Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
end-of-life mercury-added products; monitor mercury levels
and trends in the environment; and educate consumers,
businesses, and the general public about mercury (e.g., New
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, 1999;
Massachusetts Executive Offi ce of Environmental Affairs,
2000). In addition to individual state initiatives, several
collaborative multistate efforts at the regional and national
level are also underway, including the New England Gover-
nors and Eastern Canadian Premiers Mercury Action Plan,
the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy, the Great Lakes
Mercury in Products Phase Down and Emission Reduc-
tion Strategies, and the Quicksilver Caucus, among others
(USEPA 1997a; Conference of New England Governors-
Eastern Canadian Premiers 1998; Smith and Trip, 2005;
Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, 2008, 2010).
To help delineate the scope and diversity of state activi-
ties addressing mercury, a national survey of state environ-
mental protection agencies was completed in 2005 by the
Environmental Council of States (ECOS, 2005). Additional,
more focused surveys of state activities have also been com-
pleted by other organizations, including a survey of state
mercury-reduction programs targeting coal-fi red electricity-
generating units by the National Association of Clean Air
Agencies (NACAA, 2007) and regional surveys and summa-
ries of state activities addressing mercury-added products
by the Northeast Waste Management Offi cials' Association
(NEWMOA, 2008a).
The responses to these surveys highlight the leadership
role the states have assumed in many areas to reduce mer-
cury pollution. Of the 45 states that responded to the ECOS
2005 national survey, 22 reported that they either had a
mercury action plan or strategy in place to manage and
coordinate their mercury activities (16 states) or planned to
develop one (6 states). All of the responding states reported
that they engaged in outreach or education efforts on mer-
cury, including communications about fi sh-consumption
advisories and consumer products, often in multiple lan-
guages. Many states also reported considerable activity in
the areas of mercury-added products, emission source con-
trol, monitoring and research, and interstate coordination
and information sharing.
mercury-added batteries. Even in this case, federal action
followed the adoption or introduction of legislation address-
ing mercury-added batteries in 13 states (Hurd et al., 1993).
Over the past several years, at least a dozen states have
adopted more comprehensive mercury products legislation
comprised of one or more of the following elements: restric-
tions on the sale of mercury-added products for which envi-
ronmentally preferable alternatives exist, labeling require-
ments for mercury-added products that continue to be sold to
inform consumers about their mercury content and the need
for proper disposal or recycling at end-of-life, requirements
that manufacturers report their mercury-added product sales,
and requirements that manufacturers support collection and
recycling programs for end-of-life products. Many of these
elements have been adopted by all the New England States
and many others (NEWMOA, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c, 2008d).
Emission Sources
Many states also reported adopting regulations on mercury
emission sources that are more stringent than federal require-
ments, in particular with respect to municipal solid-waste
combustors, medical-waste incinerators, and coal-fi red
electricity-generating units (EGUs). As the largest national
point source category of mercury emissions and a large source
of electric generating capacity in the United States, coal-fi red
EGUs have received considerable attention from the states.
In March 2005, the USEPA adopted the Clean Air Mercury
Rule (CAMR) to regulate mercury emissions from EGUs
(USEPA 2005a). The rule established a nationwide mercury
emissions cap for this sector and an interstate emissions
trading program. The initial cap, applicable through 2018,
was set at a level high enough to be achievable by pollution-
control measures to address other pollutants. Mercury-
specifi c controls were not required. Emissions under the fi nal
cap were estimated to be about 70% lower than the baseline.
In the deliberations leading up this rule the EPA ini-
tially determined in 2000 that EGUs should be classifi ed
as a source of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), in particular
because of mercury emissions. The EPA also determined that
“regulation of HAP emissions from coal and oil fi red elec-
tric utility steam generating units under Section 112 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) was appropriate and necessary” (USEPA,
2000). Under the 1990 CAA amendments, this determina-
tion would have necessitated that these units meet a strict
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) stan-
dard to reduce mercury emissions. Subsequently, in 2005,
with, according to many observers, considerable evidence
of undue reliance on industry information and documents,
the EPA reversed its decision to regulate EGU under Section
112 of the CAA and instead determined that regulation
under the provisions of Section 111 of the CAA, using a cap-
and-trade program instead of MACT controls, was appropri-
ate (USEPA 2005a, 2005b).
Many states and other organizations criticized CAMR
on the grounds that the EPA's decisions and the rule itself
Mercury-Added Products
More than 40% of state respondents reported taking actions
to reduce pollution attributable to the use and disposal of
mercury-added products. These efforts include legislative,
regulatory, and voluntary programs to phase out the sales
of certain mercury-added products, label products contain-
ing mercury, and enhance the collection and recycling of
end-of-life mercury-added products.
State legislation addressing mercury-added products has
far eclipsed federal action. The last national law address-
ing unnecessary uses of mercury was the federal Mercury-
Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act of
1996 (P.L. 104-142), which prohibited the sale of certain
