1

Mercury Product Phaseout,Collection, ‘Retirement’ Issues:

Putting our house in order

John Gilkeson

Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance

Boston, May 1, 2002(electronic version of this presentation includes notes)

2

Quicksilver Caucus-EPA Mercury Stewardship Initiative needs YOU!

• QSC and EPA have established three mercury initiatives:– Stewardship (long term management)– TMDL– National Action Plan

• All need more states - esp. Stewardshipsee David Lennett or me during the conference

3

Mercury mine & stockpile issues (1)

• ~160 dedicated mines in US in 1960’s• Most closed by early 1970’s with new

environmental and worker safety laws/rules and heightened awareness of mercury problems

• Last US commercial mine closed 1990; could not compete in market with declining demand and US/other stockpile sales– production costs exceeded domestic/world price

4

Mercury mine & stockpile issues (2)

• Mercury produced as byproduct at gold and other mines in US– USGS estimates 1 unit mercury produced for

5 units gold produced– Therefore US produces ~70 metric tons/year

• Outside of US, large and small dedicated mercury mines continue to produce

5

Mercury mine & stockpile issues (3)

• Internationally, no large dedicated mercury mine operates without government subsidy

• World’s major mercury reserves are owned by governments and chlor-alkali industry– Therefore, governments are direct economic

players in international mercury markets, “market makers”

• Governments also directly and indirectly influence markets thru policy, regulation, and treaties (e.g., Oslo-Paris Accord)

6

Chlor alkali plants

• Currently 9 plants operating in AL, DE, GA, LA (2), OH, TN, WI, WV

• 1 idle in TX; 2 recently closed in KY, ME– 4+ million pounds in last 10 US plants

• Worldwide, 150-200 plants– 40 to 50 million pounds of mercury (smaller

plants)

7

Federal stockpile reserves andcumulative sales, 1975-1999

0

50

100

150

200

250

19

75 19

76

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

19

85 19

86

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

19

95 19

96

1997

1998

1999

Year

Exports from stockpilesales allowed 1982

DLA salesend 1994

DOE salesend 1992

DLA Stockpileremaining(4408 mt)

DLA cumulativesales

DOE Stockpileremaining(132 mt?)

DOE cumulativesales

1000flasks

8

Mercury use and recovery trends

• Product use declined >80% between 1980 and 1995, from ~1700 mt/yr to ~300 mt/yr

• Batteries (1000 mt) and paint (300 mt) accounted for most of the 1400 mt decline

• Product use now appears stable (why??)

• Chloralkali demand dropped >50% during the same time, from 326 mt/yr to 154 mt/yr

• Before 1992, recovery and chloralkali demand are closely associated

9

Mercury use and recovery trends (2)

• Recovery increases 2x-3x between 1991 and 1998

• Recovery meets or exceeds total domestic demand from 1994 on

• Federal stockpile sales accelerated 1989-1994 as domestic demand dropped and recovery increased

• US net exports increased 1989-1994

• US net importer 1996-1998, now exporter

10

U.S. Mercury Use (metric tons per year)

19 00 1920 1940 1960 19 80 2000

Y E A R

O t he r

C o nt ro l I ns t rum e nt s

E le c t r ic a l A p pa ra tu s

P ha rm a ce ut ic a ls

D e nt a l

C h lor - A lk a li

P a in t

A g r icu lt u re / P a pe r

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

(Engstrom & Swain, 1997)

11

US Mercury demand, recovery,import/export, federal sales: 1980-2000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Year

productstotal demandrecoveryimportsexportschloralkalinet exportstotal stkpl sales

Metrictons

Stockpile salesend 1994

95-96 imports from closedCanada chlor-alkali plants

12

US “apparent supply” of mercury, 1970-2000

Sznopek & Goonan 2000, USGS Circular 1197

13

Federal, state policies; consequences• States are regulating mercury sales, use, and

waste management/air releases (also feds)

• State and federal government policy is “virtual elimination” of mercury release

• Governments, NGOs, others operate mercury waste collection programs….

• Result of all these activities?– product use/demand declines– recovery/recycling increases

14

Mercury users respond to gov’t policy

• Users of mercury respond to gov’t policy by switching to non-mercury products and removing mercury products from service– product use/demand declines– recovery/recycling increases

• These users want to know that the mercury being removed from service in response to gov’t policies is not going into another use or export, from which it will be released

15

Mercury product mfrs respond to gov’t

• Mfrs of mercury-containing products respond by developing and selling non-mercury products; some take back old mercury products– product use/demand declines– recovery/recycling increases

• But use has apparently stabilized - some mfrs and use sectors can’t or won’t change

16

USA: Mercury in use in products

3000-5000 metric tons

spills,other direct

releases 9 %

to scrap metal & solid waste streams78 %

recycled9 %

annual discards 100-500 metric tons, based on 10-30 year product life

to waste water 4 %(untreated/treated)

USA Annual consumption 200 metric tons

Products with mercury are discardedto these waste streams

MPCA/MOEA1997-1998

17

USA: Mercury in use in products

3000-5000 metric tons

to air15 %

to land 76 %(potential for slow release)

recycled9 %

annual discards 100-500 metric tons, based on 10-30 year product life

surface water 0.1 %

USA Annual consumption 200 metric tons

Environmental fate after disposaldeposited to land and water

MPCA/MOEA1998

18

Where are we going, can we get there?

• As use declines and we improve our efforts to recover the 3000-5000 tons currently in use, the US has and will have excess mercury

• What will we do with excess mercury, given that it is a global air pollutant and PBT, and we have a national virtual elimination goal?

• We need market options for retirement or long term stewardship

19

Rio Conference ad hoc policy recommendations (1999)

A. National Priorities Need to be Considered

B. Reduction is Desirable Now

C. Use of Mercury Should be Eliminated

D. International Cooperation is Needed

E. Emissions Should be Reduced in the MostCost-Effective Manner

F. Mercury Reductions Should be Integrated with Other Pollutant Reduction Initiatives

G. An International Mercury Policy Discussion is Needed

20

ECOS Resolutions

• 96-2 US Mercury Stockpile Sales– “ECOS calls for a permanent halt to US

mercury stockpile sales; and– ECOS urges all nations to end subsidies to

mercury mining and sales; and– ECOS urges the EPA to develop retirement

options for mercury so that waste generators and waste treatment facilities may choose recycling or retirement…”

21

ECOS Resolutions

• 01-3 Mercury Retirement and Stockpiling– “ECOS recognizes that long-term storage of

mercury is a federal responsibility.”– “ECOS requests that the President...issue a

directive to federal agencies, including the DOD and the EPA...to recommend a plan to manage the long-term storage of mercury by January 1, 2003, and implement such plan.”

? What does “federal responsibility” mean?

? What is “long-term storage?”

22

Where does our mercury go,and does it come back to us?

• Major export destinations for US mercury are India and China– Kodaikanal Hindustan Lever Thermometer Co.

is “alleged” to have dumped over 7 tons of mercury-contaminated waste in several locations; Faichney Medical was primary/sole US marketer of their products

– Several companies in China make mercury devices or chemicals for export, including these three….

23

Xiamen SEZ Machinery & Metallurgy Import & Export Corp.

24

Shaanxi Medical Instrument Co.

25

A distributor of mercuric compounds including mercurochrome, PMA, PMN,

thimerosal, mercuric oxides

26

FAO specs for mercurial pesticides;where are they made and used?

27

…but not all products can be considered necessities or an acceptable use of mercury…

Is US mercury used in thisnon-essential productimported from India?

28

29

30

Acknowledgements

Data in this presentation is from a variety of sources, including:

• USBM & USGS publications & staff

• Engineering and Mining Journal, 1974-2000

• National Geographic, October 1972

• Mercury refiners and processors

• Mercury product manufacturers

• US DOD, DOE, EPA

• State and local governments

31

Mercuric pesticides

• Food contact use banned in US in 1969– Primarily anti-mold orchard and fruit uses

• Seed treatment use banned around same time

• Paper mill slimicide use ended 1960-1970

• Last US product registrations withdrawn by mfrs in ~1992 when EPA requires safety & efficacy studies:– turf mold, outdoor fabric treatment, fresh cut

wood mold treatment, paint

32

Paint

• Registered pesticide(s) used as mildewcides and in-can preservatives (latex and oil)

• EPA sought to ban mercury in paint in 1976 but industry fought proposal and ban did not take effect

• Poisoning incident in Michigan in ~1990 finally led to phase-out– product had over 4x allowed level, air levels in

house poisoned family

33

Batteries

• Largest US product use category until 1990

• Alkaline batteries were up to 1% mercury

• 1990 Minnesota Legislature proposed mercury phaseout or manufacturer takeback:– mfrs opposed, then one agreed to phaseout and

first US phaseout law passed

• Mercuric oxide subject to manufacturer takeback, then state/federal phaseout requirements as substitutes developed

34

Pharmaceuticals

• Most OTC and prescription pharmaceutical uses phased out by early 1970’s as ‘unsafe’

• Mercurial topical anti-microbials determined by FDA to be ‘unsafe’ in mid-1980’s but remain on the market today

• Mercurial preservatives remain in several types of OTC/prescription products

• Vaccine preservatives scrutinized and phased out of domestic use 1999-2001

35

Sales and use restrictions

• “CONEG” packaging legislation restricts mercury content of packaging to level that effectively stops intentional introduction of mercury to any packaging material (1991)

• Minnesota legislation prohibits sale of inks, dyes, pigments, paints, and fungicides containing mercury (1991)

36

Sales and use restrictions, other

• Minnesota law prohibits sale of toys and games containing mercury (1992)

• Wisconsin laws/rules prohibit use of mercury in children’s products

• Other laws prohibit disposal; require sales reporting, product labeling, phaseout, takeback, etc.

37

Mercury phaseout decisions• One mercury displacement relay mfr stopped

production in mid-1990s

• Many large retailers stopped selling mercury fever thermometers 2000-on

• EPA-AHA MOU: virtual elimination

• Industrial/lab thermometer mfrs are introducing new non-mercury products

• NIST, ASTM, others are developing and certifying non-mercury devices and standards

38

Thermostats

• Oregon and Maine laws prohibit the sale of mercury thermostats after 2006

• February 2002 news article reports that Honeywell will stop making mercury thermostats

• Honeywell later says article not accurate; they have no plans to stop making mercury thermostats

• Est’d discards: 4.5 million/yr; 23.6 mt/yr