| Front page | | Contents | | Previous | | Next |

Arctic Mercury Releases Inventory

6 Overview of existing action plan/strategy elements on mercury in the Arctic Countries

6.1 Common features of existing legislation in the Nordic countries
     6.1.2 Sweden
     6.1.3 Denmark
     6.1.4 Finland
     6.1.5 Norway
6.2 United States of America
6.3 Canada
6.4 Russian Federation
6.5 Selected regional initiatives
     6.5.1 The Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution and
     its 1998 Aarhus Protocol on Heavy Metals (LRTAP Convention)
     6.5.2 North American Regional Action Plan on Mercury
     6.5.3 The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of
     the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention)
     6.5.4 The Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of
     the Baltic Sea Area (Helsinki Convention)

6.1 Common features of existing legislation in the Nordic countries

The text of this section was extracted from the report "Mercury - a global pollutant requiring global initiatives" from the Nordic Council of Ministers (Maag et al., 2002). Descriptions of selected aspects of individual Nordic countries' legislation and initiatives are given in sections 7.1.2-7.1.5 below (except for Iceland).

The following text gives an overview of common features of the existing legislation and regulation relating to mercury in the Nordic countries and in the European Union, of which Denmark, Finland and Sweden are members ^[4]. Other national measures, such as subsidies financing substitution efforts and voluntary agreements with industry or users of mercury, are not described here, though the efficiency of such measures may in some cases be significant. For examples of national regulation complexes with relevance to mercury, see the descriptions of Sweden and USA in sections 6.1.2 and 6.2, respectively.

It should be noted that some variation within the presented themes does exist between the Nordic countries. Among other things, this applies to the types of products with sales prohibitions and policy regarding the final disposal of mercury wastes. The main features of such legislation – more restrictive than the general – are presented in detail below.

The overall aim of the legislation on mercury is to prevent or reduce the release of mercury to the environment as well as direct and indirect impacts on human health. As shown, the existing types of legislation relate to most of the phases in the lifecycle of mercury products and processes (one of the exceptions is primary production of mercury).

The legislation related to the production, marketing and use of mercury and mercury-containing products are specific to mercury in some cases, whereas the legislation and regulation on emissions and the disposal of wastes are usually more general, and often include other heavy metals and specific inorganic and organic pollutants.

The legislation on mercury in the Nordic countries and the European Union in general lie within the following common categories:

Mercury in products

Legislation preventing certain products containing mercury from being marketed nationally (in some cases including exports) – for instance batteries, cosmetics and pesticides. For some products the actual use of the products is also prohibited (specific pesticide/biocide applications). More details about product legislation are given below.

Mercury impurities in bulk materials

Legislation setting limits to allowed contents of mercury present as impurities in bulk consumption materials. This follows, among others, the EU packaging directive (EU, 1994), which is aimed at enhancing packaging materials recycling/energy recovery and limiting the flow of heavy metals to waste treatment and resulting environmental releases (among other aims).

Industrial point sources - control and "BAT"

Legislation prescribing maximum allowable releases of mercury (and other pollutants) from industrial facilities to the environment (air, water and soil/groundwater). These sources of mercury to the environment are generally termed "point sources". Often, the releases from such point sources are regulated individually on a basis of national standards or guidelines. For certain types of potentially heavily polluting industries – for instance chlor-alkali industry – such legislation can also prescribe the use of specific less polluting production- and pollution prevention technologies (designated "best available techniques" - BAT, according to the so-called IPPC directive (EU, 1996).

Separate waste collection

Legislation prescribing separate collection and waste treatment of products and process waste containing mercury – for instance batteries, fluorescent light tubes and dental amalgam filter residues. The aim of such legislation is to prevent or minimise the diffuse spreading of mercury-containing products and prevent dumping of process waste in the environment, as well as limiting the amounts of mercury-containing waste in the general household waste stream (where it causes significant mercury emissions and increases waste treatment costs).

Waste incineration emissions

Legislation prescribing maximum allowable releases of a number of pollutants from incineration facilities for household and hazardous wastes, respectively, to the atmosphere and wastewater, as well as specification for the depositing of solid incineration residues. Indirectly, such legislation can dictate the use of a limited number of emission control technologies, which are capable of complying with the emission requirements. The Nordic countries have extensive exhaust gas filtering on almost all waste incineration facilities (hazardous, medical and household waste), holding back a major part of the otherwise emitted mercury.

Use of solid incineration residues

Legislation prescribing maximum allowable concentrations of mercury (and some other pollutants) in ashes and slag from waste incineration and fossil fuel combustion used for construction purposes (roads etc.), as well as in wastewater sludge used as fertiliser on agricultural land.

Releases to wastewater system

Legislation preventing or limiting the release of mercury from processes to the wastewater system in order to limit releases to the water recipient, to permit the use of sludge as fertiliser on agricultural land, and to reduce treatment costs. For instance mandatory use of amalgam separators in dentist clinics and cleaner technology or pre-treatment in industrial facilities.

User safety

Regulation prescribing aspects of user safety in the working environment and for private consumers (toys and certain chemical preparations).

Information sources: Nyström (2001), Norwegian Pollution Control Authority (2001), Einarsson (2001), KEMI (1998), von Rein and Hylander (2000), Retsinformation (2001), OSPAR (2000c), European Commission (1998), EUR-Lex (2001).

6.1.2 Sweden

(Selected aspects extracted from UNEP, 2002; for general features see section 6.1).

Risk reduction of mercury has been an item of high priority in Sweden since the 1960's. In the early 1990's it was concluded that the substantial reduction of mercury releases achieved at point sources would not be sufficient to reduce the environmental load beyond critical levels. It was estimated that mercury content in fish in about 40,000 lakes (i.e. about half of the Swedish lakes) exceeded the limit value of 0.5 mg/kg recommended by the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission. In the Government Bill 1990:91/90 “En god livsmiljö” (A living environment), a numerous set of legislative and voluntary actions were proposed, with the ultimate aim of a total phase-out of mercury use. Since then, the set of actions has several times been re-approved and strengthened in various government bills and parliament decisions.

Table 9.2 presents some of the major initiatives on mercury use that have been implemented in Sweden as a result of the 1990 overall goal of total phase-out of mercury. It should be noted that Sweden is a Member State of the European Community since 1 January 1995, and is required to implement all Community legislation that applies to mercury, as described in the section on the European Community. However, some of the measures taken in Sweden exceed this legislation.

Table 6-1 Major initiatives on mercury use in Sweden, as reported by Sweden.

Additional measures and initiatives under consideration in Sweden

Chlor-alkali industry - There are two chlor-alkali plants in Sweden that still use the amalgam process. The more environmentally friendly membrane process is used at one site. In line with OSPAR Decision 90/3, the Swedish government has in several bills stated that the amalgam process should be out of use by 2010. To further assure the realisation of this object on the national level, the Swedish government is considering the inclusion of a ban in Ordinance 1998:944.

Waste products - As far as waste disposal is concerned, there are separate collection systems and already existing efforts for the collection of batteries, fluorescent lamps, amalgam waste etc. Collected batteries are currently stored awaiting the decision on pre-treatment before it is put in a terminal storage facility for mercury.

Dental amalgam – The overall goal to a complete phase out of mercury also includes dental amalgam. The consumption of mercury for dental use has decreased significantly after a policy decision by the Parliament in 1994 to phase out the use of dental amalgam. Up to now dental amalgam has been subject primarily to voluntary phasing out measures in Sweden. A voluntary agreement not to use amalgam fillings in the teeth of children and youth up to nineteen has resulted in an almost complete phase out. The Swedish Government is continously investigating further possibilities to reduce the use of dental amalgam.

Laboratory chemicals - Mercury-containing chemicals for analysis and reagents are mainly used in the environmental control, by its use of mercury sulphate in COD (chemical oxygen consumption) analyses. Information activities have not been effective to phase-out this particular use. The Swedish government is therefore considering an amendment of Ordinance 1998:944, by which the use of mercury in chemicals for analysis and reagents would be banned from 1 January 2004.

Lighting - There is at present no commercially available, mercury free alternative to linear fluorescent lamps and compacts fluorescent lamps. In order to minimise the environmental impacts from the use of mercury in these products, maximum permitted mercury contents should preferably be established. Such regulations will most likely be introduced in the coming EC Directive on Restrictions of Hazardous Substances in electric and electronic equipment.

Collection of used products and goods - Recognising that mercury releases from products in use or forgotten "on the user's shelves" would continue for many years, the Government developed an action programme for a more effective and comprehensive collection of used products and goods containing mercury. The action programme included projects dealing with the collection of clinical thermometers, inventories and collection of mercury at different places, clearing out of mercury in schools, universities and colleges and providing information and raising awareness. In projects for the collection of mercury thermometers, economic incentives were used to invite household to turn in their mercury thermometers. Another project consisted of the identification of hidden “technical” mercury in technical goods and products within about 70 industries. The work involved tracking mercury with the world's first mercury dogs.

A total of 10-11 metric tons of mercury have been identified through the action programme, 6-7 of which have been collected and 3.5-4 of which have been labelled for proper disposal once it is not in use anymore. The Government estimates that there are still a number of metric tons of mercury in industry (technical goods, stored metal mercury, etc.), in households (for example in thermometers, antique barometers, doorbells, etc.), in agriculture (old and stored pesticides) and in pipes in the sewage system, especially in pipes from old dental clinics.

Final disposal of mercury - Mercury is a substance that remains a threat to human health and the environment in perpetuity, and for this reason it should not be recycled. Instead, mercury-containing waste must be dealt with permanently in a safe and environmentally acceptable way. In a report to the Government, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency in 1997 proposed terminal storage of waste containing mercury in a deep rock facility. A governmental committee has recently submitted its final report on how to dispose waste containing more than 0.1 percent (by weight) of mercury. It is proposed that a mandatory requirement for permanent storage deep down in rock should be in force within five years.

6.1.3 Denmark

In Denmark intentional mercury use has been reduced from an estimated 15-17 metric tons/year in 1982/83 to 6-7 tons in 1992/93 and 1.3-1.9 metric tons/year in 2000/2001 - about 10% of the 1982/83 level. In the same period atmospheric releases have been reduced from a reported 4.1-6.9 metric tons/year in 1982/83 to 0.8-2 tons/year in 2001 (Skaarup et al., 2003).

(Below: Selected aspects extracted from Maag et al., 2002; for general features see section 6.1).

Also in Denmark there has been a general ban on the sales of mercury and mercury-containing products since 1994. The legislation exceeds general EU legislation. As from 1998, the order explicitly includes exports also (Statutory order no. 692 of September 22, 1998). Some distinct uses are exempted with specific expiring dates or until further notice (respectively). The causes for the current exemptions are lack of adequate alternatives, avoidance of trade barriers within the European Union, measurement/analyses standards prescribing mercury-use (reactants or instruments), or use for calibration of non-mercury measurement instruments. The Danish statutory order includes banning of imported equipment with mercury-containing components. Dental amalgam is allowed only in molar teeth, where the filling is worn, until further notice. Only a few specified uses of mercury chemicals for analyses and catalyse are allowed.

The efficiency of the Danish mercury ban has been evaluated thoroughly recently, and the annual 2000/2001 consumption with products has been reduced to about 25% of the consumption in 1992/1993, before the ban was brought into force (Skaarup et al., 2003).

Batteries are regulated separately implementing the EU battery directive and its amendments. Also Denmark has decided to change the battery collection system, so that all batteries, irrespective of heavy metal content, will be collected in order to get higher collection rates for the environmentally harmful types. Earlier, only the particular types containing heavy metals were collected. The necessary changes in the collection set-up is currently under consideration.

Denmark is ready to ban the remaining use of dental amalgam, whenever the Danish National Board of Health deems that the alternatives have the full substitution capacities (Danish E.P.A., 2001).

6.1.4 Finland

(Selected aspects extracted from the "release trends" sheet of Finland's response to the mercury questionnaire of this study, for general features see section 6.1).

6.1.5 Norway

(Selected aspects extracted from the appendix "Overview of existing and future national actions, including legislation, relevant to mercury" to UNEP, 2002; for general features see section 6.1).

Air and water point sources - The Norwegian industrial plants have emission limits for mercury in their permits followed up by normal procedures for control by the authorities (textile, paper, chemical, cement and metal industry). New stringent emission limits for the most important point sources, waste-incinerators, ferromanganese and siliconmanganese smelters are in place.

Chlor-alkali production – The Norwegian chlor-alkali plants have changed from mercury-cell technology to diaphragm and membrane technology.

Crematoria - A separate regulation for crematoria is expected to be in place by year 2002.

Dental sector - It is prohibited to release wastewater and waste containing amalgam from dental clinics. Dental clinics are obligated to have separate collection of amalgam waste and amalgam separators to prevent discharges of mercury from wastewater. The amalgam sludge and waste are to be delivered to an authorized facility for hazardous waste. Currently, Norway is developing a directive on the use of dental filling materials, which will encourage dentists to reduce the use of amalgam as much as possible. The directive is expected to take effect 1 January 2003.

Ferromanganese production - To fulfil the obligations in their permits three ferromanganese plants in Norway have chosen to install mercury abatement facilities. The plants have chosen two different technologies. These are to our knowledge the first mercury treatment facilities for this industrial sector in the world. The mercury abatement facilities in the Ferromanganese smelters require good dust removal. This means that the plants also must add an improved dust filter and this will give a substantial reduction of other heavy metals as well. A new treatment unit for removal of mercury from the off-gas was installed at one of the plants in April 2000. The mercury content of the cleaned off-gas from the treatment unit is monitored continuously. Approximately 80 % treatment efficiency with respect to mercury was achieved during the first year of operation. Several technical problems were encountered over this period, but most of them have now been solved. It is anticipated that the treatment efficiency can be further improved when more experience is gained with the process. The other two plants use abatement facilities with another type of technology. The abatement facilities on these plants will be operating in September 2001 and the effectiveness of these facilities will be considered later on. The cost for all three plants is estimated to 75 mill NOK/8.3 mill USD. In addition there will be increased operational costs.

Gas and petroleum processing - Offshore activities: Measures to reduce mercury releases from offshore activities are in progress through a project focusing on how to minimise the discharges of produced water. The project is based on collaboration between authorities and industry.

Gold-mining - There is no gold mining in Norway.

Sewage sludge - There are legislations prescribing maximum allowable concentrations of mercury in wastewater sludge used as fertiliser on agricultural land (3 mg/kg total residue) and on other areas (5 mg/kg total residue). It is not allowed to use wastewater sludge on agricultural land with soil containing more than 1 mg/kg total residue.

Waste treatment including incineration - Generally hazardous waste containing mercury is disposed off in an authorized treatment plant. A smaller part of organic hazardous waste containing mercury is pre-treated at the plant before incinerated in an authorized incineration facility for hazardous wastes. Waste containing more than 0.25 % mercury are treated in accordance with the legislation for hazardous waste. The legislation prescribe separate collection and environmental sound waste treatment of products and process waste containing mercury – for instance batteries, electric articles, fluorescent light tubes and dental amalgam filter residues.

The regulation on incineration of hazardous wastes restricts the concentration of mercury in air emissions not to exceed 0.05 mg/m³ from new facilities and 0.1 mg/m³ from existing facilities. The release of mercury from incineration plants for medical and household wastes is restricted by specified emission limits in their permits. All municipal incineration plants with permits newer than 1994 have 0.03 mg/Nm³ mercury as emission limit. This stringent limit will be in force from 01.01.03 for new facilities incinerating medical and hazardous wastes. Before 01.01.2006 this limit will be in force for all existing incinerators. The new limits are more stringent than in EU. Mercury is a priority substance in Norway because of its high levels in the environment and population in Norway and its severe properties.

From 1.1.2003 ashes and slag will be on the new European waste list and be considered hazardous waste if it contains hazardous substances. For mercury the limit is as mentioned before 0.25 %.

6.2 United States of America

In the USA intentional mercury use has been reduced by more than 70% since the 1980's. Reported atmospheric releases in the USA has been reduced from 191 metric tons/year in 1990 (210 short tons) to 107 metric tons/year in 1999.

Please note that the description here of U.S. activities on mercury addresses only various major activities by the U.S. government. There are many other activities being conducted by the U.S. at all levels, i.e., other Federal agencies, state governments and tribal organizations.

The United States has been actively addressing the risks posed by exposure to mercury for many years, both through implementation of regulatory activities and voluntary reduction programmes. For example, already in 1991 the USEPA initiated the "33/50 Program", a special programme to help reduce releases of mercury and 16 other toxic substances into the environment. The goal of the programme was to encourage companies to commit to voluntarily reduce their releases of some or all of these toxics by 33 percent by 1992, and 50 percent by 1995. As a result, between 1988 and 1991 environmental releases of mercury were reduced by 38 percent and transfers of mercury for off-site treatment or disposal were reduced by 30 percent (OECD, 1995).

Understanding the characteristics and magnitude of mercury releases is critical to the design of effective risk management strategies. The Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, required USEPA to prepare an assessment of the magnitude of USA mercury emissions by source, the health and environmental effects of the emissions, and the cost and availability of control technologies. The resulting report, Mercury Study Report to Congress, was published in December 1997. As the state-of-the-science for mercury is continuously and rapidly evolving, it represents a “snapshot” of current understanding of mercury in the USA. The report is a comprehensive document consisting of eight volumes.

The USEPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) in September 2000 published its Mercury Research Strategy, intended to guide the mercury research programme through 2005. The Strategy identifies the key scientific questions of greatest importance to the Agency, and then describes a research programme to answer those questions. The goal in addressing the questions is to reduce scientific uncertainties limiting USEPA's ability to assess and manage mercury and methylmercury risks. An integral part of the strategy involves study of the atmospheric mercury transport, transformation and fate.

Mercury roadmap

The USEPA is now preparing a Mercury Roadmap that will outline the Agency's strategy for addressing mercury over the next several years.

Ongoing and planned actions to reduce mercury pollution in the United States

The United States' approach to designing effective risk management strategies for mercury comprise both specific regulatory limits on releases and voluntary efforts with industry to reduce mercury use, implemented by a number of agencies at both federal and state levels. The most important are summarized below.

Stockpiles of mercury – The United States government maintains a supply of mercury as part of the National Defence Stockpile, established at the end of World War I to maintain adequate supplies of materials deemed critical to national defense. The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), a unit of the Department of Defense, manages the stockpile. The Strategic and Critical Materials Stockpile Act regulates mercury that the DLA sells from the national stockpile. In July 1994, DLA suspended future mercury sales pending analysis of the environmental consequences. An Environmental Impact Statement to determine the disposition of the stockpile was completed in April, 2004. In the meantime, a complete review of the four facilities across the USA currently storing its mercury and inspection of all the mercury containing flasks to ensure proper and safe storage is being undertaken. The US Department of Defence announced that it's “preferred option” is consolidated storage of its mercury at one location for at least a 40-year period.

Water point sources - Mercury is listed as a toxic pollutant under the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act regulations specify technology-based effluent limits for mercury discharges from different industries, and describe the circumstances in which states may require effluent limits or monitoring requirements more stringent than technology-based standards. States must set water quality standards for pollutants including mercury. The Clean Water Act relies on a permit system, known as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System to regulate direct discharges to surface water bodies. Facilities are assigned a specific mercury discharge limit, and/or are required to monitor their discharge for mercury. Facilities report actual discharge levels in Discharge Monitoring Reports, which serve as the basis for determining compliance. A large number of industry point sources are covered, such as chlor-alkali, steam electric power generation, battery manufacturing etc.

Air point sources - Mercury and mercury compounds are considered Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) under the Clean Air Act. USEPA established National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for mercury emissions based on risk under the pre-1990 version of the Clean Air Act. Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 USEPA regulates Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions by source categories using Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards for each "major source" in any listed source category. The MACT floor for new sources is the level of HAP emissions control currently achieved by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT floor for existing sources is the average level of HAP emissions control achieved by the top 12 percent of the currently operating sources.

Chlor-alkali industry - In August 2003, EPA promulgated a rule that limits mercury emissions from plants that produce chlorine using the mercury-cell method. The rule includes emissions limits based on maximum achievable control technology (MACT) and on stringent management practices. EPA estimates that this regulation will reduce stack emissions by 1,500 pounds, or 74 % from current levels, in addition to unquantifiable reductions in fugitive emissions expected as a result of improved work practice standards. This standard does not allow any new chlor-alkali mercury cell facilities to be built (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hgcellcl/hgcellclpg.html). The last USA mercury cell based factory was built in 1970.

In addition, as a voluntary measure, the Chlorine Institute, on behalf of USA mercury cell chlor-alkali facilities, committed in 1997 to reduce mercury use 50 percent by 2005 and to report annually on progress. In July 2004, the Chlorine Institute provided its seventh annual report, which indicated that mercury consumption by US chlor-alkali factories has declined by 76 percent over an eight year period, or a 69 percent reduction after adjusting for shut down facilities. This is a decline from 160 tons per year (during a baseline period of 1990-1995) to 30 tons during 2001. Chlorine Institute progress reports to the USEPA may be found at: "http://www.epa.gov/Region5/air/mercury/reducing.html#heavy%20industry".

Energy production – The largest anthropogenic source of mercury emissions in the USA is currently coal-fired power plants. Utility steam generating sources were subject to special study and required a determination by the U.S. EPA as to whether regulation is necessary. In December 2000, USEPA released its Regulatory Finding on the Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units. The Agency concluded that regulation of HAPs from coal- and oil-fired electric (but not natural gas-fired) utility steam generating units is indeed necessary, and that mercury is the air toxic of most serious concern. On January 30, 2004, the U.S. EPA proposed alternative approaches to regulating mercury from coal-fired power plants. Under one approach, national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants would be established under section 112 of the Clean Air Act. Under the other approach, EPA would withdraw its December 2000 determination and establish standards of performance for electric utility steam generating units based on a market-based cap-and-trade methodology. USEPA expects to issue a final rule by March 15, 2005. The proposed emissions standards would regulate mercury air emissions from new and existing coal-fired electric utility steam generating units, and nickel air emissions from new and existing oil-fired electric utility steam generating units.

Waste treatment including incineration - Prior to 1995, municipal waste combustors and medical waste incinerators were the largest identifiable source of mercury emissions to the atmosphere. Regulations which have been finalized for municipal waste combustors and medical waste incinerators will, when fully implemented, reduce emissions from these source categories by an additional 90 percent over 1995 levels.

As a voluntary measure, USEPA and the American Hospital Association in 1998 signed a memorandum of understanding committing to work together to significantly cut hospital wastes by 2005. The agreement envisions the virtual elimination of mercury-containing hospital wastes and a one-third reduction in total hospital wastes by 2005.

In December 1995, the USEPA finalized New Source Performance Standards (NSPSs) and Emission Guidelines (EGs) applicable to municipal waste combustor (MWC) units with a capacity greater than 227 metric tons per day (i.e. large MWCs). The mercury air emissions standard for new and existing MWCs is 0.08 milligrams per day standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) at 7 percent oxygen (7 percent O₂ ). All 167 large MWCs that are subject to the regulations that came into compliance by December 2000 and mercury emissions (based on year 2000 stack test compliance data) from this source category have been reduced by about 95 percent form 1990 levels. The typical performance level was 0.02 mg/dscm. A companion rule (NSPSs and EGs) for a small MWC unit (32 to 227 metric tons per day) was adopted in December 2000 with retrofit required by December 2005. The same mercury emissions limits apply and the same control technology is expected to be used.

Since 1997, mercury emissions from medical waste incinerators have been limited by a USEPA regulation that sets strict standards for new sources and that requires existing sources to reduce emissions by 93 to 95 percent. The regulations also require training and qualification of operators, incorporate siting requirements, specify testing and monitoring requirements to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits, and establish reporting and record keeping requirements.

Several states, including New York, California and Texas have adopted relatively stringent regulations in the past few years limiting emissions from medical waste incinerators. The implementation of these regulations has brought about very large reductions in emissions of mercury in those states. It has also significantly reshaped how medical waste is managed in those states. Many facilities have responded to state regulations by switching to other medical waste treatment and disposal options to avoid the cost of add-on pollution control equipment. The two most commonly chosen alternatives have been off-site contract disposal in larger commercial incinerators and on-site treatment by other means (e.g., steam autoclaving).

Hazardous waste incinerators – On February 14, 2002, USEPA promulgated interim emission standards for hazardous waste incinerators, hazardous waste burning cement kilns, and hazardous waste burning lightweight aggregate kilns under joint authority of the Clean Air Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The standards limit emissions of chlorinated dioxins and furans, other toxic organic compounds, toxic metals (including mercury), hydrochloric acid, chlorine gas, and particulate matter. USEPA will issue final standards for these three categories of hazardous waste burning facilities by 2005; in addition, the Agency will develop emission standards for hazardous waste burning industrial boilers and hydrochloric production facilities.

Waste disposal – The RCRA regulations outline specific classification and disposal requirements for products and wastes that contain mercury. RCRA regulations are waste-specific, not source-specific, and thus may apply to any facility that generates mercury-containing wastes. RCRA regulations describe specific disposal requirements for individual wastes. All mercury-bearing wastes are subject to land disposal restrictions. That is, the mercury concentration in these wastes must be below the regulatory concentration level before the wastes may be land-disposed. For some types of waste, the regulations require a specific treatment, such as recovery of the mercury or incineration. In other cases, only a maximum mercury concentration is required, and any treatment method may be used.

RCRA regulations also influence product disposal and recycling options for mercury containing products. Discarded products considered hazardous wastes are subject to storage, transportation, and permitting requirements. Currently, thermostats and fluorescent lamps are included in a "universal waste rule" that eases RCRA restrictions on hazardous waste management and enables states to set up special collection programmes. USEPA issued the universal waste rule (UWR) in 1995. It is designed to reduce the amount of hazardous waste in the municipal solid waste stream, encourage the recycling and proper disposal of some common hazardous wastes, and reduce the regulatory burden on businesses that generate these wastes. Universal wastes are items commonly thrown into the trash by households and small businesses. Although handlers of universal wastes must meet less stringent standards for storing, transporting, and collecting wastes, the waste must comply with full hazardous waste requirements for final recycling, treatment, or disposal. This management structure removes these wastes from municipal landfills and incinerators. In July 1999, USEPA added mercury-containing lamps to the UWR, which already covered batteries, thermostats, and pesticides. In 2002, EPA proposed adding other mercury-containing wastes to the universal waste rule.

Recreational mining - There is no active mercury mining in the USA. There is also no use of mercury in large-scale gold mining in the USA. There has been minor recovery of mercury by recreational miners in California, but the mercury is recovered as elemental free mercury in stream bottoms as a by-product from historical use. The mercury is incidentally recovered on the sluices of recreational portable dredge operators. The USEPA and California are working on ways to set up collection points for waste mercury to ensure that recreational miners do not dump their waste mercury in streams.

Foodstuffs – The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates mercury in food, drugs, and cosmetics. FDA sets an action level of 1 ppm methylmercury in fish, shellfish and other aquatic animals, and may remove from commerce foods that violate this action level. FDA has advised women of childbearing age to limit their consumption of shark, swordfish, tilefish and king mackeral based on methylmercury content. States, tribes and territories are responsible for issuing fish consumption advise for locally-caught fish; many state health departments use 0.5 ppm methylmercury as a trigger for such advice. Some States also issue advice on limiting consumption of non-local commercial species (e.g. canned tuna). On March 19, 2004 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced their joint consumer advisory on methylmercury in fish and shellfish for reducing the exposure to high levels of mercury in women who may become pregnant, pregnant women, nursing mothers, and young children. The agencies believe that by following these recommendations for selecting and eating fish or shellfish, women will receive the benefits of eating fish and shellfish and be confident that they have reduced their exposure to the harmful effects of mercury. Additional information can be found at: www.cfsan.fda.gov or the EPA website at www.epa.gov/ost/fish

Mercury in products - Mercury-containing products are regulated in several different ways. At a federal level, mercury product regulation has generally centered around health-based reasons to eliminate mercury from products, using the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) regulations. In recent years, many states have taken a different approach. Restrictions on mercury-containing products, once used sparingly by the federal government, are increasing rapidly at the state level. Certain USA States have initiated a variety of initiatives aimed at reducing mercury releases from the use and disposal of products. These initiatives include notification and labeling requirements to gain information on the mercury content of particular products and inform purchasers that products contain mercury; prohibitions on the sale of a variety of products for which alternatives were deemed readily available such as fever thermometers, dairy manometers, novelty items (toys, shoes), switches in automobiles, and thermostats in residential and commercial applications; concentration limits on other products such as batteries and packaging; restrictions on product disposal so that the products must be segregated from the solid waste stream and ultimately recycled; and state-sponsored collection programmes for items such as fever thermometers, historic dental inventories, and products found in schools.

Batteries – Between late 1989 and early 1991, all USA manufacturers converted production so that mercury content, except in button and "coin" cells, did not exceed 0.025 percent mercury by weight. A federal law called the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act went into effect May 13, 1996. The Act prohibits the sale of:

1. alkaline-manganese batteries containing mercury (alkaline-manganese button cell batteries are limited to 25 mg mercury per button cell),
2. zinc carbon batteries containing mercury,
3. button cell mercuric-oxide batteries for use in the USA, and
4. any mercuric-oxide battery unless the manufacturer identifies a collection site that has all required federal, State, and local government approvals, to
   which persons may send batteries for recycling and disposal.

The Act contains labelling requirements and encourages voluntary industry programmes by eliminating barriers to funding the collection and recycling or proper disposal of used rechargeable batteries. The Act also grants states the authority to add other batteries to the recycling programme. This federal law followed the lead of several states that passed legislation in the early 1990's limiting the mercury content of batteries.

Cosmetics – According to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), mercury use as a preservative or anti-microbial is limited to eye-area cosmetics or ointments in concentrations below 60 ppm. Yellow mercuric oxide is not recognized as a safe and effective ophthalmic anti-infective ingredient.

Dental amalgam – The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also regulates dental amalgam under FFDCA. Dental mercury is classified as a Class I medical device, with extensive safety regulations on its use. Dental amalgam alloy is classified as a Class II device, subject to additional special controls.

Lighting – Of the 500-600 million mercury-containing lamps sold in the United States annually, approximately 96 percent are fluorescent lamps. It is estimated that approximately the same number of lamps are disposed of on an annual basis. Mercury releases due to mercury-containing lamps are expected to decrease in the future for a number of reasons. One reason is that states are beginning to view recycling as a viable option to decrease mercury releases. In addition, there have been technological advances in the manufacture of fluorescent lamps. Since the mid-1980's, electrical manufacturers have reduced the average amount of mercury in each fluorescent lamp from an average of 48.2 mg to an average of 11.6 mg/lamp in 1999. A certain amount of mercury is needed, however, in order to maintain desirable properties. A recent survey by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association showed that the average 4-foot (1.22 m) lamp in 2001 contained 8.3 mg of mercury.

Paints - As of May 1991, all registrations for mercury biocides used in paints were voluntarily canceled by the registrants, thus causing a drastic decrease in the use of mercury in paint. In addition to the paint industry reformulating its paints to eliminate mercury, USEPA banned the use of mercury in interior paint in 1990 and in exterior paint in 1991.

Pesticides - The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) covers the sale and use of pesticides, including registration of chemicals that meet health and safety tests. Earlier, several mercury compounds were registered as pesticides, bactericides, and fungicides, however, registrations of the last mercury-based pesticides for use to control pink and grey snow mold were voluntarily cancelled by the manufacturer in November 1993.

Thermometers – Voluntary efforts are underway jointly with appropriate industry and associations to reduce mercury in thermometers through mercury free substitutes. Several USA States have banned the use of mercury fever thermometers, and most major retailers no longer sell them.

Thermostats - As a voluntary measure, the industry-funded Thermostat Recycling Corporation (TRC) launched a programme in 1997 to recycle mercury-switch thermostats in nine states (see www.nema.org/index_nema.cfm/664/). It has since been expanded to 48 states in the USA, and in 2001 collected 48,215 thermostats and 402 pounds of mercury, for a total of more than 120,000 thermostats and 1,000 pounds of mercury since the programme's inception. Recognizing that the capture rate for the TRC programme is relatively low, two USA States (Maine, Oregon) will prohibit the sale of new mercury thermostats for residential and commercial applications effective January 2006.

Vaccines - Under the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997, FDA is required to assess the risk of all mercury containing food and drugs. Under this provision, FDA asked vaccine manufacturers to provide information about thimerisol content of vaccines. Based on this information, the Public Health Service, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers agreed that thimerisol-containing vaccines should be removed as soon as possible. Manufacturers have been asked for a clear commitment to eliminate mercury from vaccines, and FDA will do expedited reviews of resulting revisions to product license applications.

Vehicles – In an effort to reduce mercury emitted from electric arc furnaces that consume scrap from recycled automobiles – which USEPA estimates emissions of about 8 - 12 tons per year of mercury – USEPA is pursuing multiple program efforts to encourage the removal of mercury switches from scrap automobiles prior to recycling. Nearly all obsolete automobiles in the U.S. are dismantled and shredded to recycle the metal. The scrap metal industry recycles approximately 10 to 12 million cars each year and sells the scrap to domestic and overseas consumers.

Pollution prevention approaches to address these emissions must include not only the facilities that shred cars in preparation for steelmaking, but also those suppliers of end-of-life vehicles (ELVs) who dismantle and usually flatten them prior to delivery for shredding. Those facilities, known generally as auto dismantlers, have the best opportunity to recover the bullet-sized mercury switches that make up the bulk of the mercury present in ELVs. USEPA has initiated discussions with stakeholders on how to maximize the removal of mercury switches from ELVs, thereby reducing downstream mercury emissions from melting scrap steel in electric arc furnaces. USEPA has had discussions with the Partnership for Mercury Free Vehicles, a coalition made up of steel manufacturers, scrap recyclers, automobile dismantlers, and environmental groups; with automakers; and with state agencies that have studied or implemented programs to recover mercury switches. There have been several facilitated group discussions about possible solutions, beginning in August, involving representatives of all of these groups. USEPA's goal is to develop consensus for a comprehensive solution that can be put in place by next year. USEPA is also seeking to encourage reduced toxics use in automobile product design.

USEPA will propose in 2005 an area source rule establishing performance standards based for hazardous air pollutants, including mercury, emitted by electric arc furnaces (EAFs). Because pollution prevention is likely the best approach for reducing EAF mercury emissions, approaches to remove switches can be incorporated into this proposed rule. USEPA hope to have collaborative solutions in place to recover mercury switches even prior to the EAF rule's effective date. At the same time, USEPA is considering other programs and authorities to use in this effort. For example, Best Management Practices used to control discharges of storm water under the Clean Water Act can be used to prevent potential mercury exposure or releases at auto dismantlers and scrap recyclers. Switches that are damaged, such as during crushing operations, and mercury-tainted scrap can contaminate storm waters. One effective management practice that can be used to prevent these discharges is to remove mercury switches from scrap autos before crushing or shredding. Raising awareness of this issue to auto dismantlers and scrap recyclers through federal and state storm water managers can increase chances for successful switch removal

USEPA is also taking steps to include mercury applications, such as automotive switches, in the federal Universal Waste Rules, to lower the regulatory barriers for those removing switches. USEPA will then encourage those States that do not automatically incorporate such changes to do so, in the hopes of maximizing switch recovery. If USEPA can, through collaboration and the best use of incentives, regulations, barrier removal, and voluntary approaches, make switch removal more uniform, USEPA can help to avoid the export of scrap automobiles or shredded scrap containing mercury from un-removed switches, thereby avoiding mercury emissions in other countries and lessening any competitive disadvantage for domestic consumers of scrap

USEPA is exploring other avenues, as well, such as voluntary waste minimization partnerships focusing on mercury applications, to reach our environmental goals quickly and efficiently without imposing unfair burdens on particular industries, small businesses, or other groups.

Occupational safety and health - The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has responsibility for maintaining safe workplace conditions. OSHA sets permissible exposure levels for elemental mercury in workplace settings. Mercury is listed as a neurotoxin capable of causing behavioral changes, decreased motor function and other effects on the nervous system. OSHA mercury standards also recommend that skin contact should be avoided.

Workplace standards may influence the types of processes used at a facility. For example, when OSHA tightens its standards for a particular substance, it may force users of that substance to modify their processes or eliminate use of that substance entirely in order to meet these new standards. Workplace air concentration levels for exposure to elemental mercury: Section 29 CFR 1910.1000 sets the permissible exposure limit (PEL) for an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) of 0.1 mg/m³.

Information and reporting requirements – Under the USA Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), starting with the 2000 reporting year, the reporting threshold for mercury and its compounds has been lowered to 5 kilograms per year (the previous threshold was 4,500 kilograms). Through this action, the United States will have a much more comprehensive picture of the amounts of mercury and its compounds that are released to the air, water, land, transferred off-site for disposal, transferred off-site for recycling or recycled on-site within industrial facilities.

Transportation - The Department of Transportation regulates hazardous materials transport under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. Mercury and mercury compounds are hazardous substances subject to packaging, shipping and transportation rules for hazardous materials.

Regional cooperation - In 1997, the United States and Canada signed the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy. The goal of the strategy is to seek, by 2006, a 50 percent reduction in the deliberate use of mercury and a 50 percent reduction in the release of mercury caused by human activity. The goal applies to all mercury releases nationwide as well as all direct discharges to the Great Lakes Basin. The USA is co-operating with Mexico and Canada in the North American Regional Action Plan for mercury under the Commission for Environmental Cooperation's Sound Management of Chemicals Work Group. These regional initiatives are described in more detail later in section 6.5.

6.3 Canada

Total reported atmospheric mercury releases decreased from 29.1 metric tons/year in 1990 to 8.9 metric tons/year in 1998 (Environment Canada, 2000).

(Below: Selected aspects extracted from the appendix "Overview of existing and future national actions, including legislation, relevant to mercury" to UNEP, 2002).

Air and water point sources
Under the umbrella of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), federal, provincial and territorial governments work cooperatively to establish standards to achieve environmental objectives. The CCME have undertaken a number of Canada Wide Standards (CWS) to reduce anthropogenic emissions of mercury.

Canadian-Wide Standards exist for the following mercury release sources:

• Mercury emissions from incinerators and base-metal smelters
• Mercury containing lamps
• Dental amalgam waste
• Mercury emissions from coal fired power plants (under development)

For more information on Canada wide standards on mercury see the CCME website http://www.ccme.ca.

Base metal smelting: Environmental source performance guidelines have been established for base metal smelters. For existing facilities, the guideline is 2 g Hg/tonne of finished metal, while for new and expanded facilities the performance guideline is 0.2 g Hg/tonne of finished zinc, nickel and lead, and 1 g Hg/tonne of finished copper.

Chlor-alkali production

The Chlor-Alkali Mercury Release Regulations under CEPA (1999) limit the release of mercury into ambient air from mercury cell chlor-alkali plants. The Regulations also include provisions with respect to reporting releases, malfunctions and breakdowns. The regulations prescribe the following release limits:

1. The quantity of mercury that the owner or operator of a plant may release into the ambient air from that plant shall not exceed
   1. 5 grams per day per 1,000 kilograms of rated capacity, where the source of the mercury is the ventilation gases exhausted from cell rooms;
   2. 0.1 gram per day per 1,000 kilograms of rated capacity, where the source of the mercury is the hydrogen gas stream originating from denuders;
   3. 0.1 gram per day per 1 000 kilograms of rated capacity, where the source of the mercury is the ventilation gases exhausted from end boxes; and
   4. 0.1 gram per day per 1,000 kilograms of rated capacity, where the source of the mercury is the gases exhausted from retorts.
2. No mercury shall be released directly into the ambient air from a tank.
3. Notwithstanding subsection (1), the total amount of mercury that the owner or operator of a plant may release into the ambient air from the sources specified in subsection (1) shall not exceed 1.68 kilograms per day.

The Chlor-Alkali Mercury Liquid Effluent Regulations under the Fisheries Act limit the level of mercury contained in effluent from chlor-alkali plants. The regulations state that mercury deposited in effluent in any day must not exceed 0.00250 kilogram per tonne of chlorine times the reference production rate of the particular plant. The regulations include provisions with respect to sampling, testing and reporting.

Energy production – A Canada Wide Standard is currently being developed for the coal-fired electricity generation sector. This standard is expected to be finalized in 2005.

Waste treatment, including incineration: Emission limits have been established for incinerators. They are expressed as a concentration of mercury in the exhaust gas exiting the facility. Each government may choose the most appropriate measures to implement the standard within their jurisdiction.

Time frames for existing facilities range from 2003 for hazardous waste to 2006 for municipal and medical waste incinerators.

Waste water effluent - National Guidelines on Physical-Chemical-Biological Treatment of Hazardous Wastes recommend maximum concentrations of mercury of 0.1 mg/L, 0.001 mg/L and 0.1 mg/L respectively in waste water effluent.

Import/Export of Waste - Mercury and its compounds are subject to CEPA (1999) provisions for the movement of hazardous waste if they meet the Transport of Dangerous Goods Regulations hazard criteria. Transportation regulations also apply to import and export of toxic substances and wastes containing mercury.

Provincial Acts, regulations and guidelines on mercury - In addition to federal regulations, a number of provinces have acts, regulations and guidelines covering emissions from industrial sources. Information on the 2001 status of provincial acts and regulations is given in the Canadian submission to UNEP's Global Mercury Assessment, available from www.chem.unep.ch/mercury.

For more information on mercury in Canada, see Environment Canada's web page on mercury website, http://www.ec.gc.ca/mercury/en/index.cfm

6.4 Russian Federation

(Extracted from ACAP, 2004).

"Results of a previous mercury study in Russia

The Committee on Ecology of the State Duma of Russia and the Government of the Russian Federation issued the Order for the State Committee on Environment Protection in 1998 to develop a National Report “On mercury pollution of the environment of the Russian Federation and its impact on population health”. The main purpose of this work was to analyse mercury pollution of the environment and to determine the main sources of mercury pollution. A background analysis for the program, namely “Analysis of mercury pollution state of the environment of the Russian Federation” was developed by Scientific Research Institute on Problems of Resource Saving and Wastes Management. The main purposes of the study were to determine the main sources of mercury pollution and make recommendations for potential development of the National Program.

The main sources of Hg pollution in Russian Federation were acknowledged to be production and consumption wastes. It was not possible to make comprehensive and accurate assessment of the input from each of the sources, due to a lack of the public control over consumption and application of mercury and Hg-containing compounds.

Additionally it was figured out the distinctive features and conditions in Russia, which should be taken into account during elaboration of the national program, such as:

• Almost complete absence of monometallic mercury deposits in Russian Federation and trends for increase of accompanying mercury supplied in pyrite, zinc and copper concentrates;
• Sparseness and remoteness of many Hg consumers from Hg producers;
• Lack of continuous control over Hg consumption and recycling;
• Lack of high-effective sorbents for retention of Hg from gaseous and liquid releases at domestic market;
• Lack of standard reusable containers for collection, transportation and storage of Hg-containing wastes;
• Lack of technologies for processing of many types of Hg-containing wastes;
• Shortage of the existing capacities for Hg-containing wastes processing with application of the available technologies.

Moreover the regulatory basis was reviewed. The legal basis for mercury pollution management was elaborated in 1970-80-ies. The existing regulations usually cover general issues and do not include specific requirements.

One of the key causes of mercury pollution was acknowledged a lack of the Hg-containing wastes management system, i.e. collection, storage, transportation and neutralization. Collection, storage and transportation of Hg-containing wastes are the bottleneck in the existing system of Hg-containing wastes utilization and neutralization. Lack of the agreed documents and existence of contradictory requirements of various agencies and local authorities hamper the process of effective collection and delivery of Hg-containing wastes to the disposal site.

The authors of the document concluded that the problem of mercury pollution in Russian Federation is strongly depends on the implementation on the “Wastes” Federal target Program. The following activities were recommended for the Program' implementation targeted on Hg wastes management:

1. Forecasting on mercury consumption and determination of the feedstock for the secondary mercury till 2010;
   In this regard the enterprises' plans on caustic soda and vinyl chloride production being one of the major mercury consuming processes, transition to Hg-free methods of caustic soda and chlorine production and Hg-free catalysts should be taken into account.
2. Elaboration and implementation of the Hg consumption and recycling control system (through environmental authorities);
3. Preparation of legal basis regarding Hg consumption and recycling (or regarding total losses);
4. The national inventory and certification of Hg-containing wastes covering all enterprises, which use mercury and process Hg-containing consumption wastes;
5. Design and manufacture of the reusable containers for collection, storage and transportation of Hg-containing wastes;
   The key aspect here is to provide the agreement of the Terms of Reference with transport, sanitary and fire services, as well as design of the methods of reusable containers demercurization;
6. Elaboration of the utilization technology for particular types of Hg-containing wastes.
   The profitability of Hg-containing wastes (especially low-concentrated ones) recycling can be determined only during the technology's elaboration.

Regulation of Mercury Releases

The content of mercury in different media is regulated by maximum allowed concentrations. The concentrations were fixed in the regulatory documents developed and adopted by the Ministry of Health of the USSR.

Table 6-2 Main regulatory documents on environment and population protection from potentially dangerous pollutants including mercury and its compounds

Table 6-3 Maximum allowed concentration (MAC) of mercury in different media and allowable residues of mercury in foodstuff

Regulation on collection, package, transportation and utilization of mercury-containing wastes is given in the Instruction of the Ministry of Non-ferrous Metallurgy of the USSR, adopted in October 27, 1966. Many statements of the Instruction are outdated, that is the reason why there were developed regional rules on mercury-containing wastes management in almost each region where a company dealing with collection and treatment of mercury-containing wastes is located."

6.5 Selected regional initiatives

In the following, four existing regional initiatives, each covering parts of the Arctic countries, are described briefly with a focus on their relevance to mercury. These are the Heavy Metals protocol of the LRTAP Convention, The North American Regional Action Plan on Mercury, the OSPAR Convention and the HELCOM Convention. The descriptions were extracted from the Global Mercury Assessment (UNEP, 2002).

For a more detailed description of the coverage of mercury in these agreements, see the "Background document on mercury in existing agreements" prepared for this ACAP mercury project.

6.5.1 The Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution and its 1998 Aarhus Protocol on Heavy Metals (LRTAP Convention)

The objective of the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution is to protect man and his environment against air pollution and to endeavour to limit and, as far as possible, gradually reduce and prevent air pollution including long-range transboundary air pollution. The Convention sets up an institutional framework, bringing together policy and research components. It establishes a number of co-operative programmes for assessing and monitoring the effects of air pollution.

The Convention requires Parties to develop policies and strategies that will serve as a means of combating the discharge of pollutants, by means of exchanges of information, consultation, research and monitoring. Parties are also required to co-operate in the conduct of research into and/or development of technologies for reducing emissions of major air pollutants, instrumentation and other techniques for monitoring and measuring emission rates and ambient concentrations of air pollutants, improved models for understanding the transmission of long-range transboundary air pollutants, the effects of major air pollutants on human health and the environment and education and training programmes related to the environmental aspects of pollution by major air pollutants. Implementation of the Convention has already contributed successfully in reducing sulphur emissions across Europe, and there has also been progress in reducing emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds.

Geographic coverage and entry into force of the protocol

The Convention and its protocols are open to member states of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), as well as states having consultative status with the UNECE and regional economic integration organizations, constituted by sovereign states members of the UNECE. The UNECE has 55 member States, mainly from Central and Eastern Europe, but also includes Canada and the United States of America as members. (see http://www.unece.org/oes/eceintro.htm for the list of UNECE member States).

The Convention entered into force on 16 March 1983 and had 49 Parties as of 1 October 2002. Since its entry into force, it has been extended by eight protocols, of these the 1998 Aarhus Protocol on Heavy Metals is especially relevant to mercury.

The Aarhus Protocol entered into force in December 2003. Among the present Parties are Canada, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and the United States. The Russian Federation has not yet ratified the protocol.

The Executive Secretary of the UNECE provides the Secretariat for the Executive Body of the Convention. It does so within the UNECE Environment and Human Settlements Division.

The 1998 Aarhus Protocol on Heavy Metals, and its relevance to mercury

The Executive Body of the Convention adopted the Protocol on Heavy Metals on 24 June 1998 in Aarhus, Denmark. It targets three particularly harmful metals: cadmium, lead and mercury, and requires Parties to the Protocol to reduce their releases for these three metals. It aims to cut emissions from industrial sources (iron and steel industry, non-ferrous metal industry), combustion processes (power generation, road transport) and waste incineration. It lays down stringent limit values for emissions from stationary sources and suggests best available techniques for these sources. The Protocol requires Parties to phase out leaded petrol and introduces measures to lower heavy metal releases from other products. Emission levels must be reported using as a minimum methodologies specified by the Steering Body of EMEP, the Cooperative Programme for Monitoring and Evaluation of Long-range Transmission of Air Pollutants in Europe.

Article 3 describes the basic obligations set out in the Protocol, below is a summary of those especially relevant to mercury.

A) Reduction of total annual emissions of mercury into the atmosphere, compared to the reference year for the Party (1990, or an alternative year between 1985 and 1995 set when becoming a Party), through application of best available techniques, product control measures or other emission reduction strategies.

B) Use of best available techniques for stationary sources - for new plants within 2 years, for existing plants within 8 years. The standards for best available techniques are given as examples in Annex III to the Protocol, and include both cleaning technology and substitution of mercury based technology, for example in chlor/alkali plants.

C) Application of limit values to control emissions from major stationary sources, both new and existing – Limit values for a number of sources are specified in Annex V of the Protocol, for example for particulate emissions from combustion plants, mercury emissions from chlor-alkali plants and mercury emissions from municipal, medical and hazardous waste incineration.

D) Application of product control measures concerning mercury – The Protocol requires Parties to achieve specific mercury levels in alkaline manganese batteries within 5 years, or 10 years for Parties with economies in transition. Alkaline manganese button cells and batteries composed of button cells are exempted from this obligation. In addition, Parties should consider applying additional product control measures as described in Annex VII of the Protocol. Recommendations are given for mercury-containing products such as electric equipment, electrical components (thermostats, switches), measuring devices (thermometers, manometers, barometers), fluorescent lamps, dental amalgam, pesticides including seed dressings, paints and batteries other than alkaline manganese batteries, and include prohibition of specific products, voluntary agreements and recycling programmes.

Monitoring and Evaluation of Long-Range Transmission of Air Pollutants in Europe

Associated with the LRTAP-process, the main objective of the EMEP programme (Co-operative Programme for Monitoring and Evaluation of the Long-Range Transmission of Air pollutants in Europe) is to regularly provide Governments and subsidiary bodies under the LRTAP Convention with qualified scientific information to support the development and further evaluation of the international protocols on release reductions negotiated within the Convention. Initially, the EMEP programme focused on assessing the transboundary transport of acidification and eutrophication; later, the scope of the programme has widened to address other issues covered by the Convention, such as POPs, heavy metals, including mercury, and particulate matter.

The EMEP programme relies on three main elements: (1) collection of emission data, (2) measurements of air and precipitation quality and (3) modelling of atmospheric transport and deposition of air pollution. Through the combination of these three elements, EMEP fulfils its required assessment and regularly reports on emissions, concentrations and/or depositions of air pollutants, the quantity and significance of transboundary fluxes and related exceedances to critical loads and threshold levels. The combination of these components provides also a good basis for the evaluation and qualification of the EMEP estimates.

The EMEP programme is carried out in collaboration with a broad network of scientists and national experts that contribute to the systematic collection, analysis and reporting of emission data, measurement data and integrated assessment results. Three different Task Forces - on measurements and modelling, on emission inventories and projections and on integrated assessment modelling - provide for discussion and scientific exchange. Canada and USA are not part of the EMEP region and conduct their own comparable national activities.

The coordination and intercalibration of chemical air quality and precipitation measurements are carried out at the Chemical Coordinating Centre (CCC). The storage and distribution of reliable information on emissions and emissions projections is the task of the Meteorological Synthesizing Centre–West in Oslo, Norway. The modelling development for heavy metals and POPs is the responsibility of the Meteorological Synthesizing Centre -East (MSC-E) in Moscow, Russian Federation. In 1999, the Executive Body of the Convention decided to include integrated assessment into the core activities of EMEP and to establish a Center for Integrated Assessment Modelling (CIAM) building on past modelling work, in particular the RAINS (Regional Acidification, Information and Simulation) model.

Review of the Heavy Metals Protocol

With the entry into force of the Heavy Metals Protocol, a review of its sufficiency and effectiveness will commence. Initial work related to this review will take place in the Heavy Metals Task Force. During 2005 the work plan for the Task Force is anticipated to include the following activities (according to UNECE, December 2004, at http://www.unece.org/env/documents/2004/eb/air/eb.air.2004.3.e.pdf):

• Initiate the technical work necessary for the scheduled evaluations of emission limit values (no later than two years after the date of entry into force of the Protocol) for existing chlor-alkali plants (annex V, para. 19) and medical waste incineration (annex V, para. 23 (c));
   
• Initiate the technical work necessary for the review of sufficiency and effectiveness of the Protocol taking into account the best available scientific information on the effects of depositions of heavy metals, assessments of technological developments and changing economic conditions;
   
• Prepare annotated chapter headings for the technical components of the review of sufficiency and effectiveness;
   
• Initiate the technical work necessary to assess the extent to which a satisfactory basis exists for the application of an effects-based approach;
   
• Prepare generic guidelines and/or procedures for the technical review of additional heavy metals, product control measures or products/product groups that may be proposed by Parties for inclusion in the Protocol.

6.5.2 North American Regional Action Plan on Mercury

The Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) is an international organization created by Canada, Mexico and the United States of America under the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC). The CEC was established to address regional environmental concerns, help prevent potential trade and environmental conflicts, and to promote the effective enforcement of environmental law. The Agreement complements the environmental provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The Council, the governing body of the CEC, is composed of the environment ministers (or the equivalent) of each country. It meets at least once a year to discuss CEC programmes and activities.

The Commission provided the mechanism for the three member countries to negotiate an agreement, Council Regulation #95-5 on the Sound Management of Chemicals, which was agreed to on 13 October 1995. The resolution sets out a framework, together with specific commitments, to work collaboratively in addressing the sound management of chemicals in the region. A Working Group was established to work with the CEC to implement the decisions and commitments made in the resolution. Since then, four North American Regional Action Plans, on DDT, chlordane, PCBs and mercury, have been developed and are now at various stages of implementation.

The ultimate goal of the Action Plan on Mercury is to achieve a reduction in the anthropogenic releases of mercury to the North American environment through appropriate national and international initiatives, to amounts that can be attributed to naturally occurring levels and fluxes. The Parties intent is to obtain this goal by seeking to reduce mercury releases from human activities, develop enhanced capacity to measure and manage mercury, asses impact and communicate concerns, establish an equitable implementation and compliance protocol and promote continued responsible mercury management initiatives on behalf of governments, industry and citizens through regulatory and voluntary/non-regulatory mercury management actions.

The plan sets out detailed recommendations for reducing emissions and releases of mercury from a large number of sources and activities. Examples of some of the specific recommendations made in the Action Plan are:

Promoting life cycle management practises (tracking exports and imports, promoting recognized environmental management systems (such as ISO 14.000);

Encouraging the timely adoption of 5 kilogram reporting threshold for facilities that manufacture, process or use mercury on an annual basis through national pollutant release and transfer registers;

Encouraging substitution or phase-out of mercury in products or processes. Where no substitutes available, promoting the use of recycled or recovered mercury;

Encouraging development of substitutes in the automotive vehicle industry both for new and existing vehicles;

Promoting measures that reduce or eliminate the use of mercury in other sectors such as battery manufacturing sector, electrical switches and relays sector, lamp manufacturing sector, health and dental care sector, cultural and artisanal uses and analytical, testing, measurement, calibration and education sector;

Managing atmospheric emissions of mercury (goal of 50 percent reduction nationally in mercury emissions by 2006 from existing major stationary sources based on 1990 or equivalent emissions inventories);

Monitoring the industry-developed voluntary/non-regulatory programme to reduce mercury usage in the mercury cell chlor-alkali industry by 50 percent to 80 metric tons, by the year 2005 and ensuring that new chlor-alkali facilities constructed after 2000 meet a limit value of 0.01 g Hg/metric ton chlorine production capacity, or, where warranted, ban the mercury-cell process;

Preventing mercury in products and process waste from being released directly to the environment, by encouraging efficient waste collection and preventing mercury in products and process waste from being mixed with less hazardous waste in the general waste stream, by encouraging separate collection and treatment;

Considering development of an initiative to promote mercury retirement whereby emission sources that meet required standards but continue to emit residual amounts of mercury are able to counterbalance their residual emissions by removing and retiring an equal or greater amount of mercury from the North American pool;

Encouraging development and use of effective mercury waste-stabilization and disposal techniques and methods;

Developing consistent/comparable mercury-related data;

Promoting collaborative research programmes and atmospheric modelling work.

Although the regional Action Plans under the Sound Management of Chemicals initiative are not legally binding upon any one or all of the Parties to the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, there is a strong national commitment by each member country to ensure that the Action Plan on mercury results in significant reductions of mercury contamination to the environment. The implementation of the Action Plan will be ensured through the oversight of an Implementation Task Force.

6.5.3 The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention)

The objectives of the 1992 OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic are to take all possible steps to prevent and eliminate pollution and take the necessary measures to protect the sea area against the adverse effects of human activities and to safeguard human health and to conserve marine ecosystems and, where practicable, to restore marine areas which have been adversely affected. The Convention contains annexes addressing different sources of pollution, such as prevention and elimination of pollution from land-based sources; prevention and elimination of pollution by dumping or incineration (which prohibits incineration); prevention and elimination of pollution from offshore sources; assessment of the quality of the marine environment and protection and conservation of the ecosystems and biological diversity of the maritime area.

Geographic coverage and entry into force

The OSPAR Convention is open to Parties to the “Oslo” and “Paris” Conventions (i.e., the Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land-Based Sources and the Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft), any other coastal state bordering the maritime area, any state located upstream on watercourses reaching the maritime area or any regional economic integration organisation having a member state that qualifies. The maritime area covers the north-east Atlantic including the North Sea and comprises the internal waters and the territorial sea of Parties, the sea beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea under the jurisdiction of the coastal state, and the high seas. Other States or regional economic organisations that do not satisfy the criteria may be invited unanimously by the Parties to accede to the Convention.

The OSPAR Convention came into force on 25 March 1998. It replaced the Paris and Oslo Conventions. However, Decisions, Recommendations, and other agreements adopted under the two previous Conventions continue to be applicable, unaltered in their legal nature, unless they are terminated by measures adopted under the OSPAR Convention. The OSPAR Convention currently has 16 Parties (Belgium, Denmark, European Union, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).

The OSPAR Commission, with representatives of each of the Parties, is the governing body of the Convention. The Commission meets annually, sometimes at ministerial level.

The OSPAR Strategy with regard to Hazardous Substances, and its relevance to mercury

In 1998 at Sintra, Portugal, the first ministerial meeting of the OSPAR Commission adopted, among others, a Strategy with regard to Hazardous Substances, with a view to the further implementation of the OSPAR Convention, which had just came into force. The objective of the Strategy is to prevent pollution of the maritime area by continuing to reduce discharges, emissions and losses of hazardous substances, with the ultimate aim of achieving concentrations in the marine environment near background values for naturally occurring substances and close to zero for man-made synthetic substances.

The Strategy also includes a timeframe, setting out the basis for OSPAR's work for achieving the objective - every endeavour will be made to move towards the target of cessation of discharges, emissions and losses of hazardous substances by the year 2020.

To this end, a process has been established to identify the OSPAR list of chemicals for priority action. This list was revised in 2001, and currently contains 42 substances or groups of substances, including mercury and organic mercury compounds. These chemicals are being addressed by preparing (for those in use in the OSPAR area) background documents for each substance or group specifying the sources of inputs of them to the marine environment, the threat posed and possible measures. Such measures are then considered. An OSPAR Background Document on Mercury and Organic Mercury Compounds (OSPAR Commission, 2000) was endorsed by OSPAR in 2000 and the actions recommended there are taken into account, as appropriate, in the work of OSPAR.

There are several measures applicable under OSPAR to control mercury emissions, discharges and losses from specific sectors, e.g. the measures related to the chlor-alkali industry and PARCOM Decision 85/1 on Limit Values and Quality Objectives for Mercury Discharges by Sectors other than the Chlor-alkali Industry. Furthermore, OSPAR measures on Best Available Techniques (BATs) for various industrial installations and the offshore gas and oil installations will also help to limit discharges, emissions and losses of mercury.

With regards to the chlor-alkali sector, there are a number of measures applicable as regards the control of mercury in discharges to water and emissions to air. In PARCOM Decision on New Chlor-Alkali Plants Using Mercury Cells, 1982 the Commission decided that authorisations for new chlor-alkali plants might be granted by Parties only if such authorisations were based on application of best technical means available for preventing discharges of mercury. Best technical means available at that time made it possible to limit discharges of mercury using the recycled-brine process to less than 0.5 g/metric ton of installed chlorine production capacity. Furthermore, the Commission agreed that when the construction of new plants was being considered, the use of mercury-free technology, in particular membrane cells should be encouraged whenever circumstances permitted.

In PARCOM Decision 90/3 on Reducing Atmospheric Emissions from Existing Chlor-Alkali Plants, adopted on 14 June 1990, the Parties agreed that existing mercury based chlor-alkali plants would be required to meet by 31 December 1996 a standard of 2g Hg/t Cl2 capacity for emissions to the atmosphere, unless there was a firm commitment that the plant would be converted to mercury-free technology by the year 2000. It also agreed that mercury in hydrogen released to the atmosphere, or burnt, would be included in this standard. They also recommended that existing mercury cell chlor-alkali plants be phased out as soon as practicable and set the objective of complete phase-out by 2010. The chlor-alkali producers within the OSPAR area have met the emissions reduction requirements of PARCOM 90/3. In order to make progress towards the other recommendations within this decision they have presented six voluntary commitments with OSPAR. The details are provided in section 3.2.4 EUROPEAN COMMMUNITY in the description on chlor-alkali production.

The main tools for controlling releases of mercury from products are the placing of restrictions on the marketing and use of the products, or the development of products containing non-hazardous substitutes for mercury.

Mercury discharges from the dental sector - Several PARCOM Recommendations relating to the reduction of mercury discharges from dental sources are applicable under OSPAR. In 1981, the Paris Commission recommended the installation of special filters in dental surgeries and clinics to collect the residues of mercury amalgams. PARCOM Recommendation 89/3 on Programmes and Measures for Reducing Mercury Discharges from Various Sources urges that alternative materials to dental amalgams should be used where appropriate and where excessive cost can be avoided. Surplus or old amalgam should be trapped and separated efficiently, then sent for recovery of the mercury content. PARCOM Recommendation 93/2 on Further Restrictions on the Discharge of Mercury from Dentistry states that equipment should be installed to separate water and amalgam to enable collection of the amalgam as from 1 January 1997.

Mercury in batteries - PARCOM Decision 90/2 on Programmes and Measures for Mercury and Cadmium-Containing Batteries lays down various measures dealing with the recovery, disposal and marketing and use of certain mercury and cadmium batteries.

Pesticides containing mercury - PARCOM Recommendation 89/3 also proposed measures on restricting the use of biocides and pesticides containing mercury.

Industrial, laboratory and medical control instruments and electrical equipment - PARCOM Recommendation 89/3 also proposes measures on recycling mercury used in such equipment and encouraged the use of equipment not containing mercury, whenever replacements become available at comparable costs. Some Parties have initiated actions for example to limit the use of mercury thermometers, to encourage the development of low-mercury lighting and to establish recycling and special collection schemes.

6.5.4 The Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (Helsinki Convention)

The objectives of the Helsinki Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, adopted on 9 April 1992, are to take all appropriate measures, individually or by means of regional co-operation, to prevent and eliminate pollution in order to promote the ecological restoration of the Baltic Sea Area and the preservation of its ecological balance.

The Convention establishes fundamental principles and obligations, as set out in Article 3, whereby Parties are obliged to:

Take all appropriate legislative, administrative and other measure to prevent and eliminate pollution in order to promote the ecological restoration of the Baltic Sea Area and the preservation of its ecological balance;

Apply the precautionary principles;

Promote the use of Best Environmental Practice and Best Available Technology;

Apply the polluter-pays principle;

Ensure that measurements and calculations of emissions from point sources and of inputs from diffuse sources are carried out in a scientifically appropriate manner in order to assess the state of the marine environment and ascertain the implementation of the Convention; and

Use their best endeavours to ensure the implementation of the Convention does not cause transboundary pollution in areas outside the Baltic Sea Area, nor lead to unacceptable strains on the environment or increased risk to human health.

Geographic coverage and entry into force

The Helsinki Convention is restricted to the States and the European Community that participated in the 1992 Helsinki Conference and have ratified the Convention. Others can become a party upon invitation by all the Parties. The Convention covers the Baltic Sea and the entrance of the Baltic Sea and the drainage areas to these waters. Internal waters are included.

The 1992 Helsinki Convention replaces the 1974 Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area. It entered into force on 17 January 2000. As of October 2002, the Helsinki Convention had 10 Parties (Denmark, Estonia, European Community, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia and Sweden).

The governing body of the Convention is the Helsinki Commission - Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM). HELCOM meets annually and, from time to time, meetings are held at ministerial level.

The HELCOM strategy to implement its objective with regard to hazardous substances, and its relevance to mercury

In 1998 HELCOM established an objective with regard to hazardous substances and a strategy to implement the objective, through the adoption of HELCOM Recommendation 19/5. The objective is to prevent pollution of the Convention Area by continuously reducing discharges, emissions and losses of hazardous substances towards the target of their cessation by the year 2020, with the ultimate aim of achieving concentrations in the environment near background values for naturally occurring substances and close to zero for man-made synthetic substances. A total of 42 chemicals have so far been selected by HELCOM for immediate priority action, including mercury and its compounds.

HELCOM has adopted a number of recommendations specifically relating to mercury:

HELCOM Recommendation 6/4 (adopted 13 March 1985): Recommendation concerning measures aimed at the reduction of mercury resulting from dentistry.

HELCOM Recommendation 13/4 (adopted 5 February 1992, under revision): Atmospheric pollution related to the use of scrap material in the iron and steel industry.

HELCOM Recommendation 14/5 (adopted 3 February 1993, under revision): Reduction of diffuse emissions from used batteries containing heavy metals (mercury, cadmium, lead).

HELCOM Recommendation 16/8 (adopted 15 March 1995): Limitation of emissions into atmosphere and discharges into water from incineration of household waste

HELCOM Recommendation 17/6 (adopted 12 March 1996): Reduction of pollution from discharges into water, emissions into the atmosphere and phosphogypsum out of the production of fertilizers

HELCOM Recommendation 18/2 (adopted 12 March 1997): Offshore activities.

HELCOM Recommendation 19/5 (adopted 26 March 1998): HELCOM objective with regard to hazardous substances.

HELCOM Recommendation 23/4 (adopted 6 March 2002, superseding 18/5): Measures aimed at the reduction of mercury pollution resulting from light sources and electrical equipment

HELCOM Recommendation 23/6 (adopted 6 March 2002, superseding 6/3): Reduction of emissions and discharges of mercury from chlor-alkali industry.

HELCOM Recommendation 23/7 (adopted 6 March 2002, superseding 16/6): Reduction of discharges and emissions from the metal surface treatment.

HELCOM Recommendation 23/11 (adopted 6 March 2002, superseding 20E/6): Requirements for discharging of waste water from the chemical industry.

HELCOM Recommendation 23/12 (adopted 6 March 2002, superseding 16/10): Reduction of discharges and emissions from production of textiles.

The HELCOM strategy on hazardous substances, including mercury, in many areas parallels the work implemented within the context of the OSPAR Convention.

Footnotes

[4] Sweden, Finland and Denmark are EU members. Iceland and Norway are not EU members. They are part of the EFTA-agreement with the EU.

| Front page | | Contents | | Previous | | Next | | Top |

Version 1.0 February 2005, © Danish Environmental Protection Agency