Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
can be strong advocates for appropriate federal support.
Expanded programs should also be designed to inform and
support key state policy and regulatory concerns. The states
are particularly interested in the following areas:
because of funding, workload, and travel limitations.
Improved communications would help target research
to policy priorities, improve coordination and data
sharing between state and academic initiatives, and
build support for expanded research and monitoring.
Given the signifi cant interest and commitment of
resources to mercury research and monitoring already
made by the states, opportunities to maximize these
efforts and leverage existing initiatives should be
pursued. Expanded monitoring and research programs
should refl ect and build on the state efforts already
underway. A collaborative regional data assessment
and communication effort in the Northeast provides a
successful example, which involved state, federal, and
academic researchers and communicated summary
data to policy makers in an effective format (Evers,
2005; Evers and Clair, 2005).
.
Environmental Indicators
.
Approaches and data
to evaluate the results of state, regional, and global
mercury policy initiatives are critical to ensuring
accountability and optimizing efforts. Improved data
on trends in mercury levels in the environment and
exposures are needed, based on consistent, or at least
comparable, methods. Resources to allow for more
coordinated and robust mercury monitoring are
needed nationally and globally.
.
Mercury Sources and Inventories
.
Improved data
on trends in mercury production, recycling, use,
and releases are also needed based on transparent
tracking and reporting mechanisms. Of particular
interest are improved estimates of emissions
attributable to oil combustion and refi ning, mobile
sources, mining, and releases attributable to mercury-
added products. Improved global inventories on a
country and sector basis will ultimately be needed
to effectively develop, implement, and track global
reduction initiatives.
.
Elemental Mercury Exposures and Impacts
.
The potential for exposures to elemental mercury
attributable to various products and resulting risks are
uncertain. Results from a research project completed
by the State of Maine suggest that elemental mercury
from broken CFLs may, if not cleaned up properly,
result in inhalation exposures of potential concern
to young children and pregnant women. Better
information on elemental mercury releases from
broken products and effective cleanup procedures
and on elemental mercury toxicity under short- and
long-term exposures is needed to optimize guidance
for safe product use and spill cleanup in homes,
businesses, and schools (Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, 1995; Carpi and Chen, 2001; Riley,
et al. 2001; ATSDR 2003; MEDEP, 2007).
.
Determinants of Mercury Levels in Fish and Other
Biota
.
Improved understanding of the factors that
infl uence mercury levels in fi sh would help target fi sh
testing and consumption outreach as well as allow
environmental responses to various interventions to
be better assessed.
.
Outreach and Communications
.
Information on the
effectiveness of outreach and education efforts relating
to fi sh consumption advisories and the benefi ts of fi sh
consumption, safe mercury product use, and mercury
spill cleanups is also needed. Communication is also a
key to better coordination and integration of research
and monitoring programs across state and federal
programs. Yet communications between scientists and
policy makers often do not occur in a timely fashion
Given that many states are actively implementing
mercury monitoring and research programs, national
mercury monitoring and research initiatives should seek to
involve the states as active partners, facilitate participation
of state scientists and policy experts and leverage existing
programs to the degree possible. Travel budget issues often
preclude state participation in scientifi c meetings, which
limits opportunities for project development, coordination,
collaboration, and sharing of information about research
results, priorities, and available state funding. This is espe-
cially the case for international meetings. Increased support
for state participation at such meetings would help ensure
better coordination and integration.
Conclusions
Until recently efforts to reduce mercury pollution in the
United States were, in large part, led by the states. These
state initiatives were implemented in response to scien-
tifi c data as well as public concerns over mercury's health
and environmental impacts, especially to children. Key
policy drivers underlying these initiatives include the
extensive toxicology and epidemiology database demon-
strating mercury's developmental neurotoxicity, as well as
data documenting that a signifi cant number of people are
being exposed to mercury at levels of toxicologic concern.
Other fi ndings supporting action include the widespread
contamination of freshwater fi sh from water bodies across
the United States; contamination of marine species that are
popular seafoods; elevated levels of mercury in “signature”
wildlife species; the signifi cant contribution of anthropo-
genic sources to local, regional, and global mercury load-
ings; and the identifi cation of many preventable sources.
Over the past decade, the states, individually and in some
cases collectively, have implemented mercury policy and
regulatory initiatives far more aggressive than those adopted
by the EPA. State programs and policies include numer-
ous examples of successful and innovative approaches to
