APTD-1510
NATIONAL INVENTORY
OF SOURQES
AND EMISSIONS:
MERCURY - 1968
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Water Programs
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
APTD-1510
NATIONAL INVENTORY
OF
SOURCES AND EMISSIONS:
MERCURY - 1968
by
W. E. Davis § Associates
9726 Sagamore Road
Leawood, Kansas
Contract No. CPA-70-128
EPA Project Officer: C. V. Spangler
Prepared for
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Water Programs
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
September 1971
-------
The APTD (Air Pollution Technical Data) series of reports is issued by
the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air and
Water Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, to report technical
data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies of APTD reports
are available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors
and grantees, and non-profit organizations - as supplies permit - from
the Air Pollution Technical Information Center, Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 or may be obtained,
for a nominal cost, from the National Technical Information Service,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency
in fulfillment of Contract No. CPA-70-128. The contents of this report
are reproduced herein as received from the contractor. The opinions,
findings and conclusions expressed are those of the author and not
necessarily those of the Environmental Protection Agency. The report
contains some information such as estimates of emission factors and
emission inventories which by no means are representative of a high
degree of accuracy. References to this report should acknowledge the
fact that these values are estimates only.
Publication No. APTD-1510
11
-------
PREFACE
This report was prepared by W. E. Davis & Associates pur-
suant to Contract No. CPA 70-128 with the Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs.
The inventory of atmospheric emissions has been prepared
to provide reliable information regarding the nature, mag-
nitude, and extent of the emissions of mercury in the United
States for the year 1968.
Background information concerning the basic characteristics
of the mercury industry has been assembled and included.
Process descriptions are given, but they are brief, and are
limited to the areas that are closely related to existing or
potential atmospheric emissions of the pollutant.
Due to the limitation of time and funds allotted for the study,
the plan was to personally contact fifteen to twenty percent
of the companies in each major emission source group to
obtain the desired information. It was known that published
data concerning emissions of the pollutant were virtually
nonexistent, and numerous contacts with industry during
the study ascertained that atmospheric emissions were not
a matter of record.
ill
-------
The mercury emissions and emission factors that are pre-
sented are based on the summation of information obtained
from production and reprocessing companies that handle
about thirty percent of the mercury consumed in the United
States. Mercury emissions and emission factors are con-
sidered to be reasonably accurate.
IV
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This was an industry oriented study and the authors express
their appreciation to the many companies and individuals in
the mercury industry for their contributions.
We wish to express our gratitude for the assistance of the
various societies and associations, and to the many branches
of the Federal and State Governments.
Our express thanks to Mr. C. V. Spangler, Project Officer,
Office of Air Programs, for his helpful guidance.
-------
CONTENTS
SUMMARY 1
Emissions by Source 2
Emissions by Regions 3
Map of Emission Regions 4
Emission Factors 5
MINERAL SOURCES OF MERCURY 7
MATERIAL FLOW THROUGH THE ECONOMY ... 8
Chart 10
USES AND EMISSIONS OF MERCURY
Mining 11
Ore Processing 14
Mercury Secondary Production 17
End Product Uses of Mercury 18
Paint 21
Agricultural 24
Catalysts 27
Pulp and Paper 29
Pharmaceuticals 30
Amalgamation 33
Electrical Apparatus 35
Electrolytic Preparation of Chlorine
(Chlor Alkali) 36
Industrial and Control Instruments 44
Dental Preparations 47
General- Laboratory Use 49
OTHER SOURCES OF MERCURY EMISSIONS
Coal 51
Oil 53
Incineration -56
Sewage and Sludge 58
Miscellaneous 59
VI1
-------
APPENDIX A
Major Mercury Producing Mines - 1968 61
TABLES
Table I Applications Where Mercury is Used
in the Elemental Form 20
Table II Applications Where Mercury Compounds
are Used 20
Tab.le III Vapor Pressure of Mercury Compounds. . 25
Table IV Mercury Used in Paint 25
Table V Use of Mercury as a Catalyst 28
Table VI Mercury Consumption in
Pharmaceuticals 31
Table VII Mercury Losses in Hydrogen 41
Table VIII Mercury Emissions Associated
with Byproduct Hydrogen 42
Table IX Mercury Losses per Ton of Chlorine ... 43
Table X Mercury Emitted to Atmosphere 44
Table XI Mercury Consumption and Emissions
Instruments and Controls Industry .... 46
Table XII Shipments of Residual Fuel Oil in the
United States - 1968 54
Table XIII Residual Fuel Oil Data 55
FIGURES
Figure I Map of Emission Regions 4
Figure II Material Flow Through the Economy ... 10
Vlll
-------
-1-
SUMMARY
The flow of mercury in the United States has been traced
and charted for the year 1968. The consumption was 2, 866
tons (75, 422 flasks) while domestic production of primary
and secondary mercury was 2,403 tons (63,200 flasks).
Imports, principally from Spain, Canada, and Mexico,
totaled 883 tons (23,246 flasks).
Emissions to the atmosphere during the year were 840 tons.
About 30 percent of the emissions resulted from the combus-
tion of coal. Other significant emissions were due to the use
of paint, the processing of mercury, and the use of mercury
in the electrolytic preparation of chlorine and caustic soda.
Emission estimates are based for the greatest part on obser-
vations made by personal contact and on information provided
by mining, processing, and reprocessing companies. Emis-
sions due to the combustion of coal are based on the only
data available, which are relatively incomplete.
-------
Source Category
Mining
Ore Processing
Secondary Production
End Product Uses
Other Emission Sources
EMISSIONS BY SOURCE
1968
Source Group
Paint
Agricultural
Pharmaceuticals
Electrical Apparatus
Electrolytic Chlorine
Instruments
Dental Preparations
General Laboratory Use
Coal
Oil
Incineration
Sewage and Sludge
Miscellaneous
Emissions - Tons
2. 6
55. 0
11. 0
365. 6
216. 0
19. 0
2.6
3. 0
70.2
2. 6
1.2
51. 0
255. 0
5. 0
10. 8
11.0
124. 0
405. 8
Emissions
0. 3
6. 5
1. 3
43. 5
48. 4
TOTAL
840. 0
100. 0
-------
-3-
Region No. 1
Region No. 2
Region No. 3
Region No. 4
Undistributed
EMISSIONS BY REGIONS
Number
Processing
82
-
3
-
VL
of Plants
Chlorine
3
3
9
8
Short
Tons
139
256
208
218
19
840
-------
MAP OF EMISSION REGIONS
SHOWING LOCATIONS OF MERCURY MINES AND CHLOR-ALKALI PLANTS
o / o
,ooort
Oo
00
o V>
Oo
A
REGION 2
REGION
O Mining Locations
• Chlor-Alkali Plants
Figure I
-------
-5-
EMISSION FACTORS
The emission factors given herein are believed to be the
best currently available. They were determined through
a combination of methods consisting of: (1) direct obser-
vation of emission data and other related plant processing
and engineering data where available; (2) estimations based
on information obtained from literature, plant operators,
and others knowledgeable in the field; (3) calculations based
on experience and personal knowledge of metallurgical pro-
cessing operations; and (4) specific analytical results (in
the case of coal) where available and judged dependable.
More reliable data should become available within one or
two years after the release of this report.
The basic data used to calculate the emission factors are
contained in the files of the Contractor and the Office of Air
Programs of the Environmental Protection Agency. Read-
ers of this document are encouraged to submit data to the
EPA in confirmation of these factors, or additional data
which can be used to further refine the factors in subse-
quent publications.
A summary of the emission factors is shown below.
-------
-6-
Mining
Ore Processing
Secondary Production
End Product Uses
Paint
Agricultural
Pharmaceuticals
Electrical Apparatus
Electrolytic Production
of Chlorine
Instruments
Dental Preparations
General Laboratory Use
Other Emission Sources
Coal
Oil
Incineration
0. 012 Ib/ton of ore mined
0. 254 Ib/ton of ore processed
40 Ib/ton of mercury processed
1, 300 Ib/ton of contained mercury
1, 000 Ib/ton of contained mercury
400 Ib/ton of contained mercury
8 Ib/ton of mercury used
0. 0585 Ib/ton of chlorine produced
17 Ib/ton of contained mercury
20 Ib/ton of contained mercury
1; 500 Ib/ton of total mercury loss
1 lb/1, 000 tons of coal burned
0. 0000167 Ib/bbl of residual oil
consumed
1. 4 lb/1, 000 tons of refuse burned
NOTE - All emissions stated in. Ib refer to Ib of mercury.
-------
-7-
MINERAL SOURCES OF MERCURY
Mercury is a high density, silver white metal that has uni-
form volume expansion and is liquid at normal ambient tem-
peratures. It is relatively rare, but it commonly exists in
highly concentrated ores found near the earth's surface and
is readily attainable. Of twenty-five minerals known to con-
tain mercury, the chief source is cinnabar, red mercuric
sulfide (HgS). Important deposits are located in the United
States, the Philippines, China, Italy, Mexico, Peru, Spain,
Yugoslavia, and the U. S. S.R.
In the United States ores containing mercury are found in
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Idaho, Nevada,
Oregon, Texas, and Washington. During 1968 mercury
produced in California and Nevada accounted for ninety per-
cent of the domestic primary production.
-------
-8-
MATERIAL FLOW THROUGH THE ECONOMY
The sources and uses pf mercury in the United States during
1968 are shown in Figure II. The supply was from three
sources: (1) 1,097 tons from primary production; (2) 1,306
tons from secondary production including Government re-
leases; and (3) 883 tons from foreign sources.
Mercury Imports - In 1968 mercury imports into the United
States totaled 883 tons (23,246 flasks), approximately 31 per-
cent of the domestic consumption. About 55 percent of the
imports were from Spain, 24 percent from Canada, 10 per-
cent from Mexico, 5 percent from Yugoslavia, and 5 percent
from Peru V.
Mercury Exports - Exports and reexports of mercury dur-
ing 1968 were 289 tons (7, 599 flasks). Exports more than
doubled as compared with 1967, principally as a result of
increased shipments to India and Japan. Foreign trade in
mercury compounds was insignificant _/.
Mercury Stocks - Stocks at the beginning of 1968 were
1- Minerals Yearbook: Bureau of Mines; 1968.
-------
-9-
18, 277 flasks, and at the end of the year the total on hand
was 21,484 flasks, an increase of 122 tons (3,207 flasks) /.
1- Minerals Yearbook; Bureau of Mines; 1968.
-------
SOURCES
MERCURY
MATERIAL FLOW THROUGH THE ECONOMY - 1968
(Short Tons)
USES
746
1.097
PRIMARY PRODUCTION
883
IMPORTS
289
EXPORTS AND REEXPORTS
122
STOCKS
UNACCOUNTED
1. 306
SECONDARY PRODUCTION
2. 866
ELECTRICAL APPARATUS
663
CHLORINE PRODUCTION
402
PAINTS
303
INSTRUMENTS
130
AGRICULTURAL
117
DENTAL PREPARATIONS
76
GENERAL LABORATORY USE
73
CATALYSTS
16
PULP AND PAPER
16
PHARMACEUTICALS
10
AMALGAMA TION
314
CONSUMER
OTHER
S C_R_A_P |
Figure II
-------
-11-
USES AND EMISSIONS OF MERCURY
MINING
The mercury consumed in the United States during 1968
totaled 75, 422 flasks (76 pounds per flask): however, only
28, 874 flasks were produced from domestic ore /.
The price per flask held above $500. 00 throughout the year
and many of the mines in operation were producing relatively
low quality ores containing only 1. 7 to 2. 7 pounds of mer-
cury per ton: however, one mine visited during this study
reported an average mercury content of 20 pounds per ton
of ore.' The average for all ore produced was 5. 1 pounds
of mercury per ton of ore /. Since prices remained rela-
tively high, established producers were encouraged to oper-
ate mines and plants at near maximum capacities. Of the
87 operations reported for the year, 53 were in California,
17 in Nevada, 6 in Oregon, 3 each in Arizona and Texas, 2
each in Alaska and Idaho, and one in Washington.
In the United States mercury ore is mined by both surface
and underground methods. Usually the deposits are small
1- Minerals Yearbook; 'Bureau of Mines; 1968.
-------
-12-
and irregular; consequently, large-scale mining operations
are the exception rather than the rule.
Before mining ore from open-pit deposits near the surface,
all barren or low grade material overlying the deposit is re-
moved. The ore is then drilled and broken prior to loading
into trucks for transportation to the mill. During open-pit
mining operations the mercury emissions to the atmosphere
are due to the dust generated during drilling, bla.sting, and
handling the ore, as well as natural vaporization of mercury
from the ore deposit.
Even though underground methods of mining mercury ore are
not uniform, drilling, blasting, and handling are part of the
operations. After the ore has been broken by drilling and
blasting it is removed by scrapers, by direct drop to draw-
points, or by mechanical loaders. The ore is either trammed
or hoisted to the surface.
Emissions from Mining - Emissions from underground
mines are thought to be essentially the same as those from
open-pit mines. Concentrations of dust and vapor in the
mines must be maintained at a low level in order to protect
the miners; therefore, forced ventilation is required. The
-------
-13-
systems used are usually rather large and they discharge
to the atmosphere.
Accurate data is not available concerning mercury emissions
to the atmosphere from sources of mining; however, an es-
timate has been prepared based on information obtained
from mine operators.
Emissions from mining operations in the United States dur-
ing 1968 totaled 2. 6 tons.
-------
-14-
ORE PROCESSING
Two general types of recovery are used to produce elemental
mercury from cinnabar, the principal ore that is used for
the production of mercury.
One system used in the smaller plants consists of a retort
into which a batch of crushed cinnabar is dumped, the open-
ing is closed, and heat is applied (], 500 to 1, 800 F), and
mercury is driven off. The mercury is vaporized by indirect
heating and only enough air is admitted to the retort to oxi-
dize the sulfur to sulfur dioxide. The mercury vapor, sul-
fur dioxide, and any excess oxygen, plus all of the nitrogen,
flows to a condenser where the mercury is condensed and
the other components are cooled by cooling water or by air.
The gases are usually cooled to a temperature ranging from
110 to 140 F. Emissions of mercury into the atmosphere
from this system stem from two main sources:
1 - Mercury remaining in the discarded calcine;
2 - Mercury in the inert gas stream discharged
from the condenser.
In the retort system the inert gas stream is small and the
mercury vapor loss from this source is negligible.
-------
-15-
Larger plants usually are equipped with a continuous fur-
nace. The crushed and sized ore flows into the colder end
of the furnace which is, in many cases, a rotary kiln type.
The kiln is fired at the end opposite the feed. The hot gases
contact the ore and heat it to about 1, 800 to 2, 000 F. The
mercury is vaporized by direct heating, the sulfur portion
of the cinnabar is oxidized to sulfur dioxide, and the total
gas mass flows to the condenser where the mercury vapor
is condensed and the noncondensable gases are cooled to
approximately 110 F. The exit temperature of the gases is
subject to wide variation and depends on the design of the
plant. Mercury emissions in this process also stem from
two main sources:
1 - Mercury remaining in the discarded calcine;
2 - Mercury in the inert ga.s strea.m discharged
from the condenser.
This process emits more mercury to the atmosphere at any
given temperature of the gas mass than the retort process,
because the heating gases in the continuous process are in
direct contact with the ore and the gas volume is much
larger.
Emissions from Ore Processing - Mercury emissions to
-------
-16-
the atmosphere from sources of primary processing are
estimated at 55 tons for the year 1968, based on an emis-
sion factor of 0. 254 pound per ton of ore processed. The
emission factor is based on the following information:
(a) Ore processed during 1968 (tons) ^J - 432,772
(b) Condenser exit temperature (F) - 110
432,772 x 0.254
2,000 =
1- Minerals Yearbook; Bureau of Mines; 1968.
-------
-17-
MERCURY SECONDARY PRODUCTION
Secondary production of mercury, as reported by the Bureau
of Mines, increased about 50 percent during 1968 principally
due to releases by the General Services Administration. Re-
claim from battery scrap, dental amalgams, and various
sludges contributed to the increa.sed production and was a
significant part of the domestic supply. Secondary produc-
tion of mercury during 1968 was 1, 306 short tons (34, 380
flasks) _/ including the GSA releases of 74S tons (19, 610
flasks) /. The remaining 561 tons were reclaimed from
the dental amalgams, battery scrap, and various sludges.
Emissions from Secondary Production - Based on the Con-
tractor's estimated emission factor of 40 pounds per ton of
secondary mercury processed, the atmospheric emissions
in the United States during 1968 totaled 11 tons.
1- Minerals Yearbook; Bureau of Mines; 1968.
2- "Trends in Usage of Mercury"; National Materials Ad-
visory Board; NMAB-258; Sept. 1969.
-------
-18-
END PRODUCT USES OF MERCURY
The reprocessing of mercury for end product uses is some-
what different than the reprocessing of most metals. In
many cases it is used in the elemental form (as a liquid
metal) and installed as a working fluid in manufactured pro-
ducts such as electrical switches, thermometers, and rec-
tifiers (Table I). After the manufacturing operations are
complete the mercury is "sealed-in" and there is no atmos-
pheric emission problem during everyday use. However, an
unknown number of such devices are eventually scrapped and
there is an emission from waste disposal and incineration.
During 1968 about 40 percent of the mercury used in the
United States was installed in equipment as a working fluid,
and 30 percent was used as liquid metal in the production of
chlorine and caustic soda. Most of the remaining 30 per-
cent was reprocessed into compounds used in paint, agri-
cultural sprays, pharmaceuticals, catalysts, and other pro-
ducts tabulated in Table II.
The chief applications of the principal compounds are as
follows:
-------
-19-
Mercuric acetate - manufacture of organic mercurials.
Mercuric cyanide - antiseptic in medicine.
Mercurous chloride «• fungicides and insecticides.
Mercuric bichloride - production of other mercury compounds:
seed treatment in agriculture;
catalyst in organic reactions;
antiseptic in medicine;
to intensify negatives in photography.
Mercuric iodide - analytical reagent;
skin streatment in medicine.
Mercuric nitrate - production of other mercury compounds.
Mercuric oxides - germicide in medicine;
fungicide and pesticide in agriculture;
antifouling paints;
other mercury compounds;
dry. cell batteries.
Mercurous sulfate - constituent of standard cells.
Mercuric sulfate - catalysts.
Mercuric sulfide - pigments.
The consumption of mercury in the United States during 1968
has been reported at 2,866 tons (75,422 flasks) /.
1- Minerals Yearbook; Bureau of Mines; 1968.
-------
-20-
TABLE I
APPLICATIONS WHERE MERCURY
IS USED IN THE ELEMENTAL FORM
Item Flasks Short Tons
Electrical Apparatus 19,630 746
Electrolytic Preparation of Chlorine 17, 453 663
Industrial and Control Instruments 7, 978 303
Dental Preparation 3,079 117
General Laboratory Use 1,989 76
Other 8,275 314
TOTAL 58,404 2,219
TABLE II
APPLICATIONS WHERE
MERCURY COMPOUNDS ARE USED
Item
Paint
Agricultural
Catalysts
PuJp and Paper
Pharmaceutical
Amalgamation
TOTAL
Flasks
10, 566
3,430
1,914
417
424
267
17,018
Short Tons
402
130
73
16
16
10
647
-------
-21-
Paint - Mercurial compounds are widely used in paint manu-
facturing, as a toxicant in marine antifouling paints, as a
mildew proofing agent in mildew proof paints, and as a paint
preservative in latex paints. According to one source of in-
formation some manufacturers use mercury in about 95 per-
cent of their products, while others use it in only 10 to 20
percent of the paint they produce. It is used in nearly all
latex and alkyd formulas.
The heavier mercurial compounds that are relatively non-
volatile are favored for use in exterior paints because they
diffuse to the surface more slowly and protect the paint for
a longer period of time. Phenyl mercuric acetate (PMA)
and phenyl mercuric dodecyl succinate (PMS) are two of the
phenyl mercury compounds most commonly used as fungi-
cides in paints; however, in recent years phenyl mercuric
dimethyldithiocarbamate (PMDDC) has also been used for
this purpose. It has been demonstrated that the retention
of PMS in emulsion paint films is slightly better than the
retention of PMA, but that PMDDC is retained much better
than either of the others _/. The high retention of PMDDC
1- Taylor, G. C. , Tickle, W. and Dwyer, A.; "Radio-
metric Studies of Mercury Loss from Fungicidal Paints
II"; J. Appl. Chem. ; 19; Jan. 1969.
-------
-22-
is probably due to its low saturation vapor pressure (Table
III) and its low solubility in water.
The report of a study conducted for the National Paint, Var-
nish and Lacquer Association during September, 1964 /
compares the results of tests made before, during, and after
painting the walls and ceiling of a room with latex paint con-
taining 0. 02 percent mercury. Concentrations reached a
value of 0. 17 mg/m in about 90 minutes and remained at
that level until the painting was completed. After 24 hours
mercury concentrations had fallen to 0.01 mg/m . It is ap-
pa.rent that interior paints containing mercury compounds
emit mercury into the atmosphere and the rate of emission
is rapid while the paint is wet.
Concentrations of mercury in the paints usually vary from
0. 02 to 2. 5 percent depending on the use for which they are
intended, and the ra.te of the emission is directly related to
the concentration in the paint /. Mildew resista.nt paints
generally contain the most; mercury and usually provide mil-
dew protection for a period of two or three years. In other
].•• Goldwat.er, L. J. and Jacobs, M. B. ; "Mercury Expo-
sure from the Use of a Mercury -Bearing Paint"; Un-
published report; Nov. 9, 1964.
2- Private communication with paint manufacturer.
-------
-23-
words, most of the mercury compound in the pa.int has dif-
fused to the surface within two or t-hree years and has been
emitted to the atmosphere or wa.shed down into the soil and
water.
During manufacturing operations the mercury compounds
are added to the paint during final sta.ges of mixing; the en-
tire operation is carried out in closed equipment. Paint
manufacturers report that mercury emissions to the a.tmos-
phere are exceedingly small.
During 1968, 14 percent of the mercury consumed in the
United States was used in paints. During the year, 402 tons
(10, 566 flasks) were used for that purpose /.
Emissions from Manufacture of Paint: Ba.sed on the above
information, mercu.cy emissions to the atmosphere resulting
from the manufacture of paint during 1968 are estimated by
t:h.e Contractor at one ton. The emission, factor is 5 pounds
per ton of mercury used in the ma.nufa.cture of pa.int.
Emissions from Use of Pa.int:: According to the information
obtained from pa.int manufacturers and the results of tests,
1- Minerals Yearbook; Bureau of Mines; 1968.
-------
-24-
it is apparent that there are substantial mercury emissions
to the atmosphere due to the use of paint. It is estimated
that 65 percent of the mercury used in paints is emitted to
the atmosphere within two or three years after the paint is
applied.
Based on an annual use of mercury in paint averaging 331
tons (Table IV), the mercury emissions to the atmosphere
during 1968 due to the use of paint are estimated by the Con-
tractor at 215 tons.
Agricultural - During 1968 the use of mercury for agri-
cultural purposes totaled 130 tons (3,430 flasks) _/. It was
used in the form of organomercurial compounds in fungicides
and bactericides for control, of diseases of fruits, vegetables,
and grains. The primary uses were an estimated 54 tons
for seed treatment of cereal grains /, and 38 tons for
preparation of sprays. There is no substitute currently
available that combines the broad spectrum of control achieved
by mercurial compounds.
1 - Minerals Yearbook: Bureau of Mines; 1968.
2- "Trends in Usage of Mercury"; National Materials Ad-
visory Board; NMAB-258; Sept. 1969.
-------
-25-
TABLE III
VAPOR PRESSURE OF MERCURY COMPOUNDS
Mercury (metal)
Dimethyl Mercuric Mercury
Methyl Mercury Chloride
Phenyl Mercuric Acetate
Phenyl Mercuric
Dime thyldithiocar hamate
°C
36
94
35
35
35
Vapor Pressure
mm Hg
4.47 x. 10
760
32 x 10
5x10
0.8 x 10
-3
-3
-6
-6
TABLE IV
MERCURY USED IN PAINT
Year Flasks
1966 8,420
1967 1,178
1968 10,566
TOTAL 26, 164
Annual Average 8,721 (331 tons)
1- Minerals Yearbook; Bureau of Mines; 1968.
-------
-26-
From the standpoint of atmospheric emissions, the sprays
containing mercurial salts and compounds are partially
washed from the foilage into the soil. However, the part
that remains on the plant is exposed and emissions to the
atmosphere result. The U. S. Department of Agriculture
and others recognize there are mercury emissions to the
atmosphere due to spraying, but data are not available re-
garding drift and off-target problems.
The methylation of mercury by enzymatic and non-enzymatic
processes has been reported by Wood _/ and Jensen /
but no statement has been made regarding the escape of
methyl mercury from water into the air. It has been re-
ported that mercury compounds in the soil are converted to
metallic mercury /.
Emissions from the Use of Agricultural Sprays: Based upon
the information obtained during this study it is assumed that
1- Wood, J. M. , Kennedy, F. S. and Rosen, C. G. ; "Syn-
thesis of Methyl-mercury Compounds by Extra.cts of a
Methanogenic Bacterium"; Nature; 220: Oct. 12, 1968.
2- Jensen, S. and Jernelov3 A.; "Biological Methylation of
Mercury in Aquatic Orga.nisms"; Nature; 223; Aug. 16,
1969.
3- Booer, J. R. ; "The Behavior of Mercury Compounds in
Soil"; Annals of Applied Biology; 3J_; pp. 340-359; Nov.
1944.
-------
-27-
50 percent of the mercury used in the preparation of sprays
will become an atmospheric emission. Therefore, the Con-
tractor's estimate is tha.t 19 tons of mercury were emitted
to the atmosphere during 1968. The emission factor is
1, 000 pounds per ton of mercury contained in the spray
materials.
It is assumed that mercury used as a seed treatment or a
soil conditioner will be introduced directly into the soil and
that atmospheric emissions will be negligible.
Catalysts - Organic mercurial salts are used in the produc-
tion of urethane elastomers, vinyl chloride monomers, sul-
fonated anthraquinone products, and for numerous miscellan-
eous purposes (Table V). One of the outstanding new uses in
1968 was the incorporation of organic mercury catalysts in
urethane resins molded into automobile bumpers on one ser-
ies of an intermediate priced car. . About 3 pa.rts of the com-
mercial mercury catalyst are employed in 100 parts of resin.
Active mercury content in the catalyst is in the order of 5
percent /.
1- "Trends in Usage of Mercury"; National Materials Advi-
sory Board; NMAB-258; Sept. 1969.
-------
-28-
TABLE V
USE OF MERCURY AS A CATALYST
Item Flasks Short Tons
Urethane 800 30
Vinyl Chloride Monomer 500 19
Anthraquinone Derivatives 175 7
Miscellaneous 439 1T_
TOTAL 11 1,914 73
1- Minerals Yea.rbook; Burea.u of Mines; 1968.
-------
-29-
The chlorides, oxides, sulfa.tes, acetates, and phosphates
a.re used in catalysts in various ways. The processes for
making these materials are relatively simple one-step re-
actions usually carried out in batch operations. Mercury
molecules are very heavy and if covered by a liquid, diffu-
sion into the atmosphere is very slight during the rea.ction
period.
Emissions from the Manufacture of Catalysts: Losses
from such compounds as mercuric sulfate, mercuric oxide,
mercuric chloride, and mercuric phosphate during reaction
and packaging is considered to be negligible.
Pulp and Paper - The use of mercury compounds in the
pulp and paper industry has declined substantially since
1963. Decreased use is also anticipated for the future; how-
ever, the high degree of effectiveness of mercury compounds
and their ability to prevent, the formation of slime during pa-
per manufa.cture seem to indicate there will be a market, in
this area.
In the United States 16 tons (417 flasks) of mercury were
used in pulp and paper manufacture during 1968 _/.
1- Minerals Yearbook; Bureau of Mines; 1968.
-------
-30-
Emissions from Manufacturing: The special mercury com-
pounds used in the pulp and paper industry are produced in
batch operations in relatively small amounts, and most of
the materials used have a low vapor pressure. Losses of
mercury to the atmosphere due to the manufacture of slimi-
cides is considered to be negligible.
Emissions from Use: During paper making mercurial bio-
cides are added to slurries of cellulose fibers to reduce the
growth of slimes in the slurry which cause difficulty in the
paper-making machine. During the process most of the mer-
cury compound that is used is removed from the slurry; how-
ever, a small part adheres to the cellulose fibers.
Mercury emitted to the atmosphere due to the use of mercur-
ials in paper making during 1968 is considered to be negligible.
Pharmaceuticals - It has been reported that 16 tons (424
flasks) of mercury were used in various pharmaceutical ap-
plications during 1968 (Table VI) _/. It is used in the form
of ammoniated mercury, yellow mercuric oxide, or prime
virgin mercury in a variety of therapeutic and cosmetic skin
creams. One of the purposes is to "fade blemishes, brown
1- Minerals Yearbook; Bureau of Mines; 1968.
-------
-31-
TABLE VI
MERCURY CONSUMPTION IN PHARMACEUTICALS
Item
Diuretics
Antiseptics
Skin Preparations
Preservatives
TOTAL
Flasks
70
.180
140
34
424
Short Tons
3
7
5
1
16
-------
-32-
spots, and dull dark areas". It is thought that the compounds
used in.this manner are free to exert their full vapor pres-
sure and will evaporate from the skin or affected area. Mer-
cury compounds have been used as diuretics for many years,
but this use is now declining. In cosmetics and soaps those
used as preservatives include phenyl mercuric acetate,
phenyl mercuric borate, phenyl mercuric benzoate, and
phenyl mercuric nitrate.
Many diuretics, antiseptics, skin preparations, and preserv-
atives are complicated organomercurial compounds that re-
quire several reaction steps during processing. There are
some, however, that are relatively simple and require only
one step. Regardless of the number of processing steps, the
operations are normally carried out in enclosed equipment
or are vented through condensers.
During use of the various products the mercury is fully ex-
pended and enters the environment as a pollutant, partially
as an emission to the atmosphere. Mercury contained in
diuretics is emitted to water and very little, if any, to the
atmosphere. Mercurials in antiseptics are emitted partially
to water and partially into the atmosphere. Mercurials
-------
-33-
present in skin preparations and ointments a.re not a portion
of the solution and they vaporize to some extent, becoming
an atmospheric pollutant. Mercury added to soaps a.nd face
creams as a preservative will also evaporate into the at-
mosphere.
Emissions from Manufacturing: Manufacturers' records
of mercury emissions are not available; however, the Con-
tractor's estimate has been prepa.red assuming the loss to
be 10 pounds per ton of mercury processed. The estimate
indicates mercury emissions to the atmosphere a.re negligible.
Emissions Resulting from Use: Since information is not
a.vaila.ble regarding atmospheric emissions of mercury due
to the use of pharmaceuticals, it is assumed for this report
that emissions due to the use of diuretics a.re negligible.
For antiseptics, skin preparations, and preservatives, the
assumed, emission factor is 400 pounds per ton of contained
mercury. Based on these assumptions mercury atmospheric
emissions for 1968 were 2.6 tons.
Amalga.mation - Most metals can be a.ma..lgama.ted with mer-
cury, the one important exception being iron. In the early
days mercury wa.s used in mining to recover free gold a.nd
-------
-34-
silver from placer and lode ores. Potassium, sodium, and
zinc amalgams with mercury are used as reducing agents.
As an example, sodium amalgam has been used in the pro-
duction of tetraethyl lead.
Another amalgam metallurgy application is the recovery of
zinc from drosses. Mercury forms the moving cathode in
an electrolytic process and when extracted from the eel], it
carries a small amount of zinc.
During 1968 mercury used in amalgamation totaled 10 tons
(267 flasks) V.
Emissions Resulting from Amalgamation Operations: Most
uses appear to fall into two categories: (a) use of an amalgam
of mercury in chemical manufacturing operations; and (b)
use of mercury in electrometallurgy.
For the processing which is electrolytic in nature there is
little, if any, atmospheric emission. For other processing,
emissions are estimated by the Contractor at 10 pounds per
ton of mercury processed and are considered negligible.
!•• Minerals Yearbook; Bureau of Mines; 1968.
-------
-35-
Electrical Apparatus - During the year 1968 an estima.ted
746 tons (J9, 630 flasks) were consumed in this rather im-
portant use for mercury /. The Largest single use in. this
category was in batteries. Mercury is used in the mercury
cell and also in the alkaline energy cell. It is used in the
form of mercuric oxide mixed with graphite and as a powder-
ed zinc-mercury alloy.
It ha.s been estimated that 13,000 flasks of mercury were
used in battery maji.ufa.ctu re in 1968: 1,200 flasks to produce
fluorescent and high intensity arc discharge la.mps, and
about 500 flasks in the ma.nuiacture of power rectifiers _/.
The use of mercury in electrical apparatus is principally a
handling operation in which small amounts of mercury are
installed in equipment such as la.mps, batteries, a.nd power
tubes. Loss of mercury during manufacturing is prima.rily
a function of the factory room conditions and the ventilation
system. Data presented by Biram / indicate a mercury
1- Minerals Yearbook; Bureau of Mines; J968.
2- "Trends in Usage of Mercury"; National Materials Advi-
sory Board; NMAB-258; Sept. .1.969.-
3- Biram, J. G. S. : "Some Aspects of Handling Mercury";
Vacuum: 5; pp. 77-92; Oct. 1955.
-------
-36-
handling loss of 4 percent per year. It is assumed that 10
percent of the handling loss is the atmospheric emission.
Emissions from Manufacturing: Based on the above, mer-
cury emissions to the atmosphere due to the manufacture of
electrical apparatus during 1968 totaled 3 tons.
Emissions Resulting from Use: Mercury emissions that
occur due to the use of electrical apparatus containing mer-
cury are principally losses associated with breakage. Such
losses are unaccounted for in this report due to lack of re-
liable information. Emissions from industrial pla.nt fires,
building fires, and other such mishaps could be substantial.
Emissions from incinerators and other solid waste disposal
facilities are believed to result principally from the disposal
of mercury vapor type lamps.
Electrolytic Preparation of Chlorine • Two types of elec-
trolytic ceJJs are commonly used for the production of chlo-
rine and caustic soda. The most widely used is the diaphragm
cell. As the name suggests, it. contains a separating dia-
phragm through which the chlorine ions must pass on their
way to a carbon anode where the chlorine is released.
-------
The other cell, called the mercury cell, has gained accept-
ance during the past twoenty yea.rs and at present accounts
for about 28 percent of the cb.Jorine production. The cell.
produces chlorine and a 50 percent; solution of ca.ustic soda.
(directly from the cell) that is relatively free of salt and
iron. This caustic is preferred by the ra.yon industry.
The mercury cell is a horizontal trough,the bottom of which
is 30 to 60 inches wide and some 15 to 20 feet Jong, sloped
gradually from inlet to outlet. Mercurv flows over this
flat surface in a very thin stream and purified brine flows
on top of the stream of mercury. DC electric power is ap-
plied to the bottom section of the trough, and passes to the
mercury which acts as the cathode in the system. Sodium
ions flow to the cathode and sodium is released at the mer-
cury cathode where it is immediately amalgamated by the
mercury. This flows to t.he end of the cell, out t.K.rough a
seal, and to the denuder which separates the mercury and
caustic as the amalgam resets with water.
The carbon anode is supported a.bove and is in contact wit.h
the brine. The anode receives power and has a positive
charge; as chlorine ions flow to i*, chlorine gas is released
-------
-38-
from the brine. Chlorine gas flows from the cell and into
the chlorine header.
Distilled water is added to the denuder into which the sodium
mercury amalgam flows. Water reacts with the sodium of
the amalgam, returning the mercury to its original state
and producing a solution (approximately 50 percent) of sod-
ium hydroxide as well as a stream of relatively pure hydro-
gen, both contaminated with mercury.
The streams of mercury and brine are thin in order to re-
duce resistance to the flow of current. They must be clean
and free of any slimes containing solid material. Solid mat-
ter in a thin stream of either mercury or brine will produce
a. discontinuous film.
The mercury cell operation is quite sensitive to a clean mer-
cury stream, a clean brine stream, and a clean cell. This
means regular disassembly, removal of all brine a.nd mer-
cury, and thorough cleaning of the eel]. Some mercury is
lost in this operation and in the slimes which are removed.
The cells operate at. atmospheric pressure, but it is possible
that smal] amounts of mercury vapor may escape from the
-------
-39-
cell. Also, mercury "spills" will vaporize from the floor
of the cell room. Air change in the cell room is required
to hold the concentration of mercury within satisfactory
limits (. 1 mg/m ).
Of the 8. 4 million tons of chlorine produced in the United
States in 1968 approximately 28.5 percent, or 2.4 million
tons, was produced in mercury, cells _/. The installed ca-
pacity of mercury cells is about 6, 900 tons of chlorine per
day and mercury inventory is about 90, 000 pounds per 100
tons per day of chlorine production; therefore, the active
inventory of mercury in. the industry is approximately 6. 2
million pounds of mercury. Biram reports an inventory
loss of 4 percent per annum due to handling mercury _/.
This experience indicates a loss of 0. 10 pound of mercury
per ton of chlorine produced; however, industrial experi-
ence indicates the actual loss is about 0.20 pound of mer-
cury per ton of chlorine produced.
Losses of mercury in the hydrogen stream vary substantially
1- Private communication with the Chlorine Institute.
2- Biram, J. G. S. ; "Some Aspects of Handling Mercury";
Vacuum; 5; pp. 77-92; Oct. 1955.
-------
-40-
from one plant to another. The hydrogen generated and dis-
charged from the process is handled in different ways. At
some locations the hydrogen is cooled and discharged to the
atmosphere; at others it is compressed and used as fuel;
at still other plants it is compressed and used in the manu-
facture of ammonia and other hydrogenating or reducing op-
erations. Regardless of how the hydrogen is used, it carries
some mercury and there is a mercury loss.
An average operating temperature for the denuder is 180 F.
Hydrogen leaving the denuder saturated with mercury will
carry a large quantity of mercury vapor (Table VII). Cool-
ing to 90 F can be accomplished and at this temperature the
hydrogen will carry 0. 028 pound of mercury per ton of chlo-
rine produced. If the hydrogen is compressed to 25 psig,
cooled to 90 F, and water is separated from it before it is
burned, the estimated loss is 0. 01 pound of mercury per ton
of chlorine produced.
At some plants the hydrogen is compressed to 400 pounds,
cooled to 90 F, and contacted with carbon. This hydrogen
is used in making chemicals. The loss of mercury is esti-
mated to be 0. 001 pound per ton of chlorine for this higher
pressure use of hydrogen.
-------
-41-
TABLE VII
MERCURY LOSSES IN HYDROGEN
°F
68
86
90
104
122
Pressure
mm Hg
.001201
.002777
.00374
.006079
.01267
Lb./T C12
.015
.021
.028
. 046
.0969
-------
-42-
In this study it is estimated that:
(1) 40 percent of the hydrogen byproduct is cooled
to 90 F and burned;
(2) 30 percent is compressed to 25 F, cooled to
90 F and burned;
(3) 30 percent is compressed to 400 psig, cooled
to 90 F, contacted with carbon, and then used
in other chemical operations.
Based on the preceeding conditions, mercury losses are es-
timated as shown in Table VIII.
TABLE VIII
MERCURY EMISSIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH BYPRODUCT HYDROGEN
Condition Tons/Year
(1) 13.4
(2) 3.6
(3) 0.4
The estimated loss totals 17.4 tons for the year 1968, or
an average loss to the atmosphere in the hydrogen stream
of . 01454 pound of mercury per ton of chlorine produced.
-------
-43-
European practice _/ indicates a loss of 3 percent of the
total loss of mercury in the hydrogen, or 0.015 pound per
ton. Swedish experience at one pla.nt in 1967 and 1969 is
shown in Table IX 2/.
TABLE IX
MERCURY LOSSES PER TON OF CHLORINE
1967
One Plant
Loss
Loss
Loss
Loss
to water
in hydrogen
to ventilation
to caustic
30-40
5-
15-
1-
10
25
10
g
g
g
g
1969
One Plant
0.
0.
1.
0.
55
40
00
80
g
g
g
g
Emissions from Chlor-Alkali Plants: From calculations
made and literature cited, the losses of mercury to the at-
mosphere are estimated for the year 1968 as shown in
Table X.
1- Chlor-Alkali Report; NAPCA; 1970; Study in progress;
(unpublished).
2- Private communication with the Chlorine Institute.
-------
-44-
TABLE X
MERCURY EMITTED TO ATMOSPHERE
.Loss
Loss
Avg. Ib/ton
Chlorine
in hydrogen 0. 01454
in ventilation 0. 0440
TOTAL. LOSS
Tons
Mercury
17.4
52.8
70.2
The average loss of mercury to the atmosphere during 1968
is estimated to be 0. 0585 pound of mercury per ton of chlo-
rine produced.
During 1968 the chlorine industry used 663 tons (17,453
flasks) of mercury / to offset losses that occurred during
the manufacturing process.
Industrial and Control Instruments - During 1968 an esti-
mated 303 tons (7, 978 flasks) of mercury were used in in-
dustrial and control instruments _/ such as barometers,
thermometers, flow meters, pressure-sensing devices,
switches, and relays. As much as 8 pounds of mercury
may be used to equip a flow meter for operation and actual
1- Minerals Yearbook; Bureau of Mines; 1968.
-------
-45-
filling of the meter takes place at the location where the in-
strument is to be placed in service. Thermometers, switches,
relays, and most other instruments use considerably less
mercury and they are filled at the manufacturing plant.
In the past flow control and metering instruments have been
designed using mercury to measure differential pressure
and rather large quantities of mercury have been required
for this purpose. In such instruments the mercury is in di-
rect contact with the flowing fluid as it flows through an ori-
fice or flow nozzle where the differentia] pressure is mea-
sured by means of pressure taps located on each side of the
orifice.
At present industry is eliminating instruments of the type
described a.bove and are manufacturing others using pres-
sure transmitting cells tha.t do not require mercury. These
newer instruments can be used in the food processing indus-
try as well as for other industrial purposes.
Switches and relays, thermometers, and thermal systems
that contain mercury are enclosed devices in which the mer-
cury is "sealed-in". Since glass is used to a great extent,
accidental breakage will result in minor emissions to the
atmosphere.
-------
-46-
Flow meters and other controls using mercury are, for the
most part, installed in industrial plants and the value of the
contained mercury is appreciated. Normally the metal will
be recovered, cleaned, and reused. It is recognized, how-
ever, that during maintenance some mercury will be lost
and part will be an atmospheric emission.
Emissions Resulting from Manufacturing: From information
obtained through personal contact with manufacturers of in-
struments and controls, estimates have been made of the
quantity of mercury used for various classes of instruments;
then, estimates have been made for mercury emissions to
the atmosphere. These estimates are shown in Table XI.
TABLE XI
MERCURY CONSUMPTION AND EMISSIONS
INSTRUMENTS AND CONTROLS INDUSTRY
Item
Switches and Relays
Thermometers
Thermal Systems
Flow Measurement
TOTAL
Annual
Flasks
2, 500
1,000
2,000
2,478
7,978
Consumption
Tons
95
38
76
94
303
Emissions
Tons
0. 1
0.04
0.08
2.4
2.62
-------
-47.
Dental Preparations - Mercury is used extensively in dental
work as an amalgam which is made up of approximately 50
percent mercury and 50 percent silver and tin. The amal-
gam for filling cavities in teeth is relatively inert, is easily
applied by the dentist, has good compressive strength, ha.s
good abrasion resistance, and is relatively permanent. How-
ever, in one respect the common "silver filling" is unsatis-
factory as a filling material. It is a good conductor of heat
and the tooth is subject to thermal shock. Substitutes, such
as silicate zinc phosphate cements and acrylic or epoxy
resins, have been used but have not yet replaced the mer-
cury amalgam.
The loss of mercury from amalgam fillings has been studied
extensively / and there is no evidence of change in the
mercury content of fillings installed in a person's mouth.
It is thought that the amalgam is not we.U ventilated and is
continually covered with water. These two factors mini-
mize the vaporization of mercury from the installed amal-
gam. The amalgam does not dissolve in body fluids.
!•- "Physical Properties of Dental Materials"; National
Bureau of Standards; Circular 433; Feb. 6, 1942.
-------
-48-
Literature states that gaseous mercury atoms are very
heavy and tend to hold over liquid source unless strongly
ventilated. Copplestone _/ recommends use of a mixture
of calcium oxide, sulfur, and water to suppress vaporiza-
tion of mercury. Hair spray is also recommended.
The packaging of the materials making up an amalgam has
been improved, thereby reducing losses in dental offices.
It is recommended that scrap be stored in air-tight contain-
ers to limit vapor escape.
Emissions Resulting from Preparation of Dental Amalgams:
Under the above conditions, the handling loss should be in
the order of 4 percent _/ and emissions to the atmosphere
of one percent may be expected.
Mercury used in dental work in the Unit.ed States in 1968
is estimated at 117 tons (3, 079 flasks) 3/.
1- Copplestone, J. F. and McArthur, D. A.; "Vaporiza-
tion of Mercury Spillage"; Archives of Environmental
Health; L3j p. 675; 1966.
2- Biram, J. G. S. : "Some Aspects of Handling Mercury";
Vacuum; £; pp. 77-92; Oct. 1955.
3- Minerals Yearbook; Bureau of Mines; 1968.
-------
..49-
During 1968 mercury emissions to the atmosphere due to the
use of dental preparations totaled 1.2 tons.
General Laboratory Use - Mercury is a common working
material in nearly all laboratories of the chemical, physi-
cal, and biological sciences. It is used principally to con-
fine gases and is desireable because it does not react with
or dissolve in them to any appreciable extent.
The consumption of mercury in laboratories is principally
due to spillage and the fact that complete recovery from a
spill is impossible. Annual handling losses have been re-
ported at 4 percent of supply /, but in some college and
university laboratories they are known to be much higher,
averaging as much as 13 percent of base supply _/. This
is undoubtedly due to inexperienced people performing the
experimental work.
Emissions Resulting from Laboratory Use: During 1968
general laboratory use of mercury totaled 76 tons (.1., 989
1- Biram, J. G. S. ; "Some Aspects of Handling Mercury";
Vacuum; 5^ pp. 77-92; Oct. 1955.
2- Private communication.
-------
-50-
flasks) /. In this report it is assumed that 8 tons were
used in establishing new laboratories and 51 tons of the re-
maining 68 tons were atmospheric emissions.
1- Minerals Yearbook: Bureau of Mines;- 1968.
-------
-51-
OTHER SOURCES OF MERCURY EMISSIONS
COAL
A search has been conducted for information related to the
atmospheric emissions of mercury due to the combustion
of coal; a limited quantity of recent data regarding the mer-
cury content of coal has been located.
The Illinois State Geological Society commenced testing
samples of coal during the latter part of 1970 to determine
mercury content. Fifty-five samples of Illinois coal and
11 samples of coal from other states were analyzed for
mercury by the neutron activation method. The coal from
Illinois was untreated (raw coal) and was from 10 different
coal seams currently being mined. The range in mercury
content was from 0.04 ppm to 0.49 ppm, and the mean was
0. 18 ppm. The mercury in the 11 samples of coal from
Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
Utah ranged from 0. 02 ppm to 0. 28 ppm /.
During May, 1971 several coal samples were analyzed for
1- Ruch, R. R. , Gluskoter, H. J. and Kennedy, E. J. ;
"Mercury Content of Illinois Coals"; Illinois State Geo-
logical Survey; Environmental Geology Notes No. 43;
1971.
-------
-52-
the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Pro-
grams, using the neutron activation method. The average
mercury content for 12 samples of coal from va:riou.s parts
of the United States was 0. 81 ppm.
Considering the values reported in the literature, an arbi-
trary but reasonable average has been selected to estimate
emissions for this report. The average mercury content of
coal used in the United States during .1968 is assumed to be
0. 50 ppm. This is about seven times the geometric mean
concentration of mercury in the soil of the United States,
which is reported to be 71 ppb _/.
Based on 508,990,000 tons of bituminous and ant.hra.cite
coal consumed _/, an average mercury content of 0. 50
ppm, and all mercury emitted to the atmosphere, the mer-
cury emissions in the United States during 1968 due to the
combustion of coal totaled 255 tons.
1- Shacklette, H. T. , Boerngen, J. G. and Turner, R. L,. ;
"Mercury in the Environment - Surficia.l Ma.fcerials of
the Conterminous United States", U. S. Geological Sur-
vey Circular 644; 197.1.
2-- Minerals Yea.rbook; Bureau of Mines; 1968.
-------
-53-
OIL
Until recently data regarding the mercury content of crude
and residual oils used in the United States was virtually
nonexistent. At the beginning of this study only one elec-
tric utility company was able to furnish an analysis that in-
cluded the mercury content of fuel oil. That company re-
ported the mercury content of oil used during 1968 as 0. 15
to 0. 60 ppm 1J.
Since January, 1971 forty-seven samples of imported re-
sidual oil have been analyzed and the average mercury con-
tent has been reported as 0. 05 ppm. The various samples
ranged from a trace to 0. 3 ppm /.
The residual fuel oil used in the United States during 1968,
exclusive of use in vessels, was 581. 9 million barrels.
This oil containing mercury at an estimated 0. 05 ppm (aver-
age) was used by industrials, electric utility companies,
railroads, oil companies, and the military, as well as for
heating (Table XII).
1- Private communication.
-------
-54-
TABLE XII
SHIPMENTS OF RESIDUAL FUEL OIL
IN THE UNITED STATES - 1968
Use
Heating
Industrial
Electric Utilities
Military and Other
States
Northeast
New York
Massachusetts
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Connecticut
Other
South
Florida
Virginia
Other
Pacific-Mountain
California
Washington
Other
North Central
Illinois
Indiana
Other
TOTAL
TOTAL
U6.4
67.8
62.6
42.4
28. 1
19. 3
38.6
12.0
48.3
51.8
10. 0
25. 5
24. 1
11.4
23.6
Million Barrels
174.3
175.0
185.0
47.6
581.9
3.36.6
98.9
87.3
59. 1
581.9
"Shipments of Fuel Oil & Kerosine in 1968"; Mineral Industry
Surveys; U. S. Dept. of the Interior; Bureau of Mines;
Sept. 17, 1969.
-------
-55-
TABLE XIII
RESIDUAL FUEL OIL DATA
Residual Oil Burned - 1968 (bbls) 581,900,000
Pounds per Barrel 340
Mercury Content of Oil (ppm) 0. 05
Based on the data in Table XIII, the mercury emissions to
the atmosphere due to the combustion of residual oil totaled
5 tons during 1968.
-------
-56-
INCINERATION
During December, 1970 and January, 1971 a survey was con-
ducted by the State of Illinois Institute for Environmental
Quality to determine mercury emissions from power plants,
municipal incinerators, and industrial sources. The equip-
ment used was a Barringer Airborne Mercury Spectrometer
which was mounted in a helicopter. In general, the measure-
ments of maximum mercury concentration were taken when
the. helicopter was hovering between 50 and 400 meters
downwind from the emission source.
All values reported were based on a very limited number of
observations. Data obtained at the municipal incinerator in
Chicago, Illinois (Lake Calumet) showed a ma.ximum mer-
cury concentration of 4, 450 ng/m which indicated a 0. 7
ppm mercury concentration in the refuse that was inciner-
ated _v
The number of municipal--size incinerators in operation in
the United States in 1966 totaled 254; the average capacity
1- Private communication with William M. Vaughn and
Steven B. Fuller; Committee for Environmental Infor-
mation; Washington University: St. Louis, Missouri.
-------
-57-
was 300 tons per day /. The total annual capacity was 28
million tons; however, many incinerators were operated
at less than capacity. Altogether, 190 million tons of solid
waste per year or 5. 3 pounds per person per day are collected;
approximately 8 percent (15.4 million tons per year) is burned
in municipal incinerators _/.
During 1968 mercury emissions to the atmosphere from
municipal incinerators was an estimated 10. 8 tons.
15,400,000 x 0.7 _ 1Q
1,000,000
1- "Control Techniques for Particulate Air Pollutants";
National Air Pollution Control Administration Publica-
tion No. AP-51; Jan. 1969.
-------
-58-
SEWAGE AND SLUDGE
A recent report concerning the burning of sewa.ge a.nd sludge
indicates that the burning rate in the United States is about
2, 000 tons per day, and the mercury content ranges up to
30 ppm _/.
Based on the best current estimate, the 'average mercury
content of sewage and sludge is 15 ppm /. On this basis
the atmospheric, emissions of mercury resulting from the
burning of sewage and sludge totaled 11 tons for the yea.r
1968.
1- Private communica.tion from the Federal Wafer Pollution
Control Authority. (.Lnvestigations being conducted during
1971; therefore, data are subject to revision. )
-------
-59-
MISCE1.LANEOUS EMISSIONS
Of the 2,866 tons (75,422 flasks) of mercury consumed in
the United States during 1968 about 1, 627 tons were used
for agriculture, paint, general laboratory use, pulp and
paper manufacture, pharmaceuticals, electrolytic chlorine
plants, and other miscellaneous purposes. It has been con-
sidered that this mercury is lost during use or has been re-
claimed as a part of the secondary mercury recovered from
scrap.
The use of mercury in the manufacture of certain automo-
bile bumpers began during 1968; therefore, mercury emis-
sions due to disposal during that: year were negligible. In
future years there may be a serious emission problem.
The remaining 1,239 tons were used in electrical appa.rarus,
instruments, catalysts, and amalgams. Undoubtedly part
of the mercury used in this mariner will be reclaimed some-
time in the future as secondary mercury, and a.n.o'.:he.r pa.rt
will be become waste resulting in. substa.ntiaJ atmospheric
emissions.
During 1968 the atmospheric emissions due to the disposal
-------
-60-
of other mercury were the result of mercury plaAed in use
during previous years. Since these emissions cannot be
calculated accurately, all factors have been considered and
a reasonable figure of 124 tons has been estimated (10 per-
cent of 1,239 tons) as the mercury emissions to the atmos-
phere during 1968 due to the disposal of batteries, lamps,
instruments, and other items containing mercury.
-------
-61-
APPENDIX A
MAJOR MERCURY PRODUCING MINES - 1968 1J
State County Mine
Properties Producing 1, OOP Flasks or More
California San Luis Obispo Buena Vista
California Ma.rin Gambonini
California Santa Barbara Gibraltar
California Napa Knoxville
California Inyo Last Chance
California Sonoma Mount Jackson
California San Benito New Idria
Idaho Washington J.da.ho-Almaden
Nevada Humboldt Cordero
Properties Producing 500-1,000 Flasks
California Trinity Altoona
California Santa Clara New Almaden
Nevada Esmeralda B & B
Nevada Pershing Red Bird
1- Minerals Yearbook; Bureau of Mines; 1968.
-------
-62-
Properties Producing 100-500 Flasks
Alaska
Arizona
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
Nevada
Nevada
Nevada
Oregon
Oregon
Oregon
Texas
Texas
Aniak
Maricopa.
Lake
Mar in
Nap a
Sonoma
Santa Clara
Lake
Kings
San Benito
Pershing
Pershing
Was hoe
Lane
Malheur
Lake
Presidio
Brewster
White Mountain
National
Abbott
Bueno Chileno
Corona
Culver -Baer
Guadalupe
Konocti
Little King
San Carlos
Goldbank
Ho.rton Mercury
Old West
Black Butte
Bretz
Glass Butte
Fresno
Study Butte
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA
SHEET
1. Report No.
APTD-1510
3. Recipient's Accession No.
4. Title and Subtitle
National Inventory of Sources and Emissions: Mercury - 1968
5. Report Date
September 1971
6.
7. Author(s)
8- Performing Organization Rept.
No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
W. E. Davis & Associates
9726 Sagamore Road
Leawood, Kansas
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract/Grant No.
CPA 70-128
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Programs
Durham, North Carolina
13. Type of Report & Period
Covered
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstracts
An inventory of atmospheric emissions has been prepared to determine the nature, magni
tude, and extent of the emissions of mercury in the United States for the year 1968.
The flow of mercury has been traced and charted, indicating that the consumption was
2,866 tons while domestic production of primary and secondary mercury was 2,403 tons.
Imports, principally from Spain, Canada, and Mexico totaled 883 tons. Emissions to th(
atmosphere during the year were 840 tons. About 30% of the emissions resulted from
the combustion of coal. Other significant emissions were due to the use of paint, the
processing of mercury, and the use of mercury in the electrolytic preparation of
chlorine and caustic soda. Emission estimates were based on observations made by per-
sonal contact and on information provided by mining, processing and reprocessing
companies.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17o. Descriptors
Air pollution Minerals
Mercury
Emission
Inventories
Sources
Consumption
Production
Internal trade
Coal
Utilization
17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
Year 1968
United States
17e. COSATI Field/Group ~[ 3(}
Mining
Reprocessing
Industries
18. Availability Statement
FORM NTIS-3S (REV. 3-7ZI
Unlimited
19..Security Class (This
Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
20. Security Class (This
Page
UNCLASSIFIED
21. No. of Pages
69
22. Price
USCOMM-OC 14952-P72
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FORM NTIS-35 (10-70) (Bibliographic Data Sheet based on COSAT1
Guidelines to Format Standards for Scientific and Technical Reports Prepared by or for die Federal Government,
PB-180 600).
1. Report Number. Each individually bound report shall carry a unique alphanumeric designation selected by the performing
organization or provided by the sponsoring organization. Use uppercase letters and Arabic numerals only. Examples
FASEB-NS-87 and FAA-RFX58-09.
2. Leave blank.
3. Recipient'* Accenion Number. . Reserved for use by each report recipient.
4. Title and Subtitle. Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and be displayed promi-
nently. Set subtitle, if used, in smaller type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. When a report is prepared in more
than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume number and include subtitle for the specific volume.
5. Report Dote. F.ach report shall carry a date indicating at least month and year. Indicate die basis on which it was selected
(e.g., date of issue, date of approval, date of preparation.
6. Performing Organisation Code. Leave blank.
7. Authors). Give name(s) in conventional order' (e.g., John R. Doe, or J.Robert Doe). List author's affiliation if it differs
from the performing organization.
8. Performing Organization Report Number. Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.
9. Performing Orgonisotion Name and Address. Give name, street, city, state, and zip code. List no more than two levels of
an organizational hierarchy. Display the name of the organization exactly as it should appear in Government indexes such
as USCRDR-I.
10. Project/Tosk/Worlt Unit Number. Use the project, task and work unit numbers under which the report was prepared.
11. Controct/Gront Number. Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address. Include zip code.
13. Type of Report and Period Covered. Indicate interim, final, etc., and, if applicable, dates covered.
14. Sponsoring Agency Code. Leave blank.
15. Supplementary Notes. Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with . . .
Translation of ... Presented at conference of ... To be published in ... Supersedes . . . Supplements . . .
16. Abstract. Include a brief (200 wotds or less) factual summary of the most significant information contained in the report.
If the report contains a significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis, (a). Descriptors. Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the
proper authorized terms that identify the major concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used
as index entries for cataloging.
(b). Identifiers ond Open-Ended Term*. Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use
open-ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(c). COSATI Field/Group. Field and Group assignments are to be taken from the 196) COSATI Subject Category List.
Since the majority of documents are multidisciplinary in nature, the primary Field/Group assignment(s) will be the specific
discipline, area of human endeavor, or type of physical object. The application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary
Field/Group assignments that will follow the primary posting(s).
18. Distribution Statement. Denote releasability to the public or limitation for reasons other than security for example "Re-
lease unlimited". Cite any availability to the public, with address and price.
19 & 20. Security Classification. Do not submit classified reports to the National Technical
21. Number of Pages. Insert the total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but excluding distribution
list, if any.
22. Price. Insert the price set by the National Technical Information Service or the Government Printing Office, if known.
FORM NTIS-3S (REV. 3-721 USCOMM-OC I4BS2-P72
.S. G.P.O.: 1973—746-770/4180. Region No. 4
------- |