ArticlePDF Available

Pollution prevention and management strategies for mercury in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

January 2003

Authors:

Marta Panero

New York Institute of Technology

S.E. Boehme

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

The Pathway of Mercury Through Incinerators in the Harbor and Watershed, into the Air, and onto Land and Water 39

…

. Cost of Primary Controls to Prevent Emissions of Mercury to Air 107 Hg in Solid Waste Sent Yearly Cost of MACT to to Incinerators Control Emissions to Air Product/Sector a (kg/yr) b (range)

…

. Intermediate Releases from Wastewater

…

. Intermediate Releases from Solid Waste (SW) to MWC (kg/yr)

…

Figures - uploaded by S.E. Boehme

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by S.E. Boehme

Content may be subject to copyright.

POLLUTION PREVENTION AND

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

FOR MERCURY IN THE

NEW YORK/NEW JERSEY HARBOR

May 14, 2002

Allison L. C. de Cerreño

Marta Panero

Susan Boehme

New York Academy of Sciences

New York, New York

Authors’ Note

This is a truly multi-authored paper. Dr. Susan Boehme consolidated and integrated the

scientific research provided by the various commissioned consultants and conducted her

own research when necessary. Ms. Marta Panero provided all of the economic research

and analysis as well the research on the mercury flows and pathways for products and

sectors. Dr. Allison L. C. de Cerreño integrated the economic and scientific information,

added the societal and policy contexts, and provided the overall logic and flow for the

document.

Printed on Recycled Paper.

Report Available from:

New York Academy of Sciences

2 East 63rd Street

New York, NY 10021

www.nyas.org

Although the information in this document has been funded in part by US EPA under an

assistance agreement to the New York Academy of Sciences, it has not gone through the

Agency's publications review process and therefore, may not necessarily reflect the views

of the Agency and no official endorsement should be inferred.

In 1997 the Academy was asked by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency to explore the feasibili-

ty of using industrial ecology to study pollution in the

New York-New Jersey Harbor. The Agency was con-

cerned about pollutants that had, historically, been present

in the harbor’s sediment as well as those that were enter-

ing the harbor each year. Behind the specter of economic

consequences were a number of questions amenable to sci-

entific analyses: What is in the sediment? How much is

there? Where does it come from? What happens to it once

it gets in the harbor? What is the timeline of such process-

es? What can be done to prevent further pollution? The

Academy, with its history of helping illuminate environ-

mental issues by bringing the best of science to bear on

analyses and solutions, accepted the challenge.

A workshop on the subject was convened at the

Academy in the Fall of 1997. Scientific experts, regulators,

people experienced in working on other harbors, and var-

ious public interest groups assembled in search of solu-

tions to a broad set of Harbor concerns. A summary of

the deliberations and conclusions of this workshop—

endorsing the usefulness of an industrial ecological

approach to analyzing the Harbor—was published by the

Academy the following year. EPA then requested the

Academy to undertake such a study; the Port Authority

of New York and New Jersey, among others, agreed to co-

sponsor the work. A key component of the project, the

NY/NJ Harbor Consortium was launched in January

2000. Mercury was identified as the first pollutant for

study. Aided by the advice of scientists familiar with mer-

cury, the staff worked hard to analyze and synthesize the

state of knowledge on mercury pollution in the harbor.

The Consortium approved the study’s findings and con-

clusions in December 2001. With this monograph, which

reports the results of the mercury study, the Academy is

pleased to publish the first detailed report from this

important project. Reports on other aspects of this work,

including four other pollutants, will reach you during the

next phases of our work.

As Charles Powers describes in the Preface, one of the

novel aspects of this project is the involvement and com-

mitment of the people – from a variety of institutions and

a wide range of backgrounds and experiences – who col-

lectively comprised the Harbor Consortium. The

Academy is grateful for their time and efforts in bringing

the project to its current state. The Academy also

acknowledges financial support provided to this project

by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Port

Authority of New York and New Jersey, the Abby Mauzé

Trust, The Commonwealth Fund, AT&T Foundation and

J.P. Morgan. The Academy is also grateful to several staff

members for their dedicated work and commitment to

this project—Allison de Cerreño, Susan Boehme and

Marta Panero. And finally, special thanks are also due to

Charles Powers, who has so ably chaired the Consortium

and provided excellent leadership.

Torsten N. Wiesel, M.D. Rashid Shaikh, Ph.D.

Chairman, Board of Governors Director of Programs

FOREWARD

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

PREFACE

The reader will probably not have encountered any docu-

ment quite like “Pollution Prevention and Management

Strategies for Mercury in the New York/New Jersey

Harbor.” It is audacious in scope, rigorous in its scientific

and analytic conclusions, and bold in its recommendations

affecting a wide variety of institutional interests and prac-

tices. It does not pretend to solve all problems related to

the flow of worrisome contaminants to this large and dis-

tinctive urban harbor. Still, together with the additional

work now scheduled, we believe this project will provide a

body of documents that should give us a comprehensive

picture of what we, as a region, can do to protect these

valuable surface waters.

This study parses the complex story of how mercury is

transformed in water systems into a significant hazard that

moves up the food chain to threaten both human beings

and a wide variety of valued non-human receptors. It tells

us how and from what sources and activities the contami-

nation comes. It also shows what a diverse body of this

region’s citizenry—people who have become quite knowl-

edgeable about the science of mercury pollution—has

learned in more than two years of study. And it suggests

the best ways to intercept some of this mercury before it

causes harm. The formulation of these recommendations

was aided by a survey that assessed the public’s interest in

the harbor and citizen willingness to help foster its health.

This manuscript, then, is a call to specific action as well as

a rare synthesis of evaluation and risk management.

Disciplines and approaches used to assess the threats

posed by methyl mercury are, typically, not integrated as

they have been in this document. Environmental meas-

urement is itself reliably built only when, for example, the

competencies of experts in exposure assessment, toxico-

logy and biochemistry are in fruitful dialogue. Similarly,

the regulatory regimes that promote pollution prevention

are more effective if the tools of industrial ecology are

used to analyze contaminant sources and, at the same

time, develop related economic data about the costs asso-

ciated with any risk management alternative considered.

The findings of industrial ecology and environmental sci-

ences are validated best when they are consciously woven

together.

The authors of this document deserve commendation

for their achievement. But those same authors would be

the first to acknowledge that they are the beneficiaries of

a highly unusual, likely unique, process that was imag-

ined in 1997 by several people of vision and creatively

hosted by the New York Academy of Sciences. It was a

process that found an evolutionary home in a

Consortium of committed stakeholders who fostered

both debate and consensus around a body of data that

became substantial because it was given the time and

opportunity to mature into a sound scientific synthesis.

So what is the history? What were the threads that

formed the fabric from which this document emerged? In

1997, a scientist from the Environmental Protection

Agency persuaded his management that there was both

need and opportunity to make the health of the harbor

itself the “organizing principle of research.” It was EPA’s

Region II Ocean Policy Coordinator, Joel O’Connor, who

approached the New York Academy of Sciences with the

idea of a workshop on “Industrial Ecology and the

Environment: Applications to the New York Harbor.” The

Academy was rightly seen as a place where the integrity of

scientific process would be well protected while the impli-

cations of those scientific findings were drawn.

In September 1997, I chaired the two-day workshop

that O’Connor had proposed. The concept of a concert-

ed effort to examine the sources and consequences of the

flow of five major contaminants to the New York/New

Jersey Harbor Watershed evolved. Industrial Ecology,

just emerging as an interdisciplinary approach, would be

part of the methodology. But there was concern that the

sources needed to be related to the actual consequences—

contaminants measured in the harbor and in living things

in its waters. Still, it would not much matter if the scien-

tists—even though deftly drawn from the region’s agencies

and universities—merely learned from where and how

contamination occurs and issued a report. An extraordi-

nary idea emerged from that workshop: the Academy

should draw into and make integral to the scientific work

a diverse body of citizens from a wide variety of institu-

tions and sectors across the watershed. This would

become the 30-plus member Harbor Consortium, an

institution hosted and ably staffed by the Academy. The

Consortium would become aware of other watershed

analyses elsewhere in the world (specifically the Rhine

Valley initiative in Europe and the Boston Harbor

cleanup process). The Consortium would also work to

find out, through both survey and active involvement

with the region’s communities and other study processes,

how the people in the watershed viewed the harbor.

The central idea was that as the Academy drew many

experts into the study of each pollutant, the Consortium

would observe and comment on the process. It would

become knowledgeable so as to be able to select each sub-

PREFACE 5

sequent pollutant to be studied, evaluate the pollution

prevention strategies, and seek to make consensus recom-

mendations about which institutions or citizens need to

alter their practices to protect the harbor. Through four

general sessions, over a period of two years, the

Consortium not only persisted, but it flourished—gather-

ing increasing confidence in the quality of the science

being developed and in its collective ability to make rec-

ommendations. We were lucky in that the first contami-

nant was mercury, a contaminant that’s greatest threat

occurs when mercury is literally “converted”—primarily

by bacteria in aqueous environments—into methyl mercu-

ry. As the Consortium began focusing on methyl mercu-

ry, the regulatory spotlight shifted from elemental to

methyl mercury. Since this work was occurring along

with, and even as a part of, a changing scientific and reg-

ulatory focus, the Consortium found its work in defining

how to intercept mercury a lively and engaging process.

The science was so interesting that as the assessment and

the recommendations came together in December 2001,

the Consortium responded with enthusiasm—and with an

astute final bit of wisdom. “If we have learned how to con-

nect the diverse sources of mercury to the way they may

harm the harbor, and have worked back to what should be

done to protect the harbor,” the Consortium suggested by

acclamation, “why should there be consensus only in the

Consortium? Let’s get the buy-in of the institutions that

need to take additional steps to eliminate or intercept mer-

cury in its path to the sea.” The Consortium was improvis-

ing in uncharted waters. It sent its staff and leadership back

to the sectors pinpointed as the mercury sources of primary

concern to solicit support from those whose help was need-

ed to reduce mercury contamination. In the intervening

months, we have achieved extraordinary, involvement

both regional and national of leaders in those affected sec-

tors: producers, users, recyclers, etc.

Most participants clearly saw the logic of mercury

reduction, proposed a series of innovative and more cost-

effective ways of achieving sound results, and became real

supporters of the Consortium report. Since the mitigation

steps will cost, some sectors were, as expected, at best,

sullen but they were not mutinous. Hence, this report has

the full support of its Consortium and unexpected accept-

ance among those whose work to implement it is now

beginning. Even during these last months, as the scientif-

ic issues became clear, there have been surprisingly coor-

dinated efforts among those who must control and those

whose actions will be needed to achieve major change in

preventing mercury pollution of the harbor.

As chair of this Consortium, I have had an opportunity

to work with the many talented people named throughout

this report—in its acknowledgements, in the very many

places where specific contributions are cited, and in the

naming of functions, task forces and members of this com-

plex process. Kathy Callahan (US Environmental

Protection Agency) and Thomas Wakeman (The Port

Authority of New York/New Jersey) have provided valu-

able leadership representing not only their organizations

but also the broader array of concerns that federal and state

agencies are faced with. The authors—Allison de Cerreño,

Marta Panero and Susan Boehme—have been colleagues as

well as talented staff. The work condensed here has had to

proceed in the midst of the incredible impacts of the events

of September 11 and significant changes at the Academy as

well. From it all emerges not merely a document, but the

basis for a new practice—a benchmark if you will—for how

this kind of science can be done very well. Indeed, it

demonstrates that when a social concern is the organizing

principle for research, the public can be invited in to

observe as the hypotheses are tested, so that they are fully

prepared to advocate a set of responsible inferences for

action and, thereby, attract the real interest and often the

support of those who must act to protect resources we all

know are valuable. And keep tuned. We are poised to do

this again and again for other contaminants that threaten

this important New York/New Jersey Harbor.

Charles W. Powers

Consortium Chair

Charles Powers, Principal Investigator, Consortium on Risk

Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP-DOE),

and Professor of Environmental and Community Medicine

UMDNJ-RWJMS

George Rupp, President, Columbia University

Members

Winifred Armstrong, Economist, Regional Plan Association

Brad Allenby, Vice-President, Environment AT&T Co.

Mary Buzby, Principal Scientist, Merck & Co.

Phyllis Cahn, Associate Director, Aquatic Research and

Environmental Assessment Center (AREAC), Brooklyn

College, CUNY

Carter Craft, Director of Programs, Metropolitan Waterfront

Alliance

Paul J. Elston, Chairman, NY League of Conservation Voters

Herzl Eisenstadt, Counsel to the International Longshoremen’s

Association

Eric Erdheim, Senior Manager Government Affairs, National

Electrical Manufacturers Association

Roland A. Ericsson, Marine Engineer, Environmental Business

Association of New Jersey and Golder Associates

Leonard Formato, Jr., President, Boulder Resources

Russell Furnari, Environmental Strategy and Policy, PSEG

Services Corporation

Frederick Grassle, Director, Institute of Marine and Coastal

Sciences, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey

Manna Jo Green, Environmental Director, Hudson River Sloop

Clearwater

Bryan Jantzen, President, Full Circle Inc.

Jim Hall, Superintendent, Palisades Interstate Park Commission

Philip Heckler, Deputy Director, Environmental Affairs, New

York City Department of Environmental Protection

Ronald G. Hellman, Director, Americas Center on Science &

Society, the Graduate School and University Center of the City

University of New York

Colleen Keegan, Project Director, NYC Hospitals Project,

Health Care Without Harm, Mount Sinai School of Medicine

Zoe Kelman, Scientist, New Jersey Department of

Environmental Protection

Keith Lashway, Director, Environmental Management

Investment Group, Empire State Development Co.

Simon Litten, Research Scientist, Division of Water, NYS

Department of Environmental Conservation

Thomas Morris, Program Director, IBM Corporation

Wendy Neu, Chairman and CEO / Vice President,

Environmental & Public Affairs, Hugo Neu Co.

Frank Oliveri, Deputy Director, Collection Facilities, NYC

Department of Environmental Protection

Randolph Price, Vice President of Enironment, Health &

Safety, Consolidated Edison Co.

Stephen D. Ramsey, Vice-President, Corporate Environment

Programs, General Electric Co.

Ira Rubenstein, Executive Director, Environmental Business

Association of New York

Anthony Rumore, President, Joint Council 16, International

Brotherhood of Teamsters

Manuel Russ, Member, Citizens Advisory Committee to NYC

Department of Environmental Protection

Martin P. Schreibman, Director, Aquatic Research and

Environmental Assessment Center (AREAC), Brooklyn

College, CUNY

Nancy Steinberg, Research Project Associate, Hudson River

Foundation

Dennis Suszkowski, Science Director, Hudson River

Foundation

John T. Tanacredi, Chief, Division of Natural Resources, U.S.

Department of the Interior

National Park Service, Gateway National Recreation Area

Nickolas Themelis, Professor, Earth Engineering Center,

Columbia University

Andrew Voros, Executive Director, NY/NJ Clean Ocean &

Shore Trust

Mary Werner, Director, Pollution Prevention Unit, NYS DEC

Rae Zimmerman, Director, Institute for Civil Infrastructure

Systems, Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, New York

University

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

MEMBERS OF THE NEW YORK/NEW JERSEY HARBOR CONSORTIUM

Ex Officio Members

Annette Barry-Smith, Project Manager, Port Commerce

Department, Port Authority of NY & NJ

Kathleen Callahan, Division Director, U.S. EPA- Region 2

Steve Dorrler, Scientist, Port Authority of NY & NJ

Richard Larrabee, Director, Port Commerce Department, Port

Authority of NY & NJ

Irene Y. Purdy, Program Manager, EPA Region 2

Walter Schoepf, Environmental Scientist, US EPA Region 2

Thomas Wakeman, General Manager, Waterways

Development, Port Authority of NY & NJ

MEMBERS OF THE NEW YORK/NEW JERSEY HARBOR CONSORTIUM 7

HARBOR CONSORTIUM ACTION GROUPS

Mercury

Joanna Burger, Professor, Division of Life Sciences,

Environmental & Occupational Health Sciences Institute,

Rutgers University

William Fitzgerald, Professor, Department of Marine Sciences,

University of Connecticut

Dr. Michael Gochfeld, Professor, Environmental and

Occupational Health Sciences Institute, Robert Wood Johnson

Medical School, Rutgers University

Joel S. O'Connor, Adjunct Associate Professor, SUNY at Stony

Brook, Retired EPA Administrator

Valerie Thomas, Research Scientist, Center for Energy and

Environmental Studies, Princeton University

Mercury Methylation

Michael Aucott, Research Scientist, Division of Science, Research

and Technology, New Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection

Nada Marie Assaff-Anid, Department Chair and Associate

Professor, Chemical Engineering Department, Manhattan College

Janine Benoit, Geosciences Department, Princeton University

Michael Connor, Vice President for Programs and Exhibits,

New England Aquarium

Charles Driscoll, Distinguished Professor of Civil and

Environmental Engineering, Syracuse University

William Fitzgerald, Professor, Department of Marine Sciences,

University of Connecticut

Carlton Hunt, Research Leader, Battelle Ocean Sciences Inc.

Robert P. Mason, Assistant Professor, (UMCES) Chesapeake

Biological Laboratory,Center for Environmental Sciences,

University System of Maryland

Joel S. O’Connor, Adjunct Associate Professor, SUNY at

Stony Brook, Retired EPA Administrator

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreward ........................................................................................................................3

Preface ..........................................................................................................................4

Members of the New York/New Jersey Harbor Consortium ...............................................6

Guide to Tables, Charts, and Figures .............................................................................10

Glossary of Terms .........................................................................................................11

Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................12

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................13

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................17

1.1. Why Mercury? ........................................................................................................................................17

1.2. The Current Regulatory Environment ..................................................................................................17

1.3. Some Methodological Notes...................................................................................................................18

2. Industrial and Ecological Pathways ...........................................................................19

2.1. Industrial Ecology as an Approach to Assessing the Flows of Mercury in the Harbor .....................19

2.2. Identifying Sources, Pools, and Flows....................................................................................................19

Discharges of Mercury to Wastewater...........................................................................................23

Emissions of Mercury to Air...........................................................................................................24

Releases of Mercury to Solid Waste...............................................................................................27

2.3. Gaps in Our Knowledge.........................................................................................................................29

2.4. Summary of the Pathways ......................................................................................................................30

3. The Economic, Political, and Societal Framework......................................................31

3.1. The Broad Picture...................................................................................................................................32

Benefits.............................................................................................................................................33

3.2. Cost, Technological, and Administrative Feasibility for Key Leverage Points....................................34

Major Sectors Discharging Mercury to Wastewater .....................................................................34

Dental Facilities ........................................................................................................................35

Hospitals ...................................................................................................................................40

Laboratories..............................................................................................................................43

Major Sources of Mercury Emissions to Air.................................................................................45

Automobile and Appliance Switches.......................................................................................47

Fluorescent Lamps ...................................................................................................................48

Utility, Industrial/Commercial, and Household Furnaces.....................................................50

Landfills: Solid Waste Management ..............................................................................................51

Dental Facilities ........................................................................................................................52

Thermostats..............................................................................................................................53

Household Thermometers ......................................................................................................53

3.3. Dredging ..................................................................................................................................................54

4. Conclusion ...............................................................................................................55

5. Selected Bibliographical References .........................................................................56

6. Appendices

6.1. Citations and Discussion of Estimates in Table 1 ..................................................................................58

6.2. Use and Release Spreadsheets.................................................................................................................66

6.3. Cost of Pollution Prevention and Management Measures Spreadsheets..............................................95

Table 1 Mercury Releases in the Watershed

Table 2 Estimated Contributions of Methylmercury

from Key Pools

Table 3 Discharges of Mercury to Wastewater by

Sector and Product in the NY/NJ Harbor

Watershed and Actual Distribution of

Discharges to Effluent and Sludge

Table 4 Estimated Emissions of Mercury to Air by

Sector and Product in the NY/NJ Harbor

Watershed

Table 5 Estimated Releases Ending in

Landfills/Monofills in the NY/NJ Harbor

Watershed

Table 6 Comparison of Costs of Mercury Pollution

Prevention and Management Strategies for

Sectors, Products, and Processes in the

Watershed

Table 7 Dental Sector—Cost of Different Options

Table 8 Hospital Sector—Cost of Product

Substitution

Table 9 Laboratories—Cost of Control and

Management Options

Table 10 Cost of Primary Controls to Prevent

Emissions of Mercury to Air

Table 11 Initial Releases of Mercury to Air,

Wastewater, and Solid Waste

Table 12 Intermediate Releases from Wastewater

Table 13 Intermediate Releases from Solid Waste to

Municipal Waste Combustion

Table 14 Intermediate Releases from Solid Waste to

Electric Arc Furnaces

Table 15 Final Releases to Air, Effluent, Fertilizer and

Landfills/Monofills

Figure 1 Margin of error for estimated mercury

inputs to the NY/NJ Harbor

Figure 2 The pathway of mercury through the

POTWs and into the Harbor and its

Watershed

Figure 3 The pathway of mercury through incinera-

tors in the Harbor and Watershed, into the

air and onto land and water

Figure 4 The pathway of mercury to

landfills/monofills and into the Harbor

Figure 5 Intervention points to prevent the flow of

mercury from dental offices to the Harbor

via wastewater

Chart 1 Kilograms per Year of Mercury Entering the

NY/NJ Harbor from Key Pools

Chart 2 Proportion of Methylmercury Contributed

to the Harbor by Each Pool

Chart 3 Share of Mercury Discharges via

Wastewater into the Harbor by Sector

Chart 4 Share of Mercury Emissions to Air by Key

Sectors and Products in the NY/NJ Harbor

Watershed

Chart 5 Share of Mercury Releases into

Landfills/Monofills

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

GUIDE TO TABLES, CHARTS, AND FIGURES

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

EAF electric arc furnace

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESCO Energy Service Company

Hg mercury

IE industrial ecology

MACT maximum available control technology

MeHg methylmercury

MWC municipal waste combustion

MWI municipal waste incineration

NEMA National Electrical Manufacturers

Association

NEWMOA Northeast Waste Management Officials’

Association

NJ DEP New Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection

NYAS New York Academy of Sciences

NYC DEP New York City Department of

Environmental Protection

NYS DEC New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation

P2 pollution prevention

PAC powdered activated carbon injection

POTW publicly owned treatment works facilities

TRC Thermostat Recycling Corporation

WWTP wastewater treatment plant

GLOSSARY OF TERMS 11

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The New York Academy of Sciences and the authors

acknowledge the assistance of the many people who pro-

vided information, data, references, and analysis toward

the completion of this report. We are particularly grateful

for the research performed for the Academy by William

Fitzgerald, Joel O’Connor, Julio Huato, Nickolas

Themelis, Alexander Gregory, and Janina Benoit, which

formed the basis for much of the data in this document.

We also thank the team at the Marist College Institute of

Public Opinion, including especially Barbara Carvalho,

Lee Miringoff, and Kathleen Tobin-Flusser, for the devel-

opment, implementation, and analysis of the public opin-

ion survey, and Bryan Williams for his additional assess-

ments.

We especially acknowledge the assistance of Michael

Aucott (NJ DEP) and the New Jersey Mercury Task

Force. Peter Berglund (Metropolitan Council, St. Paul,

MN), Gregory Camacho (NY Presbyterian), Tom

Corbett (NYS DEC), John Gilkeson (MN Pollution

Control Agency), Brian Jantzen (Full Circle Recycling),

Philip Heckler (NYC DEP), Zoe Kelman (NJ DEP),

Simon Litten (NYS DEC), and Tim Tuominen (WLSSD)

were all extremely helpful in providing key data at vari-

ous stages. Also, a special thanks to John Erickson and

Audra Nowosielsky, who provided access to key databas-

es at RPI.

The Academy and the authors thank the Consortium

members for their time, energy, and assistance during

each step of the process. They were untiring in their will-

ingness to talk to us when we had questions. We espe-

cially thank the Chair of the Consortium, Charles

Powers, for his guidance from beginning to end, in think-

ing about the key components necessary for the docu-

ment as well as the flow of argument. Also, we thank the

Academy’s Board of Governors for welcoming this

unusual initiative by the Academy to serve its home

region and Rodney Nichols, for his indefatigable support

and encouragement. Special thanks to Rashid Shaikh for

his efforts to ensure the successful completion of this

report and the continuation of the project.

Many informative discussions were held with the fol-

lowing people from within the region and from other

parts of the country. The Academy thanks Deborah

Augustin (New Hampshire Hospital Assoc.), Lawrence

Bailey (NY County Dental Society), Carol Beal (Monroe

County Department of Health), Charles Bering

(MWRA), Martha Bell (Association for Energy

Affordability), Owen Boyd (SolmeteX Co.), Janet Brown

(Beth Israel Hospital), Jennifer Buchanan (NYC Health &

Hospital Co.), Joanna Burger (Rutgers), Gregory Dana

(Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers), Joe Day (Air

Cycle Co.), Grace Garcia (NYS Div. of Consumer

Affairs), Jeff Gearhart (Ecology Center), Thomas Gentile

(NYS DEC), Bill Gleason (American Re-Fuel Co. of NY),

Javad Ghaffario (Palo Alto Sanitary District), Michael

Giamott (S&G Medical Waste Incineration Facility), Teri

Goldberg (NEWMOA), Kathy Gran (Daimler-Chrysler),

Jamie Harvie (Institute for a Sustainable Future), Chris

Herb (Clean Harbors Recycling Services), James

Heckman (NC P2 Div.), Fran Hoffman, Jim Hogan

(Westchester Solid Waste Div.), Nelli Kraytsberg

(Woodhull Medical Center), Kathy Kromer (Association

of Home Appliance Manufacturers), Roland Lochan

(NYC DEP), Robert Madarozzo (Wheelabrator), Richard

Malaccynski (NYS DEC), Rebecca Maran (American

Hospital Assoc.), Robert Miller (Auto Recyclers

Association of New York State), Mary Moskal (NJ Dental

Association), Wendy Neu (Hugo Neu Co.), Jerry

Odenwelder (Bethlehem Apparatus, Inc.), Fotinos

Panagakos (UMDNJ), Mario Parissie (Sprout Brook

Landfill), Chris Pettinato (Columbia University School of

Dental & Oral Surgery), John Reindl (Dane County

Mercury Reduction Plan), A.J. Shroft (NYS DEC), Ana

Smith (Daimler-Chrysler), Ron Stanard (NYS DEC),

Marvin Stillman (Strong Memorial Medical Center),

Marc Sussman (Dental Recycling North America), Burt

Tosser (NYS DEC), Derek Veenhof (American Re-Fuel

Co. of NY), Paul Walitsky (Philips Lighting Co.), Mary

Werner (NYS DEC), Suzanne Winicker (Cornell

Veterinary Library), and Allen Woddard (NYS DEC).

Numerous people at EPA Region 2 contributed data,

referrals, and reviews, including Irene Purdy, Walter

Schoepf, and Carl Plossl, and also Seth Ausubel, Darvene

Adams, Diane Buxbaum, Deborah Freeman, Tristan

Gillespie, Lorraine Graves, and Deborah Meyer. Several

members from other divisions of EPA also helped great-

ly, including Alexis Cain of Region 5, and Ellen Brown

and Bill Maxwell from EPA Headquarters. The partici-

pation of Thomas Wakeman, Annette Barry-Smith, and

Steven Dorrler from the Port Authority of New York and

New Jersey was especially helpful during discussions of

the public opinion survey and pollution prevention.

Finally, the Academy acknowledges the following fun-

ders for their contributions to this effort: The AT&T

Foundation, The Commonwealth Fund, JP Morgan, the

Abby R. Mauzé Charitable Trust, the Port Authority of

NY & NJ, and U.S. EPA Region 2. Without their finan-

cial support, this project would not have been possible.

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 13

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Under the auspices of the New York Academy of Sciences,

the Harbor Consortium was charged with the task of rec-

ommending pollution prevention (P2) and management

priorities and strategies for mercury in the New York/New

Jersey Harbor. To assist in the fulfillment of this task, the

New York Academy of Sciences gathered the relevant sci-

entific, economic, and public policy information to provide

the context for this decision-making process. This docu-

ment summarizes that research, suggests a prioritization of

efforts based on the scientific data, provides a set of poten-

tial P2 recommendations and strategies to achieve them,

and identifies the key stakeholders who will need to share

responsibility for implementation.

The Focus of the Research and

Recommendations

The primary geographical focus of this document is the

New York/New Jersey Harbor. Decisions regarding

research, the setting of priorities, the development of rec-

ommendations and strategies are always weighed against

the likelihood that a given source of mercury will have a

direct or indirect effect on the Harbor. Thus, in the follow-

ing pages there are various references to the Harbor’s

Watershed, which extends north toward Albany and west

along the Mohawk River toward Utica, and includes much

of northern New Jersey. For the purposes of this document,

however, mercury being released or deposited in the

Watershed is tracked only if there is a chance of it making

its way to the Harbor. This is not to say that there are not

locations which have critical local problems associated with

mercury that need further study and/or action, only that

they are not the focus of this particular body of research.

The primary objective of this body of research is to

develop P2 recommendations and management priorities

and strategies that will allow for an ecologically healthy

Harbor while maintaining its economic viability. This is

not therefore a document that deals in great detail with

the negative health effects of mercury on individuals. It

does, however, take into consideration the importance of

methylmercury as the most toxic form of mercury for

humans and biota. Thus, in addition to weighing priori-

ties against the likelihood that a given source of mercury

will have an effect on the Harbor, they are also weighed

against the prospects for methylation.

Prioritizing an Agenda

Mercury arrives in the Harbor via three routes: air, solid

waste, and wastewater. Against the backdrop described

above, the Consortium recommends focusing on waste-

water as the most direct source of mercury and most sig-

nificant source of methylmercury to the Harbor.

Prioritizing wastewater is based on scientific research that

demonstrates this is the largest source of mercury to the

Harbor and that there are probable higher methylation

rates associated with wastewater in effluents. The three

major sectors contributing mercury to wastewater effluent

are dental facilities, hospitals, and laboratories. Thus, P2

strategies for these sectors are the most significant leverage

points for wastewater.

A second priority, and still critical to reducing mercury

contributions to the Harbor, is atmospheric inputs. These

emissions result from incineration of mercury-bearing

products and combustion of fuels that contain trace

amounts of mercury, as well as through volatilization.

About one-third of the mercury released locally to the air-

shed is deposited on the Watershed and is available to be

washed into the rivers and streams, thereby making its

way to the Harbor. There is also an extra-regional input,

mainly from coal combustion in the Midwest, though

there are inputs from global emissions also. Thus, the

solutions to atmospheric inputs extend beyond the

Watershed. Nevertheless, there are local, practical solu-

tions for some of these inputs.

Finally, the inputs of mercury to landfills/monofills

from solid waste compose the largest set of mercury trans-

fers. However, because tentative estimates suggest that

this mercury is sequestered, and therefore poses a lower

direct risk to the Harbor (at least for some length of time),

this pool has been accorded the lowest priority despite its

large size. Addressing wastewater mercury inputs has the

added benefit of decreasing landfill/monofill inputs by

greater than 60% because the three critical sectors (dental,

hospital, laboratory) are major contributors to this pool as

well. Furthermore, P2 recommendations are provided for

several key products that contribute to mercury to land-

fills and monofills because the technology (and in some

cases, the needed infrastructure) is already available to

recycle/collect these items.

Poorly characterized and potentially large sources of

mercury in the Harbor include the Superfund sites,

brownfields, and uncontrolled landfills in the Watershed,

particularly along the western side of the Harbor.

Historically, mercury usage in this area was extensive.

However, there are no estimates of how much of this mer-

cury is entering the Harbor and very little data on how

much mercury is in the soils and groundwater at these

sites. Therefore, given the potential loadings from these

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

sources these sites should be targeted for future studies to

determine whether they need to be factored in to mercu-

ry P2 plans for the Harbor, but the Consortium felt it

unwise to wait for the completion of such studies to put

forth the current recommendations.

Recommendations of the Consortium

The recommendations are divided into three types: rec-

ommended priorities for action, recommended priorities

for research, and pollution prevention and management

recommendations for each key product and sector.

Although how the Consortium arrived at each of these

recommendations is described in the document, the full set

of recommendations is detailed below.*

Priorities for Action:

■Decrease mercury discharges from wastewater

■Decrease atmospheric inputs of mercury

■Decrease inputs of mercury to landfills and

monofills

Priorities for Research:

■Develop data related to contaminated land-based

sites in the watershed

■Link initial findings on dredged materials to future

contaminant studies

P2 and Management Recommendations for

Products and Sectors:

Discharges from Wastewater

Dental Sector

Implement a tiered approach that

■Institutes filtration, collection, and recycling in the

short term; and,

■Moves toward substitution of amalgams by safe,

durable, and cost-effective alternatives in the long

term

Hospitals

■Substitute non-mercury alternatives for mercury-

containing products

■Prevent breakage of current mercury-containing

products

Laboratories

■Substitute non-mercury alternatives for mercury-

containing products

■Prevent mercury discharges to sewers

Atmospheric Inputs

Vehicle and Appliance Switches

■Recycle/retire mercury switches already present in

automobiles, light trucks, and appliances

■Develop safe, non-mercury alternatives for switches

utilized in gas pilot-light ranges

■Develop an understanding of the uses of mercury

switches in heavy-duty trucks and buses, the

amount of mercury present, and the availability and

cost-effectiveness of non-mercury alternatives

Fluorescent Lamps

■Comprehensive recycling

■Develop more effective management technologies

Furnaces

■Reduce emissions

■Substitute non-mercury-containing fuels

Inputs to Landfills and Monofills

Mercury-Switch Thermostats

■Increase the rate of recycling

■Promote purchase and proper use of energy star

programmable thermostats

Household Thermometers

■Substitute non-mercury alternatives

■Increase the rate of retiring mercury-containing

models

What, How, and Who

The above recommendations describe what needs to be

done and are based on the scientific research, coupled with

the economic analyses, and an understanding of political

and societal constraints. Equally important to answer are

how to accomplish these goals (strategies) and who should

bear the responsibility. Thus, as the recommendations for

pollution prevention and management are made through-

out the document, they are coupled with specific strategies

* Although religious and cultural uses of mercury are discussed at various points throughout the document, no recommendations for this potential source are being

made at this time. Although there are a few studies that point to the individual hazards of such practices, the extent of such practices and how much of the mercu-

ry utilized actually makes its way into the Harbor are unclear. Furthermore, for the figures that do exist, there are very large error bars associated with them. Thus,

it is felt that sufficient evidence is lacking to make a recommendation that singles out a particular ethnic or cultural group.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

for achieving them. These strategies are, in many cases,

based on best practices from other locations around the

nation. In some cases, there are multiple strategies listed.

These are rarely exclusive of each other, and often more

than one can be implemented at a time; they are purpose-

ly not prioritized because each locale and/or industry

needs to determine which strategies will best help it

achieve the desired results. Finally, in each case there is a

list of the key stakeholders who need to help implement

the strategies to achieve the recommendations. This was

not an exercise in finger-pointing. The Consortium recog-

nizes that pollution prevention is a joint effort, and that

success is best achieved when different sectors with varied

interests find ways to work collaboratively toward a com-

mon goal. Consortium members appeal to the various

stakeholders described in the following pages to work

together in a genuinely cooperative manner.

INTRODUCTION 17

1. INTRODUCTION

The goal of the New York Academy of Sciences project

“Industrial Ecology, Pollution Prevention and the NY/NJ

Harbor,” is to identify pollution prevention (P2)1strategies

for several key contaminants affecting the Harbor. At the

center of the project is a Consortium of stakeholders2who

guide the research and assess the results. Utilizing an

industrial ecology framework, coupled with economic

assessments, and informed by a recently conducted public

opinion survey, the Consortium seeks to develop P2 rec-

ommendations that are scientifically sound, economically

feasible, and acceptable to residents and businesses in this

region.3

1.1. Why Mercury?

The first contaminant chosen for study by the Harbor

Consortium was mercury.4Mercury is a widespread ele-

ment that enters the environment through natural and

anthropogenic processes. It is found on land and in the

earth’s crust, in the air, and in water. There are three forms

of mercury: elemental, inorganic, and organic com-

pounds. Once in the environment, regardless of initial

source, both inorganic and organic mercury compounds

may be transformed through a variety of natural or

human-made processes.5

Under a specific set of conditions that includes the pres-

ence of sulfate-reducing bacteria, low sulfide levels, an

anoxic environment, and the presence of organic matter,

inorganic mercury can be converted to methylmercury

(MeHg), the form of most concern for humans and

wildlife. This occurs predominantly in the sediments and

sludge of aquatic systems, but can also occur in the water

itself. Both inorganic mercury and methylmercury may

enter the food chain, but only the latter bioaccumulates

and biomagnifies, thus making MeHg of particular con-

cern for those organisms, including humans, at the upper

levels of the food chain, who are exposed predominantly

through the ingestion of mercury-contaminated fish.

Once exposed to certain forms of mercury through the

lungs, gastrointestinal tract, or skin, the human body has

few means to eliminate it. Moreover, mercury is known to

cross the placenta and has been found in maternal milk.

Exposure to different species of mercury produces differ-

ent toxicological effects. Inorganic mercury salts and mer-

cury vapor, for example, have a greater negative effect on

the kidneys than other mercury species, whereas organic

mercury compounds have a greater tendency to directly

affect the brain. Among the toxicological effects of expo-

sure to mercury vapor (elemental) are acute bronchitis

and tremors. Prolonged exposure can lead to serious and

irreversible neurological damage, including loss of mem-

ory and changes in behavior, as well as to increased sali-

vation and gingivitis (gum disease). Negative effects of

exposure to methylmercury are primarily neurotoxic and

may include tingling sensation around the extremities,

ataxia, fatigue, vision and hearing loss, tremor, and poten-

tially coma and death.6

1.2. The Current Regulatory Environment

The toxic effects of mercury on humans, as well as on the

environment, and especially on fish and other wildlife,

have long been acknowledged. By the 1960s, realizing that

the major source of mercury for humans was through the

consumption of mercury-contaminated fish, the Food and

Drug Administration moved to establish an action level of

0.5 ppm MeHg for fish being marketed for food (1969).

This threshold actually was increased by the FDA to 1.0

ppm MeHg in 1979. The EPA also established advisories

for live fish and for water, both of which have been con-

tinuously updated over the years.7

Individual states are responsible for tracking fish and

1. For the purposes of this study, pollution prevention includes all approaches that potentially decrease the amount of mercury entering the Harbor, including approach-

es such as recycling and reclamation. This is somewhat different from the EPA definition of P2 as solely source reduction. Whereas source reduction is the ulti-

mate goal, this Agency definition limits possible interim approaches that would decrease inputs of mercury to the Harbor. For a more complete description of the

range of P2 definitions, see Center for Sustainable Systems, “Pollution Prevention as Defined under the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990,” at

http://www.umich.edu/~nppcpub/p2defined.html.

2. The Harbor project Consortium includes representatives from government, industry, academia, labor unions, environmental groups, and watershed citizens. It is

the Consortium that made the final P2 recommendations for mercury in the NY/NJ Harbor.

3. The Academy project began in Fall 1998 with the signing of a Cooperative Agreement with U.S. EPA Region 2. The work that forms the basis for this paper and its

recommendations, including the scientific and economic research, as well as the public opinion survey, has been funded through the project by The Commonwealth

Fund; JP Morgan; the Abby Mauzé Charitable Trust; the Port Authority of NY & NJ; and U.S. EPA Region 2.

4. In addition to mercury, the Consortium has also chosen to study cadmium, PCBs, and dioxins. A decision on the final contaminant of study is pending.

5. Throughout the paper, when the term mercury is used, and no form is specified, it refers to total mercury.

6. Curtis D. Klaassen, ed., Casarett and Doull’s Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons, 5th edition (NY: McGraw-Hill, 1996), pp. 709-712. For more on the toxi-

cology of methylmercury, see National Research Council, Toxicological Effects of Methylmercur y (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000).

7. See U.S. EPA’s Office of Water website at www.epa.gov/ost. Individual state advisories are also updated regularly. To review the most current advisories for New

Jersey and New York, see www.nj.gov/dep/dsr/njmainfish.htm and http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/environ/fish.htm, respectively.

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

wildlife in lakes, rivers and streams. Using their own stan-

dards, each state then issues advisories, bans, and warn-

ings on fishing and fish consumption and establishes its

own criteria for water quality standards. New York State

has adopted a water quality standard of 0.7 ng/L dis-

solved for saltwater for the protection of human health

from the consumption of mercury-contaminated fish.

New Jersey has adopted the EPA freshwater and estuar-

ine surface water criterion of 0.3 µg/g methylmercury in

fish tissue but is considering revising these guidelines to

protect fish and wildlife.8

As scientific understanding of mercury’s toxicological

effects increased and new technologies for studying mer-

cury, and especially methylmercury, became available, no

longer were the thresholds established in past decades suf-

ficient. Thus, in December 2000 the U.S. EPA not only

recommended a new threshold concentration, but also

refocused its own measurement on methylmercury in live

fish (at 0.3 ppm) rather than on overall mercury levels.9

The FDA continues to be under pressure to revise its

threshold levels as well.

During this same period, there were increased calls

around the nation for a ban on mercury and/or mercury-

containing products. In 1990, a ban on the use of mercury

in paints and pigments entered into effect, and between

1989 and 1992, new technologies were phased in to reduce

the use of mercury in battery production.10 Estimates of

industrial use of mercury in the New York/New Jersey

(NY/NJ) Harbor Watershed indicate a steep decrease over

the past 20 years, related to the bans and new technologies

and to broad decreases in industrial activity in the region,

and increases in recycling of mercury-containing products.

This decrease is reflected in measurements of the water,

sediments, and possibly in organisms from the Harbor.

Despite these decreases in mercury inputs to the Harbor,

however, numerous pathways remain, and mercury still

poses a threat to wildlife and fish and remains a potential

threat to humans in the region.

1.3. Some Methodological Notes

While recognizing that mercury pollution is a nationwide

(and, indeed a global) concern, the New York Academy of

Sciences’ project and the NY/NJ Harbor Consortium focus

on preventing pollution to a specific water body, namely,

the NY/NJ Harbor. Thus, when examining all flows of

mercury, the question is always asked: “What is the likeli-

hood that this pathway leads to the Harbor, either directly

or indirectly?” Furthermore, because methylmercury is of

most concern, a second question is asked: “What is the

likelihood that this particular flow of mercury will result in

the conversion of mercury to methylmercury?” It is against

these questions that priorities are set.

Mercury has been entering the NY/NJ Harbor for cen-

turies and is found throughout Harbor sediments and the

soils of the Watershed. Despite significant declines of mer-

cury inputs to the Harbor during the last three decades,

cycling of this already-present mercury continues, with

mercury moving between sediments and soils, the water

column, and biota under various conditions. Nevertheless,

although some discussion is provided regarding this

cycling of mercury,11 fully establishing its impact on the

Harbor is beyond the scope of this report. With a goal of

developing pollution prevention plans, this study focuses

on new sources of mercury to the Harbor in an effort to

reduce mercury inputs further.

Throughout the study, the determination of releases of

mercury and distribution between air, water, and solid

waste are based on regional estimates when the data exist.

Where possible, these data are compared with national

estimates. Because it is assumed that regional estimates

are more accurate, they are also used (when available) to

determine initial and final distributions and costs. As is

true for all studies of mercury flows, these estimates can

have large errors associated with them. In some cases, it

is difficult to quantify those errors.

Because there are often multiple points for pollution

prevention measures, whenever possible data are present-

ed in kilograms of mercury per year (kg/yr), and costs are

described as dollars per kilogram of mercury per year.

Thus, comparisons may be drawn and decisions resulting

in pollution prevention measures that are scientifically

sound as well as economically, socially, and politically fea-

sible can be made more easily.

8. NJ Mercury Task Force, Executive Summary & Recommendations, http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/mercury_task_force.htm.

9. The relationship between the concentration of mercury in water and sediments and its conversion to methylmercury is still not fully understood. Thus, no effects

range low (ERL) or effects range medium (ERM) for methylmercury in water has been established by regulatory agencies at this time.

10. U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, Mercur y Study Report to Congress, v. 8 (Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Dec. 1997), EPA-452/R-97-003. The new technologies

for battery production resulted in a 94% decrease in the amount of mercury contained in batteries. Also, for more on mercury in paints, see

http://www.orcbs.msu.edu/AWARE/pamphlets/hazwaste/mercuryfacts.html.

11. See Section 2.3, “Gaps in Our Knowledge” for a short discussion of the mass balance calculations of Fitzgerald and O’Connor.

INDUSTRIAL AND ECOLOGICAL PATHWAYS 19

To assist the Academy in gathering the relevant data, the

Consortium’s Mercury Action Group12 was organized

under the auspices of the New York Academy of Sciences.

Several mass balance/releases studies (including data from

the New Jersey Mercury Task Force which finalized its

report in April/May 2002) were identified and presented

to the group. The importance of the different species of

mercury, and especially methylmercury also was dis-

cussed, and members of the Action Group determined

that a better quantification of methylmercury in the

Harbor was needed to address the most toxic effects of

mercury in the Harbor. The analyses from the Mercury

and Methylmercury Action Groups form the basis for the

recommendations discussed in the following pages.13

2.1. Industrial Ecology as an Approach to

Assessing the Flows of Mercury in the

NY/NJ Harbor

An industrial ecology (IE) approach is utilized to identify

the sources and quantify the amount of mercury entering

the Harbor. IE is a system-based approach through which

economic systems and environmental systems are studied

in concert. This methodology helps understand how and

from where contaminants enter the Watershed and air-

shed and identifies the most effective levers to reduce or

eliminate the contamination.

IE is especially helpful in discerning the key levers for

preventing new mercury inputs, because mercury enter-

ing the Harbor typically passes through several pathways

or pools before release, reuse, or sequestration that are

not easily identified without a systems view. Thus, IE

enables one not only to identify where mercury enters the

Watershed, but also to track its pathway from production

and usage through its release, disposal, recycling, or

export.14 The information derived from this analysis is

then used to make informed recommendations for P2

strategies.

The first step toward defining an industrial ecological

view of mercury in the Harbor is to identify the major

sources, sinks, and flows of mercury within the Harbor

Watershed by determining a mass balance for mercury

including both intra- and extra-regional mercury sources.15

Then, individual sectors, products and processes that use

and/or release mercury to the environment must be iden-

tified and quantified, with attention paid to how the releas-

es to air, water (wastewater), and solid waste (landfills) are

distributed.16 Where possible, comparisons are made

between the estimates of releases to air, water, and solid

waste from the overall mass balance to the total of mercu-

ry releases determined by summing the individual prod-

ucts, sectors, and processes. This is useful because there

are large uncertainties associated with many of the esti-

mates, and two independent estimates can increase the

confidence level of the results.

2.2. Identifying Sources, Pools,17 and Flows

A mercury mass balance developed by William Fitzgerald

and Joel O’Connor provided the framework to identify

the major flows of mercury into the Watershed and specif-

ically into the Harbor.18 This framework was used to con-

strain estimates of inputs from specific sources and was

critical to the next step of looking specifically at

methylmercury entering the Harbor. The mass balance

also pointed to the three major sinks for mercury, namely,

water, air, and solid waste. This, in turn, pointed to the

need to identify the specific sources of mercury to the air,

water, and solid waste. Identifying the sources was accom-

plished by discerning which sectors, products, and

processes were purposely or inadvertently using or pro-

cessing mercury or mercury-containing materials, and

12. Members of the Mercury Action Group were Joanna Burger (Rutgers), William Fitzgerald (UConn.), Michael Gochfeld (RWJ Medical School), Joel O’Connor (SUNY),

Donna Riley (EPA), and Valerie Thomas (Princeton). Members of the Methylmercury Action Group were Nada Marie Assaff-Anid (Manhattan College), Janina Benoit

(Wheaton College), Michael Connor (NE Aquarium), Charles Driscoll (Syracuse Univ.), William Fitzgerald, Carlton Hunt (Battelle Ocean Science, Inc.), Robert Mason

(Univ. of MD), and Joel O’Connor. Susan Boehme, Allison L. C. de Cerreño, Marta Panero, and Charles Powers also were members of each group.

13. See Janina M. Benoit, “Methylmercury Cycling in the NY/NJ Harbor: Implications for Mitigating High Mercury Levels in Harbor Fish,” developed for and presented

at a combined meeting of the Mercury and Methylmercury Action Groups, New York Academy of Sciences–NYAS (August 2001).

14. For a quick, but excellent primer on industrial ecology, see Reid J. Lifset, “Full Accounting,” The Sciences (May/June 2000): 32-37; for links to work in industrial

ecology, see the International Society for Industrial Ecology’s website at www.yale.edu/is4ie; also check the Journal of Industrial Ecology.

15. See William F. Fitzgerald and Joel S. O’Connor, “Mercury Cycling in the Hudson/Raritan River Basin,” developed for and presented at the NYAS Harbor Consortium

meeting (February 2001).

16. See Nickolas J. Themelis and Alexander F. Gregory, “Sources and Material Balance of Mercury in the New York–New Jersey Harbor,” developed for and presented

at a combined meeting of the Mercury and Methylmercury Action Groups, NYAS (October 2001). Also see Susan Boehme and Marta Panero, “An Industrial Ecology

Analysis of Mercury in the New York/New Jersey Harbor,” presented at the NYAS Harbor Consortium meeting (June 2001).

17. The term “pool” is used in the document instead of the more commonly used “sink” because the latter implies that mercury gets trapped in a particular location.

However, as is discussed later, mercury often moves from one of these pools to another as a result of various processes.

18. Fitzgerald and O’Connor, “Mercury Cycling in the Hudson/Raritan River Basin.”

2. INDUSTRIAL AND ECOLOGICAL PATHWAYS

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

then tracking such mercury through the life cycle of the

product or process.

In most cases, the data presented here are based on

regional (state, county, city) measurements or estimates

that have been scaled using population data to the whole

watershed region. In other cases, national data were used

and scaled to population.19 In general, the major Hg inputs

have been extensively considered; however, there are

some notable exceptions that are discussed in the “Gaps in

Our Knowledge” section. Every effort was made to quan-

tify the distribution of the mercury between the three

major pools, namely, wastewater, air, and solid waste

(landfills/monofills). This is an important step to deter-

mine which pathways are contributing the greatest amount

of mercury to the Harbor. In some cases, mercury can first

be released to one pool and then end up in a different

pool. For example, mercury released to wastewater enters

the publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)20 and can

settle out into the sludge (70–95%) or be transported out

to the Harbor or nearest river (5–30%).21 The sludge, in

turn, can be combusted, used as fertilizer/land amend-

ment, or buried either inter- or extraregionally. However,

sludge within the POTW itself provides an excellent envi-

ronment for methylating mercury.22

Recognizing that the ultimate goal of this effort is to

develop pollution prevention strategies, we have chosen

to differentiate the major releases of mercury as sectors

and products. This is critical to developing solid pollution

prevention strategies because the point of intervention

and the means for intervention may be different for prod-

ucts (some of which may be manufactured in other

regions but used and disposed of in the Watershed) and

sectors (which utilize mercury in production or service).

Mercury released from combustion processes are treated

separately because they result from the inadvertent

release of mercury during energy production.

Table 1 shows the estimates of mercury released from the

major products and sectors.23 It is estimated that approxi-

mately 10,650 kg of mercury are available for release each

year to the water, air, and solid waste in the NY/NJ Harbor

and its watershed. (This is in excellent agreement with

Fitzgerald and O’Connor’s estimate of 10,600 kg/yr for the

region based on the national estimate adjusted for popula-

tion.24) In some cases, this mercury is released directly to

one pool, for example, automobiles release mercury to the

atmosphere during fuel combustion. In other cases, the

pathway is more complicated. For example, mercury in

products and chemicals in hospitals can volatilize, enter the

wastewater stream, or be disposed of in solid waste. Some

processing facilities have controls in place to trap mercury

such as Waste-To-Energy facilities (WTE). The mercury

then is transferred to an ash that is typically buried in

monofills or landfills. Other processes, such as wastewater

treatment facilities, electric arc furnaces (EAFs), and regular

landfills have no controls in place to collect the mercury.

Thus, column 5 of Table 1 describes the different pools into

which mercury from each source can flow. The pathways

for mercury from each sector and product are detailed in

the following sections

19. The source of the data is given in the individual tables shown in Appendix 6.2.

20. POTW is utilized throughout the document instead of the more general wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). The latter designation includes any end-of-pipe facility

installed to control effluents, whereas POTW refers only to those owned and operated by city or state agencies.

21. Philip Heckler (NYC DEP), personal communication, September 2001.

22. Benoit, “Methylmercury Cycling in the NY/NJ Harbor,” p. 3.

23. A short description of how each number was obtained is given in Appendix 6.1, and a complete description of the calculations is shown in Appendix 6.2.

24. Fitzgerald and O’Connor, “Mercury Cycling in the Hudson/Raritan River Basin,” p. 3, Table 1.

THE CYCLE OF SLUDGE

Sludge is a combination of organic matter, nutri-

ents, and bacteria. It provides ideal conditions for

methylation of mercury. As wastewater enters a

publicly owned treatment work (POTW), the first

step is the settling out of particles, leading to the

creation of sludge. Secondary treatment of the

separated water with chemicals, bacteria, and/or

aeration further results in a bacterial sludge that

is then combined with the primary material.

Whereas the remaining water is released to the

Harbor or other water bodies, sludge is removed.

In New Jersey, one-quarter of the sludge is com-

busted, with the resulting ash disposed of as

solid waste. In New York State, approximately half

the sludge is dewatered and pelletized, and then

used as fertilizer. The remainder is incinerated or

buried. If mercury is present in the initial waste-

water flow, the ash and pelletized fertilizer may

remain contaminated.

INDUSTRIAL AND ECOLOGICAL PATHWAYS 21

In several cases, the error bars associated with the fig-

ures in Table 1 are large. Thus, Figure 1 graphically

depicts the errors associated for each of the key sectors

and products in Table 1.

Although landfills and monofills account for the largest

pool of mercury released in the Watershed (~7,000 to

10,000 kg/yr),25 much of this appears to be at least tem-

porarily sequestered, and thus, only a small fraction

leaches out, with a smaller amount likely to make its way

into the Harbor.26 Conversely, 5 to 30% (~125–750 kg/yr)

of the mercury that makes its way into the wastewater

stream eventually ends up in the Harbor.27 Furthermore,

TABLE 1. Hg Releases in the Watershed (kg/yr)a

Confidence Error

(Kg/yr) Levelb(%) cReleased to d

SECTORS

Automobiles/fuel combustion 150 Medium/low 60 A

Crematoria 25 Medium 50 A

Dental facilities 4,000 Medium/low 60 A, WW, SW

Hospitals 1,400 Low 70 A, WW, SW

Households: Furnaces 200 Medium/low 60 A

Products/waste 250 Low 70 A, WW, SW

Thermometers 500 Medium/low 60 A, WW, SW

Industrial/commercial furnaces 350 Medium/low 60 A, SW

Laboratories 600 Low 70 A, WW, SW

Utilities: Furnaces 400 Medium 50 A, SW

PRODUCTS

Batteries 100 Low 70 A, WW, SW

Fluorescent lamps 700 Medium/low 60 A, WW, SW

Switches (appliances) 25 Low 70 A, SW

Switches (vehicles) 900 Low 70 A, SW

Switches (lighting) 100 Medium/low 60 A, SW

Thermostats 600 Medium/low 60 A, SW

Subtotal 10,250

OTHER

Religious/cultural usee400 Very low 90 A, WW, SW

Total Hg available for release 10,650

a A brief description of how these numbers were calculated is given in Appendix 6.1 and detailed in Appendix 6.2.

b Confidence level is based on how many independent estimates were available, rigorousness of the data collection, and how recently the data were gathered.

c Error percentages associated with confidence levels are within the ranges of other studies such as the NJ Mercury Task Force, The Pollution Prevention Partnership,

and the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD), Mercury Sector Assessment for the Greater Milwaukee Area (September 1997). Low=70%, Medium=50%,

High=30%.

d Sector and product releases of mercury can be initially disposed of via air, wastewater, and solid waste. During processing of that waste, the mercury can be divert-

ed or converted to a different pool. For example, auto switches sent to an EAF will combust the mercury releasing it to the air. Some of the mercury may end up

associated with flue ash and be disposed of in landfills. Appendix 6.1 describes the estimates for the actual releases of mercury to air, landfills, and wastewater

and Appendix 6.2 shows the calculations used to obtain the sector and product mercury releases. A, air; WW, wastewater; SW, solid waste.

e This estimate is the low end value estimated by Fitzgerald and O’Connor, “Mercury Cycling in the Hudson/Raritan River Basin.” Given the large error bars and the

lack of a full understanding of the extent of the problem and no data on how this mercury makes its way to the Harbor, religious and cultural uses will not be dealt

with further in this document.

25. See Appendix 6.1

26. The leachate from landfills was calculated based on the estimates of the NJ Mercury Task Force (M. Aucott, personal communication). Their estimate was scaled

to the population of the watershed. This is likely higher than the actual since not all mercury in leachate will eventually make its way to the Harbor.

27. For wastewater, the midrange figure for 20% is utilized for all further calculations.

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

FIGURE 1. Margin of Error for Estimated Mercury Inputs (kg/yr) to the NY/NJ Harbor

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000

Crematoria

Switches—appliances

Switches—lighting

Batteries

Fuel combustion

Household: Furnaces

Household: Products/Waste

Industrial/Commercial Furnaces

Utilities: Furnaces

Relig/Cultural Use

Household: Thermometers

Thermostats

Laboratories

Fluorescent Lamps

Switches—vehicles (via EAFs)

Hospitals

Dental facilities

CHART 1. Kilograms Per Year of Mercury

Entering the NY/NJ Harbor from Key Pools

Air

385 kg

Landfills

85 kg

Wastewater

490 kg

INDUSTRIAL AND ECOLOGICAL PATHWAYS 23

Fitzgerald and O’Connor estimate that approximately

385 ± 245 kg/yr Hg28 makes its way from the air to the

Harbor after deposition on land, water bodies leading to

the Harbor, or the Harbor itself. Thus, Chart 1 depicts

the proportion of mercury each pool contributes, on aver-

age, to the total loadings on the Harbor each year.

Discharges of Mercury to Wastewater

Approximately 2,500 kg/yr of mercury are added to waste-

water, and it is estimated that 5 to 30% of the mercury

entering POTW facilities ends up in the Harbor, with the

remainder staying in the sewage sludge. The sludge can

then be pelletized and applied to fields as land amend-

ment, buried or incinerated. All of these processes can re-

release mercury (sometimes in the form of MeHg) to the

environment, though not necessarily in the watershed.

Measurements of mercury influent concentrations from

New York POTWs, scaled to the watershed population

agree well (~2,450 kg/yr)29 with the estimate of 2,500 kg/yr

based on the summing of all sectors and products adding

mercury to wastewater.

As noted previously, MeHg is the form of mercury of

most concern in the Harbor. To identify the major sources

of MeHg to the Harbor, Benoit utilized available

methylmercury data and the mercury budget of Fitzgerald

and O’Connor, which helped identify the major pools of

MeHg (sediments, river water and wastewater effluent),

but not the pathways of methylation. In an effort to deter-

mine where methylation was occurring, Benoit analyzed

the controls on methylation (presence of oxygen, sulfide,

and organic matter) and how different conditions in the

Harbor (eutrophication, mercury loading) might affect

mercury concentrations in fish. The data suggest that

when mercury enters the Harbor, some amount will be

converted to MeHg because the conditions for methyla-

tion exist in the Harbor. Further, direct inputs of MeHg

are of special concern because they provide a direct path-

way for uptake by organisms. Benoit used a 0.4% methy-

lation rate for Hg entering the Harbor from riverine

input.30 For mercury released from POTW, this percentage

is much higher (1.3%) because these facilities provide the

ideal conditions for methylation31 (Table 2 and Chart 2).

Thus, the importance of mercury entering the Harbor is

amplified because of the higher rates of methylation. It is

difficult to assess the importance of landfill/monofill

leachate to MeHg input; however, conditions within the

landfills are also thought to be conducive to methylation

and therefore the higher percentage of 1.3% was used.

Therefore, two key scientific recommendations

resulting from the methylmercury research are to:

■Decrease total mercury discharges to the waters of

the Harbor and its watershed; and,

■Decrease discharges from wastewater treatment

plants because they are a potential source of

methylmercury.

28. This figure is derived from Fitzgerald and O’Connor’s work in “Mercury Cycling in the Hudson/Raritan River Basin,” p. 20.

29. Simon Litten (NYS DEC), personal communication; Nickolas Themelis (Columbia Univ.), personal communication.

30. Benoit, “Methylmercury Cycling in the NY/NJ Harbor,” p. 2.

31. Ibid.

CHART 2. Proportion of Methylmercury

Contributed to the Harbor by Each Pool

Air

(via rivers)

Wastewater

Landfills/

Monofills

TABLE 2. Estimated Contributions

of MeHg from Key Poolsa

Hg Pool %

Size Methyl- MeHg ± Error

Pool (kg/yr) ated (kg/yr) %

Air 385b0.4 1.5 60b

Wastewater 490c1.3 6.4 75c

Landfills 85 1.3 1.1 70c

a See Chart 1 and text for source of these numbers.

b Based on Fitzgerald and O’Connor’s estimate of 385 ± 245 kg/yr entering the

harbor via air deposition.

c See Table 3 for estimate and error calculation of this value.

In practical terms, both these recommendations point to

the need to decrease total mercury inputs to wastewater

because this is the most direct methylmercury pathway to

the Harbor. Thus, this should be considered the highest

priority for developing P2 plans for mercury in the

Harbor. Table 3 shows mercury discharges into waste-

water by sector and product and the distribution of dis-

charges to effluent and sludge.

For decreasing mercury inputs to wastewater, it is criti-

cal to backtrack to the sources of mercury and under-

stand how it makes its way into the waters of the Harbor

and its watershed. Figure 2 provides a graphic detailing

the mercury pathway from industries and products

through the POTWs and into the Harbor. (Relative

amounts of mercury contributed are reflected in the

weight of the directional arrows.)

Three key sectors account for over 80% of the mercury

entering the POTWs. Dental facilities release amalgam

particles during the process of placing and removing mer-

cury amalgams for tooth fillings, leading to discharges

amounting to 1,000 kg/yr of mercury. Non-hospital labo-

ratories, which have mercury in numerous chemicals and

reagents, discharge 400 kg/yr of mercury. Hospitals dis-

charge another 700 kg/yr mercury through laboratories,

measuring devices and instruments. (Some hospitals also

have dental facilities.32) Other sources of mercury to

POTWs are households. Households contribute an addi-

tional 350 kg/yr from human waste, mostly in the form of

urine and feces but also from broken thermometers,

cleansing products and laundry water (dyes, dirt).33 Of

these inputs, as noted previously, 5 to 30% of the mercury

eventually makes its way into the Harbor. Chart 3 shows

the proportional distribution by sector of mercury inputs

that enter the Harbor via POTWs.

Emissions of Mercury to Air

It is clear that wastewater provides the most direct path-

way for methylmercury to enter the Harbor. However, as

it settles in Harbor surface sediments and then is methy-

lated, inorganic mercury entering the Harbor via river

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

32. Mercury released by hospital laboratories is counted within the hospital sector because administratively it would be the hospital that would implement pollution

prevention strategies and bear any associated costs.

33. Association of Metropolitan Sewage Agencies (AMSA), Evaluation of Domestic Sources of Mercur y (Washington, DC: AMSA, 2000); Philip Heckler and Ronald Lochan

(NYC DEP) personal communication, October 2001. Veterinaries also contribute a very small proportion of mercury as a result of their use of thermometers and

vaccines containing mercury. The Pollution Prevention Partnership and the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD), Mercur y Sector Assessment for the

Greater Milwaukee Area (September 1997), http://www.epa.gov/glnpodocs/milwaukeehg/mercuryr.pdf.

TABLE 3. Discharges of Mercury to Wastewater by Sector and Product in the

NY/NJ Harbor Watershed and Actual Distribution of Discharges to Effluent and Sludge

Discharges by Amount

Sector and Percentage That Flows

Product That Flows to to Wastewater Error

(kg/yr) Wastewater (kg/yr) (%)

SECTORS

Dental facilities 4,000 25 1,000 60

Hospitals 1,400 50 700 70

Households: products, waste 250 100 250 60

Thermometers 500 20 100 60

Laboratories 600 67 400 70

Total 6,750 2,450

Releases from POTW as

effluent (5–30 % of influenta) 490 75b

To Sludge (remainder) 1,960 75

a An estimate of 20% of Hg in the influent is released as effluent-with the remainder staying in the sludge. This is based on estimates of 5–15% from personal com-

munication with P. Heckler, NYC-DEP and Simon Litten, NYS-DEC; 28%, 1998 Headworks Analysis, NYC-DEP; and 30%, Themelis and Gregory. Higher releases during

wet weather events account for the higher estimates of the POTW effluent range.

b Error estimate based on range of 5 to 30% of mercury may be released to Harbor in effluent.

INDUSTRIAL AND ECOLOGICAL PATHWAYS 25

water is also a possible source of methylmer-

cury. Inorganic mercury is derived from

atmospheric emissions that are deposited

throughout the Watershed and then washed

into rivers or deposited directly on rivers.

Mercury also settles on land and then washes

onto nearby water bodies during storm

events. Summing the actual atmospheric emis-

sions by sector and product leads to an esti-

mate of nearly 2,000 kg/yr of mercury

released within the Watershed (see Appendix

6.1). Fitzgerald and O’Connor estimate 1,240

±315 kg/yr

34 of mercury is released locally

into the air, of which about 30% is deposited

within the Watershed. Approximately 360 ±

60 kg/yr of mercury are deposited from

longer-range sources outside the region. From

the portion of mercury deposited in the

Watershed from air, Fitzgerald and O’Connor

estimate that 385 kg/yr of mercury actually

34. They estimated 910 ± 315 kg/yr from major combustion processes and 330 ± 132 kg/yr from soil emissions. See Fitzgerald and O’Connor, “Mercury Cycling in

the Hudson/Raritan River Basin,” pp. 18–20.

CHART 3. Share of Mercury Discharges

via Wastewater into the Harbor by Sector

Dental

Facilities

Products

Waste

Households

Labs

Hospitals

Thermo-

meters

FIGURE 2. The Pathway of Mercury Through the

POTWs and into the Harbor and its Watershed

Harbor

POTW

•Chemicals

•Reagents

•Vaccines

•Measuring Devices

•Instruments

•Laboratories

•Dental clinics

•Cleansing agents

•Thermometers

•Human waste

Amalgams

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

enters the Harbor via rivers, rainwater, and runoff. Thus,

after wastewater, atmospheric inputs are the next largest

source to the Harbor and decreasing atmospheric inputs to

the Harbor is a second priority. Because atmospheric

inputs from beyond the watershed also add to this pool

(coal combustion in the Midwest, for example), large-scale

solutions are needed to significantly decrease these inputs.

The three major processes releasing mercury to the

atmosphere are combustion, incineration, and volatiliza-

tion. Incineration is the process that burns mercury-con-

taining compounds or products, converting mercury in

the solid phase to gas or airborne particles. Combustion

refers to the burning of fuels (coal, gas, oil, wood), which

contain trace amounts of mercury. The Themelis and

Gregory report and data from Fitzgerald and O’Connor

focus on the combustion sources of mercury to the air.35

Several combustion processes can release mercury to the

atmosphere. Many industries are required to control

emissions of mercury, but capture rates vary. For exam-

ple, medical waste incinerators collect approximately 95

to 98% of the mercury, which ends up in monofills or

landfills, releasing only 2 to 5% to the air. However, coal

combusting utilities only capture approximately 50% of

the mercury with particles, leaving much of the mercury

to be released to the atmosphere.36

Incineration involves the burning of materials to reduce

their volume or to convert organic material to inorganic

forms (medical waste, crematoria, waste-to-energy). This

process also converts solid phase mercury to a gaseous or

airborne phase. Volatilization of mercury is an important

consideration because it is not stable as a liquid at normal

pressures and temperatures and slowly evaporates. Thus,

when fluorescent lamps, manometers, thermometers, etc.

break, there is an opportunity for the mercury to vapor-

ize. It is estimated, for example that nearly 25% of the

mercury in fluorescent lamps volatilizes at the landfill

before burial (assuming all lamps break).37 Laboratories,

hospitals, and crematoria all have been cited as having air

concentrations of mercury that are higher than normal

because of their use of mercury-containing products.

Table 4 shows emissions to air from sectors and products

in the NY/NJ Harbor Watershed.38 The top three sectors

that continue to emit mercury into the air are power-gen-

erating utilities (through combustion of coal and heavy oil

in furnaces), industrial and commercial endeavors (again

through furnaces), and the automotive sector (through

both internal combustion of gasoline and auto switches

products which end up in EAFs). Among the products of

most concern are auto switches (mentioned above) and

fluorescent lamps (from which the mercury volatilizes

when the lamps are broken).

Figure 3 provides a graphic detailing the pathway of

mercury from various sectors through various types of

incinerators (medical waste incinerators MWI; municipal

waste incinerators MWC; crematoria; waste-to-energy

WTE), and into the air. The incineration pathway was

chosen to highlight because it is one where there are

numerous points of leverage for pollution prevention.

(Relative amounts of mercury contributed are reflected in

the weight of the directional arrows.)

35. Ibid.; Themelis and Gregory, “Sources and Material Balance of Mercury in the NY/NJ Harbor,” pp. 12–17.

36. Some utilities in the watershed only distribute energy (electricity) and may be purchasing the energy from companies generating it outside the region (some of which

may utilize coal). Thus, demand in this region may contribute to mercury releases in other parts of the country as well.

37. Michael Aucott (NJ DEP), personal communication.

38. See Appendix 6.1 for full description of mercury releases from initial release through intermediate processing to final release.

TABLE 4. Estimated Emissions of

Mercury to Air by Sector and Product

in the NY/NJ Harbor Watershed

kg/yr

SECTORS

Automobiles/fuel combustion 150

Crematoria 25

Dental facilities 101

Hospitals 114

Households: Furnaces 150

Products, other 17

Thermometers 61

Industrial/Commercial furnaces 350

Laboratories 44

Utilities: Furnaces 400

PRODUCTS (INCINERATED)

Batteries 1

Fluorescent lamps 181

Switches (appliances) 8

Switches (automobiles) 300

Switches (lighting) 1

Thermostats 7

Total 1,909

INDUSTRIAL AND ECOLOGICAL PATHWAYS 27

Chart 4 shows the proportional distribution by sector

and product of mercury inputs to air in the NY/NJ Harbor

and its watershed. Household emissions shown by sector

are from the use of furnaces only. Emissions from the use

of fever thermometers are included under the product fig-

ures. Similarly, auto switches are accounted for separately

from automobile emissions. This is done to facilitate the

development of P2 strategies, which in each of these cases

may be different for the specific products than for the sec-

tors in which they are utilized.

Releases of Mercury to Solid Waste

The third mercury pool is solid waste, with the end

point being landfills and monofills. Themelis and

Gregory estimate that 9,400 kg/yr of mercury is landfilled

in the Watershed.40 We can account for approximately

6,800 kg/yr based on the estimates for the individual

sources. The difference is most likely caused by a range

of medium to small sources (e.g., various household prod-

ucts that contain mercury, construction and demolition

materials that are landfilled) whose mercury contents are

not well quantified. Figure 4 depicts the mercury pathway

by sector and product to landfills and monofills. (Relative

amounts of mercury contributed are reflected in the

weight of the directional arrows.)

Estimating releases of mercury from landfills is difficult

because there is a paucity of data. Moreover, tracing mer-

cury in leachate specifically to the landfill is problematic.

39. See Fitzgerald and O’Connor, “Mercury Cycling in the Hudson /Raritan River Basin.”

40. Themelis and Gregory, “Sources and Material Balance of Mercury in the NY/NJ Harbor,” p. 24.

FIGURE 3. The Pathway of Mercury Through Incinerators in the

Harbor and Watershed, into the Air, and onto Land and Water39

Land and

Water Bodies

POTW (sludge) Thermostats

•Thermometers

•Batteries

•Fluorescent

lamps

•Batteries

Switches

MWI; Crematoria;

MWC; WTE; EAF

Medical

Waste

& Trash

Crematoria

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

It is possible, for example, that the leachate was contami-

nated by rainwater or as it moved through mercury-laden

soils beyond the landfill. Nevertheless, the NJ Mercury

Task Force data suggest that little mercury is leaching out

of landfills and only small quantities are emitted to the

atmosphere.41 Furthermore, it appears that the mercury

present in landfills is sequestered, at least on time scales of

landfill use. Thus, it makes sense to accord the pathways

of mercury leading to landfills a lower priority than the

pathways leading to wastewater and air.

The key products and sectors of concern with respect

to mercury releases to landfills and monofills are dental

offices, which account for nearly 50% of the total releases

to solid waste; hospitals, which account for close to 15%;

fluorescent lamps, thermostats and automobile switches,

which contribute approximately 10% each to landfills and

monofills. Table 5 shows the full breakdown by sector

and product of the mercury making its way into landfills

and monofills in the Harbor watershed. Chart 5 depicts

the proportional distribution.

41. Michael Aucott (NJ DEP), personal communication.

CHART 4. Share of Mercury Emissions to

Air by Key Sectors anW Products in the

NY/NJ Harbor watershed

Industrial

Commercial

Furnaces

Households

Utilities:

Furnaces

Dental

Cremetoria

Other

Products

Labs

Hospitals

Automotive

Fluorescent

Lamps

Auto

Switches

FIGURE 4. The Pathway of Mercury to Landfills/Monofills and into the Harbor

Landfills/

Monofills

POTW

MWI; MWC;

WTE

Electric Arc

Furnaces

Harbor

Leachate

Solid waste

Contributions from:

•Dental sector

•Thermostats

•Hospitals

•Fluorescent lamps

•Household thermometers

•Laboratories

•Switches–lighting

•Batteries

• Switches-auto

• Switches-appliances

• Flue and bottom ash

Solid waste incineration

With contributions from:

•Sludge ash

•Dental sector

•Thermostats

•Hospitals

•Fluorescent lamps

•Household thermometers

•Laboratories

•Switches-lighting

•Batteries

Sludge

With contributions from:

•Dental sector

•Hospitals

•Laboratories

•Households

INDUSTRIAL AND ECOLOGICAL PATHWAYS 29

2.3. Gaps in Our Knowledge

As noted by Fitzgerald and O’Connor several of the

largest industrial users of mercury were located on the

shores of the Harbor. Many of these sites, especially the

areas on the western side of the Harbor including Newark

Bay and the Passaic and Hackensack Rivers remain heav-

ily contaminated with a range of pollutants including mer-

cury. There are numerous brownfields and Superfund

sites along these rivers.42 Superfund sites include, for

example, Diamond Alkalai, PJP Landfill, and Syncon

Resins, all of which are cited specifically for mercury or

heavy metals. Mercury concentrations are monitored at

some locations in the soil and groundwater. However,

there are no studies of how much of this mercury eventu-

ally makes its way into the Harbor. Thus, whereas this

input could potentially be large, without sufficient useable,

historic, recent or ongoing water column or sediment

measurements at these sites, it is impossible at this time to

estimate (or even guesstimate) the amount of mercury (or

other contaminants) flowing to the NY/NJ Harbor from

these sites. Nevertheless, given the potential loadings from

these sources it is recommended that these sites be target-

ed for future studies to determine whether they need to be

factored in to mercury P2 plans for the Harbor. In the

meantime, the Consortium should move forward on deci-

sions based on the present state of knowledge. The

Academy will continue to try to gather more information

about these sites and present this when and if it becomes

available.

Other products that may be contributing mercury to

the Harbor are plumbing gauges and dairy manometers.

Because programs are underway to collect and retire these

devices, it was assumed that they would not be adding

additional mercury to the Harbor. We were unable to

gather sufficient data to evaluate the success of these pro-

grams. Further research may be needed.

Mercury-bearing gauges, equipment and chemicals in

schools may also contribute to mercury releases to the

Harbor. A national campaign to educate school adminis-

trators about mercury-containing products and chemicals

from schools is ongoing. An estimate of how much mer-

cury is in any given school varies greatly and could not

be extrapolated to the Watershed.

In addition to the gaps in knowledge noted above,

there are several other areas that require further study.

More data are needed, for example, on the percentage of

methylmercury in wastewater, mercury emissions from

fuels, and the amount of mercury transported via sedi-

ments from upstream regions into the Harbor. The infor-

42. See the “Industry” section in Fitzgerald and O’Connor, “Mercury Cycling in the Hudson/Raritan River Basin,” pp. 7–11, for site descriptions, historical activity, and

some soil and groundwater mercury concentrations.

CHART 5. Share of Mercury

Releases into Landfills/Monofills

Dental

Hospitals

Households

Labs

Fluor.

Lamps

Auto

Switches

Thermostats Other

TABLE 5. Estimated Releases

to Landfills/Monofills in the

NY/NJ Harbor Watershed

kg/yr

SECTORS

Dental facilities 3,263

Hospitals 841

Households: Products, Waste 75

Thermometers 376

Laboratories 302

PRODUCTS

Batteries 99

Fluorescent lamps 519

Switches (appliances) 17

Switches (auto) 600

Switches (lighting) 99

Thermostats 593

Total 6,783

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

mation derived from a study of any of these could lead to

some modifications in the proposed recommendations.

2.4. Summary of the Pathways

The estimates on mercury releases to the three key pools

(water, air, and landfills), combined with the recommenda-

tions for methylmercury43 point to pollution prevention

strategies that address wastewater first and foremost. It is

within this priority that the dental, hospital, and laborato-

ry sectors should be focused because they account for near-

ly two-thirds of the discharges to wastewater in the region.44

In practical terms, the technology to trap and collect the

mercury at the usage point in these sectors is already avail-

able, and in most cases non-mercury alternatives are also

available. Pollution prevention strategies that address these

sectors are the logical choices for implementation.

Furthermore, POTWs provide the perfect conditions for

methylation of mercury in the sludge materials. This also

argues for decreasing mercury entering the plants, to

decrease the amount of mercury and methylmercury that

is released to the Harbor.

An added benefit to recycling or replacing mercury in

the dental, hospital, and laboratory sectors is that this

would also drastically reduce the amount of mercury sent

to landfills and reduce air emissions as well. These three

sectors account for almost two-thirds of the mercury that

ends up in landfills and monofills as solid waste, sludge,

and ash, and more than one-fifth of the mercury released

to the air.

Table 1 demonstrates that the largest pool of mercury

ends up in the solid waste stream and ultimately in landfills

and monofills. Estimates of atmospheric release from land-

fills are low and leaching rates are also thought to be low for

the major landfill (Fresh Kills) in the Watershed. However,

conditions within landfills/monofills could be optimal for

methylation, and thus the mercury that is leaching out will

have a higher percentage of methylmercury. Therefore, any

opportunities to reduce mercury inputs to landfills should

be implemented when feasible. This is considered a lower

priority than the wastewater recommendations, but tech-

nologies and strategies exist for recapturing/and or replac-

ing mercury in several major contributors (switches in auto-

mobiles and other vehicles, appliances, lighting, household

thermometers, thermostats, and fluorescent lamps) to land-

fills/monofills and should be encouraged.

Household products (bar soaps, dishwasher detergents,

cleaning agents, greeting cards) contain trace amounts of

mercury associated with dyes. Mercury switches are used

in a range of products, including children’s toys and shoes

with flashing lights. Mercury can be avoided in many of

these products and should be eliminated when possible.

Labeling requirements for all products that contain mer-

cury could help to discourage the use of these items.

The major source of mercury to atmosphere on a global

scale is emissions from coal combustion. Although it is

impractical to immediately halt coal combustion in the

region, there are potential strategies to minimize mercury

release by both pre-washing the coal and utilizing trapping

technologies at the facilities. These steps could be under-

taken while alternative, cleaner energy sources are imple-

mented. (There is a downside to coal cleaning if the mer-

cury removed is not effectively managed. See the box,

“Coal Cleaning and Mercury: A Little Known Story,” in

Section 3.)

Several recommended priorities for action and further

research are derived from the scientific analysis presented

in this section, as follows:

Recommended Priorities for Action

■Decrease mercury discharges from wastewater

■Decrease atmospheric inputs of mercury

■Decrease inputs of mercury to landfills and

monofills

Recommended Priorities for Research

■Develop data related to contaminated land-based

sites in the Watershed

■Link initial findings on dredged materials to future

contaminant studies

43. Benoit, “Methylmercury Cycling in the NY/NJ Harbor.”

44. Mercury from religious/cultural use has been identified as a possible source to wastewater. There is, however, no quantitative data on the uses or releases

of mercury from these practices. If future research indicates that this is a significant source of mercury to the Harbor, we recommend that a pollution prevention

strategy be defined.

THE ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, AND SOCIETAL FRAMEWORK 31

To develop pollution prevention plans for mercury that

are likely to be implemented, the next step is to incorpo-

rate an economic analysis based on the scientific findings

described in Section 2. Thus, this section first provides a

broad view of the costs associated with mercury use in the

New York/New Jersey Harbor and its watershed, as well

as an overview of the benefits that would accrue (in terms

of avoided costs) from preventing mercury pollution.

Second, it specifically examines various alternatives (and

associated costs) that could be used at the key leverage

points identified by the scientific research. (To facilitate

comparison between the different options, we developed a

common index of cost per kilogram of mercury

removed/avoided.) Third, it will make several recommen-

dations based on the combined scientific and economic

findings, informed by the findings from the survey of pub-

lic opinion,46 which will help prevent and/or reduce mer-

cury pollution in the Harbor.

It is worth pointing out before the full discussion that

with respect to public participation in the Watershed,

there is evidence to suggest that residents are likely to

want to be involved with certain pollution prevention and

management measures. Further, in terms of responsibility,

there is much support among residents for shared respon-

sibility, especially by governments and businesses, but

also by individuals themselves.47 This last point is critical.

Individual responsibility is important because mercury

pollution is often associated with disposal of mercury-

bearing products by end-users.

In the current climate, traditional market mechanisms

to curb mercury use, such as price increases, are not an

option because decreased demand over the last two

decades has resulted in an oversupply in the market for

mercury. This glut is likely to continue because opportu-

nities to retire part of the circulating stock are currently

unavailable.48 Thus, educating consumers as to the envi-

ronmental implications of their purchasing decisions may

become a significant tool to signal the market to offer

non-mercury alternatives.49

45. The dollar figures that appear throughout this section are rounded. For exact costs, see Appendix 6.3.

46. During the spring and summer of 2001, the Academy worked closely with Marist College Institute for Public Opinion to develop and conduct a public opinion sur-

vey of NY and NJ residents of the NY/NJ Harbor and its Watershed.

47. From the survey, we found that recycling rates in this region were high compared with national statistics, with 86% of respondents saying they recycled always

(79%) or often (9%), compared with only 68% nationally (57% always; 11% often). Also, already, more than half of respondents in this region always seek to pur-

chase energy-saving appliances, and close to one-third use nonchemical means for treating their lawns or killing pests. In terms of responsibility, 92% of respon-

dents believed that government shared a great deal or a fair amount of the responsibility for dealing with such issues; 92% also felt business shared a great deal

or fair amount of responsibility; and 82% of respondents felt they themselves shared the responsibility.

48. National stockpiles (DOE and DOD) are not accepting any more mercury. Currently there are no proven technologies to stabilize mercury so that it could be safely

sequestered in landfills. Exporting mercury to other countries should also be discouraged, since its subsequent use and release may contribute to global emissions.

49. This may include requiring producers to label products that contain mercury.

3. THE ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, AND SOCIETAL FRAMEWORK45

WHAT PEOPLE IN THE REGION

ARE THINKING: SEVERAL

RESULTS FROM THE PUBLIC

OPINION SURVEY

During the spring and summer of 2001, the New

York Academy of Sciences commissioned the

Marist College Institute for Public Opinion to

develop and implement a public opinion survey of

New York and New Jersey residents of the Harbor

and its watershed. The findings from the poll

helped to determine both the most effective

means for outreach and the likelihood that cer-

tain P2 strategies will be supported by the public.

Among the more interesting findings, 82% of

respondents felt that one does not have to

choose between a healthy economy and a

healthy environment; it is possible to have both.

In terms of P2 strategies, 97% of respondents in

the NY/NJ Harbor watershed always, often, or

sometimes recycle, compared with only 83%

nationwide.

With respect to sharing responsibility, 92% of

respondents felt that business should bear a

great deal or fair amount of responsibility; 92%

also pointed to government. However, 86%

believed citizen’s groups should also bear the

brunt of responsibility, and 82% pointed to indi-

viduals as bearing a great deal or fair share of

responsibility.

3.1. The Broad Picture

The current annual cost range for the purposeful usage of

mercury in products or services50 identified in Section 2 as

key leverage points for the NY/NJ Harbor Watershed51 is

estimated to be at least $132M–$1B (Table 6).

Implementing a comprehensive mercury pollution pre-

vention and management plan may be achieved by:

■Source elimination by materials/product/process

substitution;

■Technology applications to capture mercury at point

sources;

■Comprehensive recycling.

The cost of mercury pollution prevention for the products

and sectors considered in this report varies according to

options chosen, and not all options are available for each

type of release. No technology for trapping or recycling

mercury is able to attain 100% efficiency; only product

substitution can totally remove mercury from the waste

stream, and such substitution is not always feasible.

Annual costs for each of these P2 and management strate-

gies vary widely, ranging from at least $31.4M to $143M

for product substitution, $170M to $849M for compre-

hensive recycling, and $14M to $82M for applying con-

trol technologies to prevent releases at the source.

In each case, cost, technological and administrative fea-

sibility vary by sector and industry.52 Several examples of

the cost to capture mercury once it has been released from

the source, rather than prevention prior to release, are

described below:

■Installing technology to reduce mercury concentra-

tions in effluents from a medium-sized POTW, for

example, could cost more than $51.4 million in cap-

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

50. This includes cost for purchasing mercury products only for most sectors considered in this document.

51. As defined in Fitzgerald and O’Connor, “Mercury Cycling in the Hudson/Raritan River Basin,” p. 2.

52. Because mercury releases from one sector may be treated by public sector facilities, sector-specific costs and savings may not accurately reflect the overall soci-

etal economics of mercury use and release. Therefore, specific sectors and industries are examined separately and then aggregated for policy evaluation.

TABLE 6. Comparison of Costs of Mercury Pollution Prevention and Management

Strategies for Sectors, Products, and Processes in the Watershed (in $1,000s)

Cost Range of Cost Range of

Cost Range of Applying Applying Applying MACT

Cost Range of Using Cost Range of Using Comprehensive MACT at the at Source/yr

Hg Products/yr Non-Hg Products/yr Recycling/yr Source/yr for 5 yr Thereafter

SECTORS

Crematoria N/A N/A N/A $2,500 $2,600 $270 $360

Dental sector $2,600a$3,800 a$12,200b$17,500b$660 $780 $10,000c$11,000c$3,000 $9,500

Hospitals $5,600a$65,200a$4,400b$9,500 b$7,200d$213,650d$920 $34,200 $340 $2,828

Laboratories N/A N/A $4,400 $132,500 $504 $33,573 $162 $1,620

PRODUCTS

Fluorescent

lamps $115,500 $967,970 N/A $24,220 $24,230 N/A N/A

Switches

–autos N/A N/A $8,774e$13,381e$457f$604fN/A

Household

Thermometers $1,547g$2,587g$3,237 $5,200 N/A N/A N/A

Thermostats $6,960h$23,200h$11,600 $111,360 $124,300 $464,000 N/A N/A

Total $132,207 $1,062,757 $31,437 $143,560 $169,554 $848,541 $14,381 $81,977 $3,772 $14,308

a For dental sector, includes cost for mercury amalgam only. For hospital sector cost of using mercury products in labs were not available.

b For dental sector, includes cost for composite material only. For hospital sector cost of using non-mercury products in labs were not available.

c Cost per first year.

d Includes cost for dental solid waste recycling and laboratory recycling of all discharges, only.

e Cost to replace all mercury switches with non-mercury ones for the entire automobile fleet in the Watershed.

f Cost to replace all mercury switches with non-mercury ones only at end-of-life of automobiles.

h Cost for thermostat units only. Does not include comprehensive recycling cost.

THE ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, AND SOCIETAL FRAMEWORK 33

ital investment plus annual operating and mainte-

nance expenses of more than $9.4 million for each

plant.53 Based on these estimates the cost of compli-

ance annualized over 10 years is estimated to be

$16.7M/yr. This translates into $1M/kg to prevent

450 kg of mercury from escaping POTWs per year,

for ten years and then over $627K/kg of Hg per

year afterwards.

■The cost of recovering mercury to prevent emis-

sions from combusted solid waste, from medical

waste incinerators and Waste to Energy plants

ranges from $464/kg to $3,500/kg of mercury

removed.54

■The cost for maximum available control technolo-

gies (MACT) applied at power-generating utilities

(to prevent incidental releases from burning coal)

may range from $18,600/kg to $36,000/kg of

mercury recovered.55

From a society-wide perspective, it is costs such as those

delineated above that would be avoided by pollution pre-

vention approaches even though they may not be inter-

nally cost-effective for any one sector. Thus, reducing and

eliminating mercury releases will require a concerted effort

to apply a variety of techniques, driven by incentive and

financing mechanisms that will better reflect the overall

benefits to the regional environment and economy. For

example, the Western Lake Superior Sanitary District

(WLSSD) in Duluth, Minnesota, has worked to reduce

mercury input to POTWs by assisting dentists in organiz-

ing a recycling collection program at a minimum annual

expense and encouraging the use of filtration systems to

reduce initial discharges to sewers.

Benefits

The mechanisms of mercury damage have been described

in Section 2; here, that discussion is converted to an analy-

sis of benefits in risk reduction. Many of the social and

ecosystem benefits of preventing mercury releases to the

environment are difficult to quantify in monetary terms.

Nevertheless, contaminated fish may affect a large sector

of the population, including recreational as well as subsis-

tence (mostly minorities and low income) fishermen and

their families. Pregnant women, young children, and those

with weak immune systems are most at risk. A National

Research Council report indicates that in the United States

about 60,000 infants may be at risk for neurological dam-

age from mercury exposure before birth, which suggests

that each year approximately 3,500 infants could be at risk

of being exposed in the Watershed region.56 A 1997 U.S.

EPA report indicates that among women of child-bearing

age (15–44 years) in the United states, approximately 7%

exceeded the reference dose (RfD)57 for methylmercury,

based on month-long projections of fish and shellfish

intake, 1 to 3% were found to have methylmercury expo-

sures three to four times the RfD. Furthermore, 25% of

children were found to exceed the RfD, whereas 5% had

exposures from ingestion of fish/shellfish two to three

times the RfD.58 Local food consumption surveys in New

Jersey have estimated that greater than 20% of women of

child-bearing age exceed the current RfD.59

In addition to impaired childhood development, mer-

cury poisoning may cause neurological, kidney, and liver

damage as well as nervous systems disorders affecting

vision, speech, hearing and coordination.60 Without

attempt to quantify the value or quality of human life, it

is clear that medical care for all affected individuals alone

53. ENSR Consulting and Engineering, “The Cost of Compliance of WLSSD with the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative,” draft presented for WLSSD, Duluth, Minnesota

(1993), Doc. 7217-001-013; also Tim Tuominen (WLSSD), personal communication, November 2001. With a financial package secured, charges could amount to

$16.7M per year for 10 years plus $9.4M per each subsequent year.

54. U.S. EPA, Mercury Study Repor t to Congress, v. 8, Part B, p. B-3 to B-8. The range depends on the technology used at each MWC. The cost effectiveness of apply-

ing activated carbon injection is about $211 to $870/lb, or $464 to $1914/kg removed. The costs of applying Carbon Filter Beds technology ranges from $1,230

to $2,378/kg recovered. Costs associated with application of Wet Scrubbing technology may be $3,500/kg. In general, these costs include capital recovery costs

and operating and maintenance costs. The capital recovery factor is based on a 7% interest rate annualized over 15 years. In addition, most combustion process-

es produce residual flue ash-containing mercury, which may be re-released to the environment if not segregated from bottom ash and then sent to monofills.

Charges for ash or contaminated soil sent to “nonputrescible” monofills range from $.025/kg to $.04/kg of mercury, depending on transportation costs to the

site and space availability (Derek Veenhof, American Re-Fuel Co. of NY, personal communication, 10/16/01).

55. EPA, Mercury Study Report to Congress, v. 8. The cost range per kilogram given in this report has decreased considerably since this study was first published. We

use the updated information provided by Ellen Brown, Office of Air and Radiation, EPA Headquarters, personal communication, 11/14/01.

56. National Research Council, Toxicological Effects of Methylmercur y, pp. 325-327. Also, cited in Lester R. Brown, Eco-Economy: Building an Economy for the Earth

(NY: WW Norton & Company, 2001), p. 132.

57. The reference dose (RfD) is the amount of methylmercury which may be ingested on a daily basis over a lifetime without anticipated adverse health effects to

humans, including sensitive subpopulations. The current RfD for MeHg is 0.1 microgram/kg/day. At or below this level, exposures are expected to be safe. The

risk following exposure above the RfD is uncertain, but risk increases as exposure to methylmercury increase.

58. Children have higher intakes of methylmercury, relative to body weight, than do adults. US EPA, Mercury Study Repor t to Congress, v. 4, EPA452/R-97-006

(December 1997), p. ES-3.

59. A.H. Stern, L.R. Korn and B.E. Ruppel “Elimination of Fish Consumption and Methylmercury Intake in New Jersey Population,” Journal of Exposure Analysis and

Environmental Epidemiology 6, 4 (1996): 503-525. This journal is published by the International Society of Exposure Analysis (ISEA), http://www.naturesj.com/jea/.

60. Lake Michigan Forum, et al. A Guide to Mercur y Reduction in Industrial and Commercial Settings (July 2001), p. 3.

could represent an extraordinary expenditure.

Furthermore, avoided liabilities for parties responsible for

mercury pollution might also be significant in terms of

monetary value.

An often-overlooked benefit of preventing pollution is

to improve ecological health and avoid further deteriora-

tion of intricate networks of groundwater and surface

water, wetlands, rivers and lakes. The NY/NJ Harbor’s

ecological system provides multiple ecosystem services—

natural processes through which ecosystems sustain

human life.61 Such services range from offering natural

systems for water purification, flood control, waste and

organic matter decomposition and recycling, pest control,

and moderation of climatic effects. Preventing or reducing

mercury pollution will reduce contaminated runoff,

which has an adverse effect on the health of local wildlife

and fish populations as well as water quality throughout

the watershed. As a point of reference, it would cost

approximately $6 billion to build a new filtration facility

to treat New York City’s drinking water, plus $300 million

per year for operating and maintenance fees. Instead,

New York City has decided to protect its natural water-fil-

tering ecosystem by investing in nature’s services.

Preventing run-off contaminated with mercury or (other

toxicants) would guarantee the success of this initiative.62

Finally, decreasing inputs of contaminants (including

mercury) to the Harbor eventually will decrease the cost

of managing approximately 2 million cubic yards of

dredged material per year during regular maintenance of

channels. The current cost of treating contaminated mate-

rials may range from $54 to $180 per cubic yard, depend-

ing on the level of toxicity and final disposition of the

material.63

3.2. Cost, Technological and Administrative

Feasibility for Key Leverage Points

The scientific research conducted under the New York

Academy of Sciences’ Harbor Consortium has identified

key leverage points for preventing and/or reducing mercury

pollution in the NY/NJ Harbor, which relate to specific sec-

tors and products. For each, estimates of cost and net savings

for preventing the release of mercury are assessed. Various

options are considered, depending on whether mercury use

is to be eliminated at the source, reduced, or managed in a

safer manner. Building on the scientific findings, the follow-

ing analysis focuses primarily on products and sectors that

release mercury to wastewater and air, earlier identified as

the top two priorities for P2 and management strategies in

the Watershed.

Major Sectors Discharging Mercury to

Wastewater

Dental facilities, laboratories, and hospitals account for

nearly 90% of the mercury discharged to the sewer sys-

tems each year. Although the costs to install systems to

prevent mercury in effluents for the Watershed region

have not been calculated, the Western Lake Superior

Sanitary District (WLSSD) in Duluth, MN performed

such a study in 1993. Their cost estimates are utilized

throughout this document, recognizing that the costs

might be even higher in the NY/NJ Harbor watershed

because many POTWs in this region deal with larger vol-

umes of wastewater than in the Duluth example.64

Installing a system to treat non-sludge soluble mercury

by chemical reduction/precipitation and ionic exchange at

POTWs to prevent Hg discharges in effluents would cost

approximately $54.4M for a medium-size plant.65 Annual

maintenance and operating charges add another $9.4M.

With financing secured, the combined annual cost is more

than $16.7M/yr for 10 years per POTW and then $9.4M

per year thereafter.66 There are at least 30 large POTWs

in the Watershed, so the initial overall annual cost would

be $500M for 10 years, decreasing to $282M for each

subsequent year.67 This translates to an initial annual cost

of over$1M/kg of mercury that would prevent 490kg/yr

from entering the harbor if controls are instituted at all

POTWs, and such measures still do not treat the portion

of mercury that ends up in the sludge at the POTW

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

61. RAND, Science & Technology Policy Institute, “Nature’s Services: Ecosystems are More than Wildlife Habitat,” http://www.rand.org/scitech/stpi/ourfuture/

NaturesServices/section1.html.

62. Ibid.

63. Richard Larrabee, “Port Development: It Is a Balancing Act,” presentation at the Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance, New York City (February 7, 2002).

64. The Duluth plant treats 40 million gallons each day, compared with approximately 78 million gallons/day (1.4 billion gallons/day divided by 18 NYC POTWs) at a

typical POTW in New York City. Tim Tuominen (WLSSD), personal communication, November 29, 2001; Philip Heckler (NYC DEP), personal communication, November

2001.

65. ENSR Consulting and Engineering, “The Cost of Compliance of WLSSD with the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative, p. 7-4. Also, Tim Tuominen, personal commu-

nication, September 2001.

66. Ibid. Based on the financing estimates for the plant in Duluth at an interest rate of 7%. With a financial package secured, charges could amount to $16.7M/year

for 10 years, and $9.4M/year each subsequent year.

67. Ibid.

THE ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, AND SOCIETAL FRAMEWORK

(70–95%). Thus, prevention and/or management meas-

ures focused on the sources of mercury (e.g., dental facil-

ities, laboratories, hospitals, etc.) are less expensive and

provide greater control over the amount of mercury enter-

ing the Harbor.

Recommended Priorities for Action to Reduce

Mercury Inputs to Wastewater:

■Dental facilities

■Hospitals

■Laboratories

This is not to say that households, which account for

nearly the same total input load as laboratories are not

equally important. However, there are two reasons for not

treating households here. First, because the mercury

released from households is largely from human waste, it

must be prevented from reaching humans in the first

place. Second, mercury thermometers account for the bal-

ance of mercury released from households, and they are

dealt with in detail later in this report.

Dental Facilities. Although mercury releases from dental

facilities has decreased over the past decade, the dental sec-

tor still accounts for more than two-fifths of the mercury

entering the Harbor and watershed through wastewater.

Mercury is released from dental facilities during placement

and removal of amalgams containing mercury. Although

most dentists already utilize chair-side traps (0.7-mm

mesh), and some use a liquid-ring vacuum pump system

with a filter ranging from 0.42 to 0.84-mm pore size, it is

estimated that 25 to 30% of small amalgam particles and

soluble mercury continue to be discharged to the sewer

system.68 The practice of rinsing chair-side traps over sinks

and drains further increases the mercury discharged to

sewers.69

There are several points for potential intervention and

several different types of intervention to prevent mercury

from flowing from dental offices into the sewer systems

and eventually to POTWs (see Figure 5). Each has differ-

ent costs as well as technological and/or administrative

hurdles. The account below provides detailed informa-

tion about costs for avoiding water discharges from the

dental sector. (For prevention and management measures

related to solid waste, see the discussion on Dental

Facilities under Landfills: Solid Waste Management.) The

cost estimate for crematoria (which release mercury when

amalgams still present in human remains are incinerated)

is given in Appendix 6.2. No control options exist to pre-

vent household discharges from mercury amalgams pres-

ent in human waste (except amalgam substitution). Two

options have been evaluated for the dental sector: (1) use

of control technology to reduce mercury discharges; and

(2) substitution of mercury amalgams by composite mate-

rials.

Regarding control technology, from 95% to 99% of cur-

rent discharges from dental offices to wastewater in the

Watershed region (1,000kg) could be prevented by use of

a separator filtering system, which may cost approximately

$700/unit plus annual operating expenses of about $380.70

The total cost of installing and operating this type of sepa-

rator system at all dental offices using mercury in the

Watershed would be between $10M and $11M/yr for five

years and between $3M and $9.4M per each subsequent

68. Hazardous Waste Management Program, Water and Land Resources Division, Department of Natural Resources, Management of Hazardous Dental Wastes in King

County, 1991-2000 (Seattle, WA: LHWMP, October 2000), http://dnr.metrokc.gov; Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) and Minnesota Dental

Association, Evaluation of Amalgam Removal Equiipment and Dental Clinic Loadings to the Sanitary Sewer (St. Paul, Minnesota: MCES, December 2001). Peter

Berglund (MCES) has pointed out that virtually all new systems being installed today are turbine (dry) vacuum pump systems that do not have filters. As all mod-

els are replaced with the new (dry) system, the opportunity to collect additional amalgam discharged as wastewater is lost; Personal communication.March 29,

2002.

69. There is anecdotal evidence of an ongoing practice of rinsing chair-side traps in regular sinks, thereby releasing the caught mercury down the drain. However, the

numbers related to this could not be confirmed. Therefore, the estimate here does not include this amount, though it could add additional mercury into wastewater.

There is also anecdotal evidence of some of the mercury being placed in red medical bags, thereby making its way into the incineration process. Again, there are

currently no confirmed numbers.

70. The average price of the separator system, which can serve six dental chairs, is $695 plus a one-time installation fee of $200. In addition, filters need to be

replaced at least twice a year. Each new cartridge costs approximately $150 and shipping the used unit directly to the recycler by common carrier costs $40. Owen

Boyd (SolmeteX Co., MA), personal communication.

SECTORS WORKING TOGETHER

One P2 strategy implemented by the Western

Lake Superior Sanitary District in Duluth, MN

involves a program to promote Hg recycling by

dental facilities. Rather than pay each time recy-

cling is needed, each participating dentist is

charged an annual fee of $50 for comprehensive

recycling, lower than what it would cost if Hg was

sent for recycling more than once per year.

Dentists are also encouraged to install separator

filtering systems.

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

year if dentists chose to manage and send the used filter

cartridges directly to the recycler.71 This translates to $10K

to $11K/kg per year for five years and then almost $3K to

$9.4K per year afterward.

Approximately 3,600 kg/yr of mercury are used for

amalgam restoration by the dental sector in the Water-

shed.72 For the entire sector, this translates to a cost that

ranges from $2.6M to $3.8M73 per year or approximately

$734/kg to $1,057/kg of mercury. Each dentist spends

from $336 to $408 per year on amalgam material contain-

ing mercury.74 When charges for purchasing the mercury

amalgam per year are added to the control option

($10M–$11M/yr), annual costs increase to $12.6M to

14.8M75 per year for 5 years and then $5.6M to $13.2M/yr

for each subsequent year; or $10.7K to $12K/kg per year

for the initial 5 years and then $3.7K to $10.5K/kg per

year afterward.

The cost of recycling solid waste amalgam is not directly

tied to preventing water discharges, but should be included

when providing an overall picture of cost. Each dentist

would spend approximately $120/yr if recycling of solid

waste occurred three times annually. Recycling would

increase costs to approximately $13.3M to $15.6M/yr ini-

tially and then more than $6.3M to $14M/yr thereafter. The

cost of recycling translates to an increase of $220/kg to

$261/kg, for a total cost of $10.9K/kg to $12.3K/kg for full

compliance by the sector (every dentist recycling) initially,

and then $3.9K/kg to $10.7K/kg each year afterward. For

each dentist, the overall cost of full compliance when using

mercury amalgam, recycling, and separator filters would be

approximately $1,775/yr for five years, and then $880/yr for

each subsequent year.

Alternatively, certain vendors offer full-service plans in

which they retain ownership of the equipment and assume

all associated liabilities. They waive the cost of the system

when dentists sign up for a full-service package, which

includes replacement and disposal of used filters, at an

average rate of $1,200 per year ($11M, or $10.9K/kg, for

71. The amortization schedule employs an interest rate of 7% and constant payment over 5 years. The interest rate is an average and may vary according to each insti-

tution’s credit rating, collateral, amount, and purpose of the loan, as well as payback terms and the lending institution’s policies. Given the amounts projected

here, a medium payback plan of 5 years was chosen. The same assumptions are made for the rest of the calculations throughout this section, except where POTWs

are involved for reasons described earlier.

72. For calculations, refer to Appendix 6.2. The dental sector uses about 3,600 kg/yr of mercury, of which half is placed in amalgams. In addition, old amalgams con-

taining about 2,400 kg/yr of mercury are removed. The Hg is either captured or released to different media.

73. Total cost of using mercury dental amalgam material in the watershed ranges from $2,643,648 to $3,806,314 per year.

74. On average, a dentist uses between 672 and 816 amalgams per year. Amalgam capsules (which include between 300 and 700 mg/capsule) range in size and

price, but on average, cost about $0.51 each. Thus, the annual cost to the dentist is calculated by multiplying $0.51 times 672 and 816, which equals $342 and

$416, or an average of $380/yr. From Henry Schein Alloys catalogue and http://www.sullivanschein.coml; also Dentsply-Caulk and Kerr supply catalogues.

75. With this option dentists are responsible for associated liabilities from managing hazardous materials on equipment they own.

76. Estimate assumes same number of amalgams placed per year. Refer to Appendix 6.2 for calculations.

FIGURE 5. Intervention Points to Prevent the Flow of Mercury

from Dental Offices to the Harbor via Wastewater

Chair-side traps

1,000 kg/yr

3,000 kg/yr950-990kg/yr

10-50 kg/yr Separator

filtration system

Continued Use of Hg

Amalgam (new and

removed amalgams)

4,000 kg/yr

Non-mercury restoration materials (initially,

there would be 2,800 kg/yr of Hg releases,

while old mercury amalgam fillings are

removed.) After about 15 years, 0 kg Hg

POTW

THE ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, AND SOCIETAL FRAMEWORK 37

the sector in the watershed).77 (The annual fee increases to

approximately $1,500 per year when including recycling

of all other solid waste containing mercury.) The overall

cost to the sector for the full service is approximately

$15.5M per year, or $12.3K/kg, if one adds the cost of den-

tal amalgam material and recycling.

The cost-effectiveness of pollution prevention meas-

ures becomes apparent when the dental sector’s internal

costs must be compared with those associated with

recovering mercury after it is released to wastewater. If

POTWs had to install metallic reduction and ionic

exchange technology to prevent mercury effluents to the

Harbor contributed by the dental sector, the annual cost

would be $500M for 10 years and $282M per year there-

after (or $1M/kg initially and then $575K/kg each year

afterward). This compares with dental sector outlays of

between $13.3M and $15.6M/yr for 5 years and then

$6.2M to $14M per year beyond that period. Moreover,

whereas the cost to the POTWs is only to capture mer-

cury in wastewater, the cost to the dental sector would

be to prevent all mercury discharges, including those to

solid waste as well as wastewater. Thus, from both soci-

etal and economic perspectives, it makes more sense to

prevent Hg discharges at their point of generation—the

dental offices.

Nevertheless, at least one study suggests that implemen-

tation of P2 and management practices at dental offices are

difficult. The study, conducted in Seattle, suggests that only

2.5% of dentists in the study area may be using separator

filtering systems after more than 5 years of a voluntary

program that was instituted to prevent mercury from being

discharged by dental facilities. Nationwide, this proportion

is even lower, with fewer than 1,000 of the 110,000 dental

practices utilizing separator filters.78

77. This does not include a one-time installation fee of approximately $200/filter system (which may serve up to six dental chairs). Information on these services was

provided by DRNA, NY.

78. Hazardous Waste Management Program, Management of Hazardous Dental Wastes in King County, 1991–2000; Gail Savina, King County Hazardous waste (May

2002); Marc Sussman, DRNA, personal communication (March 2002).

TABLE 7. Dental Sector —Cost of Different Optionsa

Overall Cost for

Region Cost/kg of Hg

per year for Hg Used or at Source

first 5 yrs Treated (kg/yr) per Year

USE OF HG AMALGAM, RECYCLING

AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

Cost of amalgam materials $2.6M–$3.8M 3,600kg $734–$1,057/kg

Comprehensive recycling of solid

waste (removal and restorations) $659K–$782K 3,000 kg $220–$261/kg

Filter systems to prevent water

discharges (removal and

restorations) $10M–$11M 1,000 kg $10K–$11K/kg

TOTAL $13.3M–$15.6M TOTAL $11K/kg–$12.3K/kg

PRODUCT SUBSTITUTIONb

Cost of composite materials $12M–$17.5M 3,600kg $3,378/kg–$4,864/kg

Comprehensive recycling of solid

waste (removal only) $659K–$782K 2,100kg $314–$372/kg

Filter systems to prevent water

discharges (removal only) $10M–$11M 700kg $14.3K–$15.7K/kg

TOTAL $22.8M–$29.3M TOTAL $18K/kg–$20.9K/kg

a Calculations based only on dentists currently using mercury in the Watershed.

b Removal of old mercury amalgams would still require recycling and filtering systems.

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

Possible administrative and technological barriers to

implementation include the following:

■Most dental facilities are considered small businesses,

and the additional cost to install the filtering equip-

ment may be burdensome. However, because the

public sector could avoid steep capital investments by

reducing mercury loads to POTWs, they could work

with the dental sector to solve the obvious barrier of

financing this alternative. For example, a group-pur-

chasing program could be organized to reduce the

initial capital investment by purchasing equipment in

bulk. In addition, lower interest rates on loans to

dentists to install the equipment could be negotiated

by municipal or state agencies.

■In New York County and New York State, Dental

Society representatives encourage recycling, but do

not believe there is a problem with discharging mer-

cury into the sewers.79

■Recent studies have questioned the effectiveness of

the International Organization for Standardization

(ISO) standard of addressing mercury removal from

ISO-approved separators because the standard does

not address the effectiveness of removal of the solu-

ble portion of the mercury discharge. Testing con-

ducted by the City of Toronto indicated that at least

one type of separator filter did, indeed, capture 99%

of the total mercury mass (solid and soluble). EPA’s

environmental testing verification will be finalized in

Spring 2002.80

For substitution of mercury amalgams, mercury dis-

charges from the dental sector could be reduced at the

source by substituting non-amalgam alternatives (e.g.,

light-cured resin) for mercury amalgams. This option,

however, would not completely eliminate all mercury dis-

charges in the short run. Removal of old mercury amal-

gams during restoration would continue to be discharged

to sewers, unless filtering systems were in place.

Furthermore, concern over the durability, cost-effective-

ness, and safety of current amalgam alternatives remains

an issue.

Recognizing these shortcomings, it is still a worthwhile

exercise to assess the cost differentials between mercury and

composite amalgam (materials only). On average, they are

$2.00 per one-surface restoration; $2.40 per two-surface

restoration; and $2.60 per three-surface restoration, or an

average of $2.33 each.

Nevertheless, it is likely that den-

tists would be able to pass this differential onto patients,

who are charged an average of $70 for a onesurface restora-

tion when using mercury amalgam and $130 for the com-

posite resin. The charge differential decreases for two-sur-

face fillings, with $130 for amalgam and $170 for the resin

material.

Besides higher costs associated with the alterna-

tive materials themselves, the main reason for the higher

rate charged is the increase in time needed to apply the

composite resin and the unforgiving nature of the process.

(Several dentists have mentioned that training, regular prac-

tice, and new, more pliable resins have reduced this time dif-

ferential considerably.

)

If all dentists using mercury amalgam in the Watershed

area were to use composite material instead, the associated

cost would range from $12M/yr to $17.5M/yr, or

$3.3K–$4.8K per kilogram of amalgam replaced to per-

form the same number of restorations. Each dentist would

spend approximately $1,500 to $1,900/yr in restoration

materials instead of $300 to $400/yr for amalgams.

Furthermore, because removal of old mercury amalgams

79. These Societies cite estimates that mercury in amalgam does not break down for at least a millennium. No document was provided to support this claim. (Based

on conversations with society representatives (who will remain unnamed) on May 18, 2001).

80. Marc Sussman (DRNA), personal communication, 11/19/01.

81. http://www.sullivanschein.com, and Dentsply-Caulk Dental catalog.

82. Average from phone survey of dentists and dental plan schedule.

83. Several dentists within the Watershed contributed this information but asked that their names not be published.

THE UTILITY OF

LIFE CYCLE ANALYSES

The utility of life cycle analyses is particularly

obvious in the dental and hospital sectors.

Product purchasing decisions are based on sup-

ply and demand within these sectors; however, a

life cycle analysis shows that costs could be

reduced and the releases of mercury decreased

if a larger view were considered. This holds true

in other cases as well. At the household level,

for instance, if sewer and trash collection bills

were tied to releases, different decisions might

be made at the grocery store. For example, if

trash costs were associated with volume, the

consumer might choose a product with recyclable

packaging, even if it cost more to purchase than

a non-recyclable brand.

THE ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, AND SOCIETAL FRAMEWORK 39

would continue to release mercury, charges for the filtering

systems and recycling could not be avoided for at least 15

years. Thus, all dentists would spend an additional $660K

to $782K/yr for recycling, and approximately $10M to

$11M/yr for 5 years to filter mercury discharged from

removed amalgams. This would lead to an overall cost for

the sector of $22.8 M to $29.3 M/yr for 5 years and

$15.8M to $27.7M/yr thereafter. This translates to an over-

all cost of between $18 K to $21 K/kg of avoided mercury

per year initially, and then $8 K to 18.7 K/kg thereafter, for

the dental sector in the Watershed.

At first glance, the cost for moving to composite resin

(including implementing the necessary control options to

capture and recycling amalgam that is removed in the

process) might seem exorbitant ($22.2M-$29.3M/yr ini-

tially or $18-20.9K/kg/yr), especially when compared with

the cost associated with the use of mercury amalgam

($2.6M to 3.8M/yr or $ 737 to $1,057/kg), even with full

recycling and filter costs included ($13.3M to $15.6M/yr

initially or $10.9K to 12.3K/kg). However, an analysis of

the life cycle of mercury amalgam requires consideration

of costs external to the dental sector. For example, the

marginal cost per kilogram of mercury recaptured at

POTWs after installing the technology to prevent and

average of between 5% and 30% of mercury effluents

would be more than $1M/kg Hg. In addition, controls to

prevent emissions from incineration of POTW sludge

would cost between $464/kg and $3,500/kg each year.

Preventing Hg emissions from crematoria (which result

from the cremation of amalgams still present) in the

Watershed would cost between $98.6K and 102K/kg of

mercury recaptured if selenium filter systems were

installed at each of the 45 crematoria in the Watershed.84

From a socioeconomic perspective then, when the last

three estimates are taken into account, it makes sense to

use non-mercury alternatives instead of mercury amal-

gams, install traps and filtration systems, and recycle for

the next 15 years or while mercury amalgams are still

being removed.

Besides cost, several other economic, administrative or

technological barriers need to be overcome to make the

use of non-mercury alternatives possible:

■Application of currently available alternatives is

more expensive, though some of this cost could be

reduced through more effective training which

would shorten the time needed for application

■Limited coverage by insurance companies

■Concerns over the quality, durability, and safety of

currently available alternatives (especially for repair

of posterior teeth), which may or may not be

improved by R&D advances resulting from

increased demand85

Ongoing environmental concerns related to mercury

releases from the dental sector warrant action, but the

complexities revolving around current amalgam alterna-

tives must be considered. Thus, an incremental approach

is recommended, which looks toward first expanding the

numbers of practitioners who use filtration systems and

recycle, and then looks toward the eventual goal of substi-

tution of mercury amalgam by safe, durable, and cost-

effective alternatives.

P2 and Management Recommendations for Dental

Facilities86

Implement a tiered approach that:

■Institutes filtration, collection, and recycling in the

short term; and,

■Moves toward substitution of amalgams by safe,

durable, and cost-effective alternatives in the long

term

Strategies to Achieve the Recommended Approach:

■Educate current and future members of the dental

health care profession, and other interested parties,

about the importance of preventing mercury

releases87

■Develop programs to install economically feasible

technologies that filter, collect, and recycle, at the

highest levels possible, mercury in contact and non-

contact amalgam

■Encourage the creation of a centrally coordinated

mercury collection program

■Encourage the development of safe, durable, and

cost-effective amalgam alternatives beyond existing

materials

84. See Appendix 6.3. Prices for the “amalgamator system” (selenium filter technology) were provided by Vermeuleu Deventer.

85. In terms of safety, there is concern about possible allergic reactions to current amalgam alternatives.

86. The recommendations, strategies, and delineation of which stakeholders share responsibility for implementation take into account mercury releases from the den-

tal sector to both wastewater and solid waste. For the full discussion on flows to solid waste, see Section 3.2. Landfills—Dental Facilities.

87. This could be done in the form of meetings or literature that describes the environmental impact of dental facilities on the region and the steps they can take to

avoid contamination from their offices.

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

■Engage educational institutions related to the dental

health care sector to train present and future care-

givers in the use of amalgam alternatives

■Encourage the collection of information on recy-

cling levels to monitor success

Sharing Responsibility for Implementation:

The strategies outlined above will likely require a combi-

nation of voluntary and regulatory activities. The key stake-

holders to involve will be dental care providers, dental asso-

ciations, educational institutions related to the dental health

sector, POTWs, producers and distributors of amalgam and

amalgam alternatives, insurance companies, the real estate

sector, and federal, state, and local regulatory agencies.

Hospitals. The hospital sector contributes over 25% of the

mercury reaching the wastewater stream in the Harbor. This

mercury comes from a range of products including measur-

ing devices and instrumentation, chemicals, specialized bat-

teries, fluorescent lamps, and cleaning agents and solutions.

Dental clinics within hospitals also contribute to mercury

waste. Of the 1,400 kg/yr of mercury disposed of by hospi-

tals, about 700 kg are released to wastewater. Hospital labo-

ratories contribute more than 600 kg of the mercury dis-

charged. Options for dealing with laboratory discharges are

treated separately, but costs are included here. Hospitals

with dental clinics add approximately another 10 kg/yr of

mercury discharging to wastewater. Again, the options to

prevent mercury discharges from dental clinics are explained

above, but costs associated with mercury discharges from

hospital dental clinics are included below. In addition over

70 kg/yr of mercury is discharged to wastewater when ther-

mometers and sphygmomanometers break and spill.

Product Substitution. There are two instruments that /account

for 10% of the mercury released to wastewater from hos-

pitals: thermometers and sphygmomanometers (blood

pressure instruments). For each of these, non-mercury

alternatives exist.

Thermometers: Costs associated with use of digital

or electronic thermometers range from almost

$994K/yr to $2.9M/yr for the first 5 years and

$635K/yr to $1.9M/yr thereafter. By substituting

with non-mercury thermometers, hospitals may

accrue savings ranging from $2.2 to $37M per year.

Cleaning mercury spills can be expensive, ranging

from $400 to $3,000 per spill, depending on the size

of the instrument, loss of use of space, and availabil-

ity of on-site trained personnel and equipment.

Costs for cleaning and treating approximately 8,500

broken thermometers, containing 0.7 grams of mer-

cury each, range from $3.4 to $38.7M per year, or

between $566K/kg and $6.5M/kg to recover each

kilogram of mercury spilled. Once costs for spill

clean-up are included, full costs associated with use

of mercury thermometers range from $3.5M to

$39M per year.

Sphygmomanometers (blood pressure monitors):

Given a financial package with an interest rate of

7% over 5 years, the cost of using digital or elec-

tronic sphygmomanometers is between $3.2M

and $6.1M for 5 years. No additional operating

expenses are involved after equipment is paid for.

Net savings for hospitals using alternative sphygmo-

manometers may be as high as $17.9M per year for

the first 5 years, and then range from $2.1 to $26M

for each year thereafter. Costs for cleaning between

3,700 and about 8,000 broken sphygmomanometers

containing 356 kg of mercury range from $1.5M to

almost $24M per year, or $4.2K/kg to $67K/kg of

mercury spilled. Full costs associated with use of

mercury sphygmomanometers range from $2.1M to

$26M/yr. Because aneroid (non-liquid) blood pres-

sure instruments are widely accepted, there are no

obvious impediments to their adoption, except

“sunk” capital in mercury units currently in opera-

tion. Hospitals tend to purchase the non-mercury

aneroid models once mercury units break or

become defective.

88. Fluorescent lamps in hospitals are discussed in the solid waste section of this paper and included in the industrial/commercial fluorescent lamp section in

Appendix 6.2.

SAVING MONEY WHILE

REDUCING EXPOSURES

Hartford Hospital (CT) replaced all mercury

sphygmomanometers in 1999 after a study

showed that the hospital spent over $60K just to

clean mercury spills during a 12-month period.

The cost of replacing all mercury blood pressure

equipment in 1999 was $80K.

—-Hospitals for a Healthy Environment, “Mercur y Waste

Virtual Model Plan (2000),” p. 40, www.h2e-online.org

THE ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, AND SOCIETAL FRAMEWORK 41

In short, hospitals actually could save money by replacing

these devices with non-mercury units. However, some

technological and administrative obstacles exist that pre-

vent the widespread adoption of non-mercury thermome-

ters. These include,

■Perceptions about performance of non-mercury

thermometers when small variance in temperature

readings is critical (e.g., at intensive care units,

neonatal, burn, and trauma units). However, many

hospitals89 in other states have been mercury-free for

many years without experiencing such problems.

Training on how to use the digital or electronic

thermometers to optimal levels may be needed.

■Hidden costs associated with cleaning mercury spills

need to be taken into account to demonstrate cost

savings. Purchasing departments should consult the

risk management department when making pur-

chasing determinations. An overall non-mercury

purchasing policy could take care of this problem.

Dental Clinics in Hospitals: Available options have been dis-

cussed before in the dental section. Only the cost associated

with such options are given here. The annual cost of using

about 60kg of mercury amalgam by, between 140 to 145

hospital dental clinics90 in the Watershed, ranges from

$50.4K to $75K/yr, or between $840 and $1.2K/kg of mer-

cury. When the cost for comprehensive recycling is added,

the total cost increases to $117.6K–$166K/yr, or

$2.3K–3.2K/kg.

Discharges to wastewater from hospital dental clinics,

of approximately 10 kg/yr of mercury, can be prevented

by use of filtration systems, at a cost ranging from

$108.6K to $225K/yr for 5 years and then $80K to

$165K/yr each subsequent year, or from $7K to $15K/kg

initially and then $5K to $11K/kg of mercury managed

per year. When costs for using dental amalgam and recy-

cling are added, the total cost increases to

$226K–392K/yr for 5 years and then $197K-332K/yr

afterward. This translates to a cost/kg range of $9.6K to

$18K/kg of mercury initially.

Alternatively, dental clinics would spend between

$232K and $332K/yr ($3.9K-$5.9K/kg of Hg replaced)

when using composite resin for amalgam restorations.

However, this option would not prevent releases from old

mercury amalgam removed during restoration. The com-

bined cost of installing and operating a filtration system

and recycling the removed amalgam would range from

$407K to $649K/yr for the first 5 years and then $379K

to 589K/yr each subsequent year. This translates to

almost $21.3K to $40K/kg initially and then between

$17.5K to $31.6K/kg per year afterward.

Laboratories in Hospitals: There are at least 435 laboratories

in the 256 hospitals in the Watershed (most hospitals have

more than one laboratory on site).91 As detailed in the lab-

oratory section of this paper, an account of specific mer-

cury-containing products and associated costs could not be

completed. Therefore, cost for product substitution has

not been computed, although alternatives exist for many

89. http://www.h2e-online.org

90. http://www.hospitalselect.com

91. http//: www.hospitalselect.com

TABLE 8. Hospital Sector —Cost of Product Substitution

Cost

for Region Hg Used or Cost/kg of Hg

per year Replaced (kg) (at the Source)

USE OF HG PRODUCTS

Thermometers $85K–$430K 60 kg $1.4K–$7K/kg

Cleaning thermometer spills $3.4M–38.7M 6 kg $571–$6.5M/kg

Sphygmomanometers $617K–$2M 7,700 kg $80–$259/kg

Cleaning sphygmomanometers spills $1.5M–$24M 356 kg $4.2K-$67K/kg

PRODUCT SUBSTITUTION

Thermometers (electronic) $1.3M–$2.9M 60 kg $21.6K–$48K/kg

Sphygmomanometers (aneroid) $3.1M–$6.1M 7,700 kg $402–792/kg

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

of the mercury products currently in use. Nevertheless, the

overall regional flow has been calculated from national

flows estimates

Several options exist to prevent mercury discharges to

wastewater from laboratories, such as filtration systems as

well as recapturing the contaminated solutions, which are

then either recycled or treated for safe disposal at landfills.

Filtration systems may be applied either at the end of clin-

ical analyzers or at end of the hospital effluent pipe before

it reaches the sewer system. Costs associated with

installing and operating filters at the end of clinical ana-

lyzers range from $813K to $8.1M per year for 5 years

and then $261K to $2.6M per year thereafter, depending

on the number of analyzer units in each laboratory.92 This

translates to a cost of $1.3K-$13K/kg captured per year

during the 5 five years and then approximately $400/kg -

$4.2K/kg per year afterward. Another filtration option is

to trap all discharges from the laboratory before these

enter the sewer system. Costs for such “end-of-pipe” sys-

tems depend on the volume of discharges per laboratory

and range from $30K to $500K per unit, or from $2.3M

to $34M per year for 5 years for all hospital laboratories

in the watershed, and then from $348K to $1M per year

afterward. In terms of cost per kilogram of mercury recap-

tured, the range is from $3.7K/kg to $55K/kg initially and

then $560/kg to $1.7K/kg each subsequent year.

Alternatively, all solutions can be recaptured and then

recycled or treated for safe disposal. The cost for each

laboratory to recycle its waste solutions is $1,800 per 55-

gallon drum. Hospital laboratories in the Watershed vary

in wastewater output, ranging from 9 to 273 drums of

solution per year, at an estimated cost of $16K to

$491K/yr per laboratory. For all hospital laboratories in

the region, the cost ranges from $7.1M to $213.5M/yr, or

from $11K/kg to $344/kg of mercury recycled. A less

expensive alternative is recovering the solutions for treat-

ment and then safe disposal at landfills, though this is not

as preferable in terms of environmental considerations.

When choosing this option, laboratories pay only $500

per drum (instead of $1,800 for recycling). The overall

cost for all hospital laboratories when selecting this option

ranges from $2M to $59M per year, or $3K/kg to

$96K/kg of mercury recovered.

For specific recommendations for hospital dental facilities,

refer to the relevant section above; for laboratories, see the

upcoming section below.

P2 and Management Recommendations for

Hospitals:

■Substitute non-mercury alternatives for mercury-

containing products

■Prevent breakage of current mercury-containing

products

Strategies to Achieve the Recommended Approaches:

■Encourage replacement of current mercury-

containing products with available alternatives

■Implement a non-mercury purchasing policy for

new products

■Publicize net savings from substitution

■Encourage proper maintenance of existing stock of

mercury-containing devices to avoid spills until all

units are replaced with non-mercury alternatives

■Disseminate best management practices regarding

wastewater disposal

Sharing Responsibility for Implementation:

Many hospitals are already moving toward substitution of

mercury-containing products with non-mercury alterna-

tives. The key stakeholders to involve in broadening and

extending these efforts are hospitals, doctors, nurses, and

92. Owen Boyd, SolmeteX Co., MA; personal communication. Each filter can serve up to three clinical analyzers. For calculation details refer to Appendix 6.3.

EDUCATING HEALTH CARE

PROFESSIONALS ABOUT P2

—A NATIONAL EFFORT

Hospitals for a Healthy Environment (H2E) is a

joint project of the American Hospital

Association, U.S. EPA, Health Care without Harm,

and the American Nurses Association. State and

local organizations have since joined the effort.

H2E educates health care professionals about

P2 opportunities in hospitals and health care

systems through a variety of activities, including

developing and disseminating best practices,

case studies, and resource directories. H2E

aims to virtually eliminate mercury-containing

waste from hospital waste-streams by 2005, and

also to reduce the overall volume of waste.

—-http://www.h2e-online.org

THE ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, AND SOCIETAL FRAMEWORK 43

related associations, hospital administrative and mainte-

nance employees, and federal, state, and local regulatory

and lending agencies.

Laboratories. This sector contributes over 15% of all mer-

cury reaching the Harbor and its watershed via waste-

water. Instruments, chemicals, and reagents used in labo-

ratories for tests, experiments, and in preservative solu-

tions (including vaccines) contain mercury.93 Mercury in

solutions is used either as an active ingredient or as a pre-

servative. It may also be present as a contaminant intro-

duced during manufacturing of one of the ingredients.94

Non-mercury replacements have been identified for

some of these chemicals. However, this information is not

well known among laboratory practitioners. Other

options are to prevent discharge of mercury to the sewer

system by control technology or by recovery and recy-

cling/treatment. Laboratories may sign pretreatment

agreements with their local POTWs that issue permits for

water discharges. All facilities are expected to prevent

mercury discharges to wastewater; however, the rate of

compliance has been assessed as extremely limited.95

Therefore, potential savings from avoided costs for con-

trol technology or recycling due to product substitution

are not taken into account. Increasing compliance rates

would require stepped-up enforcement and credible

penalty risks for discharging mercury. Laboratories that

continue to use mercury solutions should be required to

install mercury filtration/trapping systems at either the

effluent of clinical analyzers, or “end-of-pipe” systems.

Alternatively, another option is to recover all wastewater-

containing mercury (as well as other contaminants) and

send it for recycling or treatment.

The following options to prevent mercury discharges

are evaluated below: (1) product substitution of mercury

with non-mercury solutions and chemicals; (2) control

technology to reduce mercury discharges; and (3) recy-

cling or treatment of discharged wastewater.

Product Substitution. Approximately two-thirds of the mercu-

ry used in laboratories is contained in chemicals, fixatives,

reagents, and stain solutions.96 Alternatives exist for many

of these solutions. For example, Zinc Formalin can replace

B5 fixative,97 which may contain as much as 72 grams of

mercury per liter. Costs for alternative products are often

higher than mercury ones (e.g. a 4-liter bottle of hema-

toxylin costs $91, whereas available non-mercury substi-

tutes costs $113 and $145.)98 However, costs associated

with product substitution will drastically reduce the volume

and cost to treat gallons of contaminated discharges.

A count of specific mercury products and quantities

bought by laboratories was attempted but not achieved

because of a lack of proper labeling of solutions.

Laboratory technicians did not know whether a chemical

or solution contained mercury, especially when using

automated systems procedures that involve clinical ana-

lyzers. Similarly, material safety data sheets often do not

list mercury (if formula is proprietary information or if

there is less than 1% mercury content).

Therefore, an overall estimate of cost associated with

purchasing mercury products in laboratories could not be

accomplished. Nevertheless, there are some administra-

tive barriers to product substitution worth mentioning.

■Lack of knowledge of available alternatives. This

barrier could be easily remedied through education

and distribution of materials listing current non-

mercury alternatives.99

■Concerns over quality of tests. (This is already less

of a problem as more hospitals and laboratories

share information about non-mercury alternatives

that they have adopted.) Associations representing

the health care industry should be engaged in an

educational campaign on the use of non-mercury

products.

■Lack of control by laboratories of what chemicals

and solutions are used in their clinical analyzers and

other standardized procedures. Laboratory man-

agers should be encouraged to ask for certificate of

analysis reports from all vendors, listing concentra-

tions of all solutions, and then request use of non-

mercury products only.

93. John L. Sznopek and Thomas G. Goonan, “The Materials Flow of Mercury in the Economies of the United States and the World,” US Geological Survey Circular

1197 (Washington, DC: US Department of the Interior and USGS, 2000).

94. Hospitals for a Healthy Environment, www.h2e-online.org.

95. Carl Plossl (Hazardous Waste Compliance Department, EPA Region 2), personal communication, 11/5/01.

96. Sznopek and Goonan, “The Materials Flow of Mercury in the Economies of the United States and the World.”

97. Both solutions are used as fixatives. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin Mercur y Sourcebook, draft (May 1997).

98. Environmental Working Group/The Tides Center, Protecting by Degrees: What Hospitals Can Do to Reduce Mercury Pollution, (May 1999), http://www.ewg.org. Also,

Pollution Probe, Mercur y in the Health Care Sector: The Cost of Alternative Products (Toronto: Pollution Probe, 1996).

99. For a list of products containing mercury and available alternatives including some prices, see www.h2e-online.org; or Pollution Probe, Mercur y in the Health Care

Sector.

Control Option. Discharges to wastewater from laboratories

may be prevented by use of an “effluent management sys-

tem” installed at the discharge point of clinical analyzers

(one system can filter mercury effluent from up to three

clinical analyzers). The cost for each system is as follows:

one-time fee of $5,000 for equipment and $200 for instal-

lation charges. Cartridge replacement is $150 three times

per year.10 0 Laboratories may have as many as 30 clinical

analyzers; therefore the total cost associated with the pur-

chase and installation of this system ranges from $5,200

for one system to $52,000 for 10 systems per laboratory.

The capital investment required for preventing 400 kg of

mercury from being discharged by all 270 non-hospital

laboratories in the Watershed would range from $1.4M to

$14M. Provided a 5-year loan package at 7% interest was

secured, payments would range from $342K to $3.4M per

year, plus filter replacement annual fees in the range of

$162K to $1.6M. The combined total cost ranges from

$1.6M to $15.7M per year for 5 years and then $162K to

$1.6M each year thereafter, or nearly $4K/kg to $39K/kg

for each of 5 years and then $405/kg to $4K/kg per year

afterward.

Alternatively, laboratories may install “end-of-pipe”

management systems for the whole facility at a cost of

$30K to $500K per system depending on volume and

concentration of mercury discharged. For all 270 labora-

tories in the Watershed, the one-time installation fee

would range from $8.1M to $135M. With a 5-year financ-

ing plan at 7% interest in place, plus operating expenses,

the cost ranges from $2.2M to $33.5M/yr for five years

($5.5K/kg–$84K/kg), and then $216K to $648K

($540/kg–$1.6K/kg) each year beyond. Although control

of mercury discharges from this sector by available tech-

nology is not internally cost-effective, costs are consider-

ably lower than those that prevent mercury flowing from

POTWs into the Harbor ($500M/yr or $1M/kg for 10

years and then $282M/yr or $627K/kg thereafter).

One drawback for both of these filter systems is that

they are capable of capturing mercury, but not a variety

of other contaminants released by laboratories.

Therefore, while continuing to use mercury-containing

solutions, a better option is to capture discharges and then

recycle or treat them, as described below.

Recycling or treatment of discharged wastewater. This option

requires that all discharged mercury solutions be stored in

containers until picked up by companies authorized to

manage hazardous material. Laboratories may choose

from two options: recycling or treatment (which includes

stabilization and disposal at authorized landfills). From an

environmental perspective, treatment of discharged solu-

tions is less optimal, albeit the less expensive of the two.

Containers to capture contaminated solutions are avail-

able in multiple standard sizes, ranging from 5 to 55 gal-

lons, and prices vary accordingly. If recycled, a 5-gallon

bucket of contaminated solution costs $450; if sent for

treatment and then to a landfill, that same bucket of solu-

tion costs $125. A 55-gallon drum of contaminated solu-

tion would cost $1,800 to recycle and $500 to treat and

then send to a landfill.101 A typical hospital laboratory in

the region discharges approximately 550 gallons of solu-

tion per year per clinical analyzer. Assuming a similar vol-

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

100. Owen Boyd (SolmeteX Co, MA), personal communication, Nov. 15, 2001.

101. Clean Harbor Recycling Co., personal communication, October 2001.

TABLE 9. Laboratories—Cost of Control and Management Options

Cost/kg of Hg

Cost Hg Used or Recovered

per year Replaced (kg) (at laboratories)

USE OF CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

(1) Filter system at end of clinical analyzer $504K–$5Ma400 kg $1.2K-$12.6K/kg

(2) Filter system at end-of-pipe of lab $2.2M–$33.5Mb400 kg $5.5K-$84K/kg

RECOVERY OF DISCHARGES

(1) Recycling $4.4M–$132.5M/yr 400 kg $11K- $331/kg

(2) Treatment and safe disposal $1.2M–$36.8M/yr 400 kg $3K-$92K/kg

aPer year for 5 years, then %162K to $1.6M per year thereafter, or $405 to $4K/kg.

bPer year for 5 years, then $216K to $648K, or $540 to $1.6K/kg.

THE ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, AND SOCIETAL FRAMEWORK 45

ume for each non-hospital laboratory, it would cost $16K

to $491K per year per laboratory to recycle discharges, or

approximately $4.5 to $136K per year to treat them. The

costs to the whole sector would be approximately $4.4M

to $132.5M per year ($11K to $331/kg per year) for recy-

cling, or $1.2M to $36.8M per year ($3K to $92K/kg per

year) for treatment of the wastewater.102

Presently, recovery and recycling rates are very low and

few laboratories have filtering systems to trap mercury dis-

charges.103 However, there are some measures that can be

taken.

P2 and Management Recommendations for

Laboratories:

■Substitute non-mercury alternatives for mercury-

containing products

■Prevent mercury discharges to sewers

Strategies to Achieve the Recommended Approaches:

■Use non-mercury chemicals and reagents whenever

possible

■Implement a non-mercury purchasing policy

(Consider tax incentives for use of non-mercury

solutions (or very high prices for mercury-

containing chemicals to discourage their use) to

help change practices in the lab. Note that although

prices for alternatives are higher, hospitals could

accrue net savings by product substitution because

costs for recycling mercury-contaminated waste-

water will be drastically reduced.)

■Require better labeling

■Educate laboratory technicians and hospital admin-

istrators about non-mercury alternatives

■Install filter systems to reduce mercury discharge by

99% (costs for installing such systems, although

high for this sector, are still lower when compared

with costs for capturing mercury at POTWs.)

■Encourage cooperation between POTWs and the

health care sector to limit mercury discharges (See

above discussion under the dental facilities section.

Such cooperation could resolve financial obstacles

to implementation of this option and should be

encouraged. Also, loan packages with low interest

rates and either federal or state guarantees could

reduce overall cost of financing the appropriate con-

trols.)

■Capture all discharge solutions in a tank (not just

those with mercury) and recycle or treat them (This

is optimal from an environmental perspective.

Reducing inputs to POTWs may require organiza-

tion of a centrally coordinated collection program.

This may solve two problems simultaneously. First,

all laboratories would comply, and second, the cost

for each laboratory would be reduced.)

■Encourage the collection of information on release

levels to monitor success

Sharing Responsibility for Implementation:

Key stakeholders to involve in implementing the recom-

mended strategies include laboratory technicians and

administrators, POTWs, chemical producers, federal,

state, and local regulatory agencies and lending institu-

tions. Because many hospitals have laboratories, they too

should be included.

Major Sources of Mercury Emissions to Air104

Combustion processes (internal combustion engines and

furnaces) account for over half of total air emissions of

mercury within the region (see Tables in Appendix 6.1).

Maximum available control technology (MACT) that

could significantly reduce these emissions is not currently

utilized. Installing MACT at power-generating utilities,

and industrial/commercial facilities would cost from

$18.6K to $36K to prevent 1 kg of mercury from being

released (Table 10). No economically feasible controls to

reduce emissions from residential furnaces or from auto-

mobile internal combustion have been developed.

Emissions from incineration of medical waste or

municipal solid waste are currently lower than just a few

years ago because of installation of MACT.105 Costs asso-

ciated with these control technologies range from $464/kg

to $3,500/kg of mercury recovered.106 Installing MACT at

EAFs to recover the mercury from switches inside vehi-

102. Personal communication with hospital representative who prefers to remain unnamed, November 2001.

103. Carl Plossl (EPA Region 2), personal communication, 11/5/01.

104. Note that combustion refers to the burning of fuels, whereas incineration refers to the burning of materials to reduce their volume or convert organic into inor-

ganic material. See Section 2.2, “Emissions of Mercury to Air” for further detail.

105. The State of New Jersey has lowered emissions from its large municipal waste incinerators below the federal limit. The State of New York has been in the process

of lowering emissions from incinerators since 1998 when the State Environmental Board approved more stringent requirements for medical waste incinerators,

municipal waste combustor and municipal landfills. http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/press/pressrel/98-106.html; and Mary Werner, personal communica-

tion, January 18, 2002.

106. U.S. EPA, Mercur y Study Report to Congr ess, v. 8, part B, pp. B-3 to B-8.

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

107. These costs include capital recovery costs as well as operating and maintenance costs. As the capital investment is paid off, the costs will be lower. In general,

the low value of the range represents maintenance and operating costs, whereas the high value includes capital expenditure.

TABLE 10. Cost of Primary Controls to Prevent Emissions of Mercury to Air 107

Hg in Solid Waste Sent Yearly Cost of MACT to

to Incinerators Control Emissions to Air

Product/Sectora(kg/yr)b(range)

Incineration (cost of controls already in use by WTE, MWC, MWI: $464–$3,500 per kg of Hg captured)106

Dental facilities 1000 $464,000–$3,500,000

Hospitals 200 $92,800–$700,000

Households—thermometers 100 $46,400–$350,000

Laboratories 50 $23,200–$175,000

Batteries 30 $13,920–$105,000

Fluorescent lamps 175 $81,200–$612,500

Switches—lighting 30 $13,920–$105,000

Thermostats 200 $92,800–$700,000

Incineration (cost of potential control: $98K—$102K/kg for first five years then $11K–$14K/yr)c

Crematoria 25 $2,450,000–$2,550,000

Hg Released to Air from Potential Annual Cost of MACT

EAFs without MACT to Control EAF Emissions

Products (kg/yr) (range)

Incineration (cost of potential controls: $18.6K–$36K per kg of Hg captured)d

Switches–auto 900 $16,740,000–$32,400,000

Hg Released to Air via Potential Annual Cost of MACT

Combustion without MACT to Control EAF Emissions

Sector (kg/yr) (range)e

Combustion Emissions (Cost of potential controls: $18.6K–$36K per kg of Hg captured)d

Automobile combustion 150 N/A

Household: furnaces 150 N/A

Industrial/commercial furnaces 350 $6,510,000–$12,600,000

Utilities: furnaces 400 $7,440,000–$14,400,000

a These calculations are based on solid waste only. The figures in this column do not include the cost of trapping the mercury released during the combustion of

sludge.

b See Appendix 6.1 for explanation of how these numbers were calculated. Approximately one-third of solid waste is sent to incinerators.

c To control mercury emissions from crematoria, the cost is $200K for each facility (45 in the Watershed) for the equipment plus $10/cremation with an average cre-

mation rate of 1,000/yr per facility. Thus, total cost for the sector is $9,450,000/yr and $210,000 per facility. These costs are reported so no range is given.

d If activated carbon injection (ACI) in addition to baghouse filters were applied. Of the 900 kg/yr sent to EAF, only 300 kg are released to air. The remainder stays

with the ash.

e Between 75% and 95% of emissions from furnaces burning oil and coal could be prevented with MACT (E. Brown, EPA Headquarters, personal communication,

November 28, 2001).

THE ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, AND SOCIETAL FRAMEWORK 47

cles that are smelted at end of life would cost as much as

it does to recover mercury from combustion at utilities

($18.6K to $36K/kg). However, substitution to ball-bear-

ing switches in automobiles would prevent that expense.

No controls are in place at crematoria. Controls for this

sector would require $2.5M –$2.6M/yr for 10 years and

then approximately $270K to 360K/yr thereafter, or about

$99K to 102K/kg of mercury recovered. There is no way

to capture mercury released through volatilization, except

by preventing its release in the first place through better

management and/or substitution by non-mercury alterna-

tives.

Reviewing the sectors that contribute mercury to air leads

to the following priorities for action:

■Automotive and appliance switches (via EAFs)

■Fluorescent lamps (volatilization when broken)

■Coal/oil Furnaces (industrial, commercial, house-

hold combustion)

Automobile and Appliance Switches. Automobiles and

other vehicles release mercury to the environment in two

different ways. First, mercury is released via internal com-

bustion of fuel (mercury is a trace element in gasoline).

Second, many vehicles contain mercury switches in orna-

mental or “under-the-hood” lights, in HID lamps, and in

antilock brake systems (especially SUVs). A considerable

amount of mercury in switches can be released when vehi-

cles (and to a lesser extent, appliances) are disposed, shred-

ded, and then sent to electric arc furnaces for smelting.

Internal Combustion. This process contributes approximately

150 kg to total mercury emissions to air. No controls are

currently available to capture mercury from vehicle

exhaust. The best solution is source reduction, which

could be achieved by increasing fuel efficiency in vehicles,

increasing the use of “hybrid” cars, as well as increasing

the use of public transportation. Investments in trans-

portation alternatives (including waterways) coupled with

public awareness campaigns about available alternatives

and related benefits are needed to decrease reliance on tra-

ditional modes of transportation.

Automotive and appliance switches. Switches and related items

contribute approximately 10% of mercury releases to the

watershed as a result of the steps taken at an automobile’s

end of life. Automobiles, other vehicles, and appliances are

shredded, and the processed scrap metal then is sold to

steel mills where it is smelted in EAFs. Approximately 900

kg of mercury in switches is currently discarded each year

in the Watershed when cars are disposed at end of life. As

a result of the scrapping and smelting process, it is esti-

mated that approximately 300 kg/yr of the mercury in

switches is released to air.10 8 MACT is not in place at

EAFs. Costs for MACT ($18.6K/kg to $36K/kg recovered)

are given in Table 10 and could be avoided by product

substitution, comprehensive replacement, or recovering

switches before cars are shredded.

The total annual cost to remove between 744K and

1.1M switches with an average of 900 kg of mercury at

end of life of vehicles would amount to $457K to

$604K/yr or approximately $507 to $671/kg of mercury

recovered.109 Replacing about 7 million mercury switches

in all cars registered in the Watershed would require a

one-time investment of between $8.8M and $13.4M to

recover an average of 9,700 kg of mercury in switches

replaced, or $905-$1380/kg of mercury recovered. This

cost could be easily distributed with very little adminis-

trative difficulty, if replacement of current mercury

switches becomes part of the annual inspection process.

Vehicles in which no mercury switches are found, or in

which they have been removed, could have a sticker

placed on them or some other type of certification pro-

duced so at each vehicle’s end-of-life, it would be readily

apparent that no more mercury switches are present.

For new automobiles, the better option is still product

substitution. A 1997 study indicated that the Chrysler

Corporation estimated it would save $40,000 in costs by

using a rolling ball switch instead of mercury switches,

mostly from reduced administrative costs sustained for

compliance reports related to hazardous materials man-

agement, as well as reduced liabilities.110 (No information

was provided on the number of cars or switches account-

ing for this savings). Indeed, at the end of the 2002 model

year (mid-August 2002), mercury switches will be entirely

phased out of all automobiles and light trucks.

In summary, preventing the release of 300 kg/yr of

mercury (of the 900 kg) from automobile switches incin-

erated at EAFs would cost $18.6K/kg to $36K/kg each

year if controls were installed. This compares to only

$507-$671/kg per year if the switches were removed from

disposed cars before incineration at the EAF. If all cars

within the Watershed were to have the switches replaced

108. Approximately 30% of the mercury is released to air. Nickolas Themelis (Columbia University), personal communication.

109. See Appendix 6.3 for the calculations behind these numbers.

110. U.S. EPA, Mercur y Study Report to Congr ess, v. 7, pp. 5–9. Also, Ana Smith and Kathy Gran (Daimler-Chrysler), personal communication.

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

(i.e., automobiles still in use), the cost would rise to $905

to $1380/kg each year, still substantially lower than the

cost to remove mercury at the EAF endpoint.

Appliance manufacturers for some time have been uti-

lizing non-mercury switches in new appliances (with the

exception of gas pilot-light ranges, for which no safe alter-

natives currently exist). For vehicles, whereas removing

mercury switches from ornamental lights may take 30 sec-

onds each, removing them from antilock brake systems or

home appliances is time onerous and may take as much

as a half hour, making the associated labor costs exorbi-

tant. Thus, removing antilock brake systems (ABS) from

cars will represent a large burden for those who have to

carry out the task. Car dismantler representatives remain

concerned that if regulations are imposed mandating

removal of all switches from automobiles (including ABS

brakes) and appliances at end of life, they will have to

absorb this additional cost, to the detriment of their busi-

nesses.

Thus, in addition to making replacement of mercury

switches in ornamental lights part of the annual inspec-

tion process, some type of cost sharing scheme, combined

with research into safe non-mercury alternatives for ABS

brakes, might make substitution not only technologically

possible at some point in the future, but more palatable

from an economic perspective as well.

P2 and Management Recommendations for Vehicle

and Appliance Switches:

■Recycle/retire mercury switches already present in

automobiles, light trucks, and appliances

■Develop safe non-mercury alternatives for switches

utilized in gas pilot-light ranges

■Develop an understanding of the uses of mercury

switches in heavy-duty trucks and buses, the

amount of mercury present, and the availability and

cost-effectiveness of non-mercury alternatives

Strategies to Achieve the Recommended Approaches:

■Educate consumers, scrap metal recyclers, and

mechanics about the possibility and importance of

replacing and retiring mercury switches

■Create a collection program for the removed mercu-

ry switches

■Support incorporating the removal of mercury

switches already present in automobiles and light

trucks into annual inspections, combined with a

labeling system to record whether or not they have

been removed

■Require removal of remaining mercury switches in

automobiles and light trucks at end of life

■Support research on developing safe non-mercury

alternatives for switches in gas pilot-light ranges

■Support research on mercury switches in heavy-

duty trucks and buses

Sharing Responsibility for Implementation:

Many automobile and home appliance manufacturers are

already complying voluntarily to substitute non-mercury

switches in their new products, without detriment to

quality or cost. Key stakeholders to involve in accelerat-

ing and extending this process to switches already in the

market are automobile manufacturers, appliance manu-

facturers, switch manufacturers, the Steel Manufacturers

Association, scrap metal recyclers, appropriate unions,

and federal, state, and local regulatory agencies.

Fluorescent Lamps. Mercury emissions from fluorescent

lamps come from volatilization when lamps are broken,

and from incineration of discarded lamps. Fluorescent

lamps are used in commercial, industrial, and residential

settings; compact fluorescents are used mostly by the

household sector. Approximately 38 million fluorescent

lamps are sold in the Watershed region each year, includ-

ing more than 33 million fluorescent tubes, 3 million com-

pact fluorescents, and almost 2 million high-intensity dis-

charge (HID) lamps.111

Although fluorescent lamps contain mercury, they are

preferred to incandescent lamps because of the energy

savings they provide. The cost associated with the pur-

chase of more than 38 million fluorescent lamps ranges

from $153M to $968M per year, rendering net savings of

over $1B per year112 when compared to using incandes-

cent lamps, which may consume as much as three times

more electricity. The amount of mercury in spent lamps

currently being disposed in the region (700 kg/yr)113 is

higher than the amount used in new lamps (650 kg/yr)

because mercury usage per fluorescent lamp has been

reduced drastically over the last 15 years. (Some fluores-

cent lamps now have mercury levels below the current

regulatory limit.) However, complete substitution has not

been achieved. Thus, to prevent these releases, con-

111. See Appendix 6.2 for reference.

112. See Appendix 6.3

113. This figure does not include of mercury in recycled lamps (20% of the total).

THE ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, AND SOCIETAL FRAMEWORK

Small Businesses116 and Households Generating Less

Than 30 Lamps Each Month:

■Educate consumers on the proper handling of fluo-

rescent lamps

■Encourage the creation of take-back programs

■Create centrally coordinated collection programs

■Develop better ways to streamline and rationalize

current recycling processes

■Support research to find lower cost methods for

dealing with lamps, including consideration of the

costs and benefits related to safe and effective

sequestration of mercury in lamps

Sharing Responsibility for Implementation

For commercial, industrial, and institutional facilities, the

key stakeholders will include the lamp manufacturers,

sumers must recycle all spent lamps. Two methods are

currently used to manage spent lamps: (1) sending lamps

to recycling facilities; and/or (2) in-house crushing

machines (for large quantity generators only). However,

there are concerns that crushing machines do not prevent

releases of mercury from volatilization, and because these

machines generally are used in enclosed facilities (base-

ments or storage areas), the risk of mercury exposure to

workers is increased. This method also results in drums

of crushed material containing levels of mercury high

enough to carry a designation of hazardous material,

thereby increasing costs and difficulties of transport and

disposal. Therefore, crushing is not recommended.

The EPA recommends lamp recycling, which entails

re-boxing spent lamps for safe transport during delivery

to a recycling facility. Until January 2000, recycling

required hiring a hazardous waste hauler and time-con-

suming paperwork. Since then the EPA has approved the

Universal Waste Rule to encourage recycling, especially

among industries, institutions, and commercial organiza-

tions. Facility managers must contact the local recycling

companies and discuss intended disposal procedures

before implementing a recycling program. If all con-

sumers of fluorescent lamps were to recycle all spent

lamps in the region (containing 700 kg of mercury) they

would spend approximately $24M/yr, or almost

$34.6K/kg of mercury recycled. However, this cost is off-

set by current energy savings of more than $1B/yr.

Recycling fluorescent lamps has become easier under cur-

rent regulations, but these have yet to improve the low

rates of recycling in the Watershed.

P2 and Management Recommendation for

Fluorescent Lamps:

■Comprehensive recycling

■Develop more effective management technologies

Strategies to Achieve the Recommended Approach:

Commercial,114 Industrial, and Institutional Facilities

Generating 30 or More Lamps Each Month:115

■Educate users on regulatory requirements

■Require maintenance of proper documentation and

record keeping of recycling

■Strengthen monitoring and enforcement procedures

114. The commercial sector is the least represented in terms of current recycling. Thus, the Consortium recommends focusing on commercial businesses.

115. 30 lamps per month is a figure informally accepted by NEMA and lamp recyclers. It represents the number of lamps in 1 box of a particular type of fluorescent

lamp and has thus served as a convenient cut-off point for distinguishing among those who would be required to recycle and those who would be encouraged but

not required.

116. The Consortium recommends emphasizing recycling among small businesses, which generate more lamps for recycling than an average household.

COAL CLEANING

AND MERCURY:

A LITTLE-KNOWN STORY

While many people are aware that different

sources of coal have varying amounts of

mercury, most do not know that the process

of cleaning coal before its arrival at a utility fur-

nace releases significant amounts of mercury

into the environment.

Thirteen states (AL, IL, IN, KS, KY, MD, MO, OH,

OK, PA, UT, VA, WV) account for half of all U.S.

coal production. Before shipping the coal, these

states clean greater than 75% of it to remove

sulfur and noncombustible ash. Almost 9,100 kg

(or one-fifth) of the mercury is removed as a

result of this process, with much of the mercury

ending up in retention ponds where it is released

into the atmosphere.

— Environmental Working Group/Clean Air

Network/NRDC, Mercur y Falling: An Analysis of

Mercur y Pollution from Coal-Burning Power Plants

(Washington, DC: EWG, Nov. 1999), p. 9.

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

lamp recyclers, energy service companies (ESCOs), the

various facilities utilizing the lamps, distributors, appropri-

ate trade unions and associations, and federal and state

regulatory agencies.

For small businesses and households, key stakeholders

to involve in implementation will be lamp manufacturers,

lamp recyclers, utilities, appropriate trade unions and asso-

ciations, hardware stores, and electrical supply stores and

other supply outlets, along with individual homeowners

and small businesses, and state, local regulatory agencies

and governments as necessary.

Utility, Industrial/Commercial, and Household

Furnaces. Within the region, about 47% of the total mer-

cury emissions are associated with combustion of fossil

fuels results from electric utility, industrial, commercial,

and household furnaces. (Automobiles generate another

8%.) Given their size and frequency of operation, coal and

heavy-oil-fired electric utility furnaces are of particular

concern. When discussing anything related to utilities in

the Watershed, one must be careful to distinguish between

generators that produce electricity, and utilities that only

distribute it; the latter purchase electricity from a national

power pool.117 Therefore, any recommendations made for

this sector should take into account the potential that con-

trols or substitution of fuels in this region could make local

power plants less competitive than others nationally. Thus,

recommendations for this sector should extend nationally,

unless the reductions sought are specifically regional in

nature.

Fuel Substitution. By switching to cleaner fuels, power gener-

ators and commercial furnaces could drastically reduce air

emissions of mercury. Natural gas is an attractive option

because its use results in much lower nitrogen oxide emis-

sions and no sulfur dioxide emissions. However, cost is a

critical factor here. The cost for using coal fluctuates, but

may be approximately 30% less than the cost for using

gas.118 Moreover, it is expected that the price of gas will

increase because reserves are more limited than those for

coal. Subsidy reform could encourage fuel switching if

financial assistance for dirty fuels were no longer in place.

Nevertheless, power generators are reluctant to rely on

only one type of fuel, and prefer to use a fuel mix, in part

to avoid price spikes and supply interruptions.119

Control Technology. The low relative cost of coal and its

abundance within the borders of the United States make it

likely that coal will maintain a significant market share as

a fuel for the production of steam to produce electricity.

Thus, there needs to be greater emphasis on developing

suitable emission control technologies. There are several

control options to reduce emissions, including use of pow-

dered activated carbon injection (PAC) in conjunction

with spray cooler and fabric filter systems, as well as wet

scrubbers and coal washing. In 1997 the U.S. EPA esti-

mated that the cost for installing and operating PAC sys-

tems ranged from $31,000 to $60,000120 to recover 1 kg of

mercury. Since then, this estimate has been scaled down

by approximately 40% when using a composite sorbent

(lime and carbon instead of just PAC) but optimal controls

are still being evaluated (current cost estimates per kilo-

gram of mercury captured range from $18,600 to $36,000,

which in the Watershed region translates to $7.4M to

$14.4M for utility furnaces and $6.5M to $12.6M for

industrial/commercial furnaces).121 It is likely that actual

implementation would decrease the cost of this technology

even further.

Energy Efficiency. An important interrelated issue has to do

with the growth of electricity demand and associated emis-

sions. In industrialized countries, residential electricity has

grown by 23% since 1990.122 The U.S. Department of

Energy reports that growth in electricity demand in the next

twenty years will require building more than 1,000 new

power plants nationwide123 and New Jersey’s independent

117. As a practical matter, there is a perpetual flow of electricity across states, regions, and even between the United States and Canada as independent generation

companies and wholesale customers buy and sell power for delivery to retail customers. Environmental regulations that add production costs to a subset of power

plants within a region or a set of interconnected regions can result in shifting generation to power plants outside the sphere of regulation, awarding competitive

advantages to companies and states that successfully resist such regulation.

118. $0.30 per hundred cubic feet of gas; Martha Bell (Association for Energy Affordability, NYC), personal communication, 11/20/01.

119. After deregulation, regional power generators compete with extraregional ones because utilities can purchase from a national electricity grid. Russell Furnari

(PSEG), personal communication.

120. U.S. EPA, Mercur y Study Report to Congr ess, v. 7. The higher estimate includes the cost for a spray cooler and fabric filter system required as part of MACT.

121. Costs have decreased for other reasons as well. First, existing controls to prevent releases of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide (according to current regulation)

have been found to capture up to one-third of the mercury released. Second, the capital cost of installing the PAC controls has decreased. Memorandum,

September 30, 2000. http://www.epa.gov/mercury.

122. Institute for Sustainable Development, “Policies and Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Findings by the International Energy Agency,” Earth

Negotiations Bulletin 1 (NY: IISD, October 2001). The ENB is published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) in cooperation with the

UNFCCC Secretariat. http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/climate/cop7/enbots.

123. http://www.pseg.com/investor/annual/growing_dom.html.

THE ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, AND SOCIETAL FRAMEWORK 51

system operator has approved construction of approximate-

ly 40 new generation plants in the Pennsylvania, New

Jersey and Maryland Interconnection.124

Implementing a registry of current emissions and a cap

might prompt new power plants to install state-of-the-art

technology to prevent new mercury emissions. Demand-

side management, energy conservation, and cogeneration

may prevent the need to build new power plants.

Electricity demand may be reduced by establishing mini-

mum energy performance standards (MEPS) for home

appliances and other energy intensive devices, appropriate

labeling, and building codes. Other measures to reduce

demand include reducing “light pollution.” Greater than

30% of the electricity generated for outdoor illumination is

wasted when misdirected into the sky or beyond the area

that requires illumination. It has been estimated that

nationwide this costs approximately $4.5M per year.125

Finally, mercury emissions from fossil fuel combustion

by the household sector are linked to heating generation.

Costs for controls to prevent mercury emissions from each

household’s furnace have not been estimated and would be

prohibitive. Substitution to cleaner or renewable sources of

energy (gas, solar) would reduce mercury emissions, but in

general oil is less expensive than gas. Nevertheless, house-

holds have clear incentives to reduce their overall heating

demand. Households would benefit from ongoing weather-

ization programs to prevent heat from escaping buildings.126

In December 2000, the U.S. EPA announced its deci-

sion to regulate mercury and other air toxics emitted from

oil and coal-fired power plants. It is understood that the

agency will propose sunsetting mercury emissions, with

industry flexibility as to how to meet the set limits,

through either fuel substitution or controls. This process

should be supported, keeping in mind the need to ensure

that the companies in the Watershed remain competitive

nationally. All measures leading to energy conservation to

reduce continuing growth of energy demand and associ-

ated emissions should be promoted.

Administrative barriers to implementation include:

■Requirements to reduce mercury emissions by con-

trols or fuel substitution may drive up electricity

rates. A recent article indicates that utilities predict

rates will rise as much as 25% if forced to reduce

mercury emissions. However, this estimate is based

on outdated numbers and thus overestimates actual

costs.127 As noted above, the U.S. EPA has been

conducting full-cost analysis of the energy market,

including the impact of using MACT to reduce

mercury emissions.

■In general, demand-side management programs

were subsidized by utilities until deregulation took

place. After deregulation, these programs have

been taken over by state agencies and need to be

properly subsidized and publicized.

P2 and Management Recommendations for

Furnaces:

■Reduce emissions

■Substitute non-mercury-containing fuels

Strategies to Achieve the Recommended Approaches:

■Use MACT technologies for commercial and indus-

trial furnaces

■Promote energy conservation for all consumers

■Encourage the use of cleaner fuels

Sharing Responsibility for Implementation:

Much has been done to move toward reducing emissions

and substituting cleaner fuels, but more remains to be

done. The key stakeholders to involve in implementing

the above recommendations are utilities (both generators

and suppliers), producers of MACTs, federal regulatory

agencies, and consumers of fuel.

Landfills: Solid Waste Management

Implementation of the pollution prevention strategies

described earlier for the three major contributors of mer-

cury to wastewater (dental facilities, hospitals, and labora-

tories) also would decrease significantly the amount of

mercury going to landfills and monofills. Many of the

124. Ibid. New Jersey’s independent system operator—the Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland Interconnection (PJM) has approved construction of some 40 new

generation plants that would add approximately 25% more electric capacity to the region over the next several years. http://www.pseg.com/investor/annual/

growing_dom.html; also Michael Aucott, personal communication, 11/26/01.

125. http://www.njaa.org/light.html. Several dozen municipalities in New York State, and at least one township in New Jersey have some form of external light regu-

lations. Sen. Mike Balboni has sponsored a NY Senate bill. The legislation, also sponsored by Assemblyman Pete Grannis (D-Manhattan), would require state

agencies to install street lights that focus their illumination downward as replacements are needed, require the state Department of Environmental Conservation

to designate “dark areas” to protect astronomy and ecological habitats and outlaw “light trespass” where outdoor lighting from one site intrudes on another’s

property.

126. Such as weather stripping and double-glazed windows, as well as increasing the efficiency of furnaces by proper maintenance.

127. Lee Hawkins Jr., “Wisconsin Utilities Criticize Plan to Reduce Mercury Emissions,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (9/4/01).

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

other sources of mercury to landfills and monofills, includ-

ing thermostats, fluorescent lamps, switches, and ther-

mometers present straightforward and proven strategies

for reduction that also should be considered. All of these

products can be recycled and in some cases, national, state

or local programs are already in place (see discussion of

individual products below). An important finding of the

public opinion survey, conducted as part of this project, is

that the Watershed population is already conscientious

about recycling. In fact, almost 90% of respondents to the

survey said they recycle always or often, compared with

only 68% of national respondents. Thus, the foundation

for these P2 strategies is already in place within this

region.

Various mercury-containing products are disposed in

the pathway that leads to landfills. The main mercury-

bearing products sent to all-purpose landfills are fluores-

cent lamps, fever thermometers, batteries, car switches,

small household appliances with mercury switches, and

other household waste. Noninfectious solid waste (black

bag) discharged by the medical and health care sector,

including laboratories and veterinaries, also may contain

mercury products (broken thermometers, sphygmo-

manometers, and other instrumentation), which are sent

to landfills. In addition, demolition debris sent to landfills

contains thermostats, lighting switches, barometers, sprin-

kler systems, and other items containing mercury.

The main alternatives to prevent mercury from being

sent to landfills are product substitution, which complete-

ly eliminates mercury at the source, and comprehensive

recycling to reduce environmental releases. Recycling of

mercury will prevent uncontrolled sequestration of mer-

cury in landfills, but mercury would likely still be sent to

specialized monofills because the supply at present is

much greater than demand. The major sectors and prod-

ucts contributing mercury to solid waste in the region are:

the dental sector, hospitals, car switches, and thermostats.

Several of these already have been discussed above, espe-

cially when substitution is the preferred option (e.g., ther-

mometers and sphygmomanometers in hospitals and car

switches). Below, the focus is on sectors or products that

can still benefit from comprehensive recycling.

Dental Facilities. Currently, dentists are required to recy-

cle mercury waste from amalgam use by collecting contact

and non-contact amalgam waste and sending it to a recy-

cler. They are not required to report releases because they

are conditionally exempted as small quantity generators.

Actual rates of recycling among dentists are estimated to be

quite low.12 8 Costs for recycling mercury-containing dental

waste could be kept to a minimum if scrap mercury and

any amount recovered from chair-side traps were segregat-

ed from other solid waste. Sending a 5-lb. container direct-

ly to the recycling facility, for example, costs $25, plus $2

for each additional pound of “contact amalgam.” In addi-

tion, a $15 charge per container is assessed for shipping by

common carrier.129 It is estimated that three shipments per

year may be sufficient to recycle the mercury recovered by

each dental office. Recycling companies pay the dentists for

non-contact amalgam when more than 3 lbs is sent. The

payment rate fluctuates with the price of silver (amalgam is

composed of 30–40% silver). Substitution of mercury amal-

gam with non-amalgam alternatives would considerably

reduce the amount of mercury ending up at landfills, but as

discussed in the section on dental facilities and wastewater,

this is a long-term solution.

The dental sector in the Watershed generates 3,000 kg

or mercury as solid waste each year. If not recycled, one-

third of the solid waste is incinerated and two-thirds are

sent to landfills. The associated recycling costs of the total

128. Hazardous Waste Management Program, Management of Hazardous Wastes in Kings County, 1991–2000.

129. Solid waste containing “contact amalgam” (which has been in the patient’s mouth) needs to be recycled or sent to a secured chemical landfill. Non-contact amal-

gam may be recycled. However, because dentists pay for delivery ($15 per container) and because production of non-contact amalgam per year within one den-

tal office is not enough to fill a container over 3 lbs, this type of waste is usually disposed along with the contact amalgam.

ACTION AT THE

LOCAL LEVEL:

INDUSTRY–GOVERNMENT

PARTNERSHIPS AT WORK

Westchester County (NY) Executive, Andrew J.

Spano, recently signed a law banning the sale of

Hg thermometers and the use and sale of Hg

manometers throughout the county. The law went

into effect on March 31, 2002. Residents of the

county have been encouraged to turn in their Hg

thermometers for free digital replacements dur-

ing scheduled countywide household chemical

clean-up days. These “Hg thermometer

roundups” are part of a joint effort with

Wheelabrator Westchester LP, the company that

operates the county’s incinerator.

— http://www.co.westchester.ny.us/ currentnews/

mercur y.htm

THE ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, AND SOCIETAL FRAMEWORK 53

mercury generated as solid waste by more than 11,200

dentists, in about 7,850 dental offices, would be $660K-

$782K/yr, or $220-$261/kg of Hg in amalgam recovered,

and even less if all dentist sharing an office would share

recycling costs.130 Remarkably, once recycled, the same

3,000 kg of mercury may be sold for as little as $4.2/kg131

for a sector total of $11.7K.

For P2 and management recommendations, see the ear-

lier section on dental facilities.

Thermostats. These devices are temperature regulators

used in heating and ventilation systems. Most non-pro-

grammable thermostats contain mercury switches with

approximately 2 to 3 grams per switch. Non-mercury ther-

mostats (electric and digital) are available and often are

comparable in cost to the mercury units. Therefore, when

installing new systems, utilizing digital or electronic pro-

grammable thermostats is possible and, when used proper-

ly, are cost-effective.

132

It is estimated that approximately

152,000 mercury thermostats are discarded every year in

the Watershed region, and it is likely that most of these

units are disposed as either regular trash or demolition

debris.

133

In recent years, thermostat manufacturers such as

Honeywell, General Electric, and White-Rodgers have

established a private corporation, the Thermostat

Recycling Corporation (TRC), to remove mercury from

the thermostats and recycle it. This program recycles mer-

cury-switch thermostats in the 48 mainland states of the

United States.134 Distributors can sign on for an initial fee

of $15 to cover the cost of the container. The cost of recy-

cling is absorbed by TRC. In 2000, this corporation recy-

cled approximately 1500 mercury-switch thermostats in

the Watershed region, and approximately 935 units in the

first half of 2001. This represents only a minute fraction

of all thermostats discarded at end-of-life in the region.

P2 and Management Recommendations for

Mercury-Switch Thermostats:

■Increase the rate of recycling

■Promote purchase and proper use of Energy Star

programmable thermostats

Strategies to Achieve the Recommended Approaches:

■Advertise the TRC program among distributors,

electrical supply, and plumbing stores as well as

construction and demolition companies

■Inform construction and demolition companies

about the importance of recycling thermostats con-

taining mercury

■Expand education campaigns on the proper use of

Energy Star programmable thermostats

■Phase out the use of mercury-containing models in

cases in which energy-efficient non-mercury alterna-

tives may be properly utilized

Sharing Responsibility for Implementation:

As evidenced by the TRC program, several manufacturers

already are taking steps aimed at recycling and product

substitution. Key stakeholders to involve in continued

implementation efforts are the thermostat manufacturers,

distributors, construction and demolition companies, and

other consumers, as well as federal, state, and local regu-

latory agencies as appropriate.

Household Thermometers. Between 1.3M and more

than 1.4M fever thermometers containing mercury are

sold in the Watershed region each year. It is estimated that

at least half of these are bought to replace broken or dis-

posed of units. About 380 kg/yr of mercury are released to

solid waste. Because of the health risks associated with

volatilization of broken mercury units, and the lack of

appropriate mercury-cleaning equipment in households,

substitution is the preferred option. Non-mercury digital

and electronic thermometers can be purchased from $1 to

$3 more than those containing mercury.

Several initiatives support the move to complete substi-

tution. For example, many pharmacies have joined a

campaign to stop selling mercury thermometers, and at

least one county in the Watershed (Westchester) has

banned their commercialization. This county and several

hospitals throughout the region have organized mercury

swaps in which participants can turn in their old mercury

thermometers and obtain free digital replacements.

130. The larger estimate includes dentists who use composite material but remove mercury amalgams and recover them from the chair-side traps. These estimates

assume three shipments per year per dentist, at a cost of $40 per shipment.

131. http://www.amm.com/REF/merc.htm .

132. Note that if not properly used, programmable thermostats can be less energy efficient than non-programmable thermostats.

133. It has been suggested that some fraction of the mercury from replaced thermostats is stored and not discarded. Eric Erdheim (NEMA), personal communication,

November 2001.

134. http://www.nema.org/DocUploads.

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

P2 and Management Recommendations for

Household Thermometers:

■Substitute non-mercury alternatives

■Increase the rate of retiring mercury-containing

models

Strategies to Achieve the Recommended Approaches:

■Phase out the sale of all mercury thermometers

■Expand educational campaigns to inform the public

about the health risks associated with spills from

broken mercury thermometers

■Support and enlarge ongoing efforts aimed at recov-

ering mercury thermometers now in use

■Implement collection and take-back programs

Sharing Responsibility for Implementation:

Many local communities already are participating in col-

lection and take-back programs for household thermome-

ters (see “Action at the Local Level…” Box). To expand

these programs and further promote substitution, the fol-

lowing stakeholders will be critical: thermometer manu-

facturers, pharmacies, state and local governments and

regulatory agencies, health officials, and consumers.

3.3. Dredging

There has been ongoing discussion about the effect of

maintenance dredging135 on mercury in the NY/NJ

Harbor. First and foremost, note that dredging operations

might be beneficial with respect to the removal of one con-

taminant but harmful in terms of removing another (e.g.,

dredging a site with high dioxin and mercury concentra-

tions may help remove a potential mercury source, but the

disturbance might re-release the dioxins to the water col-

umn, causing fish concentrations to increase). Thus, any

recommendations on dredging should be site specific, and

outcomes for all the contaminants should be considered.

In terms of mercury, dredging could be beneficial,

removing contaminated sediments from the Harbor,

thereby decreasing the sediment pool available for methy-

lation. Themelis and Gregory calculate that dredging

operations between 1930 and 2000 already have removed

approximately 6,000 tons of mercury from the Harbor.136

Conversely, dredging disturbs the sediment and possibly

re-releases previously sequestered mercury back into the

water column where it can settle to the sediment surface

and be available for methylation. Similarly, depending on

how deep one dredges, the more recent, cleaner, sediment

cap deposited since mercury usage decreased in the 1980s

could be removed. This would expose the older, more

contaminated sediments deposited during the heavier

industrial time period for the region.

The Mercury/Methylmercury Action Group discussed

this question in depth and tentatively agreed that older,

buried mercury poses a lesser threat than “new” mercury

because it tends to be less reactive (it is bound with parti-

cles and organic matter). This suggests that maintenance

dredging would not have a major negative impact on the

mercury cycle in the Harbor unless it occurs near sites

where the highest concentrations of mercury may be

entering (and presumably settling to the sediment surface

nearby). Environmental dredging targeting these sites,

however, would need to be carefully assessed as to the

benefits and risks posed by the mercury contamination.

The Group emphasized the importance of stemming

methylation, and thus targeting ongoing sources of mer-

cury, including those documented in this paper as well as

potential sources resulting from Superfund and

Brownfield sites around the Watershed. Much of this

mercury in these latter sites actually may have been

dumped on the soils, marshes, and creeks in the past but

is entering the Harbor now via leachate, runoff, and

groundwater. There are no data on its reactivity, and so it

is prudent to assume this mercury is reactive.

Dredge spoils constitute a major problem for this

region since the closing of the offshore ocean dumpsite

for contaminated materials. Dredged material is being

used to cap some of the old brownfields along the

Harbor’s rivers, after being mixed with cement to form a

hard surface that presumably will trap the contaminants

at these sites. The question remains as to how long the

underlying contaminants stay trapped. Concern was

voiced among members of the Action Group about

removing contaminated sediments from the Harbor and

placing them along shores where contaminants can re-

enter the Harbor.

From this admittedly brief discussion of dredging it is

clear that valid risk management recommendations can-

not be made without consideration of the effects of other

contaminants in the Harbor sediments. Thus, as each

additional contaminant is studied by the Consortium,

under the auspices of the Academy’s project, the issue of

dredging will be revisited and reassessed.

135. Maintenance dredging refers to dredging undertaken to maintain shipping channels, docks, boating access, etc. Environmental dredging is specifically targeted

at removing contaminated sediments.

136. Themelis and Gregory, “Sources and Material Balance for Mercury in the NY/NJ Harbor,” p. 24.

CONCLUSION 55

4. CONCLUSION

The recommendations for priorities for action, for research

priorities, and for pollution prevention and management of

mercury were derived through an iterative process over a

period of 2 years. First, the Consortium was brought

together in January 2000, and suggestions were made as to

who else needed to be represented at the table of stake-

holders dealing with mercury in the NY/NJ Harbor. Along

the way, Academy staff broadened the discussion to include

several other interested parties who were not represented

directly on the Consortium.

At each step of the process, Consortium members were

provided materials generated by commissioned work or

internal staff research and asked to review them and to dis-

cuss what steps were then needed in terms of further

research or developing recommendations. When members

of the Consortium agreed it was time to pull together the

various strands of information, Academy staff then drafted

a document, which was presented to the Consortium at its

biannual meeting at the New York Academy of Sciences on

December 7, 2001. This document not only incorporated

previous research by commissioned consultants and

Academy staff, but also included new research by Academy

staff, especially in terms of costs and benefits associated

with mercury use, recycling, and substitution.

Furthermore, the document provided a set of potential P2

and management recommendations.

During that session, the iterative process held true.

Although consensus was reached on the recommended

priorities for action and research, as well as on several of

the P2 and management recommendations and the strate-

gies for achieving them, there were several points of con-

tention. Several members of the Consortium volunteered

to serve in small sessions with additional sector represen-

tatives to finalize wording on, for example, vehicle and

appliance switches, fluorescent lamps, and the dental sec-

tor. These sessions were held during February and March

2002 and, once consensus in the smaller groups was

reached, the changes were incorporated into the final doc-

ument presented here.

The final step was to add the who to the discussion of

what and how; in other words, the key stakeholders who

will need to share responsibility for implementation were

identified. The intent of the Consortium was not to point

fingers, but to recognize that pollution prevention is a

joint effort, and that successful implementation of the rec-

ommendations is best achieved when different sectors

with varied interests find ways to work collaboratively

toward a common goal. Moreover, through the process

itself, Consortium members came to see the importance

of educational efforts and the inclusion of communities in

realizing the goals developed for pollution prevention and

management of mercury in the NY/NJ Harbor.

The Consortium members come from various sectors

and represent diverse interests. However, they were able

to reach a consensus. They recognize that it is now up to

them as well as to the rest of the stakeholders mentioned

to help implement the recommendations and strategies

presented. Pollution prevention measures for mercury

have been taken in many places nationally and interna-

tionally, with varying degrees of success. Though some of

the recommendations included in this document call for

difficult decisions, they are all realistic goals, tempered by

an understanding of the political, social, and economic

complexities of this region.

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

Association of Metropolitan Sewage Agencies (AMSA).

Evaluation of Domestic Sources of Mercury. Washington,

DC: AMSA, 2000.

Benoit, Janina M. “Methylmercury Cycling in the

NY/NJ Harbor: Implications for Mitigating High

Mercury Levels in Harbor Fish.” Paper presented at

the New York Academy of Sciences, New York City

(August 2001).

Boehme, Susan and Marta Panero. “An Industrial

Ecology Analysis of Mercury in the New York/New

Jersey Harbor. Paper presented at the New York

Academy of Sciences, New York City (June 2001).

Brown, Lester R. Eco-Economy: Building an Economy for the

Earth. New York: WW Norton & Company, 2001.

Center for Sustainable Systems. “Pollution Prevention as

Defined under the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990.

http://www.umich.edu/~nppcpub/p2defined.html.

ENSR Consulting and Engineering. “The Cost of

Compliance of WLSSD with the Great Lakes Water

Quality Initiative.” Paper presented for WLSSD,

Duluth MN 91993.

Environmental Working Group/The Tides Center.

Protecting by Degrees: What Hospitals Can Do to Reduce

Mercury Pollution. (May 1999). http://www.ewg.org.

Fitzgerald, William F. and Joel S. O’Connor. “Mercury

Cycling in the Hudson/Raritan River Basin.” Paper

presented at the New York Academy of Sciences, New

York City (February 2001).

Hawkins, Lee, Jr. “Wisconsin Utilities Criticize Plan to

Reduce Mercury Emissions.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

(4 September 2001).

Hazardous Waste Management Program. Water and

Land Resources Division. Department of Natural

Resources, Management of Hazardous Dental Wastes in

King County, 1991-2000. Seattle, WA: LHWMP,

October 2000. http://dnr.metrokc.gov

Institute for Sustainable Development. “Policies and

Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions:

Findings by the International Energy Agency.” Earth

Negotiations Bulletin 1. New York: IISD, October 2001.

Klaassen, Curtis D., ed. Casarett and Doull’s Toxicology:

The Basic Science of Poisons, 5th edition. New York:

McGraw-Hill, 1996.

Lake Michigan Forum, et al. A Guide to Mercury Reduction

in Industrial and Commercial Settings. http://www.delta-

institute.org/publications/Steel-Hg-Report-0627011.pdf.

Larrabee, Richard. “Port Development: It Is a Balancing

Act.” Paper presented for the Metropolitan Waterfront

Alliance, New York City (February 7, 2002).

Lifset, Reid J. “Full Accounting.” The Sciences (May/June

2000): 32–37.

Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES)

and Minnesota Dental Association. Evaluation of

Amalgam Removal Equipment and Dental Clinic Loadings to

the Sanitary Sewer. St. Paul, Minnesota: MCES,

December 2001.

National Research Council. Toxicological Effects of

Methylmercury. Washington, DC: National Academy

Press, 2000.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.

Division of Science, Research & Technology. “A Guide

to Health Advisories for Eating Fish & Crabs Caught

in New Jersey’s Waters.”

http://www.nj.gov/dep/dsr/njmainfish.htm.

New Jersey Mercury Task Force. Executive Summary and

Recommendations. http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/

mercury_task_force.htm.

New York State Department of Health. “Health

Advisories: Chemicals in Sportfish and Game.”

http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/environ/fish.htm.

Pollution Prevention Partnership and the Milwaukee

Metropolitan Sewerage District. Mercury Sector

Assessment for the Greater Milwaukee Area

(September 1997). http://www.epa.gov/glnpodocs/mil-

waukeehg/mercury.pdf.

Pollution Probe. Mercury in the Health Care Sector: The Cost

of Alternative Products. (Toronto: Pollution Probe, 1996).

RAND. Science & Technology Policy Institute. “Nature’s

Services: Ecosystems Are More than Wildlife Habitat.”

http://www.rand.org/scitech/stpi/ourfuture/NaturesServ

ices/section1.html.

__________. “Nature’s Services: New York City

Watershed.” http://www.rand.org/scitech/stpi/our-

future/NaturesServices/sec1_watershed.html.

5. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES 57

Stern, A.H., L.R. Korn, and B.E. Ruppel. “Elimination

of Fish Consumption and Methylmercury Intake in

New Jersey Population.” Journal of Exposure Analysis and

Environmental Epidemiology 6, 4 (1996): 503–525.

Sznopek, John L. and Thomas G. Goonan. “The

Materials Flow of Mercury in the Economies of the

United States and the World,” U.S. Geological Survey

Circular 1197. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

the Interior/USGS, 2000.

Themelis, Nickolas J. and Alexander F. Gregory.

“Sources and Material Balance of Mercury in the New

York–New Jersey Harbor.” Paper presented at the

New York Academy of Sciences (October 2001).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air and

Radiation. Mercury Study Report to Congress, volumes 4,

7, and 8. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, December 1997.

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

6. APPENDICES

6.1. Description of Distribution of Mercury

from Sector and Products to Air,

Wastewater, and Monofills/Landfills

The following pages provide a short explanation of how

total mercury releases were calculated and how they are dis-

tributed and redistributed among air, water, and solid waste.

(See Appendix 6.2 for full calculations of initial releases.) As

noted previously, mercury is first released or disposed of

into air, water, or solid waste, but through reprocessing is

moved to a different pool or pools. The full description of

this reprocessing is given for each of the sectors and prod-

ucts below and corresponds to the estimates listed in the

Tables, Charts, and Figures throughout this document. We

rounded off our estimates for initial releases to the various

sectors and products and therefore chose not to round off

when describing the reprocessing after initial release.

Confidence levels for each of the final distributions of

release are considered the same as those levels shown in

Table 1 for each of the sectors and products. Tables 6.1

through 6.5 show the redistribution of mercury during

intermediate processing.

Automobiles/fuel combustion

The range for mercury released from the combustion of

fuel by automobiles is 114 to 202 kg/yr. Both estimates are

based on the number of vehicles in the Watershed

(7,444,740) multiplied by the average number of miles

traveled per vehicle per year (13,000), multiplied by an

estimate of how much mercury is released per vehicle mile

(2.6 x 10–09 pounds Hg per mile or 4.6 x 10–09 pounds per

mile [EPA]).137 The results are then converted to kilograms

per year. The average of these two estimates was rounded

to 150 kg/yr released in the watershed. All of the mercury

from fuel combustion is released directly into air.

Crematoria

There are 45 crematoria in the Watershed,138 and each

facility performs anywhere from 612 to 778 cremations per

year.13 9 It is estimated that from 0.6 to 1 g of mercury is

released per cremation,140 resulting in a range of 17 to 35

kg/yr. Using national estimates of cremations141 and adjust-

ing to regional population142 gives an estimate of 21 to 35

kg/yr released from crematoria. Averaging these estimates

and rounding off gives an estimate of 25 kg/yr released in

the Watershed from crematoria. There are no controls for

mercury at crematoria. There are no estimates of how

much mercury remains with the ashes; therefore it is

assumed that all mercury is released into the air.

Dental facilities

Releases of mercury from dental facilities were calculated

using both regional and national data. Mercury can be

released during the removal of old fillings and during the

application of new mercury fillings. These two compo-

nents are described individually below. Direct measure-

ments of releases to wastewater from dental offices were

scaled regionally and used to determine the fraction of the

mercury released that enters the wastewater stream.

Removal of amalgams: There are 11,240 dental

offices in the watershed.143 It is estimated that anywhere

from 70 to 83% of dentists remove old amalgams.

Approximately 400 mg of mercury is removed per amal-

gam,144 multiplied by 16 to 17 removals per week,145 mul-

tiplied by 48 working weeks equals 2,417 to 3,045 kg/yr

of mercury removed and discarded annually from the

Watershed. Alternatively, scaling national estimates of

mercury outflows from the dental sector146 to regional

population gives an estimate of 3,191 to 5,877 kg/yr.

Release during new amalgam application: The

release of mercury from new amalgams was calculated

using mercury usage data from both national estimates

and regional data. It is assumed that 15 to 50% of the

mercury used is released during placement. This gives

an annual release from new amalgams of 409 to 2,939

kg/yr.

137. Michael Aucott, New Jersey Mercury Task Force, personal communication.

138. Compiled from CenStats, http://tier2.census.gov/ cgi-win/zbp/compares

139. http://www.nfda.org/resources/deathstats.html

140.

Pollution Prevention Partnership and the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, “Mercury Source Sector Assessment for the Greater Milwaukee Area” (Sept. 1997).

141. www.biomed.lib.umn.edu/hw/cremstats.html

142. 5.8% of national population.

143. Public Information Unit of N.Y. State Education Department (April, 2001); N.J. Board of Dentistry (May 2001).

144. Mary Joy DelConte, A Mercury Pollution Prevention Study for Medical and Dental Centers (1997).

145. Peter Berglund, P.E. Dental Clinics and Other Sources of Mercury to a WWTP (1997).

146. John L. Sznopek and Thomas G. Goonan, The Material Flow of Mercury in the Economies of the United States and the World (2000). U.S. Department of the

Interior/USGS.

APPENDICIES 59

147. 1998 Headworks Analysis, NYC-DEP; Nickolas J. Themelis and Alexander F. Gregory, 2001; Phil Heckler and Simon Litten, personal communication.

148. NYS DEC. Biosolids Management in New York State (1998).

149. N. Themelis, personal communication.

150. NYS DEC, Division of Solid and Hazardous Materials. Capacity Data for Landfills and Waste to Energy Facilities (June 2001).

151. Ajay Shroff, NYS DEC, personal communication.

Summing the regional releases from removal and new

application and subtracting out recycling (recycling rates

are assumed to be close to 10%) gives an estimate of 2,699

to 5,385 kg/yr available for release from the dental sector.

The average of the estimates for releases from dental facil-

ities was rounded to 4,000 kg/yr. Independent measure-

ments and estimates of releases via wastewater were used

to determine that approximately 25% of this 4,000 kg/yr

makes its way to the wastewater stream. The remainder

(3,000 kg/yr) is assumed to be disposed of as solid waste.

(See the box below for the description of how solid waste

is processed.) Wastewater is treated at the WWTP, and

approximately 20% (200 kg/yr) leaves the facility as efflu-

ent and directly enters the Harbor. The remaining mercu-

ry ends up in the sludge. Sludge can be combusted, buried,

or used for land amendment (fertilizer). See box below for

description of sludge processing in New York and New

Jersey. A full description of the intermediate and final pools

for the dental sector is provided below. For all other sectors

that send mercury to wastewater and solid waste, the same

calculations can be applied. It should be noted that some

mercury volatilizes in the dental office, but we were not

able to quantify this component for the dental sector.

Dental wastewater: Of the 1,000 kg/yr of mercury that

enters the POTW from dental facilities, it is estimated that

5 to 35% (20% average used147; 200 kg/yr) is released

directly to the watershed as effluent. The remaining 800

kg/yr remains with the sludge. Both New York and New

Jersey incinerate about 25% of their sludge. The remain-

ing sludge from New York is used for fertilizer (~50%) and

landfill (~25%)148; New Jersey uses the clean sludge as

land amendment (~65%) within the state, and the remain-

der (10%) is used as landfill either in New Jersey or out of

state. For our calculations, we assumed that all of this 10%

is used as landfill within the Watershed because there are

no data on the actual distribution. Approximately 70% of

sludge comes from New York, and the remaining 30% is

from New Jersey. Thus, of the 800 kg/yr of sludge (560 kg

from N.Y. and 240 kg from N.J.), 360 kg/yr (25%) is incin-

erated. Of this 360 kg, about one-third149 is released into

the air (120 kg/yr), and the remainder stays with the ash

and is disposed of in landfills or monofills (240 kg/yr).

Dental solid waste: The largest portion of waste from

dental offices goes to solid waste (3,000 kg/yr). About one-

third (1,000 kg) of the solid waste is incinerated in waste-

to-energy facilities.150 These facilities have controls in place.

Thus, only 3.5%151 of the mercury is released to the atmos-

phere (35 kg/yr), and the remainder (965 kg/yr) is in the

ash that goes to landfills or monofills. The remaining two-

thirds of solid waste (2,000 kg/yr) goes to landfills.

Thus, the total releases from dental facilities to air (101

kg/yr: 35 kg from solid waste combustion plus 66 kg from

sludge incineration); to wastewater effluent (200 kg/yr);

to fertilizer (436 kg/yr); and to landfills/ monofills (3,263

DISTRIBUTIONS FOR ALL PRODUCTS AND SECTORS SENDING

MERCURY TO WASTEWATER

Total wastewater ➞70 to 95% to sludge, 5 to 30% is effluent (using 20% as average)

Sludge: 70% from New York; 30% from New Jersey

N.J. sludge: 25% combusted (33% to air; 67% to ash (landfill/monofills))

65% to fertilizer

10% to landfills

N.Y. sludge: 25% combusted (33% to air, 67% to ash (landfill/monofills))

50% to fertilizer

10% to landfills

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

kg/yr: 965 kg/yr from incinerated solid waste ash, 2,000

kg/yr direct to landfills from solid waste, 134 kg/yr from

sludge incineration ash and 164 kg/yr from sludge direct

to landfills) sums to the total releases of 4,000 kg/yr from

dental facilities.

Hospitals

Releases of mercury from hospitals were calculated by

summing the individual releases from thermometers,

sphygmomanometers, dental clinics, and laboratories in

hospitals.

Thermometers: Release of mercury from thermometers

in hospitals is calculated on a one thermometer per bed152

basis and an assumed 10% yearly breakage rate.153 There

are 85,883 hospital beds/thermometers in the Watershed

with a mercury content of 0.7 g per unit,154 resulting in 6

kg/yr released from thermometers in hospitals.

Sphygmomanometers: There is approximately one

mercury sphygmomanometer per hospital bed in the

Watershed, and of these, 90% are wall mounted (4% per

year breakage rate) and 10% are mobile units (10% per

year breakage rate). Each unit contains approximately 90 g

of mercury,15 5 resulting in a release of 356 kg/yr. About 10%

of this release is assumed to volatilize directly to the air.

Dental Facilities in Hospitals: Releases from dental

facilities are calculated in the same way as described in the

dental section above. Dental clinics in hospitals use 59

kg/yr of mercury in new restorations.156 A range of 15 to

50% of this mercury is released during placement, giving

a release of 9 to 30 kg/yr. In addition, 36 kg/yr157 are

released during the removal of old amalgams. Summing

these two sources gives an estimate of 44 to 66 kg of mer-

cury released yearly from hospital dental clinics.

Laboratories: Laboratories within hospitals add an

additional 1,002 kg/yr, based on national estimates

adjusted for regional population and accounting for the

number of laboratories in hospitals. National estimates

calculate that 28,000 kg158 of mercury outflow from U.S.

laboratories annually. Adjusting this value to the regional

population (5.8% of the national estimate) gives an esti-

mate of 1,624 kg for the region’s laboratories. There are

705 laboratories in the Watershed, of which 435 are in

Watershed hospitals.

Summing the four sources of mercury releases from

hospitals (6 kg/yr from thermometers, 356 kg/yr from

sphygmomanometers, 44 to 58 kg/yr from dental clinics,

and 1,002 from laboratories) gives an estimate of 1,408 to

1,430 kg/yr of mercury. Approximately 40 kg are recycled.

Thus 1,400 kg/yr (rounded) are available for release from

the hospital sector. Of this 1,400 kg/yr, 60 kg is released

into the air via volatilization, 700 kg/yr to wastewater, and

640 kg/yr to solid waste. As described in the dental sector,

further treatment and processing of solid waste and waste-

water result in a final distribution for the three pools as fol-

152. www.hospitalselect.com

153. Barr Engineering Company. Substance Flow Analysis of Mercury in Products. Prepared for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (August 2001).

154. Ibid.

155. MERC-Pollution Probe (November 1996).

156. See Appendix 6.2 Hospital Uses for full explanation.

157. Ibid.

158. John L. Sznopek and Thomas G. Goonan (2000). “The Materials Flow of Mercury in the Economies of the U.S. and the World,” U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1197.

DISTRIBUTIONS FOR MERCURY-BEARING PRODUCTS AND

SECTORS SENT TO MWC AND WTE FACILITIES

Approximately one-third of solid waste goes to MWC and WTE facilities. These facilities have controls to trap

mercury, and therefore only 3.5% of the mercury entering is released. The remainder goes to ash or is cap-

tured by a control system and sent to monofills. The proportion (two-thirds) of solid waste that does not go

to the MWC and WTEs is sent directly to landfills.

DISTRIBUTIONS FOR MERCURY-BEARING PRODUCTS SENT TO EAFs

EAF facilities do not have controls in place for trapping mercury during combustion. Automobiles and appli-

ances are sent to EAFs in the Watershed. Approximately one-third of the mercury is released to the atmos-

phere, and the remainder is associated with the ash.

lows: air, 114 kg/yr; effluent, 140 kg/yr; fertilizer, 305

kg/yr; and landfills, 841 kg/yr. It should be noted that

recent estimates of releases from hospitals to wastewater

based on measurements (taken at the manholes) of the

wastewater leaving hospitals in Boston and Milwaukee

calculated much lower releases, even when scaled to the

Watershed hospitals. We have not included these estimates

because the Milwaukee hospitals are mercury-free and the

Massachusetts Water Authority has been working with

hospitals for a number of years to reduce mercury usage

and releases. There are no such programs being imple-

mented in the Watershed at this time.

Households

The major releases from households include those from res-

idential furnaces (150 kg/yr all released into air during com-

bustion159), thermometers (500 kg/yr), household products,

and domestic wastewater (350 kg/yr) (Association of

Metropolitan Sewage Agencies (AMSA), Evaluation of

Domestic Sources of Mercury [2000]).

Thermometers: Releases of mercury from household

thermometers are estimated on the basis of the number of

thermometers sold per household in the Watershed

(1,384,622) and the assumption that 50% of the ther-

mometers sold are replacing broken units.160 Each broken

thermometer contains, on average, 0.7 grams of mercury,

resulting in a release of 485 kg/yr (rounded to 500 kg/yr).

Approximately 10% (50 kg/yr) is volatilized directly into

the air, and 20% (100 kg/yr) goes to wastewater. The

remaining portion goes to solid waste (350 kg/yr).161 After

secondary treatment of solid waste and sludge from ther-

mometers, 61 kg are released into the air, 44 kg ends up

in fertilizer, 20 kg is released as effluent, and 375 kg is dis-

posed of in landfills and monofills.

Household products and wastewater releases: The

average discharge of mercury per household is 138

ng/liter.162 Multiplying this by an estimate of domestic

wastewater treated yearly by NYC POTWs (1.46 x 1012

liters per year)163 and scaling from NYC population to the

regional population gives an estimate of 360 kg (rounded

to 350 kg/yr) discharged to wastewater from households.

As noted above, 100 kg/yr is accounted for by ther-

mometer disposal. The sources of the remaining 250 kg

of mercury are products and human waste (trace quanti-

ties of mercury in foods, beverages, products, and from

dental amalgams.164 This 250 kg/yr of mercury is all in the

wastewater; and, after wastewater treatment, 20% (50 kg)

is released as effluent, and the remaining 80% (200 kg)

ends up in the sludge. After sludge treatment, 17 kg/yr are

released into the air from incineration, 109 kg/yr end up

in fertilizer, and 75 kg/yr goes to landfills and monofills.

Industrial Commercial

Furnaces/Utilities/Residential Furnaces

Themelis and Gregory165 estimate that 330 kg/yr (rounded

to 350 kg/yr) are released from industrial and commercial

furnaces, 383 kg/yr (rounded to 400 kg/yr) are released

from utility furnaces, and 160 kg/yr (rounded to 150

kg/yr) are released from residential furnaces in the

Watershed. All of this mercury is released to the atmos-

phere during combustion.

Laboratories (non-hospital)

See description above for laboratories in hospitals for

full description and references. Of the 705 laboratories

in the watershed, 270 are non-hospital laboratories.

(The remaining 435 laboratories are accounted for in

the Hospital section). Each facility releases approxi-

mately 2.3 kg/yr of mercury, resulting in a release of 622

kg/yr (rounded to 600 kg/yr). Of the 600 kg/yr released,

15 kg/yr (2.5%) is volatilized, 400 kg/yr goes to waste-

water (67%), and the remaining 31%, or 185 kg/yr per

year, goes to solid waste.

166

After secondary treatment

and processing of solid waste and sludge, 44 kg/yr are

released into the air through incineration and volatiliza-

tion, 80 kg/yr are released as effluent, 174 kg/yr end up

in fertilizer, and 302 kg/yr goes to landfills and

monofills.

Batteries

Mercury is still used in some button cell batteries, but pro-

duction of regular mercury batteries in the U.S. has been

APPENDICIES 61

159. Nickolas J. Themelis and Alexander F. Gregory. “Sources and Material Balance of Mercury in the New York–New Jersey Harbor.” Paper presented at the New York

Academy of Sciences (October 2001). Table 5, page 13.

160. Extrapolated from Substance Flow Analysis of Mercury in Products (August 2001). Prepared for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency dby Barr Engineering

Company using regional census data to estimate the number of households in the region (5,769,258).

161. Ibid.

162. New York City Department of Environmental Protection Headworks Analysis (1998).

163. Ibid. and P. Heckler and R. Lochan, personal communication.

164. AMSA, Evaluation of Domestic Sources of Mercury, (2000).

165. Nickolas J. Themelis and Alexander F. Gregory. “Sources and Material Balance of Mercury in the New York-New Jersey Harbor.” Paper presented at the New York

Academy of Sciences (October 2001).

166. John L. Sznopek and Thomas G. Goonan. “The Materials Flow of Mercury in the Economies of the U.S. and the World,” U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1197.

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

banned since the 1980s, and the importation of mercury-

containing batteries was halted in the mid-1990s.

Approximately 2000 kg of mercury in button cell batteries

was sold in the year 2000.167 Scaling for the regional pop-

ulation gives an estimate of nearly 120 kg/yr. A conserva-

tive estimate for button cell battery recycling for the region

is 10%.168 Assuming that batteries being sold are replacing

those being thrown away produces an estimate of approx-

imately 100 kg/yr for release of mercury after subtracting

out the recycled mercury. It is assumed that all of the bat-

teries are sent to the trash; and, after processing of solid

waste (see description of solid waste steps in box above),

about 1kg/yr is released into the air through incineration,

and 99 kg/yr goes to landfills and monofills.

Fluorescent Lamps

The mercury released from fluorescent lamps in the

Watershed was calculated in two ways: (1) Using nation-

al data on estimates of mercury releases from discarded

fluorescent tubes (20,000 kg) scaled to regional popula-

tion (5.8%) and assuming a recycling rate of 20% gives a

mercury release of 1,040 kg/yr. (2) Using national esti-

mates of the three major lamp size groups sold in the

Watershed multiplied by their average mercury content

(assuming that every lamp sold is replacing a discarded

lamp that was originally purchased in 1996) gives an esti-

mate of 741 kg/yr. (It is assumed that lamps discarded in

2001 were produced 5 years earlier. Mercury content has

been steadily decreasing in fluorescent lamps).169

Recycling rates of lamps vary regionally, and this region

is believed to have a low rate of recycling; because no real

estimate could be obtained, the national estimate of 20%

was used.170 Thus the average amount of mercury

released from fluorescent lamps is 712 kg/yr, rounded to

700 kg/yr. Of this 700 kg, approximately 25%,171 or 175

kg/yr, volatilizes. The remaining mercury (525 kg/yr) goes

to solid waste. After secondary treatment and processing

of solid waste, 181 kg/yr is released into the air from

volatilization and incineration, and the remainder (593

kg) goes to landfills and monofills.

Switches

Switches in cars, appliances, and lighting fixtures can con-

tain mercury. Cars and appliances generally are sent to

shredders and scrap yards and eventually are sent to EAFs

for smelting. Lighting fixtures are disposed of in the trash

as solid waste.

Lighting: Discarded switches from the lighting indus-

try are typically sent to regular trash or demolition debris.

National estimates for disposal of mercury in switches

(1,930 kg/yr172) were scaled to the regional population

(5.8%), resulting in a regional estimate of 112 kg (round-

ed to 100 kg/yr of mercury available for release in the

Watershed). Assuming all of this mercury goes to solid

waste, the final distributions after processing of solid

waste are: 1kg/yr released into the air from incineration

and 99 kg/yr to landfills and monofills.

Appliances: The number of mercury switches in appli-

ances has decreased drastically in the last 10 years. Only

one gas pilot range is still being made with a mercury

switch. Appliances being disposed of now, however, may

still contain mercury switches, and so there is still a small

source of mercury from the disposal of appliances. This

number will drop with time as the older appliances are

discarded. There are close to 6 million households in the

Watershed, and it is estimated that 0.35 appliances are dis-

carded per household each year.173 The average mercury

content of appliances is 0.001 kg,174 resulting in 25 kg/yr

released from this sector. Because appliances are generally

sent to smelting facilities that do not have mercury collec-

tion devices, approximately 7kg/yr is released to air, and

the remainder (18 kg) is buried in landfills and monofills.

Automobiles: Estimates for mercury releases from

automobile switches are based on a number of different

calculations. Using an estimate of the number of cars in

the Watershed (over 7 million), a disposal rate of 10%,175

and an average amount of mercury in switches per car

(0.001 kg176) and accounting for a 6% recycling rate gives

an estimate of 700 kg/yr. Alternatively, using the national

estimates of numbers of vehicles retired each year (12 mil-

lion177), adjusted for regional population (5.8% of the

167. Barr Engineering Company. Substance Flow Analysis of Mercury in Products. Prepared for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (August, 2001).

168. Leo Cohen, Mercury Refining Corporation, Albany NY, personal communication.

169. Fluorescent Lamps and the Environment; http://www.nema.org

170. B. Jantzen, personal communication.

171. Estimates for volatilization range from 20 to 80%. We used the 25% cited by the N.J. Mercury Task Force and Barr Engineering Company, Substance Flow Analysis

of Mercury in Products, prepared for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (August 2001).

172. The Pollution Prevention Partnership and the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (1997). “Mercury Source Sector Assessment for the Greater Milwaukee Area.”

173. Ibid.

174. Ibid.

175. T. Corbett, NYS DEC Mercury Reduction Plan, personal communication.

176. Ibid.

177. Charles Griffith, Jeff Gearhart and Hans Posset (January 2001). Toxics in Vehicles: Mercury—Implications for Recycling and Disposal.

APPENDICIES 63

national) and assuming a switch to vehicle ratio of 1.6178

and a mercury content of 0.001 kg, gives an estimate of

837 kg/yr for the Watershed (assuming the 6% recycling

rate). A third calculation is based on estimates of how

much mercury is in cars on the road in the Watershed

(9,976 to 11,600 kg) and a disposal rate of 10% yearly.

After accounting for a 6% recycling rate, this gives an esti-

mate of 938 to 1,090 kg/yr released. An average of these

calculations gives an estimate of 891 kg rounded up to

900 kg/yr. All of the cars are sent to EAFs to recover the

metals. Approximately one-third, or 300 kg/yr, is released

to the air during the smelting process, and the remainder

(600 kg/yr) is sent to landfills/monofills as ash/waste.

Thermostats

The releases of mercury from thermostats was calculated

using estimates of the number of units disposed of nation-

ally (2,619,000),179 adjusted for regional population and the

average mercury concentration per thermostat (4

grams180), resulting in 607 kg/yr of mercury available for

release. This number was corrected for the amount of

mercury recycled in thermostats in the region (10 kg)181

and rounded off to 600 kg/yr. This mercury is sent to solid

waste (trash and demolition debris). After processing of

solid waste (see description of solid waste steps in box

above), approximately 7kg/yr is released to air from incin-

eration and 593 kg/yr goes to landfills and monofills.

Summary of releases

The following tables summarize the previous descriptions

for the distribution of the mercury after initial release

through intermediate processing (where applicable)

through final release to air, water, fertilizer, and landfills

and monofills. Note that mercury associated with ash after

incineration is sent to landfills and monofills.

178. Ibid.

179. The Pollution Prevention Partnership and the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (1997). “Mercury Source Sector Assessment for the Greater Milwaukee

Area.”

180. http://www.nema.org

181. Ibid. Thermostat Recycling Corporation statistics are on this web page.

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

TABLE 11. Initial Releases of Mercury to Air, Wastewater, and Solid Waste

Total To Air via Air via To Waste- To Solid

Initial Releases kg/yr Combustion Volatilization water Waste

Automobiles/fuel combustion 150 150

Crematoria 25 25

Dental facilities 4,000 1,000 3,000

Hospitals 1,400 60 700 640

Households: Furnaces 150 150

Products/waste 250 250

Thermometers 500 50 100 350

Industrial/commercial furnaces 350 350

Laboratories 600 15 400 185

Utilities: Furnaces 400 400

Batteries 100 100

Fluorescent lamps 700 175 525

Switches (appliances) 25 25

Switches (vehicles) 900 900

Switches (lighting) 100 100

Thermostats 600 600

TOTAL 10,250 1,075 300 2,450 6,425

TABLE 12. Intermediate Releases from Wastewater

Dental Household Thermo- Labora-

Intermediate Releases Facilities Hospitals Products meters tories Total

Initial release to wastewater 1,000 700 250 100 400

20% to effluent 200 140 50 20 80 490

80% to Sludge 800 560 200 80 320

70% of sludge is from N.Y. 560 392 140 56 224

30% of sludge is from N.J. 240 168 60 24 96

Sludge 800 560 200 80 320

Incineration (25% both states) 200 140 50 20 80

To air from incineration 66 46 17 7 26 162

Remainder to landfill ash 134 94 34 13 54 329

Fertilizer (50% NY; 65% NJ) 436 305 109 44 174 1,068

To landfill (25% NY; 10% NJ) 164 115 41 16 66 402

APPENDICIES 65

TABLE 13. Intermediate Releases from Solid Waste (SW) to MWC (kg/yr)

One-third of To air To ash

Initial SW to from from Two-thirds of

release Incineration Incineration Incineration SW directly

Intermediate releases To SW (MWC) (3.5%) (96.5%) to landfill

Dental facilities 3,000 1,000 35 965 2,000

Hospitals 640 213 7 206 427

Household thermometers 350 117 4 113 233

Laboratories 185 62 2 60 123

Batteries 100 33 1 32 67

Fluorescent lamps 525 175 6 169 350

Switches (lighting) 100 33 1 32 67

Thermostats 600 200 7 193 400

TOTAL 5,400 1,833 64 1,769 3,667

TABLE 14. Intermediate Releases from Solid Waste to EAF (kg/yr)

To air from To ash from

Initial All to Incineration Incineration

Intermediate releases release Incineration (1/3) (2/3)

Switches (appliances) 25 25 8 17

Switches (vehicles) 900 900 300 600

TOTAL 925 925 308 617

TABLE 15 Final Releases (kg/yr) (Summary of Tables 11 to 14)

Landfill/

Final Releases Air Effluent Fer tilizer monofill Total

From wastewater 162 490 1,068 731

From solid waste to MWC 64 5,436

From solid waste to EAF 308 617

Combustion 1,075

Volatilization 300

TOTAL 1,909 490 1,068 6,783 10,250

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

6.2 Use and Release Spreadsheets

Automobiles—Internal Fuel Combustion Mercury Usage

SUMMARY

No intentional usage of mercury in automobiles

Only incidental releases

Automobiles—Internal Fuel Combustion Mercury Available for Release

SUMMARY

Range of releases kg/yr Confidence level Automobile emissions (kg/yr)

Calculation # 1 114 M/L (Based on Estimated Range) (Based on Confidence level)

202 M/L 150 +/- 50 150 +/- 60%

Average 158 +/- 44

CALCULATION # 1

Range

4,590,000 4,590,000 registered cars in NY watershed region1

+ 2,854,740 2854,740 registered cars in NJ watershed region2

7,444,740 7,444,740 total number of registered cars in watershed

x 13,000 13,000 miles travelled per autombile per year3

96,781,620,000 96,781,620,000 miles travelled by all automobiles registered in the watershed per year

x 2.6E-09 4.6E-09 mercury released per travelled mile (in lb)4

252 445 mercury released per year by all automobiles registered in watershed (lb)

114 202 mercury released per year by all automobiles registered in watershed

region (kg)

NOTES

1. Census 2000; http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/statepop. New York State population in 2000 was 18,976,457. The NY State population in the

watershed area is 10.4 million, or almost 54% of the state population. There are approximately 8.5 million registered cars in New York state

(http://www.albany.net/~gra/newsltrs.1998/nov98.htm).

2. Census 2000; http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/statepop.html. The population in the NJ State in 2000 was 8,414,350 and for the watershed 4.2

million. This represents about 49% of the state population. There are 5,826,000 registered cars in the state of New Jersey (http://www.bergen.com/special/autos/

19400611.htm), of which 49% are assigned to the watershed.

3. The Pollution Prevention Partnership and the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (1997); Mercur y Source Sector Assessment for the Greater Milwaukee Area.

4. The higher estimate is by EPA (1997); the lower estimate is based on more recent measurements of mercury in gasoline (Michael Aucott, NJ Mercury Task Force,

personal communication, October 2001).

APPENDICIES 67

Batteries Mercury Usage

SUMMARY

kg* Confidence Level Batteries—Usage (kg/yr)

Calculation 1: 116 M (Based on estimated range) (Based on Confidence level)

Calculation 2: 119 M/L 125 +/-5 125 +/- 60%

118 +/-1.5

CALCULATION # 1

2,000 kg of mercury in batteries sold in the U.S. in the year 20001

x 5.8 % of the US population in the watershed region2

116 kg of mercury in batteries sold in the watershed region in the year 2000

CALCULATION # 2

29,700 flasks of mercury used by the U.S. battery industry in 19843

x 76 lbs. per flask

2,257,200 lbs. consumed by the battery industry in 1984

x 0.05 % consumption of mercury by the U.S. battery after regulation3

1,129 lbs. consumed by the battery industry

x 2.2 kg per lb.

513 kg of mercury consumed by the U.S. battery industry after regulation

x 4 imported batteries in the year 2000 represent 75% of the U.S. battery market4

2052 kg of mercury in all batteries (domestic and imported) sold in the U.S. in the

year 2000

x 5.8 % of the US population in the watershed region2

119 kg of mercury consumed in the watershed region

NOTES

* Based on year 2000 data; usage of button cell batteries containing mercury is decreasing as substitutes are now available.

1. Barr Engineering Company (August, 2001); Substance Flow Analysis of Mercury in Products; prepared for Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Barr Engineering Co.,

4700 77th street, Minneapolis MN 55435. This estimate includes imported batteries (75% of the U.S. batteries are imported).

2. Census 2000; the US population in 2000 was 285.3 million. The population in the NY State are of the watershed is 10.4 million and in NJ is 4.2 million, for a total

of 5.2% of the US population. When adjusted by the level of economic activity in the region, the estimate rises to 5.8% of the national population. http://www.

census.gov/population/www/estimates/statepop.html and http://www.bea.doc/bea/regional/spi.

3. The battery industry reports that the United States battery industry's 1994 consumption of mercury was 99.41% less than its 1984 consumption rate (29,700

flasks in 1984, one flask = 76 pounds, to 174 flasks in 1994.) During this same time period, annual sales of alkaline batteries in the United States increased 150%.

http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/bns/mercury/stephgapp.html

4. Barr Engineering Company (August, 2001)

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

Batteries Mercury Available for Release

SUMMARY

kg* Confidence level Batteries—Estimated releases (kg/year)

Calculation # 1 106 L (Based on Confidence level)

100 +/- 70%

CALCULATION # 1

118 kg of mercury in batteries sold in the watershed region in the year 20001

10 % recycling rate2

12 kg recycled

106 kg of mercury disposed of in the Watershed in button cell batteries3

NOTES

* Usage of button cell batteries containing mercury is decreasing as substitutes are now available. This will result in reduced releases in the future.

1. For explanation of how this estimate was calculated, see Batteries Usage Section; for this calculation we assume that batteries being sold are replacing batteries

that are being disposed. Mercury button cell batteries are in the process of being phased out, however the phase out rate is slower than predicted by the industries

involved.

2. Maximum rate; pers. comm. Leo Cohen, Mercury Refining Corporation, Albany NY

APPENDICIES 69

Crematoria Mercury Usage

SUMMARY

No intentional usage of mercury in crematoria

Only incidental releases

Crematoria Mercury Available for Release

SUMMARY

Range of releases kg/yr Confidence level Crematoria (kg/yr)

Calculation # 1 17 M (Based on Estimated Range) (Based on Confidence level)

35 M 25 +/- 10 25 +/- 50%

Calculation # 2 19 M

32 M

Average 25 +/- 9

CALCULATION # 1

Range

45 45 crematories in the watershed area (servicing 430 cemeteries)1

x 612 778 average cremations per crematoria2

27,540 35,010 average number of cremations in region

x 0.0006 0.001 kg released per cremation3

17 35 kg of mercury released by crematories in the watershed

CALCULATION # 2

Range

606,307 606,307 cremations in the US in year 20002

x 5.2% 5.2 % of the US population in the watershed4

31,528 31,528 cremations in the watershed in year 20002

x 0.0006 0.001 kg released per cremation3

19 32 kg of mercury released by crematories in the watershed

NOTES

1. Information was compiled from CenStats (1997SIC Comparison) Zip Code Business Patterns at http://tier2.census.gov/cgi-win/zbp/compares

2. http://www.nfda.org/resources/cremationstats.html Statistics for New Jersey are as follows: 21,623 cremations in 1999. Adjusting this figure to the watershed area

(49% of the state), results in 10,595 cremations. In New York State there were 16,947 recorded cremations in 1999. Adjusting this statistic to the watershed area

(54% of the state), results in 16,947 cremations. The total number of cremations in the watershed is 27,542 or 612 cremations for each of the 45 crematoria in

this region. The higher estimate of 778 cremations per crematoria is given at www.biomed.lib.umn.edu/hw/cremstats.html

3. The Pollution Prevention Partnership and the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (1997); Mercur y Source Sector Assessment for the Gr eater Milwaukee Area

reports actual measurements from a Swedish study as 0.6 grams of Hg per cremation and gives a higher estimate of 1 gram of Hg per cremation in U.S, assuming

that Americans use more mercury amalgams than the Swedish population.

4. The U.S. population in 2000 was 285.3 million. The population in the NY State area of the watershed is 10.4 million and in NJ is 4.2 million or a total of 5.2% of

the US population. http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/statepop.html. No adjustment to the level of economic activity is granted here.

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

Dental Sector* Mercury Usage

SUMMARY

kg/yr Confidence Level

Calculation 1: 2,644 M Dental Sector Usage (kg/yr)

3,582 M (does not include mercury amalgams removed)

Calculation 2: 3,191 M/L (Based on Estimated Range) (Based on Confidence level)

5,877 M/L 3,600 +/- 1,300 3,600 +/- 60%

Calculation 3: 2,725 M/L

Average 3,604 +/- 1326

CALCULATION # 1

Range

New mercur y amalgams: 11,240 11,240 dentists in watershed1

x 70% 83 % dentists likely to use mercury amalgams2

7,868 9,329 dentists in watershed using mercury

x 14 16 mercury amalgams completed per dentist per week, on average3

110,152 149,267 mercury amalgams completed by dentists in watershed/week

x 48 48 weeks per year4

5,287,296 7,164,826 mercury amalgams completed by dentists in watershed/year

x 0.0005 0.0005 kg of mercury used per amalgam (median spill size)5

Subtotal A 2,644 3,582 kg of hg used at dental offices

Mercur y amalgams removed:** 11,240 11,240 dentists in watershed (all dentists remove mercury amalgams)1

x 70% 83 % dentists likely to use mercury amalgams2

7,868 9,329 dentists in watershed using mercury

x 16 17 amalgams removed per dentist per week, on average3

125,888 158,596 mercury amalgams removed by dentists in watershed/week

x 48 48 weeks per year4

6,042,624 7,612,627 mercury amalgams removed by dentists in watershed/year

x 0.0004 0.0004 kg of mercury removed per old amalgam6

Subtotal B 2,417 3,045 kg of mercury removed by all dentists in watershed

Total 5,061 6,627 kg of mercury mobilized in dental offices per year

CALCULATION # 2

Mercur y usage by dental sector:

Range

0.00169 0.002625 kg managed/dentist/day7

x 240 240 working days4

0.4056 0.6300 kg of mercury managed/dentist/year

x 7,868 9,329 dentists in watershed working with mercury amalgams1

3,191 5,877 kg of mercury managed/dentists/year in watershed2

APPENDICIES 71

CALCULATION # 3

Mercur y inflows: 48,000 kg of mercury used nationwide by the dental sector per year8

x 5.8 % of the US population in the watershed9

2,784 kg of mercury used in the watershed

mercury used by dental clinics in hospitals (see page on hospital use of

- 59 mercury amalgam)

Total: 2,725 used by dental offices in region

NOTES

* Does not include dental clinics at hospitals. These are accounted for in the hospital sector.

**To provide a picture of how much Hg is mobilized in dental offices per year (from amalgams used and removed).

1. There are 17,026 licensed and registered dentists in New York State, with 6,073 dentists in the NY watershed area. (Rita St. John, Professional, Licensing Services,

Public Information Unit of NY State Education Department, personal communication, April 2001). There are approximately 10,000 dentists in NJ State (NJ Board of

Dentistry, Licensing Board, May 2001); and about 5,167 dentists within the NJ watershed area (Grace Garcia, Division of Consumer Affairs, NJ; personal communi-

cation, April 23, 2001).

2. The estimate of dentists using mercury ranges from 70% to 83% of the total. Not all dentists use mercury, either because they are specialists (e.g. orthodontists)

or they have already substituted for non-mercury amalgam. The Water Environmental Federation (1999) Controlling Dental Facility Discharges in Wastewater: How to

Develop and Administer a Source Control Program. Also, NYC DEP (November 1999) 1998 Headworks Analysis Repor t.

3. A survey of dentists by a POTW in Minnesota, indicates that the average rate of placing filings is 17.9 per week per general dentist, and 17.6 removed filings on

average per dentist per week. Another estimate indicates that the average rate of amalgam placement for all dentists is 14 restorations per week since specialists

(e.g., orthodontists) are not involved in amalgam restorations. Information from: Metropolitan Council Environmental Ser vices (1997) Dental Clinic and Other Sources

of Mercur y to a WWTP (Peter Berglund, P.E., MCES, St. Paul, MN). Another report in Seattle indicates similar rates (17 removed and 16 placed per dentist per week).

The Water Environment Federation (1999) Controlling Dental Facility Discharges in Wastewater: How to Develop and Administer a Source Control Program, (WEF,

Alexandria, VA).

4. Most reports, including those cited above, assume that dental offices operate for an average of 48 weeks, or 240 days, per year.

5. The average mercury restoration contains 500 mg of mercury. There are various spill sizes, depending on the size of the restoration: single (327mg of Hg), double

(491mg), and triple (654 mg). Some restorations require a larger amalgam spill (with 982 mg) but this number has not been included in the calculation because

there is very little data on this spill size usage. Information from The Water Environment Federation (1999), Controlling Dental Facility Discharges in Wastewater:

How to Develop and Administer a Source Control Program (WEF, Alexandria, VA). Also http://www.sullivanschein.com (amalgam distributor) for mercury content of

different spill sizes.

6. It is estimated that approximately 80% of the mercury used in amalgam restorations is released during replacement. Mary Joy Del Conte (1997) A Mercur y Pollution

Prevention Study for Medical and Dental Centers, Findings Report; prepared for the Monroe County Mercury Pollution Prevention Task Force. Rochester, NY.

7. The quantities of amalgam used are based on an annual estimate of 0.9 to 1.4 kg of amalgam per dentist in the U.S. Since amalgam contains only 45% mercury,

and assuming dentists work 240 days per year, the daily estimate is 0.00169 to 0.002625 kg of mercury per dentist/day. Water Environmental Federation (1999)

Controlling Dental Facility Discharges in Wastewater - How to Develop and Administer a Source Control Program.

8. Total consumption of mercury by the dental sector in the U.S. fluctuates annually; the average from 1986 to 1997 is 48 tons/yr. John L. Sznopek and Thomas G.

Goonan, The Material Flow of Mercur y in the Economies of the United States and the World, US Geological Circular 1197 (Washington, DC: US Department of the

Interior and USGS, 2000. Also, Naval Dental Research Institute (January 2000); Scientific Review of Issues Impacting Dentistry, 2 (1).

9.Census 2000; US population in 2000 was 285.3million. The population in the NY State area of the watershed is 10.4 million and in NJ is 4.2 million or a total of

5.2% of the US population. When adjusted by the level of economic activity in the region, the estimate rises to 5.8% of the national population. http://www.cen-

sus.gov/population/www/estimates/statepop.html and http://www.bea.doc./bea/regional/spi.

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

Dental Sector* Mercury Available for Release

SUMMARY

kg/yr Confidence level

Calculation # 1 2,532 M/L Dental Sector (kg/yr)

5,385 M/L (Based on Estimated Range) (Based on Confidence level)

Average 3,959 +/-1,136 4,000 +/- 1,100 4,000 +/- 60%

(For wastewater discharges only) Wastewater discharges only

kg/yr Confidence level 25% of total releases: 1,000 +/- 60%

Calculation # 2 472 M/L

1,731 M/L

Calculation # 3 534 M/L

1,013 M/L

Average 937 M/L

24 % of total releases from dental offices are discharged to wastewater

CALCULATION # 1

Total releases from dental offices

Range

2,644 5,877 kg/yr of mercury used in application of new mercury amalgams1

x 15 % 50 % of mercury used during application becomes waste2

397 2,939 kg/yr available for release from application of dental amalgam

+ 2,417 3,045 kg/yr of mercury released during removal of old amalgam3

Sub-total 2,814 5,984 kg/yr available for release

–281 598 kg/yr recycled (assuming a 10% recycling rate)

Total 2,532 5,385 kg/yr released

CALCULATION # 2

Water Discharges Only Range

11,240 11,240 dentists in the watershed region4

x 70 % 83 % dentists in watershed use mercury5

7,868 9,329 dentists in watershed using mercury

x 0.000250 0.000773 kg of mercury discharged per dentist per day6

1.97 7.21 kg of mercury discharged by all dentists in watershed region per day

x 240 240 working days in a year7

472 1,731 kg of mercury released from dental offices in Watershed per year

APPENDICIES 73

CALCULATION # 3

Water Discharges Only

Median mercury discharge from dental chairs

Range

11,240 11,240 dentists in the watershed region4

x 70 % 83% dentists in watershed use mercury5

7,868 9,329 dentists in watershed using mercury

x 1 1.6 dental chairs per dentist5

7,868 14,927 dental chairs in watershed

x 88 % 88 % of dentists use 210 micron filter + chairside filter5

6,924 13,136 dental chairs using 210 micron filter + chairside filter

x 0.00025 0.00025 kg of mercury (median release from each dental chair with 210 micron filter

plus chairside filter)5

2 3 kg of mercury released/day from dental chairs using both filters in watershed

x 240 240 working days7

Sub-total A 415 788 kg of mercury released by dental offices using both filters per year

11,240 11,240 dentists in the watershed region4

70 % 83 % dentists in watershed use mercury5

7,868 9,329 dentists in watershed using mercury

x 1 1.6 dental chairs per dentist5

7,868 14,927 dental chairs in watershed

x 0.12 0.12 use only a chairside filter5

944 1,791 dental chairs using only a chairside filter

x 0.000522 0.000522 kg of mercury released/day/dental chair using only a chairside filter5

0.49285 0.93501 kg of mercury released/day/dental chair using only chair-side filters

x 240 240 working days7

Sub-total B 118 224 kg of mercury released by dental offices using only chair-side filters

TOTAL (A+B) 534 1,013 kg of mercury released TO WASTEWATER by offices per year

NOTES

*Except for dental clinics in hospitals

1. See dental offices' mercury usage page in this appendix.

2. Dentist use the appropriate spill size capsules, which contain enough amalgam to fill the cavity ("packing") plus extra amount to ensure enough amalgam to achieve

proper finished restoration. This additional amount is called "overpack" and is discarded through the vacuum pump, down the cuspidor, or recovered as solid waste.

The estimate that half of the mercury used per amalgam restoration may be released is from: Mary Joy Del Conte (1997) A Mercur y Pollution Prevention Study for

Medical and Dental Centers, Findings Report; Prepared for The Monroe County Mercury Pollution Prevention Task Force, Rochester, NY, page 12. Also, Bill Johnson,

EIP Associates (2000); Technical Memorandum to Stephanie Hughes, Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plan; Re: Mercury Amalgam Treatment Technologies

for Dental Offices. The lower estimate has been suggested by dental association representatives at a meeting at the NY Academy of Sciences, on Januar y 16, 2002.

3. See dental usage (mercury amalgams removed) for calculation of this range.

4. There are approximately 11,240 dentists in the watershed area (6,073 and 5,167 for NY and NJ counties respectively). There are 17,026 licensed and registered

dentists in New York State, with 6,073 in the watershed area (Rita St. John, Professional, Licensing Services, Public Information Unit of NY State Education

Department, personal communication, April 2001). There are approximately 10,000 dentists in NJ State (NJ Board of Dentistry, Licensing Board, May 2001); and

about 5,167 dentists within the NJ watershed area (Grace Garcia, Division of Consumer Affairs, NJ; personal communication, April 23, 2001).

5. The estimate of dentists using mercury ranges from 70% to 83% of the total. Not all dentists use mercury, either because they are specialists (e.g. orthodontists)

or they have already substituted for non-mercury amalgam. The Water Environmental Federation (1999) Controlling Dental Facility Discharges in Wastewater: How to

Develop and Administer a Source Control Program. Also, NYC DEP (November 1999) 1998 Headworks Analysis Repor t. For information on number of working days,

and percentage of dentists using chairside and other filters.

6. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services and Minnesota Dental Association (December 2001) Evaluation of Amalgam Removal Equipment and Dental Clinic

Loadings to the Sanitary Sewer, pg. 50.

7. Most reports, including those cited above, assume that dental offices operate for an average of 48 weeks, or 240 days, per year.

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

Fluorescent Lamps Mercury Usage

SUMMARY

kg/yr* Confidence Level

Calculation # 1 754 M/L Fluorescent Lamps—Usage (kg/yr)

Calculation # 2 578 M/L (Based on Estimated Range) (Based on Confidence level)

Average 666 +/- 80 650 +/- 100 650 +/- 60%

CALCULATION # 1

13,000 kg of mercury in lamps sold in the U.S. in 19991

x 5.8 % of the U.S. population living in the watershed area3

754 kg of mercury in lamps sold in the watershed in 1999

CALCULATION # 2

650,000,000 total fluorescent tubes and HID units sold in the U.S. per year2

88 % are fluorescent tubes**

8 % are compact fluorescent lamps**

5 % are high intensity discharge (HID) lamps**

88% 572,000,000 fluorescent tubes sold in the US / year

x 5.8 % of the US population living in the NY/NJ Harbor watershed3

33,176,000 fluorescent lamps sold in the watershed area

x 0.000013 kg of mercury per lamp of 4-feet lamps, on average (variable according to

year of production)4

Subtotal A 431 kg of mercury used in fluorescent lamps in the watershed

8% 48,750,000 compact fluorescent lamps sold in the US / year2

x 5.8 % of the US population living in the NY/NJ Harbor watershed3

2,827,500 compact fluorescent lamps sold in the watershed

x 0.000010 kg of mercury (minimum) per compact fluorescent5

Subtotal B 28 kg of mercury used in HID lamps in the watershed area

5% 29,250,000 HID lamps sold in the US / year

x 5.8 % of the US population living in the NY/NJ Harbor watershed3

1,696,500 HID lamps are sold in the watershed per year

x 0.00007 kg of mercury on average per HID lamp5

Subtotal C 119 kg of mercury used in HID lamps in the watershed

Total (A+B+C) 578 kg of mercury in lamps sold in the watershed

NOTES

* The estimate for mercury in lamps represents only 50% of the mercury used by the Lighting Manufacturing Industry. The other 50% is used during the process of

production, where it is recovered and sent to distillers for treatment and reuse. (NEMA)

**Due to rounding, reported percentages may not add to 100%

National Electrical Manufacturers Association, NEMA (2001) Fluorescent Lamps and the Environment, http://www.nema.org. This report states that Hg used by the lighting

industry has decreased, from 57 tons in 1984 to 32 tons in 1997 and 13 tons in 1999. Fluorescent lamps manufactured in 1999 have only 13 mg of mercury on average.

2.Sustainable Conservation (2000), Reducing Mer cury Releases fr om Fluorescent Lamps: Analysis of Voluntary Approaches http://www.suscon.org/reports

3. Census 2000; US population in 2000 was 285.3m. The population in the NY State area of the watershed is 10.4m and in NJ is 4.2m or a total of 5.2% of the US

population. After adjusting by the level of disposable income, the estimate is 5.8% of the national population. http://www.census.gov/population/www/esti-

mates/statepop.html and http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/spi

4.NEMA (2001); Fluorescent Lamps and the Environment; http://www.nema.org. This report states that the current mercury content of a 4 foot fluorescent lamp ranges

from 10 to 15 mg. Barr Engineering Company (2001) Substance Flow Analysis of Mercur y in Products states that the average in 2000 was 13 mg per lamp. The

average mercury content of fluorescent lamps in 1985 was 48.5 mg. Multiplying all fluorescent lamps by 13 mg is likely to underestimate the mercury in fluores-

cent tubes because 6' and 8' tubes have more mercury content.

5. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/hwtr/demodebris/pages2/demolight/html.HIDLMP. A 75 KwH lamp contains 20 mg of mercury and a 1,000KwH contains 250mg.

The average mercury content is estimated as about 70 mg per lamp; http://www.erendoe.gov/erec/factsheets/eelight.html

APPENDICIES 75

Fluorescent Lamps Mercury Available for Release

SUMMARY*

kg/yr* Confidence Level

Calculation # 1 593 M Fluorescent Lamps (kg/yr)

Calculation # 2 832 M (Based on Estimated Range) (Based on Confidence level)

Average 712 +/- 120 700 +/- 150 700 +/- 50%

CALCULATION # 1

0.000018 kg per fluorescent tube discarded in 2001 (1996 production)1

x 31,517,200 fluorescent tubes sold in the watershed in 19962

Subtotal A 567 kg of mercury released from discarded fluorescent tubes in the watershed

0.000015 kg per compact fluorescent lamp discarded in 20013

x 2,955,680 compact fluorescent lamps sold in watershed in 19964

Subtotal B 44 kg of mercury released from discarded compact fluorescents in the watershed

0.00007 kg per HID lamp discarded in 20013

x 1,847,300 HID lamps sold in the watershed in 19965

Subtotal C 129 kg of mercury discarded from HID lamps in the watershed today

Total(A+B+C) 741 kg of mercury available for release in the watershed (2001)

- 20 % of lamps recycled in watershed7

593 kg of mercury released in watershed in year 2001

CALCULATION # 2

Overall releases from discarded lamps

20,000 kg of mercury in fluorescent lamps disposed in US8

x 5.8 % of the US population living in the NY/NJ Harbor watershed9

1,040 kg of mercury available for release in the watershed in 1999

- 20 % of lamps recycled in watershed7

832 kg of mercury released in the watershed in 1999

NOTES

* Summary represents mercury in lamps discarded in the year 2001, which were produced five years prior. The industry mercury usage has decreased in the last

decade (see Fluorescent Lamps Usage).

1. Mercury content in fluorescent lamps has declined, from 50 mg on average in 1985 to 23 mg in 1994 to 13 mg in 2000. Here we assume that the lamps being

discarded in 2001 were produced at least five years before, around 1996. We use the average of 18 mg for this year, using the data from 1994 and 1999 report-

ed in NEMA, Environmental Impact Analysis (2000), http://www.nema.org

Assuming the market for fluorescent lamps in the watershed was 95% of current market. Martha Bell, Association for Energy Affordability, NYC, pers. comm, October 2001.

3. www.ecy.gov/programs/hwtr/demodebris/pages2/demolight.html; This is an average mercury content for discarded lamps.

4. Assuming market for compact fluorescent lamps in the watershed was 98% of current market. Martha Bell, Association for Energy Affordability, NYC, pers. comm,

October 2001.

5. Assuming market for HID lamps in the watershed was 98% of current market. Martha Bell, Association for Energy Affordability, NYC, pers. comm, October 2001.

6. Estimates for volatilization range from 20% to 80%. Here 25% is used. Barr Engineering Company (2001) Substance Flow Analysis of Mercur y in Products.

Proportions are reported on release distribution by pathway. Also, Michael Aucott, NJ DEP and NJ Mercury Task Group, personal communication.

7. The watershed recycling rate is assumed to be the same as the national rate of 20% given by Paul Ebernathy, Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers; per-

sonal communication 2-25-02. Brian Jantzen suggested that the regional recycling rate may be lower than the national rate, personal communication, April 2001.

8. Brian Jantzen (February 28, 2001); Testimony Before the Environmental Protection Committee of the NYC Council

9. Census 2000; US population in 2000 was 285.3 million. The population in the NY State area of the watershed is 10.4 million and in NJ is 4.2 million or a total

of 5.2% of the US population. When this estimate is adjusted by the level of disposal income in the region, it rises to 5.8% of the national population.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/statepop.html and http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/spi/.

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

Hospitals Mercury Usage

SUMMARY

kg/yr* Confidence Level

Calculation # 1 8,601 M Hospitals—Usage (kg/yr)

Calculation # 2 9,759 M/L (Based on Estimated Range) (Based on Confidence level)

Average 9,180 +/- 579 9,200 +/- 600 9,200 +/- 60%

CALCULATION # 1

Fever thermometers2

0.0007 kg per thermometer1

x 1 unit per bed2

0.0007 kg per bed

x 85,883 beds in 256 hospitals in the watershed3

Total 60 kg of mercury /yr (high turn around of inventory)

Sphygmomanometers4

Mercury in Products & Services (kg)

0.090 kg of mercury per sphygmomanometer4Thermometers 60

x 1 unit per bed5Sphygmomanometers 7,729

0.090 kg of mercury per bed Dental Clinics 95

Total x 85,883 beds in 256 hospitals in the watershed3Laboratories (in hospitals) 716

7,729 kg of mercury in stock TOTAL 8,601

Dental Services:

Amalgam placement 256 hospitals in the watershed3

x 56 % of the hospitals offer dental services3

143 hospitals in the watershed offer dental services3

x 83 % of hospitals with dental facilities are likely to use mercury amalgams6

119 hospitals in the watershed likely to use mercury amalgams

x 1,000 mercury amalgams restorations per hospital per year7

118,989 mercury amalgams placed in watershed hospitals per year

x 0.0005 kg of mercury used per amalgam7

Sub-total A: 59 kg of mercury used per year in hospitals by the watershed

Amalgam removal 1,000 amalgams removed per hospital per year7

x 143 hospitals in the watershed that offer dental services3

143,360 amalgams removed in hospitals of the watershed (all clinics remove amalgams)

x 0.00025 kg of mercury becomes available during removal of old amalgam8

Sub-total B: 36 kg of mercury removed from old amalgams per year by hospitals in watershed

TOTAL (A+B): 95 kg of mercury used/generated per year by hospitals in the watershed

APPENDICIES 77

Laboratories: 1,160 kg of mercury used in laboratories in watershed9

/ 705 total labs in watershed10

2 kg of mercury used/yr/hospital laboratory

x 235 hospitals with general clinical laboratory on site3

Sub-total A: 387 kg of mercury used/yr

2 kg of mercury used/yr/hospital laboratory

x 200 hospitals with a second lab within the facilities3

Sub-total B: 329 kg of mercury used/yr

TOTAL (A+B) 716 kg of hg used/ yr. in hospital laboratories in watershed

Other:

Other minor uses of mercury not accounted for here are gastrointestinal tubes (Cantor, Feeding tubes and Miller

Abbot tubes, and Esophageal dilators); pharmaceutical supplies (Contact lens solutions, nasal spray and vaccines

all containing Thimerosal, as well as diuretics and early pregnancy tests).11 Batteries (button cell); fluorescent

lamps; pressure gauges (barometers, manometers, vacuum gauges); thermostats and switches in hospitals are

accounted for elsewhere in this document.

CALCULATION # 2

Factor 0.114 kg of mercury per hospital bed12

85,883 hospital beds in watershed1

Total: 9,759 kg of mercury in hospitals of the watershed

NOTES

*Current estimate. As Hospitals substitute away from mercury products, the estimate will decrease.

1. Barr Engineering Co., Substance Flow Analysis in Products (2001), prepared for Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Also, in http://www.state.in.us/idem/oppta/p2.

2. The number of mercury thermometers is variable, as many hospitals are replacing them with digital thermometers. The present estimate accounts only for the mer-

cury thermometers that are unlikely to be replaced, such as those used for patients in neo-natal intensive care, and trauma or "burn" units. Strong Memorial Medical

Center, Rochester University (750 beds) still uses an average of 60 thermometers a month (Pers.comm., Marvin Stillman, May 4,2001). A NYC hospital with over

1200 beds uses about 100 mercury thermometers per month (Pers. comm., Colleen Keegan, June 2001) while another hospital with over 800 beds reports that

an average of 20 fever thermometers are discarded per week from neo-natal units. The estimated average is over 1 unit per bed. This figure does not account for

mercury thermometers sent home with the patient. Each fever thermometers contains 0.7 grams of mercury (larger units contain 3 grams). Other thermometers

that are not easily replaced are hypothermia type.

3. Information on hospitals per county and number of beds, laboratories and dental facilities within each hospital is from http://www.hospitalselect.com

4. MERC—Pollution Probe, November (1996) Mercur y in the Health Care Sector: The Cost of Alternative Products. Also, Marvin Stillman, Strong Memorial Medical

Center, University of Rochester, NY; personal communication (May 2001)

5. The number of sphygmomanometers was estimated to be 1 unit per bed based on an actual sur vey at New York Presbyterian Hospital, NY; data obtained by a blind

hospital survey; and personal communication, Marvin Stillman (May 2001) and Colleen Keegan (June 2001). For example, a hospital in NYC with 550-beds had

401 mercury units (not including ambulatory services or clinics) and one in NY State with 750 beds disposed of 900 hg units during renovation (including those in

ambulatory service and clinics). The average is 1 unit per bed with about 90 grams of mercury per unit.

6. NYC DEP (November 1999); 1998 Headworks Analysis report.

7. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (1997). Dental Clinic and Other Sources of Mercur y to a WWTP (Peter Berglund, P.E., MCES, St. Paul, MN). This sur-

vey of dentists in Minnesota, indicates that on average each dentist places 17.9 filings per week, and removes an average of 17.6 filings per week. The Metropolitan

Area Water Environment Federation (1997) Abstract from the Industrial Waste Technical Conference, reports another survey of dentist conducted in Seattle, which

indicates similar rates (17 and 16 / dentist/week). A typical hospital is assumed to place a minimum of 20 amalgams per week, or 960 per year, and remove a

similar amount. The hospital clinics are assumed to work 50 weeks per year.

8. The Metropolitan Area Water Environment Federation (1997)

9. The regional estimate was derived from national inflows of mercury to laboratories, as reported on the USGS report (2000) The Materials Flow of Mercur y in the

Economies of the U.S. and the World, prepared by John L. Sznopek and Thomas Goonan. The national estimate was adjusted to regional demographics and by dis-

posable level of income for the region (http://www.census.gov) and (http://www.bea.doc.gove/bea/regional/spi/). Based on this calculation the watershed region

accounts for 5.8% of the total national population.

10. Information was compiled from CenStats (1997SIC Comparison) Zip Code Business Patterns at http://tier2.census.gov/cgi-win/zbp/compares.exe

11. From NYS DEC (2000) A Pollution Prevention Guide to Reducing Mercur y Emissions From Health Care Facility Incinerators

12. Estimates of total use of mercury per hospital bed are from different regional surveys. They range from 0.25 pounds (http://www.epa.gov/glnpoocs/milwaukee-

hg/mercuryr.pdf) to one pound of mercury per hospital bed (http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/bnsdocs/hgsbook/hospital.pdf). Taking the most conservative estimate

then, (85,883 beds x 0.25lb)= 21,471 lbs. or 9,759 kg of mercury are used by hospitals in the watershed area.

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

Hospitals Mercury Available for Release

SUMMARY

kg/yr* Confidence Level

Calculation # 1 1,366 L Hospitals -Hg Available for Release (kg/yr)

1,386 L Based on estimate range (Based on confidence level)

1,376 +/-10 1,400 +/-10 1,400 +/- 70%

CALCULATION #1

Thermometers

85,883 hospital beds in watershed1

x 10 % of thermometers are assumed to break per year2

8,588 broken thermometers per year in hospitals of the watershed

x 0.0007 kg per unit3Product/Service kg/yr (range) Recycled

6kg/ Thermometers 6 6 1 1

Sphygmomanometers 356 356 36 36

Sphygmomanometers Dental Clinics 45 66 5 7

85,883 sphygmomanometers in all hospitals4Laboratories + 1,002 1,002 0 0

x 90 % wall-mounted units5Sub-total 1408 1430 42 44

77,295 wall-mounted units Recycled - 42 44

x 4 % break per year6Total 1,366 1,386

3,092 wall-mounted units break per year in hospitals of the watershed

x 0.09 kg of mercury per unit7

Sub-total A 278 kg of Hg spilled/yr. from broken wall-mounted sphygmomanometers

85,883 sphygmomanometers in all hospitals4Distribution of initial releases by medium:8

x 10 % mobile units5To To To

8,588 mobile units in hospitals of the watershed Product/Service Air/Volatized Water Landfills Recycled

x 10 % of mobile units break per year6Thermometers 10% 20% 60% 10%

859 units break per year Sphygmomanometers 10% 20% 60% 10%

x 0.09 kg of mercury per unit7Dental Clinics N/A 25% 65% 10%

Sub-total B 77 kg of Hg spilled/yr. from broken mobile units Laboratories 25% 70% 5% 0%

TOTAL (A+B) 356 kg of mercury spilled per year from broken sphygmomanometers in hospitals of the watershed

Dental Services

Range

59 59 kg/yr of Hg used in hospitals' dental facilities9

x 15% 50 % of mercury used per amalgam may be released during placement10

9 30 kg/yr available for release from placement of dental amalgam

+ 36 36 kg/yr of mercury is released during removal of old amalgam11

TOTAL 45 66 kg/yr total available for release at hospitals' dental facilities

APPENDICIES 79

Laboratories

28,000 kg of mercury outflow from U.S. laboratories per year12

x 5.8 % of the US population living in the NY/NJ Harbor watershed13

1,624 kg of hg outflows from all labs in watershed

/ 705 total labs in watershed14

2.30 kg of mercury outflow/laboratory in the watershed/yr.

x 435 laboratories in hospitals in watershed14

1,002 kg of hg outflows from hospital labs

NOTES

* Current level of releases. As Hospitals substitute away from mercury products, the estimate will decrease.

1. See calculation on page for hospitals' mercur y usage.

2. The report from Barr Engineering Co. (August 2001) Substance Flow Analysis of Mercur y in Products estimates that the rate of broken thermometers may be as

high as 50%. However, personal communication (May 2001) with various hospital representatives, indicated that training may have brought that rate down consid-

erably to 10%. The latter, more conservative estimate, is assumed here.

3. Barr Engineering Co. (2001) Substance Flow Analysis in Pr oducts prepared for Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Also, in http://www.state.in.us/idem/oppta/p2

4. The number of sphygmomanometers was estimated to be 1 unit per bed based on an actual survey at New York Presbyterian Hospital, NY; data obtained by a blind

hospital survey; and personal communication, Marvin Stillman (May 2001) and Colleen Keegan (June 2001). For example, a hospital in NYC with 550-beds had

401 mercury units (not including ambulatory services or clinics) and one in NY State with 750 beds disposed of 900 hg units during renovation (including those in

ambulatory service and clinics). The average is 1 unit per bed with about 90 grams of mercury per unit.

5. Survey information and Gregory Camacho, Hospital Risk Manager, NY Presbyterian Hospital; Pers. Comm. (September 2001).

6. Barr Engineering, Co. (2001) and also, Marvin Stillman, Strong Memorial Medical Center, University of Rochester, NY.; personal communication (May 2001) as well

as Gregory Camacho, Hospital Risk Manager, NY Presbyterian Hospital (September 2001).

7. MERC- Pollution Probe (November 1996) Mercur y in the Health Care Sector: The Cost of Alternative Pr oducts.

8. Barr Engineering Co. (2001) reports on distribution from broken thermometers. We assume the same distribution rate for sphygmomanometers. For dental releases,

see dental sector. For laboratories, see Laboratory sector. Estimate confirmed by Gregory Camacho, Hospital Risk Manager, NY Presbyterian. Personal communica-

tion, (September 2001).

9. See page on hospitals' mercur y usage in this appendix.

10. For the higher estimate see: Mary Joy Del Conte (1997) A Mercur y Pollution Prevention Study for Medical and Dental Centers, Findings Report; prepared for The

Monroe County Mercury Pollution Prevention Task Force, Rochester, NY. The lower estimate has been suggested by dental sector representatives at a NYC DEP

CAC meeting in January 2002.

11. See page on hospitals' mer cury usage

12. Regional estimate derived from national outflows of mercur y to laboratories (28 tons/yr), as reported in Sznopek and Goonan (2000) The Materials Flow of Mercury

in the Economies of the U.S. and the World, pg. 7.

13. Census 2000; US population in 2000 was 285.3 million. The population in the NY State area of the watershed is 10.4 million and in NJ is 4.2 million or a total of

5.2% of the US population. When this estimate is adjusted by the level of disposal income in the region, it rises to 5.8% of the national population. http://www.cen-

sus.gov/population/www/estimates/statepop.html and http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/spi/.

14. http://www.hospitalselect.com

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

Households Sector: Residential Furnaces Mercury Usage

SUMMARY

No intentional usage of mercury in households from combination processes

Only incidental releases

Households Sector: Residential Furnaces Mercury Available for Release

SUMMARY

kg/yr Confidence Level Households—(kg/yr)

Calculation # 1 160 M (Based on Confidence level)

150 +/-50%

CALCULATION # 1

Emissions from residential furnaces:

80 kg of mercury emitted in 1998 from residential furnaces in NJ1

+ 200 kg of mercury emitted in 1998 from residential furnaces in NY1

280 kg of mercury emitted in both states by utilities

57 % population of watershed region with respect to both states' population1

160 kg of mercury emitted in 1998 in the watershed by utilities

NOTES

1. Nickolas J. Themelis and Alexander F. Gregory (2001) Sources and Material Balance of Mercur y in the NY/NJ Harbor, report to the New York Academy of Sciences,

October 3, 2001.

APPENDICIES 81

Household Sector: Thermometers Mercury Usage

SUMMARY

kg/yr Confidence level Thermometers—(kg/yr)

Calculation # 1 969 M/L (Based on Confidence level)

1,000 +/- 60%

CALCULATION # 1

0.24 thermometers sold per household in the watershed per year1

5,769,258 households in the watershed2

1,384,622 thermometers sold in the watershed per year

0.70 kg per fever thermometer3

969 kg of mercury in thermometers sold in the watershed per year

NOTES

1. Extrapolated from data for the state of Minnesota; Barr Engineering Co. (2001) Substance Flow Analysis in Products prepared for the Minnesota Pollution Control

Agency.

2. http:www.census.gov. There are 7,056,860 households in New York and 3,064,645 in New Jersey; the population of the watershed represents 57% of the total for

both states.

3. http://www.state.in.us/idem/oppta/p2

Household Sector: Thermometers Mercury Available for Release

SUMMARY

kg/yr Confidence level Thermometers (kg/yr)

Calculation # 1 485 M/L (Based on Confidence level)

500 +/- 60%

CALCULATION # 1

1,384,622 thermometers are sold in the watershed region per year1

x 50 % of sold thermometers replace broken thermometers2

692,311 broken units in the watershed, approximately

x 0.0007 kg per fever thermometer3

485 kg of mercury released per year by households in the watershed region

NOTES

1. From page on thermometers (mercury usage)

2. Follows assumption by Barr Engineering Co. (2001) Substance Flow Analysis in Products that at least half of the sold thermometers replace broken units

3. http://www.state.in.us/idem/oppta/p2

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

Households Sector: Wastewater* Mercury Usage

SUMMARY

No intentional usage of mercury in households (except thermometers)

Only incidental releases

Households Sector: Wastewater* Mercury Available for Release

SUMMARY

kg/yr Confidence Level Households (kg/yr)

Calculation # 1 360 M 350 +/- 50% (minus 100 kg coming from broken

250 +/- 50% thermometers and accounted

for in that section)

CALCULATION # 1

1,400,000,000 gallons discharged at NYC WWTPs per day1

x 365 days /yr

511,000,000,000 gallons per year

x 75 % from households2

383,250,000,000 gallons from households, per year

x 3.8 liters per gallon

1,456,350,000,000 liters from NYC households per year

x 0.000000138 g/L, average mercury concentration of discharge from households in NYC3

201 kg of mercury discharged per year from households

/ 8,008,276 people in NYC4

25.1E-6 kg of mercury discharged in household wastewater per person

x 14,327,871 population in the watershed4

360 kg of mercury discharged in wastewater per year from households in the watershed

NOTES

* Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (August 2000); "Evaluation of Domestic Sources of Mercury" offers a complete list of mercury containing products

found in households.

1. NYC DEP, Philip Heckler, Deputy Director, Environmental Affairs, Bureau of Wastewater Treatment; personal communication, October 2001. and NYC DEP (November

1999); 1998 Headworks Analysis Report.

2. NYC DEP (November 1999); 1998 Headworks Analysis Repor t.

3. Ibid

4. Census 2000; http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/statepop.html.

APPENDICIES 83

Industrial and Commercial Furnaces Mercury Usage

SUMMARY

No intentional usage of mercury from combustion processes in industrial and commercial furnaces

Only incidental releases

Industrial and Commercial Furnaces Mercury Available for Release

SUMMARY

Indust/Comm. Furnaces (kg/yr)

kg/yr Confidence Level (Based on Confidence level)

Calculation # 1 330 M 350 +/-50%

CALCULATION #1

79 kg of mercury emitted in 1998 from industrial and commercial furnaces in NJ1

+ 500 kg of mercury emitted in 1998 from industrial and commercial furnaces in NY1

579 kg of mercury emitted in both states by utilities

57 % population of watershed region with respect to both states' population1

330 kg of mercury emitted in 1998 in the watershed by utilities

NOTES

1. Nickolas J. Themelis and Alexander F. Gregory (2001) Sources and Material Balance of Mercur y in the NY/NJ Harbor. Report to the New York Academy of Sciences,

October 3, 2001.

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

Laboratories (excl. hospitals labs) Mercury Usage

SUMMARY

kg/yr Confidence Level Laboratories (kg/yr)

Calculation # 1 444 L (Based on Confidence level)

450 +/- 70%

CALCULATION #1

20,000 kg of mercury used in laboratories in the US1

x 5.8% of the U.S. population lives in the watershed2

1,160 kg of mercury used in all laboratories in watershed2

/ 705 laboratories in watershed3

1.65 kg of mercury used/laboratory

x 270 total labs in watershed3(not in hospitals)4

444 kg of hg used per year per laboratory in watershed, on average

NOTES

1. Sznopek and Goonan, The Materials Flow of Mercur y in the Economies of the U.S. and the World, p.7.

2. Regional estimate derived from national inflows of mercury to laboratories (20 tons/yr), as reported on USGS (2000). The national estimate was adjusted to regional

demographics and by the level of disposable income for the region (http://www.census.gov) and (http://www.bea.doc.gove/bea/regional/spi/). Based on this calcu-

lation the watershed region accounts for 5.8% of the total national population.

3. Information was compiled from CenStats (1997SIC Comparison) Zip Code Business Patterns at http://tier2.census.gov/cgi-win/zbp/compares.exe

4. Information on hospitals per county and number of beds, laboratories and dental facilities within each hospital is from http://www.hospitalselect.com

APPENDICIES 85

Laboratories (excl. hospitals labs) Mercury Available for Release

SUMMARY

kg/yr Confidence level Laboratories (kg/yr)

Calculation # 1 622 L (Based on Confidence level)

600 +/- 70%

CALCULATION # 1

28,000 kg of hg outflows per year from all laboratories in the US1

x 5.8 % of the U.S. population lives in the watershed2

1,624 kg of hg outflows from all labs in watershed2

/ 705 total labs in watershed3

2.3 kg of mercury per lab4

x 270 labs in the watershed (not in hospitals)

622 kg of mercury from labs (not in hospitals) per year

NOTES

1. USGS (2000) The Materials Flow of Mercur y in the Economies of the U.S. and the World prepared by Sznopek and Goonan, p. 7. This report states indicates that

28 tons of mercury flow out per year from laboratories in the US, more than yearly inflows, due to inventories.

2. Regional estimate derived from national outflows of mercury to laboratories (28 tons/yr), as reported on USGS (2000). The national estimate was adjusted to region-

al demographics and by the level of disposable income for the region (http://www.census.gov) and (http://www.bea.doc.gove/bea/regional/spi/). Based on this cal-

culation the watershed region accounts for 5.8% of the total national population.

3. Information was compiled from CenStats (1997SIC Comparison) Zip Code Business Patterns at http://tier2.census.gov/cgi-win/zbp/compares.exe

4. USGS (2000) p. 21. Two-thirds of the mercury in laboratories is used for reagents and catalysts, which may end up in the wastewater. This report states that, nation-

ally, 90% is recycled. However, Carl Plossl from EPA, Region 2, Compliance Department stated that this is not the case in the watershed region, where recycling is

minimum. Personal communication, October 2001.

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

Switches—Lighting Mercury Usage

SUMMARY

kg/yr Confidence level Lighting Switches (kg/yr)

Calculation # 1 6,844 M/L (Based on Confidence level)

7,000 +/- 60%

CALCULATION # 1

118,000 kg of mercury in use in lighting switches in the US1

x 5.8 % of the US population in the watershed region2

6,844 kg of mercury in lighting switches used in the watershed

NOTES

1. The Pollution Prevention Partnership and the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, (1997) Mercur y Source Sector Assessment for the Gr eater Milwaukee Area

2. Census 2000; http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/statepop. The population of the watershed area represents over 5.2% of the national population.

When this is adjusted by the level of disposable income of the region, this estimate rises to 5.8% of the national population. http://www.census.gov/population/

www/estimates/statepop.html and http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/spi

Switches - Lighting Mercury Available for Release

SUMMARY

kg/yr Confidence level Appliance Switches (kg/yr)

Calculation # 1 112 M/L (Based on Confidence level)

100 +/- 60%

CALCULATION # 1

1,930 kg of mercury in lighting switches disposed per year in the US1

x 5.8 % of the US population in the watershed region2

112 kg of mercury in lighting switches disposed per year in the watershed

NOTES

1. The Pollution Prevention Partnership and the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (1997) Mercur y Source Sector Assessment for the Gr eater Milwaukee Area.

2. Census 2000; http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/statepop. The population of the watershed area represents over 5.2% of the national population.

When this is adjusted by the level of disposable income of the region, this estimate rises to 5.8% of the national population.http://www.census.gov/population/

www/estimates/statepop.html and http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/spi

APPENDICIES 87

Switches—Appliances Mercury Usage

SUMMARY

kg Confidence level Appliance Switches (kg/yr)

Calculation # 1 1,352 M/L (Based on Confidence level)

1,400 +/- 60%

CALCULATION # 1

5,769,258 households in the watershed1

x 0.43 freezers per household2

2,480,781 freezers in watershed

x 50 % of freezers are chest units containing mercury switches2

1,240,390 freezers in watershed containing mercury switches

x 0.001 kg of Hg per switch2

Subtotal A 1,240 kg of mercury in chest freezers in the watershed

480,000 gas-pilot ranges in use in the U.S. (non-electric)2

x 5.8 % of US population living in the watershed3

27,840 gas-pilot ranges sold in the watershed in year 2000

x 0.004 kg of Hg per switch2

Subtotal B 111 kg of mercury in gas-pilot ranges use in the watershed

Total (A+B) 1,352 kg of mercury in appliances used in the watershed

Other: This calculation does not include washing machines because the last models that used mercury switches

were manufactured prior to 1972, and it is assumed that they all are retired. Some appliances may contain fluores-

cent lamps to illuminate control panels.

NOTES

1. http:www.census.gov. (2000) There are 7,056,860 households in New York (of which about 54% are in the watershed) and 3,064,645 in New Jersey (of which over

49% are in the watershed).

2. The Pollution Prevention Partnership and the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (1997); Mer cury Sour ce Sector Assessment for the Greater Milwaukee Area.

3. Census 2000; US population in 2000 was 285.3 million. The population in the NY State area of the watershed is 10.4 million and in NJ is 4.2 million or a total of

5.2% of the US population. After adjusting it by the level of disposable income, the estimate is 5.8% of the national population. http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/re-

gional/spi/ and http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/statepop.html

4. Appliance Recycling Information Center (January 2002); InfoBulletin # 8: Mercur y in Home Appliances

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

Switches—Appliances Mercury Available for Release

SUMMARY

kg Confidence level Appliance Switches (kg/yr)

Calculation # 1 28 L (Based on Confidence level)

25 +/- 70%

CALCULATION # 1

5,769,258 households in the watershed1

x 0.35 appliances discarded per household per year2

2,019,240 appliances discarded in the watershed per year2

x 0.01 mercury switches per appliance2

20,192 mercury switches discarded in switches in the watershed2

x 0.001 kg of mercury per appliance2

28 kg of mercury in appliances disposed in the watershed per year

NOTES

1. Census 2000; http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/statepop. The NY State population in the watershed area is 10.4M and in NJ is about 4.2M.

There are approximately 5.8M households in the watershed region.

2. The Pollution Prevention Partnership and the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (1997) Mercur y Source Sector Assessment for the Gr eater Milwaukee Area.

This rate includes all types of appliances. Only washers, chest freezers and gas pilot ranges have mercury switches.

APPENDICIES 89

Switches—Automotive Sector Mercury Usage

SUMMARY

kg Confidence level

Calculation # 1 7,445 M Switches - Automobiles (kg/yr)

Calculation # 2 9,976 M/L (Based on Estimated Range) (Based on Confidence level)

11,600 M/L 9,700 +/- 2,100 9,700 +/- 60%

Average 9,674 +/- 2,094

CALCULATION # 1

4,590,000 registered cars in NY watershed region1

+ 2,854,740 registered cars in NJ watershed region2

7,444,740 total number of registered cars in watershed

x 1 switch per vehicle, on average3

7,444,740 number of switches in cars in watershed

x 0.001 kg of mercury per switch4

7,445 kg of mercury used in car switches in the watershed

CALCULATION # 2

Range

172,000 200,000 kg of mercury in vehicles on the road in the US5

x 5.8 % 5.8 % of US population living in the watershed

9,976 11,600 kg of mercury in vehicles on the road in the watershed

NOTES

Census 2000; http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/statepop. New York State population in 2000 was 18,976,457. The NY State population in the water-

shed area is 10.4 million, or almost 54% of the state population. There are approximately 8.5 million registered cars in New York state (http://www.albany.net/~gra/

newsltrs.1998/nov98.htm) of which 54% is assigned to the watershed area.

2. Census 2000; http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/statepop.html. The population in the NJ State in 2000 was 8,414,350 and for the watershed 4.2

million. This represents about 49% of the state population. There are 5,826,000 registered cars in the state of New Jersey (http://www.bergen.com/special/

autos/19400611.htm), of which 49% is assigned to the watershed area.

3. Although not all cars have mercury switches, certain models have one light switch in the trunk and another in the hood, with 1 gram each. In addition, most sport

utility vehicles (SUVs) have one or two anti-lock brake sensor systems with 3 or 4 switches each, for a total of 3 or 4 grams each system. A recent PBC News report

(10/9/01) indicated that about 46% of US vehicles are SUVs. Personal Communication 10/10/01, Tom Corbett (NYS DEC, Mercury Reduction Program). The

Pollution Prevention Partnership and the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (1997) Mercur y Source Sector Assessment for the Greater Milwaukee Area indi-

cates that the ratio ranges between 43% of mercury switches per car (trunk and hood only), to 1.06 mercury switches per vehicle.

4. NYS DEC Mercury Reduction Program, personal communication with Tom Corbett (October 2001).

5. Charles Griffith, Jeff Gearhart and Hans Posset (January 2001) Toxics in Vehicles: Mercury—Implications for Recycling and Disposal.

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

Switches—Automotive* Available for Release

SUMMARY

kg Confidence level Switches Automobiles (kg/yr)

Calculation #1 700 M (Based on Estimated Range) (Based on Confidence level)

Calculation # 2 837 M/L 900 +/- 200 900 +/- 70%

Calculation # 3 938 L

1,090 L

Average 891 +/- 165

CALCULATION # 1

7,444,740 total number of registered cars in watershed1

x 10% annual percentage cars disposed at end of life2

744,474 cars disposed of in the watershed per year

x 1 switch per car, on average3

744,474 switches disposed of in the watershed per year

x 0.001 kg of mercury per switch4

744 available for release per year

- 45 kg/yr recycled (assuming a 6% annual rate)5

700 kg/yr released in the watershed

CALCULATION # 2

12,000,000 vehicles retired per year in US6

x 5.8% of US population living in the watershed7

696,000 vehicles retired per year in the watershed

1.6 switch per car, on average6

1,113,600 switches disposed in watershed area

x 0.001 kg of mercury per switch4

891 available for release per year

- 53 kg/yr recycled (assuming a 6% annual rate)5

837 kg/yr released in the watershed

CALCULATION # 3

Range

9,976 11,600 kg of mercury in vehichles on the road in watershed8

x 10 % 10 % annual percentage cars disposed at end of life2

998 1,160 kg of mercury disposed in vehicles in the watershed

- 60 70 kg/yr recycled (assuming a 6% annual rate)5

938 1,090 kg/yr released in the watershed

APPENDICIES 91

NOTES

*Mercury switches have been slowly phased out of automobiles over the last 5-10 years and will not longer be used in 2003 car models.

1. See estimate in mercury usage page for switches - automotive sector

2. Tom Corbett, NYS DEC, Mercury Reduction Program, personal communication (10/10/01).

3. Although not all cars have mercury switches, certain models have one light switch in the trunk and another in the hood, with 1 gram each. In addition, most sport

utility vehicles (SUVs) have one or two anti-lock brake systems with 3 or 4 switches each, for a total of 3 or 4 grams each system. A recent PBC report (10/9/01)

indicated that almost half the fleet of cars sold consists of SUVs . Personnal Communication 10/10/01, Tom Corbett (NYS DEC, Mercury Reduction Program). The

Pollution Prevention Partnership and the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (1997); Mercur y Source Sector Assessment for the Greater Milwaukee Area indi-

cates that the ratio ranges between 43% of mercury switches per car (trunk and hood only), to 1.06 mercury switches per vehicle.

4. NYS DEC Mercury Reduction Program, personal communication

5. Barr Engineering Co. (2001) Substance Flow Analysis of Mercur y in Products. Similar estimate gathered at visit to shredder facility in Long Island City, NY (Spring 01).

6. Charles Griffith, Jeff Gearhart and Hans Posset (January 2001) Toxics in Vehicles: Mercury—Implications for Recycling and Disposal.

7. Census 2000; http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/statepop. The population of the watershed area represents over 5.2% of the national population.

When this is adjusted by the level of disposable income of the region, this estimate rises to 5.8% of the national population.

8. Griffith et al. (January 2001)

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

Thermostats Mercury Usage

SUMMARY

kg/yr Confidence Level Thermostats (kg/yr)

Calculation # 1 870 M/L Based on Estimated Range (Based on Confidence level)

1,856 M/L 1,400 +/- 700 1,400 +/- 60%

Average 1,363 +/- 697

CALCULATION # 1

Range

5,000,000 8,000,000 mercury switches in thermostats sold in the US per year1

x 5.8 % 5.8 % of the US population living in the NY/NJ Harbor watershed2

290,000 464,000 thermostats sold in the watershed area per year

x 0.003 0.004 kg of mercury per thermostats3

870 1,856 kg of mercury sold in thermostats in the watershed per year

NOTES

1. John Reindl indicated about 5 million thermostats are sold in the U.S. per year; personal communication (June 2001). The estimate of 8 million mercury switches

for thermostats sold annually in the U.S. is from http://aesop.rutgers.edu/~wastemgmt/MEETINGS/meeting2.htm

2. Census 2000; US population in 2000 was 285.3 million. The population in the NY State area of the watershed is 10.4 million and in NJ is 4.2 million or a total of

5.2% of the US population. When adjusted to the level of disposable income, this region represents 5.8% of the national population. http://www.census.gov/popu-

lation/www/estimates/statepop.html and http://www.bea.doc.gove/bea/regional/spi/

3. Amount contained in new thermostat units (3 grams) as reported in http:www.nema.org; there are 4 grams of mercury in the average thermostat, as reported in

http://aesop.rutgers.edu/~wastemgmt/METTINGS/meeting2.htm

APPENDICIES 93

Thermostats Mercury Available for Release

SUMMARY

kg Confidence Level Thermostats (kg/yr)

Calculation # 1 597 M/L (Based on Confidence level)

600 +/- 60%

CALCULATION #1

Releases 2,619,000 thermostats disposed of in the US per year, on average1

x 5.8 % of the US population living in the NY/NJ Harbor watershed2

151,902 thermostats disposed of in the watershed per year

x 0.004 kg per old units currently being discarded3

607 kg of mercury in units currently discharged

–10 kg of mercury recycled for the Watershed per year4

597 kg of mercury in thermostats, available for release in watershed region/yr

NOTES

1. The Pollution Prevention Partnership and the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (1997) Mercur y Source Sector Assessment for the Greater Milwaukee Area.

This estimate represents thermostats discarded at end of life (20 years) or during renovation.

2. Census 2000 http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/statepop.html and http://www.bea.doc.gove/bea/regional/spi/

3. http://www.nema.org. Thermostats discarded today have more mercury than units currently produced.

4. Thermostat Recycling Corporation (1999); Wholesaler Questions and Answers to the Mercury Thermostat Recycling Program; http://www.nema.org/government/envi-

ronmental

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

Utilities: Furnaces Mercury Usage

SUMMARY

No intentional usage of mercury in utilities - furnaces' combustion process

Only incidental releases

Utilities: Furnaces Mercury Available for Release

SUMMARY

Utilities: Furnaces (kg/yr)

kg Confidence level (Based on Confidence level)

Calculation # 1 384 M 400 +/- 70%

CALCULATION # 1

186 kg of mercury emitted in 1998 from utilities in NJ1

+ 487 kg of mercury emitted in 1998 from utilities in NY1

673 kg of mercury emitted in both states by utilities

x 57 % population of watershed region with respect to both states' population1

384 kg of mercury emitted in 1998 in the watershed by utilities

NOTES

1. Nickolas J. Themelis and Alexander F. Gregory (2001) Sources and Material Balance of Mercur y in the NY/NJ Harbor. Report to the New York Academy of Sciences,

October 3, 2001.

APPENDICIES 95

6.3 Cost of Pollution Prevention and Management Measures

Crematoria Costs/Net Savings

SUMMARY

Cost Range for Installing Selenium Filter Systems at Crematoria kg of Hg/yr Cost per kg

$9,000,000 $9,000,000 equipment cost

$270,000 $360,000 annual operating costs 25 $10,800 $14,400

$2,465,016 $2,555,016 Total cost assuming 5-yr loan 25 $98,601 $102,201

CALCULATION # 1

Selenium Filter System

Equipment costs 45 crematoria in the watershed area (servicing 430 cemeteries)1

x $200,000 cost of installing selenium filters system, per crematorium2

Sub-total A $9,000,000 cost of installing filter systems at all crematoria in the watershed

or: $2,195,016 per year, based on a 5-year loan (constant payment plan at 7% interest rate)

Operating costs Range

600 800 cremations per crematorium per year3

x 45 45crematoria in the watershed area

27,000 36,000 cremations per year

x $10 $10 per cremation in operating expenses2

Sub-total B $270,000 $360,000 in operating expenses for all crematoria in the watershed, per year

Total (A+B) $2,465,016 per year for five years (assuming 5 year loan at 7% interest was secured)

$270,000 $360,000 range of costs per year after five years

NOTES

1. Information was compiled from CenStats (1997SIC Comparison) Zip Code Business Patterns at http://tier2.census.gov/cgi-win/zbp/compares

2. Information on cost to install selenium filter systems and operating cost per cremation by amalgator@worldonline.nl (Vermeulen Deventer)

3. http://www.nfda.org/resources/deathstats.html

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

Dental Offices Cost/Net Savings

SUMMARY

Total Cost to use amalgams and prevent Hg releases

First year Range Kg of Hg/yr Cost range/kg of Mercury

Cost of amalgam materials $2,643,648 $3,806,314 3,600 $734 $1,057

Cost of recycling solid waste $659,400 $781,860 3,000 $220 $261

Cost of filtration -1st yr + $10,008,750 $10,990,000 1,000 + $10,009 $10,990

Total: $13,311,798 $15,578,174 Total: $10,963 $12,308

Per year after first Range Kg of Hg/yr Cost range/kg of Mercury

Cost of amalgam materials $2,643,648 $3,806,314 3,600 $734 $1,057

Cost of recycling solid waste $659,400 $781,860 3,000 $220 $261

Cost of filtration -after 1st yr + $2,983,000 $9,420,000 1,000 + $2,983 $9,420

Total: $6,286,048 $14,008,174 Total: $3,937 $10,738

Total Cost to use non-mercury composites and prevent Hg releases from amalgam removal

First year Range Kg of Hg/yr Cost range/kg of Mercury

Cost of composite materials $12,160,781 $17,509,043 3,600 $3,378 $4,864

Cost of recycling $659,400 $781,860 2,100 $314 $372

Cost of filtration + $10,008,750 $10,990,000 700 + $14,298 $15,700

Total: $22,828,931 $29,280,903 Total: $17,990 $20,936

Per year after first Range Kg of Hg/yr Cost range/kg of Mercury

Cost of amalgam materials $12,160,781 $17,509,043 3,600 $3,378 $4,864

Cost of recycling solid waste $659,400 $781,860 2,100 $314 $372

Cost of filtration -after 1st yr + $2,983,000 $9,420,000 700 + $4,261 $13,457

Total: $15,803,181 $27,710,903 Total: $7,953 $18,693

CALCULATION # 1: COST OF AMALGAM MATERIAL

Dental Sector's annual cost for using amalgam (materials only)

Range

11,240 11,240 dentists in the watershed1

x 70% 83 % percentage of dentists performing restorations and using mercury amalgams2

7,868 9,329 dentists in watershed using mercury

x 672 816 amalgams per dental office per year3

5,287,296 7,612,627 amalgams per year applied by dentists in the watershed

x $0.50 $0.50 average cost per mercury amalgam (material only)4

$2,643,648 $3,806,314 cost of mercury amalgam material per year for all dentists in the region

APPENDICIES 97

CALCULATION # 2: COST OF RECYCLING SOLID WASTE

Cost to recycle all solid waste containing amalgam in the watershed:

Range

7,850 7,850 dental offices in the watershed (some dentists share offices)5

x $120 $120 recycling cost per year of solid waste (3 times yearly at $40/shipment)6

$942,000 $942,000 cost of comprehensive recycling per year in the region

x 70% 83 % dentists using mercury amalgam2

$659,400 $781,860 annual cost of recycling all solid waste containing amalgam by all dentists in region

CALCULATION # 3: COST OF FILTER SYSTEMS FOR WASTEWATER DISCHARGES

A: In-house management of filter system

Equipment purchase and installation

$695Cost of separator filter system (one-time expenditure)7

+ $200Installation fee (one-time expenditure)7

$895Total cost of installing filter system per dental office (1-time)

x 7,850dental offices in the watershed5

Subtotal A 7,025,750Total costs of installing filter systems in all dental offices in region (1-time fee)

Operating costs of filtration systems

$150cost per filter cartridges7

x 2filters per year7

$300total costs for filter cartridges/dental office/yr.

+ $80 cost to recycle filters directly by dentists ( $40 for shipping, twice yearly)

$380Cost for filters and recycling per office

x 7,850dental offices in the watershed using mercury amalgam

Subtotal B $2,983,000yearly cost for filters and recycling in the watershed

TOTAL (A+B) $10,008,750 cost for operating filter systems in region for first year

or $2,983,000cost per year after first year

B: Outside service managing filtration system

Full service: dentists do not assume liability for managing Hg waste

First year

$200Installation of separator filter system8

+ $1,200Cost of full service/yr (replacement & disposal of filters). Equipment fee is waived8

$1,400Total cost for first year per dental office

x 7,850dental offices in the watershed using mercury amalgam5

$10,990,000Total cost of using filter system service for first year, all dentists in region

Each subsequent year

$1,200Cost of full service per year (replacement & disposal of filters). Equipment fee is waived8

x 7,850dental offices in the watershed using mercury amalgam5

$9,420,000Total cost per year after 1st year for all dentists in watershed

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

CALCULATION # 4: SUBSTITUTION

Cost of materials for all dentist substituting for non-mercury composite (materials only)

Range

11,240 11,240 dentists in the watershed1

x70%83%

percentage of dentists performing restorations (if all substitute for non-Hg composite)2

7,868 9,329 dentists in watershed performing restorations

x 672 816 restorations per dental office per year3

5,287,296 7,612,627 restorations per year performed by dentists in the watershed

x $2.3 $2.3 average cost per composite resin (material only)4

$12,160,781 $17,509,043 cost of mercury amalgam material per year for all dentists in the region

NOTES

1. See Appendix 6.2 - Dental sector mercury usage

2. Not all dentists use mercury, either because they are specialists (e.g. orthodontists) or they have already substituted for non-mercury amalgam. It is estimated that

70% to 83% use and/or remove mercury amalgams. Environmental Federation (1999) Controlling Dental Facility Discharges in Wastewater: How to Develop and

Administer a Source Control Program. Also, NYC DEP (November 1999); 1998 Headworks Analysis Report.

3. A sur vey of dentists by a POTW in Minnesota, indicates that the average rate of placing fillings is 17.9 per week per general dentist, and 17.6 removed fillings on aver-

age per dentist per week. Another estimate indicates that the rate of amalgam placement for all dentists is 14 restorations per week since specialists (e.g., ortho-

dontists) are not involved in amalgam restorations. Information from: Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (1997) Dental Clinic and Other Sour ces of Mercur y

to a WWTP (Peter Berglund, P.E., MCES, St. Paul, MN) . Another report in Seattle indicates similar rates (17 removed and 16 placed / dentist/week). The Water

Environment Federation (1999) Controlling Dental Facility Discharges in Wastewater: How to Develop and Administer a Source Control Program (WEF, Alexandria, VA)

4. The single spill capsule contains approximately 300 mg of mercury and costs about $0.43; a double spill capsule contains almost 500 mg, and costs is $0.52 each,

while the triple spill capsule contains about 600 mg of mercury and costs about $0.64. The average per amalgam restoration is 500 mg of mercury. The average

price is $0.508. Prices for mercury capsules (Henry Schein Alloys) are for purchases in bulk. Prices for the (Charisma Heraeus Kulser) resin composite for both ante-

rior and posterior restorations are based on syringe refills. All prices are reported on http://www.sullivanschein.com and are similar to other dental catalogues

(Dentsply-Caulk and Kerr).

5 Data on number of dental offices per county was compiled from http://www.census.gov/epcd/cbp/map/99data/34/003.txt (New Jersey) and http://www.cen-

sus.gov/epcd/cbp/map/99data/36/005.txt (New York)

6. Assumes mercury is shipped to retorting facility directly by common carrier at a cost of $40 per up to 30 lbs, per shipment. NY and NJ accept the RCRA code for

mercury permitting such shipments.

7. Owen Boyd, SolmeteX Co. that sells separator filters; personal communication, July 2001.

8. Marc Sussman, Dental Recycling of North America, personal communication, July 2001

APPENDICIES 99

Fluorescent Lamps Costs/Net Savings

SUMMARY

Costs Range for using fluorescent lamps: kg of Hg Cost/kg

recycled/yr of Hg

$153,182,640 $967,970,120 Cost of purchasing fluorescent lamps per year

+ $24,226,020 $24,226,020 Cost of recycling all fluorescent lamps per year 700 $34,609

Total Cost $177,408,660 $992,196,140

Savings $1,008,562,464 Energy cost savings from puchasing fluorescent rather than incandescent lamps

CALCULATION # 1: COST OF PURCHASING FLUORESCENT LAMPS

Cost of purchasing fluorescent lamps per year*

33,176,000 33,176,000fluorescent tubes sold in the watershed

x 70 % 70 % 70% of the tubes sold in the watershed are 4 ft

23,223,200 23,223,2004 ft. fluorescent tubes sold in the watershed

x $2 $3Cost per 4 ft tube

Subtotal A $46,446,400 $69,669,600 Cost of all 4 ft tubes in the watershed

9,952,800 9,952,800 30% of the tubes sold are 8 ft

x $3 $5Cost per 8 ft tube

Subtotal B $32,844,240 $46,280,520 Cost of all 8 ft tubes in the watershed

1,885,000 1,885,000 HID lamps sold in the watershed

x $20 $420 Cost per HID lamp

Subtotal C $37,700,000 $791,700,000 Cost of all HID lamps in the watershed

3,016,000 3,016,000 Compact fluorescent lamps

x $12 $20 Cost per compact fluorescent lamp

Subtotal D $36,192,000 $60,320,000 Cost of all compact lamps sold in the watershed

Total (A+B+C+D) $153,182,640 $967,970,120 Costs for purchasing all fluorescent lamps in the watershed/yr

ENERGY COST SAVINGS FROM PURCHASING FLUORESCENT LAMPS

INSTEAD OF INCANDESCENT BULBS, PER YEAR (250 DAYS)1

Flourescent Lamps Incandescent Lamps

Energy cost Energy cost

Type of Average per year per year Net savings

lamp Wattage KW/hr KW/yr ($0.12 perKW) KW/hr KW/yr ($0.12 perKW) per year

4-ft tube 40 x 928,928 x 1,857,856,000 = $222,942,720 2,786,784 x 5,573,568,000 = $668,828,160 $445,885,440

8-ft tube 96 x 955,469 x 1,910,937,600 = $229,312,512 2,866,406 x 5,732,812,800 = $687,937,536 $458,625,024

HID 75 x 141,375 x 282,750,000 = $33,930,000 424,125 x 848,250,000 = $101,790,000 $67,860,000

compact

lamp 25 x 75,400 x 150,800,000 = $18,096,000 226,200 x 452,400,000 = $54,288,000 $36,192,000

Total $504,281,232 $1,512,843,696 $1,008,562,464

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

100

CALCULATION # 2: RECYCLING COSTS

Cost of recycling all spent lamps2

Type of lamp # in region Cost per unit Cost per year

4-ft tube 23,223,200 x $0.4 = $9,289,280

8-ft tube 9,952,800 x $0.8 = $7,962,240

HID 1,885,000 x $2.5 = $4,712,500

compact 3,016,000 x $0.8 = $2,262,000

Total 38,077,000 Total $24,226,020

NOTES

* See calculation on fluorescent lamps usage in appendix 6.2 for number of fluorescent lamps sold in the watershed region

1. Martha Bell, Association for Energy Affordability, NYC, pers. communication, October 2001

2. Brian Jantzen, Full Circle, NY; personal communication, October 2001

APPENDICIES 101

Hospitals Costs/Net Savings

SUMMARY

Cost range for using mercury products/region

kg of Cost range/

Range Cost Mercury Kg Hg/yr

Cost range per subsequent year per year (for first five years)

thermometers $3,485,000 $39,130,000 Year 6 $580,833 $6,521,667

sphygmomanometer $2,113,100 $25,980,600 Year 356 $5,936 $72,979

dental cost:

1) amalgam material only $50,400 $75,098 Year 60 $840 $1,252

2) recycling all solid waste amalgam $67,200 $91,350 Year 45 $1,493 $2,030

3.a) operating filtration system, or $108,652 $225,419 /yr for 5 yrs $79,800 $165,300 15 $7,243 $15,028

3.b) filtration service $231,000 $261,000 /yr after 1st yr $168,000 $217,500 15 $11,200 $14,500

laboratories (cost of alternatives for avoiding releases)

a) filters@end of clinical analyzers $812,681 $8,126,808 /yr for 5 yrs $261,000 $2,610,000 620 $1,311 $13,108

b. filtration System at end of pipe $2,323,515 $33,969,144 /yr for 5 yrs $348,000 1,044,000 620 $3,748 $54,789

c. recapturing solutions & recycling $7,118,182 $213,545,455 Year 620 $11,481 $344,428

d. recapturing solutions &treatment $1,977,273 $59,318,182 Year 620 $3,189 $95,674

Cost range for using non-Hg products/region

thermometers $994,345 $2,859,069 per yr/ 5 yrs $634,667 $1,926,400 60 $16,572 $47,651

sphygmomanometer $3,161,433 $6,135,070 /yr for 5 yrs only 7700 $411 $797

dental

1) composite materials $231,840 $332,166 Year 60 $3,864 $5,536

2) recycling removed amalgam $67,200 $91,350 Year 23 $2,987 $4,060

3) filter system for removed amalgam $108,652 $225,419 per yr/ 5 yrs $79,800 $165,300 8 $14,487 $30,056

Laboratories N/A N/A

CALCULATION # 1: THERMOMETERS

COST OF USING MERCURY THERMOMETERS1

Mercury Thermometers

Equipment cost Range

85,000 86,000 total units purchased in watershed per year2

x $1 $5 cost range per unit

subtotal A $85,000 $430,000 Cost of all mercury thermometers purchased per year by hospitals/region

Cost to clean broken units 4

85,000 86,000 total units purchased in watershed per year2

x 10% 15% broken units/yr. (10% of a total units)3

8,500 12,900 spills per year, range

x $400 $3,000 cost range for cleaning each spill4

subtotal B $3,400,000 $38,700,000 cost range for cleaning all spills in the region

Total $3,485,000 $39,130,000 Total annual cost associated with the use of mercury thermometers

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

102

COST OF USING NON-MERCURY THERMOMETERS:

Non-Hg Digital thermometers5

Equipment cost

Range

85,000 86,000 beds in hospitals of the watershed2

/ 12 12 (1 per every 12 beds)

7,083 7,167 units required to replace mercury thermometers

x $200 $250 cost per unit5

subtotal A $1,416,667 $1,791,667 Total cost to purchase non-Hg digital thermometers

or $345,512 $452,214 per year for 5 yrs assuming 7% interest and a constant total payment financing plan

Operating costs per year: Total cost of using digital thermometers

Plastic sleeves: Range

85,000 86,000 beds in hospitals of the watershed2Per yr for 5 yrs $994,345 $2,378,614

x 2 3 temperature readings per bed per day6per year after $648,833 $1,926,400

170,000 258,000 temperature readings for all beds per day Net savings for substitution w/ digital units

x 365 365 days/yr Range

62,050,000 94,170,000 temperature readings per year Per yr for 5 yrs $2,490,655 $36,751,386

x $0.01 $0.02 per plastic sleeve when purchased in bulk5per year after $2,836,167 $37,203,600

subtotal b.1 $620,500 $1,883,400 cost for plastic sleeves for digital thermometers per year

Batteries: 7,083 7,167 units required to replace mercury thermometers

+ 2 2 lithium batteries per yr/unit (each lasting 100 readings)

14,167 14,333 lithium batteries required per year

x $2 $3 cost per battery5

subtotal b.2 $28,333 $43,000 cost for all batteries used in digital thermometers in region per year

Subtotal B $648,833 $1,926,400 total operating cost/year

Total (A+B) $994,345 $2,378,614 total cost for thermometers & operating cost/yr for first 5 yrs (w/loan)

or $648,833 $1,926,400 total cost for operating thermometers /yr after 5 yrs.

Electronic thermometers5Total cost of using electric thermometers

Equipment Range Range

7,083 7,167

units required to replace mercury thermometers

Per yr for 5 yrs $1,325,691 $2,859,069

x $400 $550 cost range per unit5per year after $634,667 $1,897,733

subtotal A 2,833,333 3,941,667 cost range to replace all units Net savings for substitution w/ digital units

or $691,024 $961,336 annual cost for 5 yrs w/financial plan Range

(7% interest) Per yr for 5 yrs $2,159,309 $36,270,931

Operating costs per year after $2,765,333 $37,232,267

$620,500 $1,883,400 plastic sleeves (each @$0.01 or $0.02/bulk order),5assuming three readings per bed/day6

+ $14,167 $14,333 1 battery/yr/unit @$2 each (2 required, lasting 2 years at 100 readings per day)

subtotal B $634,667 $1,897,733 total operating cost/year (see calculation for digital thermometers, above)

Total (A+B) $1,325,691 $2,859,069 total cost/using electronic thermometers/yr for first 5 yrs.

or $634,667 $1,897,733 total cost/using electronic thermometers/yr after 5 yrs.

APPENDICIES 103

CALCULATION # 2: SPHYGMOMANOMETERS

COST OF USING MERCURY SPHYGMOMANOMETERS

Equipment Costs

Mobile units Range

85,000 86,000 total units used in watershed region (average of 1 per bed)7

x 10% 15 % are mobile units7

8,500 12,900 mobile units in hospitals of the watershed

x 10% 20 % units may be broken per year7

850 2,580 mobile units replaced per year (range)

x $250 $350 cost range per mobile unit

Subtotal a.1 $212,500 $903,000 Cost range of all Hg mobile units purchased/yr by hospitals/region

Wall-mounted Units Range

85,000 86,000 total units used in watershed region (average of 1 per bed)7

x 85% 90 % are wall-mounted units7

72,250 77,400 wall-mounted units in hospitals of the watershed region

x 4% 7 % units may be broken per year7

2,890 5,418 wall-mounted units replaced per year

x $140 $200 cost range per wall-mounted unit5

subtotal a.2 $404,600 $1,083,600 Cost range of purchasing Hg wall-mounted units/yr by hospitals/region

Subtotal A $617,100 $1,986,600 Total cost range of purchasing Hg sphygmomanometers/yr in region

Cost of cleaning mercur y spills associated with broken sphygmomanometers:

Range

850 2,580 spills due to broken wall-mounted units

x 2,890 5,418 spills due to broken mobile units

3,740 7,998 total number of spills per year in the region (range)

x $400 $3,000 cost range per mercury spill clean-up4

Subtotal B $1,496,000 $23,994,000 total cost for cleaning mercury spills per year in all hospitals

Total(A+B) $2,113,100 $25,980,600 total cost/yr for using mercury sphygmomanometers/yr by all hospitals in region

COST OF REPLACING ALL MERCURY UNITS WITH NON-MERCURY SPHYGMOMANOMETERS8

Range Cost range to replace all units/region

8500 8500 mobile units in all hospitals of the watershed $3,161,433 $6,135,070

x $250 $450 cost range per unit No additional cost after five years

subtotal A $2,125,000 $3,825,000 cost range to replace all mobile units in all hospitals Net Savings range from substitution

72,250 72,250 wall-mounted units in all hospitals of the watershed -$1,048,333 $19,845,530

x $150 $250 cost range per unit

subtotal B $10,837,500 $18,062,500 cost range to replace all wall-mounted units in hospitals of the watershed

Total (A+B) $12,962,500 $21,887,500 Total cost range to replace all existing mercury sphygs. in watershed

or $3,161,433 $6,135,070 per year for 5 years assuming 7% interest and a constant total payment financing plan

No additional costs after five years

Dental Services in Hospitals

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

104

Dental Services in Hospitals

CALCULATION # 1: COST OF USING MERCURY

COST OF USING MERCURY AMALGAM9

Range

140 145 dental clinics in hospitals of the watershed region

x 960 1,200 amalgams per hospital per year10

134,400 174,000 restorations per year for all hospitals

x 75% 83% are mercury amalgam

100,800 144,420 mercury amalgams per year for all hospitals

x $0.50 $0.52 average cost range of materials/amalgam

Subtotal A 50,400 75,098 cost of mercury amalgam material only, for all hospital clinics/region

RECYCLING COST OF SOLID WASTE CONTAINING MERCURY AMALGAM11

$40 $45 per container of mercury sent for recycling

x 10 14 containers shipped to recycler per year per dental clinic

$480 $630 cost to recycle solid waste amalgam per dental clinic

x 140 145 hospitals offering dental services in region

Subtotal B $67,200 $91,350 cost to recycle solid waste amalgam by all dental clinics in region

Total (A+B) $117,600 $166,448 total cost range associated with using mercury amalgam by all clinics in the watershed

CALCULATION # 2: CONTINUE TO USE HG AMALGAM WHILE INSTALLING & MANAGING FILTERING SYSTEM12

Equipment cost (one-time)

Range

$695 $1,400 Equipment fee (one unit serves 6 dental chairs)12

+ $150 $300 Installation of separator filter system (one-time)

$845 $1,700 cost of equipment installed per hospital's dental clinic

x 140 145 dental clinics in hospitals of the watershed region

Subtotal A $118,300 $246,500 cost of equipment installed for all dental clinics in hospitals in region

or $28,852 $60,119 cost of equipment at all clinics/yr. assuming a 5yr loan (7% interest w/constant payment plan)

Operating expenses per year

$150 $150 cost for filter cartridges

x 3 6 filters changed per year

$450 $900 cost range for filter cartridges per clinic

+ $120 $240 cost associated with recycling filters (3-6T/yr @$40 ea.T)

$570 $1,140 cost installing & operating filter per clinic

x 140 145 dental clinics in hospitals of the watershed region

Subtotal B $79,800 $165,300 cost for operating filter/yr for all dental clinics in hospitals in the region

Total: A+B $108,652 $225,419 cost for first 5 yr of installing & operating filter/yr for all dental clinics in hospitals (with loan)

$79,800 $165,300 cost for operating filter/yr after 5 yrs. for all dental clinics in hospitals in the region

APPENDICIES 105

CALCULATION # 3: CONTINUE TO USE HG AMALGAM WHILE CONTRACTING

FOR A SERVICE TO INSTALL & MANAGE FILTERING SYSTEM

First year

Range

$150 $300 Installation of separator filter system. Equipment fee is waived12

+ $1,200 $1,500 Cost of full service/yr (replacement & disposal of filters)12

$1,650 $1,800 Total cost of using filter system service for first year per hospital dental clinic

x 140 145 dental clinics in hospitals of the watershed

$231,000 $261,000 Total cost of using filter system service for first year, all hospital dental clinics in region

Each subsequent year

$1,200 $1,500 Cost of full service per year (replacement & disposal of filters)

x 140 145 dental clinics in hospitals of the watershed

$168,000 $217,500 Total cost per year after initial yr./ all dentists in watershed

CALCULATION # 4: COST OF MATERIAL SUBSTITUTION

Use of Composite materials

Range

100,800 144,420 new restorations per year at all hospital dental clinics in the watershed (see previous page)

x $2.3 $2.3 cost of composite material only, per unit13

Subtotal A $231,840 $332,166 cost of composite material for all new restorations/yr

Subtotal B $67,200 $91,350 Total cost of recycling 100% of removed amalgams disposed as solid waste

Subtotal C $108,652 $225,419 Total cost for filter system to trap old amalgam removed (1st 5yrs assuming loan)

or $79,800 $165,300 Total cost of installing and operating filter system (per year afterwards)

Total (A+B+C) $407,692 $648,935 Total cost of substituting for composite materials (per yr/for first 5 yrs, assuming loan)

$378,840 $588,816 Total cost associated with substituting for composite materials (per yr after 5 yrs)

Laboratories in Hospitals

CALCULATION # 1

EFFLUENT MANAGEMENT FILTRATIONS SYSTEM AT END OF CLINICAL ANALYZERS

Equipment cost

Range

$5,000 $50,000 cost of 1 to 10 wastewater filter system(s) each serving 3 clinical analyzers15

+ $200 $2,000 Installation fee of wastewater filter(s)

$5,200 $52,000 cost range of installing filtration system at each hospital laboratory

x 435 435 laboratories in hospitals of the watershed14

Subtotal A $2,262,000 $22,620,000 total cost range of equipment installed at hospital

or $551,681 $5,516,808 Sub-total w/amortization (7% interest, 5 years)

Operating cost

$600 $6,000 Filter replacement & disposal/yr/lab ($150ea.x 4T/yr)

435 435 hospital labs in watershed14

Subtotal B $261,000 $2,610,000 total operating cost of filtration system for all hospital laboratories in region

Total (A+B) $812,681 $8,126,808 Total Cost/yr for first 5 yrs for filtration systems at all hospital laboratories in region

$261,000 $2,610,000 Total cost of operating filtration systems per year after 5 yrs.

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

106

CALCULATION # 2

EFFLUENT MANAGEMENT AT END OF PIPE

Filtration System at end of pipe-

Range

$30,000 $500,000 cost range for filtration system per laboratory (1/ lab -cost varies by volume discharged)

x 435 435 hospital labs in watershed14

Subtotal A $13,050,000 $217,500,000 cost range of equipment for all hospital laboratories in the region

or $1,975,515 $32,925,144 Cost range per year for 5 years assuming loan (7% interest, 5 years)

Operating cost

$800 $2,400 Filter replacement & disposal/yr/lab ($200ea.filter changed min. of 4T/yr.)

x 435 435 hospital labs in watershed14

Subtotal B $348,000 $1,044,000 cost per year of operating filtration system by all labs in region

Total (A+B) $2,323,515 $33,969,144 Total cost per yr/for first 5 yrs for filtration system at all labs in region, (assuming loan)

$348,000 $1,044,000 Total cost per year after 5 yrs. for operating filtration system by all labs in region

CALCULATION # 3

RECAPTURING ALL DISCHARGES

Recapturing all discharges plus recycling

Range

1 30 analyzers per laboratory

x 500 600 gallons per analyzer per yr16

500 15,000 gallons per lab /yr (range)

/ 55 55 gallons per drum of recaptured solutions17

9 273 number of 55 gallon-drums/lab/yr

x $1,800 $1,800 cost to recycle each drum of recaptured solutions17

$16,364 $490,909 cost to recycle all recaptured solutions per lab per year

x 435 435 laboratories in hospitals in the watershed14

$7,118,182 $213,545,455 Cost per yr to recycle all recaptured solutions by all hospital laboratories in the region

Recapturing all discharges and sending them for treatment for disposal at landfills

1 30 analyzers per laboratory

x 500 600 gallons per analyzer per yr16

500 15,000 gallons per lab /yr (range)

/ 55 55 gallons per drum of recaptured solutions17

9 273 number of 55 gallon-drums/lab/yr

x $500 $500 cost for treatment of each drum of recaptured solutions17

$4,545 $136,364 cost for treatment of all recaptured solutions per lab per year

x 435 435 laboratories in hospitals in the watershed14

$1,977,273 $59,318,182 Cost per yr for treatment of all recaptured solutions by all hospital laboratories in the region

APPENDICIES 107

NOTES

1. MERC- Pollution Probe, November 1996.

2. See note #2, Hospital Mercury Usage

3. MERC- Pollution Probe, November 1996.

4 The total cost of cleaning may be just as low as the price of a spill kit. However, hidden costs include disposal rates, special equipment and clothing used during

proper removal, personnel training and wages, loss of service if room is temporarily closed. Cost can be as high as $3,000 if carpet needs to be replaced and old

carpet sent to retorter facility. Personal communication with Marvin Stillman, May 4, 2001. Also see MERC- Pollution Probe, November 1996.

5. Welch Allyn Medical Catalogue 2001 (price for Sure-temp #1679-200 - oral/rectal) and MERC - Pollution Probe, November 1996.

6. Personal communication with Marvin Stillman (see Appendix 6.2)

7. See note # 4 on Hospitals -Mercury usage page. Mobile units break at a higher rate than wall mounted units.

8. Welch Allyn Medical Catalogue 2001, and MERC- Pollution Probe, November 1996

9. Prices for mercury capsules (Henry Schein Alloys) are for purchases in bulk. Prices for the (Charisma Heraeus Kulser) resin composite for both anterior and pos-

terior restorations are based on syringe refills. All prices are reported on http://www.sullivanschein.com and are similar to other dental catalogues (Dentsply-Caulk

and Kerr).

10. See Dental services in page describing hospital uses, Appendix 6.2

11. Assumes hg shipped to retorting facility directly by common carrier at a cost of $40 per up to 30 lbs, each time. NY and NJ accept the RCRA, RECRA code for mer-

cury permitting such shipments. Does not include wastewater filter system.

12. Information from SolmeteX Co. and DRNA Co. See Dental Sector Section for detailed information.

13. http://www.sullivanschein.com; Charisma Heraeus Kulser; Dentsply-Caulk and Kerr catalogues.

14. http://www.hospitalselect.com and CenStats (1997SIC Comparison) Zip Code Business Patterns at http://tier2.census.gov/cgi-win/zbp/compares.exe Each hos-

pital may have more than one laboratory.

15. Each laboratory may have between 1 to 30 clinical analyzers which discharge mercury and other chemicals directly to sewage system. Options available: a) the

Effluent Management System (EMS) attached directly to the clinical analyzer(s) which cost about $5,000 per filter system serving 3 analyzers each. Cartridge per

EMS replacement costs $150 each time and needs to be changed every 3 months ; or b) End of pipe systems that costs between $30,000 to $500,000 depend-

ing on volume (larger system can filter up to 100,000 gallons/sec) Filter cartridges cost $200. Pers.comm. with Owen Boyd, SolmeteX

16. Calculation by Gregory Camacho, Industrial Hygienist, NY Presbyterian Hospital of Cornell and Columbia Universities. Pers. comm. October 2001.

17. Clean Harbors Environmental Services; Pete and Shana Wilson, personal communication, October 2001.

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

108

Laboratories (excluding hospitals) Costs/Net Savings

SUMMARY

Range kg Hg released /yr Cost/Kg Hg released/yr

Filtration System at end of clinical analyzers*

$1,566,000 $15,660,000 cost/yr for first 5 yrs. 400 kg to wastewater $3,915 $39,150

$162,000 $1,620,000 cost/ yr afterwards 400 kg to wastewater $405 $4,050

Filtration System at end of pipe

$2,191,515 $33,573,244 cost/yr for first 5 yrs. 400 kg to wastewater $5,479 $83,933

$216,000 $648,000 cost/ yr afterwards 400 kg to wastewater $540 $1,620

Recapture solutions & recycle them

$4,418,182 $132,545,455 cost per year 400 kg to wastewater $11,045 $331,364

Recapture solutions, treat & send them to landfills

$1,227,273 $36,818,182 cost per year 400 kg to wastewater $3,068 $92,045

CALCULATION # 1

EFFLUENT MANAGEMENT FILTRATION SYSTEM AT END OF CLINICAL ANALYZERS*

Equipment cost

Range

$5,000 $50,000 cost of 1-10 filter system(s) ea. serving 3 clinical analyzers. Each lab w/up to 30 analyzers1

+ $200 $2,000 Installation fee of wastewater filter(s)2

$5,200 $52,000 cost range of installing filtration system at each laboratory

x 270 270 laboratories in the watershed region3

Subtotal A $1,404,000 $14,040,000 total cost range of equipment installed at laboratories in region

or $342,423 $3,424,225 Sub-total w/loan (7% interest, 5 years)

Operating cost

$600 $6,000 Filter replacement & disposal/yr/lab ($150 ea.x 4T/yr)

270 270 labs in watershed3

Subtotal B $162,000 $1,620,000 total operating cost of filtration system for all laboratories in region

Total (A+B) $1,566,000 $15,660,000 Cost/yr/first 5 yrs for installing & operating filtration systems at all hospital labs/region

$162,000 $1,620,000 Cost of operating filtration systems per year after 5 yrs.

CALCULATION # 2

END OF PIPE FILTRATION Range

$30,000 $500,000 cost range of installing filtration system/lab (1/lab -cost varies by volume discharged)2

x 270 270 labs in watershed region3

Subtotal A $8,100,000 $135,000,000 cost range of equipment for all laboratories in the region

or $1,975,515 $32,925,244 Cost range per year for 5 years assuming loan (7% interest, 5 years)

Operating cost

$800 $2,400 Filter replacement & disposal/yr/lab ($200ea.filter changed min. of 4T/yr.)

x 270 270 labs in watershed region3

Subtotal B $216,000 $648,000 Cost per year of operating filtration system by all labs in region

Total (A+B) $2,191,515 $33,573,244 Cost per yr/for first 5 yrs for installing & operating filtration system at all labs in region

$216,000 $648,000 Cost per year after 5 yrs. for operating filtration system by all labs in region

APPENDICIES 109

CALCULATION # 3

RECAPTURING ALL DISCHARGES, PLUS RECYCLING OR TREATMENT

A. Recapturing all discharges to recycle them 4

Range

1 30 analyzers per laboratory

x 500 600 gallons per analyzer per yr5

500 15,000 gallons per lab /yr

/ 55 55 gallons per drum of recaptured solutions4

9 273 number of 55 gallon-drums/lab/yr

x $1,800 $1,800 cost to recycle each drum of recaptured solutions4

$16,364 $490,909 cost to recycle all recaptured solutions per lab per year

270 270 laboratories in the watershed region

$4,418,182 $132,545,455 Total Cost per yr to recycle all recaptured solutions by all laboratories in the region

B. Recapturing all discharges and sending them for treatment for disposal at landfills4

1 30 analyzers per laboratory1

x 500 600 gallons per analyzer per yr5

500 15,000 gallons per lab /yr

/ 55 55 gallons per drum of recaptured solutions4

9 273 number of 55 gallon-drums/lab/yr

x $500 $500 cost for treatment of each drum of recaptured4

$4,545 $136,364 cost for treatment of all recaptured solutions per lab per year

270 270 laboratories in the watershed region3

$1,227,273 $36,818,182 Total Cost per yr for treatment of all recaptured solutions by laboratories in region

NOTES

*Each system can serve 3 clinical analyzers

1. Each laboratory may have between 1 to 30 clinical analyzers which discharge mercury and other chemicals directly to sewage system. Options available: a) the

Effluent Management System (EMS) attached directly to the clinical analyzer(s) which cost about $5,000 per filter system serving 3 analyzers each. Cartridge per

EMS replacement costs $150 each time and needs to be changed every 3 months ; or b) End of pipe systems that costs between $30,000 to $500,000 depend-

ing on volume (larger system can filter up to 100,000 gallons/sec) Filter cartridges cost $200. Pers.comm. with Owen Boyd, SolmeteX

2. Owen Boyd, SolmeteX Co., MA; pers. Communication, June 2001

3. http://www.hospitalselect.com and CenStats (1997SIC Comparison) Zip Code Business Patterns at http://tier2.census.gov/cgi-win/zbp/compares.exe Each hospi-

tal may have more than one laboratory.

4. Clean Harbors Environmental Services; Pete and Shana Wilson, personal communication, October 2001.

5. Calculation by Gregory Camacho, Industrial Hygienist, NY Presbyterian Hospital of Cornell and Columbia Universities. Pers. comm. October 2001. Each clinical ana-

lyzer uses 27 new containers of reagents on a daily basis. Each container carries about 300 ml.

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

110

Switches—Automotive Sector Costs/Net Savings

SUMMARY

Cost range to manage mercury switches: kg of Hg Cost range per kg managed

$456,584 $603,820 Removal of switches at end-of-life of vehicle 900 $507 $671

$8,774,158 $13,380,679 Replacement of switches from entire car fleet in region 9700 $905 $1,379

-$40,000 see note # 9 Substitution of mercury switches by manufacturer N/A N/A

CALCULATION # 1

Removal of Switches at end-of life of vehicles

Centralized operation (before vehicle is compacted)

Equipment cost Cost per year to remove switches from

900 kg of mercury in switches disposed per year vehicles at end-of-life in the watershed

x 2.2 lbs in a kilogram Range

1,980 lbs of mercury in switches disposed of yearly1$446,684 $603,820

/ 10 lbs of mercury per 30 lb container of switches2

198 containers needed per year to recover all switches disposed in the watershed region

x $50 per container sent by common carrier3

Sub-total A $9,900 Sub-total: cost of containers sent directly to Hg recycling/retorting facility

Labor costs Range

744,474 1,113,600 range of automotive mercury switches disposed in watershed per year4

/ 20 30 mercury switches removed per hour5

37,224 37,120 hours required to removed all mercury switches disposed per year

x $12 $16 labor costs per hour (including overhead) to remove 30 switches5

Sub-total B $446,684 $593,920 Sub-total: labor cost to remove switches

TOTAL (A + B) $456,584 $603,820 Total cost range to remove mercury switches for end-of-life vehicles in the watershed

Replacement of all mercury switches in all cars in the watershed

Cost of replacement switches (ball bearing type)

7,444,740 7,444,740 vehicles in the watershed6

x 1 1.6 mercury switches per vehicle6

7,444,740 11,911,584 mercury switches in vehicles of the watershed

x $0.35 $0.45 per replacement (non-mercury switch)7Cost range to replace all Hg switches

Sub-total A $2,605,659 $5,360,213 cost range of replacement switches for all cars from all vehicles in the watershed

Labor cost $8,774,158 $13,380,679

7,444,740 11,911,584 mercury switches in vehicles in the watershed area

/ 15 $25 switches replaced per hour8

496,316 476,463 hours required to replace all mercury switches

x $12 $16 labor cost per hour (including overhead)5

Sub-total B $5,955,792 $7,623,414 labor cost range to replace all mercury switches

Recycling cost for Hg switches replaced

7,444,740 11,911,584 mercury switches in vehicles of the watershed

/ 420 $450 mercury switches per container (3 lbs of switches with 1 lb of mercury)8

17,726 26,470 containers required to replace all mercury switches in all vehicles in watershed region

x $12 $15 per 3 lbs container sent by common carrier8

Sub-total C $212,707 397,053 Sub-total: cost of containers sent directly to Hg recycling/retorting facility

Total (A+B+C) $8,774,158 $13,380,679 cost range to replace all automotive Hg switches in the watershed (stock as of 1998)

APPENDICIES 111

NOTES

1. Appendix 6.2 under Automotive switches/releases

2. http://www.epa.gov/region5/air/mercury/autoswitch.htm

3. Sent by common carrier directly to recycler or retorting facility, in a hermetically sealed refrigerator-type-box which fits tightly inside a cardboard box. Both NY and NJ

accept the RCRA rule to allow container shipments of 30 lbs or less by common carrier.

4. Appendix 6.2 under Automotive switches/releases.

5. For amount of mercury switches that can be removed per hour and cost of removal go to http://www.epa.gov/region5/air/mercury/autoswitch.htm#remove

6. From Appendix 6.2 under Automotive Switches /Mercury Usage.

7. NY S Department of Conservation's Mercury Reduction Program (January, 2001); Toxics in Vehicles: Mercury. This document indicates that the cost of replacement

switches is $0.38 per switch and installment takes less than one minute. (Replacement is solid copper switch that is silver plated, single ball bearing inside a tilt

switch).

8. Tom Corbett (NYS DEC, Mercury Reduction Program); personal communication, October 10, 2001

9. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards and Office of Research and Development (1997); Mercury Study Report to Congress; Chapter VIII, page 5-9 indicates

that Chrysler Co. estimated it would save about $40,000 using rolling ball switches instead of a mercury switches. Savings would accrue mostly from avoided lia-

bilities and risk involved in managing hazardous materials during manufacturing. Called Ana Smith and Kathy Gran at Daimler-Chrysler to inquire number of cars

involved in calculation, but information was not available at the time of this report.

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercur y in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

112

Households: Thermometers Cost/Net Savings

SUMMARY

Cost Range of Mercury thermometers sold in the watershed/yr kg of Hg released/yr Cost/kg

$1,547,000 $2,587,000 500 $3,094 $5,174

Cost of replacing them with digital thermometers kg of Hg released/yr Cost/kg

$3,237,000 $5,187,000 500 $6,474 $10,374

CALCULATION # 1

Cost of Mercury thermometers sold in the watershed per year

Range

1,300,000 1,400,000 Units sold/yr1

x $1.19 $1.99 Unit cost range2

$1,547,000 $2,587,000 Cost range for watershed region

Cost of replacing them with digital thermometers

Range

1,300,000 1,400,000 Units sold/yr1

$2.49 $3.99 Unit cost range2

$3,237,000 $5,187,000 Cost range for watershed region

NOTES

1. For thermometers sold in the watershed region per year, see calculation in Appendix 6.2/Thermometers/Mercury Usage.

2. Welch Allyn Medical Products catalogue

APPENDICIES 113

Thermostats Costs/Net Savings

SUMMARY

Cost range of using mercury thermostats including 100% recycling kg of Hg released/yr Cost/kg

$7,084,286 $23,664,000 600 $11,807 $39,440

Costs of purchasing non-Hg digital thermostats kg of Hg released/yr Cost/kg

$11,597,100 $111,360,000 600 $19,329 $185,600

CALCULATION # 1

Cost of purchasing mercury thermostats

Range

290,000 464,000 Range of units sold in the watershed region per year1

x $24 $80 Cost range of mercury thermostats2

Sub-total A $6,960,000 $23,200,000 Cost of purchasing new mercury thermostats per year in the watershed region

Cost of comprehensive recycling

Range

290,000 464,000 units sold /yr replacing old ones

/ 35 45 units per container3

8,286 10,311 containers required for comprehensive recycling per year

x $15 $45 per container, by TRC ($15), or by common carrier, cost per time sent to recycler3

Sub-total B $124,286 $464,000 cost range of comprehensive recycling

Total (A+B) $7,084,286 $23,664,000 range of total cost associated with the use of mercury thermostats

Cost of substitution (non-mercury thermostats)

Range

290,000 464,000 Range of units sold in the watershed region per year1

x $40 $240 Cost range of non-mercury thermostats2

$11,597,100 $111,360,000 Cost of purchasing new non-mercury thermostats per year in the watershed region

NOTES

1. For units sold in the region, see calculation in Appendix 6.2

2. http://content.honeywell.com/yourhome/ptc-thermostats/Therm_Choose.htm and price confirmation by phone 800.345.6770x7409. Also Thurman Industries,

www.paynpak.com, 425.259.2538.

3. Thermostat Recycling Corporation (TRC) (1999); Wholesaler Questions and Answers to the Mercur y Thermostat Recycling Program http://www.nema.org/

government/environmental

Bacterial silver resistance: molecular biology and uses and misuses of silver compounds

Article

Jun 2003

Simon Silver

Resistance to silver compounds as determined by bacterial plasmids and genes has been defined by molecular genetics. Silver resistance conferred by the Salmonella plasmid pMGH100 involves nine genes in three transcription units. A sensor/responder (SilRS) two-component transcriptional regulatory system governs synthesis of a periplasmic Ag(I)-binding protein (SilE) and two efflux pumps (a P-type ATPase (SilP) plus a three-protein chemiosmotic RND Ag(I)/H⁺ exchange system (SilCBA)). The same genes were identified on five of 19 additional IncH incompatibility class plasmids but thus far not on other plasmids. Of 70 random enteric isolates from a local hospital, isolates from catheters and other Ag-exposed sites, and total genomes of enteric bacteria, 10 have recognizable sil genes. The centrally located six genes are found and functional in the chromosome of Escherichia coli K-12, and also occur on the genome of E. coli O157:H7. The use of molecular epidemiological tools will establish the range and diversity of such resistance systems in clinical and non-clinical sources. Silver compounds are used widely as effective antimicrobial agents to combat pathogens (bacteria, viruses and eukaryotic microorganisms) in the clinic and for public health hygiene. Silver cations (Ag⁺) are microcidal at low concentrations and used to treat burns, wounds and ulcers. Ag is used to coat catheters to retard microbial biofilm development. Ag is used in hygiene products including face creams, ‘alternative medicine’ health supplements, supermarket products for washing vegetables, and water filtration cartridges. Ag is generally without adverse effects for humans, and argyria (irreversible discoloration of the skin resulting from subepithelial silver deposits) is rare and mostly of cosmetic concern.

Mercury sources and speciation in the waters of New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary. Mater. Geoenviron. 51, 795-798

Article

Jan 2004

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Polychlorinated Biphenyls in the NY/NJ Harbor

Research

Full-text available

Feb 2015

Marta Panero

Authors’ Note This report is the result of an intense collaboration between the authors, the Harbor consortium and consultants. Dr. Marta Panero conducted the industrial ecology assessment, including researching historical production and fate of PCBs and sources and pathways of PCB mobilization in the NY/NJ Harbor Watershed. Dr. Susan Boehme consolidated and integrated the commissioned research, including the ongoing discussion on contaminated sites. Gabriela Muñoz was involved in the scientific research, including PCB effects in wildlife, remediation technologies, fluff in landfills, open burning and waste incineration processes. Dr. Lisa Totten conducted the PCB mass balance, which is included in Appendix A.

Distribution and accumulation ability of heavy metals in bivalve shells and associated sediment from Red Sea coast, Egypt

Article

Full-text available

May 2020
ENVIRON MONIT ASSESS

Hamdy E. Nour

Concentrations of Fe, Mn, Cu, Zn, Pb, Ni, Cd, and Co in molluscan shells and associated surface sediments from four sites on the Gulf of Aqaba and Red Sea coasts, Egypt, were measured by using atomic absorption spectrophotometer. The results revealed an apparent difference in the ability of each species regarding accumulating heavy metals in its shell. These results showed that Tridacna squamosa has the highest accumulation ability for Pb, Ni, and Zn, and Chama pacifica has the highest accumulation capability for Co and Cd, whereas Periglypta reticulata has the highest accumulation ability for Cu. The results also showed that there is a positive correlation between the concentration of Cu, Zn, Pb, and Ni and the size of shell. Simultaneously, there is a negative correlation with Fe, Mn, Co, and Cd. The results of bio-accumulation of molluscan species were consistent with the enrichment factors for sediments, where the Hurghada site was extremely enriched with Pb and very enriched with Cu, Zn, and Ni. Moreover, the Quseir site was extremely enriched with Cd and very enriched with Pb. The Um al-Sid site was severe enriched with Cd and Pb. Meanwhile, the Ras Mohamed site was severe enriched with Pb and nearly unpolluted with other metals. Heavy metals can enter the studied ecosystem by terrigenous and anthropogenic sources as a weathering process of the nearby beaches and mountains, ship maintenance, industrial activities, wastewater, and traffic exhaust.

METAL CONCENTRATION METAL CONCENTRATION AT SURFACE WATER USING MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS AND HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

Article

Aug 2017

This study defined the concentration of health risk towards human. Results revealed that most of the Zn, Co, Ni, As, Cr and Pb compared to permissible limit of Malaysia standard below than Malaysian standard permissib component analysis (PCA) revealed that both responsible to possible metals metals were within the safe limits, except for As in the Kerteh River for both adult and child well as to Paka River for both gender defined the concentration of metals in Kerteh and Paka River water and their potential health risk towards human. 54 water samples were collected and analyzed using ICP esults revealed that most of the stations in Kerteh River gave the higher concentration Pb compared to Paka River. However As, Cr and Malaysia standard for all stations in both rivers. Cd, Cu, Zn, Co and Ni were standard permissible levels during the sampling component analysis (PCA) revealed that both geogenic and anthropogenic sources were metals contamination in both rivers. Moreover, risk assessments for all safe limits, except for As in the Kerteh River for both adult and child for both genders.

State and green crimes related to water pollution and ecological disorganization: water pollution from publicly owned treatment works (POTW) facilities across US states

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2017

Green criminologists often refer to water pollution as an example of a green crime, but have yet to produce much research on this subject. The current article addresses the need for green criminological analyses of water pollution problems, and draws attention to an overlooked issue: water pollution emissions from state owned public water treatment facilities or POTWs. Legally, POTWs may emit certain quantities and kinds of pollutants to waterways following treatment. This does not mean, however, that those emissions have no adverse ecological or public health impacts, or that those emissions cannot also be employed as examples of green crimes or green-state crimes. Indeed, from the perspective of environmental sociology and ecological Marxism, those emissions generate ecological disorganization. Moreover, POTW emissions contain numerous pollutants that generate different forms of ecological disorganization. The current study uses POTW emissions data drawn from the US EPA’s Discharge Monitoring Report system for 2014 to illustrate the extent of pollution emitted by POTWs in and across US states as one dimension of ecological disorganization. To contextualize the meaning of those data, we review US water pollution regulations, review the health and ecological impacts of chemicals emitted by POTWs, and situate those emissions within green criminological discussions of green crime and green-state crimes. Available online: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/articles/palcomms201770

Comparison of heavy metal contamination during the last decade along the coastal sediment of Pakistan: Multiple pollution indices approach

Article

Feb 2016

Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCBs) Residues in Suburban Red Foxes (Vulpes vulpes) - Preliminary Study

Article

Jan 2012
POL J ENVIRON STUD

The objective of our study was to determine residues of PCB indicator congeners in select organs of suburban foxes from the West Pomeranian area of Poland. Quantitative analysis was conducted by capillary gas chromatography using the mass spectrometry method. Mean concentrations of ΣPCBs (sum of PCBs: 28, 52, 101, 118, 138, 153, 180) in the liver and lung was 389.99 ng/g and 110.57 ng/g of lipid weight. The proportion of dominant congeners (#180, 153 and 138) in total PCB was 90.9% in the liver and 77.1% in lungs. The PCB concentrations obtained in the liver of foxes are lower than the literature data, especially with regard to highly chlorinated congeners.

Habitat, Population Dynamics, and Metal Levels in Colonial Waterbirds: A Food Chain Approach

Book

Jul 2016

Financing resource efficiency and cleaner production in Central America

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2018
CLEAN TECHNOL ENVIR

Resource efficiency, including cleaner production and energy efficiency (CP/EE), is an important strategy for developing countries to grow their economies in a sustainable manner. However, informational, technical and economic barriers often limit the implementation of such strategies in the private sector, particularly among smaller enterprises. Since the 1990s, international aid agencies, governments, banks and non-governmental organizations have supplied financial incentives to encourage enterprises to adopt resource efficient practices in Latin America. “Pathways to Cleaner Production in the Americas” (PCPA) was a 3-year multinational project focused on promoting cleaner production practices in micro, small and medium size enterprises (MSMEs) through collaboration with academia. In this paper, we examine the availability and utilization of different types of financing instruments for CP/EE in MSMEs in Central America. We survey nineteen programs across five countries to examine how effectively these instruments are utilized, barriers that hinder their adoption, and best practices for increasing their uptake. We also incorporate the experience of 39 MSMEs that participated in PCPA, with respect to their demand for CP/EE and external financing options. We find a mismatch between MSMEs’ demands and expectations with the supply and interest of financing programs, leading to the underutilization of the funds.

Sources and material balance of mercury in the New York-New Jersey

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2001

Estimation of Fish Consumption and Methylmercury Intake in the New Jersey Population

Article

Oct 1996
J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol

Despite scientific attention to the toxicology of methylmercury (MeHg), little is known about population-based exposure to this compound. In this study, fish consumption and MeHg intake were estimated based on a seven-day recall survey of fish consumption among 1000 randomly selected New Jersey residents. Survey data were reported on a per-meal basis, and the fish species/dishes consumed at each meal were identified. Portion sizes for each meal were reported or estimated. To correct a possible bias due to underrepresentation of infrequent consumers, several schemes for weighting fish consumption data were investigated. MeHg concentration for most fish species was estimated from the National Marine Fisheries Service database or from recent United States Food and Drug Administration data. Commercial fish accounted for about 95% of all consumption. Mean fish consumption is estimated for all New Jersey adult consumers at 50.2 g/day (90th percentile = 107.4 g/day) and for women 18-40 years old (childbearing age) at 41.0 g/day (90th percentile = 88.1 g/day). Mean MeHg intake is estimated for all New Jersey adult consumers at 7.5 micrograms/day (90th percentile = 1.79 micrograms/day) and for women 18-40 at 6.3 micrograms/day (90th percentile = 14.8 micrograms/day). When MeHg concentrations are adjusted to account for the possible overestimation of current concentrations by the 20-year-old National Marine Fisheries Service database, it is estimated that MeHg intakes may be about 70-80% of unadjusted estimates. Based on these analyses, it is estimated that 21-30% of New Jersey women 18-40 and 5-8% of all New Jersey adults exceed their respective U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Reference Doses for MeHg. Because of uncertainty associated with the Reference Doses, exceeding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidelines does not necessarily correspond to adverse effects on consumers or their fetuses.

Members of the Methylmercury Action Group were Nada Marie Assaff-Anid

O'connor. Susan Joel
Allison L C Boehme
Marta De Cerreño
Panero

12. Members of the Mercury Action Group were Joanna Burger (Rutgers), William Fitzgerald (UConn.), Michael Gochfeld (RWJ Medical School), Joel O'Connor (SUNY), Donna Riley (EPA), and Valerie Thomas (Princeton). Members of the Methylmercury Action Group were Nada Marie Assaff-Anid (Manhattan College), Janina Benoit (Wheaton College), Michael Connor (NE Aquarium), Charles Driscoll (Syracuse Univ.), William Fitzgerald, Carlton Hunt (Battelle Ocean Science, Inc.), Robert Mason (Univ. of MD), and Joel O'Connor. Susan Boehme, Allison L. C. de Cerreño, Marta Panero, and Charles Powers also were members of each group.

Methylmercury Cycling in the NY/NJ Harbor: Implications for Mitigating High Mercury Levels in Harbor Fish," developed for and presented at a combined meeting of the Mercury and Methylmercury Action Groups

Aug 2001

See Janina
M Benoit

See Janina M. Benoit, "Methylmercury Cycling in the NY/NJ Harbor: Implications for Mitigating High Mercury Levels in Harbor Fish," developed for and presented at a combined meeting of the Mercury and Methylmercury Action Groups, New York Academy of Sciences-NYAS (August 2001).

Mercury Cycling in the Hudson/Raritan River Basin," developed for and presented at the NYAS Harbor Consortium meeting

Feb 2001

See William
F Fitzgerald
Joel S O'connor

See William F. Fitzgerald and Joel S. O'Connor, "Mercury Cycling in the Hudson/Raritan River Basin," developed for and presented at the NYAS Harbor Consortium meeting (February 2001).

The population in the NY State area of the watershed is 10.4 million and in NJ is 4.2 million or a total of 5.2% of the US population

Jan 2000

Census 2000; US population in 2000 was 285.3 million. The population in the NY State area of the watershed is 10.4 million and in NJ is 4.2 million or a total of 5.2% of the US population. After adjusting it by the level of disposable income, the estimate is 5.8% of the national population. http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/spi/ and http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/statepop.html

Total consumption of mercury by the dental sector in the U.S. fluctuates annually; the average from 1986 to 1997 is 48 tons/yr

Jan 2000

L John
Thomas G Sznopek
Goonan

Total consumption of mercury by the dental sector in the U.S. fluctuates annually; the average from 1986 to 1997 is 48 tons/yr. John L. Sznopek and Thomas G. Goonan, The Material Flow of Mercury in the Economies of the United States and the World, US Geological Circular 1197 (Washington, DC: US Department of the Interior and USGS, 2000. Also, Naval Dental Research Institute (January 2000);

There are 17,026 licensed and registered dentists in New York State, with 6,073 in the watershed area

Apr 2001

There are approximately 11,240 dentists in the watershed area (6,073 and 5,167 for NY and NJ counties respectively). There are 17,026 licensed and registered dentists in New York State, with 6,073 in the watershed area (Rita St. John, Professional, Licensing Services, Public Information Unit of NY State Education Department, personal communication, April 2001). There are approximately 10,000 dentists in NJ State (NJ Board of Dentistry, Licensing Board, May 2001); and about 5,167 dentists within the NJ watershed area (Grace Garcia, Division of Consumer Affairs, NJ; personal communication, April 23, 2001).

Mercury content in fluorescent lamps has declined, from 50 mg on average in 1985 to 23 mg in 1994 to 13 mg in 2000. Here we assume that the lamps being discarded in 2001 were produced at least five years before, around 1996. We use the average of 18 mg for this year, using the data from

Jan 1994

Substance Flow Analysis of Mercury in Products. Proportions are reported on release distribution by pathway. Also, Michael Aucott

Jan 2001

Estimates for volatilization range from 20% to 80%. Here 25% is used. Barr Engineering Company (2001) Substance Flow Analysis of Mercury in Products. Proportions are reported on release distribution by pathway. Also, Michael Aucott, NJ DEP and NJ Mercury Task Group, personal communication.

Pollution prevention and management strategies for mercury in the New York/New Jersey Harbor

Figures

Recommended publications

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in the New York/...

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Dioxins in The New York / New Jersey Harbor

Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Cadmium in the New York / New Jersey Harbor

Collaborative Problem Solving Using an Industrial Ecology Approach