Jump to main content.

GLBTS Links

______________________

Mercury Links

______________________

Back to Index
exit EPA (About PDF)

Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy

Mercury

Assessing Progress; Expectations for the Future

November 18, 1999 

A list of participants and their email addresses follows at the end of this document.
   

Welcome and Introductions

Members of the Mercury Workgroup of the Binational Toxics Strategy (BNS) convened their bi-annual meeting on November 18 and 19, 1999 as part of the November 1999 Binational Toxics Strategy Stakeholder Forum. The meeting, through a series of presentations and panel discussions, focused on the following types of questions:

U.S. and Canadian Mercury Emissions Inventories Session

Alexis Cain (U.S. EPA), U.S. Mercury Workgroup leader, reviewed highlights from the draft report on Mercury Sources and Regulations, 1999 Update posted on the BNS website on November 1, 1999. Mr. Cain encouraged members to review and comment on the report by January 1, 2000. He then reported that mercury emissions declined 25% between 1990 and 1995 and that, in recent years, emissions from sectors that incidentally release mercury have become more prominent while those emissions associated with deliberate use have declined. He identified known sources of mercury (steel scrap, solid waste collection and processing) that are possibly not covered by current regulations and commented that it may be important to develop control options to curb their mercury emissions (both generally and to help meet the BNS challenge goal(s)):

U.S. Challenge: Seek by 2006, a 50 percent reduction nationally in the deliberate use of mercury and a 50 percent reduction in the release of mercury from sources resulting from human activity. The release challenge will apply to the aggregate of releases to the air nationwide and of releases to the water within the Great Lakes Basin. [Note: This translates to annual emissions of 99 tons.]

Canadian Challenge: Seek by 2000, a 90 percent reduction in the release of mercury, or where warranted the use of mercury, from polluting sources resulting from human activity in the Great Lakes Basin.

Mr. Cain closed by tating that the U.S. BNS challenge goal is achievable, and that additional significant reductions depend on reducing utility emission. He also noted that a few other potential sources of mercury (e.g., taconite mine tailings) might at some point warrant exploration by the BNS Mercury Workgroup or another group.

Next, Bob Krauel (Environment Canada), the Canadian Mercury Workgroup leader, briefly reviewed mercury sources and governing regulations and reduction initiatives in Canada. He stated that pesticides and paint were dominant mercury sources across Canada and that the elimination of these uses along with reductions in the incineration and mining sectors account for a significant portion of the reductions achieved to date in Ontario. Mr. Krauel reported that in 1999, an estimated 2,600 kg of mercury was released (down from 14,000kg in 1988) and noted that thermal power generation has recently become a more important mercury source (mainly because other source sectors have reduced their mercury releases).

Prospects for Future Regulations of Mercury Emissions

Next, Ellen Brown, U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, reviewed pending U.S. regulations. A 1998 U.S. EPA study of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) determined that mercury is the pollutant (from utilities) of greatest potential to harm human health. [Congress has asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to review the HAP report's findings. Their report is expected by mid-2000.]

The EPA study findings have led EPA to consider regulating HAPs emissions from utilities. Their Agency's legal deadline for making a finding regarding the regulation of HAPs from utilities is due by December 15, 2000. If a decision is made to regulate utilities, those regulations could be developed and promulgated on the following schedule:

In the meantime, however U.S. EPA and the Department of Energy are collaborating to review mercury control technologies. As well, U.S. EPA has initiated two studies (in the Great Lakes region and in the Everglades) under the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program to attempt to tie pollution in waterbodies back to specific sources.

Praveen Amar, New England States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), then presented "Policy Options for Reducing Emissions of Mercury from Coal-Fired Utility Boilers." He reviewed the regional objective of the New England Governors/Eastern Canadian Premiers' (NEG/ECP) 1998 Action Plan ("By the year 2003, reduce mercury emissions by at least 50%, through emissions reductions as well as source reductions and safe waste management") and shared policy recommendations developed the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) and NESCAUM for reducing mercury emissions from coal-fired electric utilities. The recommendations are:

  1. Release data for the benefit of the public and policy makers. 
  2. Develop technology-forcing standards. 
  3. Offset mercury emissions with reductions from the global pool. 
  4. Provide regulatory drivers to promote greater diversification of less polluting fuels. 
  5. Develop market-based strategies, including those that mitigate against local impacts and that augment traditional "command and control" approaches. 
  6. Include energy efficiency measures in mercury reduction programs for the energy sector. 
  7. Evaluate mercury control strategies in the context of integrated, multi-pollutant control strategies.

Dr. Amar commented that control technologies are not as expensive as many people believe and reflected that policy directions/decisions can play an important technology-forcing role. At the same time, however, he noted that it is important to provide sufficient time for implementation of control technologies. Dr. Amar provided information on the number of and controls employed by coal-fired utility boilers in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. He closed by encouraging the development of combined-cycle natural gas utilities (for new production) and by suggesting that older, less efficient coal plants must be treated as permanent sources of mercury because, in fact, "coal will always be with us." As such, it will continue to be important to expedite development of mercury controls for utilities.

Expectations for the Future: Meeting the Reduction Challenges

Susan Hedman, an attorney at the Environmental Law and Policy Center, led off the panel discussion by agreeing with Mr. Cain that a 50% reduction in U.S. emissions by 2006 and a 90% reduction in utility emissions within a decade can be achieved. She discussed the Natural Resources Defense Council's (NRDC's) "Mercury Falling" report and commented that mercury reduction efforts should focus on power plants, their emissions, residues from coal cleaning, and combustion wastes. She then asserted that coal combustion wastes are hazardous and should be regulated as such. [Note: There is currently a dispute on this issue.] Ms. Hedman discouraged the ongoing use of high-mercury content coal and identified the states of AL, KY, IL, IN, MI, NC, OH, PA, and TX as having the largest mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. She suggested that mercury reduction efforts in the power sector should focus either on the top emitting companies or plants and stressed the importance of exploring energy efficiency, cogeneration, renewable resources, and combined cycle combustion turbine technologies. In closing, Ms. Hedman emphasized the value of and opportunities afforded by installing co-control technologies (e.g., to help reduce NOx and SO2 emissions).

Next, Eric Uram, Sierra Club Great Lakes Program, commented on the importance of "getting the players," including utilities, incinerator operators, recyclers, etc. to participate in the BNS. He suggested that the Mercury Workgroup focus its energies on known sources (e.g., the utilities) and encourage them to reduce emissions voluntarily to avoid being regulated. Mr. Uram stressed the importance of consumer education and offered that consumer labeling (e.g., "this product is mercury-free") might help pressure industries to reduce their use or emissions of mercury.

Jim Smith, from Environment Canada's Environmental Protection Branch, provided an overview of the Canada-wide Standards development process. These non-regulatory standards represent an effort to harmonize standards among the different Canadian provinces.  Standards were presented to Canadian Federal and Provincial Environment Ministers in Late November and are currently posted on the CCME website http://www.ccme.ca/publications/ Exit disclaimer.

Standards are identified for Base Metal Smelting and Waste Incineration. Electric Power Generation standards will not be available until early 2000. Similarly lifecycle standards for select mercury containing products (e.g., lifecycle management standards for fluorescent tubes, dental amalgam, and sewage sludge application on land) are under development and are expected to be be completed in early 2000. Signing of the standards is expected in May 2000.

Mr. Smith noted that policies can change where there is a convergence of issues and, observed that, for mercury, that convergence is now occurring in Canada. He closed by questioning what he sees as a societal bias toward positive, rather than sustainable, economic growth.

David Michaud of Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCo) offered his perspectives on uncertainties in the current Mercury Inventory and new information to expect from the Information Collection Request (ICR). He noted that the ICR will provide much new information (e.g., about underanalyzed western coal sources) and create the largest database on contemporary coal use but will not likely change mean values for coal seems that have been historically relied upon. Mr. Michaud did feel, however, that the ICR would yield some surprises on flue gas speciation. He also discussed uncertainties about emissions from other potentially important mercury source sectors, including taconite processing, steel production from scrap, and the chlor-alkali sector, and the so-called "true" natural sources, such as degassing from mercury-enriched soils and volcanoes. Incomplete information about emissions from these sources, as well as an historical reliance on data from emissions factors and NOT direct measurements, increases uncertainty about the relative mercury emissions contributions of these sectors (and of utilities). Mr. Michaud concluded his comments by recommending that utilities should consider undertaking the following voluntary actions:

Following the presentations, Workgroup participants turned to a general discussion of ideas and next steps. Eric Uram suggested that source sectors should identify their "best performers" to receive awards or recognition. Art Dungan, Chlorine Institute, noted that the his organization had difficulty developing an award program for general environmental performance and would find it more challenging to focus on mercury reductions, more specifically. Dave Michaud reflected that many utilities are uncomfortable with the current emissions data and would be reluctant to identify "clean actors" before the ICR is completed. Jim Smith suggested that Great Lakes United, rather than the source sectors, should identify the best (and worst) performers around the Great Lakes while Paula Smith (Indiana Department of Environmental Management) cautioned against developing a new awards program (when, in fact, several others already exist).

Susan Hedman encouraged the Workgroup to focus on the electric power sector and to start by inviting representatives from major utilities (especially the less progressive ones) to meet and talk about reduction opportunities. Patti Leaf (Northern States Power) suggested that the meeting should include representatives from outside the Great Lakes. John Pavlish (Energy and Environmental Research Center) asked if EPRI (or EEI) could help recruit for this meeting. Paula Smith suggested that the Mercury and Steel Industry Report Analysis coordinated by the Delta Institute might serve as a good model for such an effort.

To increase participation by incinerators; scrap metal dealers, and other sectors, Tim Tuominen (Western Lake Superior Sanitation District) suggested that the Workgroup approach professional associations for assistance. Paula Smith suggested that RCRA managers and other landfill/disposal experts should also be invited to future meetings. Andy Buchsbaum (National Wildlife Federation) expressed a willingness to work on letters to CEOs challenging them to reduce their mercury outputs. Alexis Cain and Bob Krauel offered to work with him and to identify a participant from Council of Great Lakes Industry (CGLI).

At the day's closing session, the Workgroup discussed possible topics for the next meeting, including an update on source sector workgroups and other initiatives and a briefing on Method 1631.

November 19, 1999: Assessing Environmental Trends

Jim Wiener, Chief of the Aquatic Sciences Branch at the U.S. Geological Survey's Upper Midwest Environment Sciences Center, led off the day with a presentation on Long-Term Trends in Methyl Mercury in Aquatic Biota. He first provided an historical perspective on mercury contamination of aquatic resources, noting how the sources of mercury have changed (in the 1960s and 1970s, industrial point sources dominated; in recent years, diffuse, atmospheric sources have become more important). The shift to diffuse sources has proven most problematic for remote aquatic systems that have higher concentrations of bio-available mercury and enhance production of methyl mercury, a highly neurotoxic form of mercury that biomagnifies to high concentrations in foodwebs. While little long-term trend data is available, analyses of mercury concentrations in seabird feathers (from remote parts of Europe) taken from museum collections show significant increases over the last 100-115 years.

Next, Mr. Wiener turned to a discussion of methylation. He described key aquatic systems prone to methylation, including:

and noted that methylation, a process generally performed by sulfate-reducing bacteria, is also influenced by land cover, the chemical characteristics of the receiving water (including pH), and the hydrology of the system.

Bill Schroeder, research scientist with the Atmospheric Environment Service of Environment Canada, spoke next about Spatial and Temporal Variability of Atmospheric Mercury. Referring to airshed data collected by CAMNET (Canadian Atmospheric Measurement Network) and others, Dr. Schroeder noted that total gaseous mercury (TGM) is quite variable both spatially and temporally, a finding that surprised many experts. Back trajectory analyses have revealed that much of the mercury entering Quebec originates in the upper Midwest and that mercury trends follow diurnal and seasonal cycles. The TGM profile indicates that mercury concentrations are low in the evenings and in winter (when the northern winds prevail). Dr. Schroeder also reviewed some interesting findings from research stations in the Arctic where a springtime depletion of atmospheric mercury has been linked to a depletion of groundlevel ozone.

Ed Swain, research scientist with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, reviewed Trends in Deposition, Sediments and Methylation Rates. After reviewing a simple model of the movement of methyl mercury (meHg -->sediments-->revolatize to air-->fish-->foodchain), Mr. Swain discussed trends in mercury concentrations in sediment cores from Southeast Alaska and Minnesota. Alaska sediments revealed a steady accumulation of mercury (due, mainly to increases in global background) while mercury concentrations in Minnesota sediment cores increased in the early 1900s, flattened out in the 1960s and then declined in the 1980s and 90s. Mr. Swain posited that recent declines in Minnesota sediment core mercury concentrations are due to an increase in the reliance on cleaner fuel sources and the construction of taller stacks in incineration and coal combustion facilities (which results in greater dispersion). Minnesota sediment cores also revealed an increase in methyl mercury in recent decades, starting in the 1950s. This may be somehow linked to rising sulfate (or nitrate) deposition rates which may, in turn, encourage growth of sulfate-reducing bacteria. This linkage has not yet been confirmed. Related research has revealed, however, that higher methylation (and bioaccumulation) rates in Minnesota lakes are associated with lower pHs and with the color of the lake. [Gary Glass, University of Minnesota, Duluth, suggested that volatilization of methyl mercury from leaf litter of deciduous trees may also be a substantial source of the methyl mercury observed in Minnesota.]

Gary Glass, researcher at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, closed out the day with a review of Recent Trends in Mercury Deposition in Fish. He remarked on the distinct difference between urban and remote sites in mercury deposition and described the "washout effect" wherein the concentration of mercury in rainfall declines over the course of the precipitation event. He observed that coal-burning in Minnesota does not correlate with the concentration of mercury observed in the air samples and suggested that, to understand recent trends, it is important to look at non-Minnesota sources (such as neighboring States and Provinces). He then reviewed research indicating that mercury concentrations in fish in some Minnesota lakes increased between 1980s and the late 1990s, while others declined. He posited that the observed differences could be due to reduced sulfate levels in lakes (due to declining sulfate deposition) and suggested that further research, perhaps focused on a benchmarking study in Lake Superior, is warranted.

The meeting adjourned at 12:15pm.

Binational Toxics Strategy Mercury Workgroup Participants

Name Affiliation Email Phone
Amar, Praveen NESCAUM pamar@nescaum.org  (617) 367-8540
Barnett, Tom Ispar Inland Inc. TRB@Inland.com  (219) 399-6296
Bonistall, David F. MEAD dfb4@mead.com  (937) 495-9257
Boyle, Malcolm Illinois Department of Natural Resources mboyle@wmrc.hazrd.uiuc.edu  (630) 472-5028
Bratzel, Marty International Joint Commission bratzelm@windsor.ijc.org  (519) 257-6701
Brown, Ellen US EPA brown.ellen@epa.gov  (202) 564-1669
Brown, Timothy H. Delta Institute & Lake Michigan Federation thbrown@delta-institute.org  (312) 554-0900
Buchsbaum, Andy National Wildlife Federation buchsbaum@nwf.org  (734) 769-3351
Cain, Alexis US EPA, Region 5 cain.alexis@epa.gov (312) 886-7018
Case, Charles (Randy) Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources casec@dnr.state.wi.us  (608) 267-7639
Chung, Alain Environment Canada chunga@ec.gc.ca  (819) 997-4518
Curkeet, Abigail Curkeet Environmental Communications Consulting curkeet@total.net  (514) 486-3210
Dettelbach, Anne Ross & Associates anne.dettelbach@ross-assoc.com  (206) 447-1805
DiMarzio, John SAIC john.a.dimarzio@saic.com  (301) 353-8342
Dungan, Arthur E. The Chlorine Institute adungan@c12.com  (202) 872-4730
Erdheim, Ric National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) ric-erdheim@nema.org  (703) 841-3249
Glass, G.E. US EPA gglass@d.umn.edu  (218) 726-8909
Green, Danielle US EPA/GLNPO green.danielle@epa.gov  (312) 886-7594
Hagley, Tim MN Power thagley@mnpower.com  (218) 722-2641
Hedman, Susan Environmental Law & Policy Center shedman@elpc.org  (312) 759-3400
Hopkins, Steve US EPA 5   (218) 720-5738
Jensen, Betty Public Service Electric & Geo Co. betty.jensen@pseg.com  (973) 430-6633
Keefe, Steve Honeywell Inc. steve.keefe@corp.honeywell.com  (612) 951-0060
Kemp, Denis Falconbridge Limited dkemp@falconbridge.com  (416) 956-5834
Krauel, Bob Environment Canada robert.krauel@ec.gc.ca  (416) 739-5861
Kuzmack, Arnold M. US EPA kuzmack.arnold@epa.gov  (202) 260-5821
Leaf, Patti Northern States Power patricia.b.leaf@nspo.com  (612) 330-7630
Lines, Marianne Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention c2p2@sarnia.com  (519) 337-3423
Lopes, Edwina Environment Canada Edwina.Lopes@ec.gc.ca  (416) 739-5863
Lynch, Dennis Defense Logistics Agency dennis_lynch@hq.dla.mil  (703) 767-7609
Michaud, David Wisconsin Electric Power Co. dave.michaud@wepco.com  (414) 221-2187
Naour, Henry G. Bureau of Air-Illinois EPA epa2211@epa.state.il.us  (217) 782-2113
Papa, Patricia E. SAIC Patricia.E.Papa@cpmx.saic.com  (301) 353-8218
Pavlish, John Energy & Environmental Research Center jpavlish@eerc.und.nodak.edu  (701) 777-5268
Pocalujka, Louis P. Consumers Energy, Environmental Department lppocalu@cmsenergy.com  (517) 788-2160
Rankin, William Olin Chemicals wcrankin@corp.olin.com  (423) 780-2505
Schroeder, Bill Environment Canada bill.schroeder@ec.gc.ca  (416) 739-4839
Smith, Jim Environment Canada Jim.Smith@ec.gc.ca  (416) 739-4788
Smith, Paula Indiana DEM psmith@dem.state.in.us  (317) 233-6663
Stage, Brian Northern Indiana Public Service Co. bstage@nipsco.com  (219) 647-5255
Swain, Edward Mn Pollution Control Agency edward.swain@pca.state.mn.us  (651) 296-7800
Sweet, Robert Michigan Department of Environmental Quality sweetr@state.mi.us  (517) 335-4182
Taylor, Joy K. MDEQ-AQD, Toxics Unit taylorj1@state.mi.us  (517) 335-6974
Tuominen, Tim Western Lake Superior Sanitary District tim.tuominen@wlssd.duluth.mn.us  (218) 722-3336 
Ext. 3
Twickler, Donna US EPA, Region 5 twickler.donna@epa.gov  (312) 886-6184
Uram, Eric Sierra Club - Great Lakes eric.uram@sierra.club.org  (608) 257-4994
Wachtler, John MN PCA john.wachtler@pca.state.mn.us  (651) 397-8333
Young, Karen Environment Canada   (416) 739-4174

 

Local Navigation

 

Jump to main content.