Mercury Pollution in Maryland A Comprehensive Look at Contamination of Fish in Local Waterways Mercury Pollution in Maryland A Comprehensive Look at Contamination of Fish in Local Waterways Elizabeth Ridlington Chris Fick April 2006 Acknowledgments The authors wish to acknowledge Olivia Campbell and Michael Murray of the National Wildlife Federation and Erin Fitzsimmons of the Waterkeeper Alliance for providing peer review. Thanks to Tamara Newcomer for help in assembling fish testing data from multiple sources. Tony Dutzik and Brad Heavner provided editorial assistance. MaryPIRG Foundation thanks the Abell Foundation, the Zanvyl & Isabelle Krieger Fund, the Aaron & Lillie Straus Foundation, the Jacob & Hilda Blaustein Foundation, and the State Environmental Leadership Program for their generous support of this report. The authors alone bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendations are those of the MaryPIRG Foundation. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of those who provided editorial or technical review. © 2006 MaryPIRG Foundation With public debate around important issues often dominated by special interests pursuing their own narrow agendas, MaryPIRG Foundation offers an independent voice that works on behalf of the public interest. MaryPIRG Foundation, a 501(c)(3) organization, works to preserve the environment, protect consumers and promote good government in Maryland. We investigate problems, craft solutions, educate the public, and offer Maryland residents meaningful opportunities for civic participation. For additional copies of this report, send $10 (including shipping) to: MaryPIRG Foundation 3121 Saint Paul Street, #26 Baltimore, MD 21218 For more information about MaryPIRG and the MaryPIRG Foundation, please contact our office at 410-467-0439 or visit the MaryPIRG Web site at www.marypirg.org. Table of Contents Executive Summary 5 Introduction 7 Health Impacts of Mercury 9 Impacts on Children 9 Impacts on Adults 10 Mercury in Maryland’s Environment 11 Contamination of Maryland’s Fish 11 Sources of Mercury Pollution 15 Reducing Mercury Pollution 17 Policy Recommendations 19 Appendix I. Frequency of High Mercury 20 Concentrations by Species Appendix II. Highest Tested Mercury 21 Concentrations by Species Appendix III. Highest Tested Mercury 22 Concentrations by Waterbody Notes 24 4Mercury Pollution in Maryland Executive Summary ercury pollution from coal-fired Municipal and medical waste incinera- power plants threatens the health tors, industrial facilities and coal-fired M of thousands of Maryland new- power plants are the largest sources of mer- borns each year. We examined data from cury pollution in Maryland. nearly 2,000 fish tested by state agencies; • Local sources of mercury have a 59 percent of the fish contained enough significant impact on the amount of mercury to present a potential health risk. mercury in Maryland’s environment. The state could dramatically reduce the Five of the six largest sources of problem by curbing emissions from power deposition into the Chesapeake Bay plants. are Maryland-based facilities. A recent Mercury is a neurological toxicant that study of mercury deposition in eastern slows development in children and may Ohio found that 67 percent of col- impair the cardiovascular and immune sys- lected mercury came from coal-fired tems in adults. power plants and that most of it was • Children who are exposed to mer- from sources within 400 miles. cury—whether in the womb or during • Once the mercury enters waterways, it their early years—may develop prob- can be transformed to an organic form, lems concentrating, display worse fine which then can accumulate in fish. motor skills, and learn to walk and talk at a later age. Eating contaminated fish is the primary • Adults with more mercury in their route by which people are exposed to mer- bodies may be at an increased risk of cury pollution. Fish caught in the Chesa- experiencing a heart attack. peake Bay and in streams, lakes and reservoirs across the state contain unsafe • In Maryland, an estimated 6,000 to levels of mercury. 12,000 fetuses are exposed to levels of mercury that exceed federal safety • Since 2000, 59 percent (1,141 of 1,939) standards and may later lead to a loss of freshwater and marine fish that were of intelligence. tested in Maryland contained more Executive Summary 5 than 30 parts per billion of mercury mercury pollution. The state recently (ppb), the level above which the EPA adopted standards that will reduce mercury and FDA recommend people begin pollution from coal-fired power plants by limiting their consumption. 90 percent by 2013. However, more work needs to be done. The state should: • Nearly 9 percent (178 fish samples) contained mercury at a concentration • Phase out versions of products that of 300 ppb or greater. Maryland contain mercury, such as car switches issues species-specific consumption and blood-pressure cuffs, and replace advisories when a fish species in a them with safer products. given waterbody has an average mercury contamination of 300 ppb • Establish collection programs for or more. The advisories vary by consumer products containing species and waterbody, and range mercury. from slightly limited consumption • End municipal and medical waste to a warning against eating any fish. incineration. To address the problem of mercury con- • Advocate for reducing pollution from tamination in fish, Maryland must reduce power plants in other states. Figure ES-1. Sources of Mercury Pollution in Maryland1 Cement Manufacturing 5% Medical Waste Other 1% Incinerators 8% Paper Production 9% Coal-Fired Power Municipal Waste Plants 53% Incinerators 13% Other Power Plants 12% 6Mercury Pollution in Maryland Introduction n 1965, the Maryland General Assem gills to tails—live in the Chesapeake Bay bly designated rockfish as Maryland’s for the first three to five years of their lives Istate fish. The declaration included this before migrating to the Atlantic Ocean. statement: Roughly 70 to 90 percent of all Atlantic rockfish come from the Chesapeake Bay. “Whereas, The people of Maryland Rockfish can live as long as 30 years, re- as long time and appreciative turning repeatedly to the bay and its tribu- residents of the productive Chesa- taries to spawn.3 peake Bay area know of it first But Marylanders must now reduce their hand the recreational and gastro- consumption of this “unexcelled delicacy.” nomic delights of this wonderful Rockfish contain dangerous amounts of land, and mercury, as well as PCBs. Whereas, Not the least among the good reasons for living in Mary- land is the abundant and unex- celled delicacy of the Chesapeake Richard Gunion Bay striped bass or rockfish, and Whereas, In the judgment of the members of the General Assembly of Maryland, it is a simple act of justice and of equity that this fine old Maryland fish should be honored by being designated as the official fish of the State of Maryland . .”2 Mercury is emitted in Maryland and sur- rounding states from coal-fired power plants and incinerators burning items con- Rockfish—also known as striped bass taining mercury. Eventually the mercury because of the stripes that run from their settles out of the air into water, where it Introduction 7 can be transformed to an organic form and fish consistently have enough mercury to concentrate in fish. Big, long-lived fish such present a risk to human health, and Mary- as rockfish consume thousands of small land residents are warned to limit their con- fish—and the mercury they contain—over sumption of those fish. the course of a lifetime. Thus, rockfish have Continued mercury pollution will add to high concentrations of mercury and other the contamination of fish and the danger pollutants. to Maryland consumers. Maryland has just As a result, rockfish are unsafe for people committed to reducing emissions from to eat more than twice per month. Accord- coal-fired power plants, the biggest source ing to the Maryland Department of the of in-state pollution, and now should ad- Environment, women of childbearing age dress other sources of pollution. Doing so and children should limit their intake to one will help reduce mercury levels in fish, al- monthly meal or less, depending on the size lowing more of the state’s residents to once of the fish.4 again enjoy the “gastronomic delight” of Rockfish are not the only species con- rockfish and reducing the serious threat taminated by mercury. Smallmouth and mercury contamination poses to the health largemouth bass and five other species of and welfare of children in Maryland. 8Mercury Pollution in Maryland Health Impacts of Mercury ercury harms children as they grow children may also ingest mercury by eating and develop, both in utero and af- polluted fish. Mter birth. In addition, mercury may Hundreds of thousands of American cause damage to adults, increasing the risk children are exposed to dangerous levels of of heart attacks and perhaps compromis- mercury. A 2004 study by U.S. Environ- ing the immune system. mental Protection Agency scientists found that one in six American women of repro- ductive age had levels of mercury high enough to damage a developing fetus.6 A separate analysis estimated that each year Impacts on Children between 317,000 and 637,000 newborns are Mercury’s greatest impact is on fetuses and exposed in utero to levels of mercury that young children. A neurological toxicant, exceed federal safety standards and may lead methylmercury can cause developmental to a loss of intelligence.7 Applying this na- delays, impaired motor skills and lowered tional estimate to Maryland suggests that IQ in children.5 (Methylmercury, the or- 6,000 to 12,000 fetuses in the state are ex- ganic form of mercury, accumulates posed to unsafe levels of mercury each year.8 through the food chain and is the form to Children are more vulnerable to mer- which people are most often exposed.) cury pollution than are adults.