U.S. EPA National and NEG/ECP Binational Regional Mercury Action Plans Status reports C. Mark Smith...
-
Upload
brendan-reeves -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
1
Transcript of U.S. EPA National and NEG/ECP Binational Regional Mercury Action Plans Status reports C. Mark Smith...
U.S. EPA National and NEG/ECP Binational
Regional Mercury Action Plans Status reports
C. Mark Smith PhD MSDeputy Director, Office of Research and Standards, MADEPCo-Chair, NEG-ECP Mercury Task Force
United Nations Accords UNEP Assessment
Commission for Environmental Cooperation North American Regional Mercury Action Plan
EPA Mercury Action Plan
New England Governors /Eastern Canadian Premiers Regional Mercury Action Plan
MassachusettsState Zero Mercury Strategy
Cities and Towns Mercury bans; collection events
Global
Continental
National
Regional
State
Local
Mercury Initiatives
Summary: Why We Are Summary: Why We Are Worried About MercuryWorried About Mercury
1. 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.
3. Fish contamination and consumption advisories across US and Northeast region
2. Mercury bioaccumulates in fish• up to a million times higher than in water
5. Controllable Local and Distant Sources
1998 Deposition in the NortheastIn region sources: 60%Out-of-region: 40%
Three Largest Sources of US Mercury Emissions
?51
Coal-fired Powered Plants
9450
Medical Waste Incinerators
9042
Municipal Waste Combustors
Percent Reduction Required*
Emissions in 1990 (tpy)
Source Category
* For existing plants
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.
LegislativeMany state/regional efforts
Status of U.S. EPA’sMercury National Action
PlanThanks to the following for material on EPA programs:
Denise Wright
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
USEPA [email protected] Ellen Brown
Office of Air and Radiation, US EPA [email protected]
Ellie McCann
USEPA [email protected]
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
Draft StructurePriorities for ActionTechnical Summary
Health and environmental impacts Programmatic summary Strategic Assessment Evaluation Tools Future Opportunities for Action
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?
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
recyclingMSWC regulations issued
1996 Use in most batteries banned 1997 EPA Mercury Report to Congress
Binational Toxics strategyMedical Waste Incinerator Regs.
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
Status of US Efforts to Address Utility Mercury
Emissions2000: 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.
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.
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
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
Action Plan Category 1: Emissions Reductions
Focused on major sourcesPreliminary 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
Manufacturing 7% Miscellaneous 6%
Utilities14%
Incinerators 55%
Non-utility boilers
18%
Incinerators= Municipal Solid Waste Combustors; Medical Waste Incinerators and Sewage Sludge Incinerators.
Estimated Incinerator Emission Reductions by 2003
Estimated NE Mercury emissions: mid 1990’s
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
kilo
gra
ms
Mid 1990s:Pre ActionPlan
2003: PostAction Plan
Action Category 1: Emission Reduction
Action Plan Category 2: Source Reduction-Waste
MgmtOverall Objectives
Reduce/eliminate Nonessential Uses Segregate and Recycle
Highlights: Extensive Regional Action Dental programs Product legislation Mercury-free Schools Mercury collection programs
Mercury ProductsPrograms 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
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
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
Research, Analysis, Strategic Monitoring
Highlights Regional mercury monitoring
report and recommendations completed
Improved data management through the Northeastern Ecosystem Research Cooperative; NESCAUM; NEWMOA
Stockpile ManagementOverall 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
Current Priorities: Summary
Emission ReductionInventory
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 (Continued)
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
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
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).