesaling, and retailing activities
related to these products generate almost $400 million in revenues and support
for approximately 8,000 workers.
5. Consumption. Once again, it is the consumer who must generate the
$400 million product need that will initiate the entire transaction sequence.
Industry Regulation
Research and development activity has yet to produce a satisfactory replace-
ment for mercury in electrical applications. As of now, therefore, only recycling
is envisioned as a viable regulatory goal. This analysis, accordingly, assumes
that regulations will have the effect of constricting the flow of virgin mercury
284
-------
into battery manufacturing processes and of replacing that flow with recycled
material previously lost to landfill and incineration. A possible alternative,
the imposition of regulations on disposal of mercury-containing solid wastes at
the final disposal site, was rejected as too cumbersome and not amenable to
analysis.
Relative to a base case of "no regulation," a recycle regulation would
serve to diminish the support capacity of mining operations allied to the
battery industry and, second, would encourage the development of new support
capacity in the battery recycling industry. In order to judge the potential
socioeconomic effects of this economic redistribution, the product, income,
and employment accounts of Figure 61 were extrapolated using differential
growth rates. Carbon-zinc battery manufacture was assumed to increase at a
rate of 5.3 percent per year. Alkaline-manganese cell manufacture was assumed
to grow at a rate of 12.8 percent per year. Ruben mercury battery production
was assumed to increase at a rate of 7 percent per year. Table 47 shows the
product, income, and employment projections that result.
As indicated, recycling regulations would threaten the jobs of perhaps
70 U.S. mercury mine workers in 1985. Beyond that, recycling will serve to re-
duce our dependence on mercury imports and thereby improve our balance of
trade. Such regulations will also foster the growth of improved scrap recovery,
reprocessing, and reuse technology. A result of this process will undoubtedly
be higher mercury materials cost to the battery industry, at least in the near
term. The ultimate implication of such higher costs, naturally, is higher
consumer prices. Although no cost or price impact can be estimated at this
stage, some interval approximations may be advanced.*
A. 10 Percent Recovery; 10 Percent Higher Input Cost
o Carbon-zinc. Recovery of 16,000 kg in 1973 to 27,000 kg
in 1983 (at $9.70/kg). The total consumer price impact
might approach $60,000 in 1973 and $100,000 in 1983.
o Alkaline-manganese. Recovery of 30,000 kg in 1973 with
a price impact of $100,000 and 101,000 kg in 1983 with a
price impact of $333,500.
* For these estimates the values given for 1973 represent a potential for re-
covery. Similarly, this analysis assumes that the technology for recovery
of the mercury content of carbon-zinc and alkaline-manganese batteries is
now available, but such is not the case. Modification of current retorting
practices would probably suffice for the recovery of mercury from alkaline-
manganese batteries, but suitable technology would have to be developed for
carbon-zinc batteries.
285
-------
TABLE 47. - Estimated Product and Income Flow for Production and
Consumption of Batteries Containing Mercury
1973-1983
A. Product Flow
Carbon-Zinc
Year
1973
1978
1983
Mercury
Supply
(no. of flasks)
4,606
5,927
7,673
Thousands of Kilograms
Process
160.1
207.1
268.2
Alkaline-Manganese
1973
1978
1983
8,805
16,124
29,445
300.0
548.0
1000.5
Mfg.*
78,000.0
100,980.0
130,727.2
Dioxide
6,700.0
12,236.0
22,344.5
Merchandising a
78,000.0
100,980.0
130,727.2
6,700.0
12,236.0
22,344.5
Ruben Mercury
1973
1978
1983
2,349
4,128
5,790
100.0
140.3
196.7
1,900.0
2,665.0
3,737.8
1,900.0
2,665.0
3,737.8
286
-------
TABLE 47. - Estimated Product and Income Flow for Production and
Consumption of Batteries Containing Mercury
1973-1983
(continued)
B. Income Flow (thousands of 1973 dollars)
Carbon-Zinc
Year
1973
1978
1983
U.S. Mine
Production
$ 60.0
77.7
100.6
Process
$ 4,300.0
5,566.8
7,206.8
Mfg.
$187,000.0
242,000.0
313,409.9
Merchandising
$243,000.0
314,600.0
407,300.0
Alkaline-Manganese Dioxide
1973
1978
1983
1973
1978
1983
110.0
200.0
367.0
36.0
50.0
70.8
8,000.0
14,600.0
26,700.0
Ruben
2,700.0
3,787.0
5,311.6
77,000.0
140,600.0
256,800.0
Mercury
29,000.0
40,700.0
57,050.0
100,000.0
182,600.0
333,500.0
38,000.0
53,300.0
74,800.0
287
-------
TABLE 47. - Estimated Product and Income Flow for Production and
Consumption of Batteries Containing Mercury
1973-1983
(continued)
C. Employment (number of workers)
Carbon-Zinc
Year
1973
1978
1983
1973
1978
1983
U.S. Mine
Production Process
6 70
8 91
10 117
Alkaline-Manganese
16 130
29 237
53 434
Mfg.
4,500
5,800
7,500
Dioxide
1,900
3,470
6,337
Merchandising
5,000
6,500
8,400
2,100
3,935
7,004
Ruben Mercury
1973
1978
1983
5 40
7 56
10 79
700
982
1,377
800
1,122
1,574
a. Total weight of batteries produced
Source: URS Research Company
288
-------
o Ruben mercury. Recovery of 10,100 kg in 1973 with a net price
effect of $35,000 and 20,000 kg in 1983 with a price impact of
$70,000.
B. 10 Percent Recovery; 25 Percent Higher Costs
o Carbon-zinc. The price impact in 1973 would be $150,000 and in
1983 it would be $250,000.
o Alkaline-manganese. The price impact would be $250,000 in 1973
and $833,000 in 1983.
o Ruben mercury. The price impact in 1973 would be $87,500; the
impact in 1983 would be $175,000.
C. 25 Percent Recovery; 10 Percent Higher Costs
o The net price impacts would be identical to those quantified
under B.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Because of the increased projected usage of mercury-containing batteries
in the future, the base case projected for such batteries was found to result
in an increase of 260 percent in the emissions of mercury to the environment
over the next ten years. (Since the introduction of substitute batteries which
could reduce reliance on mercury-containing batteries is unlikely, a base case
which considered less spectacular growth could not be considered.) Because
this increase masked any real benefits (that is, reductions in relative mercury
usage), the base case was normalized, as shown in Figure 62, to a "no growth"
base. Two alternatives were then plotted: 10 percent recycling with an atten-
dant 10 percent cost increment based on the amount of recycling, and 25 percent
recycling, with an attendant 10 percent cost increment based on the amount of
recycling. Alternative 1, 10 percent recycling, reduces the discharge of
mercury to the environment 5 percent over the base case by 1983. The total
reduction for Alternative 1 for the 10-year period is about 4 percent over the
base case and represents an absolute reduction in the amount of mercury lost
of about 400,000 kg, with an attached cost to the consumer of $3.8 million.
289
-------
32
28
I 24
° 20
Q>
N
16
o
la
OC
-4
Alternative 2
(25% Recycle)
10-Year Cost to Consumer: $9.4 million
Alternative 1
(10% Recycle)
10-Year Cost to Consumer: $3.8 million
Normalized Base Case
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983
Year
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure 62 TIME-PHASED REDUCTION IN MERCURY LOSSES
FROM BATTERY RECYCLING, AND ASSOCIATED COSTS
290
-------
Alternative 2, 25 percent recycling, reduces the discharge of mercury to
the environment over the base case 22 percent by 1983. The total reduction
for the 10-year period for this alternative is 15 percent over the base case,
representing an absolute reduction in the amount of mercury lost of more than
1.4 million kg, with an attached cost to the consumer of $9.4 million.
The cost-effectiveness of these two alternatives was determined in terms
of dollars (consumer costs) per kilogram of mercury removed (that is, reduced
below that for the base case). For Alternative 1, the cost per kilogram is
$9.47 for the 10-year period, and it is $6.55 for Alternative 2. However, by
1983 the initial recycling costs will have been largely absorbed, so that the
cost, for 1983 only, is $7.21/kg for Alternative 1 and $4.06/kg for Alterna-
tive 2.
Risk Assessment
Recycling, which has been delineated as the only viable alternative, does
not appear to have risks associated with its implementation. As has been dis-
cussed, recycling of mercury-containing products either by the battery manu-
facturer or by an independent agent will not involve any appreciable losses to
the environment.
Of particular concern (although not specifically addressed in the previous
i
discussion) is the diversion of mercury-containing solid wastes such as batter- I
ies from final disposal involving incineration. Some municipal incinerators
have been reported as the source of unusually high discharges of mercury to
air, and since these are usually located in urban areas, the stack discharge
impinges on a large population. Control of these emissions from the stack is
a possibility, but if the regulatory actions outlined above were properly
designed, special attention would be paid to the recovery of mercury-containing
solid wastes at recycling centers (a growing phenomenon), thereby reducing the
quantities of such wastes that would be incinerated. Recycling might also
involve a "grass roots" collection system, such as now operates for aluminum
cans and newspapers, with a monetary incentive to enlist a large segment of
the population to participate, possibly through recycling centers established
291
-------
and maintained by the battery industry (and other producers of mercury-
containing solid wastes). No risks are involved with such schemes.
i
OVERVIEW
Viewed in a truly macro perspective and in the long term, regulatory
policy decisions threaten "costs" not so much as they do new equilibrium.
Unless regulatory policies alter the magnitude of total personal income in the
United States or have some differential effect on foreign competition, the
net effect of such policies will not be loss or gain but redistribution.
Thus, losses to the mercury mining industry will be offset by gains in
other mineral development areas; losses in mercury processing will accrue
gains to substitute processing activities; costs to the consumer in terms of
higher prices (foregone benefits) will appear as revenue to producing indus-
tries and as salaries (realized benefits) to their labor forces.
At such a macro level, social judgments regarding such policy decisions
may be distilled to a few philosophical considerations:
1. Regulations per se distort the "normal" market process; the
natural allocation of goods and services is altered; consumer
discretion is reduced; consumer values are imposed rather
than elected.
2. Regulations "take" from one sector and "give" to another.
Often the total of revenues or workers affected remain
unchanged; however, the fact remains that otherwise employed
workers are made unemployed and that previously income-rich
regions may be made income-short in the process.
3. Regulations impose their effects on other activities than
the targeted activities. The forced contraction of mercury-
related industry will inevitably affect support industries
which have previously provided materials or services and have
indirectly realized mercury-related revenue and employment
support. Thus, the magnitude of economic redistribution which
292
-------
may be authored by regulatory policy is substantially under-
estimated by quantification of direct effects alone. Indirect
effects may equal or exceed those anticipated within the
regulated economic process.
293
-------
REFERENCES
-------
REFERENCES
1. Anderson, A. et al., "System Simulation to Identify Environmental
Research Needs: Mercury Contamination," OIKOS 24:231-238, 1973.
2. D'ltri, F. M., The Environmental Mercury Problem, The Chemical Rub-
ber Company, Cleveland, Ohio, 1972.
3. JernBlov, A. and T. FagerstrBm, "Some Aspects of the Quantitative
Ecology of Mercury," Water Resources, Vol. 6, p. 1193-1202.
4. Hartung, R. and D. Dinman, eds., Environmental Mercury Contamination,
Ann Arbor Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1972.
5. Siegel, S. M. et al., "Icelandic Geothermal Activity and the Mercury
of the Greenland Icecap," Nature, Vol. 241, p. 526, February 23,
1973.
6. Kevorkian, J. et al., "Mercury Content of Human Tissues during the
Twentieth Century," A.J.P.H., April 1972.
7. Kevorkian, J. et al., "Methylmercury Content of Selected Human Tissues
over the Past 60 Years," A.J.P.H., Vol. 63, No. 11, 1973.
8. Weiss, H. V. et al., "Evidence of Recent Input by Man in a Greenland
Ice Sheet," Science. 174: 4010, pgs. 692-694.
9. Davis, W. E. and Associates, "National Inventory of Sources and Emis-
sions: Mercury — 1968," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
APTD-1510.
10. Anderson, D., "Emission Factors for Trace Substances," U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, EPA-450/2-73-OO/, December 1973.
11. Wallen, I. E., "Mercury Pat a from Simms L. Roy," U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, March 22, 1974.
12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Mercury Pollution in the
United States, by Source Category," Internal Document, 1971.
13. Lambou, V., "Problems of Mercury Emissions into the Environment of
the United States," EPA Position Paper, 1972.
14. Cammarota, V. A., U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines,
"The Outlook for Mercury in the United States," Proceedings of
the First International Mercury Congress, May 6-10, 1974.
R-l
-------
15. Holt, B. R., P. G. Kruzier, S. L. Brown, and L. D. Spraggs, "Inter-
media Transfers of Pollutants, Illustrated with a Case Study of
Mercury," Stanford Research Institute, prepared for the U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1975.
16. JerneltSv, A. and H. Lann, "Studies in Sweden on Feasibility of Some
Methods for Restoration of Mercury-Contaminated Bodies of Water,"
Environmental Science and Technology, 7:8, pp. 712-718.
17. Environmental Measurements, Inc., "Monitoring Mercury Vapor near Pol-
lution Sites," Prepared for the EPA Water Pollution Control Re-
search Series, 16080 HTD, May 1971, p. 135.
18. McCarthy, J. H., Jr., W. W. Vaughn, R. E. Learned, and J. L. Mueschke,
"Mercury in Soil, Gas, and Air - A Potential Tool in Mineral Ex-
ploration," U.S. Geological Survey Circular 609, Washington, D.C.,
1969.
19. Peyton, T. 0., B. R. Holt, and D. L. Haynes, "Transport, Transporta-
tion, and Fate of Mercury in Freshwaters," Southeast Environmental
Research Laboratory, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., 1975.
20. Fulkerson, W., W. R. Shults, and R. F. Van Hook, "Ecology and Analysis
of Trace Contaminants," Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee, Report No. ORNL-NSF-EATC-11, 1974.
21. Holm, H. W., "Mercury in Aquatic Systems: Methyl at ion, Oxidation Re-
duction, and Bioaccumulation," Environmental Protection Agency,
August 1974, pg. 35.
22. Baughman, G. L., J. A. Gordon, N. L. Wolfe, and R. G. Zepp, "Chemistry
of Organomercurials in Aquatic Systems," prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-660/3-73-012, September 1973.
23. Fitzhugh, 0. et al., "Mercurial Pesticides, Man and the Environment,"
Environmental Protection Agency, p. 118, 1971.
24. Kothny, E., "The Three-Phase Equilibrium of Mercury in Nature," Trace
Elements in the Environment, p. 17. '
25. Erickson, "Rock Sludges May Purify Mercury-Polluted Lakes," The
Engineer, 1968.
26. Mackenzie, F. T. and R. Wollast, "Sedimentary Cycling Models of Global
Processes," in The Sea, Vol. 6, E. D. Goldberg, ed.,
John Wiley § Sons, New York (to be published).
27. Geraghty, J. J., D. W. Mitler, F. Van der Leeden, and F- L. Troise,
Water Atlas of the United States, a Water Information Center Publi-
cation, New York, 1973.
R-2
-------
28. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, The National Atlas
of the U.S.A., Washington, D.C., 1970.
29. Shacklette, H. T., "Mercury in the Environment - Surficial Materials
of the Coterminous United States," USGS Circular 644, January
1974.
30. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1970 Census of Housing, Detailed Housing
Characteristics, 1972.
31. Mytelka, A. L., J. s. Czachor, W. B. Guggino, and H. Goludo, "Heavy
Metals in Wastewater and Treatment Plant Effluents," Water Pol-
lution Control Federation Journal, Vol. 45, No. 9, September
1973, pp. 1859-1864.
32. Oliver, Barry G. and E. G. Cosgrove, "The Efficiency of Heavy Metal
Removal by a Conventional Activated Sludge Treatment Plant,"
Water Research, Vol. 8, 1974, pp. 869-874.
33. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "1968 Inventory of Municipal
Waste Facilities," A Cooperative Report, 1971.
34. Jonasson, I. R. and R. W. Boyle, "Geochemistry of Mercury and Origins
of Natural Contamination of the Environment," Canadian Institute
of Mining and Metallurgy, 1972, pp. 32-39.
35. Priberg, L. and J. Vostal, eds., Mercury in the Environment, Chemical
Rubber Company, Cleveland, Ohio, 1972.
36. Murray, C. R., and E. B. Reeves, "Estimated Use of Water in the United
States," U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior,
1972.
37. Cammarota, V. A., ed. "Mercury," Mineral Yearbook 1970, Vols. 1-3,
Metals and Fuels, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Mines,
U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Government Operations
Committee, Stream Channelization, Part 1 and 2, Y4-7:St8, p. 1-2,
92nd Congress.
38. Clark, W. E. and W. Fulkerson, "Mercury Reprocessing Industry," Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, ORNLNSF-EP.22, October 1972.
39. Brobst, D. A. and W. P. Pratt, "United States Mineral Resources," U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 820, United States Govern-
ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C., December 1973, p. 722.
40. State Department of Public Health, Bureau of Sanitary Engineering,
Mercury in California, June 1973, p. 127.
R-3
-------
41. U.S. National Materials Advisory Board, "Trends in Usage of Mercury,"
National Academy of Science, NMAB-158, September 1969.
42. Cammarato, V. A., "Mercury," in Mineral Yearbook for 1973, (preprint),
U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines.
43. Cammarota, V. A., "Mercury," in Mineral Yearbook for 1971 (preprint),
U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines.
44. National Air Pollution Administration, U.S. Department of Health, Edu-
cation and Welfare, "Control Techniques for Sulfur Oxide Air Pol-
lutants," Washington, D.C., January 1969.
45. Singh, T. et al., "Study on Recovery of Mercury from Flue Gases of
Sulfide Ore Roasting and Smelting," Vol. 1, Proc. First Interna-
tional Congress on Mercury, Barcelona, Spain, 1974.
46. Metal Bulletin, "Quicksilver from Autokumpo," 1971.
47. Engineering/Mining Journal, "Bunker Hill Develops Process to Remove
Mercury from Acid," 1972.
48. Pearson, E. W., "A New, Pollution-Free Copper Process via Simultaneous
Leaching and Electrowiring," Mining Engineering , December 1974.
49. Crump, L. H. and C. L. Readling, "Fuel and Energy Data: United States
by States and Regions, 1972," U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington,
D.C.
50. Diehl, J. M., "Sales of Fuel Oil and Kerosene in 1973," Mineral In-
dustry Survey, U.S. Bureau of Mines, September 5, 1974.
51. Gorman, P. G. et al., "Determination of Concentration of Toxic and
Hazardous Vapors and Particulates in Fossil-Fuel Waste Gases,"
Interim Report 2, Midwest Research Institute, August 1974.
52. Billings, C. E. et al., "Mercury Balance on a Large, Pulverized Coal-
Fired Furnace," Journal of Air Pollution Control Association.
23:9, 773-777, 1973^"~
53. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Background Information on De-
velopment of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pol-
lutants: Asbestos, Beryllium, and Mercury," 1973.
54. Magee, E. M. et al., "Potential Pollutants in Fossil Fuels,
EPA-R2-73-249, June 1973.
55. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 41st ed., Chemical Rubber Publish-
ing Company, Cleveland, Ohio, 1960.
R-4
-------
56. Diehl, R. C., E. A. Hattman and H. Schultz, "Fate of Trace Mercury
in the Combustion of Coal," Pittsburgh Energy Research Center,
for U.S. Bureau of Mines, Technical Progress Report 54, May 1972.
57. Kelly, W. P., "SO Scrubber Pilot Plant: Tennessee Valley Authority,
Colbert Steam Plant," prepared for the Environmental Protection
Agency, p. 76.
58. Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Environmental Science Division,
"Annual Progress Report - September 1972," February 1973.
59. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Division of Non-
ferrous Metals, Washington, D.C., 1975.
60. Versar, Inc., "Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practice of
the Inorganic Chemical Industry," prepared for the Environmental
Protection Agency, March 1975.
61. MacMullin. Chlorine; Its Manufacture, Properties, and Uses, Reinhold
Publishing Company, New York, 1962.
62. Stanford Research Institute, 1975 Directory of Chemical Producers,
United States of America, Menlo Park, California, 1975.
63. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, "Control Techniques for Mercury Emission from
Extractions and Chlor-Alkali Plants," No. AP-118, 1973.
64. Environmental Protection Agency, "Asbestos and Mercury: Proposed
Amendment to National Emission Standards," Federal Register,
October 25, 1974.
65. Environmental Protection Agency, "Water Programs: Proposed Toxic Pol-
lutant Effluent Standards," Federal Register, Part II, December 27,
1973.
66. Faith, W. L., Industrial Chemicals, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1966.
67. Personal communication, J. Southerland, Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, September 1974.
68. Litton Systems, Inc., "Industrial Waste Studies: Mercury-Using In-
dustries," Project #805-19000 HIP, prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1971.
69. Versar, Inc., "Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices:
Storage and Primary Batteries Industries," prepared for Environ-
mental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
under Contract No. 69-01-2276, January 1975.
R-5
-------
70. Goldwater, L. J., Mercury; A History of Quicksilver, New York Press,
Baltimore, Maryland, 1972.
71. Predicasts, Inc., "Electronic Trends, Batteries and Electric Vehicles,"
December 1974.
72. Fluorescent Lamps Subcouncil Report, The Environmental Compability of
Fluorescent and Other Mercury-Containing Lamps, National Industrial
Pollution Control Council, February 1972.
73. Predicasts, Inc., "Lighting Devices," Cleveland, Ohio, February 1974.
74. Electric World, "Mercury-Lamp Pollution: How Much of a Problem?"
February 15, 1971.
75. U.S. Department of Commerce, "1972 Census of Manufacturers - Electric
Lamps, SIC 3641," January 1974.
76. Jenne, E. A. and W. Sanders, "Literature on Mercury," Water Pollution
Control Federation, September 1973. ~
77. Lutz, G. A. et al., "Design of an Overview System for Evaluating the
Public Health Hazards of Chemicals in the Environment. Test Case
Study, Vol. 1: The Overview System, Vol. II," U.S. Department
of Commerce, July 1968.
78. Larson, D. A. and M. C. Unglert, "A New Era for Mercury Lamps," Westing-
house Engineer, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 116-120.
79. U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Commerce, "Effects of Mercury on
Man and the Environment," Y4, C73:91-73, Part 1, 91st Congress,
Senate Public Works Committee, Public Works Water Pollution,
Y4, C96-10:W29-2-970, Parts 1 through 5.
80. Foote, R. S., "Mercury Vapor Concentrations inside Buildings," Science,
Vol. 177, pp. 513-514.
81. Fitzhugh, 0. et al., "Mercurial Pesticides, Man and the Environment,"
Environmental Protecton Agency, p. 118, 1971.
82. Clark, W. E., "Survey of Mercury Usage by Agencies of the United States
Government during 1971," Oakridge National Laboratory, January
1974.
83. U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Fanners' Use of Pesticides in 1971 "
1974.
84. International Atomic Energy Agency, "Mercury Contamination in Man and
His Environment," Vienna, Technical Report 137, p. 181, 1972.
R-6
-------
85. Selikoff, I. J., ed., An International Journal of Environmental Medi-
cine and the Environmental Sciences - Hazards of Mercury, Vol. 4,
No. 1, Academic Press, New York, 1971.
86. U.S. Department of Public Health, Education and Welfare, "Hazards of
Mercury," Special Report to Secretary SIR Advisory Committee,
Chairman Norton Nelson, November 1970.
87. Boyle, R. W. and I. R. Jonasson, "Geochemistry of Mercury and Origin
of Natural Contamination of the Environment," Canadian Institute
of Mining and Metallurgy. 65:717, 1972, pp. 32-39.
88. Stanford Research Institute, Chemical Information Service, Directory
of Chemical Producers, United States of America, 1974.
89. Sax, N. I., ed., Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, 3rd Edi-
tion, Van Nostrand Reinholdt, 1968.
90. Bache, A. et al., "Mercury and Methylmercury Content of Agricultural
Crops Grown on Soil Treated with Various Mercury Compounds,"
Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry, 21:4, pp. 607-613.
91. Koirtyohann, S. R. et al., "Mercury Pollution of Golf Course Lakes,"
Missouri Water Resources Research Center, NTIS:PB213 508,
August 1972.
92. Peyton, T. (Southwest Research Institute), Personal communication,
June 1975.
93. Hammerstrom, R. J. et al., "Mercury in Drinking Water Supplies,"
American Water Works Association Journal, 64:1, p. 60.
94. Jones, H. R., Mercury Pollution Control, Heartridge: NOYES, Data
Corporation, 1971, p. 245.
95. Stanford Research Institute, "Mercury* Salient Statistics, Nonferrous
Metals," Chemical Economics Handbook, December 1971.
96. Bond, R. C. and C. P. Straub, Handbook of Environmental Control.
Vol. IV: Wastewater Treatment Disposal, CRC Press. Inc.. 1974.
97. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "The Economics of Clean Water,"
Washington, D.C., 1972.
98. Evans, R. L. et al., "Mercury in Public Sewer Systems," Waste and
Sewage Works, 120:2, February 1973.
99. Ghosh, M. M. and P. D. Zugger, "Toxic Effects of Mercury on the Acti-
vated Sludge Process," Jour. Water Pollution Control Federation.
Vol. 45, No. 3, March 1974. """""
R-7
-------
100. Bisogni, J. J. and A. Lawrence, "Kinetics of Mercury Methylation in
Aerobic and Anaerobic Environments," Jour. Water Pollution Cdntrol
Federation, Vol. 47, No. 1, January 1975.
101. Oliver, B. G. and E. G. Cosgrove, "The Efficiency of Heavy Metal Re-
moval by a Conventional Activated Sludge Treatment Plant," Water
Research, Vol. 8, 1974.
102. Mytelka, A. I., T. S. Czachor, W. B. Guggino, and H. Golub, "Heavy
Metals in Wastewater and Treatment Plant Effluents," Jour. Water
Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 45, No. 9, September 1973.
103. Neufeld, R. N. and E. R. Hermann, "Heavy Metal Removal by Acclimated
Activated Sludge," Journ. Water Pollution Control Federation
Vol. 47, No. 2, 1975.
104. Lingle, J. W. and E. R. Hermann, "Mercury in Anaerobic Sludge Disposi-
tion," Jour. Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 47; No. 3,
1975.
105. Environmental Reporter, "Current Developments," Vol. 6, No. 12,
July 18, 1975.
106. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Fate and Effects of Trace Ele-
ments in Sewage Sludge when Applied to Agricultural Lands,"
EPA-670/2-74-005, January 1974.
107. Emcon Associates, "Sonoma County Solid Waste Stablization Study,"
prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, 1974.
108. Environmental Engineering, "Source Test Report for the 73rd Street
Municipal Incinerator," New York, New York, EPA Test No. 71-C1-14,
1971.
109. Eldridge, R., "An Overview of the Land Disposal Problem" Waste Age.
Vol. 6, No. 1, 1975. *"
110. Minerals Yearbook, "Mercury: Domestic Production," U.S. Bureau of
Mines, 1972.
111. Weston, R. P., Inc., "Source Testing Report: Sonoma Mines, Inc.,"
prepared for EPA, July 1972.
112. Weston, R. F., Inc., "Emissions from Wet Process Cement Kiln and
Finish Mill Systems at Ideal Cement Company," prepared for EPA
March 31, 1974.
113. Minerals Yearbook, "The Mineral Industry of Arizona," U.S. Bureau of
Mines, 1971.
R-8
-------
114. Minerals Yearbook, "Copper: Domestic Production," U.S. Bureau of
Mines, 1972.
115. Lesemann, R. H., "World Copper Use up 7 Percent in 1972, May Be
Matched in 1973," Engineering and Mining Journal, March 1973.
116. Minerals Yearbook, Vol. II, "Area Reports: Domestic, U.S.," U.S.
Bureau of Mines, 1971.
117. U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Farmers Use of Pesticides in 1971,"
Report AER-252.
118. Friedman, I. and N. Peterson, "Fossil Fuels as a Source of Mercury
Pollution," Science. 172:3986, 1971.
119. Rook, H. L. et al., "Mercury in Coal: A New Standard Reference Mate-
rial," Environmental Letters, 2(4), 195-204, 1972.
120. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Background Information on De-
velopment of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pol-
lutants: Asbestos, Beryllium and Mercury," NTIS, PB222-802,
March 1973.
121. U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey, "Mercury in the En-
vironment," Geological Survey Professional Paper 713, 1970.
122. Musche, R., "Unweltschutz-McBrahmen gaged Quecksilberund Cadmium-
dontaminanten in der Bundesreouklik Deutschland,"
Bundesgesundhedsblatt, September 7, 1973.
123. Environmental Protection Agency, "Emission Factors for Trace Sub-
stances," EPA, 1973.
124. Guthrie, V. B., ed., Petroleum Production Handbook, McGraw-Hill Co.,
New York, 1960.
125. Oil and Gas Journal, April 1, 1974.
126. Diehl, "Sales of Asphalt in 1973," U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1974.
127. "Fluorescent Lamps: The Environmental Compatibility of Fluorescent
and Other Mercury-Containing Lamps," U.S. Department of Commerce,
February 1972.
128. Penn, William, "Preliminary Economic Analysis - Mercury Inventory,"
prepared for URS Research Company, August 1974.
129. Chemical Marketing Newspaper, "Mercury Concentration Linked to Coal
Burning," Vol. 199, No. 24, p. 7, June 14, 1971.
R-9
-------
130. Kangas, J. et al., "Smelter Gases Yield Mercury," Chemical Engineering.
pp. 55-57, 1971.
131. Jepsen, A. P., "Measurements of Mercury Vapor in the Atmosphere," in
Trace Elements in the Environment, 1973, pp. 81-95.
132. Jenne, E. A., "Mercury in the Environment," U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 713, 1970.
133. Williston, S. H., "Mercury in the Atmosphere," Journal of Geophysical
Research, Vol. 73, No. 22, November 15, 1968.
134. Holn, "Studies Concerning the Mercury Concentration of Natural Gases,"
(text in German), Gaswasserfach, Gas/Erdgas.
135. Krenkel, P. A. et al., Mechanisms of Mercury Transformation in Bottom
Sediments, Part I and II, Environmental Water Resources Engineer-
ing, Vanderbilt University, October 1973.
136. Johnson, D. L. and R. S. Braman, "Distribution of Atmospheric Mercury
Species near Ground," Environmental Science and Technology, p. 7,
November 1974.
137. Schlesinger, W. H., W. A. Reiners, and D. S. Knopman, "Heavy Metal Con-
centrations and Deposition in Bulk Precipitation in Montane Eco-
systems of New Hampshire," Environmental Pollution (6), pp. 39-47,
1974.
138. Wood, J. M., "Metabolic Cycles for Toxic Elements in the Environment:
A Study of Kinetics and Mechanism." Presented at Symposium of
Heavy Metals in the Aquatic Environment, Vanderbilt University,
December 4-7, 1973.
139. JerneldV, A. and H. Lann, "Studies in Sweden on Feasibility of Some
Methods for Restoration of Mercury-Contaminated Bodies of Water,"
Environmental Science and Technology, 7:8, pp. 712-718.
140. Kline, Guide to the Chemical Industry, 2d Edition, 1974, p. 73.
141. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Development Document for
Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance Stand-
ards for the Major Inorganic Products Segment of the Inorganic
Chemicals Manufacturing Point Source Category," EPA-440/l-74-007a,
March 1974.
142. Ross, R. E., "A Case Study of Mercury Losses in a Mercury Cell Plant,"
presented at the 1973 Canadian Chemical Engineering Conference,
Vancourver, B.C., September 1973.
R-10
-------
143. Perry, R., "Mercury Recovery from Contaminated Wastewater and Sludges,"
Environmental Protection Agency, National Environmental Research
Center Office of Research and Development, Corvallis, Oregon,
December 1974.
144. Energy Policy Project of the Ford Foundation, "A Time to Choose:
America's Energy Future," Ballinger Publishing Co., Cambridge,
Massachusetts, 1974.
145. Class, D. L., "Synthetic Crude Oil from Shale and Coal," Chemtech,
August 1975, pp. 449-510.
146. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 'Transcript of Proceedings in
the Matter of Public Hearings to Determine Whether the Registra-
tion of Pesticide Products Containing Mercury Should be Can-
celled or Amended," FIFRA Document No. 246, et al., October 17,
1974, pp. 714-813.
R-ll
-------
APPENDIXES
-------
APPENDIX A
MERCURY IN THE ENVIRONMENT
Improper usage of organomercurials or their careless disposal has
led to human suffering and death in Iraq, the United States, and Japan.
These tragedies have forced the scientific and economic communities to
examine the sources of mercury in the environment; the nature of the physi-
cal, chemical, and biological interactions involving mercury; mercury's
environmental fate; and the effects on the biological community as mer-
cury and its compounds cycle through the environment. This appendix re-
views recent information in terms of the air, land, and water environ-
ments.
MERCURY AND THE AIR ENVIRONMENT
Sources
The air environment receives both natural and man-made inputs of mer-
cury (see Fig. A-l). These inputs are shown in Table A-l, with typical
emission and ambient air concentrations. The production of mercury vapor
during the combustion of fossil fuels (especially coals) represents a
potentially important contribution because of the anticipated increase in
coal-powered generating facilities. Several studies have indicated that,
with the present technology for particulate capture, approximately 90 per-
cent of the influent mercury from such facilities is lost to the atmo-
sphere as mercury vapor. A wide variety of mercury concentrations is
found in coal, depending on the geographical area and position within the
deposit. The mercury concentration in coal varies from 0.012 to 450 ppm
(Refs. 10, 51, 52, 54, 118, 119, 120, 129). Eastern coals are relatively
higher than western coals in mercury content. The average concentration
in the United States seems to be 0.2 ppm. In a study completed by the
A-l
-------
Inputs (Sources')
Transformations
Removal Mechanisms
JO
Industrial Mercury Users
Volatilization from Zinc,
Lead, Copper and Gold Processing
Fossil-Fuel-Powered Generating
Facilities and Oil Refining
Vaporization from Mining and
Mercuriferous Areas
Vaporization from Contaminated
Waters
Geothermal Emissions
Solid Waste and Sewage
Sludge Incineration
Landfill Emissions
Volatilization of Agricultural
Insecticides
Atmosphere
1. Diphenylmercury
breakdown into mercury
vapor
2. Particulate adsorption
3. Possible oxidations?
Precipitation
Soil Adsorption^
Plant Adsorption
Water Solubilization
FIGURE A-l. - Sources, Transformations, and Mechanisms
for Removal of Mercury in the Atmosphere
Source: URS Research Company
-------
TABLE A-l. - Concentrations of Atmospheric Mercury Emissions
Source
Concentration
References
trt
Coal-powered electrical
generation
Nonferrous ore (zinc,
copper, lead) processing
Geothermal emissions
Natural degassing
Garbage incineration
Contaminated water bodies
Background
Urban
Rural
15-31 yg/m in flue gas
0.012-150 ppm
3 3
10 rag/m -80 ng/m, before control
0.106-0.212 g/m after
10-28,000 ng/m3
10-1,600 ng/m3 .
2,000-20,000 ng/m
Few to several thousand ng/m
400-4,000 ng/m3
(downwind of chlor-alkali pond)
1-25 ng/m3 winter,
2-50 ng/m summer
1-10 ng/m3
10, 51, 52, 54, 118, 119, 120,
129
130
31
34
132
131
131
133
133
34, 132
Source: Compiled by URS Research Company
-------
TVA, a scrubber system designed for sulfur dioxide removal was found to
remove approximately 30 percent of the mercury from the collected fly ash
and gas stream (Ref. 57).
The average concentration of mercury in U.S. crude oil is 0.05 ppm.
Thus the combustion and refining of crude oil for electrical energy gen-
eration and gasoline production may also lead to significant mercury emis-
sions. Mercury emission factors for the combustion of imported fuel vary
from 0.000008 lb/10 gal to 0.001 lb/10 gal, and for U.S. crude oil the
factors range from 0.00001 to 0.001 lb/10 gal. Most of the influent mer-
cury probably reaches the atmosphere as mercury vapor (Ref. 2). One study
that considered mercury in natural gas (Ref. 134) reported that the forma-
tion of insoluble compounds (chiefly sulfides) on pipeline walls reduced
delivered gas mercury concentrations down to 1 to 2 ppb. Because of
increased energy consumption, crude oil contributions will probably in-
crease .
Considerable amounts of atmospheric mercury vapor result from the pro-
duction of xzinc, lead, copper, and gold (Ref. 34). Where efforts have been
made to recover ore-concentrated mercury, the outgoing processed gas still
contained high levels — 106 to 212 yg of mercury (Ref. 130). Thus, the
applicability of this process to waste gas streams containing 15 to
31 pg/m , as found in coal-powered generating plants, is open to question.
Mercury vapor also enters the atmosphere from mining and land develop-
ment activities through natural degassing. Because metallic mercury has
a very low vapor pressure, some mercury vapor is always being driven off.
Decreases in.barometric pressure and increases in temperature increase the
rate of emission. Weiss (Ref. 8) has estimated that mercury released
through natural degassing is 2-1/2 to 15 times that lost from industrial
activities. Kothny (Ref. 24) has estimated natural degassing rates of
2 2
4.0 iig/m /day for Franciscan soils and 0.8 yg/m /day for normal soils.
Using entirely different assumptions, Weiss developed an average world
A-4
-------
M
degassing rate of 1.5 yg/m /day. McCarthy (Ref. 18) showed that the de-
gassing rate correlated better with mercury content of underlying mineral
deposits than with the mercury concentration of the soil. He measured
2
emission rates as low as 0.064 yg/m /day over unmineralized areas to as
2
high as 41.9 yg/m /day over cinnabar veins.
Although insoluble mercuric sulfide is found in most natural de-
posits, chemical and biological processes produce mercury vapor. An ex-
ample of a chemical process is the oxidation of sulfides to sulfates by
ferric ions to free divalent mercuric ions, followed by the reduction of
the mercuric ion to volatile elemental mercury and mercurous ion (Ref. 135).
Bacteria are also able to oxidize mercuric sulfides, although the methyla-
tion rate of mercuric sulf ide is 1,000 times slower than for mercuric
chloride. Similar emissions could be expected from contaminated water
bodies; measurements taken to date verify this supposition (Ref. 131).
Anticipated development of geothermal areas for power generation will
increase local atmospheric levels of mercury, since likely areas for geothermal
energy — that is, zones of deep faulting and shearing — are also zones of
high mercury concentrations (Refs. 34, 132). Incinceration of sewage
sludge and municipal refuse will contribute gaseous mercury vapor, as
sewage sludge contains 4 to 8 ppm mercury and flue gas concentrations of
several parts per million have been measured in a study of a New York City
incinerator. As it appears that all of the mercury in sewage sludge and
most of that in solid waste is volatilized, control devices able to capture
more than particulate matter will be needed.
Other atmospheric emissions include those from chlor-alkali plants,
agricultural fields sprayed with organomercurial insecticides, landfills
containing mercury batteries and lamps, and walls covered with paints con-
taining organomercurials.
A-5
-------
Transformations and Fate
Although ambient concentrations are usually in the range of 1 to
10 ng/m3, they vary greatly with the degree of mineralization and alti-
tude, since the highest concentrations are found near the ground surface.
Possible transformations involving airborne mercury are particulate ad-
sorption and photodecomposition.
Means of atmospheric mercury removal include precipitation and plant,
soil, and water adsorption and solubilization. Airborne concentrations
of 20 vg/m have been reduced to indetectable levels after precipitation
(Ref. 132). Particulate adsorption of mercury compounds is frequently
cited as the reason for the complete mercury removal achieved by rainfall.
Other workers, however, have shown that considerable amounts of airborne
mercury remain after precipitation; this finding results from their obser-
vation that most of the airborne mercury (more than 90 percent) is volatile
and not particulate (Ref. 136).
Because of its volatile nature in air, once mercury is introduced into
the atmosphere from a point source it tends to have a regional or global
fate rather than a local one. That is, although the ambient air concentra-
tions will be highest locally, local deposition is relatively minimal.
Therefore point sources generally contribute more mercury to the total
regional or global budget than to the local mercury budget. Most of this
ends up in the oceans or the polar ice cap.
Environmental Effects
The effects of airborne toxicants depend upon (1) the amount and rate
of adsorption and desorption, (2) the physiochemical and biological prop-
erties of the toxicant, and (3) individual susceptibility. No definitive
A-6
-------
human dose-response reactions have been observed, however. Therefore allow-
able environmental concentrations have been difficult to establish. The
present EPA standard of 1 yg/m of mercury vapor for 24-hour exposure is
not based on inhalation studies, but was determined from knowledge of the
total allowable human daily mercury intake and the average mercury consump-
tion from food sources. The concentration of many emission sources clearly
is greater than the EPA allowable standard. However, because of the dis-
tinct localization of the sources, most of the population inhales only
background levels, which at an average of 10 ng/m would only represent one-
sixtieth of the allowable daily mercury consumption.
In summary, the air environment provides a convenient path for mercury
and its compounds to cycle between land and water, and also acts as a dis-
persing and diluting medium for anomalous gaseous industrial and natural
sources. The predominant mercury form may affect localized populations,
but does not appear to affect populations exposed to background levels.
LAND ENVIRONMENT
Sources
Mercury enters the land environment in a variety of forms and from a
variety of sources. Mercury sources, transformations, and outputs are
shown in Figure A-2. Precipitation, deposition from industrial and natural
degassing plumes, spraying and spreading of sewage effluents and sludges,
filling of sanitary landfills, dredging of bottom sediments, and applica-
tion of insecticides all add mercury to the environment.
Average reported rainfall concentrations are 0.2 ppb, although higher
concentrations may occur in areas of abnormally high ambient mercury con-
centrations. In New Hampshire, an average value of 0.06 ppb was reported
(Ref. 137); this is equivalent to a bulk precipitation rate of
2
0.23 yg/m /day. Mercury concentrations in landfills have ranged from
0.05 to 16.3 ppb. Average mercury concentrations of bottom sediments
A-7
-------
Input Sources
Trans formations
Removal Mechanisms
it*
00
Precipitation
Industrial and Natural
Anomalous Plumes
Sewage Effluent and
Sludge Disposal
Sanitary Landfill
Practices
Dredging
Application of Agri-
cultural Pesticides
Soil
1. Oxidation-Reduction
2. Methylation
3. Demethylation
4. Adsorption-Desorption
5. Volatilization
Evaporation
Plant Uptake
Leaching
Hydraulic Removal of
Suspended Sediment
FIGURE A-2,
- Sources, Transformations and Mechanisms for
Removal of Mercury in the Land Environment
Source: URS Research Company
-------
range from 0.073 ppm to 0.3 ppm, depending on the nature of the body of
water and proximity of industrial activity. Because organomercurial in-
secticide usage is generally restricted to croplands and golf courses,
highest concentrations can be expected in such areas.
Transformations and Fate
Krenkel (Ref. 135) has stated that the average ambient soil mercury
concentration is around 60 ppb, a value that depends on the degree of min-
eralization and the location of pollution sources. In some areas, soil
concentrations can reach 150 to 200 ppb (with an extreme in Swedish soils
of 922 ppb). The ultimate fate of this mercury will depend on the physio-
chemical, biological, and hydrological processes acting on the soil. These
processes are not well understood, however, because soil is a complex and
varying aggregation of inorganic gravel, silts, and clays and of organic
humic and plant substances, which exhibit varying attractions for mercury
compounds under different conditions. More understanding is being gained
through modeling and through actual environmental measurements.
The physiochemical processes are adsorption, desorption, oxidation,
reduction, and disproportionation. Because soil does contain complex
constituents, mercury adsorption onto clays, sulfides, and humic water is
promoted under mildly reducing conditions and lessened under others. Bio-
logical methylation may occur in heavily organic soils, leading to sub-
sequent removal through volatilization under alkaline conditions. Plant
uptake of mercury does not appear to be significant in terms of concen-
tration or toxicity effects.
The average mercury concentrations in U.S. foods are quite low, rang-
ing from 6 to 40 ppb, although they could be higher in crops grown in
highly mineralized, polluted, or insect-infested areas (Ref. 2).
Mercury may also be removed from the soil environment through leach-
ing and erosion of mercury-containing particulates. Leaching might be
A-9
-------
particularly important with regard to landfill operations and would de-
pend upon the soil composition, chloride concentration, landfill design
and operation, and oxidation-reduction potential. Measurements of leachate
from landfills indicate that soil passage effectively attenuates mercury
through adsorption, precipitations and exchange reactions. Because soil
mercury is usually concentrated in the upper few centimeters of the soil
column, erosion can transport a significant amount of mercury contamina-
tion to receiving waters.
Environmental Effects
Although few qualitative or quantitative data have been reported, it
appears that the land environment offers a relatively permanent depot for
mercury; the processes of metallic mercury volatization, plant uptake,
leaching, and removal from surface layers by erosion serve to keep only
a small portion of the land-applied mercury in the environmental cycle.
Because mercury is not absorbed significantly by plants, its effects on
the terrestial biological community are generally minimal.
WATER ENVIRONMENT
Mercury in the hydrosphere (and particularly in the freshwater envi-
ronment) seems to offer the greatest threat to the human environment be-
cause of its continuous cycling within the water environment and the abil-
ity of aquatic organisms to concentrate mercury in their tissues.
Figure A-3 shows the various sources, transformations, and removal mech-
anisms of mercury in the water environment.
Sources
Although chlor-alkali plants have contributed to significant localized
mercury problems, improved housecleaning practices and efficient waste
treatment processes will continue to decrease these plant emissions. The
contribution of mercury-containing leachate is hard to quantify, but it has
A-10
-------
Inputs (Sources)
Trans format ions
Removal Mechanisms
Industrial Effluents
Leaching from Mining of
Mercuriferous Belts
Precipitation
Solubilization of Anomalous
Mercury Vapor Plumes
Solubilization of Volatized
Agricultural Insecticides
Urban Runoff
Rural Runoff
Sewage Effluents
and Sludges
Hydrosphere
1. Oxidation-Reduction
2. Adsorption-Desorption
3. Methylation-Demethylation
4. Photodecomposition
5. Disproportionation
Biological Uptake
Sediment Burial
— Evaporation
Suspended
Sediment Loss
FIGURE A-3. - Sources, Transformations and Mechanisms for
Removal of Mercury in the Water Environment
Source: URS Research Company
-------
been estimated that such processes amount to less than one-tenth the emis-
sions from coal combustion. Precipitation may contain an average mercury
concentration of 0.2 ppb. No information regarding the solubilization of
inorganic and organic mercury-containing plumes from unregulated sources
and foliar insecticide application was found, although one worker (Ref. 135)
mentioned that high values found in Clear Lake, California, may be due to
such a process. The contribution from urban runoff may be a significant
localized source, and rural runoff contains mercury adsorbed onto sus-
pended sediment. Sewage effluent and sludge may also be a significant lo-
calized source, in that higher ocean sediment mercury concentrations occur
near ocean outfalls that discharge both sewage effluent and sludge. Sludge
disposal is a particular problem, because of the ability of organic sludges
to concentrate mercury and other heavy metals.
Transformations and Fate
As shown in Table A-2, typical ambient water column concentrations of
mercury are low, and are well within the 2.0 ppb maximum allowable value
set by the new EPA Drinking Water Standards. Although the transformation
reactions occurring in water and sediment are similar to those occurring
in soil, more information is available on water-sediment reactions, espe-
cially with regard to me thy liner cury and its compounds. The production of
methylmercury in aquatic systems has been proven, and the factors deter-
mining its importance—that is, pH, oxidation-reduction (redox) potential,
temperature, total mercury content, and microbiological community—have
been elucidated (Ref. 138). Both mercuric ion and methylmercury are toxic
to some bacterial species, which reduce both compounds to metallic vapor.
Metallic vapor is less toxic than either compound because of its high vola-
tility. This demethylation reaction acts to keep the concentration of sedi-
ment methylmercury relatively constant, which shows that the total mer-
cury present and the methylmercury uptake by fish are better indicators
of a contaminated sediment than is methylmercury concentration, which is
about 1 percent of the total mercury value.
A-12
-------
TABLE A-2. - Typical Ambient Concentrations of Mercury in the
Hydrosphere
(Concentration (ppb)
Character! zat ion
Streams, rivers, lakes
Oceans and seas
Groundwaters
Hotsprings and mineral
waters
Hot springs and mineral
waters at Sonoma, Cali-
fornia
Range
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.7
- 0.10a
- 5.0
- 0.10
- 2.5
- 0.13
Average
0.03
0.2
0.05
0.10
0.10
Reference
6
7
6
6
6
19
a. Of 273 samples, 261 <1 ppb, 11 = 1 to 5 ppb, and 1 >5 ppb.
Source: Compiled by URS Research Company
A-13
-------
The natural mechanisms for mercury removal are all well documented.
Although dlmethylmercury has a vapor pressure only a third to a half as
great as that of metallic mercury, water bodies subjected to turbulent
water and overlying air could transfer significant amounts of dimethyl-
mercury and mercury vapor to the atmosphere. However, recent airborne
mercury measurements over water bodies did not detect dimethylmercury
(Ref. 136). Because sediment stabilization leads to decreased aquatic
organism mercury uptake, mercury contained in buried, undisturbed sedi-
ments may have reached its ultimate fate. It is generally agreed that
the half-life of mercury in such sediments varies from one to three years.
In shallow, turbulent lakes, the removal of suspended sediment would tend
to reduce mercury concentrations. The fourth removal mechanism, by aquatic
life forms, has been clearly demonstrated. In one study, the ambient
aqueous mercury concentration ranged from 0.05 to 0.13 ppm, while the algal
mercury concentration ranged from 3,000 to 180,000 ppm.
The biological accumulation of methylmercury by fish is the most im-
portant aspect of the biological uptake system as far as man is concerned.
Possible sources of the methylmercury may be the lower links of the food
chain, methylmercury in the water column, or the innate ability of the
organism to methylate inorganic and metallic mercury. The relative im-
portance of the first two sources is still unquantified; the third does not
appear to be important. Once in the fish, methylmercury is tightly re-
tained with a half-life of from one to three years. No significant effects
on fish containing normal amounts of methylmercury have been noticed, al-
though extreme concentrations such as found in Minamata Bay fish led to
anomalous behavior and metabolism.
D'ltri (Ref. 2) lists nine possible decontamination procedures for the
removal or inactivation of mercury-containing sediments in aquatic eco-
systems: (1) dredging or pumping, (2) conversion of all available mercury
to mercuric sulfide, which is biologically unavailable for methylation;
(3) evaporation of dimethylmercury into the atmosphere; (4) biological re-
moval by bacteria; (5) burial under sand or other inorganic material;
A-14
-------
(6) adsorption and burial with silicates or inert clays; (7) plastic coat-
ing applied to the bottom of mercury-contaminated lakes; (8) amalgamation
with aluminum or other active metals; and (9) "biological mining" by clams.
All methods are costly and only one — dredging — has been evaluated full-
scale (Ref. 139). The results of that investigation indicate that high re-
moval efficiencies are possible, although complete removal of all sedi-
ments must be accomplished for an appreciable effect on aqueous concentra-
tions to occur.
Environmental Effects
Biological methylation and concentration are the important processes
in the effects of mercury on humans. Different mercury compounds have
different physiological effects, body retention times, and organ concentra-
tions. Methylmercury and dimethylmercury are strongly held in brain tissue,
whereas ingested mercuric ion tends to be concentrated in renal tissue and
ingested metallic mercury has little effect at all. Because methylmercury
is 5 to 20 times more toxic than other mercury forms, its concentration
in food products, especially fish, is critically important.
The effect of methylmercury on aquatic organisms and predatory birds
has been well documented (Ref. 135). The apparent difference between chemi-
cally and biologically synthesized mercury, however, needs further clarifi-
cation. First, fish given chemically synthesized methylmercury are more
sensitive to stress than those given biologically produced methylmercury;
and second, fish accumulate 40 to 50 percent of chemically synthesized
methylmercury versus 10 to 15 percent of biologically synthesized methyl-
mercury.
In summary, the hydrosphere may be the ultimate fate for some mer-
cury, a way station in the continuing atmospheric recycle for some, and
the arena for biological methylation and concentration. However, the
importance of methylmercury in sediments may not be as great as was once
believed.
A-15
-------
APPENDIX B
SELECTION OF STUDY REGIONS
Figure 1, presented in the Introduction to this report, is a nap
showing the selected study regions. This appendix describes the relevant
characteristics of each region.
CALIFORNIA STUDY REGION
This study region extends from the San Francisco-Oakland metropoli-
tan area through the Sierras and encompasses Reno (Nevada) and surrounding
counties. It includes several metropolitan areas, relatively little
heavy industry, considerable agricultural activity, and — uniquely — some of
the major mercury-producing areas (and the only ones currently active in
the nation). Considerable gold and silver are also found in this region,
although mining activity has slowed in recent years.
ARIZONA STUDY REGION
All of Arizona, two desert counties in California, and the Las
Vegas (Nevada) SMSA were selected for study, primarily because of the high
ambient mercury air readings found throughout the region. These high
readings were assumed to be associated with the several large copper smelt-
ers in Arizona. The region is relatively sparsely settled and has only
two major metropolitan areas; heavy manufacturing is not a serious consid-
eration.
LOUISIANA STUDY REGION
The southern half of Louisiana was included in this study region be-
cause it incorporates virtually all industrial activity in the state. This
B-l
-------
includes one of the most massive petrochemical complexes in the world as
well as three large chlor-alkali plants.* The study region also included
the Mississippi River, so that its role as a recipient of industrial and
municipal wastes could be studied. (The Houston area, which is contiguous
with the Gulf Coast of Louisiana, was initially considered for inclusion
in the study region. However, its industrial composition was similar to
that in Louisiana and its inclusion would have complicated the data anal-
ysis, so it was not included.)
KENTUCKY/TENNESSEE STUDY REGION
This region has a number of identified emitters, including two chlor-
alkali plants, but of primary interest is the large number of unregulated
emitters in the TVA power system. More than 20 large, coal-fired power
plants were included, as were four metropolitan areas.
NEW YORK/NEW JERSEY STUDY REGION
The industrial complex of the State of New Jersey contains six or
eight small manufacturers who account for almost 90 percent of the nation's
mercury compound manufacturing. In addition, there are other chemical
manufacturers and a number of refineries. The New York megalopolis, with
its very high population density, has a number of coal-burning power plants
and incinerates a large fraction of its solid wastes, including some sew-
•
age sludges. The study region also includes some electrical and control
instrument manufacturers.
The five study regions not only have unique characteristics, but in
toto they account for virtually every type of mercury emission of concern.
In addition, they represent different socioeconomic concerns, climatic
differences, and so on. Thus they provide a very diverse data base, which
* When we speak of chlor-alkali plants, unless otherwise noted, we mean
plants that use mercury cells.
B-2
-------
is at the sane time all-inclusive for comparisons of regional variations
and of regions with the national average.
UTILIZATION OF EXISTING MONITORING EMISSION DATA
In addition to the EPA map showing elevated mercury concentrations
in the United States, the EPA also furnished an area ranking report for
each EPA region which indicates average mercury emissions, in pounds per
day, for each applicant under the RAPP permit program. These computer
printout data were further "massaged" and, in most cases, obviously erro-
neous emissions were deleted; in some cases, locations which were not on
the printouts were ascertained. However, attempts on the part of URS to
verify reported emissions proved almost totally fruitless. In the Cali-
fornia study region, for example, we went through each of the original
applications to determine the applicant's estimate of likely mercury emis-
sions and generally found that these were stated as "background" or
slightly greater. In other regions obvious emitters, such as chlor-alkali
plants, did not appear. (It has since been reported that the EPA con-
siders that the files on these early permits are no longer useful.)
The Hazardous Air Polluting Emissions Monitoring System (HAPEMS), an-
other computer printout that was obtained, reported air emissions for mer-
cury mines and chlor-alkali plants. In general the data on these forms,
which included location and a space for listing quantity of emission, could
be verified. However, quantitative data usually were not given, and thus
this program was of little use to us. (This program too has now been dis-
continued .)
Storage and Retrieval of Air Quality Data (SAROAD) were obtained to de-
termine mercury concentrations in air. However, these data comprise only
two points (both in Arizona) and were of little value. STORET printouts
were obtained for each study region to aid in determining the average mer-
cury content of surface waters and groundwaters. These data were generally
B-3
-------
useful, although the mercury contents displayed may be deceptively low
because of the long standing time between sample collection and analysis
and the infrequency of sample collection.
B-4
-------
APPENDIX C
COMPUTER DATA BASE FORMAT AND USE
During this study a vast amount of information has been collected con-
cerning mercury uses and losses. Because of the massive volume of this
data, a data base management system was employed. The system used (called
System 1022) is basically a device to turn raw data into useful informa-
tion. The system permits making changes, updating, reordering, and analyz-
ing the raw data. The software is owned by Tymshare, Inc., a world-wide
computer time-sharing system, and is therefore proprietary.
FORMAT OF DATA BASE INPUT
The initial task in constructing any data base is to establish param-
eters or attributes that will be used in the final analysis. In the case
of the mercury data base, 12 parameters have been chosen. A partial data
coding form is shown in Table C-l. The titles above the actual data are
the attribute names for each piece of data and are used when accessing that
particular piece of information in the data base. Each line is a new set
of information and corresponds to a single computer card or record.
• Columns 1-6 contain information pertaining to the SIC code.
SIC stands for Standard Industrial Classification and is simply a means of
categorizing the mercury emitters considered (see Section II). In this
case, SIC 8021 stands for dental uses and SIC 49110 is power plants.
• Column 7 contains the sector within which the particular SIC
falls. In the case of dental applications this is Sector VIII, and for
power plants it is Sector III.
This allows extraction of mercury losses by economic sector,
which one of the programs (to be described later) accomplishes.
C-l
-------
ttJ
a
o
TABLE C-l. - Data Coding Form
-p
!
.s
^
1
i
SIC, £
02
1
02 1
91
I
10
i ;
i •
; |
1 i ;
: ' i
i !
>
1 i
• i
;
: 1 •
I I '
i
I
i i
! i
« NAME
£>£NTA
\D£N
1
\PE\N
1 1
• .
t ,
. !
• .
' !
; i
! i
i i
] t
> i
i
i •
i .
. i
L
LCD LGM
i -
TAL
N$,G RO
—t — : —
i
• ' I
, ! '
|
•
,
i •
' i ' i
, I
4
'
II
:
i i
\ \ i
1} 14 15
v\e
i
i
t
•
i
i
i
!
j
i
i
16 1
T3
73
75
1 !
i ,
l
l i
i
1
1
1
; 1
)
I
f
11
19
To
49
5:6
28
LD LM STATE CONTY EINV
q
0
to
,3
i ' ;
' i • .
: ' ;
i : ;
i
i
;
1
! : !
i
!
t
: . \
! !
i
j
i :
, i .
1
; : i
71
l
i
!
; 1
i !
72 ?3 24 23
9
-
f
38
*3
i
i
,
i
!
,
'
•
1
77
N
N
N
; x
y
y
•
y
'
•
:
|
i
l
1
i
I
I
i
1
J
1
1
31 :
Q\iTE
KIN
\
s;
AL
l '
1 !
i r
i
i
\
<
• i
i i
i
1
l
J !
! i
1 !
1
XI
1 i
14 .15
M 17 M ;9
ENS
GS
\
EM
i ' i
i
• '
' ' '
1 i
' ;
i !- i
! ! !
! i
: 1
•i ! '
06 37 M ;
+
PROD FPROD EFA EFW EFL ERE CODE
'
i
! i
i
— , , —
i ' !
; i
• i
i i
1 i
i !
41 Aj *3
31 . 0
08 .0
88 .0
\ '
* '
i t -
1 I , !
l ! i .
i '
*
i
!
,
1
;
i i ,
'. : i
«5 44 47 *8 *» '.
HG
HG
HG
' t i
|
, ;
1 1
' ) 1
i '
t ' .
.
1
i
1
> 1
I ,
i ! 1
t ; ,
I '
i * t
' i
! ! 1
51 5? 53 3
04
\04
90
i j
i
i
I
i
'•
<
1
1
,
' i
j
|
15 M
7
7
<
i
!
1
l
1
;
•
1
i
*9 ac
2
2
'
(
-
1
i
1
i
1
!
1
i
1
1
1
i
j
i
»l 6
,
It
1*0
(
— 1
1
1
— f
1 •
i
1
> !
1 1
' i
i i
i
1 :
i
63 *4 6!
6
24
24
— •——"'»• —
! : 1
j '
I
1
.
) 1
1
i i
1 '- — '— T"
' \
1 I
i . .
! , ;
! !
!
j
' 1
1
'
i i
1
i
'. i
i
i ;
•
;
i
KO1 A
/C0'2/\
*
F01A
•
•
,
'' t
I
' : '
•
i
• ; '
l
t. lIM «l«
-------
• Column 8-17 contain the name or location of the particular
emitter or group of emitters. In this case, "dental" is simply the name
of SIC category 8021, and Pennsgrove is the name of the power plant. When
evaluating a copper smelter, for instance, these columns would contain the
name of the particular smelter.
• Columns 18-20 and 21-22 are degrees and minutes, respectively,
for the longitudinal coordinates of the mercury source. Columns 24-28
are the same for the latitudinal coordinates. These columns are used
when specific emitters such as power plants, chlor-alkali plants, or mer-
curial chemical manufacturers can be rather precisely located. In a reg-
ional analysis, many SIC groups fall within an area source category, in
which case the coordinates are the central point of a county. This is the
situation in the case of dental losses, which cannot be defined by indi-
vidual emitter. Columns 23 and 29 are not used.
• Columns 30-32 are used for a state abbreviation. Any abbrevia-
tion up to three characters can be used, as long as that use is consistent.
• Columns 33-39 give the county in which the mercury emissions occur.
In the case of the national inventory the state names may go in these
columns, which allows one of the FORTRAN programs to delineate mercury
losses on a state-by-state basis.
• Columns 40-44 contain, if applicable, the amount of mercury a
user may have on inventory.
• Columns 45-50 contain the total amount of mercury lost or re-
cycled within a given county, state, or facility. For example, Queens
County in the State of New York loses 631 pounds of mercury per year
through dental usage, and the Pennsgrove power plant in Salem County, New
York, emits 188 pounds per year. The totals in these columns could also repre-
sent the mercury lost during chlorine manufacture by a specific plant, or
mercury lost in a given county from the disposal of batteries. In any
C-3
-------
case, the amount of mercury that is placed in these columns is that which
is lost to air, land, or water or is recycled. The value represents the
amount of raw mercury that is lost, although it may not be emitted in that
form.
• Columns 51-54 are allocated for the form of mercury product
emitted. Basically, this can be divided into three categories: organic
(ORG), inorganic (INO), and metallic (H6).
• Columns 55-58, 59-62, 63-66, and 67-70 are the emission factors
for mercury losses to air, water, land, and recycling, respectively. Add-
ing across these four columns, the total should equal 1.0; i.e., 100 per-
cent of the mercury available for loss is accounted for. These factors,
therefore, can be multiplied by the value in columns 45-50 to obtain the
amount of mercury lost to each parameter for the given SIC and geographical
area (or mercury-using facility) . In the case of the example for dental
consumption, 4 percent of the mercury lost is vaporized to air, 72 percent
is washed down the drain and therefore goes into water, 0 percent is lost
to land, and 24 percent is recycled. In the burning of coal, 90 percent
of the mercury is lost to air and 10 percent to land.
• Columns 71-75 are blank and can be used for adding other param-
eters, if necessary.
• Columns 76-80 are a numbered and lettered coding sequence to
facilitate keeping the cards in order when reviewing the information con-
tained on them.
LOADING THE DATA BASE FOR USE BY SYSTEM 1022
The keypunched data is loaded on a disk file and given the name
URSHG.DMI. This data file is now ready to be loaded into System 1022; this
C-4
-------
is accomplished using the code shown below (assuming the user has logged
into the Tymshare network). Note: The user must type the underlined
characters:
-LOAD URSHG.DMI
Several lines of information will be printed out, including how much
storage is allocated for each parameter described above. This loading
sequence is done in conjunction with a file called URSHG.DMD, which is a
description of how the data appear on the cards and under what name each
series of columns (discussed above) is referred to. For example,
Columns 45-50, which contain the total amount of mercury lost to the en-
vironment (plus recycling) have a length of 6 columns and are referred to as
PROD. A listing of this file is shown in Table C-2.
PURPOSE OF DATA BASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND FEATURES OF THE OUTPUT
Once the data are successfully loaded into System 1022, the data base
management system can be utilized to update or change the data with very
simple commands. Running the FORTRAN source programs on the data base is
a simple task. Assuming the programs are compiled and saved, only one
command is necessary. The example below will be to run ALLS1C.
-RUN ALLSIC
The program will then summarize mercury losses by SIC code to air,
land, water, and recycling. The sample output for this and the remainder
of the FORTRAN source programs follows this discussion.
To access System 1022, the user types the commands shown below:
RUN (UPL) 1022
OPEN. URSHG
C-5
-------
TABLE C-2. - Listing of File URSHG.DMD
LOADING SECTION
INPUT URSHG.DMI
STRUCTURE SECTION
ATTR SIC TEXT COL 1 6 KEYED
ATTR ICODE TEXT LENGTH 1 KEYED
ATTR NAME TEXT LENGTH 10 KEYED
ATTR LGD INTEGER LENGTH 3 KEYED
ATTR LGM INTEGER LENGTH 2 KEYED
ATTR LGDR TEXT LENGTH I KEYED
ATTR LD INTEGER LENGTH 3 KEYED
ATTR LM INTEGER LENGTH 2 KEYED
ATTR LDR TEXT LENGTH 1 KEYED
ATTR STATE TEXT LENGTH 3 KEYED
ATTR CONTY TEXT LENGTH 7 KEYED
ATTR EFNV REAL LENGTH 5
ATTR PROD REAL LENGTH 6
ATTR PPROD TEXT LENGTH 4
ATTR EFA REAL LENGTH 4
ATTR EFW REAL LENGTH 4
ATTR EFL REAL LENGTH 4
ATTR ERE REAL LENGTH 4
FILLER 12
C-6
-------
The system responds with an asterisk, indicating that it is ready to
accept another command. The following command must be to open the data
base. The system responds with another asterisk and now it is ready to
make any changes, additions, or deletions to the data base. It should be
noted that these changes will not be made to the original data that were
entered into the computer, but rather to the loaded data base, which is in
a binary form.
To make a change in the binary data base, the user must first lo-
cate the particular record in question. This is done by a FIND command.
For example, to change the emission factor to air for dental to 6 percent,
the following sequence of commands would be used:
* FIND SIC 8021
* 21 records
* CHANGE EFA .06
*
All records for SIC 8021 would have the attribute EFA changed to .06.
Adding data is relatively simple, as the series of commands below will
show. To add data, the system will interactively request the values for
each attribute after the user has typed ADD.
* ADD
Supply other attributes
SIC 8021
ICODE £
NAME DENTAL
etc.
To delete, a FIND command is again necessary to locate the particular
record (or records) to be deleted. Below, only one record, that for dental
losses in Queens County, New York, is deleted.
C-7
-------
* FIND SIC 8021 CONTY QUEENS
POUND
* DELETE
For any other specialized applications, the user should see the Sys-
tem 1022 Reference Manual. Leaving System 1022, the user simply types
QUIT, and control is returned to the executive.
* QUIT
The programs URSCTY, URSLL, MULFAC, and URSIC request specific in-
puts by the user. URSCTY requests a county and a sector; URSLL requests
two points of longitude and two points of latitude; MULFAC requests an
SIC code and a multiplying factor; and URSIC simply asks for an SIC. The
output presented in the balance of this appendix illustrates the results
of these programs.
C-8
-------
UR8
SICALL - California Region
SIC
Code
021
1021
1092M
1092P
2,5
2834C
2851 C
2851M
2879
2911 C
2951 C
3.0
3241
3274
36292
36410
36420
38291
4091 C
49110
4924C
4952
7391
8021
Total
Total
Losses to
Land
0.62
0.00
0.07
0.44
0.69
0.00
1.87
0.00
1.35
0.00
0.86
1.95
0.14
0.01
5.32
0.80
27. 02
4.17
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.80
0.00
46.11
Total
Losses to
Water
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.14
1.18
0.93
0.02
0.36
0.00
0.10
0.73
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.53
1.36
5.38
Total
Losses to
A1r
0.00
0.01
0.02
8.34
0.05
0.00
12.14
0.02
.0.09
0.32
0.07
0.73
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.15
0.00
0.08
0.29
1.25
0.00
0.53
0.07
25.19
Total
Losses to
Exports
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
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
Losses to
Recycling
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.60
6.84
0.00
0.00
0.00
.0.00
0.00
0.43
9.84
C-9
-------
URS
SICALL - Arizona Region
SIC
CODE
021
1021
2.5
2834C
2851 C
2879
29C
3.0
3331
36292
36410
36420
38291
49110
7391
8021
TOTAL
LOSSES TO
LAND
0.15
0.07
0.21
0.00
0.24
0.89
0.80
0.63
2.39
2.29
0.38
8.20
1.54
0.00
0.01
1.05
18.56
TOTAL
LOSSES TO
WATER
0.02
0.00
0.04
0.40
0.00
0.11
0.30
0.24
2.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.84
4.53
TOTAL
LOSSES TO
AIR
0.00
0.10
0.01
0.09
4.63
0.00
1.50
0.24
43.07
0.00
0.00
2.11
0.02
0.05
0.04
0.02
51.88
TOTAL
LOSSES TO
EXPORTS
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
TOTAL
LOSSES TO
RECYCLING
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
3.40
0.00
0.18
0.12
4.51
C-10
-------
UR8
SICALL - Louisiana Region
SIC
Code
021
2.5
2821
2834C
2851 C
2879
2911 C
2911M
2951 C
3.0
36292
36410
36420
38291
49110
4924C
49241
7391
8021
Total
Total
Losses to
Land
0.00
0.65
59.98
0.00
0.29
1.34
0.00
0.28
0.44
0.61
1.52
0.38
10.96
0.96
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.26
0.00
77.69
Total
Losses to
Water
0.07
0.12
0.33
0.28
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.19
0.66
2.10
Total
Losses to
A1r
0.01
0.04
6.01
0.07
5.49
0.00
0.29
0.28
0.02
0.23
0.00
0.00
0.47
0.01
0.74
0.25
1.75
0.05
0.03
15.74
Total
Losses to
Exports
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.76
Total
Losses to
Recycling
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.27
0.00
0.00
0.65
2.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.16
3.35
C-ll
-------
URS
SICALL - Tennessee Region
SIC
Code
021
1099 v
2.5A
2.5B
2812
2834C
2851 C
2851M
2879
291 1C
2911M
2951C
3.0
3331
36292
36410
36420
38291
4091 C
49110
4924C
7391
8021
9199
Total
Total
Losses to
Land
0.39
0.00
0.71
0.10
43.08
0.00
0.91
0.00
3.14
0.00
0.03
2.13
2.02
0.03
9.65
1.26
30.31
6.00
0.28
1.75
0.00
0.37
0.00
0.06
102.21
Total
Losses to
Water
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.38
0.14
1.65
0.00
0.00
0.53
.0.00
0.00
0.24
0.76
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.63
1.84
0.02
6.23
Total
Losses to
Air
0.00
0.01
0.05
0.00
4.54
0.00
17.32
0.04
0.00
0.57
0.03
0.16
0.76
0.56
0.00
,0.00
1.30
0.00
2.54
15.81
0.93
0.17
0.07
0.00
44.87
Total
Losses to
Exports
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
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 ..
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
Losses to
Recycling
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00'
0.00
0..00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 .
1.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.80
14.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.45
0.00
17.76
C-12
-------
SICALL - New York/New Jersey
SUMMARY OF TOTAL LOSSES BY SIC CODE
(IN THOUSANDS OF LBS.)
SIC
CODE
021
2.5A
2.5R
2812
2818M
2819M
283-^M
2834C
2851
2879
291 1C
291 1M
2951C
3.0
3079P
3 12M
36292C
36292M
3641 OC
TOTAL
LOSSES TO
LAND
0.10
1.66
0.27
23.92
0.04
0 . 0 0
0.00
0.55
2.54
6.20
0.01
0.22
3.18
7.68
O.U2
0.06
12.69
2.56
10.04
TOTAL
LOSSES T.O
WATER
0.00
0.00
1.09
0.30
0.64
0.09
0.03
4.68
0.00
4.96
0.00
0 , 0 f )
0.35
2.89
0.40
0.00
0 . 0 (j
0.00
' 0.0*)
TOTAL
LOSSES TO
AIR
0.00
0.39
0.0"=
4.49
0.04
0.00
0 . 0 0
0.28
48.31
1.24
7.36
0.2?
0.23
2.89
0.02
0.31
2.78
0.13
2.24
TOTAL
LOSSES TO
EXPORTS
0.00
0.00
0 . 00
0.00
o . o n
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.94
0 . 0 n
I
\
0.00
0.00
o.oc
o . o n
0.0 • '
0.00
0.00
TOTAL
LOSSF < TO
RECYCLING
O.Oii
0.0!
O.f'T
25.02
0.0
0 . 0 i
0 . 0 0
0 . 0 i
O.i'' •
O.Or
0 . n i '
0 . f ' s •
O.Of
3.84
0.0-
0 . f < ' •
0.0
0.0'-
0 . 0 n
C-13
-------
URS
SICALL - New York/New Jersey (cont.)
36410M
36420C
36420M
382Q1C
38291N
UOQ1C
'491 ' 0
4024C
7391
HO.'l
0.60
102.71
0.31
27.16
1.2
0.37
0.51
O.f i
0.4'.
O.t'l'
205.07
0.00
0.0('
0.01
0 . 0 r
0 . 0 0
0.00
0.0'
O.OC
1.64
6.0ii
?3.07
0.03
23.72
0.02
o.on
O.Oo
3.^,
9.80
1.76
0.63
0.24
1 0.57
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.on
0.0 (~
o.oo
O.Oc
O.Oi1
o.u^
O.Oi
0.94
o.on
5.94
0.0<
32.4-,
0 . 0 :
0.0!
0.0"
0 . f • •'<
3.59
1.45
72.28
C-14
-------
URS
SICALL - National
SUMMARY OF TOTAL LOSSES BY SIC CODE
(IN THOUSANDS OF LBS.)
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
7<-
sic
CODE
021
1021
1031
1092M
1092P
2.5A
2.5P
2261
2812
2819M
283-' M
2834C
2851C
2851F
2851M
2879C
2879F
2879M
LOSSES TO
LAND
39.02
0.17
0.03
0.03
0.91
4.89
4.20
16.83
500.17
0.00
0.00
4.61
20.15
0.00
0.10
48.39
35. 3^
0.01
LOSSES TO
WATER
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
O.Of
0.00
16.79
0.34
6.46
0.i'5
0.04
39.18
0.00
0.7/
0.45
38.72
6.23
0.13
LOSSES TO
AIR
0.00
0.05
0.01
0.01
17.29
0.26 -
0.00
0.00
32.73
0. n
0.00
2.30
382.80
0.63
0.03
9.68
O.Of
0.01
LOSSES TO
EXPORTS
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.on
O.Of;
0.00
0.00
O.Of
o.oo
O.Of
O.On
0.00
0.00
O.Ot
O.On
O.Ot
0.00
O.Of:
RECYCL]
0 . 0 P
O.OC
O.C ;
0.0 (l
0.0(*
0.0'
O.fM
O.Oi
O.fti
o.o.
0.0'-
O.Of
o.o
o . n (
0.0'
0.0-
0.0"
O.Oi
C-15
-------
SICALL -National (cent.)
2911C
2911M
2951C
3.0
3079P
3241
3274
3312M
3331
3332
333-
36292C
36292M
36410C
36410M
36420C
3642.0M
38291C
38291M
4091C
491 JO
4911C
4924C
7391
8021
0.04
2.54
33.06
60.74
0.00
\ 3.88
0.64
5.64
4.99
0.58
0.56
102.00
3.47
82.26
2.98
889.27
5.48
237.03
4.34
2.44
0.03
9.97
0.03
3.51
0 . (.1 n
2130.32
0.00
0.00
3.68
22.78
0.01
0.55
0.09
1.13
4.9rj
0.58
0.56
0.00
O.OU
O.OH
0 . 0 0
0.0"
0.12
O.Ofi
0 . 0 U
0 . 0 U
0 . 0 0
o.ou
0.00
13.05
36.72
193.47
37.35
2.54
2.43
22.78
0.00
1.11
0.18
15.79
89.89
10.48
10.11
16.60
0.00
13.39
0.84
153.70
0.29
36.47
o.on
21.98
26.43
89.77
34.09
5.02
2.04
1039.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 . 0'O
o.on
0.00
0 . 0 t.i
0.0 I!
0.00
0.00
0 . 0 f :
O.OU
0.00
0.00
0 . 0 (;
0 . on
o.on
0.00
0 . 0 0
0 . o n
O.on
0.00
0.00
0.00
45.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 . 00
o.on
o.on
0.00
o.on
o.on
o.on
0 . 0 0
54.89
/ 0.00
182.33
0.00
O.on
0 . 0.0
o.on
0 . 0.0
28.62.
12.24
323.64
016
-------
CTYALL - California Region
County
Alameda
Alpine
Amador
Calaveras
Church
Contra Costa
Douglas
Eldorado
Lyon
Marin
Merced
Napa
Placer
Sacramento
Santa Clara
Santa Cruz
San Francisco
San Joaquin
San Mateo
Solano
Sonoma
Stanislaus
Storey
Tuolumne
Washoe
Yolo
Total
Total
Losses to
Land
7.96
0.00
0.08
0.11
0.08
3.66
0.05
0.25
0.06
1.22
0.71
0.60
0.46
3.69
9.99
0.92
5.08
1.97
3.88
0.98
1.42
1.47
0.00
0.15
0.77
0.55
46.11
Total
Losses to
Water
0.96
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.45
0.00
0.03
0.01
0.15
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.44
1.19
0.11
0.55
0.21
0.48
0.12
0.16
0.15
0.00
0.02
0.10
0.06
5.38
Total
Losses to
Air
2.78
0.00
0.03
0.04
0.03
1.64
0.02
0.11
0.03
1.64
0.25
1.79
0.20
1.56
6.51
0.46
1.77
0.71
1.41
0.45
2.69
0.49
0.00
0.05
0.33
0.20
25.19
Total
Losses to
Exports
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
0.00
0.00
0.00 -
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
Losses to
Recycling
1.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.72
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.06
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.60
2.61
0.20
1.46
0.40
0.95
0.21
0.07
0.30
0.00
0.01
0.20
0.03
9.84
C-17
-------
URS
CTYALL - Arizona Region
bUMMAKY OF TOTAL LOSbtb BT COUNTY
(IN THOUSANDS OF
COUNTY
ccrn
CLAKK
CO-MIbE
Gil.A
GHE NL
TOTAL TOTAL
:"> TO LOS'.t> TO
WAI EH
LAND
2.Ub
0.32
0.41
0
U.cb
TOIAL
LOS ES 10
AIH
u. ^ i
1.34
5»7U "
U.26
IB. 1
TOIAL
LOS'.-tb TO
EXPOKIS
U.OJ
O.Q'J
0..3 ••
TOIAL
Tt
U."
U. lb
0.1 (
JMI'Er< fl.M
MAhlCOP H.^.O
'-10'IAVr O.J°
PI MA 3.01
FINAL O.t;6
c./\f IHt •' li.'
-------
UR8
CTYALL - Tennessee Region
COUNTY
KEN01
KEN02
KEN03
KEN04
KEN05
KEN06
KEN07
KEN08
KEN09
KEN 10
KEN11
KEN12
KEN13
KEN14
KEN15
KEN16
KEN! 7
KEN18
KENT 9
KEN20
KEN21
KEN22
KEN23
KEN24
KEN25
KEN26
TEN01
TEN02
TEN03
TEN04
TEN05
TEN06
TEN07
TEN08
TEN09
TEN10
TOTAL
LOSSES TO
LAND
0.78
27.27
0.61
0.71
0.78
0.96
0.84
0.76
0.87
0.57
0.54
0.62
0.63
0.80
0.79
0.74
6.09
0.89
0.75
0.73
1.27
0.76
0.78
1.50
0.68
0.96
0.89
0.61
0.73
0.75
0.92
0.89
0.82
0.63
3.38
0.94
TOTAL
LOSSES TO
WATER
0.07
0.17
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.10
0.07
0.61
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.15
0.08
0.08
0.10
0.07
0.10
0.09
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.06
0.38
0.09
TOTAL
LOSSES TO
AIR
1.55
3.15
0.43
0.75
0.36
2.02
0.74
0.31
1.05
0.30
0.22
0.92
0.25
2.31
0.42
0.28
4.57
2.04
0.34
0.72
0.70
0.33
0.33
0.34
0.30
0.44
0.36
0.24
0.28
0.28
0.35
1.11
0.30
0.24
1.56
1.05
TOTAL
LOSSES TO
EXPORTS
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
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
0.00
0.00
TOTAL
LOSSES TO
RECYCLING
0.17
0.25
0.14
0.16
0.25
0.23
0.25
0.22
0.22
0.11
0.07
0.07
0.13
0.09
0.18
0.23
2.00
0.21
0.21
0.19
0.32
0.20
0.23
0.78
0.21
0.29
0.31
0.18
0.24
0.24
0.36
0.31
0.31
0.19
0.97
0.29
C-19
-------
CTYALL - Tennessee Region (cont.)
COUNTY
TEN11
TEN! 2
TENT 3
TEN14
TEN15
TEN! 6
TEN! 7
TEN18
TEN! 9
TEN20
TEN21
TEN22
TEN23
TEN24
TEN25
TEN26
TEN27
TEN28
TOTAL
LOSSES TO
LAND
0.74
0.90
0.81
0.80
0.84
0.56
0.93
2.17
0.84
1.02
17.69
0.55
1.23
1.17
0.76
0.54
5.27
2.18
102.88
TOTAL
LOSSES TO
WATER
0.09
0.07
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.09
0.27
0.08
0.09
0.18
0.06
0.12
0.11
0.08
0.05
0.61
0.23
6.26
TOTAL
LOSSES TO
AIR
0.22
0.38
0.32
0.34
0.30
0.23
1.02
1.00
0.31
1.44
2.67
0.22
0.91
0.47
0.30
0.18
2.71
0.94
45.43
TOTAL
LOSSES TO
EXPORTS
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
0.00
0.00
TOTAL
LOSSES TO
RECYCLING
0.26
0.31
0.27
0.26
0.27
0.19
0.27
0.59
0.30
0.34
0.39
0.19
0.41
0.45
0.45
0.24
1.39
0.74
17.76
C-20
-------
UR8
CTYALL - Mew York/New Jersey
SUMMARY OF TOTAL LOSSES BY COUNTY
(IN THOUSANDS OF LBS.)
TOTAL
LOSSES TO
TOTAL
LOSFES TO
TOTAL
LOSSES TO
TOTAL
LOSSES TO
TOTAL
LOSSES TO
COUNTY
BERGEN
BRONX
BUCKS
BURLING
CAMDEN
DELAWAR
ESSEX
FAIRFIE
Gl 01 iCES
HAPTFOP
HUDSON
HI INTER
KINGS
LITCHFI
MERCEP
MIDDLES
MOMMOUT
MONTGOM
MORF'IS
NASSAU
LAND
8.03
11.83
3.02
2.72
4.05
4.04
8.36
5.08
1.5'.-
5.36
5.67
0.79
14.76
0.98
2.80
5.60
3.72
4.50
3.49
9.74
WATER
1.11
1.18
0.40
0.28
0.41
0.53
0.95
0.75
0.3o
0.76
0.73
0.20
2.11
0.13
0.29
O.bb
0.39
0.58
0.40
1.2
AIR
2.8H
3.59
2.01
0.92
1.38
3.79
2.94
«U3*4
G.b7
3.98
1.95
0.95
11.9'-
O.fc«
1.02
2.53
1.24
3.37
1.25
7.12
EXPORTS
0.07
0.05
O.I;
0.02
0.03
o.oo
0.07
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.09
O.n<
0.02
0.04
0.03
O.OG
0.03
0.05
PFCYCLII
1.61
1.81
1.46
0.48
0.76
1.76
1.62
2.78
0.30
2.80
1.17
0.12
3.46
0.5h
0.51
1.21
0.60
2.11
0.70
1.89
C-21
-------
URS
CTYALL - New York/New Jersey (cont.)
NEWCAST
NEWHAVE
MEWYORK
OCEAN
PAS^AIC
PHILADE
QUELNS
PICHMON
ROCKLAN
SALEM
SOMERSE
SUFf- OLK
TOLI AND
UNION
WAPT-EN
WESTCHE
3.50
5.31
8.81
O.OP
4.47
16.87
12. 00
0.02
1.74
0.69
1.82
7.7b
0.69
29.06
0.00
6. 23
205.07
0.37
0.70
1.33
0.04
0.76
1.71
1.76
0.00
0.20
0.07
0.23
0.95
0.10
0.91
0.01
0.78
23.07
1.17
3.43
8.94
o.on
1.56
8.89
11.11
0.21
6.91
0.40
0.6i
4.21
0.48
6.37
O.or
3.72
110.57
0.03
0.01
0.05
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.04
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.03
0.94
0.64
2.60
2.09
0.00
0.99
5.38
2.91
0.00
0.31
0.14
0.39
1.43
0.33
26.13
0.00
1.24
72.28
C-22
-------
UR8
CTYALL - National
SUMMARY OF TOTAL LOSSES BY COUNTY
(IN THOUSANDS OF LBS.)
TOTAL
LOSSES TO
TOTAL
LOSSES TO
TOTAL
LOSSES TO
TOTAL
LOSSES TO
TOTAL
LOSSES TO
COUNTY
ALABAMA
ARIZONA
ARKAN5A
CALIFOR
COLORAD
COM' ECT
DCOLUMB
DEL.AWAR
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
IDAHO
ILL inoi
INDIAN/*
IOWA
KAMSAS
KtNTUCK
LOUISIA
MAINE
MARYLAN
MASSACH
MICHIGA
Mir ii it so
LAND
90.44
15.17
15.64
143.80
17.10
25.85
0.06
23.32
4b.41
62.11
5.80
104.96
46. 5t>
23.97
24.31
64.94
101. If
16.23
29.2-'
46.15
72.84
30.74
WATER
3.44
3.89
1.58
16.69
2.07
2.84
O.U1
0.77
5.31'
4.24
0.8H
10.06
5.01
2.30
3.12
2.97
3.38
0.9"
3.46
5.11
8.21
3.34
AIR
21.80
49.12
6.71
81.03
7.73
13.33
0.52
4.25
26. bl
21.02
6.13
49.48
26.83
12.46
8.07
23.17
18.47
5.61
16.67
25.06
41.51
15.47
EXPORTS
0.00
0.00
o.on
o.on
o.oc
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
o . o r>
O.On
O.Od
O.Od
O.PO
o.on
0.00
0.00
O.Ol
O.On
O.On
0.00
0.00
RECYCLII
5.43
2.11
2.91
28.8
2.57
6.28
0.00
0.97
7.68
7.63
1.06
20.31
10.57
3.91
2.76
4.67
3.89
1.80
5.82
10.38
17.13
5.53
C-23
-------
UR8
MISSISS
MISSOUR
MONTANA
MEBRASK
NEVADA
NEVYHAMP
MFWJLRS
NEWMEXI
NEWYORK
HOPTHCA
MOPTHDA
OHIO
OKLAHOM
ORE GOM
PENt :SYL
PHODEIS
SOUTHCA
SOUTHDA
TEMI iESS
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
V1RGINI
WASHING
WISCONS
WVIRGIN
WYOMING
•
16.74
38.02
9.19
13.55
4.17
6.48
92.40
6.56
172.97
55.74
14.09
95.87
23.16
15.73
101.92
8.69
28.62
7.58
69.84
131.05
7.99
3.19
35.81
49.45
45.66
68.85
2.60
— • • »»fc». — •«•
1.80
4.45
1.63
1.56
0.71
0.70
7.42
1.12
15.74
4.79
2.14
9.89
2.79
1.79
11.29
0.90
2.53
0.93
5.0'
10.36
1.59
0.34
3.8K
3.31
5.10
1.7-
0.25
••••••i %%wnv« /
11.26
30.39
8.75
5.10
12.44
3.17
32.13
10.73
78.2*
26.97
2. On
55.86
10.07
7.97
76.80
4.02
12.13
2.4*1
22.04
57.08
17.28
1.53
17.94
19.80
18.49
11.81
1.64
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.on
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.on
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.12
7.26
0.61
1.72
0.44
1.48
13.63
0.81
28.75
10.25
0.42
20.97
3.04
2.94
22.65
1.98
5.01
0.59
7.02
14.73
1.25
0.65
6.72
4.70
8.11
2.22
0.28
2130.32
193.47
1039.08
0.00
323.64
C-24
-------
URS
URSIC New York/New Jersey - SIC 36420C: Battery Consumption
SUMI'AP.Y OF LOSSES
LOSl.Eb
TO AIR
LOS-: EL
To 1 AMD
MO.
LBS.
NO.
LRS.
1 OS' Ki. MO.
TO WATER LHS.
LOS'.FS
TO EXfT
LOS bV
10 RECY
MO.
LHS.
NO.
LBS.
TOTAL
31
23720.71
102712.?.'
0
O.l'ii
0
O.Oi-
30
b937.40
<5
LBS
0
0.00
0
O.Ci,
0
o.ou
0
O.OC'
0
0.00
URSIC New York/New Jersey -
SUMMARY
LOSSES
TO AIR
LOSSES
TO LAND
LOSSES
TO WATER
LOSSES
TO EXPT
LOSSES
TO RECY
5-2 b
LPS
2
30.87
0
l> . 0 . .
0
O.OU
0
O.I-'
3
59.37
SIC 3079
26-100
LBS
101-400
LBS
LhS
6 10 13
396.22 15bO. 8721742. 7b
0
c.ur
0
0 . i. :;
0
O.Oi
8
P: Vat Dyes
3
0
O.Of
0
O.nr
19
37V0.28 It.
30
Li.l
0
fi . ,-. i
•»-'
OF LOSSES
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
MO.
LBS.
TOTAL
10
22.16
10
22.16
10
396.93
0
0.00
0
0.00
<5
LBS
10
22.16
10
22.16
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
5-25
LBS
0
0.00
0
0.00
2
39.87
0
0.00
0
0.00
26-100
• LRS
0
0.00
0
0.00
8-
359.06
0
0.00
0
0.00
101-400
LBS
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
o.oo
0
0.00
0
0.00
>400
LBS
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.0(
0
0.00
0
0.00
C-25
-------
UR8
URSIC New York/New Jersey - SIC 2833 M: Pharmaceutical Manufacture
SUMMARY OF LOSSES
LOSSES NO.
TO AIR LBS.
LOSSES NO.
TO LAND LBS.
LOSSES NO.
TO WATER LBS.
LOSSES NO.
TO EXPT LBS.
LOSSES NO.
TO PECY LBS.
EXIT
URSIC New
SUMMARY OF LOSSES
LOSSES MO.
TO AIR LBS.
LOSSES NO.
TO LAND LBS.
LOSSES NO.
TO WATER LBS.
LOSSES NO.
TO EXPT LBS.
LOSSES MO.
TO RECY LBS.
TOTAL
2
1.58
2
1.58
2
28.51
0
O.Ou
0
O.Oc
York/New Jersey
TOTAL
7
4.74
7
'4.74
7
85.33
0
o.on
0
o.no
<5
LBS
2
1.58
2
1.58
0
0.00
0
0.0 1
0
O.Ou
- SIC 2819
<5
LBS
7
4.74
7
4.74
2
9.48
0
0.00
0
0.0 )
5-25 26-100 101-400
LBS
0
0.00
0
O.OP
2
28.51
0
0. c
0
o.oc.
M: Catalyst
LBS
0
0.00 0
0
0.00 0
0
0.00 0
0
o.on o
0
o.on o
Manufacture
LBS
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
5-25 26-100 101-400
LBS
0
o.oo
0
0.00
4
48.37
0
o.on
0
0.00
LBS
0
0.00 0
0
0.00 0
1
27.49 0
0
o.on o
0
0.00 0
LBS
6
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
>400
LBS
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
>400
LBS
0
p. uo
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
C-26
-------
UR8
URSIC New York/New Jtrsey - SIC 2818 M:
SUMMARY OF LOSSES
LOSSES
TO AIR
LOSSES
TO LAND
LOSSES
TO WAThP
LOSSES
TO EXPT
LOSSES
TO RFCY
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LRS.
MO.
LBS.
URSIC
TOTAL
7
35.63
7
35.63
7
641.26
0
0.00
0
0.0
<5
LBS
4
9.67
4
9.67
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
New York/New Jersey -
5-2b
LBS
3
25.96
3
25.96
1
14.15
0
0.00
0
o.on
SIC 7391 :
26-100
LBS
0
0.00
0
0.00
3
159.88
0
o.on
0
0.00
Laboratory
101-400
LBS
0
0.00
0
0.00
3
467.24
0
0.00
0
0.00
>400
LBS
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
SUMMARY OF LOSSES
LOSSES
TO AIR
LOSSES
TO LAND
LOS1.ES
TO WATER
LOSbtS
TO EXPT
LOSSES
TO PECY
NO.
LBS.
NO. .
LBS.
MO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
NO.
IRS.
TOTAL
3o
629.00
3;^
440l'
LBS
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
o.on
0
0.00
c
0.00
C-27
-------
URS
URSIC New York/New Jersey - SIC 364COM: Battery Manufacture
SUMMARY OF LOSSES
LOSSES NO.
TO AIR LBS
LOSSES NO.
TO LAND LBS
LOSSES NO.
TO WATER LBS
LOSSES NO.
TO EXPT LBS
LOSSES NO.
TO RECY LBS
URSIC New
TOTAL
1
. 16.64
1
. 309.54
1
. 6 .6* >
0
0.00
0
York/New Jersey -
<5
LBS
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
SIC 2834
5-25
LBS
1
16.64
0
0.00
1
6.66
0
o.oo
0
0.00
26-100
LBS
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
101-400
LBS
0
0.00
1
309.54
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
C: Pharmaceutical Consumption
SUMMARY OF LOSSES
TOTAL
LOSSES NO. 3o
TO AIR LBS. 275.25
LOSSES NO.
TO LAND LBS.
LOSFES NO.
TO WATER LBS.
LOSSES NO.
TO EXPT LBS.
LOSSES NO.
TO PECY LBS.
33
5b0.50
3'
4679.25
0
0.00
0
0.00
<5
LBS
12
32.55
6
17.20
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
5-25
LBS
20
213.80
20
262.60
3
47.60
0
0.00
0
0.00
26-100
LBS
1
28.90
7
270.70
12
782.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
101-400
LBS
0
0.00
0
0.00
17
3358.35
0
V0.00
0
0.00
LBS
0
0.00
0
O.Ofi
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
>400
LBS
0.00
0.00
tr.oo
0.00
C-28
-------
URS
URSIC New York/New Jersey - SIC 2879 : Pesticides
SUMMARY OF LOSSES
LOSSES
TO AIR
LOSSES
TO LAND
LOSSES
TO WATER
LOSSES
TO EXPT
LOSSES
TO RECY
TOTAL
NO. 3/
LBS. 1240.70
NO. 33
LBS. 6203.50
NO. 33
LRS. 4962.80
NO.
LBS.
MO.
LBS.
URSIC
0
0.00
0
o.r >
<5
LBS
1
4.20
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
New York/New Jersey
5-25
LBS
12
181.00
1
21. Of
1
16.80
0
0.00
0
O.On
- SIC 021 :
26-100 101-400 >400
LBS LBS LBS
18 2 0
840.70 214.80 0.00
9 20 3
582.50 4040.00 1560.00
12 18 2
724.00 3362.80 859.20
0
0.00
0
0.00
Livestock
0
0.00
0
0.0'"
0
0.00
0
0.00
SUMHARY OF LOSSES
TO AIR
LOSSES
TO LANt)
LOSSES
TO WATER
LOSSES
TO EXPT
LOSSES
TO PECY
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LRS.
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
MO.
LRS.
TOTAL
0
0.00
25
96.40
0
0.0
0
0.00
0
O.Of
<5
LBS
0
0.00
16
27.20
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
5-25
LBS
0
0.00
9
69.20
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
26-100
LBS
0
o.oo
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
101-400
LRS
0
0.00 •
0
o.on
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
>400
LBS
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
• o.on
0
0.00
0
0.00
C-29
-------
URS
URSIC New York/New Jersey - SIC 49110 : Utilities - 011 and Gas
SUMMARY OF LOSSES
LOSSES NO.
TO AIR LBS.
LOSSES NO.
TO LAND LBS.
LOSSES NO.
TO WATER LBS.
LOSsf NO.
TO EXPT 1 BS.
LOS ES MO.
TO PECY LBS.
TOTAL
52
9795.56
52
512. 4U
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
URSIC New York/New Jersey -
<5
LBS
17
36.57
44
16.64
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
SIC 4924 C:
5-25
LBS
9
100.04
4
83.10
0
o.on
0
0.01'
0
o.on
Natural Gas
26-100
LBS
9
406.56
2
125.80
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
O.On
101-40C
LBS
10
1898.98 7353
2
286.90 0
0
0.00 0
0
0.00 . 0
0
0.00 0
>400
LBS
7
.42
0
.on
0
.00
0
.on
0
.00
• Residential, Commercial
SUM! APY OF LOSSES
LOS ES NO.
TO AIR LBS.
LOSC.ES NO.
TO LAND LBS.
LOS1 Ec- NO.
TO WATER LBS.
LOS'tS NO.
FO EXPT LBS.
.OS.SES NO.
ro RECY LBS.
TOTAL
33
1758.34
3
1.76
0
0.00
0
0. n
0
0.00
<5
LBS
2
8.89
33
1.76
0
O.on
0
0.00
0
o.on
5-25
LBS
6
77.82
0
O.Of
0
o.or
0
0.00
0
0.00
26-100
LBS
22
1152.75
0
0.0
0
o.cn
0
O.OC;
0
o.on
101-400 >400
LBS LBS
3
518.88 o
0
0.00 0
0
0.00 0
0
0.00 0
0
0.00 0
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
C-30
-------
URS
URSIC New York/New Jersey - SIC 2951 C: Tars and Asphalt
SUMMARY OF LOSSES
LOSSES
TO AIP
LOS :EC
TO LAND
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
LOSc-t^ NO.
TO WATbP LBS.
LOSSES
TO EXPT
LPSr Ef.
TO PtfY
SI WARY
LOS'.FC
TO AIP
LOSSES;
TO LAUD
LOS' ES
TO WATER
LOS' ES
TO EXPT
LOS' ES
TO PECY
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
URSIC
OF LOS\
NO.
LBS.
K>.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
TOTAL
3o
23?.. 56
3.^
3179.43
3
35*4.11
0
0.00
0
0.0 '
<5
LBS
9
21.04
0
O.OU
7
17.20
0
o.on
0
O.Ur
New York/New Jersey -
ES
TOTAL
7
216. bO
7
21b.bf>
0
0.0«»
0
0.0 r
0
O.ni-
<5
LBS
0
O.'i'
0
O.Oi
0
O.Of
0
0.00
0
o.oc
b-2b
LBS
24
21?. 52
b
77.06
25
303.84
0
O.Oi.
0
0.0'.
SIC 2911 M:
b-2b
LBS
4
60. bO
4
60. hO
0
0.0'
0
0 . 0 r.
0
O.on
26-100
LBS
0
o.on
lb
1188.61
1
3^.07
.0
0.00
0
0.00
Refineries
26-100
LHS
3
Ib6.00
3
156. Oo
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
101-400
LBS
0
O.Oi'
13
1913. It
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
O.Oi:
101-400
LBS
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
>400
LBS
0
O.Of
0
0 . 0 f •
0
0.0(
0
0.00
0
O.Of
>uor:
LBS
0
O.Of
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
C-31
-------
URS
URSIC New York/New Jersey - SIC 2911 C: Fuel 011$
SUMMARY OF LOSSES
LOSSES
TO AIR
LOSSES
TO L AND
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
LOSSES NO.
TO WATER LBS.
LOSC.FS
TO FXPT
LOS^-tS
TO RECY
SI WARY
LOSSES
TO AIR
LOSSES
TO LAND
LOSSE^
TO WATER
LOSSES
TO EXPT
LOS' Ff,
TO PECY
NO.
LBS.
NO.
I BS.
TOTAL
33
7360.03
33
7.37
0
0.00
29
936.60
0
O.Or
URSIC New
<5
LBS
0
0.00
33
7.37
0
0.00
3
6.70
0
0.00
York/New Jersey
5-25
LBS
2
46.25
0
0.00
0
0.00
9
108.90
0
0.00
- SIC 4091
26-100
LBS
5
279.52
0
0.0 ;
0
0.00
17
821. 00
0
0.00
C: Coal
101-400
LBS
>400
LBS
21 5
4436.86 2597.40
0
0.00 0
0
0.00 0
0
0.00 0
0
0.00 0
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
OF LOSSES
NO.
LBS.
no.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LRS.
TOTAL
32
3->64.47
32
371;. 83
0
0.00
0
O.Oi
0
O.Oi
<5
LBS
10
25.38
21
15.25
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
O.on
5-25
LBS
11
111.87
6
89.75
0
0.00
0
o.or
0
0.00
26-100
LBS
1
86.13
4
139.94
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
101-400
LBS
9
1981.08 1160
1
128.89 0
0
0.00 0
0
0.00 0
0
0.00 0
>400
LBS
1
.01
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
C-32
-------
URB
URSIC New York/New Jersey - SIC 3312 M: Coke Overt
SUMMARY OF LOSSES
LOSSES
TO AIP
I OSSEC
TO LAND
LOS' ES
TO WATER
LOSSES
TO EXPT
L(.S EV
TO PECY
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
URSIC
TOTAL
2
311.64
2
59.36
0
0.00
0
0.«M'
0
0.0.
<5
LBS
0
o.on
0
O.Od
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.0;
New York/New Jersey -
5-25
LBS
0
0.00
1
21.28
0
O.OG
0
o.on
0
0.0 '. i
SIC 2.5 B:
26-100
LBS
0
0.00
1
38.08
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0 . d 0
Caustic
101-400
LBS
2
311.64
0
0.00
0
O.OC
0
0.00
o
0.00
>400
LBS
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
n
\J
0.00
SUMMARY OF LOSSES
LOSSES
TO AIP
tOSl>Fc
TO LAND
LOS' L
TO WATER
1. OSf E S
TO E.XPT
LOS F1-
TO RLCY
NO.
LRS.
MO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
MO.
LHS.
NO.
LhS.
TOTAL
0
o.oo
3...
271.42
3:-
1085.68
0
0.0"
0
O.OC
<5
LBS
0
O.Oi'
1 i
28.0.'
2
7.60
0
O.Od
0
0.00
5-2S
LBS
0
O.I 0
2?
243.4^
13
146.80
0
O.Od
0
0 •'••<'
26-10,
LBS
0
o.ou
0
O.Oi
20
931.28
0
0.00
0
0.00
101-40P
LBS
0
0.0(
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
>4on
LhS
0
o . : j
0
O.Of
0
o.on
0
0.00
0
o.or
033
-------
URS
URSIC New York/New Jersey - SIC 3.0 : Other
SUMMARY OF LOSSES
LOSSES
TO AIP
LOS ES
TO LAND
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
LOSSES NO.
10 WATER LBS.
LOSSES
TO EXPT
I OS^LS
TO PF.CY
FXI1
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
TOTAL
33
280 ,b3
33
7679. 6<-»
3 •
28M"..b3
0
O.Oi
33
3839.85
<5
LBS
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
O.Oi'
0
0.00
URSIC New York/New Jersey -
SUMi'APY
LOSSES
TO AIR
LOSf £•
TO LAND
LOSSES
TO WATER
LOSSES
TO EXPT
LOSSES
TO RECY
OF LOS
NO.
LBS.
MO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
MO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
<;ES
TOTAL
1
4^93.28
1
23923. 6b
1
303. bO
0
o.uo
1
25016.64
400
LBS
0
.00
5
.93
0
.00
0
.00
0
.00
: Chlor-alkall
26-1 00
LOS
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
101-400 >400
LBS LBS
0
0.00 4493.
0
0.0023923.
1
303.60 0.
0
0.00 0.
0
0.0025016.
1
28
. 1
68
0
00
. 0
00
1
64
C-34
-------
UR8
URSIC New York/New Jersey - SIC 2.5 A: Urethtnt
SUMMARY OF LOSSES
LOS' ES
TO AIR
LOSSES
TO LAND
LOSSES
TO WATER
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS..
TOTAL
32
390.81
33
1657.09
0
o.on
<5
LBS
10
29.29
0
0.0
0
o.nc
5-25
LBS
19
253.00
9
114.84
0
0.00
26-100
LBS
3
108.52
21
1108.18
0
0.0ft
101-400
LBS
0
0.00
3
434.08
0 -
0.00
>4on
LBS
0
0.00
0
o.or.
0
0.00
LOS ES NO,
0
0
TO EXPT LBS.
LOS^F'.
TO RECY
NO.
LBS.
O.OU
0
O.on
0.0-
0
0.0?
0.00
0
o.oo
o.on
o
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
o.o.n
URSIC New York/New Jersey - SIC 8021 : Dental
SUMMARY OF LOSSES -
LOSSES
TO AIR
LOS( ES
TO LAND
LOSSES
TO WATER
LOSSES
TO EXPT
LOSSES
TO PECY
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
TOTAL
33
238.49
0
O.OL
3?.
6000.70
0
0.00
33
1454.01
<5
LBS
15
42. ?r
0
o.uu
0
0.00
0
0.00
2
8.73
5-25
LBS
17
171.23
0
O.Oi
3
60.06
0
0.00
9
136.68
2b-100
LBS
1
25.04
0
0.00
8
540.07
0
0.00
19
923.28
101-400 >400
LBS LRS
0
0.00
0
0.00
19
3810.38
0
0.00
3
385.31
0
• 0.00
0
0.00
3
159-0.19
0
0.00
0
0.00
C-35
-------
URSIC New York/New Jersey - SIC 36292M: Tubes/Switches Manufacture
SUMMARY OF LOSSES
LOSSES
TO AIR
LOSst S
TO LAND
i. over
TO KvATER
LOS9ES
TO EXPT
LOSSES
TO PECY
URSIC
SUMMARY
LOSr,Fc:
TO AIP
1 OSi.ES
TO LAMD
LOS1 Ff
TO WATER
LOSSES
TO EXPT
1 OSF>Ei
TO PECY
NO.
IBS.
NO.
LPS.
no.
LPS.
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LRS.
'**—
TOTAL
19
134.51
19
251J1-.79
0
o.on
0
o.r'1
0
o . r i;
New York/New Jersey -
OF LOS
NO.
LBS.
no.
LBS.
no.
1 HS.
MO.
LBS.
MO.
LBS.
5ES
TOTAL
21
31. 5b
21
59.^.45
0
0.00
0
o.on
0
0.0!'
<5
LBS
16
33 . 76
0
O.OP
0
0,00
0
0.00
0
O.Oi!
Sie 36410M:
"
101-400
LBS
0
o.on
2
212. 1*
0
0.00
0
O.Ofi
0
O.on
>400
LBS
0
0.00
1
1702.12
0
0.00
0
O.OC;
0
O.on
Lamp Manufacture
5-25
2
11.47
5
b8.97
0
O.Oi
0
0.0(-
0
O.Oc
26~10u
LHS
0
O.Oi
7
2K7.28
0
0.00
0
O.OC
0
0.00
101-^Oh
LBS
0
0.00
2
217.93
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
o.on
>400
LBS
0
0.00
0
O.OU
0
0.00
0
O.OP
0
o.m.
C-36
-------
UR8
URSIC New York/New Jersey - SIC 38291M: Control Instrument Manufacture
SUMMARY OF LOSSES
LOSSES NO.
TO AIR LBS.
LOS^EL NO.
TO LAND LBS.
LOS^EC> MO.
TO WATER LBS.
LOSsEf. NO.
TO EXPT LBS.
LOS-tL NO.
TC. RFCY LBS.
TOTAL
16
64.07
16
1217.36
0
O.ni,
0
O.fi.
0
O.I
<5
LBS
1J
13.50
2
8.41
0
O.CO
0
O.Oi
0
o.o.
5-25
LBS
5
50.57
2
25.24
0
O.Oi'
0
O.l-r
0
O.Ui
26^100
LBS
0
0.0"
7
2r;'.87
0
o . n r
•0
o.on
0
I1-. I'.:
101-400
LBS
0
0.00
5
960.84
0
0.0'
0
0.00
0
C'.0l:
LBS
0
0.00
0
0.0'
0
0.<<;
0
0 . n i
0
O.c;
URSIC New York/New Jersey - SIC 36410C: Lamp Consumption
SLJMf ARY OF LOS1 E';
LOS'.L1
TO AIR
LOS' ES
TO 1 AMD
LOS- F'
10 WATER
L OSSEC.
TO EXPT
LOS' F:
TO HtCY
MO.
LBS.
NO.
LHS.
i;o.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
MO.
LBS.
Tt-lAL
32
2.'4-,.73
3o
10( 38.9M
0
0 . 0 ,.
0
O.Or
0
0.0 1<
<5
LHS
0
O.f'f
0
0.0.'
(•
O.f,'-
0
O.I n
0
O.Oi
LBS
8
12L-.H1
I
O.H;
0
0.( .-
0
O.Oi.
u
0 . 0 ;
LBS
15
7H3.26
7
43^ .60
0
O.fM.
G
0.00
0
O.Oi!
I01-40f. >40.
LliS LBb
9
1378.67
17
4179.02
0
0.0;.
0
o.ou
0
0.00
0
O.I.M.
a
5425.33
0
O.r::;
• 0
.0.00
0
O.O.-
C-37
-------
UR8
URSIC New York/New Jersey - SIC 36292C: Tubes/Switches Consumption
SUMMARY OF LOSSES
LOSSES
in AIR
LOSSES
70 LAND
1 OS" ET.
70 WA7ER
LOSSES
70 hXP7
LOS' ES
70 PECY
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
T01AL
31
2784.63
12693.27
0
c .1'.,
0
o . c r
0
0.!",.
<5
LBS
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
o.oc
0
0.00
5-25
LBS
5
75.99
0
O.Oi,
0
o.o.
0
O.Oi
0
26-100
LBS
16
949.16
4
237.23
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
C.r .
101-400 >400
LBS LBS
9
1346.96
14
3406.57
0
O.Oii
0
0.00
0
1
15
9049.47
0
0.00
0
0.00
0!
O.f-i
URSIC New York/New Jersey - SIC 38291C: Control Instrument Consumption
SUK'APY OF LOSSES
LOS'.ES NO.
7" AIP LHS.
es MO.
70 LAND LBS.
LOS U, FlO.
f" WA7ER LBS.
LOS'.EL MO.
70 EXPT LBS.
LOS
27164.67
0
0.0(-
0
O.Oi;
3';-
324" 2. 4 1
40U
LBS
0
0.00
20
2841.3024213.84
0
0.00
0
- o.oo
7
0
0.00
0
. 0.00
24
1812.3930462.80
C-38
-------
URS
URSIC Nnr York/New Jersey - SIC 2851 C: Paint consumption
SUMMARY OF LOSSES
LOS'.ES
TO AIR
Lf>^ f- -
TO LAI ID
TOTAI
NO. 3:->
LBS. 48312.25
NO. 3'
LBS. 2b42.7h
<5
LBS
0
0 . f 1 0
0
0.0.':
5-25 :-t>-!Or 101-40T;
LBS LhS LhS
005
O.OC O.Or 1 163. 75471'. J
7186
106. 7h 1 kv.**2 1313.59 1
>MO.
i.hs
2H
i.t'O
C
D.».
I.PS'-Ls HO. 0
0
0
TO WATFP LBS.
F-' f-0.
Tn FiXf'T LBS.
LCb' F '•, NO.
lc FtC V LBS.
o.o.
0
0.01
p
0.!
o.o.
0
O.Oi-
p.p..
O.f-
0
0.0'
0
O.fj.
0
o.t.r
(I
0 . U i
0 . (. (i
0
0
o.o.
ll.l'
0
II
C-39
-------
URS
URSCTY New York/New Jersey, Queens County: Sector 3 (Unregulated) Sector 5
(Manufacturing and Processing) and Sector 8 (Final Cons unction)
FOR COUNTY =QUEENS AND BOX NOS.= 358
TOTAL LOSSES TO LAND= 11995.
TOTAL LOSSES TO WATER= 1761. 4U
TOTAL LOSSES TO AIR= 11107.71
TOTAL LOSSES TO EXPORTS= 72.70
TOTAL LOSSES TO RECYCLING= 2910.08
URSCTY New York/New Jersey, Kings County: Sector 3 (Unregulated) Sector 5
(Manufacturing and Processing), and Sector 8 (Final Consumption)
FOR COUNTY =KINGS AND BOX NOS.= 3 b 8
TOTAL LOSSES TO LAND= 1^757.13
TOTAL LOSSES TO WATER= 2110.00
TOTAL LOSSES TO AIR= 11986.77
TOTAL LOSSES TO EXPOPTS= 93.50
TOTAL LOSSES TO RECYCLING= 3456.63
URSCTY New York/New Jersey, Philadelphia County: Sector 3 (Unregulated)
Sector 5 (Manufacturing and Processing) and Sector 8 (Final Consumption)
-OR COUNTY =PHILADE AND BOX NOS.= 358
TOTAL LOSSES TO LAND= 16872.63
TOTAL LOSSES TO WATER= 1709.56
TOTAL LOSSES TO AIR= 8-90.95
TOTAL LOSSES TO EXPORTS= 0.00
TOTAL LOSSES TO PECYCLING= 5382.63
C-40
-------
UR8
URSCTY New York/New Jersey, Bergen County: Sector 3 (Unregulated) Sector 5
(Manufacturing and Processing) and Sector 8 (Final Consumption)
FOR COUNTY =BEPGEN AND BOX NOS.= 358
TOTAL LOSSES TO LAND= 8029.90
TOTAL LOSSES TO WATER= 1110.91
TOTAL LOSSES TO AIR= 2878.94
TOTAL LOSSES TO EXPORTS= 65.10
TOTAL LOSSES TO RECYCLINGS 1614.20
URSCTY New York/New Jersey, Queens County: Sector 3 (Unregulated)
FOR COUNTY =QUEENS AND BOX NOS.= 3
TOTAL LOSSES TO LAND= 274.72
TOTAL LOSSES TO WATER= 17.03
TOTAL LOSSES TO AIR= 1783.75
TOTAL LOSSES TO EXPORTS= 72.70
TOTAL LOSSEf TO RECYCLING= 0.00
URSCTY New York/New Jersey, Queens County: Sector 5 (Manufacturing and Processing)
FOR COUNTY =QUEbNS AND BOX NOS.= b
TOTAL LOSSES TO LAND= 893.23
TOTAL LOSr.FS TO WATER= 321.93
TOTAL LOSSES TO AIR= 283.90
TOTAL LOSSES TO EXPORTS= O.Ou
TOTAL LOSCF_F TO PtCYCLING= 326.72
URSCTY New York/New Jersey, Queens County: Sector 8 (Final Consumption)
FOR COUNTY =QUEI NS AND BOX NOS.= 8
TOTAL LOSSES TO LAND= 10827.47
TOTAL LOSSES TO WATER= 1422.47
TOTAL LOSSES TO AIR= 9040.06
TOTAL LOSSES TO EXPORTS:: 0.00
TOTAL I.OSSEH TO RECYCLING= 2583.37
C-41
-------
URS
URSCTY Net* York/New Jersey, Kings County: Sector 3 (Unregulated)
rOR COUNTY =KINGS AND BOX NOS.= 3
TOTAL LOSSES TO LAND= 224.92
TOTAL LOS .ES TO WATER= 21.90
TOTAL LOSSES TO AIR= 1138.08
TOTAL LOSSES TO EXPORTS= 93.50
TOTAL LCSCES TO RECYCLlNGr O.OC
URSCTY New York/New Jersey, Kings County: Sector 5 (Manufacturing and Processing)
FOR COUNTY =KINGS AND BOX NOS.= 5
TOTAL LOSSES TO LAND= 987.49
TOTAL LOSSES TO WATER= 362.11
TOTAL LOS-ES TO AIR= 318.49
TOTAL LOS-E^ TO EXPORTS= 0.00
TOTAL OS'F'- TO RECYCLING= 361.31
URSCTY New York/New Jersey. Kings County: Sector 8 (Final Consumption)
FOP COUNTY =KINGS AND BOX NOS.= 8
TOTAL LOSSES TO LAND= 13544.72
TOTAL LOSSES TO WATEK= 1725.98
TOTAL I OS ES TO AIR= 10530.20
TOTAL LOSSES TO EXPORTS= 0.0"
TOTAL LOS' Ec. TO RECYCLING= 3095.32
URSCTY New York/New Jersey, Philadelphia: Sector 3 (Unregulated)
FOP COUNTY =PHILADE AND BOX NOS.= 3
TOTAL ' OSSEE TO LAND= 685.82
TOTAL I OSC.E^ TO WATERr 3^.07
TOTAL LOSrEr- TO AIR= 3770.41
TOTAL LOS'ES TO EXPORTS= O.OC
TOTAL LOS'F.S TO RECYCLING= O.OiT
C-42
-------
UR8
URSCTY New York/New Jersey, Philadelphia: Sector 5 (Manufacturing and Processing)
FOR COUNTY =PHILADE AND BOX NOS.= 5
TOTAL LOSSES TO LAND= 1130.55
TOTAL LOSSES TO WATER= 322.36
TOTAL LOSSES TO AIR= 284.99
TOTAL LOSSES TO EXPORTS^ 0.00
TOTAL LOSSES TO RECYCLINGS 311.33
URSCTY New York/New Jersey, Philadelphia: Sector 8 (Final Consumption)
FOR COUNTY =PHILADE AND BOX NGS.= 8
TOTAL LOSSES TO LAND= 15056.26
TOTAL LOSSES TO WATER= 1354.13
TOTAL ; OSSES TO A1R= 4835.bb
TOTAL LOSSES TO EXPORTS= 0.00
TOTAL LOSSES TO RECYCLING= 5071.30
URSCTY New York/New Jersey, Bergen County: Sector 3 (Unregulated)
FOR COUNTY =BERGEN AND BOX NOS.= 3
TOTAL LOSSES TO LAND= 184.19
TOTAL LOSSES TO WATER= 20.26
TOTAL I OSSES TO AIR= 397.85
TOTAL LOSSES TO FXPORTS= 65.10
TOTAL LOSSES TO RECYCLING= 0.00
URSCTY New York/New Jersey, Bergen County: Sector 5 (Manufacturing and Processing)
FOR COUNTY =BEPGEr» AMD BOX NOS.= 5
TOTAL LOSSES TO LAND= 424.62
TOTAL LOSSES TO WATER= 44^.37
TOTAL LOSSES TO AIR= 141.61
TOTAL LOSSES TO EXPORTS^ 0.00
TOTAL LOSSES TO RECYCHNGr 149.89
C-43
-------
URSCTY New York/New Jersey, Bergen County: Sector 8 (Final Consumption)
FOR COUNTY =BERGEN AND BOX NOS.= 8
TOTAL LOSSES TO LAND= 7421.09
TOTAL LOSSES TO WATER= 646.29
TOTAL LOSSES TO AIR= 23^9.47
TOTAL LOSSES TO EXPORTS= 0.00
TOTAL LOSSES TO RECYCLING= 1464.31
C-44
-------
UR8
URSLL for New York/New Jersey Region: Point Sources for Sectors I, II, III, and f
THt FOLLOWING LOCATION POINTS:
41 DEG
41 DEG
72 DEG
73 DEG
0 MIN
27 MIN
12 MIN
42 MIN
LATITUDE
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
LONGITUDE
INCLUDE THESE COUNTIES!
FAIRFIF MEWHAVE
SUMMARY OF LOSSES
LOSSES NO...
TO AIR LBS.
LOSSES NO.
TO LAND LBS.
LOSSES NO.
TO WATER LBS.
IOSCE!, NO.
TO EXP7 LBS.
LOSSES NO.
TO RECY LBS.
TOTAL
41 •
7790.73
47
12396.98
16
1493.03
2
12.60
10
5267.76
<5
LBS
7
16.21
18
10.21
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
5-25
LBS
16
183.95
4
47.29
2
21.34
2
12.60
0
o.rn
26-100 101-400 >400
LBS LBS l.HS
675
357.06 1159.69 6073.83
8 12 5
51.2.91 3231.45 8351.IV
861)
503.78 967.91 O.Oi
OOD
0.00 O.Oi; O.Oii
442
2P0.61 635.44 4M11.71
045
-------
URSLL for New York/New Jersey Region: Point Sources for Sectors I, II, III, and ft
THF FOLI OWING LOCATION POINTS!
40 DEG
41 DEG
72 DEG
73 DEG
42 Mir1
0 MIN
12 Mirt
42 Min
LATITUDE
LATITUDE
I Ot'GlTUDE.
I OhGITUME
INCLUDE THESh COUNTIES!
SUH'OLK NASSAU
SUMMARY OF LOSSES
LOSSES
TO AIR
LOSSES
TO LAND
LOSSET,
TO WATER
LOSSES
TO EXPT
LOSSES
TO PECY
FXIT'
MO.
LE1S.
NO.
LBS.
MO.
LPS.
NO.
LHS.
MO.
LBS.
TOTAL
16
5l'07.G5
19
7941.86
7
RK7.50
1
43. Oi1
b
1354.91
<5
LBS
3
11.18
4
1.7b
0
O.I i
0
n . n 1 1
(i
O.Oi'
5-2b
LBS
6
37.75
3
34.28
1
10.07
0
0.0''
0
O.On
26-100
LBS
3
196
5
34J
3
206
1
43
2
147
.89
.75
.83
.Of!
.80
101-400
LBS
4
667.80
3
816.19
3
670.61
0
0.00
2
4'l2.60
4593
6745
0
0
764
>4on
LBS
3
.36
4
• 8h
0
.00
0
,0(
1
.51
C-46
-------
URS
URSLLfor New York/New Jersey Region: Point Sources for Sectors I, II, III, and f
THE FOLLOWING LOCATION POINTS:
40 DEG 31 MIN LATITUDE
40 DEG 55 MIN LATITUDE
73 DEG 42 MIN LONGITUDE
74 DEG 4 MIN LONGITUDE
INCLUDE THESE COUNTIES:
HAS:.AU QUEI MS KINGS NEWYORK PlCHMOf! WESTCHl HUlJbOl i
f-UM-ARY OF LOSSES
LOS' E'-
TO A IP
LOSLES
TO LAND
IOS5-ES
TO WATER
LOSSES
TO EXPT
LOS^ EG
10 RECY
MO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LRS.
TOTAL
t>7
37463.67
76
501J 0.6<">
31
6245.78
4
272.20
20
9827.2:
<5
LHS
li
13.97
16
19.04
0
O.Od.
0
o.ou
0
O.Oi
5-25
LPS
13
168.16
10
172.32
4
63.76
0
0.00
0
O.f c
26-10r.
LHS
le
bb7.2U
1]
698.32
6
387.52
• 4
272.20
2
173.03
101-40T >4Q
i
LBS LhS
19 1
378M.3/ '29P6.03
13 ^
±1 ^7.91469^3.07
17
3645.39 2151.1''
0
0.00 O.Oi
12
2714.58 -693''.hl
4
6
<+
0
6
C-47
-------
URS
URSLL for New York/New Jersey Region: Point Sources for Sectors I, II, III, and V,
THE FOLLOWING LOCATION POINTS:
39 DEG
40 DEG
75 DEG
7ft DEG
55 MIN
10 MIN
0 MIf!
18 Mil!
LATITUDE
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
LONGITUDE
INCLUDE THESE COUNTIES:
PHILADE
SUMMARY OF LOSSES
LOS'.F'-, NO.
10 Mf LBS.
L OF' K:, NO.
TO LAND LBS.
LOSst'.-, NO.
TO WATER LBS.
LOSSES NO.
TO tXPT LBS.
LOS'fcf, MO.
To P.FTY I MS.
TOTAL
19
8772.30
21
17251.29
7
1587.25
0
0.00
b
524' .93
<5
LBS
0
0.00
3
0.83
0
0.0 u
0
0.00
0
0 . r i .
5-25
LBS
4
59.26
2
43.32
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
o.ot.
26-10
LB
6
348.
1
62.
2
121.
0
0.
0
o.
LBS LBS
4 5
348.87 698.77 76t5.40
8 7
62.0(. 1406.5415738.60
3 2
121.23 568.94 897.08
0 0
0.00 0.00 0.00
3 2
577.75 4667.18
C-48
-------
URSLL for New York/New Jersey Region: Point Sources for Sectors I, II, III, and V.
THE FOLLOWING LOCATION POINTS!
40 DEG 27 MIN LATITUDE
41 DEG 0 MIN LATITUDE
74 DEG 4 MIN LONGITUDE
74 DEG 48 MIN LONGITUDE
JI'CLJ'DF. THESr COUf IT Its:
HS' bX HUDSON MORN.IS PASi.AIC UNI OH
SOMERSK HLRGEN MIDDLES ULLAWAR
APY OF LOS! t'.
I OS'.-ti.
TO AIR
LOS F'
TO LAND
TO WATER
LOSSES
TO FiXPT
1 05-: FS
TO RtCY
no.
LBS.
MO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
ho.
LBS.
T(. lAL
125
18984.42
143
76362.84
70
70('2.36
7
294.40
36
32308. M8
LBS
23
54.45
31
20.59
1
4.b6
0
O.D-'1
0
O.r-i
5-25
LBS
38
429.46
16
20d.78
13
206.84
1
14.70
3
51.39
26-101'
LBS
3.'.
173".^
32
1814.49
32
17/1 .87
6
279.70
18
1039.18
101-400
LBS
23
3732. 731 ".OP
29
6313. e. 26801
24
C
0.00
8
>40f
LHS
8
7 .M11
3.^7
0 . •'• i
0
o.ou
7
h"..t.5
C-49
-------
uns
URSLL for New York/New Jersey Region: All Sources
for Sectors I, II,.III, V, VIIIA, and VIIIB.
THF FOLLOWING LOCATION POINTS!
41 DEG
41 DEG
72 DEG
73 DEG
P M1N
27 MIN
12 MlfI
42 MIN
LATITUDE
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
LONGITUDE
INCLUDE THESE COUNTIES:
FAIRF1E NEWHAVE
SUMMARY OF LOSSES
LOS1 I L-
TO All.
LOS' F-
TO LAUD
LOSr.t<
TO WATtP
LOSi-.ES,
TO EXPT
Lose. EL
TO RECY
HO.
LHS.
no.
LBS.
no.
L ns .
1 10 .
LPS.
no.
LI'S.
TOTAL
27
182^.12
31
2989 . 0 1
8
M86.37
2
12.60
2
261.38
<5
LBS
6
lb.37
18
10.21
0
0 . 0 i
0
O.Ol!
0
0 . ( M
b-2b
LBS
11
120.6^
3
31.M2
2
21.34
2
12.60
0
O.nr.
26-100
LBS
6
357. P6
4
2Hb.7fj
4
2P1.19
0
O.Pd
0
O.Of
101-400
LBS
3
613.79
5
H 13.91
2
243. fib
0
0 . C 0
2
261.38
>400
LBS
1
717.28
1
Ib47.71
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
O.OP
C-50
-------
URSLL for New York/New Jersey Region: All Sources for
Sectors I, II, III, V, VIIIA, and VIIIB.
THE FOLLOWING LOCATION POINTS!
40 DEG
41 DEG
72 DEG
73 DEG
42 MIN
0 MIN
12 MIN
42 MIN
LATITUDE
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
LONGITUDE
INCLUDE THESE COUNTIPS!
SUFI-OLK NASSAU
SUMMARY OF LOSSES
LOS'.ES
TO AIR
LOS E'
TO LAND
I OS' EE
TO 1/vATFP
LOfv Ef
TO fcXPT
LOS'.FC
If; RfcCY
NO.
LBS.
NO.
LBS.
MO.
LHS.
NO.
LRS.
MO.
1. BS .
TOTAL
10
2024. 3U
12
637.78
3
163.^2
1
43.00
1
1.V7.60
<5
LBS
3
11.18
4
1.76
0
0.00
0
o.on
0
O.on
b-2b
LBS
2
26.30
3
34.28
1
lO.i 7
t
0
0.0.
0
0.( i'
26-100
LHS
1
71.63
4
286. bl
1
34.80
1
43.0'.-
0
0.0'
101-400
LHS
3
b63.b4 U
1
31b,20
1
llR.bJ.
0
o.uu
1
Ib7.b0
>4on
Lhi.
1
>t;l.t,'..
0
O.Oi
f!
lj..'k
0
o.u
(;
(.'.!:.
C-51
-------
URSLL for New York/New Jersey Region: All Sources for
Sectors I, II, III, V, VIIIA, and VIIIB.
THE FOLI OWING LOCATION POINTS:
40 DEG 31 MIN LATITUDE
40 DEG 55 MIN LATITUDE
73 DEG 42 MIN LONGITUDE
74 DEG 4 MIN LONGITUDE
IMCLUUL THEsi COUNTIES:
MAS' AU QUFF'MS KINGS NEWYOKK RICHMOM WERTCHE HUDSOf
" ARY Of- LOSSES
I OS: E'i. NO.
tO EXPT LBS.
I OS',El: NO.
if pprv l hs.
TOTAL
l.f'S1 F« MO. 43
To AIR LBS. 68J-.P.12
l.cS* F' 110. 48
TO I AMD LBS. 732:'.65
Ib
K, WATER LBS. 1474.46
<5 5-25 .26-101' 101-400 >400
LBS LHS LHS LBS LBS
11 8 7 12 b
13.97 120.23 351.66 2477.49 3916.78
16 10 9 7 6
19.04 172.32 526.72 1210.31 5394.27
O.or ' 63.76 387.52 1023.18 0.0'
4
272.20
4
j 64. <>3
0
0.00
0
O.O.:
0
O.or "
0
0.0!.
4
272.20
0
O.On
0
O.Ou
4
1164.63
0
0.00
0
O.Oi
C-52'
-------
URSLL for New York/New Jersey Region: All Sources for
Sectors I, II, III, V, VIIIA, and VIIIB.
THE FOLLOWING LOCATION POINTS:
39 DEC
40 DEG
75 DEG
7b DEG
h! Mil.
10 MIN
(i Mil;
LATITUDE
LATITUDE
LONGIIUDh
LOIIGITUDL
INCLUDE THESL COUNT If-
PH1LADF
SUM APY OF LOS'-Lb
I OS1 F-1- NO.
TO AIR I US.
I OS' **"• NO.
TO LAND I. HS.
E' NO.
TO WATER LBS.
L f c . L ' NO .
TO FXI'T LBS.
I OS' f-' NO.
TO PFCY LHS.
TOT Al
12
405S.40
13
183^.38
3
35'... 43
0
C.l".
1
311. 3:.
-------
UR8
UtSLL for New York/New Jersey Region: All Sources for
Sectors I. II, HI. V. VIIIA, and VIIIB.
THE FOLLOWING LOCATION POINTS:
40 DEG 27 MIl-l LATITUDE
41 DEG 0 Mlh LATITUDE
74 DEG 4 Mill LONGITUDE
74 DEG 48 MIN LONGITUDE
INCLUDE THESIS coum its:
FS'f-X HUDSON MOP' IS PASr.AK UMION SOMfcRSE RLRGEN MIDDLES DELAWAP
SUM AKY OF LOS
TC! AL
l.('c.' ES NO.
TO AIR IJ'-S. 8621.78
V.4
LOS'fcL. 1.0.
TO LAND LHS.
L( S F.S NO.
Id WATFh LHS,.
L Pc/ t '- |,o.
TO FXf'T LHS.
lOE'.El NO. 8
TO PECY U S. ii
9 29('.792b016.64
C-54
-------
APPENDIX D
GENERAL METHODOLOGY
The development of a general methodology for the project involved
two tasks. The first was to determine the quantity of mercury used and
subsequently lost to the environment by a particular user. The second
task was to determine the distribution of the expended mercury, in what-
ever form, to any or all of the following categories: air, land, water,
recycling.
Data on general use of mercury by some consumers was rather easy to
obtain. For instance, the Bureau of Mines has reliable figures on mer-
cury used by the dental profession, electrical apparatus industry, and
paint industry. However, emissions of unregulated sources such as fossil
fuel combustion and incineration are difficult to quantify.
Another problem arises in determining how much of the mercury used
actually enters the environment and at what step in the process. For ex-
ample, in paint manufacture the preservative used in the paint (phenyl-
mercuric acetate, or PMA) is manufactured at one site and the paint is
formulated at another and is applied at yet other locations. At each of
these steps mercury is lost in one form or another. In the first step
(PMA manufacture), close scrutiny and regulation of the industry which
manufacturees this chemical and other mercurials have reduced emissions
to insignificant quantities. The same is true of the paint formulation
stage. Once the paint is applied, some of the PMA vaporizes from the
coated surface and enters the air, and this amount must be estimated.
Therefore, Table 7 of the main body of this report has a column which
represents the total mercury available to that process or use which could
potentially be lost to the environment. The next column, however, illus-
trates what proportion of this available mercury actually does enter the
environment (or is recycled).
D-l
-------
The figures in Table 7 represent national totals; when looking at a
particular section of the country, a proportion of some sort must be
applied to estimate the usage within the region of interest. For this pur-
pose population proportions, a manufacturing employment ratio, or a multi-
factor ratio were used. A manufacturing employment ratio is the total num-
ber of people employed in manufacturing in the region divided by the na-
tional total. The multifactor ratio is similar to the manufacturing em-
ployment ratio except that it also includes wholesale and retail trade,
services (including education), and government employment. These ratios
are applied to the national usage to obtain a total for the study region.
This total is then distributed within the region by the ratio of the coun-
ty (or appropriate area) total to this regional total. Such a methodology
was used, for example, for many of the consumption categories in
Sectors VIIIA and VIIIB. In other cases, specific plants or emitters
could be located and mercury emission data could be obtained. Examples
are chlor-alkali plants and the manufacture of products containing or need-
ing mercury.
Once total mercury usage for a particular use within a particular
geographical area was determined, the second task was to distribute this
mercury to air, land, water, or recyling. This task required the estab-
lishment of emission factors. Such factors were determined in a number of
ways. The primary source was published data or information. In some
cases these data proved incorrect and appropriate changes were made where
necessary. In other cases, plant visits and oral and written correspon-
dence were used. This method was used successfully in evaluating the
chlor-alkali industry. Also, materials balance flow diagrams were con-
structed to assist in verifying the derived emission factors.
Other sources of information initially believed to be valuable were
found to be completely useless. For example, a permit application list of po-
tential mercury emitters, by EPA region, was found to contain spurious
data, as the list was hurriedly compiled and consequently the methodology
D-2
-------
and analysis were very poor. In fact, much of the data was recorded in
the wrong units.
Both man-made and natural losses are covered in the methodology used
for this study, as each is important in determining where, how much, and
in what form mercury is released to the environment. Most emitters were
classified by an SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) code as an aid
in identifying sources.
Following are descriptions of how each source of mercury emissions
was considered. For more detailed explanations of some source categories,
the reader is referred to the section on Technology Assessment.
MERCURY MINING (SIC 1092M) AND PROCESSING (SIC 1092P)
Most active mercury mines are located in California or Nevada; to-
gether, these states account for 88 percent of the present national pro-
duction. Mines in each region were identified and the total mercury mined
was determined (Ref. 110). Losses of mercury during the mining process are
very trivial (Ref. 12) and result primarily from the dust produced in ex-
tracting the ore.
Most mercury emissions occur during processing of ore to recover ele-
mental mercury. The ore must go through a smelting operation in which mer-
cury becomes volatilized and is therefore lost to the air. The overall
loss of mercury is approximately 9 percent (Ref. Ill) , but it may be as
much as 20 percent or as little as 5 percent, depending upon recovery meth-
ods employed at the facility. Emission standards are not presently tied
to the volume of ore processed, but to daily maximum release rates.
D-3
-------
LIME PRODUCTION (SIC 3274)
The mining and processing of limestone ore cause very little mercury
to be released to air, water, or land, as the concentrations of mercury
in the ore is small.
CEMENT PRODUCTION (SIC 3241)
Cement manufacture is another relatively small source of mercury emis-
sions (Ref. 112) that derives from the mining and processing of clay lime-
stone to produce cement. Emissions accrue primarily to land, as collected
dust is disposed of in landfills. Mercury concentrations at the kiln stack
range from 0.0047 to 0.0082 ppm by volume.
COPPER SMELTING (SIC 3331) AND MINING (SIC 1021)
Copper smelters are a major source of mercury emissions to the en-
vironment. Copper mining is an additional, but smaller, source. In de-
termining mercury emissions from these sources, a number of paths were
pursued. General disagreement among literature sources (Refs. 113-115)
prompted us to telephone selected smelter operations in order to obtain
more accurate information on the ores smelted and copper recovered. Once
figures were established on the amount of copper produced, an emission fac-
tor of 0.011 pound of mercury released per ton of concentrate processed was
applied (Ref. 12). This increases to 0.055 pound of mercury per ton of
copper produced, as there is a concentration factor of 5 in going from the
concentrated ore to the metal (Ref. 113). The emission factor is then
multiplied by the amount of copper produced by a given smelting operation
(Refs. 113, 114) and the mercury released is apportioned to air, water,
and land; the principal emissions, of course, are to air.
Very small — almost negligible — amounts of mercury are lost during
the mining of copper ore.
D-4
-------
ZINC AND LEAD MINING (SIC 1031)
Because zinc and lead are normally found in the same deposit, the two
minerals are mined together. Some mercury is lost in minute quantities as
a result of the mining process. However, this loss is trivial and of little
concern.
LEAD AND ZINC SMELTING (SIC 3322 AND 3333)
Mercury contained in lead and zinc ores is volatilized during the
smelting process. Although not as important as copper smelting as a source
of mercury, these processes nevertheless contribute a. significant quantity.
The various plant locations and production rates were found from the
Minerals Yearbook (Ref. 116).
AGRICULTURAL USES (SIC 2879A) , LIVESTOCK (SIC 021) , AND NONFARM
PESTICIDES (SIC 2879N)
The agricultural uses of mercury are primarily as seed dressings. The
nonagricultural sources of mercury emissions include such things as golf
course and commercial turf fungicide applications. Livestock losses are
from animal manures.
Mercury lost from animal manures was determined from Census of Agri-
culture data by county, and emissions from agricultural seed dressings were
estimated using data on purchased seed, by type, for farms with cash sales
of $2,500 per year and over (Ref. 117). These large farms account for a
significant proportion of the total. A ratio of 0.142 pound of mercury
per thousand tons of feed (based on 50-percent recycle of manures) was
applied to these annual tonnage figures in order to calculate mercury loss.
Data on agricultural pesticide use come from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture and the U.S. Bureau of Mines. Personal contacts with various
state, EPA, and Department of Agriculture personnel, as well as with plant
D-5
-------
pathologists and pesticide distributors, gave us the information needed
to estimate the distribution of mercurials used for seed treatment. The
estimates of distribution of mercurials to water and land were also based
on information secured from these contracts.
The remainder of the pesticides are assumed to be used for nonagricul-
tural purposes. The multifactor ratio was used to allocate usage within
a defined region. As these chemicals are topically applied, emissions are
to air as well as to land and water. All mercury lost from livestock
manures is assumed to go to land.
COAL-BURNING POWER PLANTS (SIC 49110) AND OTHER (SIC 4091C)
Electric utilities consume 67 percent of the coal used in the United
States. All coal consumed within a study region was assumed to be mined
in or near that area (Ref. 49). (For example, coal consumed in California
was assumed to come from Montana, Colorado, Arizona, or Utah.) The mer-
cury concentration assumed for coal is an average of the concentrations
found in coals adjacent to the area in question (Refs. 51, 54, 118, 119).
Coal consumed by households and by the commercial, industrial, and
transportation sectors was apportioned on a population basis for geographi-
cal regions within states.
Power plants that use coal were located geographically and the coal
consumed by each was determined (Ref. 49). The average concentration of the
mercury in the coal was then used to obtain figures on total mercury loss
from this sector of the economy. The mercury lost during combustion is
primarily to air. However, some remains in the fly ash, bottom ash, and
water settling ponds; disposal of this portion is to land. As temperatures
within a power plant boiler (800 P) are higher than the boiling point of
mercury (685°), the majority of the mercury lost is in the form of the
D-6
-------
vaporized metal or mercuric oxide. With this in mind, proportional mer-
cury losses to air and land were determined (Refs. 12, 52, 120, 121).
NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION — RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL (SIC 4924C),
AND UTILITIES (SIC 49110)
The same method used in determining coal usage within a particular
region was also used for natural gas. Natural gas consumed for electric
power generation was assigned to the SIC 49110 group and the remainder to
SIC 4924C. Adequate backup data were lacking, but the mercury concentra-
tions was assumed to be 0.04 ppm (Ref. 12).
Because natural gas burns very cleanly and with a very high (theore-
tical) flame temperature (3,700°F), the bulk of the mercury is lost to
air, primarily as the metal but with slight emissions as the metallic ox-
ide. However, evidence indicates that some of the metallic mercury in nat-
ural gas will combine with sour gas (H S) and precipitate onto pipeline
**
walls (Refs. 121, 122). Mercury may be lost to land as pipe or fittings
are replaced, but in only minor amounts. Therefore, total losses have
been assigned to air, with a minute quantity to land.
PETROLEUM (SIC 2911C)
There are varying grades of fuel oils, each with correspondingly vary-
ing amounts of mercury. Light distillates, because of their low flame
temperatures, are assumed to release insignificant amounts of mercury.
Distillate-type oils are found to contain 0.066 ppm (Ref. 12) and residual
oils 0.13 ppm (Ref. 123). A mass balance was performed to determine the
remaining mercury in tars and asphalt (Ref. 124), and the mercury concen-
tration of these by-products was estimated to be 0.7 ppm. Total petroleum
usage within a given region is determined employing the same methodology
as that used for coal and natural gas.
D-7
-------
Mercury losses from the combustion of petroleum fuels are primarily
i
to air. Because the flame temperature of most fuels is above the boiling
point of mercury, the mercury is lost chiefly as the metal or metallic
oxide.
REFINERIES (SIC 2911M)
Mercury losses from refineries can be expected to occur at oil sludge
ponds, from spillage, and from burning of waste materials. This loss is
assumed to be 5 percent (URS estimate) of all the mercury contained in the
crude oil. The amount of crude oil processed at a particular plant is
found (Ref. 125) and the total amount of mercury lost is determined. Little
is known about these internal plant losses, so factors were arbitrarily
applied and emissions were assigned to air and land.
TARS AND ASPHALT (SIC 2951C)
Tar and asphalt mercury loss is a complex matter, because an initial
loss during application (normally to air) occurs and then there is a gradual
loss due to erosion. The 5-percent figure for initial loss to air is based
on current consumption data (Ref. 126), whereas the gradual loss is based
on a life span of 30 years for tar- and asphalt-paved surfaces. Erosion of
the surface due to use and rainfall will cause some of the mercury to go to
water, with the remainder finding its way to land from further erosion,
street cleaning, etc. The majority of the mercury loss to air is in an or-
ganic form or as mercury oxide, because of the low melting point of tar and
asphalt. Losses to both water and land are in organic forms only. In our
study the mercury loss was distributed on a population basis, the assumption
being that usage of tars and asphalts correlates satisfactorily with this
factor.
D-8
-------
DENTAL APPLICATIONS (SIC 8021)
Mercury is used as an amalgam in dental filling preparations. Total
national use was apportioned to a given region on the basis of population.
It has been determined that approximately 75 percent of the mercury used
in dental preparations remains in the teeth (Ref. 12) and will not reach
the environment. Primary losses are to water, with the remainder to air
(volatilization) and recycling (Ref. 12).
CONTROL INSTRUMENTS (SIC 329LM AND 38291C)
Mercury is used in flowmeters, thermometers, barometers, and similar
devices. Total national use was determined by comparing various sources
(Refs. 121, 125). Approximately 1 percent of this mercury is lost during
manufacture of the instruments. Some mercury-containing instruments are
brought into the country, while others are exported, and this net trans-
port was also accounted for. The resulting total was multiplied by the
manufacturing employment ratio for a region and this figure was apportioned
to land and recycle for final consumption. (All losses during manufacture
are assumed to go to an industrial landfill.)
Plants that manufacture control instruments in a given study region
were located by field contacts and through a survey of the literature.
Employment at each plant was divided by national employment for the
particular SIC category. This ratio was multiplied by total manufacturing
losses to arrive at the plant's emissions to air, land and water.
BATTERIES (SIC 2642M AND 3642C)
Mercury is used in a number of types of batteries. National usage
was determined from various sources and was adjusted for imports, exports,
and losses.
D-9
-------
During manufacture of batteries approximately 0.5 percent of the
mercury used is lost. Most of this loss is to land, with smaller amounts
to air and water (Ref. 69) . We assumed that 5 percent of the batteries
disposed of in this country are incinerated; an adjustment to this figure
was made wherever a significant difference in solid waste disposal methods
was found. For example. New York City incinerates approximately 40 per-
cent of its solid waste, thereby putting more mercury into the air than
would otherwise be lost to land.
TUBES AND SWITCHES (SIC 3629C AND 3629M)
Power tubes, rectifiers, relays, and switches are mercury-consuming
devices that contribute to environmental losses of the metal. The method
used to determine these losses was similar to that for batteries and con-
trols, in that national totals were derived and appropriate adjustments
were made for imports, exports, and manufacturing losses (Refs. 24, 25).
Consumptive losses in a given region of the United States were arrived
at by using the manufacturing employment ratio. All tubes and switches
were assumed to end up eventually in landfills (with some undoubtedly be-
ing incinerated, in which case mercury would be emitted to the air).
Manufacturing losses are quite trivial? the assumption is that approxi-
mately 2.5 percent of the devices rejected are not recycled and disposed
of in an industrial landfill.
CATALYSTS AND MISCELLANEOUS COMPOUNDS (SIC 2819M, 2851M, 2879M)
The three SIC codes shown above refer to a group of chemical manu-
facturers who produce compounds which are precursors for use as catalysts
and in paint and pesticides. The location of the manufacturers and types
of mercurial chemicals produced are rather easily obtained (Ref. 62). How-
ever, it is difficult to allocate actual mercury usage and concomitant
losses. From a knowledge of the relative size of the plant and maximum
allowable discharge rates, approximations can be made with regard to
D-10
-------
mercury loss. Prom plant visits and correspondence, it was found that
actual losses are less than 0.1 percent of the mercury used.
Bureau of Mines data were used to sum total mercury usage by the
paint and pesticide industries as well as for catalysts. By applying the
0.1 percent loss, total mercury losses for this group of manufacturers can
be estimated.
CHLOR-ALKALI (SIC 2812)
Sources of data regarding mercury consumed and lost within the chlor-
alkali industry included various Bureau of Mines publications, as well as
actual plant visits. In the case of the Bureau of Mines data, only a national
total for the industry's mercury use is given. Therefore the national total
was multiplied by the ratio of SIC 2812 employment in mercury cell plants
in each study area to the national employment in SIC 2812.
The Ref. 14 data on emissions were used, as they pertain to mercury
consumption by specific plants. To validate the procedures used and to
obtain some specific figures, visits were made to certain plants (PPG Plant
in Lake Charles, Louisiana, and the BASF Wyandotte Plant, Port Edwards,
Wisconsin). These visits revealed that as much as 68 percent of the mer-
cury used may be unaccounted for. It is of major concern, we feel, that
so much mercury is apparently vanishing. The chlorine manufacturers are
aware of this problem and are making strides toward greater accountability,
but so far have not achieved total material balances.
The mercury that is lost escapes to air (hydrogen stream and end box
ventilation), water (brine water), land (disposal of sludges), and a small
portion (0.42 - 0.50 percent) into product (caustic). The values shown in
text Table 7 represent an average loss from all U.S. plants. Where speci-
fic information regarding losses could be obtained, this was used in lieu
of the averaged data. Other adjustments were made for age of plant, total
chlorine produced, and history of operation.
D-ll
-------
LABORATORY USES (SIC 7391)
Mercury use within a given region is, of course, a proportion of
national use (Ref. 12). This proportion was calculated using an American
Chemical Society list of laboratories in a given region for which the in-
formation was considered adequate. However, for most regions, the figures
obtained were judged to be out of balance with the likely levels of use.
For these regions the multifactor ratio was used, because it corresponds
more logically with the probable distribution of both school and indus-
trial laboratories where mercury would be used and lost.
Mercury losses to the environment from laboratory usage have been
greatly reduced in the last few years. Therefore, in contrast to the
assignment given in Ref. 12, we have assigned the greatest proportion of
the mercury balance to recycling.
•
PHARMACEUTICALS (SIC 2933M AND 2834C)
Mercury losses during Pharmaceuticals manufacture are confined almost
exclusively to Baltimore, Maryland; Chicago, Illinois; Indianapolis,
Indiana; and the State of New Jersey. New Jersey alone contains approxi-
mately 80 percent of the U.S. plants that produce mercurial Pharmaceuticals.
The total consumption of these mercurials in a given study region was
prorated from national figures and distributed on a population basis. Some
small error was introduced in this procedure in that veterinary uses are
not specifically known and could not be assigned.
During the manufacture of mercury-containing drugs, only about 0.1 per-
cent of the total mercury is lost. Therefore, the bulk of the mercury used
in Pharmaceuticals is lost during bathing (in the case of an externally
applied cosmetic or medicine), and for an internally applied drug mercury
is excreted in the urine. Essentially all the mercury is therefore lost to
water.
D-12
-------
PAINT (SIC 2851F AND 2851C)
Mercury, usually in the form of phenylmercuric acetate (PMA), is used
in paints as a preservative and mildewcide. Mercury losses during manu-
facture are very trivial (0.25 percent of the PMA used). However, during
and after application, approximately 65 percent of the mercury becomes
vaporized—most of it within the first 24 hours after application. An-
other 5 percent is assumed to remain in the can and to end up ultimately
in a landfill.
Total national mercury use in paints was determined from Bureau of
Mines figures; for regional distribution, the multifactor ratio was used.
The emission factors for paint formulation were assumed to be almost
equally divided between air and water, and application losses were assumed
to be primarily to air.
OTHER (SIC 3.0)
This category includes mercury used in miscellaneous products such as
pump seals, together with chemicals not specifically addressed elsewhere.
Total national usage of mercury in this category was estimated using
Ref. 12, and URS applied the multif actor to determine regional totals and
to establish apportionments with regions.
<
URETHANE PRODUCTION (SIC 2.5A) AND FOAM CAUSTICS (2.5B)
The use of mercury as a catalyst in urethane production was determined
from national totals. Of the total reported by the Bureau of Mines, approxi-
mately two-thirds goes into urethane foam manufacture and the other one-
third into vat dyes. A regional proportion was assumed simply in terms of
the population percentage of the area, because the urethanes are used pri-
marily as a soundproofing agent in walls. Distribution of mercury to the
D-13
-------
appropriate environmental parameters was based on the means of solid waste
»
disposal of these foam products.
Caustic (sodium hydroxide), recovered as a by-product of the chlorine
manufacturing process, is used in the manufacture of a number of products,
particularly foams. Mercury is contained as a trace contaminant (4 ppm)
and therefore finds its way into the foam, and is lost primarily to water.
The mercury lost was distributed within regions on a manufacturing basis.
LAMPS (SIC 36410M AND SIC 36410C)
Each fluorescent lamp contains approximately 50 mg of mercury (Ref. 127).
About 4.6 percent of the mercury consumed nationally is used in the electri-
cal and control instrument industries. Proper adjustments were made for im-
ports and exports to arrive at consumptive losses, most of which are to land,
with a slight amount to air if spent bulbs reach the municipal waste. The
manufacturing employment ratio was used to obtain regional totals and ac-
complish the apportionment. Approximately 4 percent of the lamps are assumed
to be rejected during manufacture, with approximately 5 percent of the mer-
cury lost to air due to vaporization during testing, and the remainder going
to industrial landfills.
GOVERNMENT USAGE (SIC 9199)
Two of the largest government consumers of mercury are the Atomic Energy
Commission (AEC) and the Department of Defense (Ref. 82). Much of this use
is for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. Because it is very difficult to ob-
tain information regarding mercury use by these and similar agencies, approxi-
mations were made. For example, in the Kentucky-Tennessee study region, a
fractional proportion of the total U.S. mercury use was assigned to the mili-
tary installations there, based on the military population of each state. In
the case of Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), assumptions were made con-
cerning its potential mercury losses. It was assumed that ORNL uses 5 per-
cent of the U.S. total consumed by the AEC. It was also assumed that
D-14
-------
4 percent of this is lost to the environment, of which 30 percent goes to
water and 70 percent to land. This was purely a conjectural attempt to
account for mercury used by this sector of our economy, and our figures are,
of course, subject to revision.
DEGASSING
The calcultion of natural degassing rates was based on work performed
by others and on observations and assumptions developed in this study.
Various workers have developed both global and regional degassing rates.
These data are summarized in text Table 8.
These observations and calculations indicate that: (1) the average
2
land degassing rate is probably 0.2 yg/m /day; (2) degassing rates higher
than the average are associated with mineralized deposits; (3) over aqueous
sediments high in mercury, the degassing rate is probably higher than over
land; (4) the ratio between global land and ocean degassing rates is un-
known, but MacKenzie's assumption of equality is probably adequate. Using
these concepts, URS calculated a probable national degassing rate. The
assumptions for these calculations are summarized below:
1. The base-national degassing rate was assumed to be
0.2 yg/m /day.
2. For moderately mineralized areas, a degassing rate of
0.4 yg/m /day.
3. For highly .mineralized areas and known mercury deposits,
a 0.8 yg/m /day was assumed.
For the purposes of differentiating between areas, text Figure 9, which
indicates general areas of known mercury and mineralized deposits, was used.
Using the degassing rates and the total surface area (both land and water)
for each state, a state-by-state inventory of total annual degassing was
made. On a national basis, the annual degassing rate was estimated to be
about 1 million kg per year, equivalent to a national unit rate of
2
0.36 yg/m /year.
D-15
-------
The other contribution from natural sources, that of erosion, was de-
t
termined by calculating the average annual runoff from each state and
multiplying this figure by the average statewide sediment concentration
(Ref. 128). The total annual sediment load was multiplied by the average
sediment mercury concentration of 71 ppb (Ref. 29). These state-by-state
totals were then summed for the national inventory. This amounted to about
200,000 kg per year. An attempt was also made to determine the contribu-
tion from urban runoff. According to this calculation, urban runoff con-
tributes about 10,000 kg per year to the nation's waters, or about 5 per-
cent of that from soil erosion. Therefore, on an areal basis, the contri-
bution of urban sources is about four times higher than that of natural
sources (but urban areas represent only about 1.2 percent of the total land
area).
Runoff
Runoff contributions were calculated by performing a surface water
balance on major streams within each region. The resulting net flow rate
was then multiplied by 1 ppb (an average mercury content of most major
streams) to determine the average mercury input rate.
Solid Waste
Information on the disposal of solid waste was obtained from personal
communications with state and federal solid waste management personnel.
This information, coupled with average values for mercury in solid wastes,
was utilized in distributing mercury losses due to incineration in various
regions.
Groundwater
Very little information is available on mercury concentrations in
groundwater, but the most widely quoted value is 0.05 ppb. This is a
reasonable figure, because the general high adsorptive capacity of soils
D-16
-------
doubtless reduces mercury concentrations as water percolates to the water
table. Data on quantities of groundwater withdrawn in a given region were
taken from USGS publications on water supply for individual states. The
yearly quantity of mercury was obtained by applying a list of conversion
factors to these values.
Septic Tanks
The amount of mercury lost to land from septic tanks was calculated
by first assuming an average mercury content of 2 ppb in the sewage
(Ref. 12). The total water volume was determined by subtracting from the
total population of a region the number of people served by municipal treat-
ment systems and multiplying the result by 75 gallons per capita per day
(average loading from single family residences). There is also some loss
of mercury to land due to irrigation, leaks, and so on. The amount depends
on the region, but these increments are trivial.
Sewage
Data were obtained on mercury lost in disposal of sewage and sludge by
municipal water users. The total net output of mercury was calculated by
subtracting the mercury input from water supply and the mercury output ex-
pected from sewage treatment plants. Mercury quantities in various flows
were calculated by multiplying the mercury concentration and water quantity
data using appropriate conversion factors.
D-17
-------
APPENDIX E
POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS OF MERCURY
Two primary sources of mercury vapor that enters the atmosphere are
coal-fired power plants and copper smelters. Such sources may subsequent-
ly also contribute to relatively high ground level concentrations. With
this in mind, dispersion analyses were performed for a large coal-burning
power plant for which mercury emissions data were available, and for a
copper smelter.
Figures E-l through E-3 are isopleths of mercury vapor concentrations
which result from a copper smelting operation in Arizona. Three cases
were analyzed for mercury vapor concentration: (a) adverse meteorologi-
cal conditions (very unstable and 1 meter per second wind speed) and an
8-hour averaging time; (b) average meteorological conditions (neutral sta-
bility and 3 meters per second wind speed) and a 3-minute averaging time;
(c) adverse meteorological conditions (very unstable and 1 meter per sec-
ond wind speed) and 3-minute averaging time. The three cases were run to
compare with the occupational eight-hour average, and to determine what
short-term concentration might exist under average and adverse conditions.
The highest concentration (MO yg/m ) occurs in Case 3, where the averag-
ing time is shortened and the meteorological conditions are most conducive
to producing high ambient levels.
Case 4 (Fig. E-4) pertains to a large coal-burning power plant
(M.2,000) tons of coal consumed per day). Stack gas concentrations of
3
mercury were determined to be approximately 18 yg/m . (This compares to a
concentration of approximately 167 yg/m in the stack gases of the copper
smelters.) The maximum concentration generated from two stacks (300 and
3
500 feet is 7 yg/m — well below any dangerous levels.
E-l
-------
45
60
75
o
Q
12
£
90
105
120
135
Wind Speed » 1 meter/second
Stability = Very unstable (Class A)
2ng/rrr
0 15
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
30 45
Kilometers
60
75
Figure E-1 CASE 1: COPPER SMELTER MERCURY VAPOR CONCENTRATION
UNDER ADVERSE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS
(8-hour average)
E-2
-------
Wind Speed - 3 meters/second
Stability = Neutral (Class O)
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Figure E-2 CASE 2: COPPER SMELTER MERCURY VAPOR CONCENTRATION
UNDER AVERAGE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS (3-m1n avg)
-------
1.5
2.0
2C
.*
I 3.0
c
o
O
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
0.5
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Wind Speed = 2 meters/second
Stability - Very unstable (Class A)
20 ng/m2
1.0 1.5
Kilometers
2.0
2.5
Figure E-3 CASES: COPPER SMELTER MERCURY VAPOR CONCENTRATION
UNDER ADVERSE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS
(3-minute average)
E-4
-------
1.5
2.0 —
2.5
I 3.0
Q
e
I
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
0.5
SOURCE: URS Research Company.
Wind Speed = 1 meter/second
4ng/m2
1.0 1.5
Kilometers
2.0
2.5
Figure E-4 CASE 4: POWER PLANT MERCURY VAPOR CONCENTRATION
UNDER ADVERSE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS
(3-minute average)
E-5
-------
The mercury vapor concentrations generated from these two point
sources are therefore going to be relatively small, even under the most
adverse meteorological conditions. Although appreciable quantities of
mercury are released from these two sources each year (1,372 kg from the
smelter and 589 kg from the power plant in 1973), the emissions occur over
a widespread area and are well dispersed before they could pose a hazard
to the general population at ground level.
Another concern is the potential buildup of mercury in the soil ad-
jacent to such sources as power plants and smelters. In order to arrive
at an estimate of mercury in the soil, various assumptions had to be
made:
o The mercury will be found to a soil depth of 10 cm.
o The average density of the soil is 2.5 gm/cm .
o Approximately 10 percent of the mercury emitted from
an elevated point source is locally deposited within
a radius of 10 km.
o Some 80 percent of the deposited mercury remains in
the soil.
o The average background soil concentration of mercury
is 71 ppb.
o The average life of mercury in soil is 20 years.
Using these relatively gross assumptions, a mercury concentration in
soil adjacent to the copper smelter discussed previously was calculated.
It was found that the smelter could contribute an additional 111 ppb to
existing background. However, by changing the assumptions above to not
unreasonable figures, the range of mercury concentrations in soil could
be 70 to 890 ppb. Unfortunately, no specific data are available to corre-
late with these findings, although data points in the general area of the
smelter do show elevated levels (>200 ppb).
E-6
-------
Based on the information presented above, it appears that copper
smelting operations do not pose a health hazard in terms of airborne emis-
sions of mercury. It is very difficult to predict what happens to the mer-
cury once it is released from the stack, as it may adhere to particles and
settle out close to the plant, or it may be transported long distances, in
which case it becomes part of a regional transport phenomenon. In any
case, apparently no hazard to health will be produced as a consequence of
air?emissions from the smelter studied. Based on these findings and on
mercury emissions data from other smelting operations, it seems that no
further curtailment of operations,"•and no new controls, are necessary to
reduce mercury emissions.
E-7
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA
SHEET
1. Report No.
EPA 560/3-75-007
3. Recipient's Accession No.
4. Title and Subtitle
Materials Balance and Technology Assessment of Mercury and Its
Compounds on National and Regional Bases
5. Report Date
October, 1975
6.
7. Author(s)
William Van Horn
8. Performing Organization Rept.
No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
URS Research Company
155 Bovet Road,
San Mateo, California
94402
11. Contract/Grant No.
68-01-2931
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Toxic Substances
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period
Covered
Final Report
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstracts
The role of mercury and its compounds in the environment and the economy of the
United States was studied. A detailed material balance for mercury and its compounds wa
developed on a national basis and for selected geographical regions, including estimates
of the environmental fate of all emissions.
Current and projected process technologies for mercury products were examined, and
estimates of environmental losses for 1973 and 1983 were presented. A set of regulatory
alternatives was developed for each of the major technologies involving substantial
losses of mercury to the environment, and the economic impact of these alternatives
was examined.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17o. Descriptors
Mercury
Mercury Compounds
Mercury Production
Mercury Compounds Production
Mercury Use
Mercury Compounds Use
Mercury Control Technology
Substitutes for Mercury
17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
Mercury in Air
Mercury in Water
Mercury in Land-Destined Wastes
Mercury in Batteries
Mercury in Electrical Equipment
Mercury in Chior-Alkali Industry
Mercury in Dentistry
Mercury in Fossil Fuels
Mercury in Paints
Mercury in Pesticides
Mercury in Pharmaceuticals
I7e. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
Release Unlimited
19.- Security Class (This
Report)
fb
20. Security Class (This
Page
UNCLASSIFIED
21. No. of Pages
22. Price
FORM NTIS.SB (REV. 10-73) ENDORSED BY ANSI AND UNESCO.
THIS FORM MAY BE REPRODUCED
USCOMM'DC B26S-P74
------- |