1 / 31

U.S. EPA National and NEG/ECP Binational Regional Mercury Action Plans Status reports

U.S. EPA National and NEG/ECP Binational Regional Mercury Action Plans Status reports. C. Mark Smith PhD MS Deputy Director, Office of Research and Standards, MADEP Co-Chair, NEG-ECP Mercury Task Force C.Mark.Smith@State.ma.us. Mercury Initiatives. United Nations Accords UNEP Assessment.

hisa
Download Presentation

U.S. EPA National and NEG/ECP Binational Regional Mercury Action Plans Status reports

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. U.S. EPA National and NEG/ECP Binational Regional Mercury Action PlansStatus reports C. Mark Smith PhD MS Deputy Director, Office of Research and Standards, MADEP Co-Chair, NEG-ECP Mercury Task Force C.Mark.Smith@State.ma.us

  2. Mercury Initiatives United Nations Accords UNEP Assessment Global Commission for Environmental Cooperation North American Regional Mercury Action Plan Continental National EPA Mercury Action Plan New England Governors /Eastern Canadian Premiers Regional Mercury Action Plan Regional State Massachusetts State Zero Mercury Strategy Cities and Towns Mercury bans; collection events Local

  3. Summary: Why We Are Worried About Mercury • 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.

  4. 2. Mercury bioaccumulates in fish • up to a million times higher than in water 3. Fish contamination and consumption advisories across US and Northeast region

  5. 4. Wildlife Is Also At Risk Loons and other fish eating birds Otters/ other Fish Eating Mammals

  6. 5. Controllable Local and Distant Sources 1998 Deposition in the Northeast In region sources: 60% Out-of-region: 40%

  7. 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. • Legislative • Many state/regional efforts

  8. Status of U.S. EPA’sMercury National Action Plan Thanks 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

  9. 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

  10. Draft Structure • Priorities for Action • Technical Summary • Health and environmental impacts • Programmatic summary • Strategic Assessment • Evaluation Tools • Future Opportunities for Action

  11. 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?

  12. 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 recycling MSWC regulations issued • 1996 Use in most batteries banned • 1997 EPA Mercury Report to Congress Binational Toxics strategy Medical Waste Incinerator Regs.

  13. 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

  14. Status of US Efforts to Address Utility Mercury Emissions • 2000: 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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

  17. NEG-ECP Mercury Action Plan: Overview; Accomplishments; Current Priorities

  18. 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

  19. Action Plan Category 1: Emissions Reductions • Focused on major sources • Preliminary 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

  20. Action Category 1: Emission Reduction Estimated NE Mercury emissions: mid 1990’s Manufacturing 7% Miscellaneous6% Incinerators 55% Utilities 14% Estimated Incinerator Emission Reductions by 2003 Non-utility boilers 18% Incinerators= Municipal Solid Waste Combustors; Medical Waste Incinerators and Sewage Sludge Incinerators.

  21. Action Plan Category 2: Source Reduction-Waste Mgmt • Overall Objectives • Reduce/eliminate Nonessential Uses • Segregate and Recycle • Highlights: Extensive Regional Action • Dental programs • Product legislation • Mercury-free Schools • Mercury collection programs

  22. Mercury Products • Programs 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

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. Research, Analysis, Strategic Monitoring Highlights • Regional mercury monitoring report and recommendations completed • Improved data management through the Northeastern Ecosystem Research Cooperative; NESCAUM; NEWMOA

  26. Stockpile Management • Overall 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

  27. Emission Reduction Inventory 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: Summary

  28. 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 Current Priorities (Continued)

  29. 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

  30. 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).

More Related