European Commission (DG...

Contact BIO Intelligence Service Shailendra Mudgal – Lise Van Long

℡ +33 1 53 90 11 80 [email protected]

[email protected]

European Commission (DG ENV)

Reference: 07.0307/2009/549558/ETU/G1

Review of the Community Strategy

Concerning Mercury

Final Report

4 October 2010

In association with Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) mbH

2 European Commission (DG ENV) Review of the Community Strategy Concerning Mercury

October 2010 Final Report

Project Team � BIO INTELLIGENCE SERVICE

Shailendra Mudgal

Lise Van Long

Sandeep Pahal

Kurt Muehmel

� GESELLSCHAFT FÜR ANLAGEN- UND REAKTORSICHERHEIT (GRS) MBH

Sven Hagemann

Disclaimer:

This document is distributed as prepared by Bio Intelligence Service. The project team does not accept any liability for any direct or indirect damage resulting from the use of this report or its content.

The views expressed in this report are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. The recommendations given by the authors should not be interpreted as a political or legal signal that the Commission intend to take a given action.


European Commission (DG ENV) Review of the Community Strategy Concerning Mercury

3

Table of contents

Abbreviations ............................................................................................................ 5

Executive summary .................................................................................................... 7

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

1.1. Background ....................................................................................................................... 17

1.2. Objectives of the study...................................................................................................... 19

1.3. Document structure .......................................................................................................... 19

2. Assessment of the Strategy’s implementation .............................................. 20

2.1. Approach ........................................................................................................................... 21

2.2. Progress against the 20 actions ......................................................................................... 23

2.3. Additional quantitative analysis ........................................................................................ 60

3. Possible additional actions ........................................................................... 71

3.1. Approach ........................................................................................................................... 71

3.2. Key findings ....................................................................................................................... 73

4. Further assessment of selected actions ...................................................... 119

4.1. Shortlist of actions for further assessment ..................................................................... 119

4.2. Key aspects of methodology ........................................................................................... 121

4.3. Impact of options relating to reduction of mercury supply from recycling and import . 122

4.3.1. Description of the policy options .................................................................... 122

4.3.2. Environmental impacts ................................................................................... 124

4.3.3. Economic and social impacts .......................................................................... 130

4.3.4. Administrative costs ........................................................................................ 131

4.3.5. Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 131

4.4. Impact of options relating to further mercury export restrictions ................................. 133

4.4.1. Description of the policy options .................................................................... 133

4.4.2. Environmental impacts ................................................................................... 136

4.4.3. Economic and social impacts .......................................................................... 145

4.4.4. Administrative costs ........................................................................................ 146

4.4.5. Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 146

4.5. Comparison of policy options .......................................................................................... 148

5. ANNEX 1 – EU legislation concerning mercury............................................. 155

6. ANNEX 2 – Key policies and best practice initatives concerning mercury ..... 183

6.1. Approach ......................................................................................................................... 183

6.2. Member State legislation ................................................................................................ 184



6.3. International policy and best practice initiatives ............................................................198

6.3.1. Country-specific initiatives ..............................................................................198

6.3.2. International conventions, agreements and programmes .............................214

6.4. Summary of findings........................................................................................................227

7. ANNEX 3 – Additional data on mercury emissions ....................................... 243

8. ANNEX 4 – Mercury in energy-saving light bulbs ......................................... 249

9. ANNEX 5 – Screening assessment of possible additional policy actions ........ 255



5

ABBREVIATIONS

ASM Artisanal Small-scale Mining

ASGM Artisanal Small-scale Gold Mining

BAT Best Available Technique

BAT-AEL Best Available Technique Associated Emission Level

BREF Best Available Techniques Reference document

CEIP Centre on Emissions Inventories and Projections

CFL Compact Fluorescent Lamp

CLRTAP Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution

CO2 Carbon dioxide

EC European Community

ECHA European Chemicals Agency

EFSA European Food Safety Authority

ELV Emission Limit Value

EPA Environment Protection Agency

EPER European Pollutant Emission Register

E-PRTR European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register

EU European Union

ExIA Extended Impact Assessment

GC Governing Council

Hg Mercury

HID High Intensity Discharge

HTAP

IED

INC1

Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution

Industrial Emissions Directive

First meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to

prepare a legally binding instrument on mercury (June 2010)

IPPC Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control

LCP Large Combustion Plant



MCCA Mercury-Cell Chlor-Alkali

MS Member State of the European Union

NOx Nitrogen Oxides

OEWG Open Ended Working Group

PIC Prior Informed Consent (refers to the Rotterdam Convention)

REACH Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemical

substances

RoHS Restriction of Hazardous Substances

SCENIHR Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks

SCHER Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks

SO2 Sulphur dioxide

UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

UNEP United National Environment Programme

UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Programme

UNDP United Nations Development Organization

WEEE Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment

WHO World Health Organization



7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Mercury and most of its compounds are highly toxic to humans, ecosystems and

wildlife. Mercury emissions from anthropogenic sources in EU-27 amounted to

approximately 87 tonnes in 20081 while emissions to water were estimated to be

around 10 tonnes in 20072. The health and environmental risks associated with

mercury have led the European Union (EU) to develop a comprehensive strategy

addressing mercury pollution both in the EU and globally. The Commission adopted its

Community Strategy concerning Mercury3 (referred to as the “Strategy” in this report)

in 2005, setting out 20 actions with the aim to “reduce mercury levels in the

environment and human exposure, especially from methylmercury in fish”. The

following six objectives in particular have been identified as priorities and reflect the

life-cycle approach used to tackle the mercury problem: reducing mercury emissions;

reducing the entry into circulation of mercury in society by cutting supply and demand;

resolving the long-term fate of mercury surpluses and societal reservoirs (in products

still in use or in storage); protecting against mercury exposure; improving

understanding of the mercury problem and its solutions; and supporting and

promoting international action on mercury.

Since the adoption of the Strategy in 2005, there have been significant developments

including national and international policy developments (in particular the UNEP

Governing Council decision in 2009 to start negotiations on a global legally binding

instrument on mercury), progress in scientific knowledge, technical developments as

well as increased political and public awareness of mercury-related risks.

In this context, the objective of this study was to identify policy options that could be

taken into account by the Commission in reviewing the Community Strategy

concerning Mercury. Detailed objectives were as follows:

• To review the progress made so far in implementing the Strategy and each of

its 20 actions

• To identify areas where implementation is lagging behind and suggest

potential complementary measures

1 Source: European Environmental Agency (EEA). July 2010. European Union emission inventory report

1990–2008 under the UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP), www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-union-emission-inventory-report

2 Source: European Pollution Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR), http://prtr.ec.europa.eu/ 3 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament – Community

Strategy Concerning Mercury – COM (2005) 20 final (eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=en&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2005&nu_doc=20)



• To propose amendments, as needed, as well as additional actions, taking into

account recent studies, best practices and policy initiatives at the EU and

international levels.

� ASSESSMENT OF THE STRATEGY’S IMPLEMENTATION

The assessment of the Strategy’s implementation was mainly carried out by analysing

the progress made against each of the 20 actions of the Strategy.

Overall, the implementation of the Strategy has resulted in significant progress in some

areas such as the ban on EU exports of mercury from March 2011 (adoption of a

Regulation (EC) 1102/2008), the ban on mercury use in some measuring devices

(REACH Regulation) and EU’s contribution to achieving a UNEP decision to start

negotiations on a global agreement on mercury in 2010. In other areas, however,

implementation has been lagging behind; this concerns in particular the reduction of

mercury emissions (IPPC sectors and small-scale combustion) and the issue of dental

amalgam use and waste management. The overall results of the assessment are

summarised in Table 0- 1 below.

Table 0- 1: Strategy implementation summary table

Action No.

Key topic of action Level of progress

1 Assessing effects of IPPC4 and LCP5 Directives on mercury emissions and considering needs for further action

Little progress

2 Improving mercury-related information in BREF documents6 Good progress

3 Study on small scale coal combustion Moderate progress

4 Reviewing treatment of dental amalgam waste and taking appropriate steps

Moderate progress

5 Adoption of mercury export ban regulation Good progress

6 Expert opinions on dental amalgam Moderate progress

7 Amendment to Directive 76/769/EEC (measuring equipment) Good progress

8 Study on few remaining products and applications; adoption of REACH Regulation.

Good progress

9 Storage of mercury from chlor-alkali industry Good progress

10 Study on the fate of mercury in products Good progress

11 Investigation by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Good progress

12 Information on mercury in food Good progress

13 Priorities for mercury research Good progress

14 Input to international activities, technology transfer Moderate progress

15 Funding scheme to reduce mercury emissions from coal Good progress

4 Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control 5 Large Combustion Plants 6 Best Available Techniques Reference documents



9

Action No.

Key topic of action Level of progress

combustion in countries with a high dependency on solid fuels

16 Mercury to be subject to Prior Inform Consent (PIC) procedure Good progress

17 Support to UNECE CLRTAP7 Heavy Metals Protocol Moderate progress

18 Support to UNEP Mercury Programme Moderate progress

19 Support to global efforts to reduce use of mercury in gold mining

Little progress

20 Advocate global phase-out of mercury supply Good progress

� POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL ACTIONS AND FURTHER ASSESSMENT OF SELECTED ACTIONS

Taking into account potential gaps in the implementation of the current Strategy,

policies and best practice initiatives developed at the EU and international levels,

recommendations from recent studies and stakeholders’ comments, a number of areas

where additional Community action could be taken to better protect human health

and the environment from mercury-related hazards were identified in this study. As

pointed out by various stakeholders, the EU needs a strong revised Strategy to

maintain its leadership role at the global level and in the context of international

negotiations to prepare a global instrument on mercury; potential actions identified in

the present study are intended to be in line with this vision.

The study has identified about 50 potential actions that have been grouped under

eleven specific objectives and three objectives related to implementation

arrangements. A summary of the key actions identified is presented in

7 Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution



Table 0- 2 at the end of this summary section.

Measures required to address implementation gaps of the current Strategy should be

considered as a priority. This concerns in particular the actions required to:

• Further reduce mercury emissions from IPPC installations

• Address emissions from small-scale combustion installations

• Ensure dental amalgam waste is managed in compliance with the Hazardous

Waste legislation in all Member States

• Complement the assessment of mercury use in dental amalgam waste, also

taking into account the results of the recent impact assessment of a potential

ban on this use8

• Increase support to international activities (UNEP Mercury Program and Global

Mercury Partnership and other bilateral and multilateral projects).

The list of possible additional actions previously identified was screened according to a

number of criteria, with a view to identifying a short list of actions which would

deserve further assessment and for which enough data on environmental and

economic impacts could be obtained within the timeframe of this study. Actions

related to the following two topics were selected for further assessment as part of this

study:

• Reducing mercury supply from import and recycling

• Further restrictions on mercury exports

Please note, the preliminary impact assessment conducted as part of this study only

covers some of the areas that should be considered as priority areas as part of the full

implementation of the current Strategy and its future development. Issues such as

mercury use in button cell batteries and mercury air emissions from coal combustion

were identified as other important areas for further action but due to a lack of

sufficient data could not be further assessed within the timeframe of this study.

Actions to restrict mercury use in measuring devices for professional use and in

polyurethane elastomer manufacture are currently under investigation by the

European Chemicals Agency and were not duplicated here.

� Reducing mercury supplying from import and recycling

The following policy options were considered:

• Option A: No additional action (business as usual)

8 COWI report for DG ENV: “Options for reducing mercury use in products and applications and the fate

of mercury already circulating in society”, 2008 (ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/pdf/study_report2008.pdf)



11

• Option B: Consider mercury recovered from the recycling of products as waste

that has to be disposed off

• Option C: Import ban on elemental mercury and mercury compounds, with

exemptions for R&D, medical and analysis, restoration of antiques and disposal

purposes

• Option D: Combination of Options B and C (this option was however left aside as it did not seem to be feasible in the short term).

The main objective of Options B, C and D would be to reduce EU supply of mercury and

mercury compounds. This would prevent mercury and mercury compounds from (re-)

entering the EU market and would avoid negative environmental impacts generated

along their life-cycle.

If no additional action is taken (Option A), mercury use is expected to decrease within

the EU in future years, as a result of current policies taken to restrict its use in some

sectors and applications. However, this reduction in mercury use will only be partial

and mercury will continue to be used in a number of processes and products; this will

continue to generate significant environmental and health concerns.

Option B would offer some advantages in the short term, as it would increase the need

for mercury import and reduce the availability of mercury on the global market. It was

roughly estimated that about 100 t/year of mercury would be permanently removed

from the market. In the long run, international legally binding commitments could lead

to trade restrictions that could cut off the EU from international supply sources. The

disadvantage of this option is that it has little effect on the mercury price and may

discourage the recovery of mercury from waste and generate negative socio-economic

impacts for the EU recycling industry (based on rough estimates, the recycling industry

would lose revenues in the order of 1.4-1.6 million EUR/year if recovered mercury can

no longer be sold).

Option C would be an incentive for European recyclers to recover more mercury from

waste, since currently their output is lower than EU demand. At the same time higher

EU internal prices for mercury would encourage the substitution of remaining mercury

uses. On the other hand, recycling leads to the mobilisation of additional mercury that

would otherwise be disposed of. Moreover, mercury that is not imported is available

for more environmentally damaging purposes outside the EU like artisanal small-scale

gold mining (ASGM). The amount of mercury that would no longer be imported into

the EU is estimated at 7-127 tonnes/year in 2015. If recyclers were able to increase

production by this amount, thus meeting the EU market demand, their revenues could

increase by 0.09-2.0 million EUR/year at current mercury prices9.

9 580-680 USD/flask



Overall, an import ban seems to be an appropriate measure to further reduce mercury

supply in the EU. The gap between predicted demand and supply would likely be

closed by improved recycling activities and a decrease in mercury use.

� Further mercury export restrictions

The following policy options were considered:


• Option B: Extend the export ban of elemental mercury to medical purposes

• Option C: Extend the export ban to other mercury compounds

• Option D: Ban on the export of mercury-added products that are prohibited on

the EU market

If no additional action is taken (Option A), the limited scope of the current EU export

ban (exemption for medical purposes; most mercury compounds not covered) may

result in continuing to supply significant quantities of mercury from the EU to the

world market and contributing to global environmental and health damages, especially

in the case of illegal use for ASGM. On the other hand, mercury-added products that

are not allowed to be marketed within the EU may still be exported to non-EU

countries and contribute to health and environmental damages through their life-cycle

(mainly due to improper waste disposal).

Option B would aim to address the issue of mercury being legally exported by the EU

for legitimate uses, in particular for dental amalgam preparation which is covered by

the exemption related to medical purposes, but then (illegally) diverted for ASGM. This

policy action would cut a source of mercury supply for ASGM, which could result in

environmental and health benefits. It was roughly estimated that approximately 20-

69 tonnes/year of elemental mercury from the EU would no longer enter the global

market.

Option C would aim to address the issue of mercury compounds being exported to

other countries where they can easily be reconverted into elemental mercury or used

for applications that cause a release of mercury to the environment. This could provide

environmental and health benefits at a global level. An EU export ban on mercury

compounds would lead to a global cut of supply in the order of 64-634 t/year mercury.

Option D would contribute to global efforts to reduce mercury use worldwide and

particularly in developing countries where the capacity to manage risks associated with

the use and disposal of mercury-added products is much lower than in the EU. The

potential environmental impacts of such a ban would depend on the range of products

that would be prohibited within the EU. One scenario would be that the export of all

mercury oxide batteries, mercury oxide battery materials and all measuring devices

would be banned; in such case, approximately 35-42 tonnes of mercury could be

prevented from entering the global market each year.



13

It must be noted that the actual efficiency of Options B, C and D would partly depend

on whether non-EU countries involved in mercury export also take similar actions.

Policy options B, C and D are likely to have negative socio-economic effects on EU

companies involved in the export of mercury, mercury compounds and mercury-added

products. These negative impacts may however be limited, as these companies should

already have anticipated future requirements of the EU legislation on mercury, in

particular the EU export ban which will come into force in March 2011 and possible

future mercury-use restrictions in products and processes.



Table 0- 2: Summary of possible additional actions

Possible actions

General aspects

• Complement the key aim in the Strategy with an overall goal, e.g. “To protect human health and the environment from the release of mercury and its compounds by minimising and, where feasible, ultimately eliminating anthropogenic mercury releases to air, water and land”.

• Further investigate production, use, trade and fate of mercury compounds in the EU and update this information on a regular basis.

• Establish a trade tracking system to monitor EU imports and exports of elemental mercury and mercury compounds.

Reduce supply

• Consider mercury extracted from products as waste that has to be disposed of in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008.

• Ban the import of elemental mercury and mercury compounds, with exemptions for R&D, medical and analysis, restoration of antiques and disposal purposes.

• Extend storage obligation to obsolete mercury and mercury compounds recovered from lighthouses, laboratories, schools, clinics and other public and private non-commercial sources.

Reduce demand for mercury in products and processes

• Phase-out the use of dental amalgam, possibly with identified exemptions. Future decision could be supported by a revision of the assessment conducted by the SCHER in 2008, taking into account information gaps highlighted in the 2008 assessment.

• Extend mercury use restrictions to sphygmomanometers and other measuring devices in healthcare and in other professional and industrial uses; some exemptions may be considered for research and validation purposes (covered by an Annex XV Restriction Report that is being prepared by ECHA).

• For applications where mercury-free alternatives are easily available such as exit signs, traffic lights, computer and flat screen backlight, the use of mercury should be completely banned.

• As part of the current review of the Batteries Directive, consider banning the marketing of mercury containing button cells with possible exemptions in cases where safety and performance criteria cannot be met without the use of mercury.

• Phase out the use of mercury in polyurethane elastomer manufacture (covered by a restriction proposal recently submitted under Annex XV of REACH).

• As an alternative measure to application-specific bans, the implementation of a general ban with a list of identified exemptions should be investigated.

Reduce international trade of mercury

• Extend the scope of the export ban to: 1) Elemental mercury to medical purposes (possibly with identified exemptions)10; 2) All mercury compounds except for R&D, medical, analysis and restoration (colours) purposes; and 3) Mercury-added products that are not allowed on the EU

10 Alternatively: report on the effectiveness of the export ban no later than 5 years after its entering into

force (2016).



15

Possible actions

market as well as machinery and equipment to produce them.

Reduce or eliminate emissions of mercury

• Ensure effective implementation of the new Industrial Emissions Directive (IED), in particular the provisions related to the application of BAT-AELs in permit conditions.

• Reconsider the option of defining ELVs for mercury air emissions from medium sized and large coal combustion plants.

• Carry out an assessment of the co-benefit effect of controls to be implemented by 1 January 2008 under the LCP Directive.

• Define a legally-binding sunset date for all existing mercury cell chlor-alkali plants in the EU (2020 or before); define mandatory mercury emission limits for existing mercury cell plants, ensuring a gradual decrease of emissions until complete phase-out of the mercury cell technology, with harmonised monitoring and reporting requirements.

• Investigate the use of the mercury cell technology for the production of alkoxides, alkali metals and other chemicals in view of a potential ban on the mercury-based process.

• Address current information gaps on mercury BAT-AELs as well as mercury emissions abatement, monitoring and measurement techniques in the next versions of the BREF documents.

• Implement recommendations from the 2005 study on options for reducing mercury emissions to air from small-scale combustion installations.

• Member States that are Parties to the OSPAR Convention should gather and submit emission data for crematoria, in accordance with Recommendation 2003/4. The Commission should re-consider policy measures to reduce mercury emissions from crematoria once further data is available.

Achieve environmentally sound management of mercury-containing wastes

• Make installation of high efficiency amalgam separators and/or filters obligatory in dental clinics, possibly complemented by obligatory inspection, maintenance, documentation by certified service suppliers. Set a target for reaching 95% coverage (like in Canada). As a short-term measure, the Commission should remind Member States about the requirements applicable to dental amalgam waste and ask them to provide a timetable of their plans to comply with the Hazardous Waste legislation.

• Define a limit value for the mercury content in waste to be landfilled11. Amend the acceptance criteria set out in Council Decision 2003/33/EC for landfills so as to explicitly exclude disposal of dental amalgam waste from disposal in landfills, except underground waste storage facilities.

• Increase the awareness and technical insight of mercury's presence in waste and the need for its safe collection and treatment, through effective communication at all levels.

• Improve physical collection and sorting schemes and methods, in particular for dental amalgam, button cell batteries, and electrical and electronic components. Increase enforcement, reporting requirements and control of all steps in mercury waste collection, handling and treatment and introduce a wider use of producer/importer life cycle responsibility with well defined obligations

11 Waste with a higher content would have to be disposed of in an underground landfill, possibly after

chemical stabilisation of the elemental mercury content. This also includes mercury containing batteries (that are allowed for landfill disposal according to Directive 2006/66/EC). Requirements on EU level would have to be consistent with those currently developed for the disposal or elemental mercury in underground waste storage facilities (no higher requirements for mercury-containing waste than for elemental mercury).



Possible actions

and goals, in line with what is already in force with the WEEE Directive for certain mercury-containing waste types. A task force dedicated to the Community wide promotion of increased collection and recycling/safe disposal of mercury containing waste could be established.

• Encourage national activities to actively collect and safely recycle or dispose of obsolete mercury containing products from households, institutes, schools, clinics and other places.

Remediate existing contaminated sites

• Continue to support the development of a Soil Framework Directive. Alternatively: propose another approach that leads to national registers of mercury contaminated sites, because these might be of transnational and EU relevance.

• Develop and recommend criteria for assessing the risk of mercury contaminated sites: improve and share expertise in identifying assessing, managing and remediating mercury contaminated sites (e.g. through Framework Programmes or other suitable programmes).

Protecting against exposure

• Further consideration should be given to the issue of regulating mercury deposition and stipulating maximum mercury levels in ambient air12.

Support and promote international action

• The Community, Member States and other stakeholders should pursue to advocate a multilateral agreement that flexibly covers all phases of the mercury life cycle.

• The Commission and Member states should bring their contributions to the UNEP Mercury Program and the Global Mercury Partnership into coherence with the high priority they have given to the mercury problem.

• Strengthen bilateral and multilateral projects to support other countries (also within the EU) in reducing mercury use and releases by initiating research projects, provision of technical knowledge, human and financial resources13.

Information exchange and public awareness, monitoring

• Develop a website dedicated to mercury, mercury related problems and possible solutions to inform EU citizens, industry and other stakeholders.

• Member States should enhance efforts to increase public awareness on mercury issues, especially in the waste and products sector and with regard to mercury in food.

• The Commission and Member States should further harmonise and facilitate access to environmental and human biomonitoring data.

12 As part of the future review of report to be prepared by the end of 2010 under Directive 2004/107/EC 13 Activity should address (but not exclusively) the most important sources of mercury pollution: thermal

processes (stationary combustion, metal production), vinyl chloride production, artisanal small scale gold mining and primary mercury mining.

October 2010

Final Report European Commission (DG ENV)

Review of the Community Strategy Concerning Mercury 17

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. BACKGROUND

� THE MERCURY PROBLEM

Mercury and most of its compounds are highly toxic to humans, ecosystems and wildlife.

Initially seen as an acute and local problem, mercury pollution is now also understood to be

global, diffuse and chronic. High doses can be fatal to humans, but even relatively low doses

can have serious adverse impacts on the developing neurological system, and have been

linked with possible harmful effects on the cardiovascular, immune and reproductive

systems. Mercury also retards microbiological activity in soil, and is a priority hazardous

substance under the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). According to the World

Health Organisation (WHO), a safe level of mercury – below which no adverse effects occur –

has not been established.

Mercury is persistent and can change in the environment into methylmercury, its most toxic

form. Methylmercury readily passes both the placental barrier and the blood-brain barrier,

inhibiting potential mental development even before birth. Hence exposure of women of

child-bearing age and children is of greatest concern.

The largest source of mercury exposure for most people in developed countries is inhalation

of mercury vapour from dental amalgam. Exposure to methylmercury mostly occurs via diet.

Methylmercury collects and concentrates especially in the aquatic food chain, making

populations with a high intake of fish and seafood particularly vulnerable.

Most people in central and northern Europe show bioindicators of exposure below

internationally accepted safe levels for methylmercury. However, most people in coastal

areas of Mediterranean countries, and around 1-5% of the population in central and

northern Europe, are around these levels, and large numbers among Mediterranean fishing

communities and the Arctic population exceed them significantly.

Although mercury is released by natural sources like volcanoes, additional releases from

anthropogenic sources, like coal burning and use in products, have led to significant

increases in environmental exposure and deposition. Past releases have also created a

“global pool” of mercury in the environment, part of which is continuously mobilised,

deposited and re-mobilised. Further emissions add to this global pool circulating between

air, water, sediments, soil and biota.

Elevated mercury concentrations occur in many parts of the world. Some are largely due to

local sources, especially small scale gold mining in South America, Africa and Asia. But as a

transboundary pollutant, mercury also can be transported globally to regions far from its

source. This means that some pollution of a local character, viewed in the short term, adds



to the global pool in the long term. It has also led to contamination of regions with few or no

mercury sources, like the Arctic.

� THE POLICY CONTEXT

The health and environmental risks associated with mercury have led the European Union

(EU) to develop a comprehensive strategy addressing mercury pollution both in the EU and

globally. The Commission adopted its Community Strategy concerning Mercury14 (referred

to as the “Strategy” in this report) in 2005 setting out 20 actions with the aim to “reduce

mercury levels in the environment and human exposure, especially from methylmercury in

fish”. The following six objectives in particular have been identified as priorities and reflect

the life-cycle approach used to tackle the mercury problem:

• Reducing mercury emissions

• Reducing the entry into circulation of mercury in society by cutting supply and

demand

• Resolving the long-term fate of mercury surpluses and societal reservoirs (in

products still in use or in storage)

• Protecting against mercury exposure

• Improving understanding of the mercury problem and its solutions

• Supporting and promoting international action on mercury

Key aspects of the Strategy’s implementation, since 2005, include restrictions on the sale of

measuring devices containing mercury, a ban on exports of mercury from the EU that will

come into force in 2011 and new rules on safe storage of mercury.

The current Strategy was adopted in 2005 and there have been significant developments

since then, including national and international policy developments (in particular the UNEP

Governing Council decision in 2009 to start negotiations on a global legally binding

instrument on mercury), progress in scientific knowledge, technical developments as well as

increased political and public awareness of mercury-related risks. In this context, the

Commission intends to undertake a review of the Strategy as a whole by the end of 2010.

As mentioned above, important international policy developments have taken place since

the adoption of the Strategy in 2005. The Governing Council of the UNEP decided in February

2009 to establish an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee with the mandate to prepare

a global legally binding instrument on mercury. The committee started its work in 2010 with

the goal of completing it prior to the 27th regular session of the Governing Council in 2013.

The European Commission participates in the negotiations representing the EU and its

Member States and will strive for a comprehensive multilateral environmental agreement in

14 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament – Community Strategy

Concerning Mercury – COM (2005) 20 final (eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=en&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2005&nu_doc=20)

October 2010



line with its Mercury Strategy and the December 2008 Council Conclusions establishing an

agreed Community policy in this area15. The first meeting of the Intergovernmental

Negotiating Committee on a global legally binding instrument on mercury (INC1) was held in

Stockholm from 7 to 11 June 201016; the outcomes of this first meeting have been taken into

account in the final version of this report.

1.2. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The objective of the study was to identify policy options that could be taken into account by

the Commission in reviewing the Community Strategy concerning Mercury. Detailed

objectives were as follows:

• To review the progress made so far in implementing the Strategy and each of its 20

actions

• To identify areas where implementation is lagging behind and suggest potential

complementary measures

• To propose amendments, as needed, as well as additional actions, taking into

account recent studies, best practices and policy initiatives at the EU and

international levels.

With regard to the last point, special attention has been given to the latest developments in

the international negotiations on a global treaty on mercury, which are being held under the

auspices of the UNEP.

1.3. DOCUMENT STRUCTURE

After this introduction, the document is structured as follows:

• Section 2 provides an assessment of the Strategy’s implementation and discusses

possible gaps in the Strategy’s implementation

• Section 3 investigates areas where additional Community action could be taken to

address implementation gaps of the current Strategy and as part of the future

development of the Strategy

• Section 4 provides a preliminary assessment of environmental and economic impacts

of several policy options selected for further assessment

• Supporting information is provided in the Annexes, including in particular a review of

the policy framework at the EU and international levels.

15

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=PRES/08/355&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

16 www.unep.org/hazardoussubstances/Mercury/Negotiations/INC1/tabid/3324/language/en-US/Default.aspx



This page is intentionally left blank

October 2010



2. ASSESSMENT OF THE STRATEGY’S IMPLEMENTATION

This section deals with the implementation of the Community Strategy concerning

Mercury. First, it explains how the progress made in implementing the Strategy has

been assessed in this study. The results of this assessment are then presented for each

of the 20 actions contained in the Strategy. Additional quantitative data showing the

trends in mercury emissions are then presented in order to complement the

assessment.

2.1. APPROACH

The approach followed to assess the Strategy’s implementation took into account

recommendations included in the 2005 Extended Impact Assessment17 (ExIA) with

regard to the monitoring and evaluation of the results and impacts of the Strategy

(Section 10 of the ExIA). The way the Strategy will be implemented is described as

follows: “Implementing the Strategy is a matter of realising the various types of actions

envisaged in the Strategy, rather than simply pursuing a single measure. Elements of

the Strategy’s implementation will include:

• Contributions of the Community, Member States and other EU

stakeholders/actors to international discussions and actions concerning

mercury, including the UNEP Governing Council meeting in February 2005

• Development or revision of Community legislation, subsequently to be

transposed and implemented by the Member States

• Actions at the level of the Member States or below, where Community action is

not considered appropriate

• Undertaking further studies, assessments and research to fill gaps in knowledge

about the mercury problem and its possible solutions.”

With regard to the monitoring and review of the Strategy, the 2005 ExIA also identifies

significant milestones which are expected to provide further data on the mercury

problem, possible solutions, and the success of policy measures. These include, in

particular:

17 Annex to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on

Community Strategy Concerning Mercury – Extended Impact Assessment -COM(2005)20 final (ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/pdf/extended_impact_assessment.pdf)



• Annual reporting of emissions by parties to the UNECE Convention on Long-

Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP), or estimation of such emissions

by experts.

• The Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive

implementation reports published in September 2006 (covering 2003-2005)

and September 2009 (covering 2006-2008).

• The Large Combustion Plants (LCP) Directive implementation report: under the

LCP Directive certain emission limit values (ELVs) for SO2, NOx and dust are

established. How these ELVs are met will affect how much mercury is also

removed from the combustion emissions.

• The implementation reports of the OSPAR Recommendation on cremation,

published in September 2005 and September 2009.

• The results on mercury emissions published in the European Pollutant Emission

Register (EPER) for 2001 and 2004, then in the Pollutant Release and Transfer

Register (E-PRTR) from 2007.

• The River Basin Management Plans including programmes of measures under

the Water Framework Directive.18

• The results from the EU-funded ESPREME project, on the estimation of the

willingness-to-pay to reduce the risks of exposure to heavy metals, and a cost-

benefit analysis for reducing heavy metal occurrence in Europe. This project

was completed in 2007.

In line with the above recommendations, the methodology to perform this assessment

included the following steps:

• Information related to implementation of each of the 20 actions was collected

through web search, responses received to a questionnaire sent to Member

States and other stakeholders (in March 2010), contacts with experts on the

mercury issue and communication with the Commission. Documents reviewed

included technical studies, expert opinions, policy and legislative documents,

as well as mercury emission data, including information sources mentioned in

the above paragraph.

• The collected information was analysed in order to assess the level of progress

achieved with regard to each of the 20 actions. For actions considered as not

being fully implemented, potential gaps were highlighted and possible

additional measures were proposed.

18 These Plans are specific to each river basin within each Member State. Information reported by

Member States was posted on the European Environment Information and Observation Network (EIONET) Central Data Repository at the end of March 2010 but cannot be analysed in its current format as part of this study.

October 2010



• Additionally, quantitative data, which did not specifically relate to the 20

actions but was considered to be important with regard to the Strategy’s

overall objectives, was collected from various sources and analysed (mercury

emissions, mercury use in the chlor-alkali industry since 2005 and trends in

mercury use for lighting).

2.2. PROGRESS AGAINST THE 20 ACTIONS

This section discusses the progress made in implementing each of the 20 actions of the

Strategy, based on information available to date.

For each action described in the Strategy, the following aspects are detailed:

• Level of action: It is specified whether the action has to be realised at EU level

and/or Member State level and/or other levels (e.g. involving specific

stakeholders).

• Overall level of progress: An overall level of progress has been attributed

(“Good progress”, “Moderate progress”, “Little progress”), based on the status

of action (see below).

• Status of action: Available information with regard to the implementation of

the action has been summarised in order to provide a sound basis for

evaluating the level of progress achieved.

• Potential implementation gaps: For actions not fully implemented, potential

gaps have been identified; potential measures which could be taken to address

these gaps are discussed in Section 3.

Overall, out of these 20 actions it was concluded that:

• For twelve actions, good progress has been achieved

• For six actions, moderate progress has been achieved

• For two actions, little progress has been achieved.

The detailed findings of the assessment are presented below, by action.



Action 1. The Commission will assess the effects of applying IPPC on mercury

emissions, and consider if further action like Community emission limit values is

needed, as data under the IPPC and EPER reporting requirements are submitted, and in

a broader strategy review by the end of 2010. This will include review of the co-benefit

effect of controls to be implemented by 1 January 2008 under Directive 2001/80/EC to

reduce sulphur dioxide emissions from large combustion plants.

Level of action: EU

Overall level of progress: Little progress

Status of action:

� Effects of applying IPPC on mercury emissions (all IPPC sectors concerned)

Information on the effects of applying IPPC on mercury emissions was obtained from a

review of IPPC implementation reports issued in 2007 (covering the 2003-2005 period)

and 2010 (covering the 2006-2008 period)19.

In the IPPC implementation report issued in 2010, the IPPC Directive’s implementation

by Member States was assessed through the use of installation-specific case studies

focusing on how the requirements of the Directive have been implemented. Case

studies were selected across six different industry sectors: printed circuit board

manufacture; coal and lignite-fired large combustion plants; iron and steel production;

nitric acid manufacture; fertiliser manufacture and mineral oil and gas refineries. The

assessment performed was mainly focused on the following two questions:

• Have existing and new permits been issued or updated in accordance with the

IPPC Directive?

• Are the installations selected currently operating in accordance with their

permits and with BAT?

Coal and lignite-fired large combustion plants is a sector of particular interest as it is

one of the main sources of atmospheric mercury releases. For this industry sector, the

assessment covered seven installations in seven Member States (ES, GR, IT, NL, PL, SK,

UK). The findings related to pollutant releases mainly concern air emissions of SO2, NOX

and dust, and the report contains very little data on mercury emissions. However, the

extent to which Best Available Techniques Associated Emission Levels (BAT-AELs)20 are

met for the main pollutants (SO2, NOX and dust) provides some indication of mercury

abatement levels, since abatement technologies required to meet BAT-AELs for the

main pollutants can also capture a certain percentage of mercury emissions.

19 Assessment of the implementation by the Member States of the IPPC directive, February 2007, Report

by ENTEC UK Ltd. for DG ENV; Assessment of the implementation of the IPPC directive, February 2010, Report by ENTEC UK Ltd. for DG ENV. Available from: circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/ippc_rev/library

20 BAT-AELs are defined as a range of emission levels associated with application of the Best Available Techniques (BATs), as specified in the Best Available Techniques Reference (BREF) documents

October 2010



For the main air pollutants (SO2, NOx, dust), the report provides a comparison between

BAT-AELs, Emission Limit Values (ELVs) defined in individual installations’ permits, ELVs

defined in the LCP Directive and actual installation performance.

With regard to coal and lignite-fired power plants, the findings relevant to the issue of

mercury emissions can be summarised as follows:

• It is evident that the LCP Directive has been the main driver in defining NOx,

SO2 and dust emission limit values for the majority of the installations assessed

(rather than the IPPC Directive and the BREF on LCPs). For most of the permits

reviewed, ELVs specified in the permits are higher than BAT-AELs.

• For emissions to water, there is generally much greater consistency between

permit ELVs and BAT-AELs set out in the BREF on LCPs.

• Based on the information made available, only one of the seven installations

reported actual emissions that were all within the relevant BAT-AEL ranges.

• Three installations (out of the seven reviewed) had ELVs for mercury specified

in their permit (either for air emissions, or water emissions, or both). For the

other installations, no ELVs for mercury were specified.

In order to meet lower emission levels such as BAT-AEL for the main air pollutants (SO2,

NOx, dust), installations may have to be fitted with specific abatement devices which

are also efficient to capture a certain percentage of mercury emissions. Given that ELVs

specified in most permits are higher than BAT-AELs, it can be expected that mercury air

emissions have not been reduced as much as what could have been achieved from a

full implementation of the IPPC Directive (i.e. a greater uptake of BATs) in coal and

lignite-fired power plants, at least for the period 2006-2008 covered by the latest IPPC

implementation report.

With regard to the overall assessment based on the six industry sectors reviewed in the

2010 IPPC implementation report, some general findings are also relevant in the

context of mercury emissions reduction:

• For more than half of the installations studied, the main IPPC permits were

only issued in either 2007 or 2008 (i.e. after the legal deadline in a number of

cases).

• For only two installations out of 31 reviewed, all ELVs contained in the permits

were consistent with BAT-AELs. The remaining 29 installations had some but

not all permit ELVs in line with the BAT-AEL ranges.

Concerning the use of BAT-AELs, a rough comparison can be made between the

findings of the 2007 and 2010 IPPC implementation reports, as shown in Table 1 below.



Table 1: Comparison of findings from 2007 and 2010 IPPC implementation reports with regard to the use of BAT-AELs

Question: Are emission limits for the installation consistent with BAT-AELs (where defined) in the relevant BREF documents?

Answer 2007 study 2010 study

“Yes” (1) 13 out of 30 installations 2/31

“No” 4/30 None

“Mixed” (2) 10/30 29/31

“Unclear” 3/30 None

(1) All permit ELVs where there is a corresponding BREF BAT-AEL are at or below the upper end of the BAT-AEL range.

(2) These installations have at least one permit ELV that is at or below the upper end of the BAT-AEL range.

The above results are based only on a small sample of installations reviewed (with

different samples for each study), therefore this comparison is indicative rather than

representative of the actual situation. The comparison shows some progress in the

incorporation of BAT-AELs in permits between the first study (2007) and the second

study (2010), although these findings are not specific to BAT-AELs for mercury

emissions, therefore it is difficult to draw conclusions in this regard.

� Effects of applying IPPC on mercury emissions in the chlor-alkali industry

In the chlor-alkali industry, the implementation of the IPPC Directive raises issues that

are different from those arising in other IPPC sectors, since the mercury-cell technology

is not considered as a BAT (according to the BREF document dating back to 2001 which

is currently being revised). When integrated permits for MCCA plants were delivered or

updated by competent national authorities, as part of the implementation of the IPPC

Directive (the deadline for this was October 2007 for most Member States), a majority

of plants were allowed to continue to operate mercury-cell processes although not

considered as BAT.

Current EU legislation does not specify a sunset date for the closure or conversion of

MCCA plants. There is, however, a voluntary commitment by Euro Chlor to convert or

close European MCCA plants by 2020, with the exception of two plants in Germany

that produce chlorine and alkoxides (instead of alkali) such as sodium methylate21.

Euro Chlor is not in favour of transforming this voluntary agreement into a legally-

binding requirement, considering that previous studies (1998, 2002) predicted a

virtually total disappearance of mercury cells by 2020 (except specialties) in Western

Europe and that there are all reasons to believe that the trend will continue as

foreseen; it is not clear, however, which Member States are covered by these

projections.

21 Also known as sodium methoxide or sodium methanolate

October 2010



More ambitious national policy actions and/or voluntary agreements have been

implemented in certain Member States (BE, CZ, ES, FR, IT, SE) in order to convert or

close MCCA plants earlier than 2020 (see Table 43 in Annex 2). It should also be

reminded that Parties to the OSPAR Convention (comprising twelve Member States)

had endorsed the objective to phase-out MCCA plants by 2010 (PARCOM Decision

90/3) but this target was not binding and has not been achieved by most Parties. At the

international level, countries such as India, Japan or the USA have adopted more

stringent voluntary agreements for the phase-out of mercury use in chlor-alkali

production (for further details, please refer to Annex 2). In the case of India, it should

however be noted that the economic context for phasing-out mercury cells might be

more favourable than in the EU.

According to the Chlorine Industry Review 2008-2009 published by EuroChlor22, at the

beginning of 2009 there were about 8,300 tonnes of mercury remaining in 37 MCCA

plants in fourteen European countries. Between the second half of 2008 and the

beginning of 2009, six mercury units either shut down or reduced their activity. At the

beginning of 2009, the mercury-cell process represented about 35% of the European

installed capacity. Further quantitative information on MCCA plants is provided in

Annex 3.

For MCCA plants that are still in operation, current EU legislation does not specify

mercury ELVs; such ELVs are set in the sites’ operating permits, on a case-by-case basis.

Some Member States have specified ELVs in national legislation (e.g. DE, FR, IT, SK) or

through voluntary agreements with industry (e.g. ES, UK), in some cases accompanied

with requirements for a gradual decrease in emissions until complete phase-out of the

mercury-cell process. It has been showed that ELVs set in operating permits do not

reflect best practice in many cases: a survey carried out by EEB in 2008 23 showed that

permit ELVs (and actual emissions) were two to ten times higher than best

performance values included in the BREF document of 2001 (defined as 0.2-0.5 g

Hg/tonne of chlorine capacity as a yearly average).

� LCP Directive implementation

The LCP Directive did not contain provisions on mercury emissions, therefore no

reporting on this issue was specifically required. Currently available air emission data

reported under the LCP Directive concern SO2, NOx and dust for 2004, 2005 and 2006,

reported on a plant-by-plant basis across 24 Member States.

An evaluation of the Member States' emission inventories 2004-2006 under the LCP

Directive was performed in 2008 (report by ENTEC for DG ENV24). The report concludes

22 EuroChlor, report on “Chlorine Industry Review (2008-2009)”, January 2009

(www.eurochlor.org/upload/documents/document352.pdf) 23 EEB. 2008. The European Chlor-Alkali Industry – Is national implementation of the IPPC Directive

contributing to a mercury-free industry? Results of an environmental NGO survey 24 “Evaluation of the Member States' emission inventories 2004-2006 for LCPs under the LCP Directive

(2001/80/EC)”, Report by ENTEC for DG ENV, Sept. 2008 (eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/lcp_reporting/summary_report/inventories_2004-06pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d)



that the total SO2, NOx and dust emissions from LCPs in the EU decreased over the

time period 2004 to 2006, even though total energy input increased. Dust emissions

decreased most markedly (by 23%), followed by SO2 emissions (by 8.6%), whilst the

total NOx emissions decreased least (by 1.8%) over the same period. For SO2, it was

estimated that approximately only 30% of the LCPs had actual emissions within or

below the BAT-AEL range in 2006; for NOx the proportion was approximately 20%, for

dust approximately 50%25.

The report does not specify whether the emission reductions observed for the main

pollutants have been accompanied by a reduction in mercury emissions (which could

have resulted from the installation of specific abatement technologies). It should

however be noted that one important date for the implementation of the LCP Directive

was 1 January 2008; from that date, more stringent ELVs became applicable for SO2 in

particular and this should have obliged a number of plants to invest in control

technologies for desulphurisation which can also have a positive impact on mercury

emissions. Although Action 1 of the Strategy involved conducting an assessment of the

co-benefit effect of these controls, no such assessment is currently available.

Data reported under the LRTAP Convention (1990-2007) show that mercury air

emissions from the public electricity and heat production sector – where emissions are

mostly from large coal-fired combustion plants – have continued to decrease in the last

few years, although at a slower rate than in the 1990s. Between 2005 and 2008,

mercury emissions from this sector are estimated to have decreased by 17% at EU

level, from 29.6 t to 24.5 t (see Figure 3 in Section 2.3).

� Other IPPC sectors

As detailed in the next section of the report, mercury air emission data reported under

the LRTAP Convention (1990-2007) show that:

• In the chemical sector and the waste sector, emissions have continued to

decrease in the last few years (although at a slower rate than in the 1990s).

• In the metal production sector, reported emissions show an upward trend in

recent years (following a significant decrease in the 1990s).

• In the cement sector, only three Member States (BE, DE, LT) have been

reporting emissions therefore the trend may not be representative of the EU;

for these Member States, emissions have remained stable since 1990.

� New Industrial Emissions Directive (IED)

The new Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) recently endorsed by the European

Parliament (July 2010) combines seven existing directives related to industrial

emissions into a single legislative instrument26: the IPPC Directive, the LCP Directive,

25 These data take into account all types of fuels (not only coal). 26 Proposal for Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions

(integrated pollution prevention and control) (Recast) [COM(2007) 843 final], December 2007: eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0844:FIN:EN:PDF

October 2010



the Waste Incineration Directive and four other Directives. The aim of the IED is to

tackle the shortcomings of current legislation on industrial emissions. The IED does not

include ELVs on mercury for activities other than waste incineration but it puts greater

emphasis on the use of BAT for setting ELVs in permits, recognising that

implementation of BAT is currently insufficient to achieve the objectives of the

Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution and that compliance and enforcement of current

legislation in the different Member States is also inconsistent (“The competent

authority shall set emission limit values that do not exceed the emission levels

associated with the best available techniques as described in the BAT reference

documents”). The IED is tightens minimum emission limits for the main pollutants

emitted from large combustion plants (SO2, NOx, dust), where progress in pollution

reduction is insufficient; LCPs have until 2016 to comply with the stricter emission

limits. Member States may however put in place "transitional national plans" to give

LCPs until July 2020 to meet the requirements; some older plants may not have to

meet the targets, as long as they close by the end of 2023 or if their operating hours do

not exceed 17,500 hours after 2016, whichever happens first. Although the initial

proposal for the IED involved the extension of the legislation’s scope to cover medium

sized combustion plants, this postulate has not been maintained.

The Impact Assessment accompanying the proposal for the new Directive on industrial

emissions27 (2007) provides an estimate of the potential for mercury emissions

reductions from large coal power plants assuming a higher uptake of BAT. It is

estimated that mercury emissions could be reduced by 0.1 to 2 tonnes per year across

the EU if the uptake of BAT was increased from 5 to 40% compared to the situation in

2007. Total mercury emissions from large coal combustion plants were in the order of

24 t in 2008 for EU-2728, therefore a higher uptake of BAT as indicated would represent

0.4 to 8% reduction in mercury emissions from this sector. This estimated reduction

potential is limited, therefore it might be relevant to reconsider the possibility of

defining mandatory ELVs for mercury air emissions from combustion plants in order to

achieve a significant reduction from this major mercury emission sector.

� Community emission limit values (ELVs) for mercury from coal combustion

The policy option of defining mandatory ELVs for mercury air emissions from large coal

combustion plants was already investigated in the 2005 ExIA of the Strategy. This

option was not retained mainly because significant emission reductions were expected

to be achieved through the implementation of the IPPC and LCP Directives (for the LCP

Directives, effects would be more evident after 1 January 2008), although these could

not be quantified accurately given the diversity of installations and the various factors

influencing mercury emissions from coal combustion plants. There is still not enough

27 Impact assessment accompanying the Proposal for a Directive on industrial emissions [COM(2007) 843

final], December 2007: ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/stationary/ippc/pdf/recast/ia_en.pdf 28 Source: European Environmental Agency (EEA). July 2010. European Union emission inventory report

1990–2008 under the UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP), www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-union-emission-inventory-report



data available to update the result of the ExIA with regard to coal combustion;

however some ongoing works may provide useful information to re-examine the

potential costs and benefits of this policy option (e.g. the “UNEP Paragraph 29 study”29

which will be finalised later in 2010 and the future BREF on Large Combustion Plants

whose revision was due to start in 2010).

In 2006, the EU parliament adopted a Resolution on the Community Strategy

concerning Mercury30 which asked the Commission, among other aspects, to

“introduce under the IPPC Directive or in a separate legislative instrument, as soon as

possible, and at the very least, emission limit values for mercury from all relevant

activities, and in particular from both large and small-scale coal combustion processes”.

Looking at the policy framework in other countries, it can be noted that certain non-EU

countries like Canada and the USA have adopted or are developing legislation setting

ELVs and/or capture targets for air emissions of mercury from coal combustion.

Potential implementation gaps:

Although previous IPPC implementation reports contain limited information on

mercury emissions, they demonstrate that, in general, the implementation of BATs is

insufficient. These conclusions apply to BATs related to mercury emissions reduction

(where they have been defined) and BATs related to the abatement of main pollutants

resulting from coal combustion (SO2, NOx, dust) which also influence mercury emission

levels from large combustion plants. These gaps are expected to be partially addressed

as part of the implementation of the new Industrial Emissions Directive (IED); however,

the provisions of the IED may not be sufficient to achieve a significant reduction in

mercury emissions from coal combustion plants as they do not include ELVs for

mercury emissions from coal combustion plants and the current BREF on large

combustion plants does not contain BAT-AELs for mercury (its revision is due to start

soon).

No progress has been noted with regard to assessing the co-benefit effect of controls

to be implemented by 1 January 2008 under the LCP Directive.

With regard to the chlor-alkali industry, the flexibility associated with the IPPC

Directive’s provisions has led to various levels of requirements among the Member

States, overall resulting in a low level of environmental protection. Further action

might be required at EU level in order to harmonise and strengthen requirements and

ensure a gradual decrease of emissions until the complete phase-out of the mercury

cell technology.

29 UNEP Study on mercury-emitting sources, including emissions trends and cost and effectiveness of

alternative control measures. Draft Zero Report of March 2010 available at www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/Paragraph29/Paragraph29_study.htm

30 www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do;jsessionid=F8FF6A8AB40DD23A02B31D6805FFD0E9.node1?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2006-0078+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN

October 2010



Action 2. The Commission will encourage Member States and industry to provide more

information on mercury releases and prevention and control techniques, so

conclusions can be drawn in BREFs helping to reduce emissions further. The second

edition of the chlor-alkali BREF will include information to address the risk of releases

in decommissioning mercury cells.

Level of action: EU

Overall level of progress: Good progress

Status of action:

In order to assess the progress made with regard to Action 2, a review of the BREF

documents issued or revised since 2005 was performed and information related to

mercury releases and prevention and control techniques was identified. Key findings of

this review are presented below.

� Chlor-alkali manufacture

The review of the BREF on chlor-alkali manufacture (initially issued in 2001) started in

2009. According to the kick-off meeting report from October 200931, the revised BREF

is expected to include:

• An update on historical mercury contamination issues, based on information

on further experiences and data regarding contaminated sites resulting from

chlor-alkali plants, and information on what has already been done up to 2009

and/or will be done further in order to improve the situation of contaminated

sites

• An update on specific issues regarding mercury cell plants, covering emissions

and consumption data, including best performance data and information on

waste retorting

• Information and data on the phasing out of mercury and the definition of

interim conditions (however the BREF is not expected to include any deadline

for this phase-out or any specific schedule to gradually decrease emissions)

• Updated information and data, including cost data, on the conversion of

mercury cell plants into membrane technology; experiences of

decommissioning, conversion or closure plans with site remediation

• Updated information on the decommissioning of mercury cell plants, based on

plant-specific data and experiences; techniques and measures to control

mercury during the decommissioning of mercury cells; information and data

regarding the treatment of mercury-containing wastes

• Updated data on mercury in waste water streams

31 Kick-off meeting for the review of the Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Chlor-

Alkali Manufacturing Industry, 30 September – 2 October 2009, Meeting Report (available from the BREF webpage: eippcb.jrc.es/reference/)



• Information and data regarding available techniques for waste brine treatment

plants in order to control/minimise mercury discharges to water

• Available information regarding the estimate on mercury contamination both

on-site and in its general area of operation

• Guidance information on how to calculate more accurately the balance of

mercury in products and estimate mercury releases

• Regarding cell-room ventilation: updated data on mercury emissions and

occupational exposure levels.

� Large Combustion Plants

The BREF on Large Combustion Plants was first issued in July 200632 and the review of

the document is due to start in 2010. The BREF provides typical data ranges for

mercury emissions and an overview of existing control measures and technologies to

reduce mercury emissions. It provides orders of magnitude regarding the efficiency of

mercury emissions abatement that can be achieved through the use of control

technologies designed for other pollutants (SO2, NOx, dust). The BREF also presents an

emerging technique to abate simultaneously SO2, NOx and mercury in coal and lignite-

fired LCPs (post-combustion emission control system that was in demonstration in the

USA at the time of writing the BREF). The BREF does not specify, however, BAT-AELs for

mercury. BAT-AELs are only defined for the main pollutants (SO2, NOx, dust).

� Large Volume Inorganic Chemicals

The BREF on Large Volume Inorganic Chemicals was issued in August 200733. It includes

typical data ranges for mercury emissions from the production of sulphuric and

phosphoric acids, and an overview of methods used for the removal of mercury from

process gases in the production of sulphuric acid (acids produced in smelting processes

or from recycling plants may contain mercury). The BREF does not specify BAT-AELs for

mercury.

� Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide Manufacturing Industries

The BREF on Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide Manufacturing Industries was first

issued in 2001 and a revised version was issued in May 201034. For these three types of

manufacturing industries, mercury emissions result from the presence of mercury as a

trace element in raw materials and to a lesser extent in the fuels (both fossil and

waste). BAT related to mercury emissions include: controlling the amount of mercury

in any waste used as raw material and/or fuel used in the kiln and selecting materials

with a low content of mercury in order to minimise the emissions of mercury in the

flue-gases. The BREF considers that BAT-AELs for mercury air emissions are below

32 Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for Large Combustion Plants, July 2006 (available

from the BREF webpage: eippcb.jrc.es/reference/) 33 Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for the manufacture of Large Volume Inorganic

Chemicals, August 2007 (available from the BREF webpage: eippcb.jrc.es/reference/) 34 Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide

Manufacturing Industries, May 2009 (available from the BREF webpage: eippcb.jrc.es/reference/)

October 2010



0.05 mg/Nm3. The BREF however points out the lack of information on the link

between mercury emissions and the available technical abatement options (which are

initially designed for other pollutants); it also points out the need to follow up

developments on continuous monitoring of mercury emissions.

� Non-Ferrous Metals Industries

The BREF on Non-Ferrous Metals Industries was first issued in 2001 and a revised draft

version was issued in July 200935. Removal of mercury may be necessary when using

some raw materials that contain mercury, and in the case of processes dedicated to

mercury recovery from waste (dental amalgams, batteries). The BAT for the removal of

mercury are defined as follows: preventing and reducing/minimising the emissions of

mercury by using specified techniques (which are described in detail in the BREF); and

reducing the mercury content in sulphuric acid produced during the production of non-

ferrous metals using the Superlig ion exchange process or the potassium iodide

process. BAT-AELs for mercury emissions to air and water are specified in the BREF, for

different manufacturing processes. The BREF also refers to the provisions of Regulation

(EC) No. 1102/2008, which shall be complied with.

� Production of Iron and Steel

The BREF on Non-Ferrous Metals Industries was first issued in 2001 and a revised draft

version was issued in July 200936. Mercury emissions may occur due to the presence of

mercury in some raw materials. BAT related to mercury include selecting appropriate

scrap qualities and other raw materials such as wastes and by-products and

undertaking an appropriate inspection during reception to avoid substances such as

mercury. The BREF recalls that it is an obligation for the scrap processors to remove

components which contain mercury, in accordance with the End of Life Vehicles

Directive (2000/53/EC) and the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive

(2002/96/EC). To help comply with this requirement, the following measures can be

applied: fixing the absence of mercury in scrap purchase contracts; and refusing scrap

which contains visible electronic components and assemblies. The current version of

the BREF specifies BAT-AELs for emissions of heavy metals (including Hg) to water but

does not include BAT-AELs for mercury air emissions.

� Waste Incineration

The BREF on Waste Incineration was issued in August 200637. Different mercury

reduction techniques are detailed. The BREF specifies BAT-AELs for mercury emissions

to air; these values are below the emission limit value specified in the Waste

35 Draft Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Non-Ferrous Metals Industries, July

2009 (available from the BREF webpage: eippcb.jrc.es/reference/) 36 Draft Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for the Production of Iron and Steel, July

2009 (available from the BREF webpage: eippcb.jrc.es/reference/) 37 Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for Waste Incineration, August 2006 (available

from the BREF webpage: eippcb.jrc.es/reference/)



Incineration Directive (2000/76/EC), i.e. 0.05 mg/Nm3. Adsorption using carbon-based

reagents is generally required to achieve these emission levels with many waste types.

� Waste Treatment Industries

The BREF on Waste Treatment Industries was issued in August 200638. It provides an

overview of current processes for the treatment of waste containing mercury, presents

generic BAT but no specific BAT for the treatment of waste containing mercury.


To summarise, further information on mercury releases and prevention and control

techniques has been included in the BREF documents issued or revised since the

adoption of the Community Strategy concerning Mercury in 2005, and the second

edition of the chlor-alkali BREF is expected to include information to control risks

related to the decommissioning of mercury cells. It is however noted that only some of

the most recent BREF documents contain BAT-AELs for mercury emissions (BREF on

cement, BREF on non-ferrous metals, BREF on iron and steel (only for water emissions)

and BREF on waste incineration). The fact that BAT-AELs are specified in the BREFs is

important, since the proposed Directive on industrial emissions requires explicitly that

ELVs in individual permit installations shall not exceed BAT-AELs.

It is also noted that certain BREF documents have identified information gaps with

regard to mercury emissions abatement, monitoring and measurement techniques

(e.g. BREF on LCP, BREF on cement) and the BREF on waste treatment industries is

lacking information on specific BAT for the treatment of waste containing mercury.

The above gaps mainly reflect current knowledge and technological gaps on the issue

of mercury emissions and are considered as areas for future work as part of the

continuous update of the BREFs.

Action 3. The Commission will undertake a study in 2005 of options to abate mercury

emissions from small scale coal combustion, to be considered alongside the broader

Clean Air for Europe (CAFE) assessment.

Level of action: EU

Overall level of progress: Moderate progress

Status of action:

A study was carried out on “Costs and environmental effectiveness of options for

reducing mercury emissions to air from small-scale combustion installations” (report by

AEA Technology / NILU-Polska for DG ENV, December 2005)39. The study estimated

that mercury air emissions from small scale combustion installations were around

38 Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for the Waste Treatment Industries, August 2006

(available from the BREF webpage: eippcb.jrc.es/reference/) 39 ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/pdf/sci_final_report.pdf

October 2010



23 t/year in 2002, accounting for 16% of total atmospheric emissions of mercury in the

EU.

Options identified to reduce mercury emissions from small-scale combustion

installations included preventative measures (e.g. options available prior to

combustion to minimise emissions) such as coal washing, fuel switching and improved

energy efficiency, which were the most cost-effective options, and a few technical

abatement options (e.g. removal of mercury from flue gases after combustion). The

study highlighted the fact that only few technical abatement options currently exist for

small-scale combustion installations.

Key recommendations of the study were as follows:

• Where appropriate, existing legal instruments regulating industrial emissions

should be extended to cover industrial small-scale combustion installations;

opportunities may include reducing the reporting threshold of the IPPC

Directive

• The benefits of reduced mercury emissions should be included when pollution

abatement strategies are being considered for PM, SO2, and NOx e.g. in the

Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution; synergies with other initiatives, such as the

Urban Thematic Strategy, should also be identified and developed

• Further consideration should be given to the potential role of 4th Daughter

Directive for reducing mercury emissions in localities where they are

significant; mercury has no stipulated limit level under the Directive but there

is an obligation on Member States to monitor and report ambient

concentrations of mercury.

• Work should be undertaken to develop fuel quality standards for coal-based

fuels that reflect the mercury reduction benefits that may be achieved via coal

washing

• Further research needs to be carried out into abatement techniques for the

reduction of emissions from small-scale combustion installations, particularly

those in the non-industrial sector.

With regard to the first of the above mentioned recommendations, it must be noted

that although the initial proposal for the Industrial Emissions Directive involved the

extension of the scope to cover medium sized combustion plants, this postulate has

not been maintained in the final version endorsed by the EU Parliament in July 2010.

In addition, the study made a number of recommendations to address issues related to

availability and quality of mercury emission data from small-scale combustion

installations (partly due to a lack of knowledge on mercury emissions from such

installations), which prevented the consultant from conducting a comprehensive

assessment of possible policy options.

Potential implementation gaps: The recommendations of the study do not seem to

have been considered and followed-up.



Action 4. The Commission will review in 2005 Member States’ implementation of

Community requirements on the treatment of dental amalgam waste, and will take

appropriate steps thereafter to ensure correct application.

Level of action: EU


Status of action:

� Review of Member States’ implementation of Community requirements on the

treatment of dental amalgam waste

According to the Waste Framework Directive (Directive 2008/98/EC of 19 November

2008) and Decision 2000/532/EC of 3 May 2000 establishing a list of wastes, dental

amalgam waste is considered as hazardous waste and shall be managed as such (i.e. it

has to be collected separately from other types of waste and consigned to a waste

management facility with a licence or permit to handle hazardous waste). The

Community legislation does not specifically stipulate that the drain of dental clinics

shall be equipped with amalgam separators, and the actual interpretation and

implementation as regards dental amalgam wastes varies among Member States. The

results of a questionnaire survey carried out by the Commission in 2005 regarding the

actual treatment of amalgam waste in the Member States were commented in a report

by COWI for DG ENV40 issued in 2008: “In most of the old Member States (EU 15)

amalgam separators are required in both new and established dental clinics, but there

remains a large gap in some countries between the mandate and the implementation

of the mandate. Typically a minimum dental amalgam separator efficiency of at least

95% is required (e.g. in Austria, France, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, Portugal and

Sweden). In some Member States (e.g. Italy, Ireland, Slovakia, Cyprus) separators are

required only in new dental care facilities, while in some of the new Member States

amalgam separators are installed in only a few (e.g. Estonia, Latvia and Slovenia)

clinics. The situation may have changed in these countries during the last two years, but

at the time of the questionnaire below, it was clear that no more than 30-40% of EU

dental clinics had installed functioning amalgam separators. It is notable that of the

new Member States only Slovenia has reported significant recycling of dental

amalgams.”

Without such separators about 50-70% of the mercury content enters and

contaminates the municipal waste water where it represents the main source of

mercury. Moreover, amalgam accumulates in sinks of the clinics drain systems and

contaminates metal pipes both of which are a permanent source of mercury

contamination even after the original input of mercury into the system has been

40 COWI report for DG ENV: “Options for reducing mercury use in products and applications and the fate


October 2010



greatly reduced41. Actual human inventory of mercury in the EU is estimated to be in

the order of 1000 t and a part of this amount may be expected to be removed in the

future when old amalgam fillings are replaced.

� Recent data on amalgam separators

The Council of European Dentists conducted surveys on the management of dental

amalgam waste in 2006, 2008 and 2010 in European countries. According to the latest

survey:

• 18 out of the 28 countries surveyed had legislation in place requiring dental

clinics to be equipped with amalgam separators (in most cases covering

existing facilities as well as new facilities); in some countries where no

legislation is in place, separators may be recommended/required by

professional associations, environmental agencies or manufacturers

• In half of the countries surveyed, over 99% of dental practices are equipped

with amalgam separators; in a further 5 countries, 80 to 99% of practices are

equipped.

The results of the 2010 survey are difficult to compare with previous results because

the number of respondents is not the same and the studies are anonymous.

� Waste disposal issues

The above assessments mainly focused on the issue of water emissions but did not

address the final disposal of dental amalgam waste. Once dental mercury is collected

from dental clinics, safe disposal or recycling would be mandatory to avoid secondary

emissions. It is reported that some of the collected waste is incinerated in waste

incineration plants or dumped in landfills, both of which could be source of

atmospheric emissions. Dental amalgam waste, which is considered as hazardous

waste42, may be disposed of in landfills for hazardous and non-hazardous waste if it

fulfils the acceptance criteria set out by Member States in accordance with Decision

2003/33/EC. These criteria concentrate on aqueous leachability but do not take into

account mobilisation to the atmosphere.

� Follow-up measures taken

The EU Parliament raised a question on the issue of dental amalgams in June 2008 and

the following response was provided by the Commission in September 200843: “(...) the

Commission has already reviewed Member States' implementation of Community

requirements on the treatment of dental amalgam waste, as stipulated under action 4

of the Community Strategy Concerning Mercury. This review allowed for concluding

that, while the situation is satisfactory in some Member States (obligatory installation

of amalgam separators, recycling schemes), this is not uniformly the case throughout

41 COWI (2008) p. 58f. 42 Under Code 18 01 10*, according to Decision 2000/532/EC of 3 May 2000 establishing a list of wastes 43 www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2008-3980&language=FR



the Community. The Commission will insist on the importance of the issue in the

appropriate expert groups and check that the issue of dental amalgam waste, and in

particular its separation from waste water in dental healthcare facilities, is duly taken

into account when the programmes of measures according to the Water Framework

Directive are established.” It is unclear whether and how this issue has been taken into

account to date as part of the Water Framework Directive’s implementation. The

potential relevant measures through the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)

would refer to Member States complying with the Quality Standards for mercury as

defined under the Priority Hazardous Substances Directive (2008/105/EC). These

directives will only become applicable from 2015 onwards; therefore relying on these

directives may postpone any action to address the issue of dental amalgam waste.


A review of Member State’s implementation of Community requirements on the

treatment of dental amalgam waste was carried out in 2005. This review, as well as

more recent surveys conducted by the Council of European Dentists, indicates that

there are still significant compliance gaps with regard to the implementation of the

Hazardous Waste legislation in dental practices in several Member States. Additionally,

current EU legislation may allow the disposal of dental amalgam waste in landfills

under certain conditions, while such disposal method does not seem appropriate for

this type of waste.

Action 5. As a pro-active contribution to a proposed globally organized effort to phase

out primary production of mercury and to stop surpluses re-entering the market as

described in section 10, the Commission intends to propose an amendment to

Regulation (EC) No. 304/2003 to phase out the export of mercury from the Community

by 2011.

Level of action: EU


Status of action:

Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 on the banning of exports of metallic mercury and

certain mercury compounds and mixtures and the safe storage of metallic mercury was

adopted on 22 October 2008. The export ban is applicable as of 15 March 2011.

Key provisions of the Regulation are described in Annex 1.

Article 8 of the Regulation requires that an exchange of information between the

Member States and the relevant stakeholders be organised by the Commission by

1 January 2010, to examine in particular the need for:

October 2010



• Extending the export ban to other mercury compounds, mixtures with lower

mercury content and products containing mercury, in particular thermometers,

barometers and sphygmomanometers.

• An import ban of metallic mercury, mercury compounds and products

containing mercury.

• Extending the storage obligation to metallic mercury from other sources.

• Time limits concerning temporary storage of metallic mercury.

This exchange of information shall also consider the research on safe disposal options

(a study by BiPRO has been prepared for DG ENV, covering this aspect44, and a

stakeholder workshop was organised by the Commission in November 2009 to discuss

the findings of this study).

Article 8 of the Regulation also requires that, by March 2013, the Commission submit

an evaluation report to the European Parliament and the Council, if appropriate

accompanied by a proposal for a revision of this Regulation. This report shall reflect

and evaluate the outcome of the information exchange (as detailed above) and of the

assessment of application and market effects of the Regulation in the Community, as

well as the report on safe disposal options (report prepared by BiPRO, as mentioned

above).

Action 6. In the short term the Commission will ask the Medical Devices Expert Group

to consider the use of mercury in dental amalgam, and will seek an opinion from the

Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks, with a view to considering

whether additional regulatory measures are appropriate.

Level of action: EU


Status of action:

Opinions were obtained from the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly

Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) and the Scientific Committee on Health and

Environmental Risks (SCHER).

� Safety of dental amalgams

In May 2008, the SCENIHR adopted an opinion on the safety of dental amalgams and

alternative dental restoration materials for patients and users.45

SCENIHR concluded that dental amalgams are an effective restorative material and

may be considered the material of choice for some restorations. While some local 44 BiPRO, 2010, Requirements for facilities and acceptance for the disposal of metallic mercury, Report

for DG ENV ( www.bipro.de/mercury/index.html) 45 SCENIHR opinion on the safety of dental amalgams and alternative dental restoration materials for

patients and users, 6 May 2008: ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_o_016.pdf



adverse effects are seen, the incidence is low and usually readily managed. The current

use of dental amalgams does not pose a risk to health apart from allergic reactions.

The main exposure to mercury in individuals with amalgam restorations occurs during

the placement or removal of fillings. There is no clinical justification for removing

clinically satisfactory amalgam restorations, except in patients allergic to amalgam

constituents. The mercury released during placement and removal also results in

exposure of the dental personnel. However, this may be minimised by the use of

appropriate clinical techniques.

According to SCENIHR, alternative materials are not without clinical limitations and

toxicological hazards. Allergies to some of these substances have been reported, both

in patients and in dental personnel. Available scientific data concerning exposure to

these substances are limited. The use of these substances has revealed little evidence

of clinically significant adverse events.

� Environmental and indirect health effects

In May 2008, the SCHER provided an opinion on the environmental risks and indirect

health effects of mercury in dental amalgam, based on a screening assessment46. Key

conclusions were as follows:

• With regard to risks to human health due to mercury releases into the

environment (direct release of methyl mercury and methylation of released

inorganic mercury in the environment), the assessment indicated a low risk for

serious health effects

• With regard to environmental risks, available scientific information was

considered insufficient to conduct a proper assessment; it was therefore

concluded that “a potential environmental risk associated to dental amalgams

cannot be excluded”

• With regard to potential risks of mercury-free amalgam alternatives: indirect

risks to human health were estimated as low, while the available information

was too limited to conduct a proper assessment of environmental risks.

Finally, the SCHER concluded that “information presently available does not allow to

comprehensively assessing the environmental risks and indirect health effects from use

of dental amalgam in the Member States of the EU 25/27. To allow this type of

assessment, the following information is required:

• More specific information on possible regional-specific differences in the use,

release and fate of Hg originating from dental amalgam. This includes detailed

quantitative information on the use and release pattern in all EU-25/27

countries, possible country-specific abatement measures, and differences in the

fate of mercury due to regional-specific municipal waste water treatment and

sludge application practices

46 SCHER scientific opinion on the environmental risks and indirect health effects of mercury in dental

amalgam, 6 May 2008: ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scher/docs/scher_o_089.pdf

October 2010



• A comprehensive and updated data compilation on the effects to especially

(various) environmental species of Hg and methylmercury

• A more comprehensive evaluation of atmospheric emissions and further

deposition of mercury from crematoria, taking into account EU-wide practices

and possible region-specific local scenarios

• A comprehensive literature review of the bioaccumulation and

biomagnification of methylmercury under different EU conditions

• A detailed comparison of the relative contribution of dental Hg to the overall

mercury pool - originating from intended and non-intended Hg - in the

environment.”

Based on opinions provided by the SCENIHR and the SCHER, the Commission has not

investigated possible additional regulatory measures to date.

Although opinions were provided by the SCENIHR and the SCHER in relation to

Action 6, the assessment by the SCHER could not answer all key questions on

environmental and health risks of dental amalgams as some important information

was missing to conduct a comprehensive risk assessment. The screening assessment

conducted by the SCHER in 2008 on environmental risks and indirect health effects of

mercury in dental amalgam should therefore be complemented, taking into account

information gaps highlighted in this assessment, to support any future decision on a

potential ban on dental amalgam use (see Section 3).

Action 7. The Commission intends to propose in 2005 an amendment to Directive

76/769/EEC to restrict the marketing for consumer use and healthcare of non-electrical

or electronic measuring and control equipment containing mercury.

Level of action: EU


Status of action:

Directive 76/769/EEC was amended by Directive 2007/51/EC of 25 September 2007

relating to restrictions on the marketing of certain measuring devices containing

mercury.

The REACH Regulation (No 1907/2006) then repealed and replaced Directive

76/769/EEC with effect from 1 June 2009. Annex XVII of REACH replaced Annex I to

Directive 76/769/EEC.

Restrictions on the marketing of certain measuring devices containing mercury are

therefore now included in Annex XVII of REACH. These restrictions apply to:

• Fever thermometers



• Other measuring devices intended for sale to the general public (e.g.

manometers, barometers, sphygmomanometers, thermometers other than

fever thermometers).

Measuring devices – other than fever thermometers – intended for professional use

are currently excluded from the scope of EU legislation.

Action 8. The Commission will further study in the short term the few remaining

products and applications in the EU that use small amounts of mercury. In the medium

to longer term, any remaining uses may be subject to authorisation and consideration

of substitution under the proposed REACH Regulation, once adopted.

Level of action: EU


Status of action:

� Study on remaining mercury uses in products and applications

Remaining products and applications using small amounts of mercury were

investigated by the COWI study for DG ENV, issued in December 200847.

More than 60 mercury applications were assessed in the study and mercury

consumption was estimated for 41 product groups. The study revealed that “for some

of the application areas that have been addressed by existing EU legislation – especially

measuring equipment, switches and relays – mercury consumption has decreased

significantly in recent years, whereas mercury consumption for other major application

areas, e.g. chlor-alkali production and dental amalgams, has been more stable.” The

study quantified the mercury use for some significant applications of mercury that

have drawn less attention until now, including: mercury lamps used for backlighting in

electronics displays, mercury batteries for applications exempted from the Battery

Directive, mercury biocides in paints, mercury used for the maintenance of lighthouses,

mercury catalysts in the production of polyurethane elastomers and mercury use in

porosimetry. Particular attention is drawn on the last two application areas which may

represent significant quantities of mercury, after dental amalgams.

The study made an assessment of policy options for a selection of four mercury

applications:

• Dental amalgams (including mercury input and waste management)

• Measuring devices for professional uses (including a detailed assessment of

thermometers, barometers and sphygmomanometers)

• Mercury catalysts for polyurethane elastomers

• Mercury porosimetry

47 ibid.

October 2010



The study concluded that “there is a sound basis for concluding that dental amalgam

and thermometers should be seriously considered for further restrictions, while

measures to reduce the mercury input due to sphygmomanometers, barometers and

polyurethane elastomers may be put forward as soon as possible without major

impacts on manufacturers and users. With respect to dental amalgams, obligatory

installation of high efficiency filters in dental clinics is a very cost-effective measure for

reducing mercury releases to the waste water systems and may be put forward as soon

as possible.”

The study identified some knowledge gaps

� Relevant provisions of REACH Regulation

The REACH Regulation (No 1907/2006) entered into force on 1 June 2007. In addition

to the new authorisation regime for chemicals, Annex XVII of the REACH Regulation

specifically prohibits the use of mercury in certain preparations (anti-fouling, wood

preservation, textile impregnation, water treatment).

Annex XV of the REACH Regulation lays down general principles for preparing dossiers

to propose and justify restrictions on the manufacture, placing on the market or use of

substances within the Community. Agreement on proposed restrictions (Commission

comitology decision) will lead to the addition of any agreed restrictions to Annex XVII.

Any subsequent manufacture, placing on the market or use of the substance has to

comply with the conditions of the restrictions.

Two restriction proposals in accordance with Annex XV of REACH were submitted to

the Commission in June 201048:

• On request of the Commission, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

submitted a proposal for the restriction of the placing on the market and use of

mercury containing sphygmomanometers and other measuring devices in

healthcare and in other professional and industrial uses. The following

measuring devices are covered: barometers, mercury electrodes (in

voltammetry), manometers (including tensiometers), porosimeters,

pycnometers, sphygmomanometers, strain gauges and thermometers

(including hydrometers and hygrometers).

• Norway submitted a proposal for the restriction of some mercury compounds

used in pesticides and as catalysts in polyurethane elastomer manufacture

(phenylmercury 2-ethylhexanoate, phenylmercuric octanoate, phenylmercury

acetate, phenylmercury neodecanoate, phenylmercury propionate). The scope

of the restriction proposal covers exposure from manufacture, placing on the

market and use of substances, mixtures or articles containing the substances.

48 Registry of intentions for Annex XV dossiers:

http://echa.europa.eu/chem_data/reg_int_tables/reg_int_subm_doss_en.asp



The above dossiers were submitted in June 2010 and will go through the foreseen

steps under REACH (conformity check, public consultation, drafting and publication of

opinions, Commission Decision).

Some stakeholders noted that not all remaining uses are currently being considered for

restriction and substitution under the REACH Regulation (e.g. dental amalgam). As part

of this assessment, it was considered that the process by which remaining mercury

uses may be subject to REACH had already started with the recently submitted Annex

XV Restrictions Proposals, therefore Action 8 could be considered as completed.

Action 9. The Commission will take action to pursue the storage of mercury from the

chlor-alkali industry, according to a timetable consistent with the intended phase out

of mercury exports by 2011. In the first instance the Commission will explore the scope

for an agreement with the industry.

Level of action: EU and chlor-alkali industry


Status of action:

� Storage of mercury from the chlor-alkali industry

Since 2001, the Almadén site (former mercury mine in Spain) operated by MAYASA has

had a contractual agreement with Euro Chlor under which Almadén buys the mercury

surplus from the decommissioned chlor-alkali plants and sells it on the market, thus

avoiding primary production. Surplus mercury from the chlor-alkali industry which

cannot be sold on the market is currently stored in warehouses on the Almadén site,

however these stocks are expected to be near zero by March 2011. A project financed

by the EU, the MERSADE-LIFE project, took place between 2006 and 2010, aiming at

the design and construction of a safe storage installation prototype for mercury metal

based on the experience in handling, storage and technical characteristics of the

current installations of the mercury warehouse at the Almadén site49. The project also

included the monitoring of mercury emissions and the assessment of procedures and

controls at the current storage facilities and the development of a process for the

stabilisation of mercury50.

� Agreement with the industry

In December 2008, Euro Chlor announced a voluntary agreement to ensure the safe

storage of surplus mercury from the European chlor-alkali industry, once a ban on

mercury exports from the European Union takes effect in 2011. This was acknowledged

49 www.mayasa.es/esp/mersade.asp 50 At the time of writing this report, the final activity report of this project was not yet available for

review

October 2010



by a Commission Recommendation of 22 December 2008 on the safe storage of

metallic mercury no longer used in the chlor-alkali industry.51

Action 10. The Commission will undertake further study in the short to medium term

of the fate of mercury in products already circulating in society.

Level of action: EU


Status of action:

The fate of mercury in products already circulating in society was examined by the

COWI report for DG ENV issued in December 200852. Key conclusions relating to the

fate of mercury-containing waste are as follows:

“The major sources of mercury in waste, as well as the major sources of mercury

recovered from waste, are chlor-alkali production and dental amalgam. The overall

recycling efficiency for all mercury waste ranges around 25%. The remaining waste is

mainly disposed of in landfills or hazardous waste storage sites. Relatively low recycling

rates were found for light sources, batteries and mercury compounds (“chemicals”). All

of the latter are characterised by a waste stream with a relatively low mercury

concentration. For mercury compounds, the low collection rate is due in particular to

the fact that no specific collection or mercury recovery takes place for mercury-

containing polyurethane and paints, the major application areas for mercury

compounds.”

Action 11. In the short term, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) will

investigate further specific dietary intakes of different types of fish and seafood among

vulnerable subpopulations (e.g. pregnant women, children).

Level of action: EU


Status of action:

An opinion was obtained from EFSA: “Opinion of the Scientific Panel on contaminants

in the food chain [CONTAM] related to the safety assessment of wild and farmed fish”,

adopted on 22 June 2005.53 With regard to mercury, EFSA’s findings were as follows:

“Pregnant women eating up to two portions of fish per week are unlikely to exceed

51 eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:014:0010:0011:EN:PDF 52 COWI report for DG ENV: “Options for reducing mercury use in products and applications and the fate


53 CONTAM opinion related to the safety assessment of wild and farmed fish, 22 June 2005: www.efsa.europa.eu/en/scdocs/doc/236.pdf



Provisional Tolerable Weekly Intake (PTWI) levels for methylmercury, as long as they do

not consume blue fin or albacore tuna. (These species are not likely to be found in

canned tuna in Europe). Other top predatory fish, such as marlin, pike, swordfish, and

shark also frequently contain high levels of methylmercury. EFSA already recommended

in March 2004 that women of childbearing age (in particular, those intending to

become pregnant), pregnant and breastfeeding women, as well as young children,

select fish from a wide range of species without giving undue preference to top

predatory fish, such as swordfish and tuna.”54

With regard to legal provisions on the mercury content of fishery products, Regulation

(EC) No 466/2001 was replaced by Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 of 19 December

200655. Maximum limits on the mercury content of fishery products have remained

unchanged in the new Regulation.

Action 12. The Commission will provide additional information concerning mercury in

food as new data become available. National authorities will be encouraged to give

advice in the light of local specificities.

Level of action: EU


Status of action:

The Commission issued an Information Note to Member States regarding

methylmercury in fish and fishery products on 21 April 2008.56 This note includes the

following recommendation: “Women who might become pregnant, women who are

pregnant or women who are breastfeeding should not eat more than one small portion

(<100g) per week of large predatory fish, such as swordfish, shark, marlin and pike. If

they eat this portion, they should not eat any other fish during this period. Also, they

should not eat tuna more than twice per week. Parents should be aware that this

advice also applies to young children. Consumers should also pay attention to any more

specific advice from national authorities in light of local specificities.”

It should be noted that the above recommendations are identical to those issued by

the Commission in its Information Note of 12 May 200457; the only difference with the

54 EFSA press release, July 2005 : www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/contam050704.htm 55 Regulation (EC) No. 1881/2006 of 19 December 2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants

in food stuffs (eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:364:0005:0024:EN:PDF) 56 Information note from the EC dated 21 April 2008 on methylmercury in fish and fishery products:

ec.europa.eu/food/food/chemicalsafety/contaminants/information_note_mercury-fish_21-04-2008.pdf

57 Information note from the EC dated 12 May 2004 on methylmercury in fish and fishery products: ec.europa.eu/food/food/chemicalsafety/contaminants/information_note_mercury-fish_12-05-04.pdf

October 2010



2004 Information Note is the addition of a reference to Health Canada guidelines on

fish consumption, which are more stringent than current EU advice58.

According to an NGO survey by HEAL and HCWH carried out in 200659,

recommendations issued by national authorities vary widely. For example, Hungary

and Luxemburg did not have any recommendations for vulnerable groups whereas

other countries have recommendations that are stricter than those of the EFSA.

Recommendations issued by national authorities include limiting the consumption of

particular predatory fish, such as swordfish, marlin, pike and tuna (e.g. CZ, DK, FI, FR,

IE, ES, SE, UK, BG, LT) and in some countries the advice to vulnerable groups is even to

avoid eating certain species of predatory fish (e.g. recommendations from the Finnish,

French, Irish, Swedish or British authorities).

Action 13. Priorities for mercury research will be addressed in the 7th RTD Framework

Programme and other appropriate funding mechanisms.

Level of action: EU


Status of action:

A number of research projects addressing priorities for mercury research have been

funded by the EU since 2005. The most recent ones are listed in Table 2 below.

Table 2: EU-funded projects since 2005 addressing priorities for mercury research60

Framework Programme

Project Acronym

Duration Budget (M €)

Project title

FP6-Food DEVNERTOX 2003-2006

2.6 Toxic threats to the developing nervous system: in vivo and in vitro studies on the effects of mixture of neurotoxic substances potentially contaminating food

FP6-Food PHIME 2006-2011

13.4 Public health impact of long-term, low-level mixed element exposure in susceptible population strata

FP6-Mobility PHOCOENA2004

2005-2006

0.04 Evaluation of the immunotoxicity of mercury, zinc, polychlorobiphenyls and methyl sulfonyl polychlorinated biphenyls on cytokine and proteome expression in marine mammals

FP6-Mobility AMERAC 2004- 0.35 Advanced methods for environment

58 Health Canada recommends that women that are pregnant, may become pregnant or are

breastfeeding do not eat more than 150 g per month of large predatory fish. 59 Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) and Health Care Without Harm (HCWH), Oct. 2006, Mercury

and fish consumption fact sheet (www.env-health.org/IMG/pdf/Fish_consumption.pdf) 60 For most projects, summary information was found on the CORDIS database (cordis.europa.eu) and

the LIFE database (ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm)



Framework Programme

Project Acronym


Project title

2008 research and control

FP6-Mobility MERCAPFLY 2005-2006

0.04 Mercury capture by fly ashes

FP6-Mobility ELSA-BIM 2006-2008

0.15 Elemental speciation analysis in biomolecules

FP6-Mobility MERCURY ISOTOPES

2005-2007

0.15 The Use of Mercury Isotope Systematics to Fingerprint and Quantify the Cycling of Anthropogenic and Natural sources of Mercury at the Earth’s Surface

FP6-Mobility ASTER 2006-2009

0.52 Neurobiology of autism: the role of steroids and mercury

FP6-NMP BIOMERCURY 2004-2007

0.47 Worldwide remediation of mercury hazards through biotechnology

FP6-SME MERC SORB 2007-2009

0.82 Merc sorb is a low cost sulphur impregnated activated carbon sorbant for reducing mercury air emissions

FP6-Policies DROPS 2005-2007

0.8 Development of macro and sectoral economic models aiming to evaluate the role of public health externalities on society

FP6-Policies ESPREME 2004-2007

0.9 Estimation of willingness-to-pay to reduce risks of exposure to heavy metals and cost-benefit analysis for reducing heavy metals occurrence in Europe

FP7-People HG-197 MEHG ASSESS

2008-2009

0.09 Evaluation of Methyl-mercury production and decomposition by using Hg-197 radiotracer produced out of mercury enriched in Hg-196 isotope

FP7-People MERCTIC 2010-2011

0.14 Mercury biogeochemistry in the high Arctic

FP7 GMOS 2010-2015

8.5 Global Mercury Observation System

Develop a coordinated global observation system for mercury able to provide temporal and spatial distributions of mercury concentrations in ambient air and precipitation over land and over surface waters

LIFE MERSADE 2006-2009

4.3 Design, construction and validation of a prototype installation for a safe deposit of surplus mercury from the European industry

Research Fund for Coal and Steel (RFCS)

MERCURYCAP 2007-2016

2.5 High capacity sorbents and optimization of existing pollution control technologies for mercury capture in industrial combustion systems

October 2010



Framework Programme

Project Acronym


Project title

Research Fund for Coal and Steel (RFCS)

DENOPT 2007-2016

1.9 Optimisation of SCR-DeNOx catalyst performance related to deactivation and mercury oxidation

N/A N/A 2009-2011

1 Reducing mercury emissions from coal combustion in the energy sector

The European Commission provided a funding of € 1 million to UNEP to work on projects in major coal using countries (e.g. China, Russia)61. See Action 15 below.

Action 14. The Community, Member States and other stakeholders should pursue

input to international fora and activities, and bilateral engagement and projects with

third countries, including technology transfer, to address the mercury problem.

Level of action: EU and Member States


Status of action:

The Community, Member States and other relevant EU stakeholders have continued to

be involved in the activities of key international programmes, conventions and action

plans addressing the mercury issue: UNEP Mercury Programme, Heavy Metals Protocol

under the UNECE LRTAP Convention, OSPAR Convention, HELCOM Convention, Basel

Convention, Nordic Action Plan, Arctic Council Action Plan, UNEP Mediterranean Action

Plan, etc.

The EU has contributed to promoting discussions at international level on the mercury

problem. For example, the Commission organised an International Mercury Conference

in October 2006 in Brussels, aiming to increase international awareness of mercury

issues and facilitate further international discussions.

With regard to technology transfer to third countries, one relevant support initiative is

the coal combustion partnership area which received financial support from the EU.

The project includes activities in China and Russia (see further details under Action 18).

Few other projects involving technology transfer to third countries have been

identified.

Other relevant initiatives have been carried out at Member State level; for example:

• In Spain: A National Technology Centre for Mercury Decontamination is being

created under a collaboration agreement between the Spanish Ministry of

Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs, and Minas de Almadén y Arrayanes,

61 UNEP Global Mercury Partnership Newsletter, Oct. 2009

(www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/partnerships/Hg_partnership_newsletter_Oct2009.pdf)



S.A. and the Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha. Among other

objectives, this Technology Centre will aim to facilitate the extrapolation of

studies, methodology and techniques to any other area in the territory of both

the EU countries and third parties, with special attention to South America

countries. It is also intended to promote technology transfer by making

available to other institutions and universities, both public and private,

national or international, the knowledge and skills that have been gathered in

the course of research projects sponsored by the Technology Centre. The

Spanish Ministry of Science also funded some projects on the mercury

problem, related to locations in Spain and South America.62

• In the UK, the ‘Integrating Knowledge to Inform Mercury Policy’ (IKIMP)63 is a

3-year knowledge exchange initiative funded by the UK Natural Environment

Research Council, which started in October 2008. It is led by the Department of

Earth Sciences, University of Oxford, and the Environmental Knowledge

Transfer Network. Knowledge exchange is achieved by stimulating interaction

between relevant sectors of industry, government and academia by means of:

specialist cross-sectoral workshops; the production of reports of practical use

for policy makers and researchers; a website for information provision and

networking; and presentations and seminars at conferences. For example, a

workshop on the safe storage and disposal of redundant mercury was

organised in October 2009.

• Through the Nordic Council of Ministers, Denmark, Finland and Sweden have

supported the publication of several of reports and guidance documents on

the mercury problem (see also Action 18).

• A process for the stabilisation of liquid mercury with sulphur has been

developed by the German company DELA GmbH. The stabilisation process,

developed with bench scale testing in 2009, is now also proven in a large scale

applications: the Swedish EPA was the first customer signing a contract for

stabilisation of 10 tonnes of liquid mercury and final disposal of the stabilised

mercury in a salt mine (realised together with the Swedish waste management

company SAKAB AB). The development of this process was also supported as

an environmental technology research and development project by the Central

Innovation Program (ZIM) of the German Federal Ministry of Economics and

Technology.

As listed in Table 2 above, a large international cooperation project dedicated to the

development of a Global Mercury Observation System was launched in 2010. This 5-

year project has a total budget of 8.5 million EUR and is funded under the EU 7th RTD

Framework Programme. The project involves 24 partners, representing 19 different

62 The main teams taking part in these studies are based in the Universities of Oviedo and of Castilla-La

Mancha, and in CIEMAT. 63 www.mercurynetwork.org.uk/

October 2010



countries of which nine EU Member States. The objective of this project is to develop a

coordinated global observation system for mercury able to provide temporal and

spatial distributions of mercury concentrations in ambient air and precipitation over

land and over surface waters.

Potential implementation gaps: Few projects involving technology transfer to third

countries seem to have been carried out to date.

Action 15. The Commission will consider establishing a specific funding scheme for

research and pilot projects to reduce mercury emissions from coal combustion in

countries with a high dependency on solid fuels, e.g. China, India, Russia, etc., similar

to the CARNOT programme that promotes the clean and efficient use of solid fuels.

Level of action: EU


Status of action:

No specific funding scheme has been established at EU level but the European

Commission provided a funding of € 1 million to UNEP to work on projects in major

coal using countries64. UNEP has initiated activities in China and Russia as part of this

project and is working with the coal partnership area to achieve several goals related

to the project. First, emission inventories are being developed for large coal fired

plants. Second, a Process Optimisation Guidance document (POG) is being prepared to

demonstrate to states and operators of coal-fired plants the most appropriate and

cost-effective methods for mercury reduction at coal fired plants. Examples of

strategies lined out in the POG include the optimisation of existing multi-pollutant

control systems; coal switching and blending; and other specific control strategies such

as bromine or sorbent addition. The POG will be translated and disseminated to

governments and relevant industry leaders, including through a series of workshops in

participating countries. UNEP is currently working to secure activities in other major

coal using countries for this project.

64 UNEP Global Mercury Partnership Newsletter, Oct. 2009

(www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/partnerships/Hg_partnership_newsletter_Oct2009.pdf)



Action 16. The Community should promote an initiative to make mercury subject to

the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure of the Rotterdam Convention.

Level of action: EU


Status of action:

Regulation (EC) No. 689/2008, implementing the Rotterdam Convention on the PIC

procedure for certain hazardous chemicals, came into force on 1 August 200865.

Mercury compounds66 are included in Annex I of Regulation 689/2008 and are

therefore subject to the PIC procedure (metallic mercury is however not subject to

PIC).

Action 17. The Community and Member States should continue to support work under

the Heavy Metals Protocol to the UNECE Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air

Pollution (LRTAP).



Status of action:

The Heavy Metals Protocol was ratified by the EU (in 2001). The last Member States to

have ratified it, since 2005, are Belgium, Estonia, Hungary and the United Kingdom. As

of now this Convention has been ratified by 20 Member States individually and the

ones who still have not ratified it are: Greece, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Poland, Portugal

and Spain.

The Community and Member States that are Parties to the Heavy Metals Protocol have

continued to be involved in the activities of the LRTAP Convention related to the Heavy

Metals Protocol. In particular, the EU has contributed to the preparatory work for the

review of the Heavy Metals Protocol. In September 2008, the EU issued a proposal for

adding the following mercury-containing products to Annex VI of the Protocol:

batteries, measuring devices, vehicles, electrical and electronic equipment, fluorescent

lamps, dental amalgam. The proposed control measures for these products are in line

with existing EU Directives; in the case of dental amalgam, the proposed control

measure is described as follows: “All Parties shall ensure the installation of amalgam

separators at dentist practices within their territories.”

65 Regulation (EC) No. 689/2008 of 28 January 2003 concerning the export and import of dangerous

chemicals: eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:204:0001:0035:EN:PDF 66 Inorganic mercury compounds, alkyl mercury compounds and alkyloxyalkyl and aryl mercury

compounds

October 2010



� HTAP 2010 assessment report67

The Task Force on Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution (TF HTAP), whose objective is

to inform the Convention on the role of intercontinental transport of air pollution, has

identified a number of policy relevant science questions to guide their work and is

preparing an assessment report which was due to be finalised by the end of August

2010. This report will inform the LRTAP Convention and also other organisations

concerned with long range transport of air pollution, including atmospheric mercury

among other pollutants. The European Commission acts as co-lead of this Task Force.

The 2010 assessment report is a cooperative effort by experts from academia,

governmental agencies, and other organizations and aims to use all relevant

information to better understand intercontinental transport of air pollution and to

establish source receptor relationships for such air pollution. It will build on

information provided in the 2007 HTAP interim assessment report and add new

elements, such as the intercontinental transport of the pollutants Hg and POPs. The

scope of the 2010 assessment will be larger and in some aspects more in depth,

including our understanding of links between air pollution and climate change today

and in the future, health and ecosystem relevance of intercontinental transport of air

pollution, and some aspects of mitigation of emissions on the global scale as studied

though scenarios.

� Implementation of commitments

The Protocol requires Parties to reduce their total annual emissions of each of the

heavy metals listed in Annex I from the level of emissions in the reference year set. A

review of the Protocol implementation was performed in 2009 by the Implementation

Committee68, based on information provided by the Parties in 2008. Some non-

compliance issues were identified for certain EU countries having ratified the protocol.

In particular, while officially submitted emission data showed that most EU countries

had reduced their mercury emissions from the level of emissions in the reference year

(set as 1990 for most Parties), mercury emissions increases were noted for Cyprus and

Lithuania. In addition, Luxemburg and Romania did not submit mercury emission data.


Seven Member States have not individually ratified the Heavy Metals Protocol yet.

Non compliance issues identified by the Protocol implementation review of 2009

included increases in mercury emissions for Cyprus and Lithuania, and lack of emission

data reporting for Luxemburg and Romania.

67 htap.org/ 68 UNECE, In-depth review of protocol implementation, October 2009 (ECE/EB.AIR/2009/15):

www.unece.org/env/documents/2009/EB/eb/ece.eb.air.2009.15.e.pdf



Action 18. The Community, Member States and other stakeholders should also support

the UNEP Global Mercury Programme, e.g. through review of materials and provision

of technical knowledge and human and financial resources.



Status of action:

Examples of key actions undertaken by the Community, Member States and other EU

stakeholders to support the UNEP Global Mercury Programme are presented below.

� EU grants to the UNEP Mercury Programme

The EU provided financial support to the work of the UNEP Mercury Programme, in

particular via two grants (for a total amount over € 1 million) intended to support the

organisation of the second meeting of the ad-hoc open ended working group (held in

Nairobi in October 2008).

� Community support to the coal combustion partnership area

See details under Action 15.

� Support activities from Member States

Only one Member State (Germany) has officially become a partner within the UNEP

Global Mercury Partnership. As a contribution to the Global Mercury Partnership

(waste management area), the Germany Ministry for the Environment funded a report

on “Technologies for the stabilisation of elemental mercury and mercury-containing

wastes”, issued in 200969. The purpose of this review was to give an overview on

existing technologies to solidify and stabilise mercury and mercury containing waste.

The report lists 26 different approaches, some of which are already in use or are

expected to be in use on an industrial scale in the short term. It was presented at the

Preparatory Working Group on Mercury in November 2009 in Bangkok. Germany has

also organised several workshops in Eastern European countries (Yerevan in 2008, St

Petersburg in 2009).

Italy has been acting as leader in the Mercury Air Transport and Fate Research

Partnership Area 70. The objective is to increase global understanding of international

mercury emissions sources, fate and transport by accelerating the development of

sound scientific information to address uncertainties and data gaps in global mercury

cycling and its patterns (e.g. air concentrations and deposition rates, source-receptor

relationships, hemispheric and global air transport and transformation and emission

sources), by enhancing information sharing among scientists and between them and

policymakers and by providing technical assistance and training, where possible, to

69 GRS. 2009. Technologies for the stabilization of elemental mercury and mercury-containing wastes

(www.grs.de/sites/default/files/pdf/GRS%20-%20252_0.pdf) 70 Source: Report on activities undertaken within the UNEP Global Mercury Partnership (2007-2008),

May 2009 (www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/partnerships/new_partnership.htm)

October 2010



support the development of critical information. Key activities in this area include:

development of a fate and transport partnership report that describes the state of the

science on global emissions, air monitoring, and air modelling, provides an overview of

mercury in atmospheric processes on hemispheric and global scales and identifies

research needs; and field testing of the toolkit for the identification and quantification

of mercury releases in the Asian region, through funding from the UNEP Mercury Trust

Fund.

Sweden has, on its own and with the Nordic Council of Ministers, financed input to the

international process leading up to UNEP GC Decision 25/5, including in particular the

production of the following reports: “Mercury substitution priority working list”

(TemaNord 2007:541)71 and “Socio-economic costs of continuing the status-quo of

mercury pollution” (TemaNord 2008:580)72. These activities have also been supported

by Denmark and Finland, through the Nordic Council of Ministers.

Potential implementation gaps: While the Commission has provided financial

contributions to the UNEP Mercury Programme, contributions by Member States have

remained limited to date.

Action 19. The Community and Member States should support global efforts

contributing to reduced use of mercury in the gold mining sector, e.g. the

UNDP/GEF/UNIDO Global Mercury Project. They will also consider possibilities to

support individual developing countries through the various instruments related to

development cooperation assistance, taking national strategies for development into

account.


Overall level of progress: Little progress (?)

Status of action:

� Support to the Global Mercury Project and other global efforts

No evidence of such support from the Community or Member States has been

identified.

� Support to individual developing countries

France and Brazil signed a bilateral agreement in December 2008 to cooperate in the

fight against illegal gold mining in French Guyana, which causes significant mercury

releases among other environmental and social damages. However, the agreement has

not yet been ratified.

71 www.norden.org/sv/publikationer/publikationer/2007-541 72 www.norden.org/en/publications/publications/2008-580



Potential implementation gaps: Insufficient financial and technical support has been

provided to date in this area. The artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM) sector

remains the largest demand sector for mercury globally (best global estimates put

mercury use in the range of 650-1000 t/year in 2005). Virtually all of the mercury used

is released to the environment73. The UNEP Draft Business Plan of the ASGM

Partnership Area notes that a niche market for fair trade artisanally mined gold is

emerging and associated with this niche market is the opportunity to generally raise

awareness on this issue and promote cleaner ASGM practices.

Action 20. To reduce mercury supply internationally, the Community should advocate

a global phase-out of primary production and encourage other countries to stop

surpluses re-entering the market, under an initiative similar to that of the Montreal

Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. To support this objective, the

envisaged amendment of Regulation (EC) No. 304/2003 would phase out the export of

mercury from the Community by 2011.

Level of action: EU


Status of action:

� Global phase-out of mercury supply

The EU has taken a very proactive position in the discussions and negotiations at the

UNEP Governing Council (GC 24 - 2007 and GC 25 -2009) and the Open Ended Working

Groups in 2007, 2008 and 2009. In 2009, the EU in cooperation with the USA, the

African Group and others, was successful in achieving a UNEP decision to start

negotiations on a global multilateral environmental agreement on mercury in 2010.

� Phase-out of mercury export from the Community

Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 was adopted on 22 October 2008. It will ban the export

of mercury from the EU from March 2011.

*****

Table 3 below provides a summary of the above findings on the implementation of the

Strategy’s actions.

73 UNEP. 2008. Draft Business Plan of the Artisanal and Small Scale Gold Mining (ASGM) Partnership

Area.



Table 3: Summary of progress and potential gaps with regard to the 20 actions of the Strategy

Action No.

Key topic of action Level of action

(EU/MS)*

Level of progress

Implementation gaps identified

1 Assessing effects of IPPC and LCP on mercury emissions / Considering needs for further action

EU Little progress

Although previous IPPC implementation reports contain limited information on mercury emissions, they demonstrate that, in general, the implementation of BATs is insufficient. These conclusions apply to BATs related to mercury emissions reduction (where they have been defined) and BATs related to the abatement of main pollutants resulting from coal combustion (SO2, NOx, dust) which also influence mercury emission levels from large combustion plants. These gaps are expected to be partially addressed as part of the implementation of the new Industrial Emissions Directive (IED); however, the provisions of the IED may not be sufficient to achieve a significant reduction in mercury emissions from coal combustion plants as they do not include ELVs for mercury emissions from coal combustion plants and the current BREF on large combustion plants does not contain BAT-AELs for mercury (its revision is due to start soon).

No progress has been noted with regard to assessing the co-benefit effect of controls to be implemented by 1 January 2008 under the LCP Directive.

With regard to the chlor-alkali industry, the flexibility associated with the IPPC Directive’s provisions has led to various levels of requirements among the Member States, overall resulting in a low level of environmental protection. Further action might be required at EU level in order to harmonise and strengthen requirements and ensure a gradual decrease of emissions until the complete phase-out of the mercury cell technology.

2 Improving mercury-related information in BREF documents

EU Good progress

Although further information on mercury has been added to the BREF documents issued or revised since 2005, only some of the most recent BREFs contain BAT-AELs for mercury emissions. There are also information gaps with regard to mercury emissions abatement, monitoring and measurement techniques (e.g. BREF on LCP, BREF on cement). These gaps mainly reflect current knowledge and technological gaps on the issue of mercury emissions and are considered as areas for future work as part of the continuous update of the BREFs.

3 Study on small scale coal combustion

EU Moderate progress

Recommendations of the study do not seem to have been considered. In addition, significant data gaps were identified in the study, which prevented a comprehensive assessment of

October 2010



Action No.


(EU/MS)*

Level of progress


possible policy options to be conducted.

4 Reviewing treatment of dental amalgam waste and taking appropriate steps


A review of Member State’s implementation of Community requirements on the treatment of dental amalgam waste was carried out in 2005. This review, as well as more recent surveys conducted by the Council of European Dentists, indicated that there are still significant compliance gaps with regard to the implementation of the Hazardous Waste legislation in dental practices in several Member States.

Additionally, current EU legislation may allow the disposal of dental amalgam waste in landfills under certain conditions, while such disposal method does not seem appropriate for this type of waste.

5 Adoption of mercury export ban Regulation

EU Good progress

–

6 Expert opinions on dental amalgam


Although opinions were provided by the SCENIHR and the SCHER in relation to Action 6, the assessment by the SCHER could not answer all key questions on environmental and health risks of dental amalgams as some important information was missing to conduct a comprehensive risk assessment. The screening assessment conducted by the SCHER in 2008 on environmental risks and indirect health effects of mercury in dental amalgam should therefore be complemented, taking into account information gaps highlighted in this assessment, to support any future decision on a potential ban on dental amalgam use.

7 Amendment to Directive 76/769/EEC (measuring equipment)

EU Good progress –

8 Study on few remaining products and applications. Adoption of REACH Regulation.

EU Good progress –

9 Storage of mercury from chlor-alkali industry

EU and chlor-alkali

industry

Good progress –

10 Study on the fate of mercury in EU Good –



Action No.


(EU/MS)*

Level of progress


products progress

11 Investigation by EFSA EU Good progress

–

12 Information on mercury in food EU Good progress

–

13 Priorities for mercury research EU Good progress

–

14 Input to international activities, technology transfer

EU and MS Moderate progress

Few projects involving technology transfer to third countries have been carried out to date.

15 Funding scheme to reduce mercury emissions from coal combustion in countries with a high dependency on solid fuels

EU Good progress

–

16 Mercury to be subject to PIC procedure

EU Good progress

–

17 Support to UNECE CLRTAP Heavy Metals Protocol


Seven Member States have not individually ratified the Heavy Metals Protocol yet.

Non compliance issues identified by the Protocol implementation review of 2009 included increases in mercury emissions for CY and LT, and lack of emission data reporting for LU and RO.

18 Support to UNEP Mercury Programme


While the Commission has provided financial contributions to the UNEP Mercury Programme, contributions by Member States have remained limited to date.

19 Support to global efforts to reduce use of mercury in gold mining

EU and MS Little progress

It seems that insufficient financial and technical support has been provided to date in this area.

20 Advocate global phase-out of mercury supply

EU Good progress

–

* MS: Member State

October 2010



2.3. ADDITIONAL QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS

The key aim of the Strategy is to “reduce mercury levels in the environment and human

exposure, especially from methylmercury in fish”. Measuring the progress made towards this

key aim is difficult because, as explained in the Strategy, “eliminating the problem of

methylmercury in fish will probably take decades, as present levels are due to past emissions,

and would take time to fall even without further releases.” It is however possible to measure

the progress made in reducing mercury emissions, a key element that will contribute to

achieving the key aim of the Strategy in the long term. The purpose of this section is to present

the analysis of the latest mercury emission data available at EU level, in order to complement

the assessment of the Strategy’s implementation in quantitative terms.

The data presented in this section are based on country reports to the UNECE Convention on

Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) and from the European Pollutant Release

and Transfer Register (E-PRTR). For these two information sources, data accuracy is not

specified; however, information provided in previous studies on mercury emissions could be

used as an indication of data accuracy, as follows74:

• Stationary fossil fuel combustion: ± 25 %

• Non-ferrous metal production: ± 30 %

• Iron and steel production: ± 30 %

• Cement production: ± 30 %

• Waste disposal: a factor of up to 5.

� Hg air emissions reported under UNECE CLRTAP (1990 to 2008)

At the time of writing, mercury air emissions reported under UNECE CLRTAP cover all sectors

from 1990 until 2008. These data sets have been used here to assess recent trends in mercury

air emissions at EU level, country level and for key sectors of interest.

At EU level, mercury air emissions have decreased significantly since 1990 (-60% between 1990

and 2008) and are estimated to represent approximately 87 t in 2008 (excluding Greece and

Luxemburg). In recent years, emissions have continued to decrease although at a slower rate

than before (see Figure 1).

Member States with greatest mercury air emissions in 2008 were, by decreasing order to

importance: Poland, Romania, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, Slovakia, Czech Republic,

France and Germany (emission trends are shown in Figure 2 for some of these countries).

74 Extended Impact Assessment of the Community Strategy Concerning Mercury (COM(2005)20 final), 2005, p. 110-

111

October 2010



Figure 1: Mercury emissions to air (1990-2008), EU-27 (Source: EEA75)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Hg

air

emis

sio

ns

(t)

Year

Figure 2: Mercury emissions to air (1990-2008) from seven Member States among the main emitters (Source: EEA75)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Hg

air e

mis

sion

s (t)

Year

Poland

Romania

Italy

Spain

United Kindgom

France

Germany



The four Member States showing the largest percentage decreases in their mercury air

emissions between 1990 and 2008 are Bulgaria, France, the United Kingdom and Germany (see

Table 4).

Table 4: Mercury emissions to air from the four Member States with the largest percentage emission decreases since 1990 (Source: EEA75)

Country 1990 (t Hg)* 2008 (t Hg)* Percent change 1990-2008

Bulgaria 13 2 -88%

France 24 4 -84%

United Kingdom 38 6 -84%

Germany 20 4 -81%

*Rounded figures

Although mercury air emissions are decreasing overall at the EU level and in most Member

States, it is interesting to see that three Member States have experienced opposite trends:

Lithuania (+1406% between 1990 and 2008), Malta (+120%) and Cyprus (+23%) (Source:

EEA75).

Emission trends in the key mercury emitting sectors are shown in Figure 3 to Figure 8 (based

on CEIP data76) and can be summarised as follows:

• In the public electricity and heat production sector (where emissions are mostly from

large coal-fired combustion plants), in the chemical sector and in the waste sector,

there has been a significant decrease in mercury emissions since 1990 and emissions

have continued to decrease in recent years at a slower rate

• In the metal production sector and the residential combustion sector, there has also

been a significant decrease in mercury emissions since 1990; however emissions seem

to have started rising again in recent years

• In the cement sector, only three Member States have been reporting emissions

therefore the trend may not be representative of the EU; for these Member States,

emissions have remained stable since 1990.

Please note, the total mercury emissions by sector in the following graphs only cover some

Member States (only those having reported data between 1990 and 2007 for these sectors).

Although they do not indicate the total quantities of mercury emitted by sector at EU level,

they are useful to get an indication of emission trends by sector since 1990.

75 European Environmental Agency (EEA). July 2010. European Union emission inventory report 1990–2008 under

the UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP), www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-union-emission-inventory-report

76 Centre on Emissions Inventories and Projections (CEIP), Emissions as reported by parties to UNECE CLRTAP, ww.ceip.at/emission-data-webdab/emissions-as-reported-by-parties/

October 2010



Figure 3: Mercury emissions to air from public electricity and heat production (1990-2007), 16 Member States reporting77

Figure 4: Mercury emissions to air from metal production (1990-2007), 11 Member States reporting 78

77 Only includes records from countries reporting for every year in the series (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Germany,

Denmark, Estonia, Spain, Finland, France, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Sweden)

78 Only includes records from countries reporting for every year in the series (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Spain, France, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden).



Figure 5: Mercury emissions to air from chemical processes, including chlor-alkali (1990-2007), 8 Member States reporting 79

Figure 6: Mercury emissions to air from residential combustion (1990-2007), 13 Member States reporting80

79 Only includes records from countries reporting for every year in the series (Austria, Belgium, Spain, France, the

United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden). 80 Only includes records from countries reporting for every year in the series (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia,

Spain, France, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Sweden).

October 2010



Figure 7: Mercury emissions to air from cement production (1990-2007), 3 Member States reporting81

Figure 8: Mercury emissions to air from the waste sector (1990-2007), nine Member States reporting82

81 Only includes records from countries reporting for every year in the series (Belgium, Germany and Latvia). 82 Only includes records from countries reporting for every year in the series (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Spain,

Finland, France, the United Kingdom, Portugal, and Sweden)



� Hg emissions to air/water/land reported under E-PRTR (2007)

Mercury is one of the pollutants covered by the European Pollutant Release and Transfer

Register (E-PRTR)83, which provides key environmental data on releases to air, water and land

from 24 000 industrial facilities (first reporting year was 2007). The E-PRTR replaces and

improves upon the previous European Pollutant Emission Register (EPER), under which

facilities reported emissions for years 2001 and 2004. The scope of the inventory is limited to

those facilities exceeding certain capacity thresholds and for which emissions exceed certain

quantities. For mercury, the reporting thresholds are as follows: 10 kg/year for releases to air,

1 kg/year for releases to water and 1 kg/year for releases to land.

Data from EPER and E-PRTR are interesting as they cover releases to water and land, in

addition to air emissions which are also available from the CLRTAP reporting.

Mercury emissions reported under the E-PRTR in 2007 are presented below84.

Please note, aggregated mercury emission data (e.g. EU-wide, country-wide or sector-specific)

from the E-PRTR, covering the year 2007, is not directly comparable with previous EPER data

for the years 2001 and 2004, since the reporting scope has been extended: E-PRTR covers 65

economic activities and 24 000 facilities, while EPER used to cover 56 activities and 12 000

facilities.

Table 5: Mercury emissions reported to E-PRTR in 2007 (kg)

Activity Description Total Air Water Land85

Thermal power stations and other combustion installations 23,071 18,547 4,521 2

Metal industry and metal ore roasting or sintering installations;

Installations for the production of ferrous and non-ferrous metals 5,225 4,774 442 9

Basic inorganic chemicals and fertilisers 4,984 3,526 1,457 0

Installations for the production of cement clinker, lime, glass,

mineral substances or ceramic products 4,002 4,002 0 0

Basic organic chemicals 2,962 2,611 351 0

Urban and independently operated industrial waste-water

treatment plants 2,646 196 2,375 75

Installations for the disposal and incineration of non-hazardous

waste and landfills 1,548 578 930 39

Mineral oil and gas refineries 1,065 940 125 0

83 prtr.ec.europa.eu/ 84 Data for the year 2008 was only published recently (June 2010) and therefore could not be included in this

report. 85 The reporting on “releases to land” applies only to pollutants in waste which is subject to the disposal

operations “land treatment” or “deep injection”. Sludge and manure spreading are recovery operations and therefore not reported as releases to land. prtr.ec.europa.eu/docs/EN_E-PRTR_fin.pdf

October 2010



Activity Description Total Air Water Land85

Installations for the disposal or recovery of hazardous waste 550 415 17 117

Coke ovens 252 249 2

Industrial plants for pulp from timber or other fibrous materials and

paper or board production 326 199 100 27

Opencast mining and quarrying 104 0 104 0

Installations for the manufacture of coal products and solid

smokeless fuel 85 85 0 0

Installations for the surface treatment of products 26 13 13 0

Treatment and processing intended for the production of food and

beverage products 18 0 3 14

Pharmaceutical products 11 0 11 0

Slaughterhouses 8 0 0 8

Underground mining and related operations 8 0 8 0

Basic plant health products and of biocides 3 0 3 0

Installations for the building of, and painting or removal of paint

from ships 1 0 1 0

Installations for the production of carbon or electro-graphite by

means of incineration or graphitisation 1 0 1 0

Plants for the pre-treatment or dyeing of fibres or textiles 1 0 1 0

Total (kg) 46,907 36,139 10,472 295



Figure 9: EU-27 Total mercury emissions (air/water/land), 2007 (Source: E-PRTR, European Environment Agency)

50%

11%

11%

9%

7%

6%

3% 2% 1% Thermal power stations and other combustion installationsMetal industry

Basic inorganic chemicals

Cement, lime, glass, mineral or ceramic

Basic organic chemicals

Waste-water treatment plants

Disposal and incineration of non-hazardous waste

Figure 10: EU-27 Mercury emissions to air, 2007 (Source: E-PRTR, European Environment Agency)

52%

13%

11%

10%

7%

3% 2% 1% 1% Thermal power stations and other combustion installationsMetal industry

Cement, lime, glass, mineral or ceramic



Mineral oil and gas refineries


October 2010



Figure 11: EU-27 Mercury emissions to water, 2007 (Source: E-PRTR, European Environment Agency)

44%

23%

14%

9%

5%4% 1% 0% Thermal power stations

and other combustion installationsWaste-water treatment plants



Metal industry


Mineral oil and gas refineries

Figure 12: EU-27 Mercury emissions to land, 2007 (Source: E-PRTR, European Environment Agency)

48%

31%

16%

4% 1%Disposal or recovery of hazardous waste

Waste-water treatment plants


Metal industry

Thermal power stations and other combustion installations



Figure 13: EU-27 Mercury emissions by medium, 2007 (Source: E-PRTR, European Environment Agency)

77%

22%

1%

Air

Water

Land

October 2010



3. POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL ACTIONS

This section focuses on possible areas for consideration in a future EU strategy concerning

mercury, in view of recent European and international policy developments and taking into

account recent scientific and technical progress as well as the results of the Strategy’s

implementation assessment. This section presents the approach followed to identify possible

additional actions, discusses the various gaps that would need to be addressed in a future

Strategy and provides initial suggestions for additional actions that would be required to better

protect human health and the environment from mercury-related hazards.

3.1. APPROACH

The current Strategy was adopted in 2005 and there has been significant developments since

then, including national and international policy developments (in particular the UNEP

initiative to adopt a global instrument on mercury), progress in scientific knowledge, technical

developments (in particular with regard to mercury-free alternatives) as well as increased

public awareness on the risks posed by mercury. The current Strategy would therefore benefit

from being updated in order to reflect these various developments and continue to

demonstrate the EU’s international leadership on the issue of mercury. It would also need to

address potential gaps in the implementation of the 2005 Strategy, as discussed in Section 2.

In this context, a number of additional actions were identified, which could be taken in order

to further develop the current Strategy. Several key elements were taken into account in our

work:

• Policy and best practice initiatives in EU and non-EU countries; the mapping of EU and

international policy and best practice initiatives on mercury, as presented in Table 43

(Annex 2), provides some indications on possible areas that would deserve further

consideration in a future version of the Strategy.

• Findings of the COWI report from December 2008 on “Options for reducing mercury

use in products and applications and the fate of mercury already circulating in

society”86; in particular, this report provided policy recommendations in relation to

mercury use in dental amalgam (including waste management aspects), in measuring

equipment, in polyurethane elastomer manufacture, in porosimetry, in biocides and in

lighthouses.

• Comments received from Member States and other stakeholders, who were first

consulted via a questionnaire sent in March 2010 then during a workshop held in June

2010.

86 www.ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/pdf/study_report2008.pdf (last retrieval 21/10/2009)



• Discussion with the Commission.

� STRUCTURE OF THIS SECTION

On its 2912th meeting (4 December 2008), the Council of the European Union concluded that a

multilateral agreement should flexibly cover all phases of the mercury life cycle from

production and uses to releases (intentional and unintentional), stockpiles and waste. This full

life cycle approach is also reflected in the conference room paper the EU presented at the

second meeting of the UNEP Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Mercury (OEWG2) in

October 2008 (“Why choose a multilateral environmental agreement for mercury? Possible

structure of a Multilateral Environmental Agreement on mercury”)87. In this document, the EU

laid down elements that in their view could be included in a future multilateral agreement on

mercury, as presented in Table 6 below.

Table 6: Possible structure of a Multilateral Environmental Agreement on mercury, as presented by the EU at the UNEP meeting of October 2008

A. Elements that Frame the Issue

1. Expression of political commitment

2. Principles, scope of framework

3. Objective: “To protect human health and the environment from the

release of mercury and its compounds by minimising and, where

feasible, ultimately eliminating global, anthropogenic mercury

releases to air, water and land”.

B. Specific Actions to Address the Challenges Posed by Mercury

1. Reduce supply of mercury

2. Reduce demand for mercury in products and processes

3. Reduce international trade of mercury

4. Reduce or eliminate atmospheric emissions of mercury

5. Achieve environmentally sound management of mercury-containing wastes

6. Find environmentally sound storage solutions for mercury

7. Remediate existing contaminated sites

8. Increase knowledge

C. Arrangements Related to Implementation

1. Information exchange and public awareness

2. Implementation strategies

3. Monitoring, reporting, and review

4. Financial resources and technical assistance

5. Effectiveness evaluation and review of commitments

D. Policy Guidance and Administration

1. Policy guidance or oversight process

2. Administrative services

87 European Union (2008). Why choose a multilateral environmental agreement for mercury? Possible structure

of a multilateral environmental agreement on mercury. In: UNEP (2009) Full report of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Mercury on the work of its second meeting: Note by the Executive Director (UNEP/GC.25/INF/25), Annex II Part III (www.unep.org/gc/gcss-x/download.asp?ID=1019)

October 2010



Most of the above elements have been reflected in Decision 25/5 of the UNEP Governing

Council in February 2009. Transposed to the EU, some of the mentioned elements are of less

relevance but some aspects of this structure might help to update the Community Strategy

and to bring it into closer coherence with discussions at the global level.

An update of the Community Strategy concerning Mercury might thus include the following

elements:

• Overall objective

• Specific objectives:

1) Reduce supply of mercury

2) Reduce demand for mercury in products and processes

3) Reduce international trade of mercury

4) Reduce or eliminate atmospheric emissions of mercury

5) Achieve environmentally sound management of mercury-containing wastes

6) Find environmentally sound storage solutions for mercury

7) Remediate existing contaminated sites

8) Increase knowledge

9) Reduce emissions to water and soil

10) Protect against exposure

11) Support and promote international action

• Arrangements related to implementation:

A1) Information exchange and public awareness

A2) Monitoring

A3) Effectiveness evaluation and review of commitments

Objectives 9 to 11 are taken from the Community Strategy concerning Mercury. They are

specific to the EU (Objective 11) or not addressed by UNEP Decision 25/5 (Objectives 9 and 10)

but by the Community Strategy.

For each of the objectives (e.g. “Reduce supply of mercury”), one or several specific issues (e.g.

“Supply from the recycling of mercury-containing waste”) are identified that need closer

attention.

3.2. KEY FINDINGS

This section presents initial findings with regard to possible areas for consideration in the

future Strategy, keeping in mind that the general goal of any further policy interventions is to

protect human health and the environment from the release of mercury to the environment.

Our findings are organised according to the proposed structure for a revised version of the



Strategy, as presented above. In this section, we are mainly discussing those aspects of the

mercury problem for which additional actions could be considered. Listing a specific action at

this stage does not imply that it is recommended for inclusion in a revised version of the

Strategy.

� GENERAL ASPECTS

� Overall goal

The current Community Strategy concerning Mercury lacks an overall objective. Only a key aim

has been formulated: “To reduce mercury levels in the environment and human exposure,

especially from methylmercury in fish”. This aim cannot be fully achieved directly but only

through a reduction of anthropogenic mercury releases into the environment. On this basis, six

objectives have been agreed which, from the perspective of 2005, covered the most important

aspects of the mercury problem. In a potential future update of the Strategy, the key aim could

be retained but complemented with a more activity-oriented overall goal such as the one

proposed by the EU at OEWG2.

� Potential action: Complement the key aim in the Strategy with an overall goal, e.g. “To

protect human health and the environment from the release of mercury and its

compounds by minimising and, where feasible, ultimately eliminating anthropogenic

mercury releases to air, water and land”.

� Knowledge of mercury flows

The use of mercury compounds in the EU may have been under-estimated in past studies.

Indeed, COWI (2008) reported a production of mercury compounds of approximately 84 t and

a consumption of 44 t in the EU in 2007 (both figures are expressed in mercury content), with

significant uncertainty on these figures88. In 2007, however, imports of mercury compounds

amounted to 611 t while exports of mercury compounds89 were at 1,661 t90. For 2008 and

2009, import figures (515 t and 128 t respectively) and export figures (258 t and 127 t) for

mercury compounds were lower, but were nevertheless much higher than previously indicated

in the COWI study. The difference between the data reported by COWI and the import/export

data from the ComExt database highlights the fact that there is insufficient knowledge on the

production, use and fate of mercury compounds in the EU.

88 COWI report for DG ENV: “Options for reducing mercury use in products and applications and the fate of

mercury already circulating in society”, 2008 (ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/pdf/study_report2008.pdf)

89 A mercury compound is a chemical compound including the chemical element mercury and at least one other chemical element. Substances that occur in nature like minerals that contain small impurities of mercury are not considered as mercury compounds. Products (articles) that are made from mercury compounds like amalgam capsules (for dentistry) or dosing units (for the filling of CFLs) are not included in this definition either.

90 Source: Eurostat ComExt database

October 2010



During consultation with stakeholders, several of them suggested that a trade tracking system

to monitor EU imports and exports of mercury and mercury compounds should be

implemented to improve knowledge of mercury flows.

� Potential action: Further investigate production, use, trade and fate of mercury

compounds in the EU and update this information on a regular basis.

� Potential action: Establish a trade tracking system to monitor EU imports and exports

of elemental mercury and mercury compounds.

� Definitions

During the preparation of the study and the consultation with stakeholders, the need for

establishing clear definitions of certain terms related to the mercury issue was identified. The

Mercury Strategy represents a key document of EU policy that will be read by a number of

people not familiar with the technical EU terminology, therefore a glossary explaining key

terms would be very beneficial to future readers.

� Potential action: Complement the Strategy with a (small) glossary of key terms with

definitions taken from existing EU legislative documents. Alternatively: provide a link

to a separate document.

� OBJECTIVE 1: REDUCE SUPPLY

According to Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 (Mercury Export Ban) metallic mercury that is no

longer used in the chlor-alkali industry, is gained from the cleaning of natural gas, or from non-

ferrous mining and smelting operations or is extracted from cinnabar ore is to be considered as

waste and be disposed of as from 15 March 2011.

Other important sources of mercury supply are:

• Dealer’s stocks (roughly estimated to be in the order of 3,200 t in 200791)

• Recycling of mercury-containing waste including products (101 t/year92). Recycling operations generate mercury from the following stocks:

- Mercury stocks in laboratories, schools and clinics (rough estimate of 160-200 t on shelves plus 85-115 t in water drains93)

- Mercury in highly contaminated sites (chlor alkali waste and site contamination: 11,000 t; other highly contaminated sites: 4,500 t, but only 100-500 t are thought to be recoverable94)

- Products in use (1,800 t), including mercury in lighthouses (total inventory of about 24-125 t95)

91 COWI (2008) p. 156. According to information from the Spanish government, stocks at MAYASA are expected to

be zero at the time the export ban enters into force (15 March 2011). 92 CONCORDE (2006) p.42 93 COWI (2008) p.157 94 COWI (2008) p. 10



• Import from non EU countries (averaged 290 t between in 2005 and 2009, but the EU was a net exporter at that time96).

Mercury from highly contaminated sites and from waste products is typically sent for recycling

and purification. It is probably in great part included in the estimated annual amount of

recycled mercury.

� Issue 1.2: Supply from the recycling of mercury-containing waste

As recycling will become the most important source of supply after 15 March 2011, a further

reduction of mercury on the EU market could be achieved by considering recycled mercury as

waste that has to be disposed of analogous to mercury from other sources in accordance with

Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008. In Sweden reprocessing of mercury containing waste is done

only for the purpose of separating mercury from other waste fractions and to prepare it for

final storage97.

� Potential action: Consider mercury extracted from products as waste that has to be

disposed of in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008.

The reported figures for the amount of recycled mercury are quite different from one source

to another (230-280 t/year98; 101 t/year99) and a clear understanding of mercury produced

from this industry is difficult. It might be indicated to establish a reporting scheme for recyclers

that allow Member States to have an overview on the mercury produced by recycling within

their countries.

� Potential action: Establish a reporting scheme for the production of recycled mercury.

� Issue 1.3: Supply from imported elemental mercury, mercury compounds and mercury-containing products

Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 only addresses mercury that is produced or recovered within

the EU. While the EU export ban will reduce the global supply of mercury, any demand within

the EU could be met by imported mercury as well. Therefore the export ban and the storage

obligation will probably have an external effect but might not have the same steering effect on

internal EU demand and consumption. An import ban on mercury and mercury compounds

would effectively cut this source of supply. Such a measure has already been taken by some

Member States (e.g. DK). Moreover an import ban might represent an incentive to meet

internal EU demand by recycling of mercury waste rather than by possibly cheaper imports.

� Potential action: Ban the import of elemental mercury and mercury compounds, with

exemptions for research and development, medical and analysis purposes, for

restoration of antiques and disposal.

95 COWI (2008) p.257 96 According to ComExt trade statistics, see Table 14, p. 127. 97 COWI (2008) p.157 98 COWI (2008) p.189; data for 2007 EU27+2 (CH, NOR) 99 CONCORDE (2006) p.42

October 2010



With regard to the import of products, current and forthcoming EU legislation related to

restrictions on the marketing of mercury-containing products are expected to result in a

reduction of imports of such products since they are not allowed to be placed on the EU

market.

� Issue 1.4: Supply from primary mining

After the closure of the mine in Almadén (Spain) and the cessation of ore processing (2003)

there is no operating mercury mine left in the EU. Primary mercury mining as a source of

supply is not directly prohibited by EU law but in the end would be of no value since processing

of the most important mercury ore cinnabar would lead to elemental mercury that must be

disposed of. Moreover, export of cinnabar ore will also be prohibited from 15 March 2011.

Historically mining of elemental mercury played a certain role in Idrija (Slovenia), but it has

been replaced by mining of cinnabar centuries ago100. Other mercury ores are of minor

importance101. Therefore an explicit prohibition of primary mercury mining in the EU does not

seem to be necessary.

� Issue 1.5: Supply from other sources

Mercury recovered from decommissioned lighthouses and collected from stocks and

recovered from sinks in laboratories, schools and clinics (and from other public and private non

commercial stocks) is a minor but nevertheless significant source of supply. These amounts

could in principle be subjected to a disposal obligation like mercury from other sources. The

COWI report for DG ENV (2008) recommends that mercury recovered from lighthouses be

included in the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 and notes that “the relatively large

amounts of mercury stored in each lighthouse makes it feasible to send the mercury directly for

safe storage”. COWI estimates that the impacts of making mercury from lighthouses subject to

Regulation 1102/2008 would be similar in nature to those associated with mercury from the

chlor-alkali industry, however these impacts would be “much smaller, as the quantities

accumulated in the chlor-alkali industry are more than 100 times the quantities accumulated in

lighthouses.”

� Potential action: Extend storage obligation to obsolete mercury and mercury

compounds recovered from lighthouses, laboratories, schools, clinics and other public

and private non-commercial sources.

As long as there is a demand for mercury, dealers will have to stock certain amounts of

mercury and mercury compounds in order to meet changing demands. A disposal obligation

for these stocks would ultimately disable any trade of mercury. As long as some supply is

needed, such an action would not be feasible.

100 Riart, O.P.; Martínez, L.F.M.; Bordehore, L.J. (2003): Mercury mining museums. CIM Bull., 96, No. 1070, p. 80-82 101 Rytuba, J. J. (2003) Mercury from mineral deposits and potential environmental impact. Env. Geol. 43, 326-338.



� OBJECTIVE 2: REDUCE DEMAND FOR MERCURY IN PRODUCTS AND PROCESSES

Mercury consumption figures presented in the COWI report102 show that EU legislation

currently addresses approximately 10% of the EU mercury consumption. Another 40% is

covered by the voluntary agreement of the chlor-alkali industry to phase out mercury cells by

2020. The remaining 50% of mercury used in the EU (130-270 t/year in 2007) is not subject to

restrictions; this mainly includes dental amalgam (90-110 t/year), porosimetry (10-100 t/year)

and chemicals (28-59 t/year). These sectors are characterised by widespread use and largely

unidentified fate of used mercury products103.

� Issue 2.2: Use of mercury-based dental amalgam

Following Action 6 of the Strategy (opinions received from SCENIHR and SCHER), no further

measures have yet been taken by the Commission.

The potential health effects of dental amalgam were mentioned in the “Mid-term review of

the European Environment and Health Action Plan 2004-2010” approved by the European

Parliament in September 2008104, which recognises “the emergence of new diseases or

syndromes, such as (...) dental-amalgam syndrome”.

An impact assessment of policy options related to the reduction of mercury use in dental

amalgam was conducted as part of the COWI report for DG ENV issued in December 2008. It

was estimated that a general ban on mercury in dental fillings could reduce mercury input by

80-110 t Hg/year while the cost to the end-user of reduced mercury input was estimated at

11,000-78,000 €/kg Hg. The COWI report concluded that “there is a sound basis for concluding

that dental amalgam should be seriously considered for further restrictions”.

A survey by the Council of European Dentists, conducted in 2010, reported that the use of

dental amalgam is decreasing in most European countries. Several Member States (DE, DK, NL,

SE) and non-EU countries (e.g. CH, JP, NO) have restricted or almost totally banned the use of

dental amalgam (further details are provided in Annex 2). During the stakeholder consultation,

Sweden in particular insisted on the successful implementation of this ban in the country.

� Potential action: Phase-out the use of dental amalgam, possibly with identified

exemptions. Future decision could be supported by a revision of the assessment

conducted by the SCHER in 2008 on environmental risks and indirect health effects of

102 COWI, Dec. 2008, Report for DG ENV on “Options for reducing mercury use in products and applications, and

the fate of mercury already circulating in society”, Table 0-1: Mercury consumption in industrial processes and products in the EU with an indication of the level of substitution (2007). Mercury consumption figures in the COWI report are indicated with ranges representing a 90% likelihood interval, i.e. the actual figures for 10% of the estimates may be outside the indicated range.

103 Here and anywhere else in the report, the term ‚product‘ is used in the same sense as ‚article‘ in the REACH Regulation 1907/2006: ‘an object which during production is given a special shape, surface or design which determines its function to a greater degree than does its chemical composition’

104 European Parliament resolution of 4 September 2008 on the mid-term review of the European Environment and Health Action Plan 2004-2010 (2007/2252(INI)): www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P6-TA-2008-0410&language=EN

October 2010



mercury in dental amalgam, taking into account information gaps highlighted in the

2008 assessment (see Action 6 of the Strategy in Section 2).

As pointed out by several stakeholders, one potential action that could be envisaged to

support the future phase-out of dental amalgam use would be to increase the knowledge and

expertise of medical practitioners with regard to the health effects of mercury.

A summary of impacts and costs associated with a potential phase-out of dental amalgam use

is presented in Table 7 below.

Table 7: Impacts and costs of prohibiting mercury use in dental preparations (based on COWI report, 2008)

Life cycle phase Impact elements Cost elements Benefit elements

Manufacturers Impact on manufacturers of Hg-containing filling materials

Decreased sale of dental amalgams

Costs of increasing the capacity for manufacturing of alternatives*

Impacts on manufacturers of Hg-free filling materials

Increased sale of alternatives

Trade of products

Impact on global market

Further boost of global market for alternatives

Decreasing prices of alternatives due to increased competition and production efficiency

Users of the products – dental customers

Impacts on the price of dental restoration

Higher costs due to higher price of preparing fillings with alternatives

Costs of more frequent renewal of the fillings due to shorter life of alternative fillings in the mouth

€1,000-10,000 million/y (€11,000-78,000 per kg Hg use reduction)

Impacts of exposure of humans and the environment

Reduced costs of environmental and indirect health impacts of mercury released from the entire life cycle of dental amalgam fillings (during preparation, releases from mouth, from sewage and via waste). These benefits are difficult to quantify but are expected to be significant.




Reduced mercury input estimated at 80-110 t/year.

Possible direct health benefits of not having mercury fillings is controversial - SCHER (2008) concludes that that dental health can be adequately ensured by both amalgams and alternatives

Users of the products - dentists

Health impact for dentist personnel

Reduced/eliminated health effects for clinic personnel’s handling of hazardous mercury waste

Impact on sewage management in dental clinics

Reduction, and in the long term elimination, of costs for installation and maintenance of amalgam separators

Society Impact on public sewage sludge management

Reduction of costs for special disposal of sludge which cannot be used as fertilizer due to elevated Hg concentrations

Impact on solid waste disposal

Reduced costs from releases of mercury waste going to municipal solid waste from dental clinics and from homes (with lost teeth)

Reduced costs of selective collection and treatment of mercury-containing dental waste

Crematoria

Impact on releases from crematoria of mercury in dental fillings

Reduced costs of having mercury filters on crematoria

€62 million/y (approx. €17,000 per kg Hg release reduction)

* Based on the available information, almost all manufacturers of mercury amalgam filling materials in the EU also manufacture alternatives. This also implies that manufacturing procedures are already well incorporated and no special training or conversion activities are necessary besides a general increase in production capacity. Export out of the EU of mercury-containing dental filling materials may stay stable or increase as the European market is reduced, unless restrictions on export are imposed.

Finally it has to be said that the most cost-effective and risk free approach to avoid usage of

amalgam or any other filling material is improvement of dental care. Measures to increase

awareness among European citizens about dental care are probably beyond the objective of

the Mercury Strategy, but should be taken into account when addressing the amalgam

problem on a European scale.

� Issue 2.3: Use of mercury in measuring equipment

Following Action 7 of the Strategy, the sale of mercury-containing fever thermometers and

other measuring devices intended for sale to the general public has now been banned. These

restrictions are included in Annex XVII of REACH (Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006). However,

October 2010



sphygmomanometers and other measuring devices in healthcare and in other professional and

industrial uses are currently excluded from this ban.

In June 2010, on request of the Commission, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

submitted a proposal for the restriction of the placing on the market and use of mercury

containing sphygmomanometers and other measuring devices in healthcare and in other

professional and industrial uses, in accordance with Annex XV of REACH105. The public

consultation on this Annex XV dossier is expected to start in September 2010. The following

measuring devices are covered: barometers, mercury electrodes (in voltammetry),

manometers (including tensiometers), porosimeters, pycnometers, sphygmomanometers,

strain gauges and thermometers (including hydrometers and hygrometers).

Several Member States (DK, NL, SE) and non-EU countries (e.g. CH, NO, US) have banned the

use of sphygmomanometers and other measuring devices, with identified exemptions. Best

practice initiatives to phase out the use of sphygmomanometers in hospitals have also been

carried out in countries such as Brazil, China or India (for further details, please refer to

Annex 2).

The COWI report (2008) showed that the main remaining use of mercury in measuring devices

was mercury-containing sphygmomanometers and that for all types of measurements where

sphygmomanometers are used, mercury-free alternatives are available. COWI carried out an

impact assessment of policy options to reduce mercury use in sphygmomanometers. It was

estimated that a ban on mercury in sphygmomanometers could reduce mercury input by 3-

7 t Hg/year while the cost to the end-user of reduced mercury input was estimated at -26 to

99 €/kg Hg. The COWI report concluded that “measures to reduce the mercury input due to

sphygmomanometers may be put forward as soon as possible without major impacts on

manufacturers and users”.

In a report issued in 2009, SCENIHR106 stated that mercury containing sphygmomanometers

could be replaced but it recommended that “mercury sphygmomanometers remain available

as a reference standard for clinical validation of existing and future mercury-free blood-

pressure measurement devices. Therefore, the mercury sphygmomanometer should remain

available as a reference standard until an alternative device is developed and recognised as

such.”

A summary of impacts and costs identified a previous study with regard to the prohibition of

marketing of mercury-containing measuring equipment is presented in Table 8 below.


http://echa.europa.eu/chem_data/reg_int_tables/reg_int_subm_doss_en.asp 106 SCENIHR opinion on “Mercury Sphygmomanometers in Healthcare and the Feasibility of Alternatives, Sept. 2009

(ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_o_025.pdf)



Table 8: Impacts and costs of prohibiting marketing of mercury-containing measuring equipment (based on COWI report, 2008)


Manufacturers*

Impact on manufacturers of mercury- containing equipment

Reduced sale of mercury measuring equipment

Impact on manufacturers of mercury-free equipment

Increased sale of mercury-free equipment

Users of the equipment

Impacts on the price of equipment

Increased costs due to higher price of alternatives

Estimated at €0-6,000,000 per year depending on which alternative is chosen

Impact on the reliability of blood pressure measurements

Costs of more frequent calibration

Impacts of spill of mercury

Reduced costs of mercury spill kit and spill response preparedness/training

Reduced costs of clean up of mercury spill

Waste disposal

Costs of selective collection and treatment of electronic equipment (for electronic devices)

Reduced costs of selective collection and treatment of mercury-containing equipment

Society Impacts of spill of mercury

Reduced costs of health impacts of mercury in the indoor environment

Reduced costs of environmental impacts of mercury releases from the spill

Waste disposal Reduced costs of environmental and health impacts of mercury released from waste operations and landfills

* Mercury sphygmomanometers are manufactured by at least four manufacturers in the EU. All enterprises are small or medium sized enterprises. Manufacture of mercury sphygmomanometers takes up a minor part of the total turnover of the enterprises and all enterprises also manufacture mercury-free sphygmomanometers. Beside these four manufactures, at least two manufacturers are manufacturing mercury-free sphygmomanometers for manual reading. As mercury-free devices are already manufactured by the companies, the costs to the industry for switching to production of mercury-free alternatives are likely to be negligible.

October 2010



With regard to the use of mercury in porosimetry, no legal restrictions are currently in force in

the EU. The COWI report revealed that this application may be among the largest remaining

uses of mercury in the EU (10-100 t/year) although there is some uncertainty on these figures.

COWI carried out an impact assessment of policy options to reduce mercury use in this area. It

was estimated that a ban on the marketing of porosimeters for mercury porosimetry and on

the use of mercury in porosimetry could reduce mercury input by 2-20 t Hg/year in the short

term (economic costs could not be quantified). The COWI report concluded that such a ban

could be considered in the long term, but with some exemptions for specific applications

where alternatives are not yet available (such exemptions would actually cover a large part of

users at present). More information on mercury use in porosimetry has been gathered as part

of the REACH Annex XV restriction report prepared by ECHA (soon to be released for public

consultation).

A summary of impacts and costs identified by a previous study with regard to this policy option

is presented in Table 9 below.

Table 9: Impacts and costs of prohibiting the marketing of porosimeters for mercury porosimetry and on the use of mercury in porosimetry (based on COWI report, 2008)

Impacts on: Impact elements Cost elements Benefit elements

Manufacturers Impact on manufacturers of mercury-containing equipment

Reduced sale of mercury measuring equipment (only one company manufacturing mercury porosimeters in the EU, which does not manufacture alternatives)

Users of the equipment:

Companies and research institutions

Impact on the price of equipment

Reduced costs of equipment

Impacts on which pore structure characteristics can be obtained

Increased costs for R&D of new methods to fully substitute Hg

Increased costs for development of new standards and standard materials

Comparability Increased costs for comparing new pore structure data with previously obtained results Impacts of the spill of mercury

Impacts of mercury spills

Reduced costs of mercury spill kits and spill response preparedness

Reduced costs of clean up of mercury spill



Impacts on: Impact elements Cost elements Benefit elements

Waste disposal Reduced costs of disposing of contaminated samples and contaminated mercury

Working environment

Reduced costs of health impacts and exposure reduction equipment in the working environment

Society Impacts of releases from operation of equipment and spills

Reduced costs of health impacts

Reduced costs of environmental impacts

Waste disposal Reduced costs of environmental and health impacts of mercury released from waste operations and landfills

� Potential action: Extend mercury use restrictions to sphygmomanometers and other

measuring devices in healthcare and in other professional and industrial uses; some

exemptions may be considered for research and validation purposes (this is the subject

of an Annex XV Restriction Report submitted by ECHA).

� Issue 2.4: Use of mercury in lighting

Mercury is an important component of fluorescent lamps/tubes and High Intensity Discharge

(HID) lamps that plays a key role in their energy efficiency, lifetime and warm-up times. In

addition to light bulbs marketed as such, they are found in numerous electronic devices (e.g.

LCD backlighting for computers and TVs, mobile telephones, etc.).

While mercury use is expected to decrease in future years for most applications in the EU, the

use of mercury in energy saving light bulbs has shown an upward trend over the last few years

and therefore merits particular attention. It is estimated that mercury use in Compact

Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs) has been rising between 2005 and 2008 which can very well be

attributed to the increase in the overall sales of CFLs during this period in spite of efforts made

to reduce the mercury content of these light bulbs (further quantitative data is provided in

Annex 4).

Future mercury input associated with light bulbs placed on the market is not precisely known.

Based on projected market trends for domestic CFLs and average mercury content of these

lamps, rough estimates have been developed as part of this study and can be found in

Annex 4. According to these estimates, the total amount of mercury contained in domestic

CFLs placed on the market was approximately 1.8 t in 2008 (assuming 5 mg Hg/CFL); it

increased up to approximately 4.5 t/y in 2009-2010 (as a result of increased sales of CFLs) and

October 2010



is expected to decrease progressively until 2020 (approximately 1 t/y in 2020, assuming 2.5 mg

Hg/CFL from 2013 onwards).

Overall, the use of CFLs is expected to be neutral or positive in terms of mercury emissions

reduction compared to incandescent light bulbs, when considering the whole life cycle of CFLs

including electricity use and considering the current EU energy mix (approximately 28% of EU

electricity is produced from coal). Even if only a small percentage of CFLS are recycled, it is

estimated that overall mercury emissions due to the use of CFLs – mainly occuring at the end

of life, in the case of improper disposal – are smaller than those associated with the use of

incandescent light bulbs that consume more electricity and therefore involve greater mercury

emissions from coal power plants107.

Regulation (EC) No. 244/2009108 on ecodesign requirements for non-directional light sources,

which took effect on 1 September 2009, aims to gradually phase out inefficient incandescent

and conventional halogen lamps/bulbs (see Annex 4 for further details). This regulation

imposes an EU-wide ban on incandescent light bulbs, which is expected to reduce CO2

emissions by 30 million tonnes a year. Although CFLs have been widely used in EU homes in

the past decade, this Regulation encourages an increased use of these lamps. Another

Ecodesign Regulation (EC No. 245/2009) covers fluorescent lamps without ballast and high-

intensity discharge lamps and results in the ban of high-mercury content lamps such as

halophosphate fluorescent tubes and high-pressure mercury vapour lamps (on the basis of

energy efficiency requirements); the alternatives contain less mercury and are more energy

efficient. Both Ecodesign Regulations mentioned above require that the amount of mercury in

the bulb (in mg) is displayed on the packaging of each lamp; this is expected to drive

consumers towards mercury-free alternatives (improved incandescent bulbs with halogen

technology or LED lamps). They also include indicative benchmarks (considered to be the

lowest mercury contents technically feasible) of 1.23 mg Hg/lamp for CFLs, 1.4 mg Hg/lamp for

fluorescent lamps and 12 mg Hg/lamp for high-intensity discharge lamps.

In May 2010, on request by the Commission, the Scientific Committee on Health and

Environmental Risks (SCHER) provided an opinion on mercury in certain light bulbs109. The

SCHER conducted an assessment of: potential risks associated with the release of mercury in

the case of an accidental breakage of CFL (to complement the life cycle analysis of CFLs),

potential risks of the alternatives available to reduce, eliminate or substitute the mercury in

the CFLs and potential environmental benefits of strengthened disposal requirements for CFLs.

The SCHER concluded that a human risk for adults due to CFL breakage is unlikely and that

foetal exposure is expected to be negligible. In the case of children, no conclusions could be

made due to a lack of scientific data. Regarding the alternatives, the SCHER concluded that no

health risks for adults are expected and the environmental risks are unlikely. Regarding the

potential environmental benefits of improved CFL waste management, it was estimated that

107 VITO, BIO Intelligence Service, Energy Piano and Kreios. 2009. Preparatory study for the eco-design

requirements of energy-using products – Lot 19 : Domestic lighting, for DG TREN (www.eup4light.net) 108 eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:076:0003:0016:EN:pdf 109 ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/environmental_risks/docs/scher_o_124.pdf



increasing the recycling efficiency from 20% (current level) to 100% would result in 71% less

mercury being released to the environment (reduced from 1600 kg/y to 460 kg/y).

The RoHS Directive (2002/95/EC) restricts the content of mercury in certain light bulbs; for

example, the maximum content of mercury allowed in CFLs is 5 mg. The status of exemptions

under the RoHS Directive is currently under review (reviews are conducted every 4 years). In

this context, a technical and scientific assessment of these exemptions was commissioned by

DG ENV and issued in 2009110. According to this assessment, the elimination of mercury in CFLs

(the most important type of mercury-containing lamps, in volume) is still technically and

scientifically impracticable; however, further restrictions in the mercury content of light bulbs

were proposed, taking into account best performance data and the indicative benchmark of

1.23 mg Hg provided in Regulation (EC) No 244/2009. The revision of exemptions is currently in

its final decision phase and the revised exemptions are expected to enter into force in

October 2010. The new list of exemptions reduces existing Hg limits (e.g. for CFLs < 30 W up to

50% until end of 2012), sets limits for all fluorescent lamps having no limit so far (e.g. linear

fluorescent lamps (FL) for special purposes or non-linear FL) or harmonises RoHS with the

requirements of Regulation (EC) No. 245/2009 (e.g. no mercury exemption for less efficient

halophosphate lamps). The four current exemptions for lamps will be replaced by 28 specific

exemptions in a few months. Although the revised list of exemptions to the RoHS Directive will

result overall in more stringent mercury restrictions in lighting equipment, it was pointed out

by NGOs that mercury use will still be allowed in some applications such as exit signs, neon

signs and laptop computer and LCD screens while mercury-free neon or LEDs could easily be

used in these applications and are already used by some manufacturers.111 A similar

recommendation was made in the report by Öko-Institut and Fraunhofer in 2009110.

� Potential action: For applications where mercury-free alternatives are easily available

such as exit signs, traffic lights, computer and flat screen backlight, the use of mercury

should be completely banned.

� Issue 2.5: Use of mercury in batteries

Mercury use in button cell batteries is estimated at 0.3-0.8 t/year although there is some

uncertainty on these figures (COWI, 2008). The use of mercury in button cells has a specific

function i.e. to prevent gassing and leakage.

Mercury use in batteries is restricted to a maximum content of 0.0005% by weight by the

Batteries Directive (2006/66/EC), but there is an exemption for button cells which are allowed

to contain a maximum of 2% Hg by weight. The Directive also requires that battery’s packaging

is labelled for the presence of mercury.

110 Öko-Institut and Fraunhofer IZM (2009) Adaptation to scientific and technical progress under Directive

2002/95/EC (ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/final_reportl_rohs1_en.pdf) 111 EEB. 2009. Consolidated Environmental NGOs Response to Stakeholder consultation on mercury-containing

lamps (Review of Annex to the RoHS directive) (www.zeromercury.org/EU_developments/090831NGOs-RoHS-Review-of-AnnexHg-in-lamps-Consolidated.pdf)

October 2010



In the USA, two States (Maine and Connecticut) have enacted legislations to ban the sale of

mercury-containing button cell batteries from mid-2011 (with an exemption for low sales

volume silver oxide button cells until 1 January 2015 in the State of Maine, for economic

reasons). In addition, battery manufacturers have voluntarily committed to eliminating

mercury in button-cell batteries by 2011 (further details are provided in Annex 2). The

feasibility of phasing out mercury use in button cell batteries was also acknowledged by a

leading battery manufacturer which took part in the stakeholder consultation for this study. A

growing number of manufacturers are now producing mercury-free versions of various button

cell types112.

On the other hand, the European Portable Battery Association (EPBA) highlighted the fact that

some technical concerns have arisen regarding the safety and performance of certain low

volume button cells from which the mercury has been eliminated. The EPBA’s position is that

any proposal for the phase-out of mercury-containing button cell batteries should be based on

a risk assessment, especially for certain low volume specialty batteries.

Finally, several stakeholders highlighted the fact that a ban on mercury-containing button cell

batteries would also give a strong signal to other countries such as China which are major

exporters of such products. Such a measure would not only contribute to increased global

awareness of the need to phase out mercury use but also encourage all producers to

completely switch to mercury free technologies as the two most important markets (USA, EU)

would no longer accept mercury containing button cells. As a consequence, users of button

cells outside the EU would potentially also benefit from EU legislation.

� Potential action: As part of the review of the Batteries Directive, consider banning the

marketing of mercury containing button cells (deleting the exemption) with possible

exemptions in cases where safety and performance criteria cannot be met without the

use of mercury

� Potential action: As part of the review of the Batteries Directive, require the labelling

of mercury button cells on the button cell itself (by engraving) rather than only on the

packaging (in order to allow simple identification and separation from other button

cell types) and of products that contain mercury button cells113

� Potential action: Ban the use of Hg containing batteries in toys and other products

intended for use by children

112 Some of them are listed in the COWI report (Table 2-17) 113 Labelling button cells as ‘mercury free’ is already practiced by certain major battery producers. Labelling them

as mercury containing should be feasible the same way. See for example www.sony.net/SonyInfo/technology/technology/theme/battery_01.html



� Issue 2.6: Use of mercury in switches

Mercury use in switches and relays is estimated at 0.3-0.8 t/year (COWI, 2008).

The use of mercury in switches, relays and other applications in electronic equipment has been

prohibited by the RoHS Directive (2002/95/EC) and the End-of-Life Vehicles Directive

(2000/53/EC) in most applications; however, medical devices and monitoring and control

equipment as well as large-scale industrial tools are currently not within the scope of the RoHS

Directive. According to COWI and Goodman and Robertson (2006) the following devices may

still contain mercury:

• Tilt switches

• Thermoregulators

• Mercury wetted reed relays

• Mercury displacement relays

For most of these applications mercury-free alternatives are available at equal price. Only two

exemptions have been identified where there are no alternatives available or mercury-

containing products offer essential characteristics: some types of motion sensors and some

applications for mercury wetted relays. Moreover it has been shown that the mercury content

in mercury wetted relays could be reduced to about 5 mg while the RoHS Directive granted

exemptions allow for up to 20 mg (COWI, 2008).

In the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway, the use of mercury in switches is covered by the

general bans on mercury-containing products.

� Potential action: Ban the use of mercury containing switches in all applications except

for special purpose motion sensors and mercury wetted relays.

� Issue 2.8: Use of mercury in other chemical processes

Current EU restrictions on the use of mercury in chemicals only concern pesticides and

biocides; however additional restrictions may be adopted under REACH. A restriction proposal

in accordance with Annex XV of REACH was submitted in June 2010 by Norway114, covering

some mercury compounds used in pesticides, wood preservation, textile impregnation, etc.

and as catalysts in polyurethane elastomer manufacture (phenylmercury 2-ethylhexanoate,

phenylmercuric octanoate, phenylmercury acetate, phenylmercury neodecanoate,

phenylmercury propionate). The scope of the restriction proposal covers exposure from

manufacture, placing on the market and use of substances, mixtures or articles containing the

substances. The public consultation on this Annex XV dossier is expected to start in September

2010.


http://echa.europa.eu/chem_data/reg_int_tables/reg_int_subm_doss_en.asp

October 2010



The COWI report showed that the main chemical application of mercury in the EU was its use

as a catalyst in polyurethane elastomer manufacture. COWI carried out an impact assessment

of policy options to reduce mercury use in this area. It was estimated that a phase-out of

marketing and use of mercury and mercury compounds mixed with any kind of polymer or

plastic, implemented over a 3-5 year period, could reduce mercury input by 20-35 t Hg/year

while the cost to the end-user of reduced mercury input was estimated at 40-100 €/kg Hg. The

COWI report concluded that “measures to reduce the mercury input due to polyurethane

elastomer manufacture may be put forward as soon as possible without major impacts on

manufacturers and users”.

In some Member States (NL, SE) and non-EU countries (e.g. NO), the general bans on mercury-

containing products cover the use of mercury catalysts.

� Potential action: Phase out the use of mercury in polyurethane elastomer manufacture

(mercury compounds used for this application are the subject of a restriction proposal

recently submitted under Annex XV of REACH).

A summary of impacts and costs identified by a previous study with regard to the possible

phase-out of mercury use in polyurethane elastomers is presented in Table 10 below.

Table 10: General costs of a five-year phase-out of EU mercury use in polyurethane elastomers (based on COWI report, 2008)

Impact elements Cost impact Benefits

Impact on

professional

users

change in product cost

change in waste disposal cost

decreased reliability (short term)

€40-100 per kg mercury

++

Impact on

consumers of

end products

change in product cost

change in waste disposal cost

decreased reliability (short term)

€40-100 per kg mercury

++

Impact on the

waste stream

less hazardous waste

less Hg in municipal waste

enhanced recycling of PU elastomers

+

++

+

Impact on the

environment

reduced industry releases of Hg

reduced product releases of Hg

+

+

Impact on

human health

reduced occupational exposures

reduced food-chain exposures

+

+

Impact on

manufacturers

required investment

competitiveness

jobs created

[factored into impacts

on professional users

and consumers of end-

products]

Impact on

global market

less hazardous waste disposal +

less Hg in municipal waste ++



Impact elements Cost impact Benefits

reduced industry releases of Hg +

reduced product releases of Hg +

reduced occupational exposures +

reduced food-chain exposures +

+ + = significant benefits; + = marginal benefits; 0 = no change; – = marginal costs; – – = significant costs

� Issue 2.9. Use of mercury in vaccines

The use of the mercury-containing substance thimerosal as a preservative for vaccines has

drawn considerable attention, including recently with the pandemic influenza vaccine H1N1

(as some multi-dose vials of this vaccine contained thimerosal). Vaccines, especially in multi-

dose vials that cannot be refrigerated continuously, need a strong preservative to prevent

vaccine contamination. The WHO has confirmed that for certain vaccines thimerosal offers the

best performance.115

According to the European Vaccine Manufacturers, most of the vaccines delivered in Europe

are in single doses, and do not contain thimerosal as a preservative; some vaccines however

contain traces of thiomersal, as it is used in the manufacturing process.

Studies conducted to date have not revealed direct relationships between thimerosal and

adverse health effects. Nevertheless, there are concerns about the medical use of

organomercury compounds that lead to use restrictions in some countries (DK, SE).116

In June 1999, the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) issued and

completed an inquiry into the risks and benefits of using thimerosal in vaccines and concluded

that: "Although there is no evidence of harm caused by the level of exposure from vaccines, it

would be prudent to promote the general use of vaccines without thimerosal (…) within the

shortest possible time-frame." The EMEA updated its advice on use of thimerosal in vaccines in

March 2004117. While it again rejected any possible connection between thimerosal and

“specific neurodevelopmental disorders”, it continues to promote the development of

vaccines without thimerosal, or which contain the lowest possible levels. In addition, the EMEA

included a labelling requirement for thimerosal-containing vaccines and a warning with regard

to sensitisation to thimerosal.116

� Potential action: Carry out an expert assessment to determine the extent to which

mercury can be appropriately eliminated from vaccines. Guidelines from the

Commission should then be issued to encourage manufacturers to reduce and/or

eliminate mercury in vaccines.

115 WHO (2006) Thiomersal and vaccines: questions and answers

(www.who.int/vaccine_safety/topics/thiomersal/questions/en/) 116 Health Care Without Harm Europe (2006) Mercury and vaccines (www.env-

health.org/IMG/pdf/Mercury_and_vaccines.pdf) 117 www.ema.europa.eu/pdfs/human/press/pus/119404en.pdf

October 2010



� General ban on mercury use

Beside the mercury uses already discussed, there are a number of minor uses in different

products and applications. An exhaustive list of such uses may be found in the COWI report

(2008). Instead of developing a specific legislation for every single application, an alternative

measure would be a general ban on mercury use with a list of identified exemptions, following

the example of Member States such as Sweden, the Netherlands and Denmark which have

implemented such bans. Given the high number of mercury-using processes and mercury-

using products (as highlighted in the COWI report), the advantage of such a measure would be

to ensure that all types of uses would be addressed.

Such a policy measure is also being considered at the global level, as part of the discussions on

the future legally-binding instrument on mercury.

� Potential action: As an alternative measure to application-specific bans, the

implementation of a general ban with a list of identified exemptions should be

investigated.

� OBJECTIVE 3: REDUCE INTERNATIONAL TRADE OF MERCURY

According to Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008, export of elemental mercury, mercury (I) chloride,

mercury (II) oxide and mixtures of metallic mercury with other substances, including alloys of

mercury, with a mercury concentration of at least 95 % weight by weight from the Community

shall be prohibited from 15 March 2011 except for research and development, medical and

analysis purposes. Moreover mixing mercury with other substance for the sole purpose of

export is prohibited as well. Import and export of other mercury compounds is not restricted

but is only subject to notification under the PIC procedure (Regulation (EC) No. 689/2008). Also

not covered is the export of mercury containing products.

� Issue 3.1: Export of elemental mercury

After entering into force on 15 March 2011, any export of elemental mercury outside the EU

will be prohibited by Regulation 1102/2008. The exceptions cover research and development,

medical and analysis purposes. Mercury that is designated for use as a basis for the

preparation of dental amalgam falls under these exceptions; however, the Council of European

Dentists stated that there is no longer a need for elemental mercury to be used in clinics (for

the manual preparation of amalgams) as the use of amalgam capsules is considered as much

safer and is regarded as best practice118. It has been reported that in many developing

countries mercury is legally imported from the EU for legitimate uses but is then (illegally)

diverted for artisanal small scale mining (ASM)119. Thus, the purpose of Regulation 1102/2008

to cut supply is already circumvented before the regulation was even agreed. Obviously

118 Council of European Dentists (CED). Statement at stakeholder workshop on the Review of the Community

Strategy Concerning Mercury. Brussels, 18 June 2010 119 Veiga, M. M.; Maxson, P. A.; Hylander, L. D. (2006) Origin and consumption of mercury in small-scale gold

mining



developing countries frequently do not have the capacity to control mercury trade flows once

the metal has passed their borders. It could therefore be considered to further specify the

export ban or even delete the exemption for medical use as there is no known essential

application for elemental mercury in medicine. Dentists from developing countries who still

manually produce amalgams from elemental mercury and metal powders will probably be able

to obtain mercury from non-EU sources. Nevertheless, in order to avoid a negative impact on

the health care system of developing countries, it should be investigated whether it would be

feasible for them to switch to amalgam capsules.

� Potential action: Extend the export ban of elemental mercury to medical purposes

(possibly with identified exemptions). Alternatively: report on the effectiveness of the

export ban no later than 5 years after its entering into force (2016).

� Issue 3.2: Export of mercury compounds

USEPA investigated whether the mercury export ban that will enter into force in the United

States in 2013 could be circumvented by export of mercury compounds that could easily be

reconverted into elemental mercury. It was found that four mercury compounds that can

easily be produced from elemental mercury or that are already produced as a by-product of

ore processing could likely or possibly be exported in significant amounts. These include

mercury (I) chloride, mercury (II) oxide, mercury (II) sulphate and mercury (II) nitrate. Eight

other substances investigated were unlikely to be produced and exported120. It was found that

trade data on these compounds are scarce and the market behaviour after entering into force

of the export ban cannot be predicted now. Recent trade data from the EU however suggest

that export of mercury compounds may be in the same order of magnitude as export of

elemental mercury and may amount to several hundred tonnes per year or even more (see

Table 19).

Sweden, Denmark and Norway already went beyond a limited list of mercury compounds like

in Regulation 1102/2008 and banned the export of all mercury containing compounds

exceeding a certain mercury concentration121.

Mercury (I) chloride and mercury (II) oxide are already subject to Regulation 1102/2008.

Conversion of mercury into mercury (II) sulphate and mercury (II) nitrate for the purpose of

export is prohibited also. Nevertheless, as all mercury compounds contain the toxic element

mercury, banning the export of all mercury compounds (with some exceptions) could possibly

contribute to an increased protection of the environment.

� Potential action: Extend export ban to all mercury compounds except for research and

development, medical, analysis and restoration (colours) purposes (this would also

include mixtures of metallic mercury with other substances with a mercury content

below 95%).

120 US EPA (2009) Report to congress. Potential export of mercury compounds from the United States for

conversion to elemental mercury. www.epa.gov/hg/pdfs/mercury-rpt-to-congress.pdf 121 COWI (2008) p.195ff.

October 2010



� Issue 3.3: Export of mercury-added products

Except for mercury-containing soaps that are banned by Regulation (EC) No. 689/2008, export

of mercury-added products is generally allowed. Some Member States (SE, DK) that have

implemented a virtually total ban on mercury use also prohibit the export of mercury-added

goods (some exceptions apply for specific purposes). It might be considered to prohibit the

export of mercury-added products that are no longer allowed within the EU because of

environmental and health concerns. As part of the international negotiations on a mercury

treaty it might be difficult to explain why a product that is considered unsafe and substitutable

in the EU is still allowed for export into countries where the capacity to manage the mercury

related risk is much lower, particularly in view of the difficulty of some countries to manage

the waste generated by these products.

� Potential action: Ban the export of mercury-added products that are prohibited to be

put on the market within the EU, as well as machinery and equipment to produce

them. Encourage industry not to transfer technology in non EU-countries to produce

products no longer allowed within the EU.

� OBJECTIVE 4: REDUCE OR ELIMINATE ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS OF MERCURY

� Issue 4.1: Air emissions from industry sectors covered by IPPC

As discussed in Section 2, Action 1 of the Strategy has not been fully implemented. Gaps

identified are expected to be partially addressed as part of the implementation of the new

Industrial Emissions Directive (IED); however, as explained in Section 2, the provisions of the

IED may not be sufficient to achieve a significant reduction in mercury emissions from coal

combustion plants in particular.

Additionally, no progress has been noted with regard to assessing the co-benefit effect of

controls to be implemented by 1 January 2008 under the LCP Directive.

In order to fully implement Action 1 of the Strategy, the following actions should be

considered:

� Potential action: Ensure effective implementation of the new Industrial Emissions

Directive (IED), in particular the provisions related to the application of BAT-AELs in

permit conditions.

� Potential action: Reconsider the option of defining ELVs for mercury air emissions

from medium sized and large coal combustion plants.

� Potential action: Carry out an assessment of the co-benefit effect of controls to be

implemented by 1 January 2008 under the LCP Directive.

With regard to the chlor-alkali industry, the flexibility associated with the IPPC Directive’s

provisions has led to various levels of requirements among the Member States, overall

resulting in a low level of environmental protection, as discussed in Section 2. During the



consultation process for this study, several stakeholders noted that, because there is already a

voluntary commitment in place to phase out MCCA plants by 2020, setting a legally-binding

requirement should not entail significant difficulties for the industry but would provide a

guarantee of implementation and a strong signal of EU’s commitment to reduce mercury use

at the global level. In case a ban on mercury cells by 2020 would potentially be difficult for a

small number of companies, Sweden raised the question as to whether these problems could

be overcome by complementing the ban with a possibility for dispensation during some years.

Additionally, it must be noted that the voluntary commitment made by Euro Chlor does not

cover plants producing chlorine and alkoxides (instead of or in addition to alkali) considered as

“specialty chemicals”. One of these specialty chemicals is sodium methylate122, a chemical that

is used in the production of biodiesel. This concerns two plants in Germany123. According to

information provided by the Sodium Methylate Importers Consortium (GIMS)124, sodium

methylate can be manufactured via three different industrial processes, one of which uses

mercury amalgam in electrolytic cells. The types of environmental releases resulting from the

mercury-based process are reportedly similar to those of the chlor-alkali industry. Alternative

mercury-free manufacturing processes are available (using sodium metal or soda), which

reportedly have lower environmental impacts but are more expensive to operate. In Europe,

sodium methylate is only produced in the two abovementioned German plants operating

mercury-based processes with a production of approximately 100,000 t/year of sodium

methylate, while in the rest of the world only mercury-free processes are used. The production

of chlorine and alkoxides is not covered by the chlor-alkali BREF. Apart from the information

package published by the Sodium Methylate Importers Consortium and an information

document from the German chemical industry listing some other chemical products produced

via the mercury cell technology (sodium dithionite, alkali metals)125, limited data is available on

the use of mercury in these other processes, the quantities involved and the potential

environmental impacts; this would require further investigation in the short term.

In the overall mercury balance of MCCA plants a significant amount of mercury is

unaccounted. It is assumed that the products of MCCA plants (chlorine, sodium and potassium

hydroxide) contain certain amounts of mercury as impurities126 but little is known about the

fate of this mercury in the subsequent chemical processes.

Further action might therefore be required at EU level in order to fully implement Action 1 of

the Strategy:

� Potential action: Define a legally-binding sunset date for all existing MCCA plants in the

EU (2020 or before).

122 Also known as sodium methoxide or sodium methanolate 123 EVONIK plant in Lülsdorf (producing chlorine + alkali or chlorine + alcoolate, depending on demand) and BASF

plant in Ludwigshafen (producing chlorine and alcoolates) 124 GIMS for biodiesel (Sodium Methylate’s Importers Consortium). Information package – Sodium Methylate –

Environmental impacts and distortions of competition 125 Verband der Chemischen Industrie (2005) Positionen zur Chemie mit Chlor.

www.vci.de/article_print~docnr~64356~title~Positionen%20zur%20Chemie%20mit%20Chlor~nrub~~ntma~.htm

126 According to comments made during the Stakeholder Meeting on 18 June 2010

October 2010



� Potential action: Define mandatory mercury emission limits for existing MCCA plants,

ensuring a gradual decrease of emissions until complete phase-out of the mercury cell

technology, with harmonised monitoring and reporting requirements.

� Potential action: Investigate the fate of the so called ‘unaccounted mercury’ in the

mercury balance of MCCA plants.

� Potential action: Investigate the use of the mercury cell technology for the production

of alkoxides, alkali metals and other chemicals in view of a potential ban on the

mercury-based process.

With regard to the development of the BREF documents, although further information on

mercury has been added to the BREF documents issued or revised since 2005, only some of

the most recent BREFs contain BAT-AELs for mercury emissions, as discussed in Section 2.

There are also information gaps with regard to mercury emissions abatement, monitoring and

measurement techniques (e.g. BREF on LCP, BREF on cement). These gaps mainly reflect

current knowledge and technological gaps on the issue of mercury emissions and are

considered as areas for future work as part of the continuous update of the BREFs.

� Potential action: Address current information gaps on mercury BAT-AELs as well as

mercury emissions abatement, monitoring and measurement techniques in the next

versions of the BREF documents.

� Issue 4.3: Air emissions from small-scale coal combustion plants and residential use of coal

According to the report by AEA Technology for DG ENV on “Costs and environmental

effectiveness of options for reducing mercury emissions to air from small-scale combustion

installations” issued in December 2005127, mercury air emissions from small scale combustion

installations were estimated to be around 23 t/year in 2002, accounting for 16% of total

atmospheric emissions of mercury in the EU. This compares to an estimation of 25% in earlier

studies. According to the AEA report, “regardless of this difference and the apparently high

level of uncertainty within the inventory, mercury emissions from small scale combustion

installations remain a large component of the EU inventory, and a source for which controls

may be available”. Mercury emissions from small-scale combustion installations in the EU are

of the same order of magnitude as those from LCPs.

Air emission data from residential combustion reported under the LRTAP Convention and

available for thirteen Member States (1990-2007) shows a slight increase in emissions over the

last few years, following a decrease between 1990 and 2002 (see Figure 6 in Section 3).

Mercury emissions from this sector are not covered by current EU legislation. The 2005 study

by AEA Technology made a number of recommendations (see Section 2 – Strategy Action No

3). Key recommendations were as follows:

127 ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/pdf/sci_final_report.pdf



• Where appropriate, existing legal instruments regulating industrial emissions should

be extended to cover industrial small-scale combustion installations; opportunities

may include reducing the reporting threshold of the IPPC Directive (although the initial

proposal for the Industrial Emissions Directive involved the extension of the scope to

cover medium sized combustion plants, this postulate has not been maintained in the

final version endorsed by the EU Parliament).

• The benefits of reduced mercury emissions should be included when pollution

abatement strategies are being considered for PM, SO2, and NOx e.g. in the Thematic

Strategy on Air Pollution. Synergies with other initiatives, such as the Urban Thematic

Strategy, should also be identified and developed.

• Further consideration should be given to the potential role of 4th Daughter Directive

for reducing mercury emissions in localities where they are significant.

• Work should be undertaken to develop fuel quality standards for coal-based fuels that

reflect the mercury reduction benefits that may be achieved via coal washing.

• Further research needs to be carried out into abatement techniques for the reduction

of emissions from small-scale combustion installations, particularly those in the non-

industrial sector.

Some of the stakeholders consulted as part of this study highlighted the fact that small scale

industrial boilers require special attention as these plants also use certain waste streams, pet-

coal and activated carbon which may have higher mercury content than coal. Some

stakeholders also suggested that policies promoting a switch to gas or the use of central

heating instead of coal combustion should be put in place.

� Potential action: Implement recommendations of the 2005 study on options for

reducing mercury emissions to air from small-scale combustion installations.

� Issue 4.4: Air emissions from cremation

Mercury air emissions from cremation are relatively small compared to other sectors (in the

order of 3 t Hg/year128 in the EU) but some countries report it as the biggest point source of

emissions and these emissions are expected to rise as a result of the anticipated increase in

the number of cremations and mercury fillings in cremated bodies.

Mercury emissions from this sector are not covered by current EU legislation but they are

regulated in several Member States (ELVs for mercury and/or requirement for mercury

abatement devices). In addition, Parties to the OSPAR Convention, which include twelve

Member States, have committed to using BAT to reduce mercury air emissions (OSPAR

Recommendation 2003/4, as amended). Parties to the HELCOM Convention have also

committed to applying ELVs for mercury emissions from crematoria (HELCOM

Recommendation 29/1).

128 Source: ExIA of the Strategy, 2005

October 2010



Policy options to reduce mercury emissions from crematoria were investigated in the ExIA of

the Strategy in 2005. It was concluded that Community-level action was not appropriate at

that stage, mainly because most of the problem with mercury emitted from crematoria was

covered by an OSPAR Recommendation and by legislation in some of the remaining Member

States who are not parties to the OSPAR Convention. The ExIA also noted that available data

on the extent of emissions from cremation were limited and that future reporting required by

the OSPAR Recommendation would provide an initial indication of the extent to which the

Recommendation is being applied.

Under the OSPAR Recommendation on cremation, Parties were to report mercury emission

data in 2005 (covering the year 2004) and 2009 (covering the year 2009); however, to our

knowledge only Sweden and the UK submitted such data (see Annex 3). The progress in

controlling mercury emissions from crematoria in the EU since 2005 is therefore difficult to

assess. Data reported by Sweden shows that, although the number of crematoria applying

mercury removal techniques has increased between 2004 and 2009, overall mercury emissions

from crematoria have increased during this time period in the country.

� Potential action: All Member States that are Parties to the OSPAR convention should

gather and submit emission data for crematoria, in accordance with Recommendation

2003/4.

� Potential action: The Commission should re-consider policy measures to reduce

mercury emissions from crematoria, once further emission data is available.

� OBJECTIVE 5: ACHIEVE ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND MANAGEMENT OF MERCURY-

CONTAINING WASTES

� Issue 5.1: Fate of general mercury containing waste

According to the COWI study (2008) information on the fate of mercury containing waste is not

homogeneous across the EU. In most countries information on types of quantities of mercury

containing waste was uncertain; quantities collected or recycled were even more uncertain.

Regarding transboundary movements, the occasional use of warehouses for imported waste

makes it difficult to understand trade flows into the EU.

According to the incomplete information COWI was able to gather, collection rates are rather

low in EU Member States, with very few exceptions above 50%. Thus, most of mercury

containing waste is not separately collected and will be found in the general municipal stream

where it leads to secondary emissions (landfills, waste incineration). COWI proposed the

following actions129:

� Potential action: Increase the awareness and technical insight of mercury's presence in

waste (generally, and for specific products) and the need for its safe collection and

treatment, through effective communication at all levels: Producers, users/consumers,

129 COWI (2008) p. 192



waste collectors/handlers and treatment facilities, and local, national and regional

authorities.

� Potential action: Improve physical collection and sorting schemes and methods, in

particular for dental amalgam, button cell batteries, and electrical and electronic

components.

� Potential action: Increase enforcement, reporting requirements and control of all steps

in mercury waste collection, handling and treatment.

� Potential action: Introduce a wider use of producer/importer life cycle responsibility

with well defined obligations and goals, in line with what is already in force with the

WEEE Directive for certain mercury-containing waste types. This will ensure that costs

for the needed collection and treatments efforts are covered by the entities putting

these products on the market, and will promote the marketing of mercury-free

alternatives.

� Potential action: Establish a task force dedicated to the Community wide promotion of

increased collection and recycling/safe disposal of mercury containing waste along the

lines stipulated above. The task force could include Community agencies, Member

State authorities, representatives of waste collection companies and mercury waste

recyclers, producers of mercury containing products and materials, and perhaps other

major stakeholders. From the beginning, the task force should have a well defined

mandate and goals, and a budget for 3-5 years of dedicated work. If similar relevant

initiatives exist for other hazardous waste types, a mercury task force should

cooperate with these, or if relevant, existing initiatives could have mercury

included/emphasised in their mandate.

At the first session of the mercury intergovernmental negotiation committee in Stockholm

(June 2010), a number of countries indicated that the polluter pays principle might be

considered at the level of the provider of the technology.

� Potential action: Exporters of mercury added products shall be made responsible for

taking back end-of-life products. Such a measure would have to be arranged on the

global level in order to avoid discriminating market effects.

� Issue 5.2: Fate of mercury already circulating in the society

Many mercury-containing products that are no longer in use or could be easily replaced by

mercury-free alternatives are not considered as waste by their owners. They become waste

only from the moment their owner decides to discard them (often as ordinary household

waste). A very effective way to avoid this mercury input to household waste is to collect

mercury-containing products before they become waste. One successful program in Austria

might serve as an example: in the course of a voluntary joint activity by Austrian pharmacists

and the Austrian Life Ministry within 15 days more than 1 million mercury fever thermometers

(equivalent to 1 tonne of elemental mercury) were collected and exchanged for electronic

October 2010



thermometers at a discounted price130. In a country with only 3 million households131 this is an

impressive number. Similar activities could effectively reduce the amount of mercury that

could contaminate waste streams in the future.

� Potential action: Encourage national activities (state or private driven) to actively

collect and safely recycle or dispose of obsolete mercury-containing products from

households, institutes, schools, clinics and other places.

� Issue 5.4: Dental amalgam waste

As discussed in Section 2, Action 4 of the Strategy has not been fully implemented. A review of

Member State’s implementation of Community requirements on the treatment of dental

amalgam waste was carried out in 2005. This review, as well as more recent surveys conducted

by the Council of European Dentists, indicated that there are still significant compliance gaps

with regard to the implementation of the Hazardous Waste legislation in dental practices in

several Member States132.

An impact assessment of a policy option involving the obligatory installation of high efficiency

amalgam separators in dental clinics was carried out by COWI in their 2008 report for DG

ENV133. This policy option also considered obligatory on-site filter/piping installation

inspection, filter replacement and documented waste disposal, certified by accredited filter

service suppliers. Direct mercury releases to water that would be avoided by taking such policy

measures were estimated at 21 t/year and this measure was considered to be cost-effective.

This impact assessment concluded that “obligatory installation of high efficiency filters in

dental clinics is a very cost-effective measure for reducing mercury releases to the waste water

systems and may be put forward as soon as possible”. A summary of impacts and costs

identified by COWI is presented in Table 11 below.

Table 11: Impacts and costs resulting from an obligatory installation of high efficiency amalgam separators in dental clinics (Source: COWI, 2008)


Manufacturers Impact on manufacturers of amalgam separators

Increased sales of amalgam separators unless dental clinics start to swift to non Hg filling material

Dentists Impacts on sewage management in

Costs for installation, maintenance and certification of amalgam

Eliminated health risk for dental personnel

130 www.lebensministerium.at/article/articleview/62030/1/17626/ 131 www.statistik.at/web_de/statistiken/bevoelkerung/haushalte_familien_lebensformen/haushalte/023303.html 132 According to the 2010 survey by the Council of European Dentists: in half of the European countries surveyed

over 99% of dental practices are equipped with amalgam separators; in a further 5 countries out of the 28 surveyed, 80 to 99% of practices are equipped.

133 An alternative policy option was to apply environmental fees on mercury releases from dental clinics; this approach was regarded as less efficient and complicated to apply by COWI (2008) and therefore not further analysed.




dental clinic separators (also indirectly covering costs for waste treatment and training of accredited personnel)

€15-25 million/y

(€1,400-1,800 per kg Hg release reduction)

(cost indirectly allocated to dental customers)

Society Public sewage sludge management

Reduced costs of special deposition of sludge which cannot be used as fertilizer due to elevated Hg concentrations

Waste disposal Reduced costs of treatment / disposal capacity for mercury-containing dental waste

Impacts of exposure of humans and the environment

Reduced costs of environmental and health impacts of mercury released via sewage and waste (direct mercury releases avoided estimated at 21 t/year)

� Potential action: In order to fully implement Action 4 of the Strategy, make installation

of high efficiency amalgam separators and/or filters obligatory in dental clinics,

possibly complemented by obligatory inspection, maintenance, documentation by

certified service suppliers. Set a target for reaching 95% coverage (like in Canada). As a

short-term measure, the Commission should remind Member States about the

requirements applicable to dental amalgam waste and ask them to provide a timetable

of their plans to comply with the Hazardous Waste legislation.

Additionally, current EU legislation may allow the disposal of dental amalgam waste in landfills

under certain conditions, while such disposal method does not seem appropriate for this type

of waste.

� Potential action: Amend the acceptance criteria set out in Council Decision 2003/33/EC

for landfills so as to explicitly exclude disposal of dental amalgam waste from disposal

in landfills, except underground waste storage facilities.

October 2010



� Issue 5.5: Environmentally sound disposal of mercury containing waste

Council Decision 2003/33/EC established acceptance criteria for each landfill class. With regard

to individual hazardous substances these consist of:

a) Leaching limits (heavy metals including mercury and some other inorganic and organic

substances).

b) Total content (some organic parameters).

Unlike other heavy metals, mercury in waste may not only be mobilised by aqueous leaching,

but also by evaporation. Therefore leaching limits may not fully cover the risk potential posed

by mercury and its compounds. For example pure mercury sulphide (α-HgS, cinnabar) has an

aqueous solubility of about 10-10 mol/l (0,00002 mg Hg /l134) and could therefore – in principle

– be deposited in all types of landfills, including landfills for inert waste. On the other hand it

could be shown that mercury sulphide, which is often regarded as “inert”, actually undergoes

microbial or chemical alteration in soils135,136. Pure elemental mercury (in liquid form or as a

component of waste) has an equilibrium solubility of 3·10-7 mol/l (0,06 mg/l137) and could be

deposited in landfills for hazardous waste. Solubility of mercury and mercury sulphide may be

higher if more soluble mercury compounds are present as well. Summarised, leaching limits

might not be sufficient to identify waste types with critically high mercury content.

Some Member States (AT, SE, FI, BE, NL), have defined maximum mercury contents in waste,

that must not be exceeded if the waste is to be disposed in landfills. Waste with a higher

content is to be treated (FI: stabilised by sulphidisation) and/or disposed of in underground

waste storage facilities (AT, SE).

� Potential action: Define a limit value for the mercury content in waste. Waste with a

higher content would have to be disposed of in an underground landfill, possibly after

chemical stabilisation of the elemental mercury content. This also includes mercury

containing batteries (that are allowed for landfill disposal according to Directive

2006/66/EC). Requirements on EU level would have to be consistent with those

currently developed for the disposal or elemental mercury in underground waste

storage facilities (no higher requirements for mercury-containing waste than for

elemental mercury).

134 Dyrssen, D.; Wedborg, M. (1991): The sulphur-mercury(II) system in natural waters, Water, Air and Soil Pollution

(56), 507-519. 135 Benoit, G.; Schwantes, J. M.; Jacinto, G. S.; Goud-Collins, M. R. (1994) Preliminary study of the redistribution and

transformation of HgS from cinnabar mine tailings deposited in Honda Bay, Palawan, Philippines. Mar. Poll. Bull. Vol. 28, 754-759

136 Boske, L.; Kowalski, A.; Glośinka, G.; Szarek, R.; Siepak, J. (2003) Environmental factors affecting speciation of mercury in the bottom sediements; an overview. Pol. J. Env. Stud. 12, 5-13, 6csnfn.pjoes.com/pdf/12.1/5-13.pdf

137 Clever, H. L. (1987): Mercury in liquids, compressed gases, molten salts and other elements, IUPAC Solubility Data Ser. (29)



� OBJECTIVE 6: FIND ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND STORAGE SOLUTIONS FOR MERCURY

Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 requires that acceptance criteria for elemental mercury waste

are to be met before elemental mercury waste may be disposed in underground storage

facilities. These have to fulfil additional mercury specific safety requirements. Both acceptance

criteria and mercury specific safety requirements for temporary storage and permanent

storage (i.e. disposal) are currently under development (in June 2010). Underground waste

storage facilities in salt formations are in principle deemed to have a sufficient level of long-

term safety as they are used for disposal of hazardous waste since the 1970s. Regulation

1102/2008 also allows permanent storage in hard rock formations that provide a level of

safety and confinement equivalent to that of salt mines, but at the time of writing, no such

facility is known to be immediately available for permanent storage of liquid mercury. Since

the development of criteria is already underway there is no need for further action in this field.

� OBJECTIVE 7: REMEDIATE EXISTING CONTAMINATED SITES

In the EU there are many sites of historic industrial activities that are heavily contaminated

with mercury, including former sites of chlor-alkali production and vinyl chloride production,

former mercury mines and sites of production of mercury-containing products (e.g. mirrors,

wood impregnation). Identification, risk management and eventual remediation are within the

competence of national or regional authorities. Nevertheless mercury contaminated sites are a

source of mercury releases to air, soil and water that may lead to transboundary

contamination of the environment138. This is in contrast to most other pollutants frequently

found in contaminated sites, especially heavy metals. Therefore it might be argued that

addressing mercury contaminated sites is not only of national but of European importance and

should be an element in an overarching strategy to protect human health and the

environment.

Based on its Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection139 the Commission has proposed a Soil

Framework Directive. Central elements related to remediation were to establish national

inventories of contaminated sites and to trigger the development of national remediation

strategies. Until now, no agreement on a framework Directive has been found. As a

consequence no European inventory of mercury contaminated exists and it is not possible to

assess the full dimension of the problem. Based on scarce data provided by Member States,

COWI (2008) estimated that approximately 11,000-20,000 t mercury are present in soils of

contaminated sites.

With regard to historic mining sites, Directive 2006/21/EC requires Member States to draw up

an inventory of closed, including abandoned, mining waste facilities by 1 May 2012.

138 Ebinghaus, R.; Turner, R. R.; de Lacerda, L. D.; Vasiliev, O.; Salomons, W. (1999) Mercury contaminated sites.

Characterization, risk assessment and remediation. Springer, Berlin 139 Commission of the European Communities (2006) Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection COM(2006)231. eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2006:0231:FIN:EN:PDF

October 2010



� Potential action: Continue to support the development of a Soil Framework Directive.

Alternatively: propose another approach that leads to national registers of mercury

contaminated sites, because these might be of transnational and EU relevance.

� Potential action: Develop and recommend criteria for assessing the risk of mercury

contaminated sites.

� Potential action: Improve and share expertise in identifying assessing, managing and

remediating mercury contaminated sites (e.g. through Framework Programmes or

other suitable programmes).

� OBJECTIVE 8: INCREASE KNOWLEDGE

The improvement of knowledge on the mercury problem and its possible solutions are part of

the Community Strategy and are addressed in the 7th Framework Programme. It seems to be

advisable to continue these activities, notably but not exclusively with the goal to find

affordable effective alternatives to mercury containing products, reduce mercury releases

from thermal processes and to reduce the mercury content of compact fluorescent lamps.

� Potential action: Continue to address the mercury issue in the Framework Programmes

and other EU-funded research programmes (pursue Action 13 of the Strategy).

� OBJECTIVE 9: REDUCE EMISSIONS TO WATER AND SOIL

No additional actions have been proposed under this objective, since the key issues are

already covered by other objectives or by existing or proposed EU legislation:

• Emissions from dental amalgam waste: Potential additional measures were discussed

under Issue 5.4 (Dental amalgam waste).

• Emissions from industry: Potential additional measures identified in relation to the

implementation of Action 1 of the Strategy (see Issue 4.1) are also relevant to

emissions to water and soil. Mercury emissions to water from the industry are mostly

covered by the IPPC Directive as well as the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)

and daughter Directives on priority substances (2006/11/EC) and Environmental

Quality Standards (2008/105/EC). Quality standards for mercury will have to be met by

2015 and will be relevant for IPPC permitting, for example. Adoption of the measures

will start the Framework Directive’s 20-year period for cessation or phasing-out of

emissions, discharges and losses.

• Emissions from waste landfills: Potential actions were discussed under Issue 5.5

(Environmentally sound disposal of mercury containing waste).

• Emissions from sewage sludge used in agriculture: Limit values for mercury in soil and

sludge were established by Directive 86/278/EC which may be revised. A number of

Member States have established more stringent limit values. In the Extended Impact

Assessment of the Community Strategy concerning Mercury, it was noted that



discharges of mercury to wastewater were expected to decrease as a result of stricter

ELVs in the industry (IPPC Directive, Water Framework Directive and daughter

Directives), extended use of amalgam separators in dental practices and measures to

reduce the use of mercury-containing products. It is expected that the issue of possible

soil contamination from sewage sludge would also be addressed by the proposed Soil

Framework Directive.

� OBJECTIVE 10: PROTECT AGAINST EXPOSURE

� Issue 10.2: Human exposure via ambient air

According to Directive 2004/107/EC relating to arsenic, cadmium, mercury, nickel and

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in ambient air, the Commission shall, by the end of 2010,

submit a report presenting, among other aspects, the results of the most recent scientific

research concerning the effects on human health and on the environment of exposure to

mercury; the Commission may then consider regulating the deposition of mercury and other

pollutants of concern.

The 2005 study by AEA Technology for DG ENV on “Costs and environmental effectiveness of

options for reducing mercury emissions to air from small-scale combustion installations”140

made the following recommendation with regard to regulating mercury levels in ambient air:

“Further consideration should be given to the potential role of 4th Daughter Directive for

reducing mercury emissions in localities where they are significant (…). When this Directive is

reviewed, it will be important to determine whether introducing a limit value could be a useful

means of further reducing mercury emissions from small-scale combustion installations. This

measure could be an important mechanism for enabling the Commission to reduce emissions in

those areas where this was necessary i.e. hotspots.”

In 2006, the EU parliament adopted a Resolution on the Community Strategy concerning

Mercury141 which called on the Commission, among other aspects, to “take necessary

measures and propose, in the short term, national mass emission limits as well as local air

quality limits for mercury under relevant existing or separate legislative instruments”.

� Potential action: Further consideration should be given to the issue of regulating

mercury deposition and stipulating maximum mercury levels in ambient air, as part of

the report to be prepared by the end of 2010 under Directive 2004/107/EC.

140 ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/pdf/sci_final_report.pdf 141 www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do;jsessionid=F8FF6A8AB40DD23A02B31D6805FFD0E9.node1?pubRef=-

//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2006-0078+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN

October 2010



� Issue 10.3: Human exposure via products

• Cosmetics

Directive 76/768/EEC prohibits mercury to be part of the composition of cosmetic products,

except for phenyl mercuric salts for conservation of eye makeup and products for removal of

eye make-up in concentrations not exceeding 0.007% weight-to-weight (e.g. thiomersal) that

are marketed within the European Community.

Nevertheless, mercury may be present in cosmetic products as an impurity. Two German

studies (BGA 1985142, BGA 1990143) found that it is technically feasible to reduce unintentional

mercury concentration to less than 1 mg/kg in cosmetic products and to less than 0.2 mg/kg in

toothpaste. These values have been found outdated later (BFR 2006144) but due to a lack of

more recent data it was recommended to set purity requirements for the raw materials used

for the preparation of cosmetics instead of defining new threshold values for the final

products. At the European level no such guidance values exist, neither for the final product or

the raw materials.

Besides, some mercury-added cosmetics may be illegally imported from countries where their

manufacture is authorised, in particular skin whitening products which can cause serious

poisoning.

� Potential action: Investigate the feasibility of reducing the mercury content in cosmetic

products and their raw materials and to specify a maximum mercury level.

� Potential action: Raise awareness among users of skin whitening products about the

potentially adverse health effects of imported mercury containing skin whitening

products.

• Polyurethane floors

According to information in the USA, mercury containing polyurethane has been used as floor

coating in gymnasiums and schools. Even decades after installation, mercury concentrations

sometimes exceeding acceptable levels in the air were measured145. No such information is

available in Member States.

142 BGA (1985): Mitteilungen des Bundesgesundheitsamtes: Technisch vermeidbare Gehalte an

Schwermetallen in kosmetischen Erzeugnissen. Bundesgesundheitsblatt 28 (7), 216. www.ikw.org/pdf/broschueren/38_1_300.pdf

143 BGA (1990): Mitteilungen des Bundesgesundheitsamtes: Technisch vermeidbare Gehalte an Schwermetallen in Zahnpasten. Bundesgesundheitsblatt 33 (4), 177. www.ikw.org/pdf/broschueren/38_2_300.pdf

144 Bundesamt für Risikobewertung (BFR) (2006) Kosmetische Mittel: BfR empfiehlt Schwermetallgehalte über Reinheitsanforderungen der Ausgangsstoffe zu regeln. Stellungnahme Nr. 025/2006 des BfR vom 05. April 2006 www.bfr.bund.de/cm/206/kosmetische_mittel_bfr_empfiehlt_schwermetallgehalte_ueber.pdf

145 Bush, C.; Herbrandson, C. (2009) Mercury-containing Polyurethane Floors. www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/conferences/sciandpolicy/presentations/Herbrandson-Bush_Session3B.pdf US Dept. of Health and Human Services (2006) Mercury-Containing Polyurethane Floors in Minnesota Schools.



� Potential action: Investigate whether mercury containing polyurethane has been used

as floor coating in schools, gymnasiums and other public buildings in Member States

and whether there is a risk of adverse health effects.

� Issue 10.4: Biomonitoring

Possible additional actions related to biomonitoring are discussed under Objective A2:

Monitoring.

� OBJECTIVE 11: SUPPORT AND PROMOTE INTERNATIONAL ACTION

Mercury once released to the atmosphere is ignorant of man-made borders and causes

impacts globally. Because of its long-range transport properties mercury that is released

anywhere in the world might be deposited within EU borders or in marine systems where it

enters the food-chain and eventually ends up in fish that is put on the European market. Even

if the EU was able to completely avoid any mercury use and releases, emissions from other

non-EU countries would continue to contaminate European air, soil and food. In 2005 Europe

(excluding Russia) contributed only 7% to the global atmospheric emission inventory146. Based

on these data the goal of reducing environmental levels and human exposure cannot be

achieved by EU internal actions alone. This is probably a reason why the Community Strategy

focused seven of its twenty actions on the support and promotion of international activities.

� Issue 11.1: Support the development of international legally binding instruments

The probably most important activity within this objective is not mentioned in the current

Strategy: the active support of a global multilateral environmental agreement which would be

– according to the Council Conclusion from 4 December 2008 – the most appropriate

instrument to tackle the mercury problem.

� Potential action: The Community, Member States and other stakeholders should

pursue to advocate a multilateral agreement that flexibly covers all phases of the

mercury life cycle from production and uses to releases (intentional and

unintentional), stockpiles and wastes. As pointed out by one Member State, this can

best be done if the EU continues to show global leadership by staying in the forefront

of reducing, and when possible eliminating, mercury use and emission.

Atmospheric mercury emissions are already addressed by the UNECE CLRTAP Heavy Metals

Protocol which is the subject of Action 17 of the Strategy. As discussed in Section 2, support

from Member States to the Heavy Metals Protocol could be strengthened. Seven Member

States have not individually ratified the Heavy Metals Protocol yet. In addition, non compliance

www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/MercuryVaporReleaseAthleticPolymerFloors/MercuryVaporRelease-FloorsHC092806.pdf

146 UNEP (2008): The global atmospheric mercury assessment: sources, emissions and transport. www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/Atmospheric_Emissions/UNEP%20SUMMARY%20REPORT%20-%20CORRECTED%20May09%20%20final%20for%20WEB%202008.pdf

October 2010



issues identified by the Protocol implementation review of 2009 included increases in mercury

emissions for Cyprus and Lithuania and lack of emission data reporting for Luxemburg and

Romania.

� Potential action: Pursue Action 17 of the Strategy. Member States who are not Parties

to the Protocol should ratify it and all Member States which are Parties to the Protocol

should comply with the reporting and emission reduction commitments.

Transboundary movements of hazardous waste (including mercury containing waste) are

regulated by the Basel Convention. In 1995 a ban amendment was agreed that would prohibit

the export of hazardous waste from OECD to non-OECD countries. It has not yet entered into

force because too few Parties to the Basel convention have ratified it (but it was transposed

into EU law by Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 on shipments of waste).

� Potential action: Make use of the Swiss-Indonesian Initiative and other approaches

(like the Green Diplomacy network) to induce ratification of the Ban Amendment to

the Basel Convention, prohibiting the export of hazardous waste from OECD to non-

OECD countries.

� Issue 11.2: Support other countries in reducing mercury releases to air, water and soil

Negotiations on a global treaty on mercury have not yet begun, and their possible outcome is

completely unknown. The UNEP Mercury Program, the Global Mercury Partnership and the

Global Mercury Project (gold mining) are regarded as means for immediate action and ways to

usefully complement, prepare for or contribute to the implementation of a multilateral

environmental agreement147. While the Commission has granted about 1 million EUR for the

UNEP Mercury Program (for activities to reduce mercury emissions from coal combustion),

contributions by Member States have remained limited so far. Apart from the European

Commission, only one Member State has officially become a partner within the Partnership

(Germany). None of the partnership areas are lead by a Member State or Member State

agency (the research partnership on Transport and Fate is lead by an Italian research institute).

As negotiations at the UNEP Governing Council in 2009 have shown, financial and technical

support will probably be an important element of the future global agreement on mercury. It

would probably strengthen the EU negotiation position if the high priority the EU and its

Member States have given to the mercury problem would somehow be reflected in their

contributions to the UNEP Mercury Program and the Global Mercury Partnership. Since 93% of

anthropogenic mercury emissions take place outside Europe, a significant impact on mercury

levels in the environment and food (fish) can only be achieved if actions are undertaken also

beyond EU borders.

� Potential action: Pursue and strengthen Action 18 of the Strategy. The Commission

and Member states should bring their contributions to the UNEP Mercury Program and

147 Council Conclusions, 4 December 2008 (2912th Council Meeting)



the Global Mercury Partnership into coherence with the high priority they have given

to the mercury problem, in line with paragraphs 34-35 of the UNEP GC Decision 25/5.

� Potential action: Pursue and strengthen Actions 14 and 19 of the Strategy. Strengthen

bilateral and multilateral projects to support other countries (also within the EU) in

reducing mercury use and releases by initiating research projects, provision of

technical knowledge, human and financial resources. Activity should address (but not

exclusively) the most important sources of mercury pollution: thermal processes

(stationary combustion, metal production), vinyl chloride production, artisanal small

scale gold mining and primary mercury mining.

There is a significant interest worldwide in the development of European storage and disposal

facilities for mercury. In a study on the feasibility of long-term storage of mercury in the Asian-

Pacific region prepared for the UNEP and presented in Bangkok in October 2009, the authors

concluded that shipping of elemental mercury waste to Germany would be a cheaper solution

than constructing a regional storage/ disposal facility148. It might be debated whether facilities

in EU Member States shall serve as a global disposal solution for mercury or if countries in

other regions should rather be supported in developing their own facilities for hazardous

waste disposal.

� Potential action: The Commission and Member States should support countries in

other UN regions to develop national or regional concepts for the environmentally safe

disposal of hazardous waste including mercury.

� OBJECTIVE A1: INFORMATION EXCHANGE AND PUBLIC AWARENESS

Mercury related activities as the thermometer exchange program in Austria (see above) are

especially successful if there is a high public awareness about mercury and the safe

management of its risks. So far public awareness and information exchange have not been

given a high priority in the Community Strategy.

One possible approach would be a website that addresses mercury and its challenges (see

USEPA for an example149). It could be a suitable platform to allow access to relevant

information, scientific data and regulations.

� Potential action: Develop a website (possibly a sub-site of the European Environmental

Agency) dedicated to mercury, mercury related problems and possible solutions to

inform EU citizens, industry and other stakeholders.

� Potential action: Member States should enhance efforts to increase public awareness

on mercury issues, especially in the waste and products sector and with regard to

mercury in food.

148 Asian Institute of Technology (2010) Development of options analysis and pre-feasibility study fort he long-term

storage of mercury in Asia and the Pacific. Draft Report 10 February 2010. www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/storage/main_page_files/Edited%20Asia%20Storage%20Project%20Storage%20Options%20Report%2010%20Feb%202010-V1.pdf

149 www.epa.gov/mercury

October 2010



� OBJECTIVE A2: MONITORING

A profound knowledge of environmental levels and human exposure is the basis for evaluating

the overall effectiveness of actions regarding mercury. Data on mercury releases from

industrial installations are collected and documented under various national and European

programmes and reporting schemes. For example the emission data for industrial facilities may

be found on the website of E-PRTR150. Access to other (already existing) environmental

monitoring and human biomonitoring data is not yet organised in such an effective way151.

� Potential action: The Commission and Member States should further harmonise and

facilitate access to environmental and human biomonitoring data.

� OBJECTIVE A3: EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION AND REVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

A review of the Community Strategy concerning Mercury is undertaken by this study. It should

be repeated with a certain frequency (e.g. every 5 years as for the current study) in order to

analyse the progress in implementation and to identify possible gaps and the need for

potential new actions.

� Potential action: The Strategy should be reviewed every five years.

The effectiveness of the Strategy may be - at least in part - evaluated by examining whether its

key aim (the reduction of mercury levels in the environment and human exposure, especially

from methylmercury in fish) is being achieved. Obviously, the Commission and the Member

States have little influence on mercury released outside EU borders, so that effective EU

actions may be counterbalanced by increases in mercury emissions in other parts of the world.

Nevertheless, it is possible to monitor and document the effectiveness of actions taken within

the EU by establishing measurable indicators for each objective.

� Potential action: The Commission should report every five years about mercury levels

in the environment and human exposure, especially for methylmercury in fish.

� Potential action: Establish a set of indicators that reflect the progress in implementing

actions related to each objective (e.g. mercury emissions from industrial sources,

amount of mercury in new products, amount of mercury safely disposed of). The

Commission should report every five years on the progress against these indicators.

150 http://prtr.ec.europa.eu/ 151 COPHES, a project within 7th Framework Programme ("Consortium to perform human biomonitoring on a

European Scale") will develop a functional framework allowing the collection of comparable human biomonitoring data throughout Europe. inspire.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.cfm/pageid/42/list/7/id/27480; www.intarese.org/files/EU%20Newsletter%20No%207.pdf



� SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL ACTIONS

Table 12 below provides a summary of potential actions which could be considered as part of the revision of the Community Strategy concerning

Mercury. The last two columns of the table indicate whether the action is intended to address possible gaps in the implementation of the current

Strategy or is a new action which could be considered as part of the future revision of the Strategy.

Table 12: Summary of possible additional actions

Objectives Specific issues Possible actions Strategy

implementation New

actions

General aspects 0.1. Overall goal Complement the key aim in the Strategy with an overall goal, e.g. “To protect human health and the environment from the release of mercury and its compounds by minimising and, where feasible, ultimately eliminating anthropogenic mercury releases to air, water and land”.

X

0.2. Knowledge of mercury flows

0.2.1. Further investigate production, use, trade and fate of mercury compounds in the EU and update this information on a regular basis.

X

0.2.2. Establish a trade tracking system to monitor EU imports and exports of elemental mercury and mercury compounds.

X

0.3. Definitions 0.3.1. Complement the Strategy with a (small) glossary of key terms with definitions taken from existing EU legislative documents. Alternatively: provide a link to a separate document.

X

1.Reduce supply 1.1. Supply from surpluses and by-products (chlor-alkali industry, gas cleaning and non-ferrous mining/smelting)

–

1.2. Supply from the recycling of mercury-containing waste

1.2.1. Consider mercury extracted from products as waste that has to be disposed of in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008.

X

1.2.2. Establish a reporting scheme for the production of recycled mercury. X

October 2010




implementation New

actions

1.3. Supply from imported elemental mercury, mercury compounds and mercury-containing products

1.3.1. Ban the import of elemental mercury and mercury compounds, with exemptions for research and development, medical and analysis purposes, for restoration of antiques and disposal.

X

1.4. Supply from primary mining

–

1.5. Supply from other sources

1.5.1. Extend storage obligation to obsolete mercury and mercury compounds recovered from lighthouses, laboratories, schools, clinics and other public and private non-commercial sources.

X

2.Reduce demand for mercury in products and processes

2.2. Use of mercury-based dental amalgam

2.2.1. Phase-out the use of dental amalgam, possibly with identified exemptions. Future decision could be supported by a revision of the assessment conducted by the SCHER in 2008 on environmental risks and indirect health effects of mercury in dental amalgam, taking into account information gaps highlighted in the 2008 assessment (see Action 6 of the Strategy).

X

2.3. Use of mercury in measuring equipment

2.3.1. Extend mercury use restrictions to sphygmomanometers and other measuring devices in healthcare and in other professional and industrial uses; some exemptions may be considered for research and validation purposes (this is the subject of an Annex XV Restriction Report that is being prepared by ECHA)

X

2.4. Use of mercury in lighting

2.4.1. For applications where mercury-free alternatives are easily available such as exit signs, traffic lights, computer and flat screen backlight, the use of mercury should be completely banned.

X

2.5. Use of mercury in batteries

2.5.1. As part of the review of the Batteries Directive, consider banning the marketing of mercury containing button cells with possible exemptions in cases where safety and performance criteria cannot be met without the use of mercury.

X

2.5.2. As part of the review of the Batteries Directive, require the labelling of mercury button cells on the button cell itself (by engraving) rather than only on the packaging (in order to allow simple identification and separation from other button cell types) and of

X




implementation New

actions

products that contain mercury button cells.

2.5.3. Ban the use of Hg containing batteries in toys and other products intended for use by children.

X

2.6. Use of mercury in switches

2.6.1. Ban the use of mercury containing switches in all application except for special purpose motions sensors and mercury wetted relays.

X

2.7. Use of mercury in other electrical equipment

–

2.8. Use of mercury in other chemical processes

2.8.1. Phase out the use of mercury in polyurethane elastomer manufacture (mercury compounds used for this application are the subject of a restriction proposal recently submitted under Annex XV of REACH).

X

2.9. Use of mercury in vaccines

2.9.1. Carry out an expert assessment to determine the extent to which mercury can be appropriately eliminated from vaccines. Guidelines from the Commission should then be issued to encourage manufacturers to reduce and/or eliminate mercury in vaccines.

X

2.10. Other intentional uses

–

2.11. General ban 2.11. 1. As an alternative measure to application-specific bans, the implementation of a general ban with a list of identified exemptions should be investigated.

X

3.Reduce international trade of mercury

3.1. Export of elemental mercury

3.1.1. Extend the export ban of elemental mercury to medical purposes (possibly with identified exemptions). Alternatively: report on the effectiveness of the export ban no later than 5 years after its entering into force (2016).

X

3.2. Export of mercury compounds

3.2.1. Extend export ban to all mercury compounds except for R&D, medical, analysis and restoration (colours) purposes (this would also include mixtures of metallic mercury with other substances with a mercury content below 95%).

X

3.3. Export of mercury-added products

3.3.1. Ban the export of mercury-added products that are prohibited to be put on the market within the EU, as well as machinery and equipment to produce them. Encourage industry not to transfer technology in non EU-countries to produce products no longer allowed within the EU.

X

October 2010




implementation New

actions

3.4. Export of mercury-containing wastes

–

4.Reduce or eliminate atmospheric emissions of mercury

4.1. Air emissions from industry sectors covered by IPPC (excl. waste incineration)

4.1.1. Ensure effective implementation of the new Industrial Emissions Directive (IED), in particular the provisions related to the application of BAT-AELs in permit conditions.

X

4.1.2. Reconsider the option of defining ELVs for mercury air emissions from medium sized and large coal combustion plants.

X

4.1.3. Carry out an assessment of the co-benefit effect of controls to be implemented by 1 January 2008 under the LCP Directive.

X

4.1.4. Define a legally-binding sunset date for all existing MCCA plants in the EU (2020 or before).

X

4.1.5. Define mandatory mercury emission limits for existing MCCA plants, ensuring a gradual decrease of emissions until complete phase-out of the mercury cell technology, with harmonised monitoring and reporting requirements.

X

4.1.6. Investigate the fate of the so called ‘unaccounted mercury’ in the mercury balance of MCCA plants.

X

4.1.7. Investigate the use of the mercury cell technology for the production of alkoxides, alkali metals and other chemicals in view of a potential ban on the mercury-based process.

X

4.1.8. Address current information gaps on mercury BAT-AELs as well as mercury emissions abatement, monitoring and measurement techniques in the next versions of the BREF documents.

X

4.2. Air emissions from waste incineration

–

4.3. Air emissions from small-scale coal combustion plants and residential use of coal

4.3.1. Implement recommendations from the 2005 study on options for reducing mercury emissions to air from small-scale combustion installations.

X

4.4. Air emissions from 4.4.1. Member States that are Parties to the OSPAR convention should gather and submit X




implementation New

actions

cremation emission data for crematoria, in accordance with Recommendation 2003/4.

4.4.2. The Commission should re-consider policy measures to reduce mercury emissions from crematoria once further emission data is available.

5.Achieve environmentally sound management of mercury-containing wastes

5.1. Fate of general mercury containing waste

5.1.1. Increase the awareness and technical insight of mercury's presence in waste (generally, and for specific products) and the need for its safe collection and treatment, through effective communication at all levels: producers, users/consumers, waste collectors/handlers and treatment facilities, and local, national and regional authorities.

X

5.1.2. Improve physical collection and sorting schemes and methods, in particular for dental amalgam, button cell batteries, and electrical and electronic components.

X

5.1.3. Increase enforcement, reporting requirements and control of all steps in mercury waste collection, handling and treatment.

X

5.1.4.Introduce a wider use of producer/importer life cycle responsibility with well defined obligations and goals, in line with what is already in force with the WEEE Directive for certain mercury-containing waste types.

X

5.1.5. Establish a task force dedicated to the Community wide promotion of increased collection and recycling/safe disposal of mercury containing waste.

X

5.1.6. Exporters of mercury added products shall be made responsible for taking back end-of-life products. Such a measure would have to be arranged on the global level in order to avoid discriminating market effects.

X

5.2. Fate of mercury already circulating in the society

5.2.1.Encourage national activities (state or private driven) to actively collect and safely recycle or dispose of obsolete mercury containing products from households, institutes, schools, clinics and other places.

X

5.3. De-commissioning of mercury cells in the chlor alkali industry

–

5.4. Dental amalgam waste

5.4.1. Make installation of high efficiency amalgam separators and/or filters obligatory in dental clinics, possibly complemented by obligatory inspection, maintenance, documentation by certified service suppliers. Set a target for reaching 95% coverage (like

X

October 2010




implementation New

actions

in Canada). As a short-term measure, the Commission should remind Member States about the requirements applicable to dental amalgam waste and ask them to provide a timetable of their plans to comply with the Hazardous Waste legislation.

5.4.2. Amend the acceptance criteria set out in Council Decision 2003/33/EC for landfills so as to explicitly exclude disposal of dental amalgam waste from disposal in landfills, except underground waste storage facilities.

X

5.5. Environmentally sound disposal of mercury containing waste

5.5.1. Define a limit value for the mercury content in waste. Waste with a higher content would have to be disposed of in an underground landfill, possibly after chemical stabilisation of the elemental mercury content. This also includes mercury containing batteries (that are allowed for landfill disposal according to Directive 2006/66/EC). Requirements on EU level would have to be consistent with those currently developed for the disposal or elemental mercury in underground waste storage facilities (no higher requirements for mercury-containing waste than for elemental mercury).

X

6.Find environmentally sound storage solutions for mercury

6.1. Temporary storage Issue already under consideration at EU level

6.2. Disposal (“permanent storage”)

Issue already under consideration at EU level

7.Remediate existing contaminated sites

7.1. Identification of mercury contaminated sites

7.1.1. Continue to support the development of a Soil Framework Directive. Alternatively: propose another approach that leads to national registers of mercury contaminated sites, because these might be of transnational and EU relevance.

X

7.2. Risk assessment methodology

7.2.1. Develop and recommend criteria for assessing the risk of mercury contaminated sites.

X

7.3. Expertise in remediation

7.3.1. Improve and share expertise in identifying assessing, managing and remediating mercury contaminated sites (e.g. through Framework Programmes or other suitable programmes).

X

8.Increase knowledge

N/A 8.1.1. Continue to address the mercury issue in the Framework Programmes and other EU-funded research programmes (pursue Action 13 of the Strategy).

X

9.Reduce 9.1. Emissions from See Issue 5.4.




implementation New

actions

emissions to water and soil

dental practices

9.2. Emissions from industry

See Issue 4.1.

9.3. Emissions from waste landfills

See Issue 5.5.

9.4. Emissions from sewage sludge used in agriculture

–

10.Protecting against exposure

10.1. Human exposure via food and water

See Action A1.2.

10.2. Human exposure via ambient air

10.2.1. Further consideration should be given to the issue of regulating mercury deposition and stipulating maximum mercury levels in ambient air, as part of the report to be prepared by the end of 2010 under Directive 2004/107/EC.

X

10.3. Human exposure via products (cosmetics, toys, etc.)

10.3.1. Investigate the feasibility of reducing the mercury content in cosmetic products and their raw materials and to specify a maximum mercury level.

X

10.3.2. Raise awareness among users of skin whitening products about the potentially adverse health effects of imported mercury containing skin whitening products.

X

10.3.3. Investigate whether mercury containing polyurethane has been used as floor coating in schools, gymnasiums and other public buildings in Member States and whether there is a risk of adverse health effects.

X

10.4. Human biomonitoring

See Objective A2: Monitoring

10.5. Occupational exposure

–

10.6. Soil and biota exposure

–

11.Support and 11.1. Support the 11.1.1. The Community, Member States and other stakeholders should pursue to X

October 2010




implementation New

actions

promote international action

development of international legally binding instruments

advocate a multilateral agreement that flexibly covers all phases of the mercury life cycle from production and uses to releases (intentional and unintentional), stockpiles and wastes. As pointed out by one Member State, this can best be done if the EU continues to show global leadership by staying in the forefront of reducing, and when possible eliminating, mercury use and emissions.

11.1.2. Pursue Action 17 of the Strategy. Member States who are not Parties to the Protocol should ratify it and all Member States which are Parties to the Protocol should comply with the reporting and emission reduction commitments

X X

11.1.3. Make use of the Swiss-Indonesian Initiative and other approaches (like the Green Diplomacy network) to induce ratification of the Ban Amendment to the Basel Convention, prohibiting the export of hazardous waste from OECD to non-OECD countries.

X

11.2. Support other countries in reducing mercury emissions to air, water and soil

11.2.1. Pursue and strengthen Action 18 of the Strategy. The Commission and Member states should bring their contributions to the UNEP Mercury Program and the Global Mercury Partnership into coherence with the high priority they have given to the mercury problem, in line with paragraphs 34-35 of the UNEP GC Decision 25/5.

X X

11.2.2. Pursue and strengthen Actions 14 and 19 of the Strategy. Strengthen bilateral and multilateral projects to support other countries (also within the EU) in reducing mercury use and releases by initiating research projects, provision of technical knowledge, human and financial resources. Activity should address (but not exclusively) the most important sources of mercury pollution: thermal processes (stationary combustion, metal production), vinyl chloride production, artisanal small scale gold mining and primary mercury mining.

X X

11.2.3. The Commission and Member States should support countries in other UN regions to develop national or regional concepts for the environmentally safe disposal of hazardous waste including mercury.

X

A1. Information exchange and public awareness

A1.1. Develop a website (possibly a sub-site of the European Environmental Agency) dedicated to mercury, mercury related problems and possible solutions to inform EU citizens, industry and other stakeholders.

X




implementation New

actions

A1.2. Member States should enhance efforts to increase public awareness on mercury issues, especially in the waste and products sector and with regard to mercury in food.

X

A2. Monitoring A2.1. The Commission and Member States should further harmonise and facilitate access to environmental and human biomonitoring data.

X

A3. Effectiveness evaluation and review of commitments

A3.1. The Strategy should be reviewed every five years. X

A3.2. The Commission should report every five years about mercury levels in the environment and human exposure, especially for methylmercury in fish.

X

A3.3. Establish a set of indicators that reflect the progress in implementing actions related to each objective (e.g. mercury emissions from industrial sources, amount of mercury in new products, amount of mercury safely disposed of). The Commission should report every five years on the progress against these indicators.

X

October 2010



4. FURTHER ASSESSMENT OF SELECTED ACTIONS

This section focuses on the potential environmental and socio-economic impacts of several

actions which have been selected for further assessment as part of this study. First, the

methodology for identifying a short list of actions and for assessing potential impacts is

outlined; the results of a preliminary impact assessment focusing on mercury supply and

export issues are then presented in order to inform future policy decisions on these issues.

4.1. SHORTLIST OF ACTIONS FOR FURTHER ASSESSMENT

Among the potential actions identified in Section 3, some of them are already addressed by

other ongoing policy review processes or have already been subject to an impact assessment

as part of recent studies whose conclusions have been presented in this report. The list of

possible additional actions previously identified has thus been screened according to a number

of elements detailed below, with a view to identifying a shortlist of actions which would

deserve further assessment as a priority and for which enough data on environmental and

economic impacts could be obtained within the timeframe of this study. The main aspects

taken into account for this screening were as follows:

• Existence of other ongoing policy review/development processes

Some of the additional actions previously identified are expected to be addressed

as part of the ongoing review or development of other EU policies such as REACH

(covering mercury use in measuring equipment and in chemicals), the RoHS

Directive (covering mercury use in lighting), the new Industrial Emissions Directive

(expected to improve the control of mercury emissions from IPPC installations),

Directive2004/107/EC (which includes a possibility for future consideration of the

need to regulate mercury levels in ambient air and mercury deposition) and the

proposed Soil Framework Directive (expected to improve the management of

contaminated sites). These actions have not been considered for further

assessment as part of this study.

• Expected environmental benefits

Policy interventions presenting potentially higher environmental benefits have

been given preference in our screening assessment. The main criteria used to

evaluate potential environmental benefits include: avoided mercury releases to

the environment (air/water/soil), avoided mercury use or avoided mercury waste

disposed of.

• Quantifiable environmental and socio-economic impacts

For policy interventions such as conducting further assessments on specific

aspects of the mercury problem, providing further support to international



activities, increasing awareness, etc., environmental and socio-economic impacts

can only be assessed in a qualitative manner; therefore such measures have not

been selected for further assessment as part of this study.

• Previous impact assessments

The environmental and socio-economic impacts of several important actions

considered in this study have already been assessed in recent reports. In

particular, the report on “Options for reducing mercury use in products and

applications, and the fate of mercury already circulating in society” (2008)

included an impact assessment of policy options related to the issues of: dental

amalgam (mercury use as well as waste management aspects), measuring devices

for professional uses, mercury catalysts for polyurethane elastomers and mercury

porosimetry. These issues are not further investigated in the present study but

the key conclusions of this report were presented in previous sections of this

report.

Policy options related to mercury emissions from coal combustion and from

cremation have also been previously assessed as part of the Extended Impact

Assessment of the Strategy in 2005; these assessments could benefit from being

updated, however there is not sufficient new data available at the time of writing

this study to fully review the conclusions of these assessments.

• Availability of data for an impact assessment

Some potential measures and actions cannot be further assessed at this stage due

to a lack of reliable data to estimate environmental and economic impacts. This

concerns for example the issue of ELVs for mercury emissions from coal

combustion and the issue of mercury emissions from cremation.

• Subsidiarity

For certain potential actions, intervention at national level might be more

appropriate than at EU level, and it is not certain that an intervention at EU level

would have significant added value in terms of environmental benefits. For

example, with regard to the phase-out of the mercury cell technology in the chlor-

alkali industry, several Member States (SE, BE, ES, CZ, IT and FR) have already

taken action (through legislation or voluntary agreements with industry) or are in

the process of strengthening existing actions in order to phase-out mercury-based

processes earlier than 2020; therefore it is not certain that an action at EU level

would have significant added value, also considering the fact that most MCCA

plants will probably be converted or closed in a few years.

The details of the screening assessment are presented in Annex 5. Considering the above

elements, the short list of actions selected for further assessment as part of this study is

presented in Table 13 below.

October 2010



Table 13: Shortlist of actions for further assessment

Objectives Specific issues Potential additional actions

1.Reduce supply

1.2 Supply from the recycling of mercury-containing waste


1.3 Supply from imported elemental mercury, mercury compounds and mercury-containing products



3.1 Export of elemental mercury

3.1.1. Extend the export ban of elemental mercury to medical purposes (possibly with identified exemptions).

3.2 Export of mercury compounds

3.2.1. Extend the export ban to all mercury compounds except for research and development, medical, analysis and restoration (colours) purposes.

3.3 Export of mercury-added products

3.3.1. Ban the export of mercury-added products that are prohibited to be put on the market within the EU.

4.2. KEY ASPECTS OF METHODOLOGY

First, it is important to remind that the general goal of any further policy interventions is to

protect human health and the environment from the release of mercury and its compounds by

minimising and, where feasible, ultimately eliminating anthropogenic mercury releases to the

environment.

The methodology for this preliminary assessment follows the Commission’s Impact

Assessment Guidelines although this assessment does not have the scope of a full Impact

Assessment. The impact categories discussed in the 2005 Strategy’s Extended Impact

Assessment have also been used as a basis for our assessment, where appropriate, in order to

remain consistent with this previous impact assessment.

For each potential action, the following aspects have been taken into account:

• Identifying (direct and indirect) environmental, economic and social impacts and how

they occur.

• Identifying who is affected (including those outside the EU) and in what way.

• Assessing the impacts in qualitative, quantitative and monetary terms where possible

and appropriate.

• Considering the risks and uncertainties in the policy choices, including obstacles to

compliance.

Since the impact assessment should assess the impacts of policy options as net changes

compared to the “no policy change” baseline scenario, the above-listed aspects were also

assessed in the case of “no additional policy action”.



Potential environmental benefits of policy options are difficult to estimate in terms of their

potential to reduce actual mercury-related impacts in the long-term (e.g. damages to human

health, adverse effects on biota for example via methylmercury accumulation in fish). The

principal measurable effect of policy interventions will be on mercury emissions to

air/water/soil. Other measurable effects may include effects on mercury demand and effects

on global mercury supply and price; these aspects will in turn influence quantities of mercury

emitted through the life-cycle of mercury and mercury-containing products. The analysis of

environmental impacts presented in the sections below therefore focuses on these key

measurable effects.

Previous studies have demonstrated that the economic consequences of the effects of

mercury exposure on human health are considerable, but the economic benefits of reduced

use of mercury or reduced emissions have only been estimated within high ranges of

uncertainty152,153. Therefore, no attempt has been made to monetise the costs of mercury

pollution as part of this preliminary impact assessment.

Mercury consumption, supply, import/export and waste quantity figures are mostly based on

COWI 2008154 and CONCORDE 2006155 reports. In the COWI report, mercury consumption

figures are indicated as ranges representing a 90% likelihood interval, i.e. the actual figures for

10% of the estimates may be outside the indicated range; mercury production, import/export

and waste quantity figures correspond to best estimates only. In the CONCORDE report,

estimates of recycled mercury within the EU are reported to be accurate to ±30%; EU mercury

supply values are reported to be accurate to ±20% and EU mercury demand values to ±10%.

4.3. IMPACT OF OPTIONS RELATING TO REDUCTION OF MERCURY

SUPPLY FROM RECYCLING AND IMPORT

4.3.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE POLICY OPTIONS

The policy options analysed are as follows:


• Option B: Consider mercury recovered from the recycling of products as waste that

has to be disposed of

• Option C: Import ban on elemental mercury and mercury compounds

152 A review of previous studies on the monetisation of environmental/health benefits of reduced mercury

exposure is available in the COWI report (2008) 153 One recent project conducted on this topic is the ESPREME project, which estimated that the damage due to

ingestion of mercury represents more than a billion Euros in the EU and that marginal external costs per kg of Hg released were estimated to be in the order of several 1000 € without discounting.

154 COWI. 2008. Report for DG ENV: Options for reducing mercury use in products and applications and the fate of mercury already circulating in society (ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/pdf/study_report2008.pdf)

155 CONCORDE. 2006. Report for DG ENV: Mercury flows and safe storage of surplus mercury (ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/pdf/hg_flows_safe_storage.pdf)

October 2010



• Option D: Combination of Option B + Option C

The main objective of Options B, C and D would be to reduce EU supply of mercury and

mercury compounds. This would prevent mercury and mercury compounds from (re-)entering

the EU market and would avoid negative environmental impacts generated along their life-

cycle.

� OPTION A: NO ADDITIONAL ACTION (BUSINESS AS USUAL)

No further constraints on the supply of mercury and mercury compounds would be introduced

other than those resulting from Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008156 (art.2), according to which

metallic mercury from certain activities shall be considered as waste from 15 March 2011

(mercury from chlor-alkali industry that is no longer used, mercury by-product from the

cleaning of natural gas and from non-ferrous mining and smelting operations and mercury

extracted from cinnabar ore).

Mercury obtained from other supply sources, such as the recycling of mercury-containing

waste and the imports of elemental mercury and mercury compounds from non-EU countries,

could continue to enter the EU market with the potential to generate adverse environmental

impacts through its life cycle.

� OPTION B: CONSIDER MERCURY RECOVERED FROM THE RECYCLING OF PRODUCTS AS WASTE THAT HAS TO BE DISPOSED OF

Recycling will become the most important source of supply after 15 March 2011. A further

reduction of mercury entering the EU market could be achieved by considering elemental

mercury that is currently recovered from mercury-containing waste and products (batteries,

measuring equipment, light bulbs, dental amalgam, etc.) as waste that has to be disposed of in

accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008. For example, Article 2 of the Regulation would

be amended to include this additional supply source.

Since there would be virtually no other mercury supply sources within the EU than possibly

existing dealers’ stocks, the EU market demand for mercury could only be met by increasing

imports from non-EU countries. In the absence of any economic incentive for recovering

mercury from high level mercury-containing waste, this waste would probably be disposed of

directly without recycling unless other valuable waste components still justify a processing.

� OPTION C: IMPORT BAN ON ELEMENTAL MERCURY AND MERCURY COMPOUNDS

The import of elemental mercury and mercury compounds to the EU would be prohibited,

with exemptions for mercury and mercury compounds used for R&D, medical and analysis

purposes, antiques restoration for which there are no mercury-free alternatives yet available,

156 Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 of 22 October 2008 on the banning of exports of metallic mercury and certain

mercury compounds and mixtures and the safe storage of metallic mercury



as well as for disposal purposes. This could be done for example by extending the scope of

Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008; according to Article 8 of this Regulation, the need for an import

ban is one of the aspects that shall be considered as part of the future review of the

Regulation.

This policy option would lead to a foreclosure of the EU mercury market from the world

market. EU market demand could only be met by depleting existing dealers’ stocks and

recycling mercury-containing waste. As the current EU demand for mercury is higher than the

amount of mercury that is generated from recycling within the EU, the EU mercury price would

probably increase in the long-term when dealers’ stocks are near depletion. Then, recyclers

would have an economic incentive to increase their efforts to recycle more waste, e.g. by

increasing imports of mercury-containing waste from non-EU countries or by recycling waste

that is currently directly disposed of.

The aim of this measure would be to contribute to reducing internal EU demand for mercury

and to support the development of mercury-free alternatives.

� OPTION D: COMBINATION OF OPTION B + OPTION C

This option, which combines Options B and C, would involve the mandatory disposal of

mercury recovered from the recycling of products as well as an import ban on elemental

mercury and mercury compounds.

This would lead to a foreclosure of the EU mercury market from the world market. EU market

demand could only be met by depleting existing dealers’ stocks. Dealers would probably try to

increase their stocks before an import ban enters into force in order to be prepared for future

demand. If dealers’ stocks are depleted then EU market demand will not find sufficient if any

supply. Because such a scenario does not seem realistic in the short term, it is disregarded and

not further analysed.

4.3.2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

� OPTION A: NO ADDITIONAL ACTION

Potential environmental impacts are strongly correlated to mercury supply quantities. It is

therefore necessary to explain, in a first stage, how mercury supply is expected to evolve in the

future under a business-as-usual scenario, before analysing potential environmental impacts

resulting from the supply of mercury to the EU market.

It is expected that the EU demand for mercury will continuously decrease until 2015. In 2015

the net demand (excluding the chlor-alkali industry) is thought to amount to 148 t (as

compared to 160-340 t in 2007). This demand could be met by the recycling of mercury-

containing waste (103 t estimated for 2015) 157,158, dealers’ stocks (unknown quantity) and

import of mercury from non-EU countries. Recycling of waste will continue to be a source of

157 CONCORDE (2006) p. 48 158 COWI (2008) p. 8

October 2010



supply as long as the recycling costs are lower than imported mercury from other sources.

Further details on the different supply sources are provided below.

� Supply from recycling

Due to a lack of reporting mechanisms, precise quantities of mercury recovered from waste

products are unknown. A recent estimate provides an amount of 102 t recovered mercury in

the EU in 2007159, a figure that is almost identical to an estimate for 2005 (101 t, EU-25) by the

same author160; the sources of this recovered mercury are as follows:

• Chlor-alkali industry: 35 t, expected to decrease161.

• Other sources: 67 t, expected to increase.

In addition to the above amounts, mercury generated as a by-product (from cleaning of

natural gas, non-ferrous mining and smelting operations) is currently a more important source

of supply (118-158 t)162, but will be considered as waste that has to be disposed of as of 15

March 2011.

� Supply from import

According to ComExt trade statistics, imports from non-EU countries averaged 290 t in the

years 2005 to 2009. In the same period, average EU exports to non-EU countries amounted to

614 t (see Table 14). Thus, the EU was a net exporter and EU market demand could be met by

domestic supply. The situation will probably change from 15 March 2011 when supply from

decommissioned chlor-alkali plants, cleaning of natural gas and non-ferrous metal production

virtually stops in application of Regulation 1102/2008. In 2005 the latter two sources

accounted for 79 t163.

Table 14: Mercury imported to and exported from the EU according to ComExt database

Year Hg imports Hg exports

1999 374,5 915,8

2000 69,1 1126,5

2001 348,5 953,5

2002 166,4 1287,0

2003 174,4 803,7

2004 518,3 684,2

2005 275,5 402,5

2006 257,5 265,4

159 COWI (2008) p.193; data for 2007 EU27+2 (CH, NO) 160 CONCORDE (2006) p.42, 48 161 This figure does not include mercury directly recovered from cells 162 COWI (2008) p.191; mercury generated from all recycling operations is estimated to be 230-270 t (2007,

EU27+2) 163 CONCORDE (2006) p.42



Year Hg imports Hg exports

2007 275,0 598,1

2008 250,6 599,0

2009 395,6 1208,7

� Total supply

The annual supply after 2011 (excluding mercury subject to mandatory disposal according to

Regulation 1102/2008) was estimated to be about 103 t164. Further supply could be provided

by dealers, but estimates of their stocked quantities after 2011 are completely speculative as

they might sell their stocks to the world market before the EU export ban enters into force

(2011). The steep increase in mercury exports in 2009 (see Table 14) might be an indication

that such a sale already takes place.

� EU demand

For the year 2007 it was calculated that the consumption165 of mercury in the EU-27 for

products and processes was in the order of 320-530 t166 including 160-190 t of mercury for

chlor-alkali production that is replaced by recycled mercury from the same industry sector.

From March 2011, mercury that is no longer used within the chlor-alkali industry will have to

be disposed of, but it will still be allowed to use mercury from decommissioned plants and

recycled chlor-alkali waste to meet the net demand for operating plants from 2011 until the

voluntarily agreed phase-out by 2020.

The following mercury demand and supply projections up to 2015 were developed by

CONCORDE (2006)167 for the EU-25:

• Mercury demand, excluding chlor-alkali, is expected to decrease by 32% between 2007

(218 t) and 2015 (148 t) in a business-as-usual scenario. These figures do not include

the highly uncertain consumption of mercury in porosimetry (10-100 t Hg/year) and

higher estimates for some other applications.

• Mercury supply from recycling is estimated at 103 t in 2015.

More recent projections, especially for domestic consumption, are not available. In order to

obtain an estimate for EU-27 in 2015, the projected 32% decrease in mercury consumption

between 2007 and 2015 calculated in the CONCORDE study was applied to EU-27 mercury

consumption figures for 2007 presented in the COWI study (see Table 15 below). This would

give a projected mercury consumption of 110-230 t in 2015, excluding use in the chlor-alkali

industry.

164 CONCORDE (2006) p.48 165 Consumption is the amount of mercury that, in the EU, is used for products or added to processes. It is

sometimes also called ‚direct demand’ 166 COWI (2008) p.149 167 CONCORDE (2006) p. 42

October 2010



Considering a projected mercury supply from recycling of 103 t in 2015, the gap to be closed in

order to address the projected demand in 2015 (110-230 t) would be in the range of 7-127 t, to

be supplied by import and dealers’ stocks. The uncertainty on this figure could be higher since

the amount of mercury generated by recycling is not known exactly. This gap may also be

smaller if mercury consumption decreases more than projected, as a result of possible

additional policy measures restricting the use of mercury for certain applications.

Table 15: Estimated mercury demand in a business as usual (BAU) scenario (EU-27)

Mercury demand (t)

Application area 2007 (1) Projections for 2015 under BAU scenario (2)

Chlor-alkali production 160-190 109-129

Light sources 11-15 7-10

Batteries 7-25 5-17

Dental amalgams 90-110 61-75

Measuring equipment 7-17 5-12

Switches, relays, etc. 0.3-0.8 0.2-0.5

Chemicals 28-59 19-40

Miscellaneous uses (incl. porosimetry) 15-114 10-78

Total (round) 320-530 215-360

Total excluding chlor-alkali (round) 160-340 110-230

(1) Data from the COWI report (2008) (2) Assuming a 32% decrease vs 2007, according to BAU predictions presented in the CONCORDE report (2006)

� Environmental fate of mercury supplied to the market

Mercury brought into the market (from recycling, import and dealers’ stocks) is used in

processes and for the production of mercury-containing goods.

A mercury balance for EU27+2 in 2007168 showed that the annual consumption of 420 t

(medium estimate, including 170 t for the chlor-alkali industry) leads to:

• 20 t of mercury releases by use/breakage (of which 6 t from the chlor-alkali industry)

• 94 t of mercury ending up in municipal solid waste disposal

• 208 t of mercury ending up in other disposal (of which 84 t from the chlor-alkali

industry)

• 45 t of unaccounted mercury losses from the chlor-alkali industry.

Considering a projected mercury demand of 170 t in 2015 (medium estimate, excluding chlor-

alkali) and similar ratios between input and output flows:

• Mercury released by use/breakage would amount to approximately 10 t (excluding

chlor-alkali).

168 COWI (2008) p. 12



• Mercury ending up in municipal solid waste disposal would amount to approximately

64 t.

• Mercury ending up in other disposal would amount to approximately 84 t (excluding

chlor-alkali).


If mercury containing waste is no longer recycled, it will be sent directly to hazardous waste

disposal facilities. About 103 t/year of mercury would be permanently removed from the

market.

Mercury emissions from the European recycling industry as well as energy consumption would

drop significantly. Both cannot be quantified accurately as detailed data are missing. According

to the BREF document for the waste treatment industries, the consumption of electricity for

the heating of the vacuum vessel and for the vacuum pump used in the treatment of mercury-

containing waste amounts to 3.5 GJ/t waste and the consumption of cooling water is

approximately 13 t/t waste.169

As demand persists, mercury price could increase and more mercury would have to be

imported. Higher market prices are an incentive to non-EU recyclers to increase production, so

that part of the emissions reduction in the EU could be counterbalanced by increased

emissions outside the EU.

On the other hand, mercury that is bought by EU customers would no longer be available for

artisanal small scale mining (ASM) and other uses outside the EU. It cannot be said how an

increased market price would affect the different demand sectors as their price elasticity is not

known. ASM is used as an illustrative example under the assumption that mercury imports into

the EU would directly reduce the supply for mining. Considering current global mercury

demand for ASM and associated mercury emissions from these activities170,171, the avoided

mercury emissions resulting from a reduced supply of 103 t/year would be in the order of

34 t/year for atmospheric emissions and 69 t/year for emissions to water/soil (occurring

outside the EU). In reality the reduction would probably be smaller as higher market prices

would be an incentive for other suppliers to increase their mercury production (e.g. recycling

industry outside the EU, by-product mercury).

169 BREF document for the waste treatment industries, 2006 (p. 409) 170 UNEP (2008) Report on the current supply of and demand for mercury, including the possible phase out of

primary mercury mining. UNEP(DTIE)/Hg/OEWG.2/6/Add.1. According to this report, total Hg demand for ASM was 650-1,000 t in 2005.

171 Telmer, K. (2008) World emissions of mercury from small scale and artisanal gold mining and the knowledge gaps about them. www.htap.org/meetings/2008/2008_04/Presentations/07-04-08/6%20-%20Telmer/Telmer_Rome_UNEP%20April%202008.pdf. According to this report, total Hg demand for ASM is 650-1,350 t/year (average 1,000 t/year) and associated mercury emissions are 333 t/year for atmospheric emissions and 666 t/year for emissions to soil/water.

October 2010



Mercury releases through use/breakage and quantities of mercury-containing waste produced

from the use of mercury in processes and products would not be significantly different from

the “no additional action” option, as long as EU demand could be met by other supply sources

than recycling.

Since import of mercury would still be allowed, mercury-containing waste could be exported

to OECD countries outside the EU and recycled there. Similarly, waste that is currently

imported into the EU for recycling would be preferably recycled in other countries. While

direct mercury emissions from recycling in the EU would decrease, emissions would increase in

those countries that increase their recycling activities. The overall net effect would be zero or

negative depending on the environmental standards in these countries.


Before such a ban enters into force, mercury dealers would increase their stocks and there

would be a strong increase in demand in the short term, with increasing prices. Outside the

EU, less mercury would be available for ASM and therefore this could lead to a reduction of

mercury emissions from ASM in the short term, which cannot be quantified accurately.

Once the import ban enters into force, mercury that was previously imported into the EU

would be available for other uses outside the EU, e.g. ASM (the most important global use).

The amount of mercury that would no longer be imported into the EU is estimated at 7-

127 t/year in 2015. These figures are small in comparison to global demand for ASM (2005:

3,165-4,355 t)172.

Considering current global mercury demand for ASM and associated mercury emissions from

these activities170,171, the additional mercury emissions resulting from a reduced supply of 7-

127 t/year would be in the order of 2-42 t/year for atmospheric emissions and 5-85 t/year for

emissions to water/soil, these emissions occurring outside the EU. These figures are upper

limits as a lower demand by the EU could lead to lower global market prices and lower supply

from other sources.

The high mercury market price in the EU would probably be an incentive to:

• Increase EU recycling of mercury-containing waste, using domestic supply in mercury-

containing waste as well as possible imports of mercury-containing waste from outside

the EU. Increased recycling of mercury-containing waste would reduce the volumes of

waste landfilled and the residues going to landfill would be less hazardous

• Improve separate collection of mercury-containing waste products in order to facilitate

recycling

• Extract mercury from contaminated soil.

172 UNEP (2008) Report on the current supply of and demand for mercury, including the possible phase out of

primary mercury mining



Overall, this would lead to an increased use of mercury accumulated in the society and more

mercury would be mobilised.

4.3.3. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPACTS

Economic and social impacts discussed in this section mainly focus on the recycling and

manufacturing industries since they are expected to be the main actors affected by the policy

options analysed.


In a business-as-usual scenario, recycling companies would continue to compete with global

suppliers on the EU market. According to demand and supply projections up to 2015, demand

would still exceed supply from recycling so that recyclers would still be able to sell their

mercury on the EU market.

For the manufacturing industry, there would be sufficient supply of mercury both from EU

sources as well from other global sources. Demand for mercury-containing products is

expected to decrease.


Recycling operations for most mercury-containing waste would strongly decrease because the

extracted mercury could no longer be sold. Based on the mercury price in 2009 (580-680

USD/flask)173 and the current USD/EUR exchange rate (1.23, June 2010), the recycling industry

would lose revenues in the order of 1.4-1.6 million EUR if mercury recovered from waste could

no longer be sold (quantity estimated at 103 t/year).

Instead, the recovered mercury would have to be disposed of causing additional disposal costs.

As a consequence the overall waste treatment cost of mercury-containing products would be

higher. The economic impact for the recycling industry might be even more significant if the

higher waste treatment costs of mercury-containing waste exceed costs for disposal so that

mercury-containing waste is no longer send to recycling but directly to landfills. At the same

time landfill operators would benefit from higher demand for disposal.

Since import of mercury would still be allowed, mercury-containing waste could be exported

to OECD countries outside the EU and recycled there. Similarly, waste that is currently

imported into the EU for recycling would be preferably recycled in other countries. Recycling

capacity, turnover and jobs in the EU would at least in part be replaced by increasing recycling

173 United States Geological Survey (2010) Commodity Statistics and Information: mercury

minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/mercury/mcs-2010-mercu.pdf (mercury price: 580-680 USD/flask; 1 flask = 34.5 kg so the price per tonne would be 16,800-19,700 USD/t = 13,700-16,000 EUR/t). Conversion rate: 1.23 USD/EUR

October 2010



operations outside the EU, e.g. in Switzerland or Norway, both of which have active companies

in this field.

EU demand for mercury on the global market would eventually lead to higher commodity

prices.

For the manufacturing industry, there would be sufficient supply of mercury from the global

market, possibly at a higher price if less mercury is generated from recycling.


EU market demand would have to be met by increased supply from recyclers and dealers’

stocks. The projected supply gap is 7-127 t/year in 2015. If recyclers were able to increase

production by this amount, thus meeting the EU market demand, their revenues could

increase by 0.09-2.0 million EUR at current mercury prices (580-680 USD/flask).

It has been shown that the potential of mercury recycling has not been fully utilised until now.

Currently, only about 25% of all mercury in waste is recovered by recycling while more than

300 t end up in waste that is disposed of (landfilled or incinerated)174.

A further closure of the supply gap could be achieved by further reduction of mercury

consumption (for example, if further EU policy measures were taken to restrict mercury use

for certain applications).

It may be expected that the EU internal price for mercury would be higher than the global

price because mercury would be available only from limited domestic sources. This would

consequently lead to higher product prices and would support the current trend to switch to

alternative mercury-free products and processes (especially tooth-fillings, porosimetry,

polyurethane production, sodium methylate production) or to manufacture products with

lower mercury contents. The price elasticity of the individual markets of mercury-containing

products is unknown so the specific impact on market demand, prices, and manufacturers’

revenues cannot be predicted.

4.3.4. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS

Administrative costs associated with the various options are expected to be small, since the

options considered would likely involve amending the scope of existing Regulation 1102/2008

rather than implementing new legislation.

4.3.5. CONCLUSIONS

A further reduction of supply would have a positive effect on EU internal demand as mercury

prices would probably increase and make the use of mercury less attractive for the various

applications. As long as there is a demand for mercury to be used in products and processes

174 COWI (2008) p. 193



where substitution is not feasible yet, a certain level of supply has to be provided to EU

manufacturers. Cutting both remaining sources of supply (import and recycling) is therefore

not a feasible option.

Option C (banning the import of mercury) would be an incentive for European recyclers to

recover more mercury from waste, since currently their output is lower than EU demand. At

the same time higher EU internal prices for mercury would encourage the substitution of

remaining mercury uses. On the other hand, recycling leads to the mobilisation of additional

mercury that would otherwise be disposed of. Moreover, mercury that is not imported is

available for more environmentally damaging purposes outside the EU like ASM.

Option B (considering mercury recovered from waste as waste that has to be disposed of)

offers some advantages in the short term, as it would increase the need for import and reduce

the availability of mercury on the global market. In the long run, international legally binding

commitments could lead to trade restrictions that could cut off the EU from international

supply sources.

Considering the different options, an import ban seems to be an appropriate measure to

further reduce supply in the EU. The gap between predicted demand and supply would likely

be closed by improved recycling activities and a decrease in mercury use.

Table 16 below summarises the pros and cons of the various policy options analysed.

Table 16: Summary of pros and cons of policy options related to reduction of mercury supply

Policy option Pros Cons

Option A: No additional action

No legal or administrative changes • Mercury is still used in a number of processes and products within the EU and generates significant environmental and health concerns. There is no incentive to reduce its use in sectors/applications not covered by specific restrictions.

Option B: Consider mercury recovered from the recycling of products as waste that has to be disposed of

• Reduction of mercury quantities re-entering the EU market and subsequent environmental impacts (as long as it is not compensated by increased mercury imports)

• Stimulates EU market for mercury-free alternatives with possible increase in revenue/jobs in this area

• Avoided mercury emissions and energy consumption from the recycling of mercury-containing products

• EU supply gap is likely to be compensated by increased imports

• Would discourage the recycling of mercury-containing waste

• Loss of revenue and jobs for the EU recycling industry

Option C: Import ban on • Reduction of mercury quantities re- • More mercury would be

October 2010




elemental mercury and mercury compounds

entering the EU market and subsequent environmental impacts within the EU (as long as it is not compensated by increased mercury recycling)

• Possible increase in revenue/jobs for the EU recycling industry to meet EU demand (as long as there are no EU policies further restricting mercury use in processes and products)

• Stimulates EU market for mercury-free alternatives with possible increase in revenue/jobs in this area

available for other uses outside the EU, in particular ASM

• Increase in mercury emissions (to air/water) and energy use for the recycling of mercury-containing products

• Increased costs for industry sectors using mercury as raw material due to possible higher mercury prices

Option D: Option B + Option C

• Would strongly contribute to the complete phase-out of mercury use in products and processes within the EU and the development of mercury-free alternatives

• Not feasible in the short term, since mercury is still used within the EU in a number of processes and products

4.4. IMPACT OF OPTIONS RELATING TO FURTHER MERCURY EXPORT

RESTRICTIONS

4.4.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE POLICY OPTIONS

The policy options analysed are as follows:


• Option B: Extend the export ban of elemental mercury to medical purposes. The

objective of this action would be to address the issue of mercury being legally

exported by the EU for legitimate uses, in particular for dental amalgam preparation

which is covered by the exemption related to medical purposes, but then (illegally)

diverted for artisanal small scale mining (ASM).

• Option C: Extend the export ban to other mercury compounds. The objective of this

action would be to address the issue of mercury compounds being exported to other

countries where they can easily be reconverted into elemental mercury or used for

applications that cause a release of mercury to the environment.

• Option D: Ban the export of mercury-added products that are prohibited on the EU

market. This policy option would contribute to global efforts to reduce mercury use

worldwide and particularly in developing countries where the capacity to manage risks

associated with the use and disposal of mercury-added products is much lower than in

the EU.



� OPTION A: NO ADDITIONAL ACTION (BUSINESS AS USUAL)

In this case, it is assumed that export restrictions as specified in Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008

will be implemented in the defined timeframe, i.e. they will become applicable as of 15 March

2011. The export ban will apply to elemental mercury, mercury (I) chloride, mercury (II) oxide

and mixtures of metallic mercury with other substances, including alloys of mercury, with a

mercury concentration of at least 95 % weight by weight. Exemptions to the export ban will

include mercury compounds for R&D, medical and analysis purposes.

Except for mercury-containing soaps that are banned by Regulation (EC) No. 689/2008, export

of mercury-containing products would continue to be allowed in general, even in cases where

the marketing of such products would be banned within the EU for health and environmental

concerns (e.g. certain measuring devices).

� OPTION B: EXTEND THE EXPORT BAN OF ELEMENTAL MERCURY TO MEDICAL PURPOSES

Article 1 (paragraph 2) of Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 would be amended so as to delete the

exemption on medical purposes or to specify which medical purposes are accepted. The

purpose of such an amendment would be to address the issue of mercury being legally

exported by the EU for legitimate uses, in particular for dental amalgam preparation which is

covered by the exemption related to medical purposes, but is then (illegally) diverted for

artisanal small scale mining (ASM). This issue has been reported to occur in many developing

countries175; such countries do not usually have the capacity to control mercury trade flows

once the metal has passed their borders. This measure would not affect the export of the

mercury compound thiomersal, a preservative for vaccines.

� OPTION C: EXTEND THE EXPORT BAN TO OTHER MERCURY COMPOUNDS

The scope of the mercury export ban would be extended to include all mercury compounds,

except for R&D, medical, analysis and restoration (colours) purposes.

This could be done by amending Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008. According to

Article 8 of this Regulation, the need for extending the export ban to other mercury

compounds is one of the aspects that shall be considered as part of the future review of the

Regulation.

The objective of such an amendment would be to address the issue of mercury compounds

being exported to other countries where they can easily be reconverted into elemental

mercury or used for applications that cause a release of mercury to the environment. A US

study found that four mercury compounds that can easily be produced from elemental

mercury or that are already produced as a by-product of ore processing could likely or possibly

be exported in significant amounts. These include mercury (I) chloride, mercury (II) oxide, 175 Veiga, M. M.; Maxson, P. A.; Hylander, L. D. (2006) Origin and consumption of mercury in small-scale gold

mining

October 2010



mercury (II) sulphate and mercury (II) nitrate176. The first two of these compounds are already

subject to Regulation 1102/2008. While mixing of mercury with other substances for the sole

purpose of export of metallic mercury will be prohibited by 15 March 2011, chemical

conversion into other substances like mercury (II) sulphate and mercury (II) nitrate for the

purpose of export will still be allowed. According to industry sources the costs of converting

mercury into a compounds and then recovering the mercury from a compound are estimated

to be ‘not more than $200 per flask’177 (4.8 EUR/kg). At a mercury market price of 550 USD per

flask (April 2010178) conversion and export would still be profitable.

As all mercury compounds contain the toxic element mercury, banning the export of all

mercury compounds (with some exceptions) could possibly contribute to an increased

protection of health and environment globally.

This measure would not affect the export of the mercury compound thiomersal and amalgams

for dental use.

Similar measures are already in place in Sweden and Norway. Both countries ban the export of

mercury compounds but grant (temporary) exemptions for some uses.

� OPTION D: BAN THE EXPORT OF MERCURY-ADDED PRODUCTS

The scope of Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 would be extended to mercury-added products

that are prohibited to be put on the market within the EU because of environmental and

health concerns (but are still allowed to be produced within the EU). According to Article 8 of

this Regulation, the need for extending the export ban to mercury-added products is one of

the aspects that shall be considered as part of the future review of the Regulation.

Key products currently prohibited or subject to mercury content restrictions include: certain

measuring equipment, batteries, light bulbs, switches and relays. The marketing of other

mercury-containing products might also be prohibited in the future (e.g. other measuring

devices, dental amalgam, mercury catalysts).

The objective of such a policy option would be to contribute to global efforts to reduce

mercury use worldwide and particularly in developing countries where the capacity to manage

risks associated with the use and disposal of mercury-added products is much lower than in

the EU.

176 US EPA (2009) Report to congress. Potential export of mercury compounds from the United States for

conversion to elemental mercury. www.epa.gov/hg/pdfs/mercury-rpt-to-congress.pdf 177 CONCORDE (2006) p. 30. 178 Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (2010) Commodity prices Apr 10.

www.bgr.bund.de/cln_145/EN/Themen/Min__rohstoffe/Produkte/Preisliste/cpl__10__04,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/cpl_10_04.pdf



4.4.2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS


� Export of dental amalgams and elemental mercury for dental use

Companies in the EU are important global producers of dental restorative material, including

amalgams. Based on industry contacts it was estimated that, in 2007, 80-110 t of mercury

were consumed in the EU to produce dental amalgams, 70 % of which in the form of amalgam

mixtures in capsules and 30% as elemental mercury. About 50-70 t of mercury in the form of

dental amalgams were exported in 2007179. The amount of elemental mercury exported for the

purpose of amalgam production is not known. As a first rough estimate, it is assumed that use

patterns in importing countries are similar to those in the EU (30% of the amalgams are

produced from elemental mercury), in which case 50-70 t of mercury in the form of amalgams

would be accompanied by 20-30 t of liquid mercury for dental amalgam production. This range

of 20-30 t/year is probably a lower limit, as the more costly amalgam mixtures in capsules are

probably more popular in the EU than in less developed importing countries. Moreover, is has

been reported that mercury is legally imported by countries like Brazil and Peru for dental

purposes, but then misused for ASM. It is a well-known fact that, in the past, exports of

elemental mercury from the EU to countries with active ASM (or countries neighbouring

countries with active ASM) were above their demand for dental care, chlor-alkaline production

and other legal uses180. There are no other known medical uses of elemental mercury.

The global demand for mercury for dental purposes was estimated to be in the order of 300-

400 t/year (2005)181. As the consumption in the EU is 80-110 t/year182, the maximum amount

of mercury that the EU could legally export for dental use would be about 220-290 t/year

(assuming EU exports would meet the totality of the demand for dental purposes in non-EU

countries). Considering that 50-70 t/year are already exported in the form of amalgam, this

leaves 150-240 t of mercury that could be exported in liquid form annually. Of course, EU

countries are not the only suppliers of mercury to the world market: in 2004, 2,641 t of

mercury were reported to be transferred between UN sub-regions; the EU-25 contributed

758 t to this volume, approximately 30%. Under the assumption that EU countries would hold

the same market share in mercury for dental purposes, the amount of mercury in liquid form

that could be exported by the EU for dental purposes would be 43-69 t/year183; this range is

considered as an upper limit.

179 COWI (2008) p. 53 180 Veiga, M. M.; Maxson, P. A.; Hylander, L. D. (2006) Origin and consumption of mercury in small-scale gold

mining. J. Cleaner Prod. 14, 436-447. 181 UNEP (2008) Report on the current supply of and demand for mercury, including the possible phase out of

primary mercury mining. UNEP(DTIE)/Hg/OEWG.2/6/Add.1 182 COWI (2008) p. 53. 183 30% of the range of 150-240 t/year

October 2010



Lower and upper estimates of liquid mercury quantities exported by the EU for dental

purposes are summarised in Table 17 below.

A survey by the Council of European Dentists, conducted in 2010, reported that the use of

encapsulated dental amalgam is required by law in twelve European countries (out of the 28

surveyed) and a further four countries have only capsules available.

Table 17: Estimated export of liquid mercury for dental purposes

Method Hg in dental

amalgam Liquid Hg for dental purposes Total

Based on amalgam export data (2007)

50-70 t/year (1) 20-30 t/year (2)

(considered here as the lower limit) 70-100 t/year

Based on global demand for dental purposes (2005) and EU market share

50-70 t/year (1) 43-69 t/year (3)

(considered here as the upper limit) 93-139 t/year

(1) COWI (2008) (2) Based on assumptions in COWI (2008, see text) (3) Based on demand UNEP (2008)181 and EU mercury commodity market share according to COMTRADE

statistics184

Export of mercury that is declared for dental purposes is possibly higher, but there is no

available information. Reports of legally imported mercury that is diverted for illegal uses do

not contain quantitative information.

It was calculated that during the application of new amalgam fillings, about 20% of the

amalgam directly becomes waste (surplus triturated amalgam and carved surplus amalgam),

which results in various environmental impacts to air, water and soil depending on how the

waste is managed. Additional environmental impacts are associated with the application of

new amalgam fillings but occur at a later stage, e.g. when old fillings are replaced, when teeth

are lost, during cremation and burial. A rough estimate of mercury releases from dental uses

was developed by CONCORDE for the year 2006185; it was roughly estimated that 125 t of

newly introduced mercury in dental material would cause the following mercury releases:

• 23 t Hg released to the atmosphere (30% of total Hg releases)

• 14 t Hg released to surface water (18% of total Hg releases)

• 10 t Hg released to groundwater (13% of total Hg releases)

• 30 t Hg released to soil (39% of total Hg releases)

Total releases were estimated at 77 t out of 125 t, i.e. 62% of the initial input. The remainder

(46 t Hg) does not enter the biosphere as it is either safely disposed of (23 t) or recycled (22 t;

18%). It may be assumed that outside the EU (and in other developed countries) a smaller

proportion of mercury would be recycled and safely disposed of. Exact figures for the global

184 UNEP (2006) Summary of supply, trade and demand information on mercury. 185 CONCORDE (2007) Mercury in dental use: environmental implications for the European Union



situation are not available, but for Asia it was estimated that only 3% of all mercury introduced

into products is recycled186. The maximum amount of elemental mercury originating from the

EU that could be released to the environment in importing countries, as a consequence of

dental amalgam use, is thus estimated at 20-69 t/year (100% of the total use of elemental

mercury); the minimum amount would be 12-43 t/year, based on the assumption that - like in

the EU - only 62% of the initial input are released to the environment (see Table 18 below).

Table 18: Estimated mercury releases to the environment due to EU export of liquid mercury for dental uses

Amount (t Hg/year)

EU export of liquid Hg for dental uses (1) 20-69

Hg releases in importing countries (estimated at 62%-100% of total Hg use) (2):

- Atmosphere 4-21

- Surface water 2-13

- Groundwater 2-9

- Soil

Total releases

5-27

12-69

(1) Estimated based on assumptions presented in Table 17 (2) Based on mass balance developed by CONCORDE187

� Export of mercury compounds

According to Eurostat ComExt trade statistics188, exports of mercury compounds to non-EU

countries dropped from 1,650 t in 2007 to about 127 t in 2009 (see Table 19 below). No data

were available for earlier years in the ComExt database. In an earlier report, EU exports were

estimated to be much lower, averaging 63-105 t (55-75 t mercury content) in 2004-2005189.

Table 19: EU exports of mercury compounds (all transport types)

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

As reported in COWI (2008) (1) As reported in ComExt database

Value of exported Hg compounds (EUR)

6,793,490 2,421,780 2,450,840

Amount of exported Hg compounds (t)

76 63 105 1,650 250 127

(1) Based on individual country reports to the Commission

For the purposes of the present study, the value for 2009 (127 t) is taken as a lower limit, while

the average value for 2007-2009 (682 t) is taken as an upper limit. The trend in the reported

data over the last two years shows that the year 2007 may be a year with exceptionally high

186 CONCORDE (2008) Assessment of excess mercury in Asia, 2010-2050 187 CONCORDE (2007) Mercury in dental use: environmental implications for the European Union 188 EUROSTAT epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu CN code 2852 ComExt database 189 COWI (2008) p. 126

October 2010



exports, or the figure for 2007 is erroneous (e.g. due to wrong categorisation). As long as there

is no newer or corrected data it cannot be excluded that the 2007 data are correct. Should

they be correct, the mass and probably also the mercury content of exported mercury

compounds in 2007 was higher than the mass of exported liquid mercury in that year

(598 t190).

It is interesting to see that the average price must have risen significantly since 2007, as the

value of the exports has decreased much less than the amount of Hg exported (it has only

been a little more than halved, from 6.8 to 2.5 Mio EUR).

Unfortunately, the statistics give no information about the identity of the traded compounds

and their mercury content. Only for the years 2004 and 2006 it could be identified that 1-3 t

mercury oxides were exported191. Mercury is a heavy element, and in most inorganic and

organic compounds the mercury content is well above 60 wt.-%, like in mercury-II-oxide,

mercury-I-chloride, mercury-II-chloride, phenylmercury acetate. It is highest in mercury-II-

oxide (93 wt.-%) and lower for the phenylmercury salts (around 50 wt.-%). Thus, mercury

content in exported compounds may amount to 64-634 t/year192. Within the EU the major

mercury compounds used (> 0.5 t/y) are193:

• Mercury-I-chloride

• Mercury-II-chloride

• Mercury-II-oxide

• Phenylmercury acetate

• Phenylmercury neodecanoate

• Phenylmercury octoate

• Phenylmercury-1-ethylhexanoate

• Mercurochrome (antiseptic)

It may be assumed that exported compounds mainly cover these eight substances.

In 2009 90 notifications on mercury compounds according to the Prior Informed Consent

procedure were filed in the European Database Export Import of Dangerous Chemicals194,

mostly by exporters from Spain and Germany. Among these, the following chemicals/ mixtures

could be identified:

• Mercury compounds (78 notifications)

• Phenyl mercuric neodecanoate_80%_9024 (7)

190 EUROSTAT epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu ComExt database 191 COWI (2008) p. 292. 192 Lower limit: 60% of 127 t; upper limit: 93% of 682 t 193 COWI (2008) p. 109 194 European Database Export Import of Dangerous Chemicals (EDEXIM) Yearly Export Notifications Issued.

Evaluated for 2009, Exporting Countries: ‘All’, Importing Countries: ‘All’, ‘Mercury Compounds’, Preparation: ‘All’



• Mercury_15-25%_9065 (1)

• Potassium dichromate 0,04 mol/l mercury (II) sulfate 6,7%_9184 (1)

• Potassium dichromate 0,04 mol/l / mercury(II) sulfate 80 g/l, solution in sulfuric

acid_9604 (1)

• Reagent Nessler. mercury chloride 1-5%_9183 (1)

Exported volumes are not reported, but the multiple appearance of phenyl mercuric

neodecanoate shows that the global demand for mercury catalysts (here: polyurethane

elastomer production) is at least in part met by EU exports.

From 15 March 2011, mercury-II-oxide (1-3 t/year exported in 2003-2006) and mercury-I-

chloride shall no longer be exported. For mercury-I-chloride no export data are available, but it

is not among the four substances with EU consumption of 15 t/year or more. In our further

analysis, it is assumed that mercury-II-oxide and mercury-I-chloride are responsible only for a

minor, yet not quantified part of all EU mercury compound exports.

Typical industrial uses include phenylmercury compounds (polyurethane elastomer

production) and mercury-I-chloride (vinyl chloride production). For the EU it was estimated

that the consumption of 44 t of mercury in compounds caused 8 t (19%) of releases to air and

wastewater by use/breakage and generated 22 t of waste sent to municipal solid waste

disposal and 12 t to hazardous waste landfills195. There is little information on the use patterns

of exported mercury compounds. As a first rough estimate, assuming that mercury use and

release patterns in the importing countries are comparable to those in the EU, the use of

exported compounds originating from the EU would lead to direct releases to air/water of 10

to 120 t of mercury and the production of 46-490 t of waste to be disposed of. These figures

may be lower in case mercury-II-oxide and mercury-I-chloride would constitute a significant

part of mercury compound exports. Use patterns and disposal systems are different outside

the EU, so that the emissions could be higher or lower.

� Export of mercury-added products

In the study by COWI the amount of exported mercury-added products were derived from

industry data and trade statistics. This information was updated with new trade data on

mercury oxide batteries from the ComExt database for the years 2007 to 2009. The combined

results are presented in the table below for the main products currently subject to significant

mercury-content restrictions or which could be subject to restrictions in the near future.

195 COWI (2008) p. 131

October 2010



Table 20: Mercury in some exported products

Product Reference

year

Exported products

[t]

Mercury in exported

products [t] Source

Mercury oxide button cells Average

2005-2009

11 3-4

ComExt - Mass of batteries x mercury

content (30-40 wt.-%)

Mercury oxide batteries - cylindrical

Average

2005-2009

30 7 ComExt - Mass of batteries x mercury content (22.5 wt-%)

Mercury oxide batteries - other

Average

2005-2009

31 7 ComExt - Mass of batteries x mercury content (22.5 wt-%)

Mercury oxide battery material

2008? 12-14 COWI (2008)

Measuring devices 2008? 6-10 COWI (2008)

- Barometers 2008? 0,1-0,5 COWI (2008)

- Sphygmomanometers 2008? 5-8 COWI (2008)

- Thermometers 2008? 0,5-0,8 COWI (2008)

- Tensiometers 2008? 0 COWI (2008)

Switches and relays and other electrical components

2008? 0,3 COWI (2008)

Total 35-42

In total, it is estimated that about 35-42 t of mercury are present in exported mercury-added

products listed in the above table. The mass flow calculations from COWI (2008) that describe

the environmental fate of mercury during the life-cycle of mercury-added products have been

applied to exported products as well (see table below). Most of the mercury ends up in waste

disposal facilities since the overall recycling efficiency of the products is low. Depending on the

type and quality of the landfill where mercury-added products are disposed of, mercury may

be released to soil, groundwater and air. The waste management systems in importing

countries may be very different from those in the EU, but there is not enough information that

would allow a more detailed analysis.



Table 21: Environmental fate of mercury in some exported products

Product Hg in exported products

[t/year]

Hg quantities released or going to waste disposal [t/year]

Municipal solid waste

disposal

Other waste disposal

Release by use/breakage

Mercury oxide button cells

3-4

2-3 (67%) (1) 0.7-0.9 (20%) (0%)

Mercury oxide batteries - cylindrical

7 4.7 (67%) 1.4 (20%) (0%)

Mercury oxide batteries - other

7 4.7 (67%) 1.4 (20%) (0%)

Mercury oxide battery material

12-14 8-9.3 (67%) 2.4-2.8 (20%) (0%)

Measuring devices 6-10 3.4 -5.9 (60%) 0.9 -1.5 (15%) 0.3-0.5 (5%)

- Barometers 0.1-0.5

- Sphygmomanometers 5-8

- Thermometers 0.5-0.8

- Tensiometers 0

Switches and relays and other electrical components

0.3 0.1 (40%) 0.03 (10%) (0%)

Total 35-42 23-28 12-13 0.3 – 0.5

(1) Shown in brackets are the % of mercury ending up in the specified stream (the remainder corresponds to recycling)


If elemental mercury could no longer be exported for medical uses, approximately 20-

69 t/year of elemental mercury from the EU would no longer enter the global market and the

environmental impacts resulting from the use of this mercury could be avoided. In the future,

if the EU demand for mercury is higher than the supply by dealers’ stocks and by domestic

recycling, this quantity of mercury that is no longer exported could partially or fully replace

imported mercury. If the EU demand is lower than domestic supply, then part of this amount

would have to be disposed of since there would be no adequate demand within the EU. The

amount of mercury concerned (20-69 t/year) would be too low to cause price fluctuations on

the global market. Mercury that is no longer exported by the EU would no longer be available

for ASM outside the EU, although this could be compensated by additional exports by the USA

(essential use exemption) for example. Therefore, the environmental benefits could be as

follows:

• If EU supply is replaced by mercury from other sources: the potential reduction of

supply to ASM would be 20-69 t/year. Considering current global mercury demand for

October 2010



ASM and associated mercury emissions from these activities196,197, the avoided

mercury emissions resulting from a reduced supply of 20-69 t/year would be in the

order of 7-23 t/year for atmospheric emissions and 13-46 t/year for emissions to

water/soil (occurring outside the EU).

• If EU supply is replaced by US exports (after US export ban): no effect.

Amalgam use patterns outside the EU are not likely to change in the case of the EU stopping

exporting liquid mercury for dental use. Dentists who prefer preparing amalgams themselves

would continue to do so. The only change would be at the level of retailers who would have to

import liquid mercury from a different source. If US supplies replace EU supplies, the overall

benefit would be zero. It would therefore be important to agree on international trade

restrictions that would not allow export of liquid mercury for dental use. In this case retailers

would be forced to rely on national sources of supply, and if these are non-existent, leave

dentists with the only alternative that is to use prefabricated amalgam mixtures instead.

It should be noted that the environmental benefits of an export ban on liquid mercury for

dental purposes are probably higher than those previously discussed, because some mercury is

exported for dental use but then diverted for ASM within importing countries. Such export

would be illegal if the actual intended use was known. It seems almost impossible for EU

exporters to check whether the actual use of the exported mercury corresponds with the

statements the importer has given. This is probably true for all allowed uses, but according to

present data, the demand for liquid mercury is much higher for dental than for R&D and

analysis purposes198.


An EU export ban on mercury compounds would lead to a global cut of supply in the order of

64-634 t/year mercury. This estimate includes (probably) minor but not quantified exports of

mercury (II) oxide and mercury (I) chloride, both of which are already subject to Regulation

1102/2008. The uncertainty is very large and the environmental impacts may differ

significantly, depending on whether the annual exports are at the lower or the higher end of

the estimated range.

Mercury not exported by the EU could be used to replace future mercury imports into the EU

or, if the supply from recycling is sufficient, could be disposed of and permanently removed

from the biosphere. In the importing countries, the lower supply from the EU would increase

the demand/supply ratio and therefore the mercury price. In the short-term export cuts in the




198 COWI (2008) p. 8.



order of 64 t/year would probably have a limited effect on the global supply situation and the

mercury price. Mercury compounds no longer exported by the EU could easily be

manufactured by non-EU companies that would have to remove some mercury from the

market in order to synthesize the desired compounds. This mercury would no longer be

available for ASM uses; considering current global mercury demand for ASM and associated

mercury emissions from these activities199,200, atmospheric emissions in the order of 21 t and

emissions to soil and water in the order of 43 t could be avoided annually.

Export cuts in the order of 634 t/year would have an effect of the same order of magnitude as

the current export ban for elemental mercury. It would have a strong impact on the mercury

price and would cause a sensitive decrease of mercury quantities available on the market.

Should the totality of this supply cut affect only ASM activities, then up to 190 t/year of

mercury released to the atmosphere could be avoided. On the other hand, higher prices for

mercury would be an incentive to establish or improve international recycling activities, thus

reducing input of mercury to landfills.

In the long-term, higher prices for mercury and mercury compounds would support global

activities to reduce mercury consumption and to substitute mercury in products and process.


The potential environmental impacts of such a ban would depend on the range of products

that would be prohibited within the EU. At the moment this would mainly affect: fever

thermometers, other measuring devices intended for sale to the general public and mercury

oxide batteries that are not intended for allowed uses201. One scenario would be that the

export of all mercury oxide batteries (as there is no way to restrict the use of mercury

batteries once they have left the EU), mercury oxide battery materials and all measuring

devices would be banned. In such case, 35-42 t of mercury would be prevented from entering

the global market each year (see Table 20). Depending on the capacity of non-EU

manufacturers to step into the breach, part or all of these products could be produced in other

countries. If the number of suppliers decreases while the number of consumers remain

constant, the price for mercury-added products would rise so that alternative mercury-free

products would become more attractive. A higher consumption of 35-42 t of mercury for

products manufacture would lead to a lower supply for other sectors, including ASM. Potential

environmental impacts could be as follows:




201 According to the Battery Directive 91/157/EC this includes (a) emergency and alarm systems, including emergency lighting; (b) medical equipment; or (c) cordless power tools.

October 2010



• Scenario A: Non-EU consumers switch to mercury free alternatives. Under this

scenario, the avoided environmental impacts would include a 35-42 t/year reduction

of mercury disposed of in various waste streams, while avoided releases from

use/breakage would be negligible. No effect on ASM is expected.

• Scenario B: EU products are replaced by mercury-added products from other

countries. Under this scenario, 35-42 t of mercury would no longer be available for

ASM and the avoided environmental releases would be in the order of 12 t for

atmospheric emissions and 29 t for emissions to soil/water202,203.

Actual reductions in mercury emissions are expected to be between these two scenarios. It is

noted that there might be a limited temporary need for certain mercury-added products for

calibration purposes because many international standards rely on mercury-added measuring

devices. The number of devices that are needed for such purposes and the amount of mercury

they contain are probably rather low and not considered in the above calculations.

4.4.3. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPACTS

Economic and social impacts discussed in this section mainly focus on the companies exporting

mercury, mercury compounds and mercury-added products since they are expected to be the

main actors affected by the policy options analysed.


Under this baseline scenario, EU companies that export elemental mercury and mercury

compounds and mixtures covered by Regulation 1102/2008 would be affected by the export

ban from 15 March 2011 (except for the exempted applications). EU companies that export

other mercury compounds and mixtures than those covered by the export ban and EU

companies that export mercury-added products could continue their business.


Pursuing this option would avoid 20-69 t/year of elemental mercury from being exported. The

average value of exported mercury during the last three years was 12,400 EUR/t204. Combining

these data, the revenues for mercury exporting companies would decrease by 230,000 to

850,000 EUR. The number of employees that could be affected could not be derived.




204 ComExt database




The value of exported mercury compounds was reported to be between 2.4 and 6.8 Mio EUR

(see Table 19). Mercury (II) oxide and mercury (I) chloride that may not be exported after 15

March 2011 account for this amount, but could not be quantified. The number of employees

that could be affected by this policy option could not be derived.


The main economic impact would be a loss of revenue/jobs for EU companies exporting

mercury-added products and a possible revenue/job increase for EU companies exporting

mercury-free alternatives.

With regard to measuring equipment, the following employment data are provided by COWI

(2008):

• Mercury sphygmomanometers: it was estimated that 25-45 persons were employed in

the manufacturing of mercury sphygmomanometers exported to non-EU countries.

• Mercury thermometers: 500 to 750 persons may be employed in the EU for the

manufacture of mercury thermometers for extra EU export. It is noted that

manufacturers of electronic thermometers are mostly located outside the EU.

• Mercury barometers: it was estimated that 2-20 persons were employed in the

manufacturing of mercury barometers exported to non-EU countries.

No data is available on the value of exported mercury-added products.

4.4.4. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS

Administrative costs associated with the various options are expected to be small, since the

options considered would likely involve amending the scope of existing Regulation 1102/2008

rather than implementing new legislation.

4.4.5. CONCLUSIONS

Table 22 below summarises the pros and cons of the various policy options analysed. Policy

options B, C and D could be taken independently from each other. As discussed in the above

paragraphs, since the main objective of these policy options is to contribute to global efforts to

reduce mercury use worldwide, their actual efficiency would partly depend on whether similar

actions are taken by non-EU countries also involved in the export of mercury and mercury-

added products.

October 2010



Table 22: Summary of pros and cons of policy options related to further mercury export restrictions


Option A: No additional action

No legal or administrative changes • The limited scope of the current EU export ban (exemption for medical purposes; most mercury compounds not covered) may result in significant quantities of mercury which could still enter the world market and contribute to global environmental and health damages, especially in the case of illegal use for ASM.

• Mercury-added products that are not allowed to be marketed within the EU may still be exported to non-EU countries and contribute to health and environmental damages through their life-cycle.

Option B: Extend the export ban of elemental mercury to medical purposes

• Avoided mercury emissions from ASM, outside the EU

• Loss of revenue and jobs in EU companies exporting elemental mercury for medical purposes

Option C: Extend the export ban to other mercury compounds

• Avoid mercury emissions occurring during the life-cycle of these compounds, outside the EU

• Reduce availability of mercury on the global market and increase price

• Avoid consumption and release of mercury in ASM

• Increase the availability of mercury in the EU and close the potential supply gap in the case of an import ban

• Loss of revenue and jobs in EU companies exporting other mercury compounds

Option D: Ban the export of mercury-added products

• Avoid mercury emissions occurring during the life-cycle of products, outside the EU (mainly caused by improper waste disposal), as long as the cessation of EU exports is not compensated by exports by other countries (e.g. USA). If this is compensated by exports by other countries, less mercury

• Loss of revenue and jobs in EU companies exporting mercury-added products




would be available for ASM and some mercury emissions from ASM would be avoided.

• Possible increase in revenue and jobs for EU companies exporting mercury-free alternative products

4.5. COMPARISON OF POLICY OPTIONS

The summary table below (Table 23) provides a comparison of the various policy options

analysed in this study according to a number of key impact indicators.

With regard to reducing mercury supply from recycling and import, it seems that an import

ban on mercury and mercury compounds would be an appropriate measure to further reduce

supply in the EU. The gap between predicted demand and supply would likely be closed by

improved recycling activities and a decrease in mercury use.

With regard to further mercury export restrictions, policy options B, C and D could all provide

global environmental benefits by contributing to a global reduction of mercury use, with

probably limited negative economic and social impacts within the EU. However, the actual

efficiency of these policy options would very much depend on whether non-EU countries

involved in mercury export also take similar actions.

October 2010



Table 23: Comparison of policy options according to key impact indicators

Impact indicators Option A

(business as usual)

Reducing mercury supply Further restricting mercury export

Option B (mercury from

recycling)

Option C (imported mercury)

Option B (mercury for

medical purposes)

Option C (mercury

compounds)

Option D (mercury-added

products)

Environmental impact indicators (1)

EU mercury use ↘(2) ↘↘ ↘↘↘ ↘(2) ↘(2) ↘↘(6)

Mercury emissions to air/water/soil within the EU No change or ↘ No effect ++ No effect No effect + (6)

Recycling of mercury-containing products within the EU No change or ↗ ↘ ↗↗↗ No effect No effect No effect

Mercury use outside the EU (in particular for ASM) No change or ↘

↘ (in the short term)

↗ (in the short term)

↘ or ↘↘ ↘ or ↘↘ No effect

Mercury emissions to air/water/soil outside the EU ? ? ? ++ ++ ++

Recycling of mercury-containing products outside the EU ? No effect or ↗ No effect or ↘ ↗ ↗ ↗

Economic impact indicators

Revenue of EU manufacturing industry using mercury ↘ (2) No effect - No effect No effect -

Revenue of EU industry exporting mercury, mercury compounds and mercury-added products

↘ (3) No effect No effect - - -

Revenue of EU manufacturers of mercury-free products ↗ (2) ++ +++ No effect No effect ++

Revenue of EU recycling industry No change or ↗ -- ++ No effect No effect No effect

Innovation (mercury-free alternatives) ↗ (2) ++ +++ No effect No effect ++

Social impact indicators

Jobs in EU manufacturing industry using mercury ↘ (2) No effect - No effect No effect -

Jobs in EU manufacturers of mercury-free products ↗ (2) + + No effect No effect +

Jobs in EU recycling industry No change or ↗ - + No effect No effect No effect



Impact indicators Option A

(business as usual)

Reducing mercury supply Further restricting mercury export

Option B (mercury from

recycling)

Option C (imported mercury)

Option B (mercury for

medical purposes)

Option C (mercury

compounds)

Option D (mercury-added

products)

Health conditions in third countries ? ? ? ++ (7) ++ (7) ++ (7)

Other criteria

Administrative costs None Small Small Small Small Small

Mercury price on the global market ↗(?) (3)

No effect or ↗↗ (4)

No effect or ↘ (5)

No effect or ↗ No effect or ↗ No effect or ↗

Legend: Likely effects:

‘+++’: very beneficial effect; ‘++’: substantial beneficial effect; ‘+’: slight beneficial effect; ‘-‘: negative effect, ‘--‘: substantial negative effect; ‘---‘: very negative effect; ‘↗’: increase; ‘↗↗’: substantial increase; ‘↗↗↗’: very significant increase; ‘↘’: decrease; ‘↘↘’: substantial decrease; ‘↘↘↘’: very significant decrease; ‘?’: unknown effect Notes/assumptions:

(1) In proper terms, these indicators do not correspond to environmental “impacts” but they are strongly correlated with the potential impacts (actual long-term impacts such as methylmercury levels in fish are difficult to quantify)

(2) As a result of current EU policies restricting mercury use and possible future policies requiring further use restrictions (3) As a result of the EU mercury export ban coming into force in March 2011 (4) Depending on whether there is a gap in EU demand which would have to be filled by increased imports to the EU, and on whether non-EU countries would

increase their mercury production (5) As a result of more mercury being available on the global market (6) As a result of decreased EU production of mercury-added products

(7) As a result of a possible decrease in mercury use for ASM

October 2010



ANNEXES

October 2010



List of Annexes:

Annex 1 – EU legislation concerning mercury

Annex 2 – Key policy and best practice initiatives concerning

mercury

Annex 3 – Additional data on mercury emissions

Annex 4 – Mercury in energy-saving light bulbs

Annex 5 – Screening assessment of possible additional policy

measures and actions

October 2010



5. ANNEX 1 – EU LEGISLATION CONCERNING MERCURY

CURRENT AND FORTHCOMING EU LEGISLATION CONCERNING

MERCURY

Mercury export ban

LEGAL INSTRUMENT Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 of 22 October 2008 on the banning of exports of metallic mercury and certain mercury compounds and mixtures and the safe storage of metallic mercury (OJ L 304, 14.11.2008)

MAIN RELEVANT PROVISIONS

The ban forms a key part of the EU's strategy for reducing global exposure to mercury, as it will significantly reduce global supply and thereby also emissions of the heavy metal into the environment.

The ban concerns metallic mercury, cinnabar ore, mercury (I) chloride, mercury (II) oxide and mixtures of metallic mercury with other substances, including alloys of mercury, with a mercury concentration of at least 95 % weight by weight exported from the Community. Exemptions exist for mercury compounds used for research and development, medical and analysis purposes.

The Regulation provides that the following shall be considered as waste:

- metallic mercury that is no longer used in the chlor-alkali industry;

- metallic mercury gained from the cleaning of natural gas;

- metallic mercury gained from non-ferrous mining and smelting operations; and

- metallic mercury extracted from cinnabar ore in the Community.

The Regulation includes provisions for the safe storage of metallic mercury waste, which may be:

- temporarily stored for more than one year or permanently stored in salt mines adapted for the disposal of metallic mercury, or in deep underground, hard rock formations providing a level of safety and confinement equivalent to that of those salt mines; or

- temporarily stored for more than one year in above-ground facilities dedicated to and equipped for the temporary storage of metallic mercury.

The Regulation identifies a number of points to be considered for its future revision:

- An exchange of information between the Member States and the relevant stakeholders shall take place by 1 January 2010 to



examine the need for:

a) extending the export ban to other mercury compounds, mixtures with a lower mercury content and products containing mercury, in particular thermometers, barometers and sphygmomanometers;

b) an import ban of metallic mercury, mercury compounds and products containing mercury;

c) extending the storage obligation to metallic mercury from other sources;

d) time limits concerning temporary storage of metallic mercury.

- The Commission will keep under review ongoing research activities on safe disposal options, including solidification of metallic mercury. The Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council by 1 January 2010. On the basis of this report, the Commission shall, if appropriate, present a proposal for a revision of this Regulation as soon as possible and not later than 15 March 2013.

DEADLINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION

The export ban and mercury waste management requirements will become applicable in all Member States from 15 March 2011.

OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION

Euro Chlor, the business association representing chlor-alkali producers in Europe, has pledged to ensure safe underground storage of mercury surpluses from the industry once this ban takes effect.

Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC)

LEGAL INSTRUMENT Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (“IPPC” Directive) (OJ L 257, 10.10.96)

Codified version: Directive 2008/1/EC of 15 January 2008 concerning

integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ L24, 29.1.2008)205


The purpose of the IPPC Directive is to achieve integrated prevention and control of pollution arising from the activities listed in Annex I of the Directive (energy industries, production and processing of metals, mineral industry, chemical industry, waste management and other activities like intense livestock farming, pulp and paper industry and tanneries). It lays down the requirement to prevent or, where that is not practicable, to reduce pollution of the air, water and land, including from mercury and its compounds, from the above-mentioned activities, including measures concerning waste, in order to achieve a high level of protection of the environment taken as a whole. Control is to be achieved by way of a permitting regime whereby the operator of an installation applies for a permit and a competent authority determines whether or not a permit is to be

205 The codified act includes all the previous amendments to the Directive 96/61/EC and introduces some

linguistic changes and adaptations (e.g. updating the number of legislation referred to in the text). The substance of Directive 96/61/EC has not been changed and the adopted new legal act is without prejudice to the new Proposal for a Directive on Industrial Emissions.

October 2010



issued. Among other requirements, permits are to include emission limit values (or equivalent parameters or technical measures) which are to be based on the “Best Available Techniques” (BAT) for the sector, but taking account of the technical characteristics of the installation concerned, its geographical location and the local environmental conditions.


The Directive entered into force on 30 October 1999. New installations, and substantial changes to existing installations, require a permit issued in accordance with the Directive before they are brought into operation. Existing installations had to be brought into compliance with the requirements of the Directive by 30 October 2007.


In order to support the implementation of the Directive the Commission is producing a series of BAT Reference documents (BREFs) on best available techniques for the main industry sectors under the Directive. An important document concerning mercury is the BREF on chlor-alkali manufacturing, adopted in December 2001, which concludes that mercury cells are not BAT. This BREF is under review; in particular, information on the decommissioning of mercury cell plants will be updated and complemented in the revised version. The review of the BREF started in 2009 (the kick-off meeting report from October 2009 is available on eippcb.jrc.es/pages/FActivities.htm).

Other relevant BREF documents containing information on BAT to reduce mercury emissions cover the following sectors: large combustion plants; large volume inorganic chemicals; cement, lime and magnesium oxide manufacturing industries; non-ferrous metal industries; production of iron and steel; waste incineration; and waste treatment industries.

The IPPC Directive will be replaced soon by the new Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) which was endorsed by the European Parliament in July 2010. The IED recasts seven existing Directives related to industrial emissions into a single legislative instrument206. The recast includes the IPPC Directive, the Large Combustion Plants Directive, the Waste Incineration Directive and four other Directives. The aim of the new Directive is to tackle the shortcomings of current legislation on industrial emissions. The proposal for this new Directive does not include emission limit values (ELVs) for mercury for activities other than waste incineration, but it puts greater emphasis on the use of BAT for setting ELVs in permits.

206 Proposal for Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions

(integrated pollution prevention and control) (Recast) [COM(2007) 843 final], December 2007: eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0844:FIN:EN:PDF



European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR)

LEGAL INSTRUMENT Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 of 18 January 2006 concerning the establishment of a European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (OJ L 33, 4.2.2006)


This Regulation sets up a European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR) at EU level in the form of a publicly accessible electronic database. This database will meet the requirements of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE) Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers, signed by the Community in May 2003.

The E-PRTR replaces the European Pollutant Emission Register (EPER) which had been implemented in 2000. The E-PRTR goes beyond the requirements of the EPER, for example by including a greater number of pollutants and activities as well as releases to land, releases from diffuse sources and off-site transfers.

Member States are required to submit reports to the Commission on emissions from all individual facilities with one or more activities mentioned in Annex I, which include in particular those covered by Directive 96/61/EC (the "IPPC" Directive).

The reports must include details of emissions for all pollutants for which the thresholds specified in an Annex are exceeded. The reporting thresholds for mercury and its compounds are 10 kg/year for emissions to air, 1 kg/year for emissions to water and 1 kg/year for emissions to land.

DEADLINE FOR

IMPLEMENTATION Under the EPER, the first set of emissions data, covering the year 2001, was published in 2004. The second data set, covering 2004, was published in autumn 2006.

Under the E-PRTR, the first set of emissions data, covering the year 2007, was published in 2009. The next report in 2010 will cover 2008 data.


Data is available from the E-PRTR website (prtr.ec.europa.eu) which also includes data from the previous EP ER.

Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH)

LEGAL INSTRUMENT Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency (…) (OJ L 136, 29.5.2007), as amended

Main recent amendment related to mercury: Regulation (EC) No 552/2009 of 22 June 2009 amending Annex XVII of REACH (OJ L164, 26.6.2009)

MAIN RELEVANT

PROVISIONS REACH replaces over 40 existing Directives and Regulations, including Directive 76/769/EEC under which certain restrictions on the use of mercury had been established.

Registration: Chemicals manufactured or imported in quantities of

October 2010



more than one tonne per year and per manufacturer/importer have to be registered in a central database managed by the European Chemicals Agency. The registration includes information on properties (such as physicochemical, toxicological and eco toxicological properties), uses and safe ways of handling the chemicals. Information shall be passed down the supply chain, so that those that use chemicals in their own production processes – to produce other products – could do so in a safe and responsible way. To cope with the large number of “existing” substances a phased approach is proposed. The deadlines for registration are set according to the volume of the substance on the market or the hazard. The shortest deadlines apply to very high volume substances (above 1000 tonnes), and carcinogenic, mutagenic or reproduction toxic (CMR) substances above 1 tonne. These will have to be registered within 3 years.

Evaluation: The competent authorities may evaluate any substance where they had justified reasons to suspect that there was a risk to human health or the environment. The programme of substance evaluations is based on rolling plans prepared by Member State Competent Authorities. The programme takes account of criteria for setting priorities drawn up by the Agency.

Authorisation: All substances of very high concern are subject to authorisation. Authorisations apply to particular uses of the substance in question. Authorisation may be granted only if the producer or importer can show that risks from the use in question can be adequately controlled, or that the socio-economic benefits of the use of the substance outweigh the risks. In the latter case, the possibility of substitution shall be considered.

Annex XVII of REACH establishes a list of dangerous substances, preparations and articles subject to restrictions on the manufacture, placing on the market and use. For mercury, restrictions are as follows:

Item 18:

1. Mercury compounds shall not be used as substances and constituents of preparations intended for use:

a) to prevent the fouling by micro-organisms, plants or

animals of:

- the hulls of boats,

- cages, floats, nets and any other appliances or equipment used for fish or shellfish farming,

- any totally or partly submerged appliances or equipment;

b) in the preservation of wood;

c) in the impregnation of heavy-duty industrial textiles and yarn intended for their manufacture;

d) in the treatment of industrial waters, irrespective of their use.

2. The placing on the market of batteries and accumulators, containing more than 0,0005 % of mercury by weight, including in those cases where these batteries and accumulators are incorporated into appliances shall be



prohibited. Button cells and batteries composed of button cells with a mercury content of no more than 2 % by weight

shall be exempted from this prohibition.

Item 18a:

1. Mercury shall not be placed on the market:

(a) in fever thermometers;

(b) in other measuring devices intended for sale to the general public (e.g. manometers, barometers, sphygmomanometers, thermometers

other than fever thermometers).

2. The restriction in paragraph 1(b) shall not apply to:

(a) measuring devices more than 50 years old on 3 October 2007; or

(b) barometers (except barometers within point (a)) until 3 October 2009.

3. By 3 October 2009 the Commission shall carry out a review of the availability of reliable safer alternatives that are technically and economically feasible for mercury containing sphygmomanometers and other measuring devices in healthcare and in other professional and industrial uses.

On the basis of this review or as soon as new information on reliable safer alternatives for sphygmomanometers and other measuring devices containing mercury becomes available, the Commission shall, if appropriate, present a legislative proposal to extend the restrictions in paragraph 1 to sphygmomanometers and other measuring devices in healthcare and in other professional and industrial uses, so that mercury in measuring devices is phased out whenever technically and

economically feasible.


REACH entered into force on 1 June 2007.

Several deadlines were defined for the application of the various articles of the Directive, the deadline for the application of Annex XVII being 1 June 2009.

Regulation (EC) No 552/2009 amending Annex XVIII of REACH entered into force on 27 June 2009.


Several intentions to submit restriction proposals in accordance with

Annex XV of REACH have been notified recently207:

• In November 2009, on request of the Commission, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) notified its intention to submit a proposal for the restriction of the placing on the market and use of mercury containing sphygmomanometers and other measuring devices in healthcare and in other professional and industrial uses.

• In June 2009, Norway notified its intention to submit proposals for the restriction of some mercury compounds used in pesticides and as catalysts in polyurethane elastomer manufacture (phenylmercury 2-ethylhexanoate, phenylmercuric octanoate, phenylmercury acetate, phenylmercury neodecanoate, phenylmercury propionate). The scope of the restriction proposal


echa.europa.eu/chem_data/reg_int_tables/reg_int_curr_int_en.asp#current_restriction

October 2010



covers exposure from manufacture, placing on the market and use of substances, mixtures or articles containing the substances.

The above dossiers are expected to be submitted by 15 June 2010.

Restrictions on marketing and use of plant protection products

LEGAL INSTRUMENTS

Directive 79/117/EEC of 21 December 1978 prohibiting the placing on the market and use of plant protection products containing certain active substances (OJ L 33, 8.2.79)

Directive 91/188/EEC of 19 March 1991 amending for the fifth time the Annex to Directive 79/117/EEC prohibiting the placing on the market and use of plant protection products containing certain active substances (OJ L 92, 13.4.91)

Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (OJ L70, 16.3.2005), as amended

Regulation (EC) No 149/2008 of 29 January 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 by establishing Annexes II, III and IV setting maximum residue levels for products covered by Annex I thereto (OJ L58, 1.3.2008)


According to Article 3 of Council Directive 79/117/EEC, plant protection products containing one or more of the following active substances may be neither placed on the market nor used: mercury oxide, mercurous chloride (calomel), other inorganic mercury compounds, alkyl mercury compounds, alkoxyalkyl and aryl mercury compounds.

Directive 91/188/EEC deleted some limited exemptions from these restrictions which had previously been allowed.

Regulation 149/2008 establishes maximum residue levels for certain food products. In these food products, the maximum residue level for mercury compounds is set at the lower limit of analytical determination, i.e. 0.01 mg/kg.


1 January 1981


Directive 79/117/EEC will be replaced by a Regulation on placing on the market of plant protection products, specifying strict criteria for approval of substances, to ensure a high level of protection for human and animal health and the environment. A proposal for this Regulation was issued in July 2006. According to the draft Regulation, active substance shall only be approved if they are not considered to be a persistent, bioaccumulating and toxic, unless exposure to humans is negligible.

Regulation 149/2008: entered into force on 1 September 2008.



Restrictions on marketing of biocides

LEGAL INSTRUMENT Directive 98/8/EC of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ L 123, 24.4.98)


Biocidal products cannot be placed on the market and used in the territory of the Member States unless authorised in accordance with Directive 98/8/EC. No biocidal products containing mercury have been authorised and accordingly they are banned in the Community.


14 May 2000

OTHER RELEVANT

INFORMATION On 12 June 2009, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a Regulation concerning the placing on the market and use of biocidal products (COM(2009)267). The proposed Regulation will repeal and replace the current Directive 98/8/EC.

Classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances

LEGAL INSTRUMENT Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (OJ L 353, 31.12.2008)

Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ B 196, 16.8.1967)

Directive 1999/45/EC of 31 May 1999 concerning the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations (OJ L 200, 30.7.1999)

NB: Directive 67/548/EEC and Directive 1999/45/EC will be repealed with

effect from 1 June 2015


The following substances have a harmonised classification and labelling in accordance with the provisions laid down in the Regulation and are included in its Annex:

- mercury (Index No. 080-001-00-0, EC No. 231-106-7);

- inorganic mercury compounds with the exception of mercuric sulphide and those specified elsewhere in the Annex (Index No. 080-002-00-6);

- dimercury dichloride, mercurous chloride, calomel (Index No. 080-003-00-1, EC No. 233-307-5);

- organic mercury compounds with the exception of those specified elsewhere in the Annex (Index No. 080-004-00-7);

- mercury difulminate, mercuric fulminate, fulminate of mercury (Index No. 080-005-00-2, EC No. 211-057-8);

- dimercury dicyanide oxide, mercuric oxycyanide (Index No. 080-006-00-8, EC No. 215-629-8);

- dimethylmercury; diethylmercury (Index No. 080-007-00-3);

October 2010



- phenylmercury nitrate; phenylmercury hydroxide; basic phenylmercury nitrate (Index No. 080-008-00-9);

- 2-methoxyethylmercury chloride (Index No. 080-009-00-4, EC No. 204-659-7);

- mercury dichloride, mercuric chloride (Index No. 080-010-00-X, EC No. 231-299-8);

- phenylmercury acetate (Index No. 080-011-00-5, EC No. 200-532-5).


Application deadline for substances: 1 December 2010 (before this date, provisions of Directive 67/548 still apply)

Application deadline for mixtures: 1 June 2015 (before this date, provisions of Directive 1999/45 still apply)

Export and import of certain dangerous chemicals

LEGAL INSTRUMENT Regulation (EC) No. 689/2008 of 17 June 2008 concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals (OJ L 204, 31.7.2008)

NB: Regulation (EC) No. 689/2008 replaces Regulation (EC) No. 304/2003 of

28 January 2003


The export of mercury compounds is prohibited by Regulation 1102/2008, but imports of mercury compounds into the EU would be subject to Regulation 689/2008.

Regulation 689/2008 implements the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade.

The Convention provides for an exchange of information between its parties on restrictions on hazardous chemicals and pesticides and their import and export. The trigger for action is when a party takes regulatory action to ban or severely restrict a hazardous chemical or pesticide in its own territory in order to protect human health and/or the environment. The party must then notify the Secretariat of the Convention of that ban or restriction. It should also make export of the substance subject to a notification procedure, whereby the first export annually to any party would have to be notified in advance to the designated authority in that country of destination. This obligation ends when the substance becomes subject to the PIC procedure and the importing party has given an import decision (see below).

When two notifications of bans or severe restrictions for the same substance have been received under the Convention from two geographic regions, a chemical review committee will consider whether these meet the criteria of Annex II to the Convention. The committee may recommend that the substance be added to the PIC procedure and prepare a decision guidance document (DGD), containing relevant information to help parties take an informed decision on whether or not to accept imports. If the Conference of the Parties decides that the chemical should be included in the PIC procedure, the DGD is circulated and all parties to the Convention should communicate an import decision to the Secretariat on whether and under what circumstances they wish to receive imports of the substance. Exporting parties are then obliged to ensure that their exporters comply with these wishes.



Mercury compounds (including inorganic mercury compounds, alkyl mercury compounds and alkyloxyalkyl and aryl mercury compounds) are subject to the PIC procedure (they are included in Annex I of Regulation 689/2008 which establishes the list of chemicals subject to the PIC procedure). In addition, soaps containing mercury (included in

Annex V of the Regulation) are subject to export ban.


1 August 2008

Safety of toys

LEGAL INSTRUMENT Directive 2009/48/EC of 18 June 2009 on the safety of toys (OJ L 170, 30.6.2009)

NB: Directive 2009/48/EC replaces Directive 88/378/EEC of 3 May 1988,

which will be repealed with effect from 20 July 2011


Directive 2009/48 lays down rules on the safety of toys and on their free movement in the Community. Annex II sets out essential safety requirements for toys, including migration limit values for a variety of chemicals including mercury. Migration limit values for mercury are

defined as follows:

- 7.5 mg/kg in dry, brittle, powder-like or pliable toy material

- 1.9 mg/kg in liquid or sticky toy material

- 94 mg/kg in scraped-off toy material.

These provisions differ from those of the previous Directive (88/378/EEC) in which limit values where established in terms of bioavailability resulting from the use of toys (0.5 µg/day for mercury).


Directive 2009/48 entered into force on 20 July 2009 and the transposition deadline in Member States is 20 January 2011. Measures set out in the Directive shall apply in Member States from 20 July 2011.

Cosmetics

LEGAL INSTRUMENT Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (as amended) (OJ L 262 , 27.9.76)


Mercury and its compounds may not be present as ingredients in cosmetics, including soaps, lotions, shampoos, skin bleaching products, etc., except for phenyl mercuric salts for conservation of eye makeup and products for removal of eye make-up in concentrations not exceeding 0.007% weight-to-weight (e.g. thiomersal) that are marketed within the European Community.


Member States had to bring into force the measures needed to comply with Directive 76/768/EEC no later than 27 March 1978.

October 2010



Electrical and electronic equipment

LEGAL INSTRUMENTS

Directive 2002/95/EC of 27 January 2003 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (“RoHS” Directive) (OJ L 37, 13.2.2003)

Directive 2002/96/EC of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (“WEEE” Directive) (OJ L 37, 13.2.2003)


The “RoHS” Directive requires the substitution of certain heavy metals and other substances, including mercury, in new electrical and electronic equipment by 1 July 2006. However, a maximum concentration value of 0,1% by weight in homogeneous materials for lead, mercury, hexavalent chromium, polybrominated biphenyls and polybrominated biphenyl ethers is tolerated (this provision was added by Commission Decision 2005/618/EC of 18 August 2005).

Some applications of mercury are exempted. For mercury, these are:

• the use of mercury in compact fluorescent lamps not exceeding 5 mg per lamp

• the use of mercury in straight fluorescent lamps not exceeding

- halophosphate – 10 mg

- triphosphate with normal lifetime – 5 mg

- triphosphate with long lifetime – 8 mg

• the use of mercury in straight fluorescent lamps for special purposes

• the use of mercury in other lamps not specifically mentioned in the annex

• the use of mercury as a cathode sputtering inhibitor in DC plasma displays with a content up to 30 mg per display until 1 July 2010.

Each exemption must be reviewed at least every four years with the aim of considering deletion. A comitology procedure is established to provide for this, and to consider any further exemptions. Some of the exempted applications, including use of mercury in straight fluorescent lamps, are identified as priorities for review by this comitology procedure.

The “WEEE” Directive aims to prevent the generation of WEEE and to support the reuse, recycling and other forms of recovery of such waste. It also seeks to improve the environmental performance of all operators involved in the life cycle of electrical and electronic equipment. In particular, it required that producers, or third parties acting on their behalf, set up systems by 13 August 2004 to provide for the treatment of WEEE using best available treatment, recovery and recycling techniques. Member States must achieve a high level of separate collection for WEEE, and any mercury-containing components must be removed from any separately collected WEEE.


13 August 2004




In December 2008 the European Commission proposed to revise the RoHS and WEEE Directives in order to tackle the fast increasing waste stream of and electrical and electronic equipment. The aims are to increase the amount of e-waste that is appropriately treated and reduce the number that go to final disposal, and to reduce administrative burden.

Proposed amendments which may be relevant to the mercury issue include:

- The addition of medical devices and monitoring and control instruments within the scope of the RoHS Directive.

- A 4-year maximum validity period for the exemptions, which is set to stimulate substitution efforts, provide legal security and shift the burden of proof to the applicant, in line with REACH.

Ecodesign of non-directional household lamps

LEGAL INSTRUMENTS

Directive 2005/32/EC of 6 July 2005 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-using products and amending Directive 92/42/EEC and Directives 96/57/EC and 2000/55/EC (“Ecodesign Directive Energy-related Products”) (OJ L191, 22.7.2005)

Regulation (EC) No 244/2009 of 18 March 2009 implementing Directive 2005/32/EC with regard to ecodesign requirements for non-directional household lamps (OJ L 76, 24.3.2009)


Directive 2005/32/EC establishes a framework under which manufacturers and importers of energy-related products (ErP) will, at the design stage, be obliged to increase energy efficiency and reduce products’ negative environmental impacts.

Regulation 244/2009 establishes ecodesign requirements specific to non-directional household lamps, i.e. lamps that emit light in all directions. The non-directional household lamps covered by the Regulation are domestic lighting products such as incandescent, CFL and LED lamps. The Regulation encourages the replacement of incandescent light bulbs by more energy-efficient ones, however these more energy-efficient light bulbs usually contain mercury.

Annex IV of the Regulation provides indicative benchmarks for best-performing products and technology available on the market at the time of adopting the Regulation. With regard to mercury content of the lamps, it is indicated that the energy efficient compact fluorescent lamps with the lowest mercury content include not more than 1.23 mg

mercury. The Regulation requires that the amount of mercury in the bulb (in mg) is displayed on the packaging of each lamp.


There are six different stages for the gradual implementation of ecodesign requirements set by Regulation 244/2009, which extend from September 2009 through September 2016.

October 2010



Batteries and accumulators containing certain dangerous

substances

LEGAL INSTRUMENT Directive 2006/66/EC of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators (OJ L 266, 26.9.2006)

NB: Directive 2006/66/EC repeals and replaces Directive 91/157/EEC of

18 March 1991 on batteries and accumulators containing certain dangerous

substances


Directive 2006/66 prohibits the placing on the market of certain batteries and accumulators with a proportional mercury or cadmium content above a fixed threshold. The aim is to cut the amount of hazardous substances - in particular, mercury, cadmium and lead - dumped in the environment; this should be done by reducing the use of these substances in batteries and accumulators and by treating and re-using the amounts that are used.

For mercury, the threshold is 0.0005% by weight in batteries and accumulators, whether or not incorporated in appliances (except for button cells, which must have a mercury content of less than 2% by

weight).

The Directive applies to all types of batteries and accumulators, apart from those used in equipment to protect Member States' security or for military purposes, or in equipment designed to be sent into space. It therefore covers a wider range of products than Directive 91/157/EEC, which applied only to batteries containing mercury, lead or cadmium, and excluded "button cells".

To ensure that a high proportion of spent batteries and accumulators are recycled, Member States must take whatever measures are needed to promote and maximise separate waste collections and prevent batteries and accumulators being thrown away as unsorted municipal refuse. Collection rates of at least 25% and 45% have to be reached by 26 September 2012 and 26 September 2016 respectively.

The Directive also introduces labelling requirements in order to provide end-users with transparent, reliable and clear information on batteries and accumulators and any heavy metals they contain. The packaging of batteries, accumulators and button cells containing more than 0,0005 % mercury shall be marked with the chemical symbol Hg.


Transposition deadline in Member States: 26 September 2008.

Restrictions on the placing on the market had to be implemented by 26 September 2008.

Measures related to treatment and recycling had to be implemented by 26 September 2009.

Deadlines for achieving minimum collection targets of 25% and 45% are 26 September 2012 and 26 September 2016 respectively.



End-of-life vehicles

LEGAL INSTRUMENT Directive 2000/53/EC of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life vehicles (“ELV” Directive) (OJ L 269, 21.10.2000)


Directive 2000/53/EC lays down measures which aim, as a first priority, at the prevention of waste from vehicles and, in addition, at the reuse, recycling and other forms of recovery of end-of-life vehicles and their components so as to reduce the disposal of waste, as well as at the improvement in the environmental performance of all of the economic operators involved in the life cycle of vehicles and especially the operators directly involved in the treatment of end-of-life vehicles.

According to Article 4 of this Directive mercury, inter alia, is restricted in materials and components of vehicles. In particular, under Article 4(2)(a) Member States must ensure that materials and components of vehicles put on the market after 1 July 2003 do not contain mercury other than in

bulbs and instrument display panels.

In addition, under Article 6 Member States must ensure that end-of life vehicles are stored and treated in accordance with minimum specified technical requirements, including the removal, as far as possible, of all components identified as containing mercury.


21 April 2002

Packaging and packaging waste

LEGAL INSTRUMENTS

Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ L 365, 31.12.94), as amended by Directive 2004/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 (OJ L 47, 18.2.2004)

Commission Decision 2009/292/EC of 24 March 2009 establishing the conditions for a derogation for plastic crates and plastic pallets in relation to the heavy metal concentration levels established in Directive 94/62/EC (OJ L 79, 25.3.2009)

Commission Decision 2001/161 of 19 February 2001 establishing the conditions for a derogation for glass packaging in relation to the heavy metal concentration levels established in Directive 94/62/EC (OJ L 62, 2.3.2001), as amended by Commission Decision 2006/340/EC of 8 May 2006 (OJ L 125, 12.5.2006)


Directive 94/62/EC aims to harmonise national measures concerning the management of packaging and packaging waste in order to prevent environmental impacts in the Member States and third countries, and to avoid obstacles to trade in packaged goods. It lays down measures aimed, as a first priority, at preventing the production of packaging waste and, as additional fundamental principles, at reusing packaging, at recycling and other forms of recovering packaging waste and, hence, at reducing the final disposal of such waste.

Article 10 sets a specific reduction plan for heavy metals present in packaging. The sum of concentration levels of lead, cadmium, mercury

October 2010



and hexavalent chromium present in packaging or packaging components must not exceed specified levels, reducing with time. The maximum level was set at 600 ppm by weight by 30 June 1998, reducing to 100 ppm by

weight by 30 June 2001.

Some exemptions to these maximum levels exist for plastic crates and plastic pallets (see Decision 2009/292) and for glass packaging (see Decision 2006/340), in order to take into account issues related to the recycling of these materials.


30 June 2001

Hazardous waste

LEGAL INSTRUMENT Directive 2008/98/EC of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (“Waste Framework Directive”) (OJ L 312, 22.11.2008)

Commission Decision 2000/532/EC of 3 May 2000 replacing Decision 94/3/EC establishing a list of wastes pursuant to Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Council Decision 94/904/EC establishing a list of hazardous waste pursuant to Article 1(4) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste (OJ L 226, 6.9.2000) (as amended)

NB: Directive 91/689/EEC will be repealed with effect from 12

December 2010. Its provisions have been integrated into the Waste

Framework Directive.


Directive 2008/98 contains general provisions on the management of hazardous wastes (e.g. mixing ban, permit requirement for establishments or undertakings, hazardous waste producer’s record). Wastes are identified as hazardous based on properties listed in Annex III of the Directive.

By Commission Decision 2000/532/EC a list of waste was adopted. It contains characteristics (concentration thresholds) for the majority of properties listed in Annex III of Directive 2008/98. In addition, any waste marked with an asterisk (*) is considered as hazardous waste. The annex of the Decision explicitly contains the following waste codes:

05 07 01* Wastes containing mercury, from natural gas purification

06 04 04* Waste containing mercury

06 07 03* Barium sulphate sludge containing mercury, from the MFSU of

halogens and halogen chemical processes

10 14 01* Waste from gas cleaning containing mercury, from crematoria

16 01 08* Components containing mercury, from dismantling of vehicles

16 06 03* Mercury containing batteries

17 09 01* Construction and demolition wastes containing mercury

18 01 10* Amalgam waste from dental care

20 01 21* Fluorescent tubes and other mercury containing waste

There are also other specific waste codes that include the expression “… containing dangerous” which would include mercury.

DEADLINE FOR Directive 2008/98/EC: Member States have until 12 December 2010 to bring into force the requirements (until this date, Directive 91/689 remains



IMPLEMENTATION applicable)

Decision 2000/532/EC: 1 January 2002


The determination that waste is hazardous has implications in respect of the application of other Community measures. For example, if waste is to be exported then Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 on shipments of waste applies. This prevents hazardous waste being exported to non-OECD countries. However, as specified in the recitals of the “Mercury Export Ban” Regulation (No 1102/2008), in order to allow appropriate disposal of metallic mercury in the Community, the competent authorities of destination and dispatch are encouraged to avoid raising objections to shipments of metallic mercury waste.

Incineration of waste

LEGAL INSTRUMENT Directive 2000/76/EC of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste (OJ L 332, 28.12.2000)


The aim of this Directive is to prevent or to limit as far as practicable negative effects on the environment, in particular pollution by emissions into air, soil, surface water and groundwater, and the resulting risks to human health, from the incineration and co-incineration of waste. Emission limit values for discharges of waste water from the cleaning of exhaust gases at incineration plants are established in Annex IV of the Directive. The limit value for mercury is 0.03 mg/l. Air emission limit values for incineration plants are set out in Annex V. The limit value for mercury is 0.05 mg/m3, as an average value over a minimum period of 30 minutes and a maximum of 8 hours. Mercury in emissions to air has to be measured at least twice per year; mercury in emissions to water at least once per month.


These provisions apply to new installations as from 28 December 2002 and to existing installations as from 28 December 2005.


Most waste incineration facilities also fall under the scope of Directive 96/61 of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (the “IPPC” Directive). Where the application of the IPPC Directive would entail stricter requirements than those of Directive 2000/76, then these stricter requirements take precedence. A Best Available Techniques Reference Document (BREF) on waste incineration was published in 2006. The BREF provides indicative operational emission level ranges associated with the use of BAT for releases to air of incineration plants; for mercury and its compounds, these ranges are as follows: < 0.05 mg/Nm

3 for a non-continuous sample; 0.001-0.03 mg/Nm

3

as a ½ hour average and 0.001-0.02 mg/Nm3 as a 24h average.

October 2010



Storage and landfill of waste

LEGAL INSTRUMENTS

Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ L 182, 16.7.99)

Council Decision 2003/33/EC of 19 December 2002 establishing criteria and procedures for the acceptance of waste at landfills pursuant to Article 16 of and Annex II to Directive 1999/31/EC (OJ L 11, 16.1.2003)

Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (“Seveso Directive”) (OJL 010, 14.01.1997)


Directive 1999/31/EC aims to prevent or reduce negative effects on the environment and risk to human health from the landfilling of waste.

Article 4 requires that Member States classify landfills into the following categories:

– landfill for hazardous waste

– landfill for non-hazardous waste

– landfill for inert waste.

Member States must also ensure that certain wastes are not accepted in a landfill. These include liquid waste, and any other waste that does not fulfil the “acceptance criteria” determined in accordance with an annex. However, the “Mercury Export Ban” Regulation (No 1102/2008) introduces a derogation to the prohibition of liquid waste, in order to allow metallic mercury to be stored in specific above-ground facilities (temporarily) or in salt mines or deep underground, hard rock formations (temporarily or permanently) under certain conditions to minimise pollution risks.

Acceptance criteria were set out in Decision 2003/33/EC. They include specific mercury leaching values for wastes acceptable at the different classes of landfill.

Decision 2003/33/EC also sets out criteria for underground storage of waste. For the acceptance of waste in underground storage sites, a site-specific safety assessment must be carried out. Additional considerations are specified for deep storage in hard rock.

Articles 7 and 8 of Directive 1999/31 require that operators of landfills apply for permits and that competent authorities ensure that certain conditions will be met in those cases where landfilling is authorised. One such condition is that landfills comply with certain technical standards set in an annex, for example concerning protection of soil and water. Another is that operators maintain adequate financial security to meet their obligations, including aftercare.

According to the Mercury Export Ban Regulation (No 1102/2008), the “Seveso Directive” (Directive 96/82/EC) shall apply for the temporary above ground storage of liquid mercury. The Seveso directive aims at the “prevention of major accidents which involve dangerous substances, and the limitation of their consequences for man and the environment, with a view to ensuring high levels of protection”. The Seveso Directive requires that the possible risks of the storage of liquid mercury have to be identified and evaluated in a safety report by taking into consideration the specific properties of liquid mercury. In particular, the risks of accidental release



have to be taken into consideration and adequate measures have to be implemented to reduce on the one hand, the risk of accidental releases, and on the other hand to minimise subsequent potential negative effects to the environment. The assessment under the Seveso directive also includes possible scenarios in cases of natural disasters such as floods but also man-made threats such as terrorist attacks. Adequate management plans have to be established to fulfil these requirements.


Directive 1999/31 entered into force on 16 July 1999 and was to be transposed in the Member States by 16 July 2001. Member States had until 16 July 2009 to bring existing landfills into compliance.

From 15 March 2011, temporary above-ground storages of metallic mercury considered as waste according to Regulation 1102/2008 will be subject to Directive 96/82.

Sewage sludge

LEGAL INSTRUMENT Directive 86/278/EEC of 12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture (OJ L 181, 4.7.86)


Directive 86/278/EEC aims to regulate the use of sewage sludge in agriculture in such a way as to prevent harmful effects on soil, vegetation, animals and humans, while encouraging its correct use.

Member States must prohibit the application of sewage sludge to soil where the concentration of one or more metals in the soil exceeds the limit values laid down in a first annex. For mercury, the soil limit value is 1 to 1.5 mg/kg of dry matter for soils with a pH higher than 6 and lower than

7.

Member States must also regulate the use of sludge such that the accumulation of heavy metals in soil does not exceed the limit values. They can do this in one of two ways:

a) by laying down the maximum quantities of sludge which may be applied per unit of area per year while observing limit values for heavy metal concentration in sludge set in accordance with a second annex – for

mercury this limit value is 16 to 25 mg/kg of dry matter; or

b) by observing the limit values for the quantities of metals introduced into the soil per unit of area and unit of time as specified in a third annex – for mercury this limit value is 0.1 kg/ha/yr.

Reference methods for sampling and analysis are specified. Member States must also ensure that up-to-date records are kept of the quantities of sludge produced and used in agriculture, the composition and properties of the sludge, the type of treatment carried out, and the place where the sludge is used.


4 July 1989


The European Commission is currently assessing whether Directive 86/278 should be reviewed. For example, since its adoption, several Member States have enacted and implemented stricter limit values for heavy metals.

October 2010



Discharges of dangerous substances to water

LEGAL INSTRUMENTS

Directive 2000/60/EC of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (“Water Framework” Directive)(OJ L 327, 22.12.2000)

Decision 2001/2455/EC of 20 November 2001 establishing the list of priority substances in the field of water policy (OJ L 331, 15.12.2001)

Directive 2006/11/EC of 15 February 2006 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community (OJ L 64, 4.3.2006)

Directive 2008/105/EC of 16 December 2008 on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy, amending and subsequently repealing Directives 82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC, 86/280/EEC and amending Directive 2000/60/EC (OJ L 348, 24.12.2008)


Directive 2000/60/EC establishes a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater. Article 16 provides for the adoption of Community measures for substances included in a list of priority substances, i.e. those which present a significant risk to or via the aquatic environment. There are two levels of measures: (i) “priority substances” are subject to progressive reduction of pollution; and (ii) “priority hazardous substances” are subject to cessation or phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses within 20 years after adoption of measures. The list of priority substances is set out in Decision 2001/2455/EC, wherein mercury is identified as a “priority hazardous substance”.

Directive 2008/105/EC establishes limits, known as Environmental Quality Standards (EQS), for the 33 first priority substances. For mercury and its compounds, the EQS in surface waters are 0.05 µg/l as an annual average and 0.07 µg/l as maximum allowable concentration. However, Member States may opt to apply EQS for sediment and/or biota instead of waters, in certain categories of surface water; in such case, an EQS of 20 μg/kg for mercury and its compounds will be applied, this EQS being for prey tissue (wet weight), choosing the most appropriate indicator from among fish, molluscs, crustaceans and other biota.

Directive 2006/11 lays down rules for protection against, and prevention of, pollution resulting from the discharge of certain substances into the aquatic environment. It applies to inland surface water, territorial waters and internal coastal waters. To combat the pollution of these waters, two lists have been compiled of dangerous substances that need to be controlled:

- pollution caused by the discharge of substances in List I must be eliminated;

- pollution from the products in List II must be reduced.

Mercury and its compounds are included in List I. The Directive sets quality objectives and emission limit values for List I substances based on the best available techniques. These limit values are compulsory unless the Member States prove that the quality objectives are being met and continuously maintained. All discharges of List I substances require prior authorisation by the competent authority in the Member States concerned. The authorisation is granted for a limited period and lays down emission



standards which may be more stringent than the thresholds set by Community legislation, particularly to take account of the toxicity or persistence of the substance in the environment into which it is discharged. It is up to the Member States to ensure compliance with the emission standards.

DEADLINE FOR

IMPLEMENTATION Directive 2000/60 entered into force on 22 December 2000, with a deadline for transposition of 22 December 2003. The date for achievement of the environmental objectives is 22 December 2015, with ongoing implementation cycles thereafter.

For mercury and other priority hazardous substances, the cessation or phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses should be achieved within 20 years after adoption of measures. However, the recitals to Directive 2008/105/EC note that, for substances occurring naturally such as mercury, complete phase-out of emissions, discharges and losses from all potential sources is impossible.

Directive 2008/105 entered into force on 13 January 2009, and Member States had until 13 July 2010 to bring into force its requirements.


Directive 2006/11 will be repealed by the Water Framework Directive as from 22 December 2013.

Protection of groundwater

LEGAL INSTRUMENTS

Directive 80/68/EEC on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances (OJ L 20, 26.1.80)

Directive 2006/118/EC of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration (OJ L 372, 27.12.2006)

NB: Directive 80/68/E will be repealed in 2013


Directive 80/68/EEC aims to prevent the pollution of groundwater by substances set out in two lists in an Annex, and as far as possible to check or eliminate the consequences of pollution which has already occurred. Mercury and its compounds are included in the “List I of Families and Groups of Substances”, to which the most stringent requirements apply. Direct discharges (introduction without percolation through the ground or subsoil) of substances in List I into groundwater are prohibited. Any disposal or tipping of List I substances which might lead to indirect discharge (introduction after percolation through the ground or subsoil) must be subject to prior investigation. Member States must then prohibit such activity, or authorise it provided that all the technical precautions necessary to prevent such discharge are observed. In addition, all appropriate measures deemed necessary must be taken to prevent any indirect discharge of List I substances due to activities on or in the ground other than disposal or tipping.

Directive 80/68/EEC will be repealed by the Water Framework Directive in 2013, and Directive 2006/118/EC is designed to fill the legislative gap following the repeal of Directive 80/68/EEC.

Directive 2006/118/EC is designed to prevent and combat groundwater pollution. Its provisions include:

- criteria for assessing the chemical status of groundwater;

October 2010



- criteria for identifying significant and sustained upward trends in groundwater pollution levels, and for defining starting points for reversing these trends;

- preventing and limiting indirect discharges (after percolation through soil or subsoil) of pollutants into groundwater.

Groundwater is considered to have a good chemical status when a certain number of requirements are fulfilled, including when the levels of certain high-risk substances, such as mercury, are below the threshold values set by Member States. By 22 December 2008, Member States must set a threshold value for each pollutant identified in any of the bodies of groundwater within their territory considered to be at risk. The minimum list of pollutants to be considered includes mercury. For each pollutant on the list, information (as defined in Annex III to the Directive) must be provided on the groundwater bodies characterised as being at risk, as well as on how the threshold values were set. These threshold values must be included in the River Basin District Management Plans provided for under the Water Framework Directive. By 22 December 2009, the Commission will draw up a report based on the information provided by Member States. Member States must identify any significant and sustained upward trend in levels of pollutants found in bodies of groundwater. Member States must also define a starting point for reversing these upward trends.


Directive 2006/118 entered into force on 16 January 2007 and the transposition deadline was 16 January 2009.

Member States had until 22 December 2008 to set threshold values for mercury in groundwater.

Quality of shellfish waters

LEGAL INSTRUMENT Directive 2006/113/EC of 12 December 2006 on the quality required of shellfish waters (OJ L 376, 27.12.2006)

NB: Directive 2006/113/EC repeals and replaces Directive 79/923/EEC of 30

October 1979


Directive 2006/113 concerns the quality of shellfish waters, i.e. the waters suitable for the development of shellfish (bivalve and gasteropod molluscs). It applies to those coastal and brackish waters which need protection or improvement in order to allow shellfish to develop and to contribute to the high quality of shellfish products intended for human consumption. It is the Member States' responsibility to designate these waters.

Annex I of the Directive establishes parameters applicable to designated shellfish waters as well as indicative values, mandatory values, reference methods of analysis and the minimum frequency for taking samples and measures. These parameters are set for pH, temperature, salinity and the presence or concentration of certain substances (dissolved oxygen, hydrocarbons, metals, organohalogenated substances, etc.).

For metals, including mercury, the Directive recommends that the concentration of each substance in shellfish flesh be so limited that it contributes to the high quality of shellfish products. As a minimum requirement, the concentration of each substance in the shellfish water or in the shellfish flesh must not exceed a level which gives rise to harmful effects on the shellfish and their larvae. The synergic effects of



the metals must be taken into consideration.

On the basis of these criteria, Member States shall establish values with which the waters they have designated must comply. As a minimum, these limit values must respect the mandatory values set by the Directive. For metals or organohalogenated substances, these values must respect the emission rules established in line with Directive 2006/11/EC on the discharge of certain substances into the aquatic environment.


Directive 2006/113 entered into force on 16 January 2007.

Member States must establish programmes allowing them to comply with the limit values they have set within six years of designation of shellfish waters.

Drinking water quality

LEGAL INSTRUMENT Directive 98/83/EEC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (OJ L 330, 5.12.98)


According to Article 5 and Annex I, a maximum level of 1 μg/l is specified for mercury in drinking water.


25 December 2002


Directive 98/83/EEC is currently under revision. As part of the review process, a report on the revision of the list of chemical parameters was prepared by DHI for the Commission in 2008 (“Final report on the

establishment of a list of chemical parameters for the revision of the

Drinking Water Directive”). With regard to mercury, experience in Member States reportedly shows that mercury is rarely found in drinking water; the report therefore suggests that this parameter be deleted from the guidelines or that the maximum allowable level is increased to 6 μg/l in accordance with the WHO guideline value.

Sea protection

LEGAL INSTRUMENT Directive 2008/56/EC of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) (OJ L 164, 25.6.2008)

MAIN RELEVANT

PROVISIONS Directive 2008/56 establishes common principles on the basis of which Member States have to draw up their own strategies, in cooperation with other Member States and third countries, to achieve a good ecological status in the marine waters for which they are responsible. These strategies aim to protect and restore Europe's marine ecosystems and to ensure the ecological sustainability of economic activities linked to the marine environment.

Member States must firstly assess the ecological status of their waters and the impact of human activities. Member States must then determine the "good ecological status" of the waters on the basis of various criteria listed in Annex I, among which a criteria stating that “Contaminants in fish and

other seafood for human consumption do not exceed levels established by

October 2010



Community legislation or other relevant standards.”

On the basis of the evaluation of waters, Member States must define the objectives and indicators to achieve this good ecological status and must draw up a programme of specific measures. Member States must also establish coordinated monitoring programmes in order to evaluate on a regular basis the status of the waters for which they are responsible and progress with regard to the objectives they have set.

For the assessment the ecological status of waters, an indicative lists of pressures and impacts is provided in Table 2 of Annex III, which shall be taken into account. This list includes the contamination by hazardous substances, including the introduction of non-synthetic substances and compounds (e.g. heavy metals, hydrocarbons, resulting, for example, from pollution by ships and oil, gas and mineral exploration and exploitation, atmospheric deposition, riverine inputs).


Requirements of Directive 2008/56 had to be brought into force in Member States by 15 July 2010.

Air quality

LEGAL INSTRUMENTS

Directive 2008/50/EC of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ L 152, 11.6.2008)

Directive 2004/107/EC of 15 December 2004 relating to arsenic, cadmium, mercury, nickel and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in ambient air (OJ L 23, 26.1.2005)

NB: Directive 2008/50/EC repeals Directive 96/62/EC from 11 June 2010.


Directive 2008/50 merges four existing legislation into a single Directive with no change to existing air quality objectives. It defines the basic principles for a common approach for the assessment and management of ambient air quality in the EU. It requires Member States to assess ambient air quality throughout their territory. It sets requirements to define environmental objectives (limit values, target values, alert thresholds) for a number of air pollutants stated in an Annex to the Directive. It also sets obligations whereby Member States are required to draw up plans and programmes to show by which measures they are going to comply with a certain limit value by a certain attainment date.

Directive 2004/107 concerns certain air pollutants posing a risk to human health. Given that the substances involved are human carcinogens and that there is no identifiable threshold below which they do not pose a risk to human health, the Directive applies the principle of lowest possible exposure to them. Methylmercury is recognised as a possible human carcinogen while elemental mercury is considered not to be classifiable in terms of carcinogenicity. In Europe, concentrations of mercury in ambient air are below a level where they are believed to have adverse effects on human health. Therefore, mercury in ambient air is not regulated via a target value in Directive 2004/107. However, regardless of the concentration level, all substances covered by the measure, including total gaseous mercury, are to be measured at background sampling points with a spatial resolution of 100,000 km

2 in order to provide information on geographical variation and long term trends. The same requirements are laid down for deposition measurements of heavy metals and polycyclic



aromatic hydrocarbons. Each Member States shall set up at least one measuring station. Monitoring of particulate and gaseous divalent mercury is also recommended. Directive 2004/107 also determines methods and criteria for assessing concentrations and deposition of the substances in question and ensures that adequate information is obtained

and made available to the public.


Requirements of Directive 2008/50 had to be brought into force in Member States by 11 June 2010.

Requirements of Directive 2004/107 had to be brought into force in Member States by 15 February 2007.


According to Directive 2004/107, the Commission shall, by 31 December 2010 at the latest, submit a report presenting, among other aspects, the results of the most recent scientific research concerning the effects on human health, paying particular attention to sensitive populations, and on the environment as a whole, of exposure to mercury and other pollutants of concern. This report may be accompanied by proposals for amendments to this Directive. In addition the Commission shall consider regulating the deposition of mercury and other pollutants of concern.

Occupational exposure to chemicals

LEGAL INSTRUMENTS

Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998 on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work (OJ L 131, 5.5.98)

Directive 2009/161/EU of 17 December 2009 establishing a third list of indicative occupational exposure limit values in implementation of Directive 98/24/EC and amending Directive 2000/39/EC (OJ L 338, 19.12.2009)


Directive 98/24/EC lays down minimum requirements for the protection of workers from risks to their safety and health arising, or likely to arise, from the effects of all chemical agents that are present at the workplace or as a result of any work activity involving chemical agents. Consequently this framework Directive regulates all substances including mercury and its compounds.

According to Directive 2009/161, Member States shall establish national occupational exposure limit values for the chemical agents listed in the Annex, taking into account the Community values. For mercury and divalent inorganic mercury compounds including mercuric oxide and mercuric chloride (measured as mercury), the Community limit value is

0.02 mg/m3 as an 8-hour time-weighted average.


Directive 98/24: Member States were to have brought this Directive into effect no later than 5 May 2001.

Directive 2009/161 entered into force on 8 January 2010 and the requirements have to be brought into force in Member States by 18 December 2011.

October 2010



Contaminants in foodstuffs

LEGAL INSTRUMENTS

Regulation (EC) No. 1881/2006 of 19 December 2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs (OJ L 364,20.12.2006)

Commission Directive 2001/22/EC of 8 March 2001, laying down the sampling methods and the methods of analysis for the official control of the levels of lead, cadmium, mercury and 3-MCPD in foodstuffs (OJ L 77, 16.03.2001)

NB: Regulation 1881/2006 replaces Regulation 466/2001


Under Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006, a maximum level of 0.5 mg/kg wet weight is allowed for mercury in fishery products, with the exception of the following fish species for which a separate maximum level of 1 mg/kg wet weight applies: anglerfish (Lophius spp.), atlantic catfish (Anarhichas lupus), bass (Dicentrarchus labrax), blue ling (Molva

dipterygia), bonito (Sarda spp.), eel (Anguilla spp.), emperor or orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus), grenadier (Coryphenoides rupestris), halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus), marlin (Makaira spp.), pike (Esoxlucius), plain bonito (Orcynopsis unicolor), portuguese dogfish (Centroscymnes coelolepis), rays (Raja spp.), redfish (Sebastes marinus, S.

mentella, S. viviparus), sail fish (Istiophorus platypterus), scabbard fish (Lepidopus caudatus, Aphanopus carbo), shark (all species), snake mackerel or butterfish (Lepidocybium flavobrunneum, Ruvettus pretiosus, Gempylus serpens), sturgeon (Acipenser spp.), swordfish (Xiphias gladius) and tuna (Thunnus and Euthynnus spp.). For food supplements, the

maximum allowable level of mercury is 0.1 mg/kg wet weight.


1 March 2007

Contaminated sites

LEGAL INSTRUMENTS

Directive 2004/35/EC of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (“Environmental Liability Directive”)(OJLJ 143, 30.4.2004)

Soil Thematic Strategy (COM(2006) 231), 22 September 2006

Proposed Directive establishing a framework for the protection of soil and amending Directive 2004/35/EC (COM(2006) 232), 22 September 2006 (“Soil Framework Directive”)


The “Environmental Liability” Directive (No 2004/35) establishes a framework for the prevention and remedying of environmental damage based on the "polluter pays" principle. It applies to activities where environmental damage (land, water), risk for human health and damage to protected species and natural habitats are concerned. As laid down in the Mercury Export Ban Regulation (Recital 8 of Regulation EC No 1102/2008), it applies also to all storage facilities for metallic mercury. By implementing the ‘polluter pays’ principle, an operator causing environmental damage or creating an imminent threat of such damage shall, in principle, bear the cost of the necessary preventive or remedial measures. For the implementation of the Directive, systems of financial



guarantees for the operators and financial security instruments on site of the Member States shall be established.

The Soil Thematic Strategy sets a common EU framework for action to preserve, protect and restore soil. The proposed Soil Framework Directive sets out common principles, objectives and actions. It requires Member States to adopt a systematic approach to identifying and combating soil degradation, tackling precautionary measures and integrating soils protection into other policies. But it allows for flexibility - it is for the Member States to decide the level of ambition, specific targets and the measures to reach those. Among other aspects, Member States will have to prevent soil contamination, establish an inventory of contaminated sites on their territory and draw up national remediation strategies. Such a measure may be relevant to address the issue of mercury-contaminated sites.


Directive 2004/35 entered into force on 30 April 2004 and Member States had until 30 April 2007 to bring into force its requirements.

OTHER POLICY MEASURES

Euro Chlor Voluntary Agreement on the Safe Storage of

Decommissioned Mercury

LEGAL INSTRUMENT Commission Recommendation of 22 December 2008 on the safe storage of metallic mercury no longer used in the chlor-alkali industry


The Recommendation is addressed to Euro Chlor, the association of the chlor-alkali industry in Europe, which has concluded a Voluntary Agreement on the Safe Storage of Decommissioned Mercury.

Surplus mercury will be removed from decommissioned chlorine plants, transported to its final destination in approved sealed steel containers

and preferably stored in deep underground salt mines.

According to the Recommendation, Euro Chlor should:

- Use utmost care in selecting storage facilities for decommissioned mercury;

- Undertake to have contracts in place with the operators of such storage facilities that are classified and authorised for the disposal of hazardous waste;

- Engage to respect a high standard of technical requirements with respect to the containment of mercury, the preparation and filling operations as well as the loading and unloading of containers; and

- Provide relevant data related to decommissioned mercury on an annual basis.


22 December 2008

October 2010



European Environment and Health Action Plan 2004-2010

LEGAL INSTRUMENT European Environment and Health Action Plan 2004-2010 – Communication to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee (COM (2004) 416 final, 9.6.2004)


The Action Plan identifies 13 actions with a focus on:

– improving the information chain by developing integrated environment and health information

– filling the knowledge gap by strengthening research on environment and health and identifying emerging issues

– reviewing and adjusting risk reduction policy and improving communication

The Action Plan can be summarised as follows:

1 - IMPROVE THE INFORMATION CHAIN by developing integrated environment and health information to understand the links between sources of pollutants and health effects:

Action 1: Develop environmental health indicators

Action 2: Develop integrated monitoring of the environment, including food, to allow the determination of relevant human exposure

Action 3: Develop a coherent approach to biomonitoring in Europe

Action 4: Enhance coordination and joint activities on environment and health

2 - FILL THE KNOWLEDGE GAP by strengthening research on environment and health and identifying emerging issues

Action 5: Integrate and strengthen European environment and health research

Action 6: Target research on diseases, disorders and exposures

Action 7: Develop methodological systems to analyse interactions between environment and health

Action 8: Ensure that potential hazards on environment and health are identified and addressed

3 - RESPONSE: REVIEW POLICIES AND IMPROVE COMMUNICATION by developing Awareness Raising, Risk Communication, Training & Education to give citizens the information they need to make better health choices, and to make sure that professionals in each field are alert to environment and health interactions.

Action 9: Develop public health activities and networking on environmental health determinants through the public health programme

Action 10: Promote training of professionals and improve organisational capacity in environment and health by reviewing and adjusting risk reduction policy

Action 11: Coordinate ongoing risk reduction measures and focus on the priority diseases



Action 12: Improve indoor air quality

Action 13: Follow developments regarding electromagnetic fields

During this initial period the Action Plan focuses particularly on gaining a better understanding of the links between environmental factors and respiratory diseases, neurodevelopmental disorders, cancer and endocrine disrupting effects. For these multi-causal diseases and conditions, there are indications and some initial evidence that environmental factors can play a role in their development and aggravation. To characterise the environmental contribution more precisely, and to focus on the most important diseases and conditions within the disease groups, more information is needed. The Action Plan will set up targeted research actions to improve and refine knowledge of the relevant causal links, and at the same time, health monitoring will be improved to obtain a better picture of disease occurrence across the Community.

The other key information aspect is to monitor exposure through the environment, including food, to the factors most linked to the occurrence of these diseases. In order to develop a coherent framework for integrated exposure monitoring, three pilot projects were carried out on substances for which data collection and monitoring is already in place (dioxins & PCBs, heavy metals and endocrine disrupters). The Action Plan will apply this framework to assess exposure not only to the pilot substances but to all the principal environmental factors associated with health problems, and will adapt environment and food monitoring where needed.

Once the necessary risk-based information is available the appropriate risk management decisions can be taken, either by individuals or public policy makers. In both cases communication and awareness-raising will be important in ensuring that well informed, science based decisions are made.

The concerns of children are integrated throughout the Action Plan. A number of major child health issues will be covered in the monitoring, as will exposure to the environmental stressors to which children are particularly sensitive.

TIMESCALE The Action Plan runs from 2004 to 2010.


The Action Plan is building on nine baseline reports being prepared by a wide range of environmental and health professionals. These include baseline reports on neurodevelopmental disorders and on the integrated monitoring of heavy metals. One of the immediate actions to implement the Action Plan is to launch a study to identify which pollutants are most directly linked with health effects, to assess current and proposed monitoring regimes to determine whether they give a good exposure assessment and to propose changes to monitoring as necessary. A working group will also be set up to develop a coherent approach to biomonitoring in Europe.

October 2010



6. ANNEX 2 – KEY POLICIES AND BEST PRACTICE INITATIVES CONCERNING MERCURY

This Annex presents detailed information on policy and best practice initiatives

concerning mercury, in selected Member States and non-EU countries. Relevant

provisions of international conventions, agreements and programmes addressing the

mercury problem are also presented. This review has been focussing on initiatives

going beyond the current EU policy measures on mercury. The most relevant initiatives

are then mapped against the key objectives that could be included in a future version

of the Strategy, in order to provide a useful basis for the identification of areas where

additional action could be taken.

6.1. APPROACH

This review has been focused on key countries, at EU and international levels, known

to have developed (or in the process of developing) advanced policies and best

practices concerning the reduction of mercury-related risks to human health and the

environment, as well as the most important international agreements, action plans and

programmes addressing the mercury problem. This included policies and best practices

addressing the mercury life-cycle as a whole, or specific aspects of this life-cycle.

� MEMBER STATE LEGISLATION

As a starting point, the Extended Impact Assessment carried out in 2005 as part of the

development of the Community Strategy concerning Mercury208 was reviewed, in

particular Annex 4 which provided a list of EU legislation and policy relating to mercury.

This list was updated, taking into account recent legislative developments since 2005

(see Annex 1). This provides a good overview of EU legislative and policy measures

directly and indirectly addressing environmental and health aspects of the mercury

problem and has been used as a basis for identifying initiatives going beyond the EU

policy framework.

Information on Member State legislation was collected through desktop research,

focusing on Member States known to have developed an advanced policy framework

in the field of mercury (including in particular Denmark, Finland, Germany,

Netherlands, Sweden, Spain and the United Kingdom). This information was completed

by responses received to a questionnaire developed by BIO and sent to Member

States’ representatives in March 2010.

208 Annex to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on

Community Strategy Concerning Mercury – Extended Impact Assessment -COM(2005)20 final (ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/pdf/extended_impact_assessment.pdf)



Finally, the information collected was analysed in order to identify legislation and

policy measures of particular interest, i.e. going beyond EU legislation.

� INTERNATIONAL POLICIES AND BEST PRACTICES

The review covered initiatives at different geographical levels:

• National initiatives in non-EU countries, focusing on countries known to have

developed policy and best practice initiatives with regard to the mercury

problem, in particular Canada, the USA, Norway, Switzerland, India and Japan.

• International conventions, agreements and programmes.

• Sub-regional and regional initiatives.

Information was initially collected through web search, and review of literature

covering mercury policy aspects (e.g. reports from UNEP). Country-specific information

was then validated by contacting country experts.

The collected information was then analysed in order to identify legislative provisions

and best practices going beyond EU legislation, or addressing the issues posed by

mercury in a different way from what is done at EU level.

6.2. MEMBER STATE LEGISLATION

The review of policy and best practice initiatives has focused on seven Member States

known to have developed an advanced policy framework in the field of mercury:

Denmark, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Spain and the United Kingdom.

National policies and best practices going beyond EU legislation on mercury mostly

focus on the following aspects:

• General bans on the import, manufacture, sale and/or use of mercury and/or

mercury-containing products, with a wider scope than current EU restrictions,

in particular with regard to dental amalgam and measuring equipment (e.g.

DK, NL, SE)

• Phase-out of the mercury cell technology in the chlor alkali production earlier

than the date agreed by EuroChlor (2020) as a result of national legislation or

voluntary agreements with industry (e.g. BE, CZ, IT, SE) or obligation to submit

conversion/closure plans in the short term (e.g. ES)

• Mercury Emission Limit Values (ELVs) or national caps on mercury emissions

from the chlor-alkali industry as a result of national legislation or voluntary

agreements with industry (e.g. BE, DE, ES, FR, IT, SK, UK)

• Mercury ELVs for air emissions from waste incineration which are more

stringent than Directive 2000/76/EC (e.g. DE)

October 2010



• ELVs for mercury air emissions from crematoria (in several Member States)

and/or obligation to have some abatement technology in place (e.g. DK, UK)

• Obligation for dental facilities to be equipped with dental amalgam separators

with specific efficiency, maintenance and waste management requirements

(e.g. AT, BE, DE, DK, FR, FI, NL, PT, SE)

• More stringent restrictions on the landfilling of mercury-containing waste and

landfill acceptance criteria (e.g. leaching limit values for mercury which are

more stringent than EU acceptance criteria as defined in Decision 2003/33/EC)

• Limit values for mercury in sewage sludge used for agricultural purposes that

are more stringent than the requirements of Directive 86/278/EEC

• National inventories of contaminated sites (including those contaminated by

mercury) and definition of guideline values to assess mercury contamination in

soil and groundwater

• Initiatives to collect mercury-containing thermometers and other mercury-

containing waste from households (e.g. AT)

• Recommendations on the restriction of fish consumption going beyond

recommendations from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (e.g. CZ, FI,

FR, IE, SE, UK).

Details of country-specific initiatives are presented below.

� Denmark

Denmark has developed a comprehensive range of initiatives to regulate the use of

mercury and has a long record of maintaining a database of consumption and

emissions concerning mercury.

Table 24: Mercury-related policy initiatives in Denmark going beyond EU legislation

Focus area Relevant provisions of policy initiative Title and date of initiative

Reducing supply / Reducing international trade / Reducing demand

General ban on mercury and mercury-containing products

General prohibition on import, export and sale of mercury and mercury-containing products in concentrations above 100 mg/kg in their homogeneous components.

Exemptions

The prohibition does not apply to:

• Natural impurities in coal

• Used products which fulfilled Danish requirements at the time they were first offered for sale

Statutory Order no 627 of 01.07.2003 on prohibition of import, sale and export of mercury and mercury containing products




• Products regulated by other legislation, unless they are stated in the Annex.

Mercury-containing products for which import, sale and export are permitted:

1. Dental products for filling permanent molar teeth, where the filling is worn

2. Mercury-wetted film switches and relays which meet EN 119000, for specified applications in businesses: data and telecommunication, process control, PLC remote control of energy supply, electrical test systems

3. Thermometers for special applications: calibration of other thermometers, analysis equipment

4. Special light sources: discharge lamps including energy saving bulbs, for analysis operations, for graphic operations

5. Flash units for safety installations on railway lines

6. Manometers for calibration of other pressure gauges

7. Barometers for calibration of other barometers

8. Electrodes for special applications: polarographic analysis, potentiometric analysis, calomel reference

9. Mercury-containing chemicals for special applications: raw materials for analysis reagents, analysis reagents, standards, preservation of starch for laboratory use, isotope dilution testing, catalysts

10. Products for research, including odontological research

11. Products for teaching

12. Products for vital applications in aircraft

13. Products for the repair of existing mercury-containing equipment

Reducing demand

Dental amalgam

In 2008, the Danish government started an economic incentive program to promote the use of alternatives to amalgam in dental clinics. The economic support has been successful to make use of alternatives more attractive than amalgam in the dental clinics.

Economic incentive program to promote alternatives to dental amalgam, 2008

Reducing emissions

Dental amalgam waste

In 2006 Denmark issued policy guidance on the use of amalgam separators by dentists. Local authorities are required to use Best Available Techniques (BAT) on amalgam separators when giving permits to dental clinics. This guidance is now fully in use and is practised all over Denmark.

Policy guidance on the use of amalgam separators by dentists, 2006

October 2010




Reducing emissions

Cremation

Obligatory mercury filters on crematoria: from 2008 for new facilities and from 2011 for existing ones.

Bekendtgørelse om ændring Bekendtgørelse nr. 1481 af 12/12/2007

Applicable since 2008

� Finland

Table 25: Mercury-related policy initiatives in Finland going beyond EU legislation

Focus area Relevant provisions of policy initiative

Waste management

Landfilling

Disposal requirements for landfill deposition of mercury waste:

• Waste with <40 ppm mercury can be deposited in industrial waste deposit area.

• Waste with >40 ppm mercury must be deposited in special/hazardous waste deposit area.

With special permission, certain types of waste with mercury content are admissible for deposition in hazardous waste landfills.

Waste management

Landfilling

All mercury-containing wastes are neutralised or treated in a well-controlled sulphidation reactor before deposition in special landfills to minimise emissions. There are supplementary requirements for solubility of mercury from wastes in landfills.

� Germany

Table 26: Mercury-related policy initiatives in Germany going beyond EU legislation


Reduce demand

Dental amalgam

It is recommended not to use dental amalgam on children, pregnant and nursing women, people with kidney problems, when in contact with other metals, such as braces, and in people with mercury sensitivity.

Reduce emissions

Waste incineration

Mercury emissions limit values in flue gases from waste incinerators: 0.03 mg/m³ (daily average) and 0.05 mg/m³ (half hour average).

17th Ordinance Implementing the Federal Emission Control Act: Ordinance on Incinerators for Waste and similar Combustible




Material (1990)209

Waste management

Landfilling

The German emission limit values (ELV) for leachates from controlled landfills for hazardous wastes is 0.1 mg/l (while the relevant EU-legislation stipulates 0.2 mg/l).

Two German regulations are in force:

1. Ordinance on Environmentally Compatible Storage of Waste from Human Settlements and on Biological Waste-Treatment Facilities (of of 20th February 2001)210

2. Landfill Ordinance

Good practice initiatives reported to have been recently implemented in Germany

include the following:

• Voluntary activities from industry to reduce further mercury emissions from

LCPs and to reduce further mercury emissions from flue gases in general (e.g.

use of activated carbon or addition of bromium to the fuel – partly at the

research stage). In the last few years, several technical conferences have been

regularly held in Germany to discuss techniques to reduce mercury emissions

from LCPs and improve measurement techniques. Reportedly, the recently

observed increase in mercury emissions from coal-fired LCPs may be the result

of improved measurement techniques rather than an actual increase in the

total volume of mercury emitted.

• Collection of mercury-containing lamps and actions at the municipal level to

increase collection rates

• New installations specialised in the recycling of lamps

• Different research projects in the fields of mercury-containing waste

management and treatment

• Consumer advice in relation to limiting the consumption of tuna for pregnant

and breastfeeding women

209 www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bimschv_17/index.html 210 www.bmu.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/ablagerungsverordnung.pdf

October 2010



• Preparation of a research project on the safe storage of mercury, expected to

start in 2010

• Definition of a Biological Limit Value for metallic mercury and its inorganic

compounds in blood and urine samples.211

� Netherlands

Table 27: Mercury-related policy initiatives in the Netherlands going beyond EU legislation


Reducing supply / Reducing international trade

General ban on mercury-containing products

General prohibition of manufacture and import of mercury-containing products (effective as of 1 January 2000)

Exemptions

- Heating thermostat as well as a mercury switch which is exclusively meant for use in a heating thermostat.

- An activity meter for animals, as well as a mercury switch which is exclusively meant for use in an activity meter for animals.

- Until 1 January 2005, a barometer containing mercury.

Bulletin of Acts and Decrees of the Kingdom of the Netherlands No. 553: Decree of 9 September 1998, comprising regulations regarding products containing mercury (as amended by Decree of 17 June 2008 transposing Directive 2007/51/EC)

Reducing demand

General ban on mercury-containing products

General prohibition of possessing or use for trading or production if the product has been taken into use for the first time after 1 January 2003 (1 January 2006 for barometers)

Exemptions

a. a pycnometer or porosimeter for measuring the air space volume of soil or other porous solids;

b. sampling equipment designed to measure particles in liquids;

c. a calibration instrument meant for low flow-rate flow meters;

d. a cuvette, meant for determining the chemical oxygen demand;

e. a McLeod compression manometer, meant for measuring absolute pressures lower than 20 kPa;

f. a submersible pump;

g. a roll-spot welding head, meant for seam welding;

h. a slip ring;

i. a semiconductor test system, as well as a mercury

Bulletin of Acts and Decrees of the Kingdom of the Netherlands No. 553: Decree of 9 September 1998, comprising regulations regarding products containing mercury, as amended

211 www.baua.de/cln_094/de/Themen-von-A-Z/Gefahrstoffe/TRGS/TRGS-903.html




relay of which the maximum mercury content per component does not exceed 0.15 gram and which is exclusively meant for use in semiconductor test systems;

j. a mercury thermometer exclusively intended to perform specific analytical tests according to established standards;

k. equipment for the calibration of platinum resistance thermometers using the triple point of mercury;

l. a gas discharge lamp, with the exception of:

1.a fluorescent lamp for purposes of lighting with an integrated means of starting when it contains more than 10 mg of mercury;

2. a non-circular fluorescent lamp for purposes of lighting with a single lamp-cap terminal connection when it contains more than 10 mg of mercury;

3. a straight fluorescent lamp for purposes of lighting with two lamp-cap terminal connections when it contains more than 20 mg of mercury;

m. a product for use in shipping in which the use of mercury is prescribed by or under law, equipment directly related to shipping in which the use of mercury is deemed to be necessary by the Minister of Transport and Public Works and ships’ equipment to which Directive no. 96/98/EC applies;

n. a product for use in aviation for which the use of mercury is prescribed by or under the Aviation Act, and equally any product directly related to aviation purposes in which the use of mercury is deemed to be essential by the Minister of Transport and Public Works;

o. equipment in use by the Armed Forces, in which the use of mercury is prescribed by or under law, or equipment necessary to the operational responsibilities of the Armed Forces in which the use of mercury is deemed to be essential by the Minister of Defence;

p. a photographic film, a photographic plate and photographic paper, in as far as the film, plate or paper do not contain more than 0.3 mg of mercury per kg of product.

Electrotechnical components which serve as spare parts for equipment used for the first time before 1 January 2003.

In addition, dental amalgam is exempted from the general ban on mercury-containing products; however its use is discouraged.

October 2010




Waste management

Landfilling

Landfilling of measuring and control equipment containing mercury (e.g. thermometers) and separately collected batteries is not allowed.

Landfilling of other mercury-containing wastes and “by-products” is not allowed, and export to deep underground storage is only allowed if one has gone to all lengths to prevent the generation of mercury-containing waste, or to treat the waste.

Waste management

Waste treatment

The national waste management plan sets standards for waste treatment methods. For mercury-containing wastes the “lowest” standard is separating the mercury and recovering the other fractions like metals, glass etc. This minimum standard is used in setting permit requirements for waste treatment installations.

National Waste Management Plan

Waste management

Waste management

Mixing of mercury-containing wastes (> 10 ppm) with other wastes for preparation of a mix principally used as a fuel or other means to generate energy, is not allowed.

� Spain

Table 28: Mercury-related policy initiatives in Spain going beyond EU legislation


Reducing emissions

Chlor-alkali industry

Through voluntary agreements, signatory companies committed themselves, before 1 January 2010, to operating so that mercury emissions to the atmosphere do not individually exceed the value of 0.8 g Hg per tonne of chlorine capacity installed at any plant. Signatory companies also committed to reducing total mercury emissions (releases to air, water and through products) without exceeding the value of 0.9 g Hg per tonne of chlorine capacity at a weighted average value of 0.9 + 15% g Hg/t in each plant before 1 January 2010. Furthermore, before 2011 every chlor-alkali plant should either set a programme to convert to membrane technology or phase-out in order to cease mercury emissions by 2020.

Voluntary agreement with the national chlorine producers industry association (agreement established in 1999 and renewed in 2006)




Increasing knowledge / Information exchange / Waste management / Remediation of contaminated sites

Creation of a National Technology Centre for Mercury Decontamination

Collaboration Agreement between the Ministry of Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs, and Minas de Almadén y Arrayanes, S.A. and the Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha.

General scope of the agreement:

- Increase knowledge of environmental mercury levels in the area of the ancient mercury Almaden mines (Ciudad Real) and promote corrective actions. Extrapolate studies, methodology and techniques to any other area in the territory of both the EU countries and third parties, with special attention to South America countries.

- Active participation in the completion of the national inventory of contaminated sites, offering technical support for chemical determinations of parameters, especially mercury, and processing and data validation.

- Promotion of suitable technological development for the integral management of mercury, handling, transport, storage techniques, treatment, decontamination techniques, training of experts, and international cooperation and diffusion of technologies and knowledge about this metal.

- Promotion of technology transfer by making available to other institutions and universities, both public and private, national or international, the knowledge and skills that have been gathered in the course of research projects sponsored by the National Technology Centre for Mercury Decontamination.

Resolution of 6 February 2009, of the General Directorate of Quality and Environmental Assessment for the creation of a National Technology Centre for Mercury Decontamination (under development)

Remediation of contaminated sites /

Reducing demand / Reducing emissions

National Plan on Heavy Metals

At a preliminary stage, the first draft contains proposals such as:

- The completion of the national inventory of contaminated sites, identifying those sites contaminated with heavy metals, especially those contaminated by mercury.

- The launching of campaigns to reduce devices containing mercury in public and private hospitals.

- Campaigns to eliminate sources of mercury in dental clinics.

- Campaigns for voluntary withdrawal of domestic devices containing mercury.

National Plan on Heavy Metals (under development)

October 2010




Increasing knowledge / Protecting against exposure

RISCTOX database

Mercury is one of the substances covered by the RISCTOX database, a database on hazardous substances that aims to provide clear, organised and succinct information about the risks to health and the environment of chemicals that may be present in products that are handled or generated by each activity. RISCTOX contains 217 records on mercury compounds, including the following information: identification and classification of the substance according to current regulations; specific risks to health; specific risks for the environment; environmental and occupational health regulations; alternatives.

RISCTOX was developed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health at Work of the Ministry of Employment and Immigration.

RISCTOX database212

� Sweden

Sweden is leading the way in the EU with regard to the phase-out of mercury. As early

as the beginning of the 1990s there has been a ban in Sweden on the manufacture and

sale of certain products containing mercury, including thermometers and other

measuring devices and electronic components. The scope of this ban was extended in

January 2009 and a general ban came into force on 1 June 2009 which includes only

very limited exemptions (see Table 29 below).

Table 29: Mercury-related policy initiatives in Sweden going beyond EU legislation


Reducing supply / Reducing international trade / Reducing demand


Ordinance 1998:944 was amended in 2009 by Ordinance 2009:14, which has extended the scope of the mercury ban. The amended requirements came into force on 1 June 2009.

According to amended Ordinance 1998:944, “mercury may not be placed on the Swedish market, used in or professionally exported from Sweden. Goods containing mercury may not be placed on the Swedish market or professionally exported from Sweden.”

Certain uses for which EU-harmonised provisions apply are exempted, for instance light sources and other electrical and electronic articles, batteries and vehicles. Time-limited exemptions apply for analytical chemicals, certain instruments and equipment and certain uses of dental amalgam.

The Chemical Products (Handling, Import, and Export Prohibitions) Ordinance (1998:944) as amended by Ordinance 2009:14

212 www.istas.net/ecoinformas/web/index.asp?idpagina=575




Exemptions

1. mercury that occurs naturally in coal, ore or ore concentrate,

2. batteries that are covered by EU Directive 2006/66/EC,

3. packaging and packaging components that are covered by EU Directive 94/62/EC,

4. motor vehicles and trailers for these vehicles that are covered by the provisions on type approval in the Vehicles Ordinance (2002:925),

5. light goods vehicles and passenger cars other than European Community type-approved passenger cars that are covered by the Ordinance (2003:208) Prohibiting Certain Metals in Vehicles,

6. products for in-vitro diagnostics that are not covered by the Medical Devices Act (1993:584),

7. medicinal products for human and veterinary use that are covered by the Medicinal Products Act (1992:859) and by Regulation (EC) No 726/2004

8. the uses referred to in Annex XVII (18) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH), where use in research and development or for analytical purposes or placing on the market for such use is concerned,

9. professional exporting or importing of:

a) goods in connection with repair or calibration abroad,

b) military equipment in connection with exercises, training or international activity, or

c) spare parts and other components for repair and maintenance of equipment for a specific military purpose

10. waste containing mercury exported from Sweden for recycling or disposal.

Specific provisions related to dental amalgam

The use of dental amalgam is phased out in Sweden for all applications except for a time-limited exemption till 30 June 2012 for use in adults in hospital dental care if there are special medical reasons, if other methods of treatment do not provide a sufficiently good result in an individual case and the clinic is specially arranged from the environmental point of view for the use of dental amalgam.

The hospital dental care units are obliged to report their intention to use amalgam in order to evaluate the need for the exemption. The National Board of Health and Welfare must be notified before the first treatment with amalgam starts. Information must be noted on patient particulars, the medical reasons for using amalgam must be stated and the amount of amalgam used must be recorded. Since the general ban came into force (June 2009), it was reported that only 9 patients were treated with dental amalgam (as part of hospital treatments).

Mercury may be placed on the market until 31 December

October 2010




2011 for the manufacture of dental amalgam and amalgam as such is allowed on the market until 31 December 2011.

Reducing demand


Mercury use in chlor-alkali production will be banned from 2014.

The Chemical Products (Handling, Import, and Export Prohibitions) Ordinance (1998:944) as amended by Ordinance 2009:14

Waste management

Restrictions on landfilling of waste containing mercury

Sweden has from 1 August 2005 implemented an ordinance regarding mercury in waste (SFS 2001:1063), which states:

“Waste that contains at least 0.1 % by weight mercury and is not in a permanent landfill shall be placed in terminal bedrock storage by 1 January 2015 at the latest. It is not allowed to dispose mercury waste before 1 January 2015 in a way that prevents terminal storage in bedrock.”

Both salt mines and underground hard rock formations can fulfil the requirements.

The Swedish EPA may, on a case-by-case basis, allow certain exemptions from the bedrock storage requirement until 2010, if there are exceptional reasons or if the amount of waste in question is so small that the disposal method is unreasonable.

Ordinance regarding mercury in waste (SFS 2001:1063)

Waste management

Restrictions on export of waste containing mercury

Since 1997 it has been forbidden to professionally export mercury and its compounds as well as preparations, if they contain mercury. The purpose of this regulation is primarily to prevent the export of mercury-containing waste, but in practice export of chemical products that contain mercury, e.g. amalgam and analytical chemicals, is also banned. The Swedish EPA may permit transport of waste containing mercury if the requirements of the EU Waste Shipment Regulation are fulfilled.

The Chemical Products (Handling, Import, and Export Prohibitions) Ordinance (1998:944)

Waste management

Mercury waste storage in bedrock

The requirements for pre-treatment of mercury before terminal storage in bedrock are under investigation.

The Swedish government has, under the Waste Ordinance 2001:1063 (which says that mercury over 0.1% should be stored underground), appointed a coordinator who is to work on the issue. In the assessments made prior to the recent legislation, it has generally been assumed that the mercury should be stabilised and stored as mercury sulphide.

Proposed regulation





Sewage sludge

The maximum allowable limit value for mercury in sewerage sludge for agricultural purposes which may be offered for sale and transferred is 2.5 mg/kg of total solids.

The Chemical Products (Handling, Import, and Export Prohibitions) Ordinance (1998:944), as amended

� United Kingdom

Table 30: Mercury-related policy initiatives in the UK going beyond EU legislation


Reducing emissions


The UK Chlorine Council and the Environment Agency have agreed on a Joint Position Statement which provides that plants using mercury cell technology have only fixed lifetime mass allocations for mercury emissions to air (‘Allocations’). These Allocations are based on the PARCOM phase-out date of 2010 and the associated air emission limit. A mercury cell operator may deplete its Allocation in line with individual business needs, so long as: BAT are employed during the remaining life of the mercury cells; emission limits in PPC permits are adhered to; and ambient environmental quality standards are not compromised. Operation of a mercury cell plant will cease when the Allocation is exhausted. There is in any event an absolute cessation date of 2020.

For the purposes of this Statement, each production plant has been assigned a lifetime mercury mass allocation for mercury emissions to air. The Allocation for each plant is calculated as the equivalent of 2 g Hg / tonne chlorine production capacity / year for a total of 14 years (time period between PARCOM start date of 1 January 1997 and recommended closure date of 31 December 2010).

Joint Position Statement between the UK Chlorine Council and the Environment Agency

October 2010




Reducing emissions


In December 2005, the UK Ministry in charge of Environment (DEFRA) issued a guidance document for dentists on dental amalgam. Amalgam waste from dental waste is classified as hazardous waste by EU legislation and shall be managed in accordance with the requirements for hazardous waste. To meet these EU requirements, DEFRA has considered that amalgam separators “should be fitted in all practices that use amalgam”.

Guidance for dentists on dental waste amalgam from DEFRA

(This document is related to the implementation of the Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations (SI 2005/894))

Reducing emissions

Crematoria

In 2005 Defra and the Welsh Assembly Government established a 'burden sharing' system to reduce mercury emissions from existing crematoria. Under burden sharing, crematoria operators can choose whether to fit mercury abatement equipment or contribute to the costs of others doing so.

Requirement for abatement to be fitted covering 50% of cremations by end 2012, plus all new crematoria to have abatement from 2005.

Exemptions

Deadline for smaller new crematoria qualified according to the following: abatement should not be required to be in operation until which is the sooner of the following two dates:

a. the date when it is likely within the subsequent 12 months that more than 750 cremations will take place at the crematorium

b. 31 December 2012.

Website of the organisation running the main burden sharing scheme: www.cameoonline.org.uk/

Environment Permitting Regulations 2007 (January 2005)



6.3. INTERNATIONAL POLICY AND BEST PRACTICE INITIATIVES

6.3.1. COUNTRY-SPECIFIC INITIATIVES

Policy and best practice initiatives aiming to reduce health and environmental risks

posed by mercury were reviewed in six focus countries: Canada (CA), the USA (US),

Norway (NO), Switzerland (CH), India (IN) and Japan (JP).

In the context of this study, the most relevant initiatives address the following aspects

of the mercury issue:

• General bans on the marketing and use of mercury with a wider scope than

current EU restrictions, in particular with regard to dental amalgam and

measuring equipment (e.g. NO, CH).

• Ban/restrictions on the use of mercury-containing sphygmomanometers (e.g.

some US States) and best practice initiatives in hospitals to phase-out the use

of mercury-containing sphygmomanometers (e.g. China, India, Brazil).

• Voluntary commitment from US battery manufacturers to eliminate mercury in

button cell batteries and ban on the sale of mercury-containing button cell

batteries (US States of Maine and Connecticut).

• Early phase-out of the mercury cell technology in the chlor alkali production

(e.g. IN).

• Mercury ELVs in chlor-alkali production (e.g. CA, US (proposed rule)).

• Mercury limit values (non-binding guidelines in terms of % capture) for air

emissions from coal combustion (e.g. CA).

• Mercury air emission guidelines for base metal smelters and refineries (e.g.

CA).

• Obligation/voluntary agreement to install dental amalgam separators in dental

facilities (e.g. NO, CA) and national target for the reduction of mercury releases

from dental amalgam waste discharges to the environment (e.g. CA).

• Guideline values to assess soil contamination by mercury (e.g. CA).

• Air quality guidelines for the exposure of the general non-occupational

population to mercury in ambient air (e.g. CA, US).

• Ban on the sale of mercury-containing cosmetics (with no exemptions) (US

State of Minnesota).

Details of country-specific initiatives are presented below.

October 2010



� Canada

Canada developed a number of national measures to improve mercury management.

Such initiatives are well-coordinated with the initiatives of other federal departments

and various levels of government in Canada. A number of these federal and

provincial/territorial legislation and guidelines have been implemented to reduce

Canadian mercury emissions. In addition, select Canadian programmes, focusing on

research and international cooperation dealing with mercury management have been

developed. Canada continues to play a leadership role in the development and

implementation of international mercury management initiatives including the Aarhus

(Heavy Metals) Protocol under the UNECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary

Air Pollution, the Arctic Council, the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy, the North

American Regional Action Plan on Mercury and various national and bilateral

monitoring programmes.

For instance, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA, 1999)213 is a primary

example of Canadian legislation that clearly identified the risks of toxics in the

environment. The focus of this Act is pollution prevention and the protection of the

environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development. As

presented in Table 31 below, Canada-Wide Standards (CWSs) have been adopted to

regulate mercury use and emissions in several areas, and detailed guidelines have been

established to address exposure to mercury. It must be noted, however, that Canada-

Wide Standards provide a voluntary framework for the provinces, with no

consequences if the intended level is not met.

Table 31: Mercury-related policy initiatives in Canada


Reducing demand

Mercury-containing lamps

Standard requiring 80% reduction in the average content of mercury by 2010, as compared to a 1990 baseline in all mercury-containing lamps sold in Canada.

CWS for mercury containing lamps (2001)214

Reducing emissions


Target of 95% national reduction in mercury releases from dental amalgam waste discharges to the environment by 2005, from a base year of 2000.

Best Management Practices were defined as including the use of an ISO-certified amalgam separator, or its equivalent, and the appropriate management of waste to minimise mercury discharge to the environment. Status in 2007: 70% of dentists had certified amalgam separators installed.215

CWS for mercury waste from dental amalgam (2001)216

213 laws.justice.gc.ca/PDF/Statute/C/C-15.31.pdf 214 www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/merc_lamp_standard_e.pdf 215 Source: www.epa.gov/bns/reports/stakejun2008/Mercury/RiskMgmt_Pineault_08.pdf




Reducing emissions

Coal combustion

Provincial caps on mercury emissions from existing coal-fired electric power generation (from 2695 kg/year in 2002-2004 period to 1130 kg/year in 2010).

For new coal-fired power plants, mercury capture efficiency rates or annual emission rates are established (see Table 32 below).

The CWS may be reviewed by 2012 to explore the capture of 80% or more of mercury from coal burned for 2018 and beyond.

CWS for mercury from coal-fired power plants (2006)217

Reducing emissions


Restrictions on the release into the ambient air of mercury from chlor alkali plants.

The following limits on mercury release apply218:

1. Quantity of mercury released to the ambient air shall not exceed:

(a) 5 g/day/ton of rated capacity, from the ventilation gases exhausted from cell rooms.

(b) 0.1 g/day/ton of rated capacity, from hydrogen gas stream originating from denuders.

(c) 0.1 g/day/ton of rated capacity, from ventilation gases exhausted from end boxes.

(d) 0.1 g/day/ton of rated capacity, from the gases exhausted from retorts.

2. No mercury shall be released directly into the ambient air from a tank.

3. The total amount of mercury release into the ambient air shall not exceed 1.68 kg/day.

Chlor-Alkali Mercury Release Regulations; SOR/90-130 (1990)219

Reducing emissions

Smelters and refineries

According to mercury emission guidelines for smelters and refineries, existing facilities should limit air release loadings to less than 2 g Hg/tonne of finished product.

New or expanded facilities should limit air release loadings to less than 0.2 g Hg/ tonne production of finished zinc, nickel, and lead and less than 1 g Hg/tonne production of finished copper.

Each facility should design and operate effluent discharge systems, taking into account local conditions and ambient water quality objectives of 0.026 µg/l for inorganic mercury and 0.004 µg/l for methylmercury.

Environmental code of practice base metal smelters and refineries (2006)220

216 www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/cws_merc_amalgam_e.pdf 217 www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/hg_epg_cws_w_annex.pdf 218 Current to February 2010 219 laws.justice.gc.ca/PDF/Regulation/S/SOR-90-130.pdf 220 dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/En84-34-2005E.pdf

October 2010




Reducing demand / Reducing international trade / Waste management

Risk Management Strategy for Mercury-containing Products

This Risk Management Strategy was first published in December 2006 as a component of the Government of Canada Chemicals Management Plan. It lays out a suite of tools to prohibit or limit mercury use in products, control imports or exports where necessary, and set labelling requirements and controls on product disposal. The targeted date of final publication of the Strategy in the Canada Gazette (CG) is winter 2010 and the prohibition is proposed to be enacted on 1 January 2012.

Risk Management Strategy for Mercury-containing Products (December 2006)

Reducing exposure

Ambient air quality

Reference exposure level for elemental Hg in ambient air for the general non-occupational population: 0.06 μg/m3 (chronic tolerable air concentration)221

Health Canada

Reducing exposure

Mercury exposure standards

Health Canada (Federal Regulatory Body) has set health standards to help reduce mercury exposure.

Its guidelines on mercury are detailed in Table 33 below.

Current to

March 2010

Reducing exposure

Advice on fish and fishery products consumption

Health Canada advises the general population not to eat more than 150 g per week of fresh/frozen tuna, shark, swordfish, marlin, orange roughly and escolar. For women that are pregnant, may become pregnant or are breastfeeding 150 g of these per month are recommended, for children aged 5-10 years 125 g per month and for children aged 1-4 years 75 g per month. This advice does not apply to canned tuna, although for canned white (albacore) tuna specific advice is given (higher intakes than for shark, broadbill, marlin and swordfish are recommended).222

221 Source: Draft technical guidelines on the environmentally sound management of mercury wastes

(2010) prepared under the Basel Convention 222 Source: Information note from the EC dated 21 April 2008 on methylmercury in fish and fishery

products: ec.europa.eu/food/food/chemicalsafety/contaminants/information_note_mercury-fish_21-04-2008.pdf



Table 32: Percent capture or emission rates of mercury for new coal-fired power plants in Canada (CWS for mercury from coal-fired power plants, 2006)

Coal type Percent capture in coal burned (% Hg)

Annual emission rate

(kg Hg/TWh)

Bituminous coal 85 3

Sub-bituminous coal 75 8

Lignite 75 15

Blends 85 3

Table 33: Health Canada’s guidelines/recommendations for mercury exposure223

Focus area Context Guideline

Drinking Water Quality

Maximum Acceptable Concentration (MAC)

0.001 mg total Hg/l

Soil (inorganic mercury)

Agricultural 6.6 mg/kg

Residential/Parkland 6.6 mg/kg

Commercial 24 mg/kg

Industrial 50 mg/kg

Foodstuffs Commercial Fish 0.5 part per million total mercury*

Provisional Tolerable Daily Intake (pTDI) - adults

0.47 µg MeHg per kg bw per day

Provisional Tolerable Daily Intake (pTDI) - children and women of childbearing age

0.2 µg MeHg per kg bw per day

Biological Materials

Blood Hair

Normal Acceptable Range <20 ppb <6 ppm

Increasing Risk 20-100 ppb 6-30 ppm

At Risk >100 ppb >30 ppm

Occupational Exposure

TLV-TWA** TLV-STEL***

Mercury-alkyl compounds 0.01 mg/m3 0.03 mg/m3

Mercury-aryl compounds 0.1 mg/m3

Mercury - elemental & inorganic forms 0.025 mg/m3

* This guideline applies to commercial fish only and not to fish caught for such non-commercial

purposes as sport, recreation, or subsistence.

** Threshold Limit Values - Time Weighted Average

*** Threshold Limit Values - Short Term Exposure Limit

223 Last retrieval: 03/03/2010 from www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/contaminants/mercur/q57-q72-

eng.php

October 2010



� United States of America

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) published a Roadmap for

Mercury in July 2006. The Roadmap was established with the goal of reducing risks

associated with mercury. As part of its strategy, the US EPA promotes the reduction of

mercury in products and encourages development of alternatives.

Table 34 provides an overview of relevant policy initiatives in the USA.

Table 34: Mercury-related policy initiatives in the USA


Reducing international trade / Waste management

Mercury export ban

The Act includes provisions on both elemental mercury exports and long-term mercury management and storage.

It prohibits the export of elemental mercury from the U.S. beginning January 1, 2013 (private companies only).

It also prohibits the sale, distribution or transfer of elemental mercury by federal agencies (to any other federal agency, any State or local government agency, or any private individual or entity).

The Act also requires the Department of Energy (DoE) to designate and manage elemental mercury long-term storage facilities.

Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008224 (October 2008)

Reducing demand

Batteries

The Battery Act phases out the use of mercury in batteries. The statute applies to battery and product manufacturers, battery waste handlers, and certain battery and product importers and retailers.

It restricts mercury use in alkaline, zinc-carbon and button cell mercuric-oxide batteries (except for button cells containing no more than 25 mg mercury).

Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act of 1996225

224 www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-906 225 www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/recycling/battery.pdf




Batteries

The States of Maine and Connecticut have imposed a ban on the sale of mercury-added button cell batteries.

In the State of Maine: “after June 30, 2011, a person may

not sell or offer to sell or distribute for promotional

purposes a mercury-added button cell battery for

consumer use or a product for consumer use that contains

a mercury-added button cell battery”226. The legislation was recently amended to include an exemption for low volume Silver Oxide button cells until 1 January 2015. The State authorities justified this exemption for economic reasons since investment into these low sales volumes would be disproportionate.

In 2006, the State of Connecticut enacted additional mercury product legislations, in particular with regard to button cell batteries containing mercury or any product containing such batteries, which shall not be sold or distributed after July 1, 2011.227

State of Maine: Public Laws of the State of Maine, Chapter 509, S.P. 375 - L.D. 1058 – An Act To Regulate the Use of Batteries Containing Mercury (effective 23 August 2006)

State of Connecticut:

Section 22a-616 of the Connecticut General Statutes (CGS), as amended in 2006

Batteries

The US battery manufacturers have voluntarily committed to eliminating mercury in button-cell batteries by 2011228.

March 2006

Reducing emissions

Coal combustion

The Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) is a proposed rule to regulate mercury emissions from coal burning in power plants by 26 November 2011. No further information on the proposed provisions was available at the time of writing this report.

Clean Air Act Section 112229

Reducing use Chlor-alkali industry

Since the 1990s, MCCA plants have been converted or closed on a voluntary basis. At the end of 2009 there were now only four remaining MCCA plants (in 1996 there were fourteen operating MCCA plants). Mercury usage in this industry has been reduced by over 97% between since 1990 and 2008.230

226 www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/publications/legislativereports/pdf/buttonbatteriesreportjan09.pdf 227 www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/imerc/legislation-2008.pdf 228 www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/imerc/factsheets/batteries.cfm ;

www.nema.org/media/pr/20060302a.cfm 229 Issued on March 15, 2005 (www.epa.gov/mercuryrule/rule.htm#20050315) 230 Source: Chlor-alkali industry. August 2009. 2008Mercury use and emissions in the United States

(Twelfth Annual Report). www.epa.gov/reg5oair/mercury/12thcl2report.pdf

October 2010




The proposed Mercury Pollution Reduction Act would amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to prohibit: (1) the manufacture of chlorine or caustic soda using mercury cells at any facility in the United States; and (2) the export of any elemental mercury or the sale of elemental mercury for purposes of export, including compounds and mixtures containing elemental mercury, by the owner or operator of a chlor-alkali facility. It would require the owner or operator of any existing chlor-alkali facility to notify the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) no later than June 30, 2012, on whether the owner or operator will replace its chlor-alkali facility with a new manufacturing facility that does not use mercury or cease operations. It would also require a chlor-alkali facility for which a closure notice is filed to cease manufacturing chlorine or caustic soda using mercury cells no later than June 30, 2013. It would authorise a chlor-alkali facility for which a replacement notice is filed to continue to manufacture chlorine or caustic soda using mercury cells until all of the permitting, financing, engineering, and construction of a non-mercury replacement facility is complete or June 30, 2015, whichever is earlier.

H.R. 2190: Mercury Pollution Reduction Act (proposed legislation), April 2009231

231 www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2190




Reducing emissions


Proposed rule to reduce mercury emissions from mercury-cell chlor-alkali (MCCA) plants, amending the requirements for mercury emissions from each affected source at a plant site where chlorine and caustic soda are produced in mercury cells. It applies to two types of affected sources: MCCA plants and mercury recovery facilities.

For new or reconstructed chlor-alkali plants: emissions of mercury are prohibited.

For existing MCCA plants: During any consecutive 52-week period, they must not discharge to the atmosphere total mercury emissions in excess of:

• 0.076 g Hg/ton of chlorine produced from all by-product hydrogen streams and all end box ventilation system vents when both types of emission points are present.

• 0.033 g Hg/ton of chlorine produced from all by-product hydrogen streams when end box ventilation systems are not present.

For new, reconstructed, or existing mercury recovery facilities: Maximum allowable mercury emissions to the atmosphere are:

• 23 mg/dry Nm3 from each oven type mercury thermal recovery unit vent.

• 4 mg/dry Nm3 from each non-oven type mercury thermal recovery unit vent.

• According to a report by EEB, in 2008 the USA had only seven remaining MCCA plants, three of which had committed to stop using mercury by 2010.232

40 CFR Part 63, (Issued on: June 2008)233

Reducing supply / Reducing demand

Restrictions on mercury-containing products

Proposed rule requiring 90 days notice prior to U.S. manufacture, import or processing of elemental mercury for use in flow meters, natural gas manometers, and pyrometers.

The required notification will provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit the activity before it occurs.

40 CFR Part 721; Proposed Significant New Use Rule (Issued on: September 2009)234

232 EEB, Dec. 2008, The European Chlor-Alkali Industry – Is national implementation of the IPPC Directive

contributing to a mercury-free industry? – Results of an environmental NGO survey 233 www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hgcellcl/fr11jn08.pdf 234 www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480a2006e

October 2010




Reducing supply / Reducing demand


Requirement of 90 days notice prior to U.S. manufacture, import or processing of elemental mercury for use in convenience light switches, anti-lock brake system (ABS) switches and active ride control system switches in certain motor vehicles.

The required notification will provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit the activity before it occurs.

40 CFR Parts 9 and 721; Significant New Use Rule235 (October 2007)

Reducing emissions


The USA have no national legislation that addresses dental mercury waste, although some states are beginning to implement relevant regulations. For example, in 2005, legislation was passed in Vermont requiring dental offices to comply with environmental best management practices (BMPs) for amalgam wastes developed by the Department of Environmental Conservation. The law also requires all dental practices to self-certify compliance with these BMPs as of 31 January 2007 and to install amalgam separators in the wastewater discharge by January 1, 2007.236

Vermont Statutes: 10 V.S.A. § 7110. Mercury-added products used in dental procedures237

(Environmental Best Management Practices Guidelines for

Dental Offices 238)


Ambient air quality

Several agencies have established reference exposure levels (RELs) for elemental Hg in the general non-

occupational population239:

• 0.3 μg/m3 as a chronic reference air concentration, recommended by the US EPA

• 0.2 μg/m3 as a minimal risk level for chronic inhalation exposure, recommended by the US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

• 0.09 μg/m3 as an inhalation reference exposure level, recommended by the California EPA

US EPA air quality guidelines

US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry air quality guidelines

California EPA air quality guidelines

235 www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/2007/October/Day-05/t19705.htm 236 www.mercvt.org/dental/index.htm 237 www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullsection.cfm?Title=10&Chapter=164&Section=07110 238 www.mercvt.org/PDF/dentalbmp.pdf 239 Source: Draft technical guidelines on the environmentally sound management of mercury wastes

(2010) prepared under the Basel Convention





Occupational exposure

In addition to an 8-hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) limit value of 0.05 mg/m3, other limit values have been

defined in the USA, e.g.:

• A ceiling limit value for mercury vapour of 0.1 mg/m3 (concentration shall not exceed this value at any time)

• A threshold limit value (TLV) for elemental mercury of 0.025 mg/m³

• A threshold limit value (TLV) for organic mercury of 0.01 mg/m3

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)240

Reducing demand / Protecting against exposure

“Health Care Without Harm” experience

This experience began in the USA in 1998 and over the past decade the health care sector has virtually phased out mercury-based medical devices. It is nearly impossible to purchase a mercury thermometer in the USA today. In the USA, 30 states have banned mercury thermometers and more than a third of the US population is covered by state laws restricting or banning mercury blood pressure devices.241

“Health Care Without Harm” experience, since 1998


Cosmetics

In January 2008, the State of Minnesota adopted a legislation which completely bans the presence of mercury in cosmetics (with no exemptions).242

Increasing awareness

Mercury-Added Products Database

This database was developed by the Interstate Mercury Education & Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC).

This provides a searchable database of information submitted to IMERC-member states on the amount and purpose of mercury in products. The database is intended to inform consumers, recyclers, policy makers, and others about products that contain intentionally-added mercury; the amount of mercury in specific products; the amount of mercury in a specific product line sold in the U.S. in a given year; and manufacturers of mercury-added products.243

Interstate Mercury Education & Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC)

Mercury-Added Products Database (since January 2001)

The USA are leading the UNEP partnership area on mercury-containing products. They

have funded capacity building and technical assistance projects in Latin America and

the Caribbean (2 million USD).

240 www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/mercuryvapor/recognition.html 241 www.noharm.org/global/issues/toxins/mercury/policies.php 242 www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/imerc/productban.cfm 243 www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/imerc/notification/

October 2010



� Norway

Mercury has been on Norway’s priority list of hazardous substances for many years and

the country has set a national target to reduce mercury releases substantially from the

1995 level by 2010. Another target is to eliminate the use and releases of mercury by

2020. For example, the use of mercury in thermometers has been prohibited in

Norway since 1998. To achieve these targets Norway has been working actively

towards stronger international regulations for mercury, both in the EU and globally.

The recent (January 2008) total ban on mercury in Norway has clearly put it ahead of

the EU on measures to restrict mercury (see Table 35).

Table 35: Mercury-related policy initiatives in Norway


Reducing supply /

Reducing demand / Reducing international trade


The aim of this policy is to stop the use of mercury in all products as far as possible.

The regulation took effect on 1 January 2008. It includes a ban on mercury being used to remove organisms from ships’ hulls, treatment of water used in industry, switches and relays, preservation of wood, in thermometers to be used for analysis and research, in measuring devices and as dental amalgam.

Manufacturers are prohibited from importing, exporting and selling products that contain mercury or mercury compounds.

The prohibition on mercury use in products (from 1 January 2008) does not cover substances, preparations and articles for which the content of mercury or mercury compounds is lower than 0.001% by weight and thiomersal as a preservative in vaccines.

There are limited exemptions for some areas of use until 31 December 2010.This includes the following:

- Amalgam for dental treatment of patients who must be treated under general anaesthesia or who are allergic to ingredients in other dental fillings

- Contact material in welding equipment

- Polarographs

Amendment of regulations of 1 June 2004 no 922 relating to “Restrictions on the use of chemicals and other products hazardous to health and the environment” (adopted on 14 December 2007)244

244 www.regjeringen.no/Upload/MD/Vedlegg/Forskrifter/product_regulation_amendment_071214.pdf




Reducing emissions / Waste management


A limit on discharges and a requirement to have an approved amalgam separator (required to remove 95% of mercury from the wastewater) were introduced in 1995. This led to a significant reduction of mercury discharged into municipal sewers – from 350 kg in 1995 to 60 kg in 2003. All waste and sludge containing amalgam must be delivered to appropriate hazardous waste disposal facilities.245

Reducing emissions

Cremation

Norway’s Pollution Control Authority (SFT) has developed air and water regulations for crematoria, which went into effect on 1 January 2003 for new crematoria, and 1 January 2007 for existing crematoria. The regulations were intended to result in a 95% reduction in mercury emissions from the largest crematoria, according to an SFT news release issued on 15 January 2003. For air the emission limit is 0.05 mg/m3 of exhaust gas, while for water the limit is 2 μg/l.246

Norway funded some projects under the UNEP partnership on mercury waste (in

particular, one project in Kyrgyzstan and other projects in Asia and South America),

with approximately 1 million USD between 2008 and 2009.

� Switzerland

In Switzerland, the main policy initiative of interest is a ban on mercury and mercury

containing products, including a significant number of exemptions, as described the

table below.

Table 36: Mercury-related policy initiatives in Switzerland


Reducing demand


The following is prohibited as of 30 June 2006:

- Marketing of mercury-containing preparations and objects;

- Use of elemental mercury, mercury compounds

Ordinance on the reduction of risks related to the use of particularly dangerous substances, preparations and objects (Ordinance on the reduction of risks

245 CONCORDE. May 2007. Mercury in dental use: environmental implications for the EU. Report for the

European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (www.zeromercury.org/EU_developments/Maxson%20Dental%2014May2007%20-%20A5colour.pdf)

246 CONCORDE. May 2007. Mercury in dental use: environmental implications for the EU. Report for the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (www.zeromercury.org/EU_developments/Maxson%20Dental%2014May2007%20-%20A5colour.pdf)

October 2010




and mercury-containing preparations.

Exemptions under a):

- Medicines

- Antiques

- Certain cosmetics

- Import of mercury-containing preparations and objects which are only refined or re-packaged in Switzerland and are then entirely re-exported.

Exemptions under a), if no mercury-free alternatives are available:

- Electrical and electronic equipment which belong to the medical devices or the monitoring and control instruments categories

- Laboratory equipment

- Fluorescent lamps

- Colours for artists (used for restoration)

- Medical devices for professional use

- Auxiliary materials used in manufacturing processes

For batteries and accumulators, restrictions on mercury content are similar to those defined at EU level.

Exemptions under b):

- Use of mercury in laboratories and for research purposes

- Use of mercury for the manufacture of preparations and objects which are authorised under a)

- Use of mercury in medical devices for professional use, if no mercury-free alternatives are available

- Use of mercury as auxiliary material, if it does not end up in the final product, if no mercury-free alternatives are available

related to chemicals, ORRChim) of 18 May 2005247

� India

The main sources of mercury emissions in India include chlor-alkali plants, coal-based

power stations, electrical and electronic industries, medical instruments using mercury,

paints, pesticides and fungicides and Indian traditional medicine manufacturing units.

Relevant legislation and best practices identified in India are presented in the table

below.

247 Ordonnance sur la réduction des risques liés à l’utilisation de substances, de préparations et d’objets

particulièrement dangereux (Ordonnance sur la réduction des risques liés aux produits chimiques, ORRChim) du 18 mai 2005 (www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/c814_81.html)



Table 37: Mercury-related policy initiatives in India


Reducing demand


The Government of India has banned the commissioning of new mercury cell based chlor-alkali plants since 1991.

No information available


A comprehensive plan for the control of mercury emissions from chlor-alkali sector was developed through a Government-Industry partnership: the Corporate Responsibility on Environmental Protection (CREP) programme. This includes conversion of mercury-cell plants to the membrane cell process by 2012.

There have also been certain restrictions on mercury usage as well as discharge in the chlor-alkali plants.

However, there has been no clarity on how the converted plants are disposing of the current mercury stocks.

Further details and a comparison with the European situation are presented in Table 38 below.

Corporate Responsibility for Environment Protection (CREP) programme

Reducing demand


A draft notification was circulated by the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) in 2000 for a phased elimination of mercury from consumer products, but so far no action has been taken in this regard.

Draft notification from Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF), 2000


Mercury standards in groundwater, leachate and composts

These Rules specify standards for mercury content in groundwater, leachate and composts.

Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000248.

Reducing demand / Protecting against exposure

Phase-out of mercury-containing equipment in hospitals

Demonstration programs related to mercury elimination in hospitals have already been carried

out by Indian NGO’s (Toxic Link)249.

Some of the private hospitals had started mercury phase-out in 2003 when mercury was included in the training programmes conducted for medical waste management. The occupational exposure and the health impacts motivated these hospitals to take such steps. After the assessment of mercury releases by the hospitals in Delhi, a number of hospitals decided to become mercury free.

All government hospitals in Delhi have stopped purchase of mercury equipment and are in the process of phasing it out. A non-mercury product

Best practice programmes in hospitals, launched by NGO

248 enews.toxicslink.org/interview-view.php?id=3 249 www.toxicslink.org/pub-view.php?pubnum=244

October 2010




replaces any broken mercury instrument (e.g. thermometers and sphygmomanometers which are used in large quantities in the health care sector).

With regard to progress in reducing mercury impacts from the chlor-alkali industry, a

comparison between the situation in India and Europe is presented in the table below.

Table 38: Indian chlor-alkali industry vis-à-vis European Scenario (March 2006)250

Context India Europe

Share of membrane technology (1) 18% 46%

Hg cell chlor-alkali plants capacity converted to membrane cells

40% in last 5 years 30% in last 15 years

Reduction in Hg emissions 90% in 3 years 96 % in 27 years

Phase out By 2012 as per CREP Directive (voluntary)

2020 (voluntary)

(1) In India, in 2006 there were 35 chlor-alkali plants having an installed capacity of 2.33 million tonnes per annum.

In India, the CREP program has resulted in a reduction of mercury use from 110 g/t of

chlorine produced in 2001-02 to 36 g/t in the year 2006-07 and a reduction of mercury

emissions from 28 g/t in 2001-02 to 1 g/t in the year 2006-07251.

� Japan

Japan experienced two serious methylmercury poisoning accidents in Minamata and

Niigata in the 1950’s (due to the release of methylmercury from chemical plants and

subsequent consumption of contaminated fish by the local population). As a

consequence of these accidents, there has been an early awareness of mercury-related

risks in Japan.

The conversion of mercury-based chlor-alkali processes to alternative processes was

done on a volunteer basis, following a decision from the government in 1973. In 1999,

all chlor-alkali production plants had converted to the membrane technology.

According to a report published by the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) in

2007252, Japan has (unofficially) discouraged mercury use in dental applications in order

250 Source: Dr. G.K. Pandey (Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, New Delhi),

Initiatives taken for Estimation and Control of Mercury from Various Sources in India, 2006 (www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/article-71528.html)

251 Source: UNEP Global Mercury Partnership – Business Plan of the Mercury Reductions from the Chlor Alkali Sector partnership area, 7 August 2008 (www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/Sector-Specific-Information/Chlor-alkali_sector.htm)

252 CONCORDE. May 2007. Mercury in dental use: environmental implications for the EU. Report for the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (www.zeromercury.org/EU_developments/Maxson%20Dental%2014May2007%20-%20A5colour.pdf)



to reduce the mercury content of wastewater sludge. Japan now uses mercury

amalgam for less than 4% of fillings nationwide. General trends can be further deduced

from surveys of teaching practices. In Japan 93% of dental schools were reported to

teach the use of alternative materials in preference to amalgam.

The Government of Japan led the development of guidance for implementation of

important parts of the Basel Convention Technical Guidelines on Environmentally

Sound Management of Mercury Waste (200.000 USD).253

� Other countries

In Brazil and China, best practices have been identified with regard to substitution of

mercury thermometers and sphygmomanometers with mercury-free alternatives. For

example:

• Since 2006, the Brazilian Ministry of Labour and a growing number of allies

have succeeded in convincing more than 92 hospitals to sign agreements on

the elimination of mercury thermometers and sphygmomanometers from their

operations254. Of these hospitals, more than 42 had already done so in 2007.

• Two hospitals in Beijing, in cooperation with Chinese and US EPAs,

implemented a pilot project of mercury-free healthcare in 2007255, which

represented an important start point of Chinese healthcare sector to reduce

mercury use.

6.3.2. INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS, AGREEMENTS AND PROGRAMMES

The mercury issue is addressed in a number of international conventions, agreements,

action plans and programmes. Table 39 below provides an overview of such initiatives.

253 www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/Sector-Specific-

Information/Docs/Chair%27s%20Summary%20_Mercury%20Waste%20Management%20Partnership%20Meeting%202009.pdf

254 Source: Health care without harm. 2007. “The global movement for mercury-free health care” (www.noharm.org/lib/downloads/mercury/Global_Mvmt_Mercury-Free.pdf)

255 www.mercuryfreehealthcare.org/wsbeijing.pdf

October 2010



Table 39: Overview of the main international agreements and programmes covering the mercury issue

Name Year Geographic

coverage

Relevance to mercury and specific

provisions going beyond EU policy

measures

UNEP Activities256

Since 2001 Global Comprehensive Mercury Framework:

proposes eight specific actions areas

to address the challenges posed by

mercury.

Negotiations on a global legally

binding instrument on mercury

started in 2010, expected to be

completed by 2013.

Mercury Programme: seven

Partnership Areas to deliver

immediate actions on mercury.

Aarhus Protocol of

1998 on Heavy

Metals (UNECE

CLRTAP)

1998 (adopted)

2003

(enforced)

Europe,

North

America and

Central Asia

Ratified by

the EU (in

2001) and

20 MS

Addresses mercury emissions and

use in products (batteries,

thermostats, switches,

thermometers, manometers,

barometers, fluorescent lamps,

dental amalgam, pesticide and paint)

Requirement to apply BAT to limit mercury emissions from major stationary sources

Requirement to develop and maintain mercury emission inventories and report data

OSPAR Convention 1972

(started)

North-East

Atlantic

including the

North Sea257

Addresses mercury and mercury

compounds in releases (including

crematoria), products, wastes, etc.

PARCOM Decision 90/3: Objective to phase-out of MCCA plants by 2010

Recommendation 2003/4 (amended): Commitments to use BAT to reduce Hg air emissions from cremation and report on implementation

256 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) activities on Comprehensive Mercury Framework and

Mercury Programme (www.chem.unep.ch/MERCURY/mandates.htm) 257 Parties include Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, The

Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom



Name Year Geographic

coverage

Relevance to mercury and specific

provisions going beyond EU policy

measures

Helsinki Convention

(HELCOM)

1974

(adopted)

1980

(enforced)

Baltic Sea258 Binding requirements on the use of

mercury in batteries, mercury

emissions in crematoria and mercury

amount in incineration waste

HELCOM Recommendation 29/1:

ELVs for mercury air emissions from

cremation

Basel Convention 1989 (adopted)

1992

(enforced)

Global Provisions to control transboundary movements of hazardous wastes (thus covering mercury containing waste) Technical guidelines on the Environmentally Sound Management (ESM) of mercury wastes currently under development

Rotterdam

Convention

1998 (adopted)

2004

(enforced)

Global Regulates trade (import/export) of

dangerous chemicals, including

mercury compounds

Nordic Council

Environmental

Action Plan

2008 Nordic

countries259

Targeted measures for reduction of

mercury exposure and emissions

UNEP

Mediterranean

Action Plan

(MAP)260

1975 (adopted) 21 countries National Action Plans (NAP) and

Strategic Action Programme (SAP)

Measures for reducing mercury

emission to the sea and improved

waste management

World Health

Organisation’s

(WHO)

recommendations

Global Promotion of initiatives on mercury

exposure reduction, reduction of

mercury use in products and mercury

waste management

Recommendations made at INC1 in

June 2010261 regarding the phase-out

of mercury blood pressure

measuring devices and a global

phase down/preventive approach

with regard to dental amalgam

Further details on these international initiatives are provided below, focusing on

aspects going beyond the EU policy framework on mercury.

258 Parties includes Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia and Sweden 259 Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, the Faroe Islands, Greenland and Åland 260 www.unepmap.org 261 First meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to prepare a global legally binding

instrument on mercury

October 2010



� UNEP activities

UNEP Comprehensive Mercury Framework

In February 2007, the Governing Council (GC) of the UNEP, in its Decision 24/3 IV on

Chemicals management262, established “an ad hoc open-ended working group of

Governments, regional economic integration organizations and stakeholder

representatives to review and assess options for enhanced voluntary measures and new

or existing international legal instruments” for addressing the global challenges

presented by mercury.

In October 2008, the 2nd UNEP Open Ended Working Group (OEWG2) on mercury

agreed on the elements that would form part of a global framework on mercury263. The

proposed comprehensive mercury framework includes eight specific action areas to

address the challenges posed by mercury: 1) Reduce the supply of mercury; 2) Reduce

the demand for mercury in products and processes; 3) Reduce international trade in

mercury; 4) Reduce atmospheric emissions of mercury; 5) Achieve environmentally

sound management of mercury-containing waste; 6) Find environmentally sound

storage solutions for mercury; 7) Address remediation of existing contaminated sites

and 8) Increase knowledge.

This was followed by the decision made by the GC of the UNEP in February 2009264 to

establish an intergovernmental negotiating committee with the mandate to prepare a

global legally binding instrument on mercury (Decision GC25/5).

The Committee started its work in 2010 with the goal of completing it prior to the 27th

regular session of the Council in 2013. The first session of the committee will be held in

from 7 to 11 June 2010. To prepare for the work of the intergovernmental negotiating

committee, the GC established an Ad Hoc Open-Ended Working Group to discuss the

negotiating priorities, timetable and organisation of the intergovernmental negotiating

committee. The meeting was held in Bangkok from 19 to 23 October 2009.

UNEP Mercury Programme

The UNEP Mercury Programme delivers activities on mercury through the UNEP Global

Mercury Partnership, and also supports the negotiations of an internationally legal

instrument for control of mercury.

The UNEP Global Mercury Partnership is the main mechanism for the delivery of

immediate actions on mercury. The overall goal of the UNEP Global Mercury

Partnership is to protect human health and the global environment from the release of

mercury and its compounds by minimising and, where feasible, ultimately eliminating

global, anthropogenic mercury releases to air, water and land.

262 UNEP GC Decision 24/3: Chemicals management, February 2007

(www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/Decision%2024-3.pdf) 263 UNEP(DTIE)/Hg/OEWG.2/13, Report of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Mercury on the

work of its second meeting, October 2008 264 UNEP Decision GC25/5, February 2009



The partnership areas currently identified include:

• Mercury Management in Artisanal and Small-Scale Gold Mining.

• Mercury Control from Coal Combustion.

• Mercury Reduction in the Chlor-alkali Sector.

• Mercury Reduction in Products.

• Mercury Air Transport and Fate Research.

• Mercury Waste Management.

• Mercury Supply and Storage.

A review of the business plans of the partnership areas was carried in order to identify

key objectives that are relevant from a policy perspective and going beyond current EU

policy measures. Relevant objectives identified are presented in Table 40 below:

Table 40: Relevant objectives from UNEP mercury partnership areas (exceeding EU legislation)

Partnership area

Relevant objectives

Mercury Control from Coal Combustion

265

Priority action No 4: “Increase the awareness of mercury as a pollutant of

concern through increased outreach efforts and collaboration with

complementary programmes (such as at UNFCC level), including

consideration of alternative energy sources and energy efficiency.”

Mercury Reduction in Products

266

Fever thermometers and sphygmomanometers

Objective No 2a: “To track the effectiveness of the partnership, our objective

is to go beyond the status quo scenario and, by 2017, to phase out the

demand for mercury-containing fever thermometers and

sphygmomanometers by at least 70% and to shift the production of all

mercury-containing fever thermometers and sphygmomanometers to

accurate, affordable, and safer non-mercury alternatives.”

Dental amalgam

Objective No 5: “In 2005, demand from dental uses was roughly 240-300

tonnes. Based on a status quo scenario, demand in 2015 is estimated to be

around 270 tonnes. To track the effectiveness of the partnership, our

objective is to go beyond the status quo scenario and reduce the demand for

mercury in dental amalgam to less than 230 tonnes, or a 15% reduction from

status quo in 2015.”

The basis for this objective is explained as follows: “Even in the event of an

increased number of people worldwide seeking dental care, it is possible to

consider a range of incentives that may encourage a global reduction in

dental mercury use during the next ten years. However, there are presently

no significant trends or international initiatives reported that point in that

265 UNEP Global Mercury Partnership - Business Plan of the Reduction of Mercury Releases from Coal

Combustion partnership area - 23 July 2008 (www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/Sector-Specific-Information/Coal_combustion.htm)

266 Mercury-Containing Products Partnership Area – Business Plan - July 1, 2008 (www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/Sector-Specific-Information/Mercury-in-products.htm)

October 2010



Partnership area

Relevant objectives

direction. Even lacking such concerted efforts, however, it is certain that the

cost of alternative dental fillings will continue to decrease, and the aesthetic

advantages of non-mercury fillings will become better recognized. Further, it

is recognized that certain countries are focusing on proper disposal of dental

amalgam waste rather than quantitative reduction goals.”

Mercury Waste Management

267

The overall goal of this partnership area is to “minimize and, where feasible,

eliminate unintentional mercury releases to air, water, and land from

mercury waste by following a lifecycle management approach”. More specific objectives are defined in order to achieve this overall goal, among which the following:

• “Strengthen the capacity of developing countries and countries with economies in transition to effectively deal with mercury waste”.

• “Awareness raising and training to increase knowledge and implementation of effective mercury waste treatment methods”.

� Protocol on Heavy Metals under the UNECE Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP)268

The 1998 Aarhus Protocol on Heavy Metals (adopted in the framework of the 1979

CLRTAP) aims at the reduction of cadmium, lead and mercury emissions.

The Heavy Metals Protocol was ratified by the EU (in 2001) and 20 Member States.

Some Member States have not ratified it: Greece, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Poland, Portugal

and Spain.

The Protocol entered into force on 29 December 2003.

According to one of the basic obligations, Parties have to reduce their emissions for

these three metals below their levels in 1990 (or an alternative year between 1985 and

1995). The Protocol aims to cut emissions of mercury from industrial sources (iron and

steel industry, non-ferrous metal industry), combustion processes (power generation,

road transport) and waste incineration.

Key provisions related to mercury include:

• Requirement to apply stringent limit values for mercury emissions from

stationary sources (Annex V of the Protocol), in particular for waste

incineration; however these are not more stringent than limit values set at EU

level.

267 UNEP Global Mercury Partnership - Business Plan of the Mercury Waste Management Partnership

Area - 13 March 2009 - (www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/Sector-Specific-Information/Waste_management.htm)

268 www.unece.org/env/lrtap/ On 24 June 1998 the European Commission signed the Heavy Metals Protocol. This Decision approves the Protocol on behalf of the Community (formalised by Council Decision 2001/379/C)



• Requirement to apply Best Available Techniques (BAT) for stationary sources,

such as special filters or scrubbers for combustion sources or mercury-free

processes.

• Requirements to apply product control measures (Annex VI), including in

particular restrictions on the mercury content of batteries (although less

stringent than the EU Batteries Directive).

• Recommendations on management measures for mercury-containing

products, such as electrical components (thermostats, switches), measuring

devices (thermometers, manometers, barometers), fluorescent lamps, dental

amalgam, pesticides, paint and batteries (Annex VII of the Protocol).

• Requirement to develop and maintain emission inventories.

In September 2008, as part of the review process of the Heavy Metals Protocol, the EU

issued a proposal for adding the following mercury-containing products to Annex VI of

the Protocol: batteries, measuring devices, vehicles, electrical and electronic

equipment, fluorescent lamps, dental amalgam. The proposed control measures for

these products are in line with existing EU Directives; in the case of dental amalgam,

the proposed control measure is described as follows: “All Parties shall ensure the

installation of amalgam separators at dentist practices within their territories.”

� OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic269

The OSPAR Convention has the ultimate aim of achieving concentrations in the marine

environment near background values for naturally occurring substances (such as

mercury) and close to zero for man-made synthetic substances, with every endeavour

to be made to move towards the target of cessation of discharges, emissions and

losses of hazardous substances by 2020. Parties to the OSPAR Convention include

twelve Member States (BE, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, IE, LU, NL, PT, SE, UK).

A number of specific Decisions and Recommendations relating to mercury have been

adopted; two of them are of particular relevance to this study as they are going beyond

EU legislation on mercury, as presented in Table 41 below.

Table 41: Relevant policy provisions of the OSPAR Convention

Focus area Policy initiative Title and date of initiative

Reducing use / Reducing emissions

Chlor alkali industry

Under this Decision, “Parties to the OSPAR Convention

agree:

1) That existing mercury based chlor-alkali plants shall

be required to meet by 31 December 1996 a standard

of 2g Hg/t Cl2 capacity for emissions to the

atmosphere, unless there is a firm commitment that

PARCOM Decision 90/3 of 14 June 1990

269 www.ospar.org

October 2010




the plant will be converted to mercury-free technology

by the year 2000

2) That mercury in hydrogen which is released to the

atmosphere, or is burnt, is to be included in this

standard

3) And recommend that existing mercury cell chlor-alkali

plants be phased out as soon as practicable. The

objective is that they should be phased out completely

by 2010.”

The objective to phase-out mercury-cell chlor-alkali plants by 2010 was not binding and has not been achieved.

Reducing emissions

Controlling the Dispersal of Mercury from Crematoria

Contracting Parties should ensure that the operators of crematoria apply Best Available Techniques (BAT) at their crematoria. Examples of BAT are provided in Appendix 1.

Contracting Parties should submit implementation reports on estimated loads of mercury released into the environment from crematoria (in Sept. 2005, Sept. 2009 then every 5 years)

OSPAR Recommendation 2003/4 (amended by OSPAR Recommendation 2006/2)270, applicable as of 27 June 2003

Other recent agreements from OSPAR focus on the management of contaminated,

dredged materials and the realisation of coordinated monitoring programmes.

� Helsinki Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (HELCOM)271

The Helsinki Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea

aims to prevent and eliminate pollution in order to promote the ecological restoration

of the Baltic Sea Area and the preservation of its ecological balance. Parties to the

Helsinki Convention include three EU Member States (DK, FI, SE).

A specific strategy on hazardous substances was adopted in 1998. Its objective is to

prevent pollution by continuously reducing discharges, emissions and losses of

hazardous substances towards the target of their cessation by 2020. The ultimate aim

is to achieve concentrations in the environment near background values for naturally

occurring substances and close to zero for man-made synthetic substances. A number

of Recommendations specifically affecting mercury have been adopted, recently

including Recommendations 29/1 and 27/1 concerning mercury emissions from

crematoria and incineration of waste respectively.

Table 42: Relevant policy provisions of the Helsinki Convention


Waste Batteries containing more than 0,0005 % of mercury HELCOM

270 www.ospar.org/v_measures/browse.asp 271 www.helcom.fi/




management prohibited (with the exception for button cells with a mercury content less than 2 %).

A proposal for amending Recommendation 24/2 was submitted in November 2009272. Most of the proposed amendments related to mercury cover provisions included in the EU “Batteries Directive” (2006/66/EC), except one proposed amendment relative to the adoption of “measures to give licenses for installations for recovery of waste batteries equipped with closed water systems only”.

Recommendation 24/2

273

Implementation date: 25 June 2003

Reduce emissions

Limitation of emissions into atmosphere and discharges into water from incineration of waste.

Atmospheric emissions of mercury from waste incineration should not exceed 0.05 mg/m3 at 11% O2. Discharges of waste water from cleaning of exhaust gases should not exceed mercury levels (24 h samples) of 0.03 mg/l.

HELCOM Recommendation 27/1

274

Implementation date: 8 March 2006

Reduce emissions

Crematoria with a capacity exceeding 500 cremations/year to reduce emissions of mercury from human remains, especially from dental amalgam. Limit value of 0.1 mg/normal m3 for mercury not to be exceeded.

HELCOM Recommendation 29/1

275

Implementation date: 5 March 2008

The COHIBA project 276(Control of hazardous substances in the Baltic Sea region) is one

of the projects carried out by the HELCOM, which aims to identify the sources and

inputs of eleven hazardous substances of special concern and develop measures to

reduce these substances. Mercury is one of the eleven substances of concern. With the

HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP), the Baltic Sea countries have committed

themselves to achieving a “Baltic Sea with life undisturbed by hazardous substances”.

The overall objective of COHIBA is to support the implementation of the BSAP with

regard to hazardous substances by developing joint actions to reach this goal. COHIBA

(2009-2012) is co-financed by the European Union within the Baltic Sea Region

Programme 2007-2013.

272 Proposals for revision of Helcom Recommendation 24/2 “Batteries containing mercury, cadmium or

lead” (meeting.helcom.fi/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=18983&folderId=716756&name=DLFE-39788.pdf)

273 www.helcom.fi/Recommendations/en_GB/rec24_2/?u4.highlight=mercury%20ban 274 www.helcom.fi/Recommendations/en_GB/rec27_1/ 275 www.helcom.fi/Recommendations/en_GB/rec29_1/?u4.highlight=mercury ban 276 www.cohiba-project.net/

October 2010



� Basel Convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal

The Basel Convention is the most comprehensive global environmental agreement on

hazardous and other wastes. The Convention entered into force in 1992. The primary

objective of the Convention is to minimise, with the aim of eliminating, the generation

and transboundary movement of hazardous waste. The Convention also aims at

preventing illegal trafficking in waste (export, import, transit). Parties to the Basel

Convention have the right to prohibit the import of hazardous wastes or other wastes

for disposal. In this case they have to inform the other Parties of their decision.

Another goal of the Basel Convention is overall Environmental Sound Management

(ESM) of waste. As part of this objective, technical guidelines on the ESM of mercury

wastes are being developed (fifth draft issued in January 2010)277. The draft guidelines

include sections on: application of Best Available Techniques and Best Environmental

Practices; waste minimization; handling, collection, packing, interim storage and

transport of mercury wastes.

Requirements of the Basel Convention have been incorporated in EU legislation by

Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste.

In 1995, a ban amendment was agreed that would prohibit the export of hazardous

waste from OECD to non-OECD countries. It has not yet entered into force at the

international level because too few Parties to the Basel convention have ratified it,

however it was transposed into EU law by Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006.

� Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade

Requirements of the Rotterdam Convention have been incorporated in EU legislation

by Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 of 17 June 2008 concerning the export and import of

dangerous chemicals; hence these requirements will not be discussed further in this

report.

� Nordic Council Environmental Action Plan 2009-2012

Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and the autonomous territories of the

Faroe Islands, Greenland and Åland work together in the official Nordic co-operation.

The Nordic countries have an ambition of making the Nordic region a pioneer region in

the environmental area and sharing their experience with others. The environmental

co-operation between Nordic countries during the period 2009–2012 focuses on the

following themes278: climate and air; sea and coastal regions; biological diversity and

ecosystem services; and sustainable consumption and production. The mercury issue is

covered by the following priorities:

277 www.basel.int/techmatters/index.html 278 www.norden.org/en/publications/publications/2008-736?set_language=en



• In Section 1.3 – Air quality, health and the environment: “Prevention of and

reduction in cross-border emission of (...) mercury”.

• In Section 2.3 – Hazardous substances in the sea: “Identification of the origin,

modes of spread and exposure of certain hazardous substances such as (...)

mercury for the purpose of taking targeted measures”.

• In Section 4.1 – Chemicals and circular flows: “Continued work on binding

international treaties on mercury”.

� UNEP Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP) for the Barcelona Convention

The MAP is an effort involving 21 countries279 bordering the Mediterranean Sea, as well

as the EU. The MAP has defined several key priorities, one of them being to bring

about a massive reduction in pollution from land-based sources. Parties to the MAP

have also adopted the Barcelona Convention for the Protection of the Marine

Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean. The Convention includes

seven Protocols, three of which are relevant to mercury pollution280:

• Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution from

Land-Based Sources and Activities (heavy metals and their compounds are

included in the categories of substances and sources of pollution which will

serve as guidance in the preparation of action plans, programmes and

measures).

• Protocol on the Prevention of Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by

Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (waste

containing mercury and mercury waste are subject to this Protocol).

• Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution

Resulting from Exploration and Exploitation of the Continental Shelf and the

Seabed and its Subsoil (the disposal into the Protocol Area of mercury and

mercury compounds resulting from the activities covered by this Protocol is

prohibited).

� World Health Organisation (WHO) Recommendations

The WHO has been dealing with the issue of mercury, mercury exposure and the risks

to human health and the environment for many years, focusing on the following topics:

279 The 22 Contracting Parties to the MAP are: Albania, Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus,

Egypt, the European Community, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Lebanon, Libya, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Slovenia, Spain, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey.

280 UNEP Mediterranean Action Plan, Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean and its Protocols, Athens 2005 (195.97.36.231/dbases/webdocs/BCP/BCP_eng.pdf)

October 2010



• Exposure to mercury and effects on human health and health risks from food

intake281

• Risks from long-range transboundary air pollution of heavy metals and mercury

content in environmental compartments (soil, air, water)282

• Setting of exposure limit values for mercury, e.g. for air and water exposure283

• Estimating the environmental burden on diseases based on mercury exposure

• Elaborating policy papers for mercury issues284 (in a policy paper of August

2005, the WHO stated that mercury may have no threshold below which some

adverse effects do not occur).

The WHO is organizing workshops with policy makers on the issue of mercury and

mercury exposure. The organisation is also proposing strategic actions to eliminate

mercury-related diseases including:

• The use of mercury-free alternatives, e.g. for manometers and thermometers.

• The development of mercury clean-up and waste-handling, storage and safe-

handling procedures.

• The promotion of environmentally sound management of health-related waste

containing mercury (as set out in the UN Basel Convention on the Control of

Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal).

During the first meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to prepare a

global legally binding instrument on mercury (INC1, June 2010), the WHO

recommended the phase-out of mercury thermometers and mercury blood pressure

measuring devices and highlighted the fact that affordable, mercury-free and solar-

powered options are available. For dental amalgam, the WHO noted that a Global

Phase Down/Preventive Approach is being explored through the Global Mercury

Partnership and that potential alternatives are promising.285

Parma Declaration286

The Fifth Ministerial Conference on Environment and Health: “Protecting children’s

health in a changing environment” was organised by the WHO Regional Office for

Europe in March 2010. Governments from northern, western, central, southern and

281 World Health Organisation, Assessing the environmental burden of disease at national and local levels.

Environmental Burden of Disease Series, No. 16, Geneva 2008 282 World Health Organisation, risks of heavy metals from long-range transboundary air pollution, Joint

WHO/Convention Task Force on the Health Aspects of Air Pollution, Germany 2007 283 World Health Organisation, Preventing disease through healthy environments exposure to mercury, A

major public health concerns, Geneve 2007 284 World Health Organisation, Policy Paper: Mercury in health care, August 2005;

www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/medicalwaste/mercurypolpaper.pdf 285 Presentation Mercury and the Health Care Sector, by the World Health Organization (WHO)

http://www.unep.org/hazardoussubstances/Mercury/Negotiations/INC1/Technicalbriefingpresentations/tabid/4118/language/en-US/Default.aspx

286 www.euro.who.int/document/ceh/parma_eh_conf_edoc05-1rev2.pdf



eastern Europe agreed on a declaration pledging to reduce the adverse health impact

of environmental threats in the next decade. The text was endorsed by 53 Member

States.

Through the Declaration and Commitment to Act, participating governments agreed to

implement national programmes to provide equal opportunities to each child by 2020

by ensuring access to safe water and sanitation, opportunities for physical activity and

a healthy diet, improved air quality and an environment free of toxic chemicals.

One of the Regional priority Goals defined in the Declaration (Goal 4) deals with

“preventing disease arising from chemical, biological and physical environments” and

includes a commitment to contribute to the development of the global legal

instrument on mercury.

October 2010



6.4. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Table 43 below provides a mapping of relevant policy initiatives and best practices identified in this review. The same structure as the one presented

in Section 3 of the report is used to present these findings. In the table below, the Community Strategy concerning Mercury is referred to as

“CSM2005”.

Table 43: Overview of policy and best practice initiatives on mercury going beyond EU policy measures

Specific issues EU policy measures MS policies/best practices going beyond EU policy International policies/best practices going

beyond EU policy

1.Reduce supply

1.1 Supply from surpluses and by-products (chlor-alkali industry, gas cleaning and non-ferrous mining/smelting)

Action 5 of CSM2005

Regulation 1102/2008 (mercury export ban): mercury from these sources is considered as waste that must be stored

1.2 Supply from the recycling of mercury-containing waste

Recycling of mercury-containing waste – and therefore mercury recovery – is encouraged by Directives 2002/96/EC (WEEE), 2000/53/EC (end-of-life vehicles) and 2006/66/EC (batteries)

1.3 Supply from imported elemental mercury, mercury compounds and mercury-containing

Action 16 of CSM2005

Import of mercury compounds subject to PIC procedure under Regulation 689/2008

DK: Ban on imports of mercury and mercury-containing products, with a number of exemptions

NL: Ban on imports of mercury-containing products (limited exemptions)

NO: Ban on the import of mercury and mercury-containing products (limited exemptions)



Specific issues EU policy measures MS policies/best practices going beyond EU policy International policies/best practices going beyond EU policy

products

1.4 Supply from primary mining

1.5 Supply from other sources (lighthouses, laboratories, schools, clinics, etc.)


2.1 Use of mercury in the chlor-alkali industry

Actions 1 and 2 of CSM2005

Directive 96/61/EC (IPPC) and new Industrial Emissions Directive (IED)

Voluntary commitment from EuroChlor to close or convert all MCCA plants by 2020, except for specialities

SE: Hg use in chlor-alkali production to be banned from 2014 (legal provision)

BE: Legislation requires that sodium-based MCCA plants be closed/converted by 2010 and potassium-based MCCA plants by 2015

ES: MCCA plants are required to submit a plant conversion/closure plan by 2011 to the environmental authorities

CZ: Sunset dates for the remaining two MCCA plants are 2012 and 2014, as specified in their IPPC permits

IT: Most MCCA plants have been converted/closed or are in the process of doing so, through voluntary measures.

FR: In May 2010, one main MCCA plant (ARKEMA in Jarrie) agreed with the Environment Ministry to convert to an alternative technology by 2013 and will receive financial support from the State to do so.

OSPAR Convention - PARCOM Decision 90/3: Objective to phase-out of MCCA plants by 2010

IN: Phase out of MCCA technology by 2012

US: Mercury usage in the chlor-alkali industry has been reduced by over 97% between 1990 and 2008. Out of the fourteen MCCA plants operating in 1996, there were only four remaining plants at the end of 2009, as a result of voluntary plant conversion or closure.

JP: The conversion of mercury-based chlor-alkali processes to alternative processes was done on a volunteer basis, following a decision from the government in 1973. In 1999, all chlor-alkali production plants had converted to the membrane technology.

October 2010




2.2 Use of mercury-based dental amalgam

Action 6 of CSM2005

SE: As part of the general ban on mercury-containing products, dental amalgam is prohibited from use in ordinary dental care and a total ban applies to the use in children and youth dental care.

NL: Dental amalgam is exempted from the general ban on mercury-containing products; however its use is discouraged.

DK: Dental amalgam is prohibited as part of the general ban on mercury-containing products, except for filling permanent molar teeth

DE: It is recommended not to use dental amalgam on pregnant and nursing women and on mercury-allergic patients.

NO: As part of the general ban on mercury-containing products, use of dental amalgam is prohibited, except until end of 2010 for patients who must be treated under general anaesthesia or who are allergic to ingredients in other dental fillings

CH: Use of dental amalgam exempted from the general ban if no substitutes are technically available; however Hg-free alternatives are widely used

JP: Recommended to avoid the use of dental amalgam.

UNEP partnership area on mercury reduction in products: Objective to reduce the global demand for mercury in dental amalgam to less than 230 t/year, or a 15% reduction from status quo in 2015

WHO (World Health Organisation): Supporting a global phase-down of dental amalgam use, as per their statement at INC1 in June 2010

2.3 Use of mercury in measuring equipment

Action 7 of CSM2005

Regulation 1907/2006 (REACH) – Annex XVII

SE: Covered by the general ban on the use of mercury-containing goods (porosimetry is excluded)

NL: Covered by the general ban on the use of mercury-containing products (with a few exemptions including porosimetry)

DK: Covered by the general ban on the sale of mercury-containing products (with a few exemptions). Most applications of porosimetry

US: 30 states have banned mercury thermometers and more than a third of the US population is covered by state laws restricting or banning mercury blood pressure devices

NO: Covered by the general ban on the use of mercury-containing products (limited exemptions not including porosimetry)

CH: Covered by the general ban on the




would fall under the exempted category “products for research”.

ES: Launching of campaigns to reduce devices containing mercury in public and private hospitals, as part of the National Plan on Heavy metals under development

marketing of mercury-containing products, except if no mercury-free alternatives exist

IN, CN, BR: Many best practice initiatives where hospitals have phased out or are in the process of phasing out the use of mercury-containing thermometers and sphygmomanometers

UNEP partnership area on mercury reduction in products: Objective to phase out the demand for mercury-containing fever thermometers and sphygmomanometers by at least 70% and to shift the production of all mercury-containing fever thermometers and sphygmomanometers to accurate, affordable, and safer non-mercury alternatives

WHO (World Health Organisation): Recommending the phase-out of mercury blood pressure measuring devices, as per their statement at INC1 in June 2010

2.4 Use of mercury in lighting

Action 8 of CSM2005

Directive 2002/95/EC (RoHS), with some exemptions for mercury-containing light bulbs (currently under revision)

Regulation 244/2009 (ecodesign of non-directional household lamps) encourages the use of energy-saving light bulbs (containing mercury) and requires the display of the

October 2010




mercury content

Regulation 245/2009 (ecodesign of fluorescent lamps without integrated ballast and high intensity discharge lamps) results in the ban of high-mercury content lamps and requires the display of the mercury content

2.5 Use of mercury in batteries

Action 8 of CSM2005

Directive 2006/66/EC (batteries) – Exemption for button cell batteries (2 % Hg allowed)

US: U.S. battery manufacturers have voluntarily committed to eliminating mercury in button-cell batteries by 2011

US – States of Maine and Connecticut: Ban on the sale of mercury button cell batteries (from 2011)

2.6 Use of mercury in switches

Action 8 of CSM2005

Directive 2002/95/EC (RoHS), but exemptions for mercury containing switches (currently under revision)

NL, SE: Covered by the general ban on the use of mercury containing products

2.7 Use of mercury in other electrical equipment

Action 8 of CSM2005

Directive 2002/95/EC (RoHS)

2.8 Use of mercury in other chemical processes

Action 8 of CMS2005

Regulation 1907/2006 (REACH) – Annex XVII

Directive 79/117/EEC amended by 91/188/EEC (pesticides)

SE: General ban on the use of mercury (catalysts are not exempted)

NL: General ban on the use of mercury-containing products (no exemptions on chemicals)

DK: Ban on the sale of mercury-containing products,

NO: Ban on the use of mercury compounds (no exemptions on chemicals)

CH: Ban on the marketing and use of mercury-containing preparations, with a number of exemptions




Directive 98/8/EC (biocides)

but there are a few exemptions for mercury-containing chemicals for special applications including the use as a catalyst

2.9. Use of mercury in vaccines

Advice from the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA), last updated in March 2004

DK: The National Central Laboratory of the Danish Health System has not used thimerosal in vaccines for children since 1992.

FR: In line with the EMEA recommendations, the French authorities recommend the use of thimerosal-free vaccinations when available for the vaccination of newborn babies.

IT: In 2001, a first Decree required all vaccines containing thimerosal to be replaced by 2003. In June 2003, a second Decree authorised thimerosal-containing vaccines only if no alternatives exist.

SE: Three vaccines containing thiomersal as a preservative, including one for flu, are approved by Swedish authorities but they are not used in Sweden. The extensive phase-out of thimerosal is a result of voluntary measures. Sweden’s Children’s Vaccine Program has not used mercury-based preservatives since 1993-1994.

UK: In August 2004, the Department of Health announced it would no longer use thimerosal in infant vaccines.

US: All vaccines routinely recommended for children under six are thimerosal-free or contain only trace amounts (defined as 1 microgram of mercury per gram or less). However, some flu vaccinations still contain thimerosal. A list of the thimerosal content in all vaccines is available on the Food and drug Administration website.

2.10. Other intentional uses

Action 8 of CMS2005

SE, NL: General ban on the use of mercury and mercury-containing goods

DK: Ban on the sale of mercury-containing products (with a number of exemptions)

US: Proposed rules requiring 90 days notice prior to U.S. manufacture, import or processing of elemental Hg for use in flow meters, natural gas manometers, pyrometers, convenience light switches, anti-lock brake system switches and

October 2010




active ride control system switches in certain motor vehicles

NO: Ban on the use of mercury-containing products (limited exemptions)

CH: Ban on the marketing of mercury-containing products, with a number of exemptions


3.1 Export of elemental mercury

Action 5 of CSM2005

Regulation 1102/2008 (mercury export ban)

3.2 Export of mercury compounds

Action 5 of CSM2005

Regulation 1102/2008 (mercury export ban)

3.3 Export of mercury-added products

Export of mercury-containing soaps banned by Regulation 689/2008

SE, DK: General ban on export of mercury-containing products

NO: General ban on export of mercury-containing products

3.4 Export of mercury-containing wastes

Regulation 1013/2006 (waste shipment): waste containing mercury shall not be exported from EU to non-OECD countries


4.1 Air emissions from industry sectors covered by IPPC (excluding

Actions 1 and 2 of CMS2005


Chlor-alkali industry:

ES: Maximum emissions per tonne of chlorine produced (voluntary agreement with chlorine producers)

Large coal combustion plants:

CA: Recommended limit values in terms of % capture in coal burned and emission rates (kg Hg/TWh) for new plants. Future standards may




waste incineration) UK: Fixed lifetime mass allocations for mercury emissions to air ( Joint Position Statement between the UK Chlorine Council and the Environment Agency)

FR: The industry agreed on targets for the reduction of Hg emissions from MCCA plants: 47% reduction of Hg emissions to air by 2010 (reference year: 2000) and 25% reduction of Hg emissions to water by 2015 (reference year: 2005).

DE, IT: ELVs for Hg emissions to air and water are defined by the legislation

BE: ELVs for Hg emissions to air are defined by the legislation

SK: ELVs for Hg emissions to air are defined by the legislation

include a national capture target of mercury from coal burned in the range of 60-70% by 2010 and 80% or more by 2018 for existing plants (recommended limit values, not binding)

US: Proposed rule to regulate Hg emissions from coal burning in power plants by November 2011

Metals industry:

CA : Guidelines for Hg air emissions from base metal smelters and refineries

Chlor-alkali industry:

CA: Legal restrictions on Hg daily flow rates

US: Proposed rule to set ELVs for Hg air emissions from MCCA plants and from Hg recovery facilities

4.2 Air emissions from waste incineration

Directive 2000/76/EC (waste incineration): ELV for Hg air emissions


DE: Mercury ELVs in flue gases from waste incinerators: 0.03 mg/m³ (daily average) and 0.05 mg/m³ (half hour average)

4.3 Air emissions from small-scale coal combustion plants and residential use of coal

Action 3 of CSM2005

October 2010




4.4 Air emissions from cremation

UK: Abatement to be fitted covering 50% of cremations by end 2012, plus all new crematoria to have abatement

DK: Obligatory mercury filters on crematoria

Emissions regulated in several other MS

OSPAR Recommendation 2003/4 (amended): Commitments to use BAT to reduce Hg air emissions and report on implementation

HELCOM Recommendation 29/1: ELV for Hg air emissions

NO: ELV for Hg air emissions


5.1 Fate of general mercury containing waste

Directive 2008/98/EC (waste framework) and Decision 2000/532/EC (list of wastes)

Directive2002/96/EC (WEEE)

Directive 2006/66/EC (batteries)

Directive 2000/53/EC (end-of-life vehicles)

Directive 96/61/EC (IPPC) for waste treatment facilities (e.g. recycling plants): see Issue 4.1

Directive 2000/76/EC (waste incineration): see Issue 4.2

AT: Special charge-free collection system provided by the municipalities for mercury-containing waste arising from households

Many different restrictions in MS on landfilling and pre-treatment of mercury-containing waste.

5.2 Fate of mercury already circulating in society

Action 10 of CSM2005 AT: Voluntary activity of Austrian pharmacies led to the collection of a half million thermometers in 2008287

ES: Campaigns for voluntary withdrawal of domestic devices containing mercury, as part of the National

287 www.apoverlag.at/oeaz/zeitung/3aktuell/2007/22/haupt/haupt22_2007quecksilber.html




Plan on Heavy Metals (under development)

5.3 De-commissioning of mercury cells in the chlor alkali industry

Action 2 of CSM2005

Directive 96/61/EC (IPPC)

Regulation 1102/2008: obsolete mercury from MCCA plants is considered as waste and has to be disposed of in underground disposal facilities

5.4 Dental amalgam waste

Action 4 of CSM2005

Directive 2008/98/EC (waste framework) and Decision 2000/532/EC (list of wastes): dental amalgam waste to be managed as hazardous waste

AT, BE, DE, DK, FR, FI, NL, PT, SE, UK: Dental practices are required to be equipped with amalgam separators, with provisions for adequate maintenance and minimum efficiency requirement (at least 95%)

NO: Limit on discharges and requirement to have an approved amalgam separator (required to remove 95% of mercury from the wastewater)

CA: Had set a target of 95% national reduction in mercury releases from dental amalgam waste discharges to the environment by 2005, from a base year of 2000288

US State of Vermont: Dental practices are required to be equipped with amalgam separators and to comply with environmental best management practices

5.5 Environmentally sound disposal of mercury containing waste

Directive 1999/31/EC (waste landfill) and Decision 2003/33/EC (acceptance criteria)

Directive 2006/66/EC (batteries): batteries and accumulators may be disposed of in landfills in

SE: All waste containing more than 0.1% Hg to be disposed of in permanent underground storage at the latest by the year 2015

288 In 2007, 70% of dentists had certified amalgam separators installed in Canada

October 2010




certain cases

6.Find environmentally sound storage solutions for mercury

6.1 Temporary storage

Actions 9 of CSM2005 Regulation 1102/2008 (mercury export ban)289

ES: Research project MERSADE intended to propose solutions for a temporary storage of metallic mercury and a technique of stabilisation/encapsulation for this metal in view of a permanent storage in solid form (funded by LIFE programme)

6.2 Disposal (“permanent storage”)

Regulation 1102/2008 (mercury export ban)290

DE: Research project announced to investigate potential mercury related issues in underground disposal


N/A Action 2 of CSM2005 (for MCCA plants)

New Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) including new provisions on site remediation

Proposed Soil Framework Directive

Directive 2004/35/EC (environmental liability)

Several MS have defined guideline values for Hg in soil and groundwater in relation to the management of contaminated sites

ES: National Technology Centre for Mercury Decontamination (under development)

CA: Guideline values to assess soil contamination by inorganic Hg

289 Mercury may be stored temporary in salt mines, hard rock formations and above-ground facilities for more than one year. Acceptance criteria and requirements still under

development (in August 2010). 290 Mercury that is to be considered as waste must be disposed in underground salt mines or equivalently safe hard rock formations. Acceptance criteria and requirements still under

development (August 2010). Prior stabilisation is considered as an option (for stabilised mercury: see Issue 5.5)





N/A Action 13 of CSM2005

DK, IE: Information provided to the public on the issue of mercury in compact fluorescent lamps (websites, leaflet)

Various international initiatives are being conducted in this area.

9.Reduce emissions to water and soil

9.1 Emissions from dental practices

See Issue 5.4

9.2 Emissions from industry

Actions 1 and 2 of CMS2005

Directive 96/61/EC (IPPC) and proposed new Directive on industrial emissions

Directive 2000/76/EC (waste incineration): ELV for Hg water releases

Directive 2000/60/EC (water framework) and Daughter Directives (2006/11/EC on priority substances and 2008/105/EC on environmental quality standards

9.3 Emissions from waste landfills

Directive 1999/31/EC (waste landfill)

Directive 96/61/EC (IPPC)

Many different restrictions in MS on landfilling and pre-treatment of mercury-containing waste.

9.4 Emissions from sewage sludge used

Directive 86/278/EEC, which may be revised

Several MS have enacted stricter limit values for mercury in sewage sludge (e.g. FR, SE)

October 2010




in agriculture Proposed Soil Framework Directive

10.Protecting against exposure

10.1 Human exposure via food and water

Actions 11 and 12 of CSM2005

EFSA recommendation on fish consumption (Commission’s Information Note of 21 April 2008)

Directive 98/83/EEC (drinking water)

Directive 2006/113/EC (quality of shellfish water)

Regulation 1881/2006 (contaminants in foodstuffs)

Directive 2006/118/EC (groundwater protection)

Directive 2008/56/EC (marine strategy framework)

CZ, FI, FR, IE, SE, UK: Recommendations on the restriction of fish consumption going beyond recommendations from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

10.2 Human exposure via ambient air

Directives 2008/50/EC (air quality) and 2004/107/EC (mercury and other pollutants in ambient air)

Environment and Health Action Plan 2004-2010

CA, US, World Health Organisation (WHO): Air quality guidelines for the exposure of the general non-occupational population to Hg in ambient air

10.3 Human exposure via

Directive 76/768/EEC (cosmetics)

Directive 2009/48/EC (safety of

USA – State of Minnesota: Ban on the sale of mercury-containing cosmetics (with no




products toys) exemptions)

10.4 Human biomonitoring

Environmental and Health Action Plan 2004-2010

10.5 Occupational exposure

Directives 98/24/EC and 2009/161/EC (limit value for inorganic Hg)

CA, US: Guideline values also defined for some organic forms of mercury compounds

10.6 Soil and biota exposure

Some aspects indirectly covered by various legislations, in particular those related to water quality, marine strategy framework, protection of groundwater, pesticides and biocides, sewage sludge

11.Support and promote international action

11.1 Support the development of international legally binding instruments

Actions 16, 17 and 20 of CSM2005

11.2 Support other countries in reducing mercury emissions to air, water and soil

Actions 14, 15, 18 and 19 of CSM2005

US: Funded UNEP partnership activities related to mercury reduction in products, with capacity building and technical assistance in Latin America and the Caribbean (2 M USD)

NO: Funded UNEP partnership activities in the waste sector (approx. 1 million USD between 2008 and 2009)

October 2010




JP: Development of Basel Guidelines on mercury waste (200.000 USD)

UNEP partnership area on mercury waste: Objectives to strengthen the capacity of developing countries and countries with economies in transition to effectively deal with mercury waste and to conduct awareness raising and training to increase knowledge and implementation of effective mercury waste treatment methods


N/A CA: Environment Canada website

US: EPA website; mercury-added products database

A2. Monitoring

N/A Environment and Health Action Plan 2004-2010


N/A

CSM2005: Community Strategy concerning Mercury BAT: Best Available Technique ELV: Emission Limit Value IPPC: Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control MCCA: Mercury-Cell Chlor-Alkali MS: Member State



This page is left blank intentionally

October 2010



7. ANNEX 3 – ADDITIONAL DATA ON MERCURY EMISSIONS

This Annex presents additional data on mercury emissions which have been reviewed as part

of this study.

� Mercury emissions from cremation (OSPAR Recommendation on cremation

implementation reports)

Twelve Member States have ratified the OSPAR Recommendation on cremation. They were

due to submit a first implementation report on estimated mercury releases in September

2005 (covering the year 2004), and a second report was due by 30 September 2009 (covering

the year 2009). At the time of writing this report, only the Swedish reports (2005 and 2009)

were publicly available and the UK 2009 report was provided by DEFRA. Data reported by

Sweden is summarised in Table 44 below.

Table 44: Data reported by Sweden under the OSPAR Recommendation on cremation (Source: EIONET Central Database Repository website291)

Crematoria applying mercury removal techniques

Crematoria not applying mercury removal techniques

Total Hg emitted (kg Hg) Number of

crematoria Number of cremations

Hg emissions

(kg Hg)

Number of crematoria

Number of cremations

Hg emissions

(kg Hg)

2004 33 49 500 7.5 36 16 500 50 57.5

2009 41 46 500 7 27 19 500 60 67

Data reported by Sweden shows that, although the number of crematoria applying mercury

removal techniques has increased between 2004 and 2009, the proportion of cremations

taking place in facilities not applying mercury removal techniques has increased, so that

overall mercury emissions from crematoria have increased during this time period.

In its report submitted in 2009, the UK provided an estimate of 381,067 cremations for the

year 2007. The following estimate was made by the UK with regard to mercury emissions:

“with no mercury abatement installed the load would be 732 kg (considering an emission

factor of 1.92g of mercury per cremation), but as abatement is increasingly being introduced

into crematoria, the actual load dispersed should be considerably lower” (the actual number

of installations fitted with mercury removal techniques is not precisely known). It should be

291 cdr.eionet.europa.eu/se/ospar/colqzgdka/envqzgdww;

cdr.eionet.europa.eu/se/ospar/colqzgdka/envs2w7wq



noted that the estimated UK mercury emissions from crematoria as presented in the 2003

OSPAR report were in the order of 400 kg/year.292

� Results of the ESPREME project related to Hg emissions projections until 2020

This project, completed in 2007, estimated the willingness-to-pay to reduce the risks of

exposure to heavy metals, and performed a cost-benefit analysis for reducing heavy metal

occurrence in Europe293. Mercury air emission data is available for 2000 (observed) and

emissions and pollutant distribution are projected for 2010 under Business As Usual (BAU)

and Maximum Feasible Technical Reduction (MFTR) scenarios (see Figure 14 below).

Figure 14: Mercury emissions to air for 2000 (observed) and 2010 (projected) based on results of the ESPREME project

292 Mercury emissions from crematoria and their control in the OSPAR Convention Area. 2003. OSPAR

Commission (www.ospar.org/documents/dbase/publications/p00179_Mercury%20emissions%20from%20crematoria.pdf)

293 espreme.ier.uni-stuttgart.de/

October 2010



The assumptions for the BAU and MFTR scenarios are detailed in Table 45 below.

Table 45: Assumptions for the BAU and MFTR scenarios in the ESPREME project

Sector BAU 2010 MFTR 2010

Large combustion plants

Dedusting: fabric filters and Electrostatic Precipitators (ESPs) operated in combination with Flue Gas Desulphurisation (FGD)

Activated carbon filters

Sulphur-impregnated adsorbents

Selenium impregnated filters

Iron and steel production

In sintering: fine wet scrubbing systems or fabric filters with addition of lignite coke powder

In blast furnaces: scrubbers or wet ESPs for black furnace gas treatment

In basic oxygen furnace: dry ESPs or scrubbing for primary dedusting and fabric filters or ESPs for secondary

BAU 2010

Catalytic oxidation in sintering

Sorting of scrap



Sector BAU 2010 MFTR 2010

dedusting

In electric arc furnaces: fabric filters

Cement industry

Dedusting: fabric filters and electrostatic precipitators

Dedusting: fabric filters and electrostatic precipitators

Agriculture No change from 2000 80% reduction of sewage sludge applications on agricultural areas

80% reduction of the use of basic slag for liming

80% reduced amounts of heavy metals in the forage of cattle, pigs, poultry, sheep and goats

80% reduced amount of nitrogen application to fields in countries outside the EU


Phase-out of mercury cell plants by 2010

BAU: Business As Usual scenario MFTR: Maximum Feasible Technical Reduction scenario

With regard to the assessment of costs, the ESPREME project estimated that the damage due

to ingestion of mercury represents more than a billion Euros in the EU. Marginal external

costs per kg of Hg released are estimated to be in the order of several 1000 € without

discounting.

� Mercury use and emissions in the chlor-alkali industry

The EU chlor-alkali industry is grouped in the industry association Euro Chlor which counts

95% of EU chlor-alkali production capacity among its members. As per the Chlorine Industry

Review 2008-2009 published by EuroChlor294, there has been a gradual shift away from

mercury cells (see Figure 15), in line with the European chlor-alkali industry’s commitment to

close or convert MCCA plants to non-mercury technology by 2020 (except for the production

of a few speciality chemicals).

294 EuroChlor, report on “Chlorine Industry Review (2008-2009)”, January 2009

(www.eurochlor.org/upload/documents/document352.pdf)

October 2010



Figure 15: EU-27 trend showing the shift in the technology used for the production of chlorine (Source: EuroChlor)

EuroChlor states that, at the beginning of 2009, there were about 8,300 tonnes of mercury

remaining in 37 MCCA plants in 14 European countries. Between the second half of 2008 and

the beginning of 2009, six mercury units either shut down or reduced their activity in the

Member States.

Ten years ago, the mercury technology accounted for more than 60% of European capacity.

At the beginning of 2009, it represented about 35% while the membrane process has

reached almost half of the European installed capacity (see Figure 16).

Figure 16: Share of chlorine produced by the different technologies in the EU-27 at the beginning of 2009 (Source: EuroChlor)

Since 2005 (adoption of the Community Strategy concerning Mercury), emissions of mercury

per tonne of chlorine capacity have continued to decrease, based on data reported by

EuroChlor (see Figure 17).



Figure 17: Mercury emissions per tonne of chlorine capacity from the chlor-alkali industry in the EU-27, 1995-2008 (Source: EuroChlor)

The overall European mercury emissions from chlor-alkali plants in 2008 amounted to

0.92 g Hg/tonne chlorine capacity compared with 0.97 g Hg/t in 2007. It is noted that in

2008, two plants were still above the 2007 target of 1.5 g Hg/tonne chlorine capacity for the

total emissions.

According to the OSPAR report on “Mercury losses from the chlor-alkali industry in 2006 and

2007”295, there has been a marked decrease in mercury-cell-based chlorine production

capacities from 2005 to 2007, in particular in 2007, due to reductions of the mercury-cell-

based chlorine production capacities in the United Kingdom and Germany and the shut-down

of one plant in the Netherlands. Mercury losses through product, waste water and air have

decreased about 21% from 2005 to 2007, following the decreasing trend over the last years,

and reflecting the shut-down of plants or reduction of production capacities. All but one

plant within the OPSAR area comply with the limit value of 2 g Hg/t Cl2 for air emissions in

PARCOM Decision 90/3. This non-compliance is attributable to emissions during shut-down

processes due to partial conversion to membrane technique in 2007. It is important to note,

however, that the 21% decrease in mercury emissions does not take into account the

mercury quantities reported as “difference to balance”, part of which corresponding to

unaccounted mercury losses (e.g. fugitive emissions).

295 www.ospar.org/documents%5Cdbase%5Cpublications%5Cp00403_Mercury%20losses%20report%202007.pdf

October 2010



8. ANNEX 4 – MERCURY IN ENERGY-SAVING LIGHT BULBS

This Annex presents key data on the trends in mercury use in the lighting sector.

Mercury is an important component of fluorescent lamps/tubes and High Intensity Discharge

(HID) lamps that plays a key role in their energy efficiency, lifetime and warm-up times.

While mercury use is expected to decrease in future years for most applications in the EU,

the use of mercury in energy saving light bulbs has shown an upward trend over the last few

years and therefore merits particular attention.

Figure 18 presents the data on total estimated use of mercury in lamps in EU-27. The data on

the total number of mercury-containing lamps sold in the EU-27 was extracted from the

PRODCOM database. The average amount of mercury per lamp is based on assumptions

made in the COWI report296 (mostly reflecting the limits set by the Restriction on Hazardous

Substances Directive (2002/95/EC) which restricts the amount of mercury in fluorescent

tubes to 10 mg/tube and in CFLs to 5 mg/bulb297).

Figure 18: Estimated total mercury content in lamps sold in the EU-27 from 2005 to 2008298

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Fluorescent Tubes CFLs HID Lamps Others

Hg

con

ten

t (in

to

nn

es)

2005 2006 2007 2008

296 COWI, Options for reducing mercury use in products and applications, and the fate of mercury already

circulating in society, Report for the European Commission (DG ENG), December 2008 (ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/pdf/study_report2008.pdf)

297 Council Directive 2002/95/EC on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment: eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32002L0095&model=guichett

298 For HID lamps, no sale data were available for 2008



It can be seen clearly in the above chart that the mercury use in CFLs is on a rise (from 2005

to 2008) which can very well be attributed to the increase in their overall sales during this

period in spite of efforts made to reduce the mercury content of these light bulbs.

PRODCOM data used to estimate mercury content in lamps sold in the EU-27 from 2005 to

2008 are provided below (see Table 46 and Table 47). The PRODCOM database classifies the

lamps containing mercury in the category NACE 31.50.15.

Table 46: PRODCOM categorisation of mercury containing lamps

Product category name Code

Fluorescent hot cathode discharge lamps, with double ended cap (excluding ultraviolet lamps)

31.50.15.10

Fluorescent hot cathode discharge lamps (excluding: ultraviolet lamps, with double ended cap)

31.50.15.30

Mercury vapour discharge lamps (excluding ultraviolet lamps, dual lamps) 31.50.15.53

Sodium vapour discharge lamps other than ultraviolet lamps 31.50.15.56

Discharge lamps (excluding fluorescent hot cathode lamps, dual lamps, mercury or sodium vapour lamps, ultraviolet lamps)

31.50.15.59

Ultraviolet or infrared lamps, arc lamps 31.50.15.70

The number of mercury-containing lamps sold in the EU is based on PRODCOM statistics (see

Table 47).

Table 47: PRODCOM statistics (2005-2008 trends) on EU-27 consumption of different lamp types using the (import, export and production quantities of lamps data)

Type of lamp Consumption EU-27 (million units)

2005 2006 2007 2008

Fluorescent tubes299 304 366 359 247

CFLs300 242 426 625 686

HID lamps301 44 58 61 Not available

Others mercury-containing lamps302 224 175 220 18

299 PRODCOM NACE code: 31.50.15.10 300 PRODCOM NACE code: 31.50.15.30 301 PRODCOM NACE code: 31.50.15.53 and 31.50.15.56 302 PRODCOM NACE code: 31.50.15.59 and 31.50.15.70

October 2010



The average content of mercury per lamp used in our estimate is based on data presented in

Table 48 below.

Table 48: Average content of mercury per lamp unit (Source: COWI, 2008303)

Type of lamp Average Hg content per unit

Fluorescent tubes 10

CFLs 5

HID lamps 30

Other mercury-containing lamps 25

� FUTURE MERCURY INPUT

Future mercury demand in lighting equipment will be influenced by two main factors: the

projected evolution in the sales of mercury-containing light bulbs and the evolution of the

mercury content of these light bulbs. This section provides estimates of future mercury

demand in the case of CFLs for domestic use.

� Policy context

Commission Regulation (EC) No. 244/2009304, which took effect on 1 September 2009, aims

to gradually phase out inefficient incandescent and conventional halogen lamps/bulbs. This

regulation imposes an EU-wide ban on incandescent light bulbs, which is expected to reduce

CO2 emissions by 30 million tonnes a year. Although CFLs have been widely used in EU

homes in the past decade, this Regulation encourages an increased use of these lamps.

According to Regulation (EC) No. 244/2009, CFLs with the lowest mercury content include

not more than 1.23 mg Hg.

As per Regulation (EC) No. 244/2009 of 18 March 2009 implementing Directive 2005/32/EC

of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for

non-directional household lamps, the timeline for the gradual phase-out of energy inefficient

lamps will be as followed:

• Inefficient non-clear (frosted/pearl) lamps: From 1 September 2009, these lamps will

not be allowed to be placed on the EU market. Effectively, only lamps with an A-class

rating - with exemptions for certain less-efficient lamps - will be permitted.

• Inefficient clear lamps: These will be phased out progressively:

� From 1st September 2009:

o Clear incandescent lamps of 100 watts will not be permitted.

303 COWI, Options for reducing mercury use in products and applications, and the fate of mercury already

circulating in society, Report for the European Commission (DG ENG), December 2008 (ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/pdf/study_report2008.pdf)

304 eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:076:0003:0016:EN:pdf



o Lamps with an equivalent light output to 100 watts incandescent lamps or

above will have to be at least C-class.

� From 1st September 2010, clear incandescent lamps of 75 watts or above will

not be permitted.

� From 1st September 2011, clear incandescent lamps of 60 watts or above will

not be permitted.

� From 1st September 2012, most remaining clear incandescent (i.e. 40W and

25W) will not be permitted.

� From 1st September 2016, any permissible clear lamps will have to be at least C-

class.

The mercury content of lighting equipment is regulated by the RoHS Directive (2002/95/EC).

Currently, the maximum allowable mercury content in CFLs is 5 mg, but this limit will be

significantly reduced once the revised list of exemptions to the RoHS Directive enters into

force (expected in October 2010).

� Projected sales of domestic CFLs

The projected evolution of the market of CFLs (domestic lighting only) in EU-27 from 2007 to

2020 is shown in Figure 19. Following a sharp increase in CFL sales between 2008 and 2009

due to the adoption of Regulation 244/2009, it is expected that sales would decrease until

2019 then increase again due to the requirement to replace the aging CFLs sold in 2009

which will be reaching their end-of-life period by this date.

Figure 19: Evolution of CFL market in EU-27 in the context of implementation of EC Regulation 244/2009305

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1 000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Do

me

stic

CFL

mar

ket

(m

illio

n u

nit

s so

ld)

305 VITO, BIO Intelligence Service, Energy Piano and Kreios. 2009. Preparatory study for the eco-design

requirements of energy-using products – Lot 19 : Domestic lighting, for DG TREN (www.eup4light.net)

October 2010



� Projected mercury input associated with domestic CFLs

Based on the assumption that domestic CFLs would contain up to 5 mg per unit until 2012

then 2.5 mg Hg/lamp from 2013 until 2020 (as a result of more stringent limits to be required

under the RoHS Directive), the projected demand for mercury in domestic CFLs is expected

to follow a trend similar to the sales of CFLs, as shown in Figure 20 below.

Figure 20: Projected evolution of the total amount of mercury (contained in domestic CFLs) placed on the market in the EU-27

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Tota

l am

ou

nt

of

me

rcu

ry c

on

tain

ed

in

CFL

s (

ton

ne

s)

The cumulative amount of mercury input from 2007 to 2020 is estimated to be in the order

of 24.7 tonnes for domestic CFLs.

� FUTURE EMISSIONS

Mercury emitted in the different life cycle phases of the lamps, taking into account in

particular the use-phase electricity generation and a recycling efficiency of 20% only, was

estimated to be 2.9 tonnes in 2007 from the installed stock of domestic CFLs. Without taking

specific measures (Business as Usual scenario), mercury emissions of the installed lamp stock

is predicted to increase to 3.1 tonnes in 2020 while it has been demonstrated that it can be

significantly reduced to 1.63 tonnes (a reduction of 48% compared to the BaU scenario) by

the implementation of Regulation 244/2009306.

Figure 21 presents the projected evolution of mercury emissions associated with domestic

CFLs in the EU 27 over the period of 2007-2020.

306 Source: VITO, BIO Intelligence Service, Energy Piano and Kreios. 2009. Preparatory study for the eco-design

requirements of energy-using products – Lot 19 : Domestic lighting (www.eup4light.net)



Figure 21: Evolution of total mercury emissions associated with total stock of domestic CFLs installed in EU-27 in the context of implementation of EC Regulation 244/2009307

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Me

rcu

ry e

mis

sio

ns

(to

nn

es/

year

)

The setting of energy efficiency requirements for lamps subject to Regulation 244/2009 is

therefore expected to lead to a decrease of the overall mercury emissions associated with

domestic lighting in EU for the period up to 2020.

307 Source: VITO, BIO Intelligence Service, Energy Piano and Kreios. 2009. Preparatory study for the eco-design

requirements of energy-using products – Lot 19 : Domestic lighting (www.eup4light.net)

October 2010



9. ANNEX 5 – SCREENING ASSESSMENT OF POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL POLICY ACTIONS

Table 49 below present the screening assessment of possible additional actions identified by

the study. The objective was to identify a short list of actions that would deserve further

assessment as a priority and for which sufficient data could be obtained within the

timeframe of this study.



Table 49: Screening assessment of possible additional policy actions

Possible actions

Addressed as part of other policy review

processes

Quantifiable environmental, economic and social impacts

Added value of an EU

action (subsidiarity)

IA already carried

out

Data available for IA

Comments

Action retained for preliminary

IA

General

0.2.1. Further investigate production, use, trade and fate of mercury compounds in the EU and update this information on a regular basis.

No No (further investigation in the short term)

0.2.2 Establish a trade tracking system to monitor EU imports and exports of elemental mercury and mercury compounds.

No No

0.3.1. Complement the Strategy with a (small) glossary of key terms with definitions taken from existing EU legislative documents. Alternatively: provide a link to a separate document.

No No

1.Reduce supply


No Yes Yes No Yes This action, as well as actions 1.3.1 and 1.5.1 are part of the aspects which shall be considered as part of the future review of Regulation 1102/2008 (report to be submitted by March 2013 for this purpose), however it was considered to be of interest to analyse this potential action before this deadline.

X

1.2.2. Establish a reporting scheme for the production of recycled mercury. No No


No Yes Yes No Yes X

1.5.1. Extend storage obligation to obsolete mercury and mercury compounds recovered from lighthouses, laboratories, schools, clinics and other public and private non-commercial sources.

No Yes Yes No Not enough data available


October 2010



Possible actions


processes




IA already carried

out


Comments


IA

2.2.1. Phase-out the use of dental amalgam, possibly with identified exemptions. Future decision could be supported by a revision of the assessment conducted by the SCHER in 2008 on environmental risks and indirect health effects of mercury in dental amalgam, taking into account information gaps highlighted in the 2008 assessment (see Action 6 of the Strategy).

No Yes Yes Yes (COWI 2008)

Conclusions of the impact assessment by COWI have been presented in the present report

2.3.1. Extend mercury use restrictions to sphygmomanometers and other measuring devices in healthcare and in other professional and industrial uses; some exemptions may be considered for research and validation purposes (this is the subject of an Annex XV Restriction Report submitted by ECHA).

Yes (REACH) Yes (COWI 2008)


2.4.1. For applications where mercury-free alternatives are easily available such as exit signs, traffic lights, computer and flat screen backlight, the use of mercury should be completely banned.

Yes (RoHS Dir.)

2.5.1. As part of the review of the Batteries Directive, consider banning the marketing of mercury containing button cells with possible exemptions in cases where safety and performance criteria cannot be met without the use of mercury.


According to the COWI report (2008), the use of Hg in button cell batteries would be rather limited compared to other Hg uses (0.3-0.8 t/y) although there is some uncertainty on these figures.

2.5.2. As part of the review of the Batteries Directive, require the labelling of mercury button cells on the button cell itself (by engraving) rather than only on the packaging (in order to allow simple identification and separation from other button cell types) and of products that contain mercury button cells.

No Yes Yes No

2.5.3. Ban the use of Hg containing batteries in toys and other products intended for use by children.

No Yes Yes No

2.6.1. Ban the use of mercury containing switches in all application except for special purpose motions sensors and mercury wetted relays.

No Yes Yes No Uncertain According to the COWI report (2008), the use of Hg in switches (0.3-0.8 t/y) is not very significant compared to other Hg uses. Therefore this action has not been selected for further assessment.

2.8.1. Phase out the use of mercury in polyurethane elastomer manufacture (mercury compounds used for this application are the subject of a restriction proposal recently submitted under Annex XV of REACH).

Yes (REACH) Yes (COWI 2008)




Possible actions


processes




IA already carried

out


Comments


IA

2.9.1. Carry out an expert assessment to determine the extent to which mercury can be appropriately eliminated from vaccines. Guidelines from the Commission should then be issued to encourage manufacturers to reduce and/or eliminate mercury in vaccines.


2.11.1. As an alternative measure to application-specific bans, the implementation of a general ban with a list of identified exemptions should be investigated.


for some applications

Impact assessment would have to cover a wide range of aspects and would require a dedicated study


3.1.1. Extend the export ban of elemental mercury to medical purposes (possibly with identified exemptions). Alternatively: report on the effectiveness of the export ban no later than 5 years after its entering into force (2016).

No Yes Yes No Yes X

3.2.1. Extend export ban to all mercury compounds except for R&D, medical, analysis and restoration (colours) purposes (this would also include mixtures of metallic mercury with other substances with a mercury content below 95%).

No Yes Yes No Yes These actions are part of the aspects which shall be considered as part of the future review of Regulation 1102/2008 (report to be submitted by March 2013 for this purpose), however it was considered to be of interest to analyse these potential actions before this deadline.

X

3.3.1. Ban the export of mercury-added products that are prohibited to be put on the market within the EU, as well as machinery and equipment to produce them. Encourage industry not to transfer technology in non EU-countries to produce products no longer allowed within the EU.

No Yes Yes No Yes

X


4.1.1. Ensure effective implementation of the new Industrial Emissions Directive (IED), in particular the provisions related to the application of BAT-AELs in permit conditions.

Yes (new Industrial Emissions Directive)

October 2010



Possible actions


processes




IA already carried

out


Comments


IA

4.1.2. Reconsider the option of defining ELVs for mercury air emissions from medium sized and large coal combustion plants.

No Yes Yes Yes (ExIA of the

Strategy, 2005)

Not enough data is currently

available to update the

findings of the ExIA, especially

on the economic costs

involved

A study is currently being conducted for UNEP on "mercury-emitting sources, including emissions trends and cost and effectiveness of alternative control measures" ("UNEP Paragraph 29 study"), which should be finalised later in 2010. It could provide a good basis for an impact assessment of this potential action.

4.1.3. Carry out an assessment of the co-benefit effect of controls to be implemented by 1 January 2008 under the LCP Directive.

No No

4.1.4. Define a legally-binding sunset date for all existing MCCA plants in the EU (2020 or before).

No Yes Uncertain No Yes EU action would probably have limited impact as most MCCA plants will be converted or closed within a few years. Some MS like SE, BE, ES, CZ, IT and FR have already taken action (through legislation or voluntary agreements with industry) or are in the process of strengthening existing actions; therefore it is not sure whether an action at EU level would have significant added value. For this reason, these actions have not been selected for further assessment.

4.1.5. Define mandatory mercury emission limits for existing MCCA plants, ensuring a gradual decrease of emissions until complete phase-out of the mercury cell technology, with harmonised monitoring and reporting requirements.

No Yes Uncertain No Yes

4.1.6. Investigate the fate of the so called ‘unaccounted mercury’ in the mercury balance of MCCA plants.




Possible actions


processes




IA already carried

out


Comments


IA

4.1.7. Investigate the use of the mercury cell technology for the production of alkoxides, alkali metals and other chemicals in view of a potential ban on the mercury-based process.


4.1.8. Address current information gaps on mercury BAT-AELs as well as mercury emissions abatement, monitoring and measurement techniques in the next versions of the BREF documents.

Yes (new Industrial Emissions Directive)

No

4.3.1. Implement recommendations from the 2005 study on options for reducing mercury emissions to air from small-scale combustion installations.

No No

4.4.1. Member states that are Parties to the OPAR convention should gather and submit emission data for crematoria, in accordance with Recommendation 2003/4.

No No

4.4.2. The Commission should re-consider policy measures to reduce mercury emissions from crematoria once further emission data is available.

No Yes Uncertain Already analysed

in the ExIA of

the Strategy (2005)

Currently there are no new data on Hg emissions

that could be used to update

the IA (only Sweden has reported full

data under the OSPAR Reco.)


5.1.1. Increase the awareness and technical insight of mercury's presence in waste (generally, and for specific products) and the need for its safe collection and treatment, through effective communication at all levels: producers, users/consumers, waste collectors/handlers and treatment facilities, and local, national and regional authorities.

No No

5.1.2. Improve physical collection and sorting schemes and methods, in particular for dental amalgam, button cell batteries, and electrical and electronic components.

No No

October 2010



Possible actions


processes




IA already carried

out


Comments


IA

5.1.3. Increase enforcement, reporting requirements and control of all steps in mercury waste collection, handling and treatment.

No No

5.1.4. Introduce a wider use of producer/importer life cycle responsibility with well defined obligations and goals, in line with what is already in force with the WEEE Directive for certain mercury-containing waste types.

No No

5.1.5. Establish a task force dedicated to the Community wide promotion of increased collection and recycling/safe disposal of mercury containing waste.

No No

5.1.6. Exporters of mercury added products shall be made responsible for taking back end-of-life products. Such a measure would have to be arranged on the global level in order to avoid discriminating market effects.

No No

5.2.1. .Encourage national activities (state or private driven) to actively collect and safely recycle or dispose of obsolete mercury containing products from households, institutes, schools, clinics and other places.

No No

5.4.1. Make installation of high efficiency amalgam separators and/or filters obligatory in dental clinics, possibly complemented by obligatory inspection, maintenance, documentation by certified service suppliers. Set a target for reaching 95% coverage (like in Canada). As a short-term measure, the Commission should remind Member States about the requirements applicable to dental amalgam waste and ask them to provide a timetable of their plans to comply with the Hazardous Waste legislation.

No Yes Yes Yes (COWI 2008)


5.4.2. Amend the acceptance criteria set out in Council Decision 2003/33/EC for landfills so as to explicitly exclude disposal of dental amalgam waste from disposal in landfills, except underground waste storage facilities.


5.5.1. Define a limit value for the mercury content in waste. Waste with a higher content would have to be disposed of in an underground landfill, possibly after chemical stabilisation of the elemental mercury content. This also includes mercury containing batteries (that are allowed for landfill disposal according to Directive 2006/66/EC).



7.1.1. Continue to support the development of a Soil Framework Directive. Alternatively: propose another approach that leads to national registers of mercury contaminated sites, because these might be of transnational and EU relevance. Alternatively: propose another approach that leads to national registers of mercury

Yes (proposed

Soil Framework



Possible actions


processes




IA already carried

out


Comments


IA

contaminated sites, because these might be of transnational and EU relevance. Directive)

7.2.1. Develop and recommend criteria for assessing the risk of mercury contaminated sites.

No No

7.3.1. Improve and share expertise in identifying assessing, managing and remediating mercury contaminated sites (e.g. through Framework Programmes or other suitable programmes).

No No


8.1.1. Continue to address the mercury issue in the Framework Programmes and other EU-funded research programmes (pursue Action 13 of the Strategy).

No No

10.2.1. Further consideration should be given to the issue of regulating mercury deposition and stipulating maximum mercury levels in ambient air, as part of the report to be prepared by the end of 2010 under Directive 2004/107/EC.

Yes (Directive 2004/107/EC)

10.3.1. Investigate the feasibility of reducing the mercury content in cosmetic products and their raw materials and to specify a maximum mercury level.

No No (investigation in the short term)

10.3.2. Raise awareness among users of skin whitening products about the potentially adverse health effects of imported mercury containing skin whitening products.

No No

10.3.3. Investigate whether mercury containing polyurethane has been used as floor coating in schools, gymnasiums and other public buildings in Member States and whether there is a risk of adverse health effects.

No No

11.Support and promote international action

11.1.1. The Community, Member States and other stakeholders should pursue to advocate a multilateral agreement that flexibly covers all phases of the mercury life cycle from production and uses to releases (intentional and unintentional), stockpiles and wastes. As pointed out by one Member State, this can best be done if the EU continues to show global leadership by staying in the forefront of reducing, and when possible eliminating, mercury use and emissions.

No No

October 2010



Possible actions


processes




IA already carried

out


Comments


IA

11.1.2. 11.1.2. Pursue Action 17 of the Strategy. Member States who are not Parties to the Protocol should ratify it and all Member States which are Parties to the Protocol should comply with the reporting and emission reduction commitments

No No

11.1.3. Make use of the Swiss-Indonesian Initiative and other approaches (like the Green Diplomacy network) to induce ratification of the Ban Amendment to the Basel Convention, prohibiting the export of hazardous waste from OECD to non-OECD countries.

No No

11.2.1. Pursue and strengthen Action 18 of the Strategy. The Commission and Member states should bring their contributions to the UNEP Mercury Program and the Global Mercury Partnership into coherence with the high priority they have given to the mercury problem, in line with paragraphs 34-35 of the UNEP GC Decision 25/5.

No No

11.2.2. Pursue and strengthen Actions 14 and 19 of the Strategy. Strengthen bilateral and multilateral projects to support other countries (also within the EU) in reducing mercury use and releases by initiating research projects, provision of technical knowledge, human and financial resources. Activity should address (but not exclusively) the most important sources of mercury pollution: thermal processes (stationary combustion, metal production), vinyl chloride production, artisanal small scale gold mining and primary mercury mining.

No No

11.2.3. The Commission and Member States should support countries in other UN regions to develop national or regional concepts for the environmentally safe disposal of hazardous waste including mercury.

No No


A1.1. Develop a website (possibly a sub-site of the European Environmental Agency) dedicated to mercury, mercury related problems and possible solutions to inform EU citizens, industry and other stakeholders.

No No

A1.2. Member States should enhance efforts to increase public awareness on mercury issues, especially in the waste and products sector and with regard to mercury in food.

No No

A2. Monitoring

A2.1. The Commission and Member States should further harmonise and facilitate access to environmental and human biomonitoring data.

No No




Possible actions


processes




IA already carried

out


Comments


IA

A3.1. The Strategy should be reviewed every five years. No No

A3.2. The Commission should report every five years about mercury levels in the environment and human exposure, especially for methylmercury in fish.

No No

A3.3. Establish a set of indicators that reflect the progress in implementing actions related to each objective (e.g. mercury emissions from industrial sources, amount of mercury in new products, amount of mercury safely disposed of). The Commission should report every five years on the progress against these indicators.

No No

The hatched cells correspond to potential actions which are not selected for further impact assessment in this study, because: - They are already addressed by other ongoing policy review processes, or - They have no quantifiable associated impacts, or - An impact assessment has already been carried out for these actions, whose conclusions have been presented in the present report and can already be used to inform policy decisions

European Commission (DG...

Documents

Transcript of European Commission (DG...