Mercury Policy in the Great Lakes Basin: Past Successes and Future Opportunities

1. Mercury Policy in the Great Lakes Basin: Past Successes and Future Opportunities Joy Taylor Morgan, Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment Alexis Cain, USEPA Region 5 Ned Brooks, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Integrating Multimedia Measurments in the Basin Funding provided by GLAD Program Ann Arbor, Michigan July 13-15, 2010

2. Outline • Mercury Reduction Progress in Basin • Great Lakes Strategies • How Big a Priority is Mercury? • Remaining Sources • Recommendations for Future Policies

3. Background Great Lakes States have been a leader in Hg Reduction Activities MI - 1970s with the recognition and prevention of tons of mercury being discharged to the Basin from chlor-alkali plants Lead the effort towards national registration cancellation for PMA use in latex paint formulations. Voluntary release of information by the automobile sector that 9.8 metric tons of mercury enter domestic automobiles each year in 1996 MN ex. – Duluth WWTP – caustic cleaners, first thermometer ban – in US and TMDLhttp://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/topics/mercury/mercury.html

5. Great Lakes Region of US 8 States -21% of US Population 34 % of US Mercury Emissions 38% of US Electric Utility Emissions Higher share of heavy industry, coal use 34.9 tons/yr mercury emissions

6. Total: 34.9 tons

7. Sources of Mercury Emissions within the Great Lakes States Fossil Fuel Combustion mostly coal for electricity, steam Mining and metal smelting mostly iron Mercury use in products Mercury cell chlor-alkali plants Releases to air water and land mostly air

8. Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy • US-Canada Agreement, Signed 1997 • Virtual Elimination of PBTs to Great Lakes • Creation of Stakeholder Workgroup to Identify Cost-effective Reductions; promote voluntary action

9. U.S. Mercury Emissions: 2006 Challenge, 1990 Baseline

10. U.S. Mercury Use Source: US Geological Survey, Minerals Yearbook, 1996, 1997. Chlorine Institute Annual Report to EPA, 2004; National Electrical Manufacturer’s Association, direct communication, 2004.

11. Created in 2004 by Presidential Order Overseen by: Federal Interagency Task Force; Mayors; Governors; Tribal Leaders; GL Congressional Delegation December 2005 GLRC Report called for “basin-wide mercury product stewardship strategy” Products strategy team: included all GL State environmental agencies, tribes, cities Products Strategy completed —June 19, 2008 Great Lakes Regional Collaboration

12. Recommendation Mandated best management practices for mercury containing wastes for dental offices (including amalgam separator installation)

13. Mercury Emissions Reduction Strategy- Mission: To write a Basin-wide strategy to reduce mercury emissions in the Great Lakes Region(Council of GLs Governors Rec)

14. Focus on 7 Broad Sector Categories Utility boilers Non-Utility fuel combustion Mercury cell chlor-alkali plants Metals production Mercury emission related to product use and disposal Cement production Waste incineration

15. Cross-Cutting Recommendations All states should require BACT for new & modified sources – considering a threshold < 10 lbs/yr Recommend to EPA under CAA 112(a)(1) a lesser quantity definition of major source for Hg Consider mandatory reporting for sources 5 lbs or <

16. How Big a Priority? Depends...

17. Contributions of In-Region and Out-of-Region Sources to In-Region Deposition 1998 2002 Source:NESCAUM, based on REMSAD modeling

18. Global Background (67.1%) Non-Northeast States (14.7%) Northeast States (13.6%) Re-emission (2.8%) Canada (1.8%) Source Attribution of Mercury Deposition to the Northeastern States * • Approximately 70% originates from outside the US _______________ * Based on August 2008 results described in: http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/pdf/final300report_10072008.pdf 7

19. Relative Contributions among US States* (without global sources) • The contribution from Northeast States is roughly equal to that from the 11 States mentioned in the petition: 48% _________________ * Values shown cited in Northeast States’ 319(g) Petition & based on Nov. 2006 EPA Office of Water Draft modeling results. Results are virtually identical to that from the Aug. 2008 final EPA modeling for the eastern US found at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/pdf/final300report_10072008.pdf 8

20. CWA § 319(g)(1) 33 U.S.C. § 1329(g)(1) “If any portion of the navigable waters in any State which is implementing a management program approved under this section is not meeting applicable water quality standards or the goals and requirements of this chapter as a result, in whole or in part, of pollution from nonpoint sources in another State, such State may petition the Administrator to convene, and the Administrator shall convene, a management conference of all States which contribute significant pollution resulting from nonpoint sources to such portion.”

21. How Big a Priority Should Mercury Reduction Be? Economic analyses show wide variation of cost estimates for methylmercury exposure, based on: Whether or not neurological effects exist below a threshold Whether mercury is believed to have cardiovascular impacts Most analyses don’t include wildlife/ecosystem impacts Most mercury abatement policies can be justified using the higher estimates of mercury damages

22. How Big a Priority? Mercury Damage Cost Estimates (as share of GDP) Global: 0.005% (neuro only)– Sundeth, et al. U.S.-only 0.03% of GDP (neuro only)– Rice&Hammit 0.2% of GDP (neuro + cardiovascular)– Rice&Hammit 0.02-0.4% (neuro only)– Trasande, et al. High costs for a single pollutant– at the high end of the range, comparable to lead poisoning Lower costs than those estimated for ozone and fine particulate pollution, or for climate change

23. Remaining Sources Manufacturing Facilities Iron and Steel Facilities - Fe mines - EAFs - Shredders Life Cycle Product Emissions Crematories

25. Remaining Opportunities Linking CWA and CAA efforts Engaging EPA with current priorities such as children’s health Incorporating energy and climate change goals Utilizing all the tools under Section 112 CAA Furthering international relations through the QSC and partnerships with EPA, etc.

26. Contacts: Joy Taylor Morgan, MDNRE taylorj1@michigan.gov (517) 335-6974 Alexis Cain, EPA (312) 886-7018 cain.alexis@epamail.epa.gov Ned Brooks, MPCA (651) 757-2247 ned.brooks@state.mn.us

27. For Further Information: www.michigan.gov/dnre GLRC Mercury Strategies Available at: http://www.glrc.us http://glrppr.org

28. The End

29. Scope of the Problem 3

30. methylation methylation Mercury Exposure Pathway Lake Ocean Atmospheric deposition • Fishing • commercial • recreational • subsistence Humans and wildlife affected primarily by eating fish containing mercury • Impacts • Best documented impacts on the developing fetus: impaired motor and cognitive skills • Possibly other impacts Wet and Dry Deposition Emissions From Power Plants and Other Sources Mercury transforms into methylmercuryin soils and water, then canbioaccumulate in fish Ecosystem Transport, Methylation, and Bioaccumulation Emissions and Speciation Atmospheric Transport and Deposition Consumption Patterns Dose Response

31. Why is Mercury a State, Regional and Global Priority? Very Toxic: brain;kidneys; immune system; possibly cardiovascular system. • Developing brain of fetus/children particularly at risk • several hundred thousand newborns per year at risk in U.S • Adults: possible cardiovascular risk • Contributes to antibiotic resistant bacteria

32. Minnesota’s Statewide Mercury TMDL Most (>99%) of mercury contamination comes from air sources 90 % of mercury deposited in state comes from outside of the state Total Maximum Daily Load: 93% reduction in manmade deposition (from 1990) to allow more frequent fish consumption Reduce MN air sources to 789 lb/yr Water point sources not to exceed 1% of total mercury load allocation (24 lb/yr)

33. Projected Mercury Emissions2005-2025 3,500 Difficult to Categorize 25 Emissions Incidental to Material Processing (mostly mining) 25 3,000 Largely Resulting from the Purposeful Use of Mercury 736 Incidental to Energy Production 841 2,500 Hypothetical actual emissions. 695 Emission may rise temporarily 2,000 565 between goals. Reductions may 25 Mercury in pounds occur earlier than target date. 25 1,500 841 841 1,000 1,858 1,661 TMDL goal of 789 lb 437 25 211 500 304 181 500 358 301 0 2005 2010 2015 2018 2025 Year

34. Projected Mercury Emissions1990-2025 Based on reduction targets established by the Strategy Work Group 12,000 10,000 Incidental to energy production 8,000 Largely resulting from the purposeful use of mercury Emissions incidental to material processing (mostly mining) Mercury in pounds 6,000 4,000 2,000 1990 2005 2010 2015 2018 2025 0 Year

35. Great Lakes States’ Mercury Emissions Reduction Strategy Where consensus exists, develop recommendations for regulatory/non-regulatory approaches Where consensus is not possible, list available options Stakeholder input: “solicit input from stakeholders on an ongoing basis using the existing Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy mercury workgroup.”

36. U.S. Mercury Product and Process Use Trends Other category includes batteries, paints, laboratory applications, biocides, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and as a preservative in cosmetics U.S. EPA. EPA’s Roadmap for Mercury, available at http://www.epa.gov/mercury/pdfs/FINAL-Mercury-Roadmap-6-29.pdf, p. 37.

38. US Mercury Emissions, 2005102.7 tons/yr. Source: U.S. EPA

39. Achievements: Voluntary Agreements Chlorine Institute: commitment to reduce chlor-alkali industry mercury use 50% between 1995 and 2006 Submitted 12 annual reports to date, documenting 94% reduction in use (beyond reductions from shutting capacity) Improvements in mercury accounting American Hospital Association, 1998 Agreement Virtual elimination of mercury from hospital waste Formation of Hospitals for a Healthy Environment