Presentations May 23 25, 2005 Portland, Maine For

Presentations May 23  25, 2005 Portland, Maine For

Presentations May 23 25, 2005 Portland, Maine For related information visit: http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/conferences An Approach to Consider in Evaluating Mercury Product Waste Disposal Trends Randy England and Michael Aucott, NJDEP, DSRT May 25, 2005 NJ MSWI Annual Permitted Capacities (T/Yr) 1000000 800000 600000

400000 200000 0 CAM ESS GLOU FACILITY UNION WAR Examining our assumptions and success

NJ Hg TF Recommendations Making Progress, not pursuing Model Leg as yet Targeting certain categories where we expect significant reductions /env impct Emission Regs Universal Waste Rule Heard earlier of NJs Automotive mercury removal April, 2005-Thermometer sale restrictions Brochure-outreach/education How to track effectiveness? Batteries were ~ 90% of the total discards of mercury in products in the municipal solid waste stream (1989) EPA, 1992 Report 530-R-92-013, Characterization of Products Containing Mercury in Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1970 to 2000Franklin Associates, Ltd.

NJ Dry Cell Battery Management Act (1992/1996) Mercury was phased out of certain types of batteries in conjunction with the "Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act," (passed in 1996) What did we observe? Annual Mercury Emissions from NJ Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators 5000 4500 4000 3500 lbs/yr 3000 2500

2000 1500 1000 500 0 19911993 avg/y 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

2001 2002 2003 2004 Reduction in Maximum Mercury Emissions from Five Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators in NJ (lbs/yr) Essex Warren Camden

Gloucester Union 5000 4500 4000 3500 lbs/yr 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

19911993 avg/y 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

2003 2004 Other Factors 1996-MSWI Not at Full Capacity 1994-NJDEP Air Regulations (Separation/segregation & emission limits) USGS: The Materials Flow of Mercury in the Economies of the United States and the World by John L. Sznopek1 and Thomas G. Goonan1 Open-File Report 00-281 http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2000/

c1197/ QSC/ECOS: Mercury Commodity Market Review-Economic Facts & Reasoning about the Global Mercury Commodity Market, including US Contributions 3,000 1,500 1,200 2,000 900 600 1,000 300 0 0

1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 add 98 to 2004 ? Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator Material Flow Municipal Waste: Residential Commercial ?Industrial Incineration Remove large items iitemsitems

Melted Material & Combined Ash Ferrous? Ferrous material + Magnetic Separation adhering ash sold? Hg

Iron & Steel Mini Mill Ash to Landfill Vibrating conveyor Municipal Waste: Residential Commercial ?Industrial Incineration Remove large items iitemsitems

Ferrous? Ferrous material + Melted Material & Combined Ash Ash Magnetic Separation adhering ash sold?

Hg Iron & Steel Mini Mill Ash to Landfill Vibrating conveyor Estimates of mercury content of municipal solid waste based on waste quantities, ash concentrations, air emissions, and/or air inlet concentrations at four incinerators in NJ 8 Essex County, ash & emissions Union County, ash & emissions

parts per million Hg in MSW 7 Warren County, ash & emissions 6 Warren, inlet concentrations, yearly avg. Essex, inlet concentrations, yearly avg. 5 Camden, inlet concentrations, yearly avg. 4 3

2 1 0 Jan-95 Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01

Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Mercury content of solid waste Based on waste quantities, ash concentrations, and air emissions at the Essex County, NJ MSW incinerator 8 7 parts per million 6

5 4 3 2 1 0 Mar-95 Mar-96 Mar-97 Mar-98 Mar-99 Mar-00 Mar-01 Mar-02 Mar-03 Mar-04 Mar-05 Mercury Content of Solid Waste 5.0 Based on waste quantities, ash concentrations, and air emissions at the Essex County, NJ MSW incinerator (Yearly Mean) 4.5

Yearly Mean parts per million 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Mar-95 Mar-96 Mar-97 Mar-98 Mar-99 Mar-00 Mar-01 Mar-02 Mar-03 Mar-04 Mar-05 Estimates of mercury content of municipal solid waste based on air inlet concentrations at three incinerators in NJ 3.0

Warren, inlet concentrations, yearly avg. Essex, inlet concentrations, yearly avg. parts per million Hg in MSW 2.5 Camden, inlet concentrations, yearly avg. 2.0 DRAFT 1.5 1.0 0.5

0.0 Jan-95 Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02

Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 CONCLUSION Interesting, but inconclusive result Seems that mercury levels are decreasing For accurate tracking, need Total Metals over time (consistent procedures, etc) Stay Tuned For Info:

[email protected] (609) 984-7927 [email protected] (609) 292-7530 Presentations May 23 25, 2005 Portland, Maine PROPOSED MERCURY REDUCTION INDICATORS FOR NEWMOA STATES RICH PHILLIPS Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation

Indicator Development Process Individual NEWMOA state efforts Regional core mercury reduction indicators suggested by directors Regional workgroup proposal Directors considering indicator package Concept is an agreed upon core group and states provide data annually if available PRODUCT COLLECTION/RECYCLING PROGRAMS Indicator

Pounds of Mercury Collected from: AUTO SWITCHES AMALGAM SEPARATORS FLUORESCENT LAMPS THERMOSTATS THERMOMETERS K-12 SCHOOLS PRODUCT BANS/PHASE-OUTS Indicator Amount of Mercury Reduced from: STATE SALES BANS: BANS

MERCURY FEVER THERMOMETERS THERMOSTATS SWITCHES IN CARS STATE SALES PHASE-OUTS: According to amount of mercury in each phased-out product or product category Voluntary manufacturer efforts prompted by state laws PRODUCT LABELING Indicator Number of products or product categories with approved labeling plans in Vermont. Number of manufacturers now labeling their products as reported through Vermont.

www.newmoa.org Terri Goldberg (617) 367-8558 x302 [email protected] Presentations May 23 25, 2005 Portland, Maine Quicksilver Caucus Mercury Compendium Peggy Harris, P.E. CA Department of Toxic Substances Control Purpose of QSC Hg

Compendium Strengthen State Capacity to Reduce and Manage Hg Assess status of State activities Develop State action plan guidance Develop tool box for States 45 States have responded Survey Contents Strategies and Outcome Measures Hg Sources and Monitoring Pollution Prevention, Recycling, Management & Cleanup Public Outreach & Hg Related Research Vehicle switches

Hg survey results Does your state quantify progress on reducing mercury pollution? yes no 20 25 Most frequently used measures to quantify progress 20 20

T otal amount of H g c ollec ted 20 19.5 19 18.5 18 17.5 17 R educ tion in the amount of H g in fis h tis s ue 18

17 N umber of H g-c ontaining devic es c ollec ted 16.5 16 15.5 S tates us ing meas ure R educ tion in the number of fis h advis ories /impaired w aters Measure to best quantify progress on Hg pollution reduction

Reduction in fish tissue concentration Emissions reductions Amount of Hg collected Top 3 intrastate anthropogenic sources of Hg 35 30 32 c oal-fired plants 25 20

15 10 c ement k ilns 12 13 5 0 Number of s tates indus trial boilers Hg monitoring 45

F is h tis ue monitoring 42 40 35 30 25 28 26 Was tew ater dis c harge monitoring 23

20 20 Waterbody s ediment monitoring 15 Depos ition monitoring 10 5 A mbient air monitoring 0

N umbe r of s tates Bans/limits on Hgcontaining products 24 25 20 S ales bans 17 15 10 9

U s e bans 11 12 Dis pos al bans L imits on H g in produc ts 5 0 States w ith ban/limit N one of thes e bans /limits

Public outreach on mercury reduction/progress Fact sheets Reports Press releases Hotlines/phone assistance Workshops Quantify progress on Hg switch removal Number of switches collected Pounds of mercury collected Others Amt of Hg to # of vehicles processed Number and % of salvage yards and scrap processors participating

More Information Compendium currently being written Should be available later this summer For more information about the Quicksilver Caucus visit: www.ecos.org Presentations May 23 25, 2005 Portland, Maine Implementing the Mercury Chemical Action Plan Measuring Success

Goals of the Mercury Chemical Action Plan Virtual elimination (continual reductions) of the use and release of anthropogenic (man-made) mercury in Washington State Minimize human exposure to mercury though better mercury collection, disposal, and management options Elements of the Mercury Chemical Action Plan

Overview of what we know about human-caused sources of mercury in Washington List possible mercury reduction options with recommendations Identify research needs Reduction actions will be staggered based on Resources Knowledge Availability of non-mercury alternatives Washington States Hg Releases

Ecology estimates about 3,800 to 5,000 pounds of mercury per year Most releases are from small to medium businesses, schools, and households Focused, incremental voluntary changes and small compliance activities a priority Success Measures Resulting from MCAP Implementation and MERA

2005 to 2007 1. Compliance of Dental BMPs, Installation of amalgam separators expected to reduce mercury releases released to POTWs or septic systems (50-60% reduction rate) 200-250 lbs/yr 2. Collection of Hg switches on end-of-life vehicles to 2020 -- (90% reduction) 200 lbs/yr Success Measures cont. 3.

Collection of elemental Hg (unused stocks) from schools, dental offices, thermometer collections etc. (70% reduction rate?) 200 lbs/yr 4. No mercury waste in Red bags to autoclaves 100 lbs/yr 5. Improved fluorescent light tube recycling Recycling rate increased from 20% to 40% 250 lbs/yr Success Measures cont

6. Reduction of fluorescent lights disposed in solid waste incinerators (20 - 40% additional reduction) 60 lbs/yr 7. Reduction in mercury load going to sewage sludge incinerators 80 lbs/yr 8. Improvement in thermostat collection in Washington

20 lbs/yr ESTIMATED TOTAL 1,110-1,260 lbs/yr Success Measures Dentists Work Required:

complete internal coordination between programs clear, simple language for public, dentists clear, quantifiable performance measures (develop a performance check list?) prepare potential compliance action checklist complete commitments of MOU with WSDA educate staff on ISO 14001 separators, proper use WSDA to prepare education presentations coordinate bulk mercury collection provide selected Ecology TA visits incorporate dentists into HW education fee? prepare performance assessment report Total Dental Offi ces vs. Received

Surveys Excluding King Cnty as of 3/ 2/ 2005 766 27% Total Dentists Sent Survey Number of Surveys Returned 2049 73% nk no Ad wn a

As ms Be oti n n Ch ton Cl e la al n la m Cl Co ar k Do wli u tz Fr gl an as G ra G klin

ys r Ha ant rb o I s Je la r ffe nd rs Ki on ts Ki ap tt i Le t as Li wi nc s o

M O a ln ka s no on ga Pe nd Pa n O cifi re c i P ll Sa ie e n rce Ju a S Sk k n

a Sn am gi oh an t o ia Sp m ok ish St an ev e W Thu en a r s W hk sto a l ia k n la u m W Wa ha lla W t co

hi m tm Ya an ki m a _U Total Surveys Received by County Excluding King Cnty as of 3/ 2/ 2005 140 120

100 80 60 40 20 0 Total Dental Survey Responses by Question Excluding King Cnty as of 3/ 2/ 2005 900 Number of Responses

800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 t l l s s s s

y 5 e y d s ps tic _crc one tw o dor ma lan f il oild ons rd s e cur rap lte r tor 20 0 if ie a st ver y m i l o h r

n f n a r t t t X c c c a o fi p o

o la er e tr cr _cr e ve rap ste R_ ar l in cer le w rec ee e ad d a l r e m t c s p m sid _ p l _ l

e u _ e a X X a l lk ic R u R R_ R sc se st a ISO cyc er

ir le os _e r v R_ e _ al _ bu cha vac a m ix n p _ X r e i t

f R s s A A_ X_ A to To di A_ a lg A_ X_ n am Pla A_ A_ A - Amalgam, X - X-Ray, R - Recycling

Total Separator Notifications Received vs. Not Received Excluding King Cnty as of 3/ 2/ 2005 226 11% Sum of Separator Notifications Received Sum of Separator Notifications Not Received 1823 89% WSDA vs Non-Member

Separator Notifications Received Excluding King Cnty as of 3/ 2/ 2005 1800 1600 WSDA Members Total Notifications Sent 1400 WSDA Members Notifications Received 1200 1000

Non-Members Total Notifications Sent 800 600 Non-Members Notifications Received 400 200 0 WSDA Members WSDA Members Non-Members Total Notifications Notifications Total Notifications Sent Received

Sent Non-Members Notifications Received Sucess of Survey I nformation and Amalgam Separator I nstallation Excluding King Cnty as of 3/ 2/ 2005 2500 2000 Plan to Install Installed

1500 1000 2049 500 766 208 215 0 Surveys Sent Out Total Surveys Returned

Amalgam Separators Next Steps Baseline data is being used to revise outreach and message Contractor hired to conduct more aggressive education and survey response Postcards reminding dentist to install

separators and use BMPs in May Proposed mercury collection event in July Next Steps Coordination with local governments, separator vendors and WSDA continues New, final survey will be sent in July. Responses back by August 1, 2005

Analysis and report drafted in September Recommendations for future work will be attached to cover letter sent to Ecology management Additional Information Ecologys PBT/Mercury Web Page: www.mercurymess.org Dental Waste Web Page: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/dentalbmps/ Or contact Maria Victoria Peeler Ecologys Hazardous Waste & Toxics Reduction Program

P: 360-407-6704 E: [email protected]

Recently Viewed Presentations