1 / 55

Presentations May 23 – 25, 2005

Presentations May 23 – 25, 2005 Portland, Maine For related information visit: http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/conferences. Addressing the Mercury Stockpile Challenge.

tilden
Download Presentation

Presentations May 23 – 25, 2005

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. Presentations May 23 – 25, 2005 Portland, Maine For related information visit: http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/conferences

  2. Addressing the Mercury Stockpile Challenge Achieving Mercury Reductions in Products and WasteConference Portland, Maine May 24, 2005 Essie A. Schloss Deputy Administrator Defense National Stockpile Center

  3. Briefing Outline NDS Program Mercury Management Environmental Impact Statement Storage Requirements Legislative Initiatives Current Timeline

  4. National Defense Stockpile Program WWII Program • Developed to preclude dependence on foreign sources in times of national emergency Managed by the Defense National Stockpile Center • Field activity of Defense Logistic Agency • Oversight by Department of Defense By Mid-1990s, 99% of Stockpile declared excess to DOD needs • Congress authorized sale or other disposal • Proceeds earmarked for various programs

  5. Warren, Ohio Depot Stockpile Mercury History • 4436 metric tons stockpiled • New Haven, IN 557 MT • Somerville, NJ 2,617 MT • Warren, OH 1,262 MT • Safely stored for over 50 years • Sales discontinued in 1994 • EIS developed to address long-term management

  6. MMEIS • Notice of Intent February 2001 • Draft EIS April 3003 • EPA rating ; Lack of Objection • Final EIS March 2004 • Record of Decision April 2004

  7. InteragencY Working Group Members - Organization Defense National Stockpile Center, Defense Logistics Agency Department of Energy Environmental Protection Agency –Office of Federal Activities – Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Department of Commerce Department of Health and Human Services – Public Health Service U. S. Geological Survey Lead Agency: Cooperating Agencies: Consulting Agencies:

  8. Alternatives Analyzed in the EIS • No Action • Status Quo • Consolidation at one location • Long term storage (40 years) • Sales • Thirty years to sell entire inventory

  9. Sites Analyzed in the EIS Three current mercury storage sites: -New Haven, IN -Somerville, NJ -Warren, OH • Three additional sites: -Hawthorne, NV -Pez Lake, NY -Tooele, UT

  10. Record of Decision • Consolidated Storage • Safe long-term management • Negligible to minor environmental impacts • Economies of scale • Facilitates DNSC business plans • Site Selection Requirements • Comparable to DNSC storage

  11. DNSC Mercury Storage Method • Steel Flasks • Absorbent Pads • Plastic Liners • Epoxy-coated Drums • Drip Pans

  12. DNSC Mercury Key Site Requirements • Sealed warehouse floors • Regular monitoring • Adequate lighting • Fire protection • Security • Protective equipment • and supplies • Emergency procedures Somerville, New Jersey Depot

  13. DNSC's Responsibilities • Mercury is owned by Department of Defense. • DNSC will partner with chosen consolidation location. • We will comply with all Federal, state and local laws and regulations. • We will monitor to ensure mercury continues to be safely stored.

  14. Legislative Initiatives Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199) Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (P.L. 108-375) Mercury Emission Act of 2005 (S.730)

  15. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199) (Section 113) • Secretary of Defense to study issues related to consolidation of NDS mercury and report results to Congress. • DoD cannot announce decision to consolidate mercury at a • Site not currently storing NDS mercury sooner than 180 days after submission of report. • Report submitted in September 2004. Efforts on consolidation process resumed in March 2005.

  16. FY 2005 Ronald Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2005 (P.L.108-375) (Section 3303) • Secretary of Defense may not store mercury from the National Defense Stockpile at any facility not owned or leased by the United States. • Of the sites analyzed in the Final EIS, only Utah Industrial Depot in Tooele, Utah is not owned or leased by the United States.

  17. Mercury Emission Act of 2005 (S.730) Introduced April 6, 2005 by Senators Leahy and Snowe. Referred to Senate Environment & Public Works Committee. • Section 10 (a) • Within 2 years of enactment, the Secretary of Defense shall submit a report on use of mercury and mercury compounds. • Report to include: • Measures to reduce use and emissions of mercury and mercury compounds • Measures to stabilize or recycle discarded mercury and mercury-containing products • Section 10 (b) • Prohibits sale of NDS mercury for commercial or industrial use

  18. Status • Contract process to select location could take 6-9 months • Site selection process will be completed in late 2005 or early 2006. • Transportation and consolidation schedules depend on any needed warehouse upgrades. • Transportation could take an additional 12 months Projected completion date is June 2009

  19. DNSC's Commitment DNSC is committed to the safety of our employees and our communities and the protection of the environment.

  20. Questions ?

  21. For additional information https://www.mercuryeis.com John Reinders at 703-767-4430 or via email at Bob Jones at 901-355-0859 or via email at John.Reinders@dla.mil Robert.E3.Jones@dla.mil

  22. Presentations May 23 – 25, 2005 Portland, Maine

  23. Mercury Stockpiles Peggy Harris, P.E. CA Department of Toxic Substances Control

  24. Sources of Mercury • Closing chlor-alkali plants • Local and State collection programs • Hg retorting facilities • Federal stockpiles

  25. Environmental Council of States (ECOS) • ECOS is the national non-profit, non-partisan association of state and territorial environmental agency leaders. To improve the environment of the United States, ECOS: • Champions the role of the states in environmental management; and • Provides for the exchange of ideas, views, and experiences among states; and • Fosters cooperation in environmental management; and • Articulates state positions to Congress, federal agencies, and the public on environmental issues.

  26. ECOS Resolutions • Mercury Retirement and Stockpiling • Long termstorage of Hg is a federal responsibility • Federal agencies should recommend a plan to manage the long-term storage of mercury by January 2006 • States and chlor-alkali industry should be involved in creating plan

  27. ECOS Resolutions • Mercury Stewardship • Endorses four Mercury Stewardship documents created by Quicksilver Caucus work group • Encourages states, EPA, federal agencies and others to use the information in the documents • Supports and encourages continuing dialog on mercury stewardship

  28. Quicksilver Caucus • Formed in May 2001 by a coalition of State environmental association leaders • Caucus members include • ECOS • ASTSWMO • STAPPA/ALAPCO • ASIWPCA • ASDWA • NPPR

  29. Quicksilver Caucus Priority Areas • Design a multi-media approach for a mercury-based TMDL taking into account the contributions of the air and waste program as well as using their statutes to craft solutions • Create a stewardship approach for reducing mercury in the environment and managing safe, long-term storage of elemental mercury nationally and internationally • Develop and deploy sound technology for safe land disposal of mercury wastes • Develop and implement an approach to decrease the global supply and demand for mercury

  30. QSC Hg Stewardship Workgroup • Should Hg be taken off the market, and stored to discourage global mercury use? • Workgroup developed alternative storage scenarios Mercury Stewardship Storage of Mercury (October, 2003)

  31. Management Options for Storagefor State and Private Hg • Federally-funded co-location with Federal stockpile • Federally-funded and overseen • State-funded and overseen • State-run, federally funded • Privately run and funded

  32. Quicksilver Caucus Papers • The four mercury stewardship documents (with links) are: • * Best Management Practices - http://www.ecos.org/files/720_file_QSC_BMP_Oct_03.pdf • * Storage of Mercury - http://www.ecos.org/files/721_file_QSC_STOR_Oct_03.pdf • * Mercury Commodity Market Review - http://www.ecos.org/files/723_file_QSC_Market_Facts_Oct_03.pdf • * Market Policy Options - http://www.ecos.org/files/722_file_QSC_MARK_Policy_Oct_03.pdf

  33. Peggy Harris, P.E.Department of Toxic Substances Control(916)324-7663pharris@dtsc.ca.gov

  34. Presentations May 23 – 25, 2005 Portland, Maine

  35. EPA’s Global Mercury Commodity Assessment Linda Barr U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste May 24, 2005 barr.linda@epa.gov 703-605-0768

  36. History of Commodity Assessment • Early draft of Mercury Action Plan identified issue of surplus mercury and what to do with it. • In 2001, EPA/ OSW and OPPT initiated a mercury commodity assessment to identify: • Major uses of mercury; • Supply and demand; and, • Imports, exports, mining and trade flows;

  37. History of Commodity Assessment (continued) • ECOS resolutions call for storage of mercury supplies. • In 2002, ECOS’ Quicksilver Caucus and EPA staff addressed mercury commodity issue under the ECOS Cooperative Agreement. • DOD has suspended sales of their stockpile in 1994, opting instead for long-term storage. • Several bills to create a national stockpile have been introduced; none has been passed.

  38. Primary and Secondary Suppliesof Mercury • U.S. and global primary and secondary supplies of mercury include: • Primary production (including by-product from mining) - Spain, Kyrgyzstan, Algeria (for export) and China (for domestic demand); • Secondary production (product recycling, waste recovery, and sales from closed chlor-alkali plants); and, • Government stockpiles.

  39. World Primary Production Source: Derived estimate based on World Bureau of Metal Statistics (1998); USGS Minerals Yearbook and Mineral Commodity Summaries (various years);[1] revised to include Spain's submission to the UNEP (2002) Global Mercury Assessment. [1] USGS information is obtained by USGS country specialists. Their source of this information is believed to be various reports published by the respective countries.

  40. Minas de Almaden • In 2003, the Almaden facility shut down for capital improvements; after reopening in early 2004 the mine appears to have ceased production again later in 2004 and may not reopen in 2005 in response to European concerns regarding the environmental and health impacts of mercury (Metal Bulletin, 2004a; 2004b; 2004c).

  41. U.S. Product Reservoirs • Mercury reservoirs in products (estimated 1,968 to 2,014 metric tons of mercury) includes: • Switches and relays (571); • Thermostats (209); • Dental amalgams (1,088); • Thermometers (41-77); and, • Lighting (59 – 68).

  42. Primary and Secondary Suppliesof Mercury (continued) • a USGS (2003a), adjusted to remove by-product; Spanish virgin mining figure from UNEP (2002.) • b Lawrence (2002b, 2002c.) • c EPA (2002c.) • d Sznopek and Goonan (2000.) • e Federal Register Vol. 68 No. 70, 17786; DNSC, 2002b; and USGS, 2001. Estimate includes 146 tons in DOE stockpile. • f Derived based on Masters (2001) estimates of total global by-product mining and adjusted to remove U.S. estimates. • g Derived based on Masters (1997) estimates of total global product recycling and adjusted to remove U.S. estimates. • h Derived based on UNEP (2002) estimates of total global chlor-alkali reserves and adjusted to remove U.S. estimates. • I Masters (2001.) • j Masters (1997.) • k UNEP (2002) states that 20,000 to 30,000 metric tons of mercury are used in chlor-alkali plants worldwide and presents 22,000 metric tons as the best estimate of this range.

  43. Chlor-Alkali • Chlor-alkali plants around the world represent a very large potential source of mercury supply (i.e., a stock), estimated by UNEP to be roughly 22,000 metric tons (UNEP, 2002). • U.S. chlor-alkali plants are estimated to contain 1,800 to 3,050 metric tons (EPA, 2002c; Sznopek and Goonan, 2000). • The distribution and size (i.e., chlorine capacity) of chlor-alkali plants containing mercury cells is important in projecting the actual rate at which plants will decommission and release mercury into the market.

  44. EUROPEAN CHLOR-ALKALI CAPACITY (metric tons)

  45. Chlor-Alkali (continued) • Varying laws regulating mercury recovery and market demand will influence the useful lives of chlor-alkali facilities. • Euro Chlor members have agreed to close all mercury cell processes by 2020. • Recently, Minas de Almaden has entered into a non-exclusive agreement with Euro Chlor to purchase scrap mercury from closing European chlor-alkali plants (Euro Chlor, undated-a). • The industry is currently developing a response to a proposed European Community ban on secondary mercury exports from Europe after 2010. This policy could conceivably encourage facilities to decommission prior to 2010 (e.g., to avoid expensive disposal).

  46. U.S. and Global Mercury Market • Demand: • U.S. consumption estimated at 269 metric tons in 2001. • Global consumption estimated at 2,100 metric tons in 2002. • As of 2001, the largest quantities of mercury were used in switches and relays (38%) and measuring devices (28%.) • Major areas of reduction include chlor-alkali, batteries, and paints.

  47. Global Mercury Markets • Major global consumers of mercury are chlor-alkali plants, product manufacturing, and artisanal-scale gold mining. • Minor global uses number in the hundreds and include preservatives, pesticides, and cosmetics. • Substitutes are available for most uses.

  48. U.S. and Global Consumption Note: The 1990 and 1994 world consumption estimates are based upon only two highly uncertain data points reported by Sznopek and Goonan (2000), using assumptions about demand for mercury in products and processes as a function of a country’s chlorine capacity. Source: U.S. consumption: Jasinski (1994); USGS Minerals Yearbook: Mercury (1994-1997); Lawrence (2001); Chlorine Institute (2003). World consumption: Sznopek and Goonan (2000); Lawrence (2002a).

  49. Best Available Estimates for Worldwide Mercury Use (metric tons)

  50. U.S. Mercury Consumption by Sector(1980 – 2001) Note: The 2001 consumption figures are not divided into sectors because of differences in data gathering and sector categorization.

More Related