U.S. EPA National and NEG/ECP Binational

Regional Mercury Action Plans Status reports

C. Mark Smith PhD MSDeputy Director, Office of Research and Standards, MADEPCo-Chair, NEG-ECP Mercury Task Force

C.Mark.Smith@State.ma.us

United Nations Accords UNEP Assessment

Commission for Environmental Cooperation North American Regional Mercury Action Plan

EPA Mercury Action Plan

New England Governors /Eastern Canadian Premiers Regional Mercury Action Plan

MassachusettsState Zero Mercury Strategy

Cities and Towns Mercury bans; collection events

Global

Continental

National

Regional

State

Local

Mercury Initiatives

Summary: Why We Are Summary: Why We Are Worried About MercuryWorried About Mercury

1. Very Toxic: kidneys; immune system; cardiovascular; brain.

Fetus/Children particularly at risk US Centers for Disease Control: Data

on blood levels indicate that almost 400,000 births per year are at risk in U.S.

3. Fish contamination and consumption advisories across US and Northeast region

2. Mercury bioaccumulates in fish• up to a million times higher than in water

4. Wildlife Is Also At Risk

Loons and other fish eating birds

Otters/ other Fish Eating Mammals

5. Controllable Local and Distant Sources

1998 Deposition in the NortheastIn region sources: 60%Out-of-region: 40%

Three Largest Sources of US Mercury Emissions

?51

Coal-fired Powered Plants

9450

Medical Waste Incinerators

9042

Municipal Waste Combustors

Percent Reduction Required*

Emissions in 1990 (tpy)

Source Category

* For existing plants

U.S. Actions to Address Mercury

Range of US actions to address mercury have been taken or are being implemented

Efforts to limit releases; reduce exposure; research Multiple agencies: USEPA; USFDA; CDC etc.

LegislativeMany state/regional efforts

Status of U.S. EPA’sMercury National Action

PlanThanks to the following for material on EPA programs:

Denise Wright

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

USEPA wright.denise@epamail.epa.gov Ellen Brown

Office of Air and Radiation, US EPA Brown.Ellen@epamail.epa.gov

Ellie McCann

USEPA Mccann.Ellie@epamail.epa.gov

U.S. National Mercury Action Plan

National Plan to guide and coordinate EPA programs that address mercury Multimedia/agency wide approach Not a federal wide planKey Areas/Goals

Key Areas Reduce/eliminate release of mercury Reduce exposures Reduce uses Ensure safe storage and disposal Address global issues

Draft StructurePriorities for ActionTechnical Summary

Health and environmental impacts Programmatic summary Strategic Assessment Evaluation Tools Future Opportunities for Action

US EPA National Mercury Action Plan Status

1998: 1st working draft under EPA PBT Strategy

Spring 2002: revised plan for state review

Summer 2003: public comment draft Late 2003: Plan finalized?

Short Summary of Key U.S. Actions Taken or Underway

1990 Clean Air Act Amendments 1992 EPA banned use in paints 1995 Universal Waste Rule

streamlined waste management requirements to promote

recyclingMSWC regulations issued

1996 Use in most batteries banned 1997 EPA Mercury Report to Congress

Binational Toxics strategyMedical Waste Incinerator Regs.

1998 1st draft Nation Mercury Action Plan

1999 TRI reporting threshold lowered 2000 NAS Toxicology Review

Regulatory determination on coal-fired utilities

2001 CDC Exposure survey- >350,000 newborns per year “at risk”Ambient water criterion

tightened 2002 Utilities-Clear Skies Initiative

UNEP

Status of US Efforts to Address Utility Mercury

Emissions2000: US EPA Regulatory Determination Schedule

Proposed MACT Regulation – December 15, 2003

Final Regulation – December 15, 2004 Existing units must comply by December 15,

2007 New sources subject to case-by-case MACT

now- States must determine MACT.

Regulatory and Legislative Proposals

2/14/02: President announced “Clear Skies” proposal to control SO2, NOx and mercury emissions from power plants. Would cap mercury emissions at 26 tons in

2010, and at 15 tons in 2018. Trading and banking would be allowed. Any adjustments to second phase cap would

require congressional approval.

Other Approaches/ Proposals

Traditional MACT Several other legislative proposals are under

consideration- none allow trading. S566 (Jeffords, Lieberman, etc.) and HR1256

(Waxman) would reduce emissions to 4.8 tons by 2007.

HR 1335 (Allen) would reduce emissions to 7.5 tons by 2005

S1131 (Leahy) would reduce emissions to 7.5 tons within 10 years of enactment.

State efforts also underway: e.g. NEG-ECP/ MA/ NH/ NC

NEG-ECP Mercury Action Plan: Overview;

Accomplishments; Current Priorities

NEG/ECP Regional Mercury Action Plan

Integrated, comprehensive plan including broad goals and specific actions

Goals By 2003: 50% or greater

reduction in NE emissions By 2010: 75% reduction Long-term: virtual

elimination

Action Plan Category 1: Emissions Reductions

Focused on major sourcesPreliminary data- will meet/exceed 50%,

2003 overall reduction target Trash incinerators: limit 3-fold more

stringent that USEPA. 90% reduction Medical Waste Incinerators: limit 10-fold

more stringent >95% reduction Utilities and other sources

Emission assessment and reduction strategies being developed

Manufacturing 7% Miscellaneous 6%

Utilities14%

Incinerators 55%

Non-utility boilers

18%

Incinerators= Municipal Solid Waste Combustors; Medical Waste Incinerators and Sewage Sludge Incinerators.

Estimated Incinerator Emission Reductions by 2003

Estimated NE Mercury emissions: mid 1990’s

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

kilo

gra

ms

Mid 1990s:Pre ActionPlan

2003: PostAction Plan

Action Category 1: Emission Reduction

Action Plan Category 2: Source Reduction-Waste

MgmtOverall Objectives

Reduce/eliminate Nonessential Uses Segregate and Recycle

Highlights: Extensive Regional Action Dental programs Product legislation Mercury-free Schools Mercury collection programs

Mercury ProductsPrograms to get mercury out of

waste/ homes/schools across region. Numerous provincial and state

programs Over 5,000 pounds of mercury recycled

Mercury Products Legislation: Components: Labeling; reporting;

restrictions on unnecessary uses; recycling

Mercury Products Legislation

Elements adopted in all NE states: Vt. first with labeling; RI and CT implementing comprehensive

packages; ME- first mercury auto switch take-back.

Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearing House established Regional data management resource for

mercury products

Outreach and Education

Regional Accomplishments Outreach materials developed and

distributed in each jurisdiction e.g. Fish consumption guidance; Toll free mercury

hotline; school info; fact sheets; Web info.

School education and cleanouts: over 2,000 lbs. collected across region

Mercury thermometer outreach/ exchanges

VT >40,000; CT > 50,000; MA > 95,000

Research, Analysis, Strategic Monitoring

Highlights Regional mercury monitoring

report and recommendations completed

Improved data management through the Northeastern Ecosystem Research Cooperative; NESCAUM; NEWMOA

Stockpile ManagementOverall Objectives

Safe management-retirement of excess mercury

Highlights 2002 International meeting “Breaking the

Mercury Cycle” held in Boston Continued advocacy against sale of US

strategic stockpile (5,000 tons) Advocacy for federal mechanism to manage

other large stockpiles- chlor-alkali plants ECOS Mercury Stewardship workgroups

Current Priorities: Summary

Emission ReductionInventory

Complete update to evaluate progress re 2003 goal

Update baseline for 2010 target

Utilities Jurisdictional and

regional strategies to address emissions from this sector

Pollution Prevention Implement

legislation

Continue to reduce releases associated with dental sector

Eliminate unsafe use in schools

Current Priorities (Continued)

Outreach/Education

Continue to link P2 and outreach activities

Survey of awareness

Translate outreach materials

Monitoring/research

Continue to evaluate additional sources

Develop strategy to implement regional monitoring program

Implement strategic indicator monitoring programs

Conclusions U.S. National Efforts Substantial NEG-ECP Action Plan a regional success-

importance of regional efforts and international collaboration

Measurable progress achieved Still much work to be done

Utilities; wastewater/sludge incinerators; products; management of excess commodity Hg.

Need for global actions to reduce unnecessary use and releases

The NEG-ECP Mercury Task Force Team

CoChairs: Ron Gagnon (RI); Stephanie D’Agostino (NH); C. Mark Smith (MA); Nabil Elhadi (NB). Project Director: John Shea (NEGC). Representatives: Jim Brooks (ME); Raynald Brulotte (PQ); Carmine DiBattista, Lois Hager, John Cimochoski and Tessa Gutowski (CT); Peter Haring (NF); Duncan MacKay (NS); David Lennett, Ellen Parr-Doering and Kevin McDonald (ME); Debbie Johnston and Glenda MacKinnon-Peters (PEI); Chris Recchia (VT); Judy Shope (MA); Terry Goldberg (NEWMOA); Praveen Amar and Margaret Round (NESCAUM); Jerry Weiss (EPA); Luke Trip and Cheryl Heathwood (CA).