1. Presentations May 23 – 25, 2005 Portland, Maine For related information visit: http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/conferences

2. Achieving Mercury Reductions in Products and Waste Conference Portland, Maine May 24, 2005 Essie A. Schloss Deputy Administrator Defense National Stockpile Center

3. NDS Program Mercury Management Environmental Impact Statement Storage Requirements Legislative Initiatives Current Timeline

4. WWII Program –Developed to preclude dependence on foreign sources in times of national emergency Managed by the Defense National Stockpile Center –Field activity of Defense Logistic Agency –Oversight by Department of Defense By Mid-1990s, 99% of Stockpile declared excess to DOD needs Congress authorized sale or other disposal Proceeds earmarked for various programs

5. 4436 metric tons stockpiled New Haven, IN 557 MT Somerville, NJ 2,617 MT Warren, OH 1,262 MT Safely stored for over 50 years Sales discontinued in 1994 EIS developed to address long-term management Warren, Ohio Depot

6. Notice of Intent February 2001 Draft EIS April 3003 EPA rating ; Lack of Objection Final EIS March 2004 Record of Decision April 2004

7. Defense National Stockpile Center, Defense Logistics Agency Department of Energy Environmental Protection Agency –Office of Federal Activities – Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Department of Commerce Department of Health and Human Services – Public Health Service U. S. Geological Survey Lead Agency: Cooperating Agencies: Consulting Agencies:

8. No Action Status Quo Consolidation at one location Long term storage (40 years) Sales Thirty years to sell entire inventory

9. Three additional sites: -Hawthorne, NV -Pez Lake, NY -Tooele, UT Three current mercury storage sites: - New Haven, IN -Somerville, NJ -Warren, OH

10. Consolidated Storage –Safe long-term management –Negligible to minor environmental impacts –Economies of scale –Facilitates DNSC business plans Site Selection Requirements –Comparable to DNSC storage

11. Steel Flasks Absorbent Pads Plastic Liners Epoxy-coated Drums Drip Pans

12. Sealed warehouse floors Regular monitoring Adequate lighting Fire protection Security Protective equipment and supplies Emergency procedures Somerville, New Jersey Depot

13. Mercury is owned by Department of Defense. DNSC will partner with chosen consolidation location. We will comply with all Federal, state and local laws and regulations. We will monitor to ensure mercury continues to be safely stored.

14. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199) Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (P.L. 108-375) Mercury Emission Act of 2005 (S.730)

15. Secretary of Defense to study issues related to consolidation of NDS mercury and report results to Congress. DoD cannot announce decision to consolidate mercury at a Site not currently storing NDS mercury sooner than 180 days after submission of report. Report submitted in September 2004. Efforts on consolidation process resumed in March 2005.

16. Secretary of Defense may not store mercury from the National Defense Stockpile at any facility not owned or leased by the United States. Of the sites analyzed in the Final EIS, only Utah Industrial Depot in Tooele, Utah is not owned or leased by the United States.

17. Introduced April 6, 2005 by Senators Leahy and Snowe. Referred to Senate Environment & Public Works Committee. Section 10 (a) Within 2 years of enactment, the Secretary of Defense shall submit a report on use of mercury and mercury compounds. Report to include: Measures to reduce use and emissions of mercury and mercury compounds Measures to stabilize or recycle discarded mercury and mercury- containing products Section 10 (b) Prohibits sale of NDS mercury for commercial or industrial use

18. Contract process to select location could take 6-9 months Site selection process will be completed in late 2005 or early 2006. Transportation and consolidation schedules depend on any needed warehouse upgrades. Transportation could take an additional 12 months Projected completion date is June 2009

19. DNSC is committed to the safety of our employees and our communities and the protection of the environment.

21. John Reinders at 703-767-4430 or via email at Bob Jones at 901-355-0859 or via email at

22. Presentations May 23 – 25, 2005 Portland, Maine

23. Mercury Stockpiles Peggy Harris, P.E. CA Department of Toxic Substances Control

24. Sources of Mercury Closing chlor-alkali plants Local and State collection programs Hg retorting facilities Federal stockpiles

25. Environmental Council of States (ECOS) ECOS is the national non-profit, non-partisan association of state and territorial environmental agency leaders. To improve the environment of the United States, ECOS:  Champions the role of the states in environmental management; and  Provides for the exchange of ideas, views, and experiences among states; and  Fosters cooperation in environmental management; and  Articulates state positions to Congress, federal agencies, and the public on environmental issues.

26. ECOS Resolutions  Mercury Retirement and Stockpiling Long term storage of Hg is a federal responsibility Federal agencies should recommend a plan to manage the long-term storage of mercury by January 2006 States and chlor-alkali industry should be involved in creating plan

27. ECOS Resolutions  Mercury Stewardship Endorses four Mercury Stewardship documents created by Quicksilver Caucus work group Encourages states, EPA, federal agencies and others to use the information in the documents Supports and encourages continuing dialog on mercury stewardship

28. Quicksilver Caucus  Formed in May 2001 by a coalition of State environmental association leaders  Caucus members include ECOS ASTSWMO STAPPA/ALAPCO ASIWPCA ASDWA NPPR

29. Quicksilver Caucus Priority Areas  Design a multi-media approach for a mercury-based TMDL taking into account the contributions of the air and waste program as well as using their statutes to craft solutions  Create a stewardship approach for reducing mercury in the environment and managing safe, long-term storage of elemental mercury nationally and internationally  Develop and deploy sound technology for safe land disposal of mercury wastes  Develop and implement an approach to decrease the global supply and demand for mercury

30. QSC Hg Stewardship Workgroup  Should Hg be taken off the market, and stored to discourage global mercury use?  Workgroup developed alternative storage scenarios Mercury Stewardship Storage of Mercury (October, 2003)

31. Management Options for Storage for State and Private Hg  Federally-funded co-location with Federal stockpile  Federally-funded and overseen  State-funded and overseen  State-run, federally funded  Privately run and funded

32. Quicksilver Caucus Papers  The four mercury stewardship documents (with links) are: * Best Management Practices - http://www.ecos.org/files/720_file_QSC_BMP_Oct_03.pdf http://www.ecos.org/files/720_file_QSC_BMP_Oct_03.pdf * Storage of Mercury - http://www.ecos.org/files/721_file_QSC_STOR_Oct_03.pdf http://www.ecos.org/files/721_file_QSC_STOR_Oct_03.pdf * Mercury Commodity Market Review - http://www.ecos.org/files/723_file_QSC_Market_Facts_Oct_03.pdf http://www.ecos.org/files/723_file_QSC_Market_Facts_Oct_03.pdf * Market Policy Options - http://www.ecos.org/files/722_file_QSC_MARK_Policy_Oct_03.pdf

33. Peggy Harris, P.E. Department of Toxic Substances Control (916)324-7663 pharris@dtsc.ca.gov

34. Presentations May 23 – 25, 2005 Portland, Maine

35. EPA’s Global Mercury Commodity Assessment Linda Barr U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste May 24, 2005 barr.linda@epa.gov 703-605-0768

36. History of Commodity Assessment Early draft of Mercury Action Plan identified issue of surplus mercury and what to do with it. In 2001, EPA/ OSW and OPPT initiated a mercury commodity assessment to identify: Major uses of mercury; Supply and demand; and, Imports, exports, mining and trade flows;

37. History of Commodity Assessment (continued) ECOS resolutions call for storage of mercury supplies. In 2002, ECOS’ Quicksilver Caucus and EPA staff addressed mercury commodity issue under the ECOS Cooperative Agreement. DOD has suspended sales of their stockpile in 1994, opting instead for long-term storage. Several bills to create a national stockpile have been introduced; none has been passed.

38. Primary and Secondary Supplies of Mercury U.S. and global primary and secondary supplies of mercury include: Primary production (including by-product from mining) - Spain, Kyrgyzstan, Algeria (for export) and China (for domestic demand); Secondary production (product recycling, waste recovery, and sales from closed chlor-alkali plants); and, Government stockpiles.

39. World Primary Production Source: Derived estimate based on World Bureau of Metal Statistics (1998); USGS Minerals Yearbook and Mineral Commodity Summaries (various years);[1] revised to include Spain's submission to the UNEP (2002) Global Mercury Assessment.[1] [1] USGS information is obtained by USGS country specialists. Their source of this information is believed to be various reports published by the respective countries.

40. Minas de Almaden In 2003, the Almaden facility shut down for capital improvements; after reopening in early 2004 the mine appears to have ceased production again later in 2004 and may not reopen in 2005 in response to European concerns regarding the environmental and health impacts of mercury (Metal Bulletin, 2004a; 2004b; 2004c).

41. U.S. Product Reservoirs Mercury reservoirs in products (estimated 1,968 to 2,014 metric tons of mercury) includes: Switches and relays (571); Thermostats (209); Dental amalgams (1,088); Thermometers (41-77); and, Lighting (59 – 68).

42. Primary and Secondary Supplies of Mercury (continued) a USGS (2003a), adjusted to remove by-product; Spanish virgin mining figure from UNEP (2002.) b Lawrence (2002b, 2002c.) c EPA (2002c.) d Sznopek and Goonan (2000.) e Federal Register Vol. 68 No. 70, 17786; DNSC, 2002b; and USGS, 2001. Estimate includes 146 tons in DOE stockpile. f Derived based on Masters (2001) estimates of total global by-product mining and adjusted to remove U.S. estimates. g Derived based on Masters (1997) estimates of total global product recycling and adjusted to remove U.S. estimates. h Derived based on UNEP (2002) estimates of total global chlor-alkali reserves and adjusted to remove U.S. estimates. I Masters (2001.) j Masters (1997.) k UNEP (2002) states that 20,000 to 30,000 metric tons of mercury are used in chlor-alkali plants worldwide and presents 22,000 metric tons as the best estimate of this range. Summary of Best Available Estimates of U.S. and Global Mercury Supplies (metric tons) Primary SourcesSecondary SourcesStockpiles Virgin By- Product Product Recycling Waste Recovery C-A Plants Product Reservoirs Government Stockpiles U.S.070 to 100 b 35 b 1,814 to 3,050 c,d 1,968 to 2,014 c 4,582 e Global1,007 a 70 to 270 f 135 to 305 g N/A18,950 to 20,186 h N/A Estimated Total 1,007140 to 340 i 170 to 340 j N/A22,000 k N/A

43. Chlor-Alkali Chlor-alkali plants around the world represent a very large potential source of mercury supply (i.e., a stock), estimated by UNEP to be roughly 22,000 metric tons (UNEP, 2002). U.S. chlor-alkali plants are estimated to contain 1,800 to 3,050 metric tons (EPA, 2002c; Sznopek and Goonan, 2000). The distribution and size (i.e., chlorine capacity) of chlor- alkali plants containing mercury cells is important in projecting the actual rate at which plants will decommission and release mercury into the market.

44. EUROPEAN CHLOR-ALKALI CAPACITY (metric tons)

45. Chlor-Alkali (continued) Varying laws regulating mercury recovery and market demand will influence the useful lives of chlor-alkali facilities. Euro Chlor members have agreed to close all mercury cell processes by 2020. Recently, Minas de Almaden has entered into a non-exclusive agreement with Euro Chlor to purchase scrap mercury from closing European chlor- alkali plants (Euro Chlor, undated-a). The industry is currently developing a response to a proposed European Community ban on secondary mercury exports from Europe after 2010. This policy could conceivably encourage facilities to decommission prior to 2010 (e.g., to avoid expensive disposal).

46. U.S. and Global Mercury Market Demand: U.S. consumption estimated at 269 metric tons in 2001. Global consumption estimated at 2,100 metric tons in 2002. As of 2001, the largest quantities of mercury were used in switches and relays (38%) and measuring devices (28%.) Major areas of reduction include chlor-alkali, batteries, and paints.

47. Global Mercury Markets Major global consumers of mercury are chlor- alkali plants, product manufacturing, and artisanal-scale gold mining. Minor global uses number in the hundreds and include preservatives, pesticides, and cosmetics. Substitutes are available for most uses.

48. U.S. and Global Consumption Note: The 1990 and 1994 world consumption estimates are based upon only two highly uncertain data points reported by Sznopek and Goonan (2000), using assumptions about demand for mercury in products and processes as a function of a country’s chlorine capacity. Source: U.S. consumption: Jasinski (1994); USGS Minerals Yearbook: Mercury (1994-1997); Lawrence (2001); Chlorine Institute (2003). World consumption: Sznopek and Goonan (2000); Lawrence (2002a).

49. Best Available Estimates for Worldwide Mercury Use (metric tons) SectorCurrentRegion of UseInitiativesFuture Chlor-Alkali240 - 1344 a Europe, North America, World Norway, Denmark, Japan, Oman, Sweden, Switzerland, France, India, United States c Decline Product Manufacturing 1061 d Northeast Asia, North America, Western Europe, World European Union, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland e Decline Artisanal Mining325 – 800 b,f South and Central America, Africa, Asia Brazil, Columbia g Uncertain Total1,626 - 2,905 Notes: a As described previously in this chapter, estimates from the World Chlorine Council (240 metric tons) and Sznopek and Goonan (1,344 metric tons) vary widely. b Exhibit 3-11 presents the range in estimates of mercury use associated with artisanal mining. Sources: c UNEP (2002); Chlorine Institute (2003). d Sznopek and Goonan (2000). The scenario analysis in Chapter 5 incorporates a separate estimate for all other uses (product manufacturing and artisanal mining) based on the difference between Lawrence’s (2002a) estimates of total world consumption and Sznopek and Goonan’s (2000) estimates of total world chlor-alkali consumption. e UNEP (2002); INFORM, Inc. (2003). f UNEP (2002); EU (2001); Weiner et al. (2002); Lacerda (1997); Greenpeace (1994); Veiga and Hinton (2002); Veiga (1997a); Veiga (1997b); Bender (2003); Global Mercury Project (2004). g UNEP (2002); Veiga et al. (1995).

50. U.S. Mercury Consumption by Sector (1980 – 2001) Note: The 2001 consumption figures are not divided into sectors because of differences in data gathering and sector categorization.

51. U.S. Distribution of Mercury Uses Across Sectors, 2001 Total Use = 269 tons Sources: Lawrence (2001); Chlorine Institute (2003.)

52. Mercury Pricing Monthly averages of elemental mercury prices are published as “average mercury prices” in both London (U.K. Average) and New York. Price of mercury has been characterized by long- term decline for the last 40 years, peaking in 1965 (USGS, 1998) at approximately $571 per 76-pound flask (where 29 flasks equals approximately one metric ton), the price of mercury has fallen to an average level of around $150 per flask in recent years.

53. Mercury Pricing (continued) In 1982 constant-dollar terms, the constant dollar price of mercury decreased from approximately $1,780 per flask in 1965 to approximately $122/flask in 2002, representing a real price decrease of almost 93 percent. Recently, mercury prices have risen up to $950 per flask, most likely due to primary production problems and slower than expected chlor-alkali plant closings.

54. Global Mercury Market Conclusions Mercury trade is fundamentally global in nature, with producers located in different regions of the world operating as brokers and service providers. Global and U.S. mercury markets are not readily separable through the analysis of trade statistics. The size of the mercury market in terms of annual consumption (i.e., flow) is dwarfed by the magnitude of existing mercury stocks.

55. Global Mercury Market Conclusions (continued) There is very little reliable information about international trade outside the United States. Sources of imported mercury into the U.S. are highly variable and exhibit no consistent pattern. Quantity of mercury held as stocks in inventory or in mercury cells has pricing implications for the mercury market, while the annual flow of production from all sources (or, total consumption by all users) characterizes the market.