Mercury policy in the Great Lakes states: Past successes and future opportunities

Ecotoxicology

Volumn 20, Issue 7, 2011, Pages 1500-1511

  Cain, Alexis ^a   Morgan, Joy Taylor ^b   Brooks, Ned ^c  

^a U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

^b Toxics Unit   (United States)

^c MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY   (United States)

Author keywords

Environmental cost effectiveness; Great Lakes; Mercury; Policy

Indexed keywords

MERCURY;

CONCENTRATION (COMPOSITION); ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; LONG RANGE TRANSPORT; MERCURY (ELEMENT);

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL; ARTICLE; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; FISH; HEALTH HAZARD; HEAVY METAL REMOVAL; LAKE; MERCURIALISM; NONHUMAN; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RIVER BASIN; WATER MANAGEMENT; WATER POLLUTION CONTROL;

AIR POLLUTION; ANIMALS; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; FISHES; GREAT LAKES REGION; HUMANS; LAKES; MERCURY; POLICY; WATER POLLUTANTS, CHEMICAL; WATER POLLUTION, CHEMICAL;

GREAT LAKES [NORTH AMERICA];

EID: 80054959397     PISSN: 09639292     EISSN: 15733017     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10646-011-0764-4     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. A Cain S Disch C Twaroski J Reindl RC Case 2007 Substance flow analysis of mercury intentionally used in products in the United States J Ind Ecol 11 3 61 75 10.1162/jiec.2007.1214 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2sXpvFSrsrk%3D (Pubitemid 47344939)
2. DO Carpenter R Nevin 2010 Environmental causes of violence Physiol Behav 99 2 260 268 10.1016/j.physbeh.2009.09.001 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3cXosVWh
3. Environmental Council of States (ECOS) (2005)-Quicksilver Caucus Compendium. http://www.ecos.org/section/2005-Hg-compendium. Accessed 4 Oct 2010
4. Environmental Council of States (ECOS) Quicksilver Caucus-Environmental. Resolution for implementing a national vision for mercury. Revised and approved 24 March 2010. http://www.ecos.org/files/4026-file-Resolution-07-1-2010-version. doc. Accessed 4 Oct 2010
5. TJ Feeley BA O'Palko AP Jones 2008 Developing mercury control technology for coal-fired power plants-from concept to commercial reality Main Group Chem 7 3 169 179 10.1080/10241220802302556 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1MXmt1Kiuw%3D%3D
6. WF Fitzgerald DR Engstrom RP Mason EA Nater 1998 The case for atmospheric mercury contamination in remote areas Environ Sci Technol 32 1 7 10.1021/es970284w 1:CAS:528:DyaK2sXnsFOmu74%3D (Pubitemid 28035894)
7. Gayer T, Hahn RW (2005) Designing environmental policy: lessons from the regulation of mercury. Regulatory analysis 05-01, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for regulatory studies, Washington, DC. http://regulation2point0.org/wp-content/ uploads/downloads/2010/04/phpz9.pdf. Accessed 19 May 2011
8. Great Lakes Regional Collaboration (2008) Great Lakes mercury in products phase-down strategy. http://www.glrc.us/documents/MercuryPhaseDownStrategy06- 19-2008.pdf. Accessed 19 May 2011
9. Great Lakes Regional Collaboration (2010) Great Lakes mercury reduction strategy. http://www.glrc.us/documents/MercuryEmissionsPhaseDownStrategy12-07- 2010.pdf. Accessed 12 Apr 2011
10. Harrington W, Morgenstern RD, Nelson P (1999) On the accuracy of regulatory cost estimates. Resources for the future discussion paper 9-18. http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-99-18.pdf. Accessed 19 May 2011
11. RC Harris JWM Rudd M Amyot CL Babiarz KG Beaty PJ Blanchfield RA Bodaly BA Branfireun CC Gilmour JA Graydon A Heyes H Hintelmann JP Hurley CA Keely DP Krabbenhoft SE Lindberg RP Mason MJ Paterson CL Podemski A Robinson KA Sandilands GR Southworth VL St. Louis MT Tate 2007 Whole-ecosystem study shows rapid fish-mercury response to changes in mercury deposition Proc Natl Acad Sci 104 16586 16591 10.1073/pnas.0704186104 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2sXht1Wgs7rM (Pubitemid 350211062)
12. Healthcare without harm: How to plan and hold a mercury thermometer exchange (2010). http://chifountain.com/studies-Folder/Going-Green-How-to-Hold- a-Mercury-Thermometer-.pdf. Accessed 3 Aug 2010
13. Hospitals for a healthy environment: vision, mission, goals & MOU (2010). http://cms.h2e-online.org/about/. Accessed 21 Oct 2010
14. Indiana Department of Environmental Management: Indiana household hazardous waste. Grant program annual report 2008-2009. http://www.in.gov/ recycle/files/2008-hhw-annual-report.pdf. Accessed 21 Oct 2010
15. Lamborg CH, Fitzgerald WG, O'Donnell WF, Torgersen T (2002) A non-steady-state compartmental model of global-scale mercury biogeochemistry with interhemispheric atmospheric gradients. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 66:1105-1118 (Pubitemid 34395216)
16. PJ Landrigan CB Schecter JM Lipton MC Fahs J Schwartz 2002 Environmental pollutants and disease in American children: estimates of morbidity, mortality, and costs for lead poisoning, asthma, cancer, and developmental disabilities Environ Health Perspect 110 721 727 10.1289/ehp.02110721
17. Lane county lamp recycling coalition (2006) Retail-based pilot program final report. http://www.zerowaste.org/cfl/images/Lane-Co-CFL-Pilot-Report.pdf. Accessed 7 Mar 2011
18. ER Madsen AD DeWeese NE Kmiecik JA Foran ED Chriboga 2008 Methods to develop consumption advice for methylmercury-contaminated walleye harvested by Ojibwe tribes in the 1837 and 1842 ceded territories of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, USA Integr Environ Assess Manag 4 1 118 124 10.1897/IEAM-2007-026.1 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1cXhvFGhtL0%3D
19. Maine Department of Environmental Protection (2010) Mercury-added lamps: a strategy for improving recycling rates. February 2010. http://www.maine.gov/ dep/rwm/publications/legislativereports/lamprptfeb2010final.doc. Accessed 19 May 2011
20. RP Mason GR Sheu 2002 Role of the ocean in the global mercury cycle Glob Biogeochem Cycles 16 401 414 10.1029/2001GB001440
21. Mercury Policy Project. Turning up the heat (2010). http://mercurypolicy. org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/turning-up-the-heat-3.pdf. Accessed 7 Mar 2011
22. D Mergler HA Anderson LHM Chan KR Mahaffey M Murray M Sakamoto AH Stern 2007 Methylmercury exposure and health effects in humans: a worldwide concern Ambio 33 1 3 11 10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[3:MEAHEI]2.0.CO;2 (Pubitemid 46587110)
23. Michigan mercury pollution prevention (M2P2) task force (1996) Mercury pollution prevention in Michigan-Summary of current efforts and recommendations for future activities. http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3307-29693-4175- 14172-,00.html. Accessed 8 Sept 2010
24. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (2005) Mercury reduction progress report to the Minnesota Legislature. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/ topics/mercury/mercury-in-minnesota-research-and-reduction-initiative.html. Accessed 25 Oct 2010
25. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (2010) Mercury home page. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/topics/mercury/mercury.html?menuid= &missing=0&redirect=1. Accessed 8 Sept 2010
26. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency-Mercury task force (1994) Strategies for reducing mercury in Minnesota. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/topics/ mercury/mercury-in-minnesota-research-and-reduction-initiative.html. Accessed 21 Oct 2010
27. D Mozaffarian P Shi JS Morris D Spiegelman P Grandjean DS Siscovick WC Willett EB Rimm 2011 Mercury exposure and risk of cardiovascular disease in two US cohorts N Engl J Med 364 1116 1125 10.1056/NEJMoa1006876 1:CAS:528: DC%2BC3MXktVyitr0%3D
28. J Munthe RA Bodaly BA Branfireun CT Driscoll CC Gilmour R Harris M Horvat M Lucotte O Malm 2007 Recovery of mercury-contaminated fisheries Ambio 36 33 44 10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[33:ROMF]2.0.CO;2 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1cXksFSrsrs%3D (Pubitemid 46587113)
29. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (2004) Mercury switch data collection pilot project. March 24, 2004. http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/ hg-switch/full-report.pdf. Accessed 19 May 2011
30. Palmer K, Burtraw D, Shih J-S (2005) Reducing emissions from the electricity sector: the costs and benefits nationwide and in the empire state. Resources for the future discussion paper 05-23 http://www.nyserda.org/programs/ environment/emep/nyserdareport05-02.pdf. Accessed 19 May 2011
31. T Pervin U Gerdtham C Hampus Lyttken 2008 Societal costs of air pollution-related health hazards: a review of methods and results Cost Eff Resour Alloc 6 19 10.1186/1478-7547-6-19
32. Rice GE, Hammitt JK (2005) Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. Economic valuation of human health benefits of controlling mercury emissions from U.S. coal-fired power plants. Report for Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (February 2005). www.nescaum.org/documents/rpt050315mercuryhealth. pdf. Accessed 19 May 2011
33. GE Rice JK Hammitt SJ Evans 2010 A probabilistic characterization of the health benefits of reducing methyl mercury intake in the United States Environ Sci Technol 44 13 5216 5224 10.1021/es903359u 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3cXntlCltr0%3D
34. Roman HA, Walsh TL, Coull BA, Dewailly E, Guallar E, Hattis D, Mariën K, Schwartz J, Stern AH, Virtanen JK, and Rice G (2011) Evaluation of the cardiovascular effects of methylmercury exposures: current evidence supports development of a dose-response function for regulatory benefits analysis. Environ Health Perspect 119(5):607-614. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1003012
35. C Seigneur K Vijayarghavan K Lohman P Karamchandani C Scott 2004 Global source attribution for mercury deposition Environ Sci Technol 38 555 569 10.1021/es034109t 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3sXpsVaqtL0%3D (Pubitemid 38095487)
36. CM Smith L Trip 2005 Mercury policy and science in Northeastern North America: the mercury action plan of the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers Ecotoxicol 14 19 36 10.1007/s10646-004-6257-y 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2MXitlOjtL8%3D (Pubitemid 40487032)
37. JV Spadaro A Rabl 2008 Global health impacts and costs due to mercury emissions Risk Anal 28 3 603 613 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01041.x (Pubitemid 351847227)
38. Stern N (2006) The stern review on the economics of climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/stern- review-report.htm. Accessed 5 Oct 2010
39. K Sundseth JM Pacyna EG Pacyna J Munthe M Belhaj S Astrom 2010 Economic benefits from decreased mercury emissions: projections for 2020 J Clean Prod 18 4 386 394 10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.10.017 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3cXktlSmtLo%3D
40. EB Swain PM Jakus GE Rice F Lupi PA Maxson JM Pacyna A Penn SJ Spiegel MM Veiga 2007 Socioeconomic consequences of mercury use and pollution Ambio 36 1 45 61 10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[45:SCOMUA]2.0.CO;2 (Pubitemid 46587114)
41. Sznopek JL, Goonan TG (2000) The materials flow of mercury in the economies of the United States and the world. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1197
42. L Trasande PJ Landrigan C Schechter 2005 Public health and economic consequences of methylmercury toxicity to the developing brain Environ Health Perspect 113 5 590 596 10.1289/ehp.7743 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2MXkvFCjtLk%3D (Pubitemid 40716030)
43. United States Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard Office of auxiliary and boating safety (2009) Recreational boating statistics 2008
44. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the United States Department of Commerce, United States Census Bureau (2006) National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation
45. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1995) Standards of performance for new stationary sources and emission guidelines for existing sources: medical waste incinerators; proposed rule. 60 Federal Register 10654-10691
46. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2005c) Regulatory impact analysis of the clean air mercury rule. EPA-452/R-05-003
47. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2007) 2005/2006 National listing of fish advisories. EPA-823-F097-003
48. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2008) National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPs) mercury emissions from mercury-cell chlor-alkali plants. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hgcellcl/ hgcellclpg.html. Accessed 6 Oct 2010
49. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2010a) EPA's mercury web page. http://www.epa.gov/mercury/control-emissions/global.htm. Accessed 6 Oct 2010
50. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2010b). Summary of environmental and cost impacts of final amendments to Portland cement NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63, subpart LLL) Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051
51. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2010c). Standards of performance for new stationary sources and emission guidelines for existing sources: sewage sludge incineration units: proposed rule. Federal Register 75 (14 Oct 2010), 63277
52. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2011a). National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants from coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam generating units and standards of performance for fossil-fuel-fired electric utility, industrial-commercial-institutional, and small industrial-commercial-institutional steam generating units: Proposed Rule
53. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2011b) National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants: gold mine ore processing and production area source category; and addition to source category list for standards: Final Rule. Federal Register 76 (17 Feb 2011) 9496
54. Hagen DA, Vincent, JW, Welle PG (1999) Economic benefits of reducing mercury deposition in Minnesota. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/reports/mercury-economicbenefits.pdf. Accessed 28 Oct 2010