Draft for 1C Review Draft for 1C Review Mercury in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Briefing for the Implementation Committee Prepared by the Toxics Subcommittee Draft Release Date 1/21/03 What is the Purpose of this Briefing? The Toxics Subcommittee (TSC) has developed this document to inform the Implementation Committee (IC) about mercury pollution and its impact to the Chesapeake Bay watershed. This briefing provides some background information on mercury contamination and identifies the role of the Chesapeake Bay Program in reducing this contamination. In particular, the TSC seeks the assistance of the IC in pursuing the best means of managing the growing number of fish advisories related to mercury in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Controlling sources of mercury in the watershed is complicated by the fact that atmospheric deposition can be a dominant pathway, resulting from mercury emissions generated both inside and outside of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The TSC requests that the IC provide leadership and advice on the best way to prevent and reduce mercury releases into the Chesapeake Bay watershed from sources inside and outside the watershed. The Toxics 2000 Strategy commits the CBP to ensure that fish are safe to eat by all watershed residents and visitors. The TSC has decided to focus initial efforts on mercury advisories because there are more opportunities for controlling mercury than for other chemicals contributing to fish consumption advisories in the watershed (e.g., PCBs, mirex, chlordane, and kepone), since mercury is currently being used and released. The Toxics Subcommittee and its Fish Advisory Workgroup will be developing strategies for dealing with these contaminants as well. BACKGROUND: What is the Scope of the Mercury Problem in the United States? Twenty eight percent of lakes and approximately 14% of river miles in the United States are under fish advisories, and, more alarmingly, 71% percent of all coastal waters of the contiguous 48 states were under advisory in 2001. Seventy five percent of all advisories in the nation have been issued at least in part because of mercury contamination (US EPA, 2002). The number of states that have issued fish consumption advisories due to mercury has risen steadily from 27 in 1993 to 44 in 2001. Over 415,000 river miles and 10 million lake acres are under mercury advisories nationwide (U.S. EPA, 2002). As a result of the scope of the advisories and the potential risk to humans from mercury exposure, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration have provided national advice and the Bay watershed jurisdictions have issued advisories regarding minimizing exposure to mercury associated with fish consumption. Is Mercury a Problem in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed? 1 ------- Draft for 1C Review Draft for 1C Review Yes. In the Chesapeake Bay watershed, there are a growing number of fish advisories due to mercury contamination. In 2001, Pennsylvania issued a statewide fish advisory for mercury in all its waters and Maryland issued a statewide advisory for mercury in its freshwater impoundments. Virginia has issued mercury advisories for four river reaches due to historical uses of mercury, and New York has issued three advisories. It is important to note that the number and scope of advisories within each state may reflect the extent of evaluation of the problem, not the relative level or spatial scale of contamination. In addition to the fish consumption advisories, the 1999 Toxics Characterization report identified mercury as one of six metals that are accumulating to toxic amounts in the sediment of several tidal rivers (Chesapeake Bay Program, 1999a). It is estimated that ninety percent of the mercury that enters these tidal rivers gets trapped in the tidal river sediment and does not get flushed out of the Bay (Chesapeake Bay Program, 1999b). What are the Human Health and Environmental Concerns with Mercury? Methylmercury bioaccumulates through the food chain and, once in the human body, can affect the fetal and adult nervous systems. Human exposure to mercury occurs primarily through eating contaminated fish. The developing fetus is the most sensitive to mercury and, therefore, women of child-bearing age are the population of greatest concern. Fetuses exposed to mercury can experience a variety of abnormalities such as neurological damage, learning disabilities, and delayed development. Populations subsisting primarily on fish have a higher consumption rate and are at greater risk. What are the Biggest Sources of Mercury? Scientists agree that atmospheric deposition is the dominant source of mercury loading to the aquatic environment. According to EPA's 1997 Mercury Study Report to Congress, coal-fired electric utilities are the largest anthropogenic source of mercury air emissions in the United States. Utilities are followed by municipal waste combustors, then medical waste incinerators, and hazardous waste combustors. (US EPA, 2002). Other sources of mercury are industrial or chemical manufacturers such as chlorine plants, wastewater treatment plants, dental offices, and consumer products such as toothpaste and lotions. In the atmosphere, mercury is transported by wind and reaches waters either through direct deposition or as runoff from the land after a storm event. In the water, biological processes can transform the mercury into methylmercury, a highly toxic form. Small organisms and plants take up the methylmercury as they feed. Animals that are higher up the food chain, such as fish, bioaccumulate mercury when they eat plants and organisms containing mercury. In turn, humans accumulate mercury when they consume contaminated fish. The higher up the food chain, the higher are the levels of mercury. Although the Chesapeake Bay airshed for mercury has not been defined yet, it is likely that mercury originates from sources both inside and outside the watershed. 2 ------- Draft for 1C Review Draft for 1C Review In addition to existing sources, there are localized areas within the Bay watershed where mercury concentrations in sediments are of concern due to legacy sources (e.g., past industrial discharges). These areas, if disturbed, could result in increased mercury into the water column. How will Current and Proposed Regulatory Programs Help Address Mercury Contamination in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed? In the U.S., the industrial demand for mercury has significantly dropped due to a number of actions, including federal bans on mercury additives in paint and pesticides, industry efforts to reduce mercury in batteries, and state-mandated recycling programs. The EPA also has taken action to reduce mercury emissions from municipal waste combustors, medical waste incinerators, and hazardous waste combustors. Legislation to reduce mercury emissions from the electricity generation sector has been introduced in Congress. This legislation is the Clear Skies Act, which calls for cuts in mercury emissions by 69 percent by 2018. What Research is Underway to Better Understand Mercury Pollution? There are several activities underway at the national level to better understand mercury pollution in order to design (and strengthen) appropriate control policies. Some of these activities are EPA's Mercury Research Strategy, the USGS/EPA Mercury Roundtable, EPA's PBT Monitoring Strategy, the METAALICUS study (Mercury Experiment to Assess Atmospheric Loading in Canada and the United States), the USGS national pilot study, the EPA Mercury Maps and various State initiatives. Activities being handled at the state level include Maryland's expanded fish survey of largemouth bass in major reservoirs, striped bass, largemouth bass and white perch in the upper, mid and lower Bay, investigation of the effects of mercury emitted by coal-fired utilities using certain air pollution control devices, and mercury modeling to compare the impacts of regional emission sources to those in Maryland. Pennsylvania has established several new mercury deposition monitoring sites within and near Pennsylvania portion of the Bay watershed to better quantify mercury deposition. These and other activities will likely play a role in improving our understanding of mercury effects in the Chesapeake Bay region. What Pollution Prevention Efforts are Occurring in the Signatory Jurisdictions' Programs? Pennsylvania's Businesses for the Bay team is working wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) managers, local watershed associations, and others, to develop a workshop/educational program targeting WWTPs for education on pollution prevention efforts to reduce mercury. They have proposed to involve the Pennsylvania Dental Association, Geisinger Health System and PA B4B members (and other interested parties) in this effort. At present they are in the formative stages of this effort. Virginia has a multi-faceted approach to mercury pollution prevention via the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality's (VADEQ) mercury reduction initiative. The Virginia Department of Health collaborated with the Virginia Dental Association to hold a successful 2001 elemental mercury collection effort. The VADEQ is also partnering with the Virginia Dental Association to produce a best management practices manual for Virginia dentists. The 3 ------- Draft for 1C Review Draft for 1C Review VADEQ collected elemental mercury and thermometers 17 schools in 2001, and distributed digital mercury-free thermometers and educational materials. Other Virginia stakeholders (the Wildlife Federation, Merck & Co, a Healthcare chain) have followed suit with thermometer exchanges in 2002. The VADEQ is also working with hospitals on a Pollution Prevention Healthcare Challenge to move towards the EPA's goal of eliminating mercury in hospitals by 2005. The VADEQ is also developing ideas and partnerships with the Department of Defense, Virginia Department of Education and others, on initiatives such as thermostat and fluorescent light bulb collection. Maryland has also adopted a multi-faceted approach to mercury pollution prevention. The Maryland Department of the Environment has funded grants for the upcoming development of a Hospitals for a Healthy Environment campaign for Maryland, to be conducted in collaboration with Healthcare Without Harm and the American Hospitals Association, with the goals of eliminating mercury waste by 2005. Maryland is also working to develop a program of mercury reduction outreach and services to the construction industry and general public. The District of Columbia has a "Mercury Free D.C." program that addresses a number of aspects of pollution prevention. The Mercury Exchange Program is a joint venture between the D.C. Department of Health and the D.C. Fire Department. The Fire Department will accept mercury thermometers from any institution in the District of Columbia in exchange for a non-mercury one. In the Mercury Free Hospitals initiative, hospitals in D.C. pledged to rid their facilities of mercury in 3 to 5 years. Finally, the District has initiated a draft voluntary program to audit hospital hazardous waste management, to allow D.C. officials to review the facility management of waste disposal and reduce improper waste disposal. ROLE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM: What Can the Chesapeake Bay Program Do about Mercury Contamination? The Chesapeake 2000 Agreement commits the CBP to fulfill the 1994 goal of a Chesapeake Bay free of toxics by reducing or eliminating the input of chemical contaminants from all controllable sources to levels that result in no toxic or bioaccumulative impact on the living resources that inhabit the Bay or on human health. The Agreement also commits to "understanding the effects and impacts of chemical contaminants to increase the effectiveness of management actions" and "through continual improvement of pollution prevention measures and other voluntary means, strive for zero release of chemical contaminants from point sources, including air sources." The Toxics 2000 Strategy commits the CBP to ensure that the public is aware of the fish consumption advisories and that the advisories are protective of all populations. Furthermore, the Toxics 2000 Strategy commits to develop contaminant prevention and reduction strategies to ensure that fish are safe to eat. Below is a list of actions with associated leads to address mercury contamination in the watershed. The TSC has identified where it needs the expertise and leadership from the Implementation Committee. 4 ------- Draft for 1C Review Draft for 1C Review I. Outreach and Education IC Role: 1. Receive regular progress updates and provide guidance when necessary. TSC Role: 1. Inform the public about the advisories. 2. Identify subpopulations at greatest risk. 3. Develop educational materials that cater to these sub-populations to inform them of the advisories and associated risk. The Toxics Subcommittee's Fish Advisory Workgroup partnered with Johns Hopkins University during the summer, 2002 to survey 3,000 Maryland anglers about their fish consumption habits and to conduct pilot dock interviews in the Baltimore watershed. The purpose of this survey was to determine whether or not the current advisories are protective of all populations and to determine what educational methods work best with different populations. Results from this survey should be available early in 2003. It will be important to expand this survey to other key areas of the watershed, provided that funding is available. II. Develop Control Strategies to Reduce Mercury Releases from Sources located in the four Bay watershed jurisdictions IC Roles: L Ensure that federal and state air and water programs work together to develop control strategies. 2. Determine whether specific CBP reduction goals for mercury are necessary and give approval of any new targets. TSC Roles: 1. Identify the mercury sources, including point source discharges to water and stationary sources located in the jurisdictions emitting mercury in the air. 2. Promote voluntary reductions of mercury from these sources through programs like Businesses for the Bay. Build on the Toxics 2000 Strategy commitment to achieve a 15% reduction of chemicals of concern (which includes mercury) in impacted areas and areas at risk by 2005. 3. Identify urban storm water best management practices that remove mercury and promote them in target areas of the watershed (Coordinated with the Stormwater Workgroup). 4. Determine the importance of mercury sources outside the four Bay jurisdictions based on discussion with scientists and existing data. If air sources in other states 5 ------- Draft for 1C Review Draft for 1C Review contribute significantly to mercury contamination in the Bay watershed, then broader efforts will be considered. 5. Identify any gaps or shortcomings of national regulations in effectively reducing or preventing mercury contamination in the watershed. 6. Partner with other programs throughout the country to further reduce mercury emissions if mercury sources in non-watershed states are important and if regulations are not sufficient to prevent mercury loads from these sources. III. Better Define Problem Through Monitoring and Research We recognize that we must act now on the information we have in order to reduce mercury inputs into the Chesapeake Bay watershed. However, we also realize the importance of continually improving our understanding of the science to ensure that our approach and management strategies are effective. IC Role: L Provide the management questions that need to be answered by science in order to better control mercury releases to the Chesapeake Bay watershed TSC Roles: 1. Summarize the state of knowledge regarding atmospheric deposition of mercury onto the Bay watersheds and waters. 2. Identify data gaps that must be filled to improve our approach for managing mercury releases. References Chesapeake Bay Program. 1999a. Targeting Toxics: A Characterization Report - A Tool for Directing Management and Monitoring Actions in the Chesapeake Bay's Tidal Rivers, June 1999. Chesapeake Bay Program. 1999b. Chesapeake Bay Basin Toxics Loading and Release Inventory, CBP/TRS 222-100, EPA 903-R-99-006. Mason, Rob. 2002. Personal communication to the Toxics Subcommittee regarding atmospheric Mercury (Hg) deposition rates in Maryland are high relative to other regions of the USA US EPA, Office of Water. 2002. EPA Fact Sheet, Update: National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories. EPA-823-F-02-007. U.S. EPA. 2002. Mercury Frequently Asked Questions. www.epa.gov/mercury/information. htm#fact-sheets. 6 ------- Draft for 1C Review Draft for 1C Review 7 ------- |