Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy
Mercury

Analytical Process Reports
Draft Report Mercury Sources and Regulations, 1999 Update

Draft November 1, 1999
A Note on Methodology and Sources

This paper updates an original report written by Ross & Associates in 1993, entitled Virtual Elimination Pilot Project: Mercury Sources and Regulations. The analytical framework and organization remain largely the same, with a few notable changes. First, this paper adds a section on the global mercury reservoir as a source of mercury deposition, to incorporate new knowledge derived from scientific research published since 1993 on the behavior of mercury in the environment, especially the cycling of mercury from the oceans to the atmosphere, and its retention, chemical transformation, and long-range transport. A corresponding section on international regulations has also been included.

Second, the original paper's focus on the regulations and data sources for Great Lakes States has been broadened to capture a national picture of States' activities. In part, this is made possible by several other EPA publications and documents, whose contents have been liberally employed in this paper. Foremost is the December 1997 Mercury Study Report to Congress, an exhaustive review of every environmental aspect of mercury. This 9-volume report has numerous charts and diagrams, and extensive references for those interested in detailed information on mercury. EPA's Mercury National Action Plan, the United States Status Report on Mercury, and the Mercury Products Study by John Gilkeson of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency were also extremely helpful. Other references include a 1997 report done by the Swedish National Chemicals Inspectorate (KEMI), Mercury in Products - a source of transboundary pollutant transport. For a full list of sources see Appendix G, Bibliography.

Finally, this paper does not distinguish between different types of mercury in its discussion of sources. The scientific literature emphasizes the significant behavioral differences among elemental mercury, ionic mercury, and organic and inorganic mercury compounds, in terms of accumulation in the aquatic food chain, atmospheric and oceanic residence times (the former greatly influencing long-range transport), and rates and forms of deposition. However, available source data do not specify the forms of mercury emitted from sources. Current scientific research will improve understanding of this issue in the years to come.

View the Report:
Binational Toxics Strategy - Mercury Sources and Regulations, 1999 Update (185kb)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Ross & Associates would like to thank the many reviewers and other participants who contributed information and insights to this background material. Discussions with EPA staff, including GLNPO, Region 5, and headquarters, as well as representatives from each of the Great Lakes states helped shape many of the ideas included here. Alexis Cain of Region 5 deserves special mention. Much of this report reflects his hard work and encouragement.

Special thanks are due to the following individuals who reviewed earlier drafts of this material.

• Raymond Balfour, Vice President, Rayovac Corporation
  (for the Dry Battery Section of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association)
• Angela Bandemehr, U.S. EPA Region 5 (Air)
• Pat Carey, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
• Lloyd Eagan, Air Management Supervisor, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
• Tim Eder, National Wildlife Federation
• Gary Gulezian, Director, Great Lakes National Program Office, U.S. EPA Region 5
• Steve Jasinski, Mercury Commodity Specialist, U.S. Dept. of Interior Bureau of Mines
• Martha Keating, U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
• Carrie Lohse-Hanson, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
• Barbara McLeod, U.S. EPA Region 5 (Water)
• Edward Swain, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

EPA Home | Privacy and Security Notice | Contact Us