Chlorine Factories Are a Major Global Source of Mercury ]

JANUARY 2005

POISON PLANTS: [ CHLORINE FACTORIES ARE A MAJOR GLOBAL SOURCE OF MERCURY ]

Dawn Winalski Sandra Mayson Jacqueline Savitz Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank many individuals for their help on this report, especially Sylvia Liu, Shikha Savdas, Ricardo Aguilar, Mike Hirshfield, Jim Simon, Andy Sharpless, Sam Haswell, Doralisa Pilarte, Cara Rodgveller, Beth Anderson and Tony Ignacio. Thanks also to Oceana’s Pacific Office for their contribution to the report. TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Foreword 2 Executive Summary 8 I. The Problem: Mercury is Dangerous 10 II. Mercury Based Chlorine Factories: An Unnecessary Source of Poison 15 III. Mercury from Chlorine Plants: United States 19 IV. Mercury-Emitting Chlorine Plants: Europe 22 V. Oceana Solutions 23 Appendix I: United States 24 Alabama 26 Delaware 28 Georgia 30 Kentucky 32 Louisiana 34 Ohio 36 Tennessee 38 Texas 40 West Virginia 42 Wisconsin 44 Appendix II: Europe 45 Belgium 46 Finland 47 France 48 Germany 49 Greece 50 Hungary 51 Italy 52 The Netherlands 53 Spain 54 Sweden 55 United Kingdom 56 End Notes FOREWORD

In 2002, a growing number of patients in Dr. Jane Hightower’s San Francisco general internal medicine practice were complaining of unusual symptoms such as memory problems, hair loss, fatigue, tremors and stomach aches. These otherwise healthy Californians exercised and paid attention to their diets. They also ate fish. A lot of fish.

On a hunch, Dr. Hightower began to quiz her patients about what kind of fish they liked and how often they ate it. She started running mercury tests and found that her patients’ symptoms corresponded with heavy fish consumption – particularly of swordfish and tuna – and extremely high mercury levels, far higher than government authorities consider safe. When patients cut the mercury-contaminated fish from their diets, their symptoms disappeared.1

Dr. Hightower’s findings evoked a much more serious epidemic that beset communities around Japan’s Minamata Bay in the 1950s. Large numbers of fishermen who depended on the bay reported health problems: numbness, tingling in their hands and feet, tremors, blurred vision, and memory problems. An investigation revealed that a local chemical factory had been dumping mercury waste directly into the bay, and the fishermen and their families were ingesting it in fish.2 Over the years, thousands of people were poisoned and crippled, and hundreds died from mercury poisoning.3

Dr. Hightower’s patients, however, were not all eating fish poisoned locally. Many were eating fish caught far away, which brought a sobering fact to light: fish throughout the world’s oceans are contaminated with mercury. We are all at risk.

A United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) scientist now estimates that one out of every six pregnant American women has enough mercury in her blood to cause neurological damage to her developing baby. Each year, hundreds of thousands of babies are born with enough mercury to pose developmental risks.4

We have known about the health consequences of mercury in our environment for decades. Neither that long-term knowledge, nor the tremendous amount of attention paid to this issue in recent months has solved the problem. This Oceana report exposes a major mercury source that has been largely ignored despite the fact that it is entirely preventable: chlorine factories that use outdated, 19th century manufacturing processes. Eliminating the use of mercury in these factories would dramatically reduce the mercury contamination otherwise entering our environment, benefiting children, adults, and many marine animals.

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

MERCURY-CELL CHLORINE PLANTS: A MAJOR, OVERLOOKED, AND COMPLETELY PREVENTABLE SOURCE OF MERCURY POLLUTION.

Mercury is a Global Problem they are not the only major mercury polluter. Most people remain unaware that a small subset of the It is well established that mercury is a global chlorine industry makes a major – and completely problem. Over the past century, industrial activity preventable – contribution to the global mercury crisis. has released massive quantities of the toxic chemical into the air and water. Scientists estimate that 50 to Chlorine is a chemical building-block used in 75 percent of the mercury in the atmosphere comes everything from swimming pools to plastic tents from human sources, and some studies have shown to paper towels. In 1894, a process was devised to a two - to four - fold increase in mercury concentra- produce chlorine by pumping a saltwater solution tions in the planet’s air and water since the pre- (brine) through a vat of mercury, or “mercury-cell,” 11 industrial era.5 that catalyzes an electrolytic chemical reaction. Newer technologies that do not use mercury have Mercury in the environment builds up in wildlife developed, but a number of plants around the world through a process called bioaccumulation. Animals have continued to use the outdated technology – high on the food chain carry the most mercury,6 and to dangerous effect. many of the fish we eat are close to the top of the marine food chain. All mercury-cell chlorine plants are required to report their mercury releases to air, water and off- The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) site disposal each year. In the U.S., the industry’s reports that fish and fish products – both caught self-reported figures are high enough to rank chlorine and purchased – are the greatest source of methyl- plants 5th in mercury emissions, among all industries 12 mercury ingested by humans.7 Contaminated fish can releasing mercury into the air. It is very likely, be found in all the oceans of the world, as mercury however, that the quantity of mercury chlorine plants climbs up the marine food chain and onto our dinner actually emit is much higher. In fact, releases from plates. Forty-five of the fifty U.S. states issued mercury chlorine plants may be high enough to rival those advisories for recreationally caught fish in 2003.8 from power plants, the presumed greatest source Governments in the U.S. and Europe have warned of mercury releases to air, in the U.S. and Europe. women and children against eating particular fish species including swordfish, shark, tilefish, king “Lost” Mercury Could Make Chlorine mackerel, marlin, pike and tuna.9 Decades of pollution Plants Worst Mercury Polluter of All have caught up with us; now we have become the victims. In fact, a United States Environmental The chlorine industry’s reported figures for mercury Protection Agency (EPA) scientist estimates that one releases to air are based in part on monitored out of six women now has enough mercury in her blood smokestack emissions, but they also include the 10 to pose neurological risks to her developing child. industry’s estimates of the amount of mercury that evaporates during routine operations and escapes Mercury-Based Chlorine Plants Rival through unmonitored ventilation systems and other Coal-Burning Power Plants as Mercury leaks – so-called “fugitive emissions.”13 According to the company reports, chlorine plants’ fugitive Polluters emissions are nine times greater than monitored mercury releases.14 Yet this is an estimate only, As the extent of mercury contamination in our and there is good reason to suspect that fugitive environment, our bodies and our food comes to light, mercury emissions are even greater than the concern over mercury pollution is increasing. Most industry suggests. media and public attention has focused on coal- burning power plants. They are big; they are dirty; In addition to reported releases, mercury-based they are many. They are, collectively, one of our chlorine plants in the U.S. and Europe “lose” a planet’s largest sources of mercury emissions. But tremendous amount of mercury each year. Annually, 2 U.S. MERCURY-CELL CHLORINE PLANTS RELEASE • In 2000, the chlorine plants in the first fifteen FIVE TIMES MORE MERCURY THAN AVERAGE HEAVY DUTY POLLUTERS: member states of the European Union (EU-15) POWERMerc PLANTSury-Cell Chlorine Plants v. Coal-Fired Power Plants in the U.S. reported having used 105 tons (95 metric tons) Not including(Pounds mercury per year “lost” of meby chlorinercury emi factoriesssions, monitored and unmonitored.) 16 1200 of mercury. For the same year, the industry reported that 8.8 tons (8 metric tons) of mercury 120 lbs had been released to the environment.17 Ninety- 1000 six tons (87 metric tons) of mercury were unaccounted for. This is almost three times the 800 amount of mercury released to the air by all coal- 977 lbs fired power plants and residential heating in the 600 European Union that year, which totaled about 33 tons (30 metric tons).18

400 The industry contends that the missing mercury seeps into factory infrastructure and equipment.19 200 However, what little evidence there is suggests 187 lbs that this explanation is inadequate. A recent plant 0 closure in Maine provides one example. When the pipes and equipment were cleaned out, 33 tons (30 Avg. Coal-Burning Avg. Mercury-Cell metric tons) of mercury were still missing.20 It is far Power Plant Chlorine Plant more likely that much of the missing mercury escapes Monitored mercury stack emissions (lbs/year) as unmonitored fugitive emissions.

Unmonitored fugitive mercury emissions (lbs/year) – industry estimate. Even if only half of the lost mercury is released to

TSource:his does n otOceana take into accobasedunt lo onst mer EPAcury. Toxics Release Inventory Data the environment in this way, the mercury-based Figure 1 chlorine industry would rival coal-fired power plants the industry uses, or “consumes,” far more mercury as the greatest source of mercury pollution in both than it reports having released. But mercury does the United States and Europe. not get used up in the process of making chlorine. Only small amounts of it end up as impurities in Mercury-Emitting Chlorine Plants the product. Since mercury is an element, it does not break down into other substances. It has to go in the United States somewhere. The lost mercury could be in the air, in the water, in the soil, or in the chlorine facility itself. There are nine mercury-cell chlorine plants still operating in the United States, located in eight The discrepancy between what the industry reports states: Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Ohio, having consumed and what it reports having released Tennessee, West Virginia and Wisconsin. According is substantial, to say the least: to the industry’s own reported estimates, the average mercury-based chlorine plant released 1097 lbs (499 21 • In 2000, the nine chlorine plants in the U.S. kg) of mercury to air in 2002. reported having consumed 79 tons (71 metric tons) of mercury and released 14 tons (~13 In the same year, on average, power plants in the metric tons). They had “lost” 65 tons (59 metric United States released a total of 186 lbs (85 kg) of tons) far more than the entire combined mercury mercury to air. Of the 100 power plants with the releases of all 497 power plants in the country highest mercury emissions, the average was 586 lbs 22 (49 tons / 44 metric tons). The EPA declared that (266 kg). More simply put, according to industry “the fate of all the mercury-consumed atmercury- reported figures (which do not include any of the cell chlor-alkali plants remains somewhat of an “lost” mercury), the average mercury-based chlorine enigma.”15 plant released five times more mercury than the average mercury-emitting power plant, and twice as much on average as a large power plant in 2002.

3 Other statistics are equally compelling: mercury emitter in the United States based on 2002 data. • In seven of the eight states where they operated in 2002, a mercury-based chlorine plant was the • Nationwide, eight mercury-cell chlorine plants largest source of mercury emissions to air in ranked among the top 25 mercury polluters (from the state. This includes Alabama, Delaware, all industries),in 2002.23 Louisiana, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia and Wisconsin. • The mercury-cell chlorine industry is the nation’s fifth largest mercury polluting industry. 24 Its true • In both Louisiana and Delaware, mercury-based rank could be substantially higher, depending on chlorine plants released more mercury in 2002 the fate of the “lost” mercury. than all other sources combined. Mercury-Emitting Chlorine Plants • ASHTA Chemicals, a mercury based chlorine in Europe factory in Ashtabula, Ohio, was the fifth ranking Mercury pollution from chlorine plants is not limited Locations of Mercury-Based Chlorine Factories to the United States. The chlorine industry is also a in the U.S. major source of mercury emissions in Europe.

There are 53 mercury-cell chlorine plants currently operating in the European Union (EU) – 44 in Western Europe, seven in new (as of 2004) EU member states and two in countries joining in 2007.25

Statistics from 2001 show that:26

• In the United Kingdom, a mercury-cell chlorine plant operated by Ineos Chlor is the greatest single source of mercury emissions in the country. Three chlorine plants emit one-third of all the UK’s mercury releases.

U.S. Chlorine Factories Release Tons of Mercury (2002)

RANK BY EMISSIONS TO AIR (lbs) TOTAL TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs) MERCURY (TO AIR, WATER, FACILITY CITY STATE fugitive stack total air RELEASES AND OFF-SITE) 1 Olin Charleston TN 1045 85 1130 2512 2 Occidental Chemicals New Castle DE 1046 28 1074 2238 3 PPG New Martinsville WV 1045 188 1233 2167 4 Occidental Chemicals Muscle Shoals AL 1067 20 1087 1771 5 ASHTA Ashtabula OH 1046 349 1395 1568 6 Vulcan Port Edwards WI 1054 28 1082 1462 7 PPG Lake Charles LA 1045 177 1222 1460 8 Pioneer St. Gabriel LA 862 48 910 1184 9 Olin Augusta GA 585 154 739 1028

Source: Oceana based on EPA Toxics Release Inventory Data Ta b l e 1 4 • In Belgium, the top two mercury emitters are mercury-cell chlorine plants.

• In Finland, the only mercury-cell chlorine plant still active ranks second in the nation (of all industries) for total mercury emissions.

• In France, five of the seven active mercury-cell chlorine plants ranks in the nation’s top ten (from all industries) for total mercury emissions. Top 25 Chlorine Factories that Release Mercury Mercury contaminates our to Air in Europe (2001) environment, our communities, TOTAL EMISSIONS RANK FACILITY COUNTRY and our food (kg)

Mercury releases from mercury-cell chlorine plants 1 Ineos Chlor LTD UK 1151 have both local and distant effects, beginning in the 2 Degussa AG Werk Germany 312 factories themselves. After mercury evaporates from 3 Vestolit Germany 273 the mercury cells, and before it escapes through cell 4 EniChem S.p.A (Syndial Italy 265 room vents, much of it must pass through the air in S.p.A. – Priolo) which factory employees work, and which they breathe. 5 Solvay Electrolyse France 213.6 6 Atofina France 195 In the early 1990s, Olin Corporation (a U.S. company) 7 Solvay Quimica Spain 190 settled a lawsuit with contracted workers who had (Torrelavega) been directed to sever a pipe which, when cut, spilled mercury onto the floor and onto the clothes and skin of 8 Vintron Germany 186 the employees. They subsequently became ill, reporting 9 Solvay-Solvic SA Belgium 177.7 symptoms that included nausea, dizziness, headaches, 10 Tessenderlo Chemie Belgium 174.6 cramps, joint pain and memory loss.27 In Riegelwood, 11 Albion Chemicals UK 173.2 North Carolina, at least 71 former HoltraChem 12 BASF AG Germany 165 employees who worked at the company’s old plant 13 Aragonesas Industrias y Spain 162.4 (now a Superfund site) have also filed civil lawsuits, Energia SA claiming health damages from mercury exposure.28 14 Atofina France 161 15 Solvay Chimica Italia Italy 155 Eventually, mercury released into the air or water travels greater distances, carried by wind and water S.p.A currents and biological processes. Scientists believe 16 Bayer AG Germany 146 that mercury released to the atmosphere may take 17 Atofina France 144.4 anywhere from six days to two years to fall to land or 18 Lll Europe Germany 142 surface water. Some mercury found in rain may be 19 Bayer AG Germany 133.4 coming from sources as far as 2,500 km (about 1,550 20 Albemarle PPC France 125 30 miles) away. Much of it will ultimately make its way 21 Solvay NV Belgium 113 to the sea and contribute to the global poisoning of 22 Vinnolit Germany 107 marine wildlife. Every kind of marine creature suffers 23 Borsodchem Rt Hungary 97 from mercury contamination, but the most affected are those at the top of the food chain – large fish, 24 Aragonesas Industrias y Spain 90.8 marine mammals, and, of course, humans. Energia SA Puerto 25 Ercros Industrial Spain 82.8 Mercury released in wastewater enters local Source Oceana with data from the EPER database which has data for the EU-15 countries and Norway and Hungary. Data unavailable for one plant in France, one ecosystems even more directly. The pollution can plant in Italy, two plants in Spain. Table 2 5 States. Because cleaner, more efficient methods of chlorine production are available, the mercury-based process is not considered to be a BAT, and European chlorine facilities are required to phase out the use of mercury by October of 2007.33

No new mercury-cell plants have been built since 1970, and new construction is effectively limited by restrictions on mercury emissions from new plants in the United States.34 In Europe, the industry trade group, Euro Chlor, has agreed not to build any new plants with this outdated technology.35

Eliminating mercury technology does not mean that plants must be closed. Many plants around the world have successfully converted from mercury-based to cleaner, newer technologies – a conversion that can lower plants’ energy and labor costs while increasing capacity.36 According to Euro Chlor, companies typically save 15% on their electric bills and 10% on A charter boat unloads a catch of yellowfin tuna and dolphinfish at 37 Pirates' Cove Marina, North Carolina. NOAA total energy bills when they convert. Conversion of build up in the food chain, and can be very harmful to one Alabama facility also reduced hazardous waste 38 animals and people living in the vicinity. Seven of the generation by 92%. nine operating chlorine plants using mercury-cell technology are Resource Conservation and Recovery Oceana Solutions Act (RCRA) Corrective Action Sites and 14 of the 32 inactive chlorine plants that once used mercury-cell Oceana is seeking solutions to the global mercury 29 technology are Superfund sites. Both classifications problem. Our goal is to defend the European Union’s refer to areas identified by the government as mercury phase-out and to win a complete transition to dangerously contaminated with hazardous waste. mercury-free technology there and in the United States.

The Use of Mercury in Chlorine Recommendations Manufacturing is Completely Unnecessary Maintain European phase-out • The European Union should require full This 19th century mercury-cell technology is compliance with the IPPC directive and antiquated, unnecessary and dangerous. Two the 2007 conversion deadline. alternative production methods exist: membrane cell • The requirement should stand for all current and diaphragm cell. Most of the U.S. chlorine industry members of the EU and be a condition of uses the newer technologies – in fact, 90% of U.S. becoming a member. chlorine is produced using mercury-free processes.31 In Europe, though sixty percent of the industry Phase out mercury-emitting chlorine still uses mercury-cell technology, the European production in the United States by 2008 Commission agreed in 1996 to take action to prevent • EPA should require all nine operating facilities to releases of pollutants like mercury to water, air convert to mercury-free technology, which is the or land from industrial activities.32 Through the maximum achievable control technology for Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive producing chlorine. (IPPC), the Commission required facilities to follow • EPA should require any temporarily closed (idled) what are called Best Available Techniques (BAT), a plants to shift to mercury-free technology before concept and term similar to one used in the United reopening. 6 • Facilities still using mercury-emitting technology should be required to monitor fugitive emissions, and conduct tests to identify the status of the lost mercury.

Ensure the safe disposal of mercury when plants convert or shut down • Because mercury is a highly toxic substance, chemical companies and governments should be responsible for the cleanup of the site once a plant has been converted or closed. Surplus mercury and old equipment should be disposed of properly in a hazardous waste facility and not exported to other countries that are not currently subject to a phase-out. • Companies should properly treat and clean-up mercury-contaminated groundwater, surface water, soils and sediments on the site of the plant.

Conclusion

The chlorine industry is a major mercury source that has been almost completely ignored, yet this industry can completely eliminate its mercury pollution. Europe is moving toward an industry-wide transition to mercury-free technology; the U.S. should do the same. By bringing their production processes into the 21st century, chlorine manufacturers can greatly reduce the amount of mercury that is released and carried into our environment, our communities and our food.

7 I. THE PROBLEM: MERCURY IS DANGEROUS

Mercury Poses Serious Health Risks memory and coordination.47 Neurological damage may delay development so that children may walk and to Children and Adults talk later than normal, have slower reflexes and lower IQ scores.48 At its most extreme, mercury can cause There is a very good reason one handles thermometers severe brain damage, mental retardation, blindness, with care. Mercury is a poison. When ingested by seizures, and the inability to speak.49 humans in sufficient quantities it can cause severe neurological damage. Symptoms can include impaired coordination, memory loss, tingling in the Mercury is a Dangerous Contaminant extremities, tremors, blurred vision, headaches, joint in Fish pain, fatigue and depression.42 Research suggests that mercury exposure may increase the victim’s risk Most toxic substances sold at the grocery store are of heart disease and kidney damage; mercury labeled with appropriate warnings. A person’s weekly exposure is also associated with infertility in both dose of mercury, on the other hand, may come in an men and women.43 Finally, methylmercury (the most unmarked fillet of fish or a can of tuna. The United dangerous form) is considered a possible human Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) reports that carcinogen.44 fish and fish products – both caught and purchased – are the greatest source of methylmercury ingested As dangerous as mercury is for adults, it is even more by humans.50 detrimental to children and developing fetuses. How have some fish become so contaminated? While some mercury occurs naturally in the A UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL environment, human industrial activities have significantly increased mercury mobilized and PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) SCIENTIST released to the environment.51 Mercury released NOW ESTIMATES THAT ONE OUT OF into the air as vapor travels and eventually falls to EVERY SIX AMERICAN WOMEN HAS the earth as rain or snow, making its way into lakes, rivers, estuaries, and ultimately to the sea. Some ENOUGH MERCURY IN HER BLOOD mercury is also released directly into waterways, TO CAUSE NEUROLOGICAL DAMAGE and more still leaks into the environment through TO A DEVELOPING BABY.39 improper or ineffective disposal practices on land. Bacteria that live in these bodies of water transform some of the mercury into its most dangerous form, methylmercury, which unlike the inorganic form [ 52 According to the Environmental Protection Agency accumulates in fish and animal tissue. (EPA), the “safe level” of mercury in a woman’s blood is 5.8 micrograms of mercury per liter of blood (ug/L) This attribute of mercury – the capacity of its organic – which means that anything above that is cause form to bioaccumulate – is what makes it so for concern. Because mercury becomes more dangerous.53 Most of the land-dwelling creatures concentrated as it passes from a mother to her fetus, it only takes 3.5 ug/L in a pregnant woman’s blood to pose a risk to her developing baby.45 Such EACH YEAR, HUNDREDS OF concentrations of mercury will have a far greater effect on the fetus than on the mother.46 Without THOUSANDS OF BABIES ARE BORN her ever feeling a tingling finger or forgetting an WITH ENOUGH MERCURY TO POSE acquaintance’s name, a pregnant woman who eats RISKS OF NEUROLOGICAL EFFECTS moderate quantities of contaminated fish may have enough mercury in her blood to handicap her child. BECAUSE OF HIGH MERCURY LEVELS IN THEIR MOTHERS' DIETS.40 Children exposed to mercury in the womb, a time that they are developing rapidly, may later have problems [ with attention span, language, visual-spatial skills, 8 we eat, such as cattle and poultry, are low on the pronounced in young fish but levels in adult fish also food chain (mostly herbivores), while large fish like can be high enough to cause problems.58 tuna and swordfish are predators at the end of a long sequence of predators and prey. They eat smaller fish Where Does the Mercury Come From? that eat even smaller fish that eat crustaceans…and so on. Much of the mercury consumed is stored in Global mercury contamination of seafood is largely the tissues of animals that ingest it. When smaller the result of human industrial activities. It is animals get eaten, they pass the mercury in their estimated that 50 to 75 percent of the mercury now bodies on to their predators. Thus, the concentration in the environment comes from human sources; the of mercury in animals increases as it travels up the remainder is the product of natural emissions, such food chain. as volcanoes.59 Studies have suggested a two-to four- fold increase in mercury concentrations in air and As it builds up in marine food chains mercury is marine surface waters since the pre-industrial era.60 finding its way onto our dinner plates, and today The greatest and most publicized source of mercury contaminated seafood is a global problem. Federal emissions is combustion: the burning of fossil fuels and waste incineration. In 2002, UNEP estimated that 70 percent of global mercury emissions come from these sources.61 Other mercury-emitting activities IN FRANCE, NEARLY HALF (44%) OF include medical waste incineration, gold mining, CHILDREN BETWEEN THE AGES OF and some aspects of offshore oil drilling. THREE AND SIX MAY BE EXCEEDING Because of the number of coal-burning plants and SAFE LEVELS OF MERCURY LARGELY their cumulative effect, the attention of the press, AS A RESULT OF FISH CONSUMPTION. the public, and consumer interest groups has focused COMPARED TO OTHER EUROPEANS, on this industry as the primary mercury source. One industry, however, has been virtually ignored despite HOWEVER, THE FRENCH CONSUME the scale of its mercury problem and despite that fact RELATIVELY LITTLE FISH.41 that its use of mercury is entirely unnecessary: the chlorine industry.

[governments are issuing increasing numbers of warnings against eating various species of fish. Several European Union member states have advised mothers and children against eating swordfish, marlin, pike and tuna.54 In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and EPA have warned women of childbearing age and children not to eat swordfish, king mackerel, tilefish, or shark and to limit their consumption of albacore tuna.55 Recreational anglers in 45 of the 50 U.S. states have been warned against eating some of the fish they catch.56 Moreover, fishermen and their families in coastal areas along the Mediterranean and the Atlantic island of Madeira have very high mercury levels in their bodies based on measurements made of their hair.57

Besides presenting human health concerns, mercury also affects the health of fish and other marine life that consume fish, including seals, dolphins, whales and sea lions. As in humans, effects are most Swordfish caught in the Mediterranean.

9 II. MERCURY BASED CHLORINE FACTORIES: AN UNNECESSARY SOURCE OF POISON

Chlorine is everywhere. It is a critical ingredient used Top 25 Sources of U.S.Mercury Air Emissions (2002) to disinfect swimming pools and drinking water; it is TOTAL AIR an ingredient in drain cleaner, bleach, plastics, tents, EMISSIONS FACILITY STATE playground balls and a host of other everyday items. (lbs) In 1894, a process was devised to commercially Jerritt Canyon Joint Venture NV 4741 manufacture chlorine by pumping salty water (brine) Lehigh Southwest Cement Co. CA 2345 through a vat of pure mercury, known as a mercury Limestone Electric TX 1800 cell. The mercury cell stimulates a chemical process Generating Station that converts the brine into chlorine, hydrogen, and Alcoa World Alumina LLC TX 1453 caustic soda (used to make detergents and other products).64 More recently, mercury-free production Point Comfort methods have been developed and adopted by much ASHTA Chemicals Inc. OH 1395 of the chlorine industry around the world. Antiquated Cortez Gold Mines Mill 2 NV 1356 mercury-based facilities remain, however, and Barrick Goldstrike Mines Inc. NV 1356 continue to release mercury into the air and water. TXU Monticello Steam TX 1324 Electric Station & Lignite Mine Nine chlorine plants currently operate in the United American Electric Power OH 1300 States using the outdated mercury cell process. Conesville Plant Together, the active chlorine plants pumped 8.5 tons (7.7 Essroc Cement Corp. IN 1262 metric tons) of mercury into the environment in 2002.65 Reliant Energy Keystone PA 1235 Power Plant IN 2000, ELEVEN CHLORINE PLANTS PPG Industries Inc. WV 1233 “LOST” MORE MERCURY THAN WAS PPG Industries Inc. LA 1222 RELEASED BY ALL 497 MERCURY- Jeffrey Energy Center KS 1216 Olin Corp. EMITTING POWER PLANTS IN THE TN 1130 W.A. Parish Electric TX 1100 62 UNITED STATES. Generating Station [ Occidental Chemical Corp. AL 1087 Individually, each plant is a polluter worthy of national Vulcan Materials Co. WI 1082 ranking. Eight of the nine active chlorine factories Port Edwards Plant placed among the top 25 releasers of mercury to air Alabama Power Co. Miller AL 1077 in the country in 2002.66 One facility, operated by Steam Plant ASHTA Chemicals, in Ashtabula, Ohio, is the fifth- Occidental Chemical Corp. DE 1074 largest single source of mercury air pollution in the Oxy Vinyls L.P. – Deer Park TX 1046 67 country. On average, one of these plants releases Martin Lake Steam Electric TX 1027 about 1097 lbs (499 kg) of mercury into the air and Station & Lignite Mine about 13 lbs (~6 kg) directly into water in any given American Electric Power TX 1000 year of operation.68 H.W. Pirkey Power Plant In Europe, there are 53 mercury-based chlorine plants: Georgia Power Scherer GA 943 44 in Western Europe, seven in the countries that Steam Electric Generating... joined the European Union in 2004, and two in the two Pioneer Americas LLC LA 910 countries that will join the EU in 2007.69 Fully one-third Source: Oceana based on EPA Toxics Release Inventory Data Table 3 of the mercury releases in the United Kingdom comes Most Mercury Releases are “Fugitive” from mercury-emitting chlorine factories.70 Europe, however, is in the process of phasing out the use Mercury-cell chlorine plants vary in size, and of mercury to make chlorine. There, facilities are production capacity. On average a plant in Europe required to phase out the use of mercury by is smaller than one in the United States.72 For 71 October, 2007. example, the U.S. plant operated by Olin in Augusta, 10 Georgia, contains 60 mercury cells, each of which measures 48 feet in length and five in depth (~15 by 1.5 meters). These mercury cells are essentially large vats of IN 2000, IN THE EU-15, 96 TONS mercury which can hold approximately 186 tons (~169 (87 METRIC TONS) OF MERCURY metric tons) total.73 Such enormous quantities of mercury make for enormous quantities of mercury gas released. WERE UNACCOUNTED FOR – NEARLY THREE TIMES THE Mercury leaves chlorine plants in several ways. Some AMOUNT RELEASED TO THE AIR mercury separates as vapor during the electrolysis process and is routed through factory smokestacks, BY ALL POWER PLANTS AND which are equipped with monitoring devices to track RESIDENTIAL HEATING FACILITIES mercury emissions. The industry reports these as IN THOSE COUNTRIES.63 mercury “stack emissions” – which average about 120 lbs per year (~55 kg) per plant.74

Mercury is also discharged directly into surface [“fugitive” emissions. Because mercury is a volatile water. In 2002, such waste totaled 107 lbs (~49 kg), element, and because the cell room operates at high a per-plant average of 12 lbs (5.4 kg).75 Still more temperatures, mercury can evaporate both during mercury is disposed of off-site or in hazardous waste normal operations and when the vats are opened 76 disposal facilities.Because the industry is required to for maintenance. report to the EPA all of its releases to air, water, and land, including off-site disposal, these figures come Mercury that evaporates from vats is released directly from the companies. through the factories’ ventilation systems. Plant management rarely monitors these fugitive emissions Most of the mercury released from chlorine plants, – the companies are simply allowed, under United however, does not exit through monitored smoke- States regulations, to estimate their amount at 77 stacks, discharge pipes or off-site disposal 1.3 kg/plant/day (about 2.9 lbs/plant/day). In 2002, operations, but rather escapes as what are called fugitive emissions averaged about 977 lbs of mercury (444 kg) per plant per year – or approximately 4.4 tons U.S. MERCURY-CELL CHLORINE PLANTS RELEASE total per year (~4 metric tons) in the United States. FIVE TIMES MORE MERCURY THAN AVERAGE POHEWERAVY D PLANTSUTY POLLUTERS: Mercury-Cell Chlorine Plants v. Coal-Fired Power Plants in the U.S. Overall, the industry reports unmonitored fugitive Not( Pincludingounds pe mercuryr year of me“lost”rcu ryby emichlorinessions factories, monitored and unmonitored.) 1200 emissions (most of which must pass through areas where people work) to be about nine times higher 120 lbs than the total monitored mercury stack emissions 1000 reported to the EPA by these facilities. It should be kept in mind that this is an estimate, since fugitive 800 977 lbs emissions are not monitored.

600 But when it is all added up, the amount of mercury these plants bring in does not equal what they report 400 sent out, which may explain why many of these plants have left legacies of toxic contamination in their 200 communities. 187 lbs

0 Tons More Poison Lost Every Year Avg. Coal-Burning Avg. Mercury-Cell Power Plant Chlorine Plant In addition to their reported mercury releases, Monitored mercury stack emissions (lbs/year) mercury-cell chlorine plants “lose” mercury. Quite Unmonitored fugitive mercury emissions (lbs/year) simply, the plants consume more mercury than they – industry estimate.

This doeSource:s not take i ntoOceana account lo basedst mercur y.on EPA Toxics Release Inventory Data report releasing. So far, neither the mercury-using Figure 2 11 chlorine factories nor the government agencies mercury-free technologies.84 No new mercury-cell that regulate them have been able to account for plants have been built since 1970, and new construc- the difference or adequately explain the problem. tion is effectively limited by restrictions on mercury Mercury does not get used up in the process of emissions by new plants.85 In Europe, though 60 making chlorine. Only small amounts of it end up percent of the industry uses mercury-cell technology, as impurities in the product. Since mercury is an the industry has been directed to phase out the use element, it does not break down into other substances. of mercury by 2007.86 In addition, the industry trade It has to go somewhere. The lost mercury must be group in Europe, Euro Chlor has agreed not to build in the air, in the water, on the land, or in the facility any new plants that use a mercury-based process.87 itself. U.S. Plants Lose Tons of Mercury Annually In 2000, in the United States alone, the industry lost 65 tons (59 metric tons) of mercury, far more than Year Lost (tons) Source the entire combined mercury releases of all 497 2000 65 EPA mercury-emitting power plants in the country (about 49 tons / 44 metric tons).78 If even half of those 65 tons 2001 – Data unavailable made their way into the environment, then the small 2002 28 Chlorine Institute group of mercury-based chlorine plants would rival coal burning power plants as the number one source 2003 30 Chlorine Institute 83

of mercury contamination in the U.S. Table 4 In 2000, the chlorine plants in the first fifteen member Europe Sees the Light Before the states of the European Union (EU-15) reported that they used 104.5 tons (95 metric tons) of mercury.79 United States For the same year, releases totaled 4.5 tons (4 metric tons) of mercury to the air, and the industry reported Mercury-emitting chlorine plants are considered that 8.8 tons (8 metric tons) of mercury were released obsolete in Europe. European governments have to the environment.80 Ninety-six tons (87 metric tons) recognized that mercury is harmful to public health, of mercury were unaccounted for. This is almost three and should be reduced, and that the use of mercury times the amount of mercury released to the air by all in chlorine production should be phased out. coal-fired power plants and residential heating in the EU-15 that year which totaled approximately 33 tons The European Commission agreed in 1996 to take (30 metric tons).81 action to prevent releases of pollutants like mercury to water, air or land from industrial activities. The The amount of mercury lost varies from year to year Commission required facilities to follow what are because it is counted in the year that replacement called Best Available Techniques (BAT), a concept mercury is bought by the factory. It is also dependent and term similar to one used in the United States. on the number of facilities operating in a given year. In Europe, due to the availability of cleaner, more While no data are available for 2001, the industry efficient technology, the mercury-emitting chlorine reported losing 28 tons (25 metric tons) in 2002 and production process is not considered to be BAT. 30 tons (27 metric tons) in 2003. (See Table 4) Therefore, facilities are required to phase out the use of mercury by October, 2007.88 Euro Chlor, however, is promoting an alternative timeframe that would Companies Can Eliminate Mercury result in 13 additional years of mercury releases to the Releases environment. Some countries also have committed to phase-out mercury use, although according to a The good news is that this mercury pollution slower schedule than required by the Directive.89 is entirely preventable. Mercury-cell technology is antiquated, unnecessary and dangerous. Two In the United States, the Clean Air Act has a similar alternative production methods exist: membrane- requirement for BAT, called Maximum Achievable cell and diaphragm-cell. Today, 90 percent of chlorine Control Technology (MACT). The EPA has side- made in the United States is produced using these stepped that requirement by claiming that mercury- 12 emitting chlorine facilities are a different category Conversion is Both Possible and than their mercury-free counterparts. So instead of designating mercury-free technology as MACT, as Practical was done in Europe, the U.S. plants will only have to meet the maximum achievable mercury-emitting Conversion from mercury-based to mercury-free control technology.90 This will allow the facilities to technology is both possible and practical, as continue to operate as they are now, releasing and demonstrated by the European commitment and losing tons of mercury each year. All of the releases examples of chlorine plants that have already made to the environment could be eliminated simply by the switch. In fact, evidence suggests that by acknowledging that the MACT is mercury-free, and converting from mercury-cell to membrane shifting to that technology as is required in Europe.91 technology, chlorine plants can lower energy and labor costs while increasing capacity.92 This results in reduced operating expenses. PLANTS HAVE CONVERTED SUCESSFULLY TO ELIMINATE According to Euro Chlor, companies typically save 15% of their electrical energy costs and 10% of their MERCURY RELEASES total energy costs as a result of conversion.93 Occidental Chemical Corporation: Mobile, Alabama: United States: 1991: Many examples of conversions already exist. Occidental Chemical’s Mobile plant converted Occidental Chemical’s Mobile, Alabama plant from mercury based chlor-alkali production to converted from mercury-based chlorine production environmentally superior membrane technology to mercury-free membrane technology in 1991. in 1991, reducing hazardous wastes generated by Besides eliminating mercury emissions, the project 92% from 38 tons per year to three tons per year.99 reduced the amount of hazardous wastes generated by 92%, from 38 tons per year to three tons per year.94 Borregaard: Sarpsborg: Norway: 1997: The conversion project also saved the company In Norway, the last mercury-cell plant ceased approximately $51,000 annually and reduced its con- its mercury-based operations in September 1997. sumption of natural gas.95 By converting to mercury- Borregaard converted from mercury-cell to free technology, the Borregaard plant in Norway membrane technology.100 reported an electrical energy savings of 30% per metric ton of caustic produced and saved 25% in labor India: Three companies have completely phased costs.96 Additional examples are provided in Box 1. out their mercury cells, switching to membrane cells: Punjab Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd, Century The cost of conversion for an individual plant may vary Rayon Ltd, and NRC Ltd.101 according to factors that include the plant’s current infrastructure, size and location of the facility. For this Germany: Two plants converted to membrane reason, cost estimates vary widely. In 1995, the EPA technology: Elektro Chemie, Bitterfield and estimated costs between $100,000 and $200,000 per Bayer, Dormagen.102 ton of chlorine produced per day. For a facility that produces about 65,000 tons per year, the cost would Donau Chemi, Brückl: Austria: 1999: During range from $20 to $40 million.97 Similarly, in 2001, the conversion of this facility, the plant continued Euro Chlor predicted conversion will cost roughly to run at 80% capacity, avoiding major losses 530 Euros per metric ton of annual chlorine capacity, in production.103 though many plants already have converted for less.98

BF Goodrich Corp. (Westlake Vinyls): Calvert Mercury-based chlorine production is a dangerous City, KY: United States: 2003: Membrane relic of the past. Newer, cleaner technology exists. technology went online in January, 2003. The Both chemical companies and the public ultimately plant’s mercury cells were decommissioned by benefit from the conversion of mercury-based plants June, 2003 and are now inactive.104 to membrane technology.

Box 1 13 The Chlorine Production Process How is Chlorine Made?

The chemical transaction that converts salt and WATER SALT water into chlorine, hydrogen and caustic soda is known as electrolysis – a process in which an electrical charge is used to pull ions out of their initial bonds and allow them to recombine in new ways. To produce chlorine, sodium chloride (table salt) is dissolved in water. The salty solution, or brine, is pumped into an electrolytic cell, where the ions that make up the salt and water molecules become BRINE charged, are pulled apart, and then cluster to form new molecules.

There are three methods of inducing this chemical ELECTROLYSIS reaction, each relying on a different type of cell: the • DIAPHRAGM CELL mercury cell, the membrane cell, and the diaphragm • MEMBRANE CELL cell. Apart from the fact that the two more modern • MERCURY CELL technologies are mercury-free, the three processes are nearly identical.106 ELECTRICITY The Mercury Cell

In mercury-cell technology, mercury is the agent that pulls the charged ions in the salt and water molecules CHLORINE SODIUM out of their original bonds. Saltwater (brine) is GAS (1.0) HYDROXIDE (1.1) pumped into a massive vat of liquid mercury. The mercury serves as the negative electrode (cathode) and lures positively-charged sodium (Na) ions out of their chloride bonds. The sodium ions latch on to mercury ions to form NaHg, abandoning the chloride ions to their new independence, to eventually become PURIFICATION chlorine gas.

Later in the process, the sodium (Na) and mercury (Hg) ions split once again, the sodium now joining with hydroxide (OH) ions liberated from water molecules. The final products of the process are LIQUIFIED sodium hydroxide (caustic soda), hydrogen and FINAL chlorine gas. The elemental mercury is theoretically FORMS recycled to the electrolysis cell.108 Unfortunately, a good deal of mercury evaporates over the course of this process, and is released from the chlorine Source: Research Triangle Institute, 2000. Diagram from report to Figure 3 plant in monitored or fugitive emissions.109 EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards107

14 III. MERCURY FROM CHLORINE PLANTS: UNITED STATES

Mercury-Emitting Chlorine Plants Locations of Mercury-Based Chlorine Factories in the U.S. Release Tons of Mercury Each Year

THE MERCURY “ENIGMA” In 2000, the EPA acknowledged that the eleven operating mercury-based chlorine plants had “lost” 65 tons (56 metric tons) of mercury – an amount far greater than the 49 tons (44 metric tons) emitted by the nation’s entire coal-burning industry. Collectively, the chlorine plants used 79 tons (71 metric tons) of mercury and reported 14 tons (13 metric tons) released as waste. But what happened to the remaining 65 tons (56 metric tons)? The most plausible explanation was that the remaining mercury had evaporated Charleston, Tennessee ranked first in total reported and escaped through vents in the cell room as mercury releases to the environment (2512 lbs / 1141 kg), fugitive emissions. The industry responded followed closely by the Occidental Chemical Company that the missing material had seeped into plant (OxyChem) facility in Delaware, which itself reported equipment, such as pipes and tanks. Neither releasing more than a ton (2238 lbs / 1017 kg). The PPG claim could be proven, and the EPA declared plant in New Martinsville, West Virginia, ranked third that “the fate of all the mercury consumed at with emissions totaling 2167 lbs (985 kg).111 mercury cell chlor-alkali plants remains somewhat of an enigma.”110 On average, one of these plants releases about 1097 lbs (499 kg) of mercury into the air in any given year Box 2 of operation. The average large U.S. power plant, in Nine mercury-cell chlorine plants still operate in contrast, released 586 lbs (266 kg) of mercury to the the United States. They are located in eight states: air in 2002 (average taken from top 100 mercury- Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Ohio, emitting power plants). Put more simply, on average Tennessee, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Each of these a mercury-cell chlorine plant in the U.S. releases facilities is a major mercury emitter. Of the nine approximately twice as much mercury as a large plants, in 2002, the Olin Corporation’s plant in mercury-emitting U.S. power plant.112 U.S. Chlorine Factories Release Tons of Mercury (2002)

Table 5 Source: Oceana based on EPA Toxics Release Inventory Data 15 As previously stated, these emissions are company- PERCENTAGE OF MERCURY AIR EMISSIONS reported figures compiled by the EPA. Given the (LOUISIANA, 2002 ) tens of thousands of pounds of mercury that chlorine plants have lost or for which they have failed to account, the self-reported figures are unlikely to be accurate. With both reported releases and “lost” mercury taken into consideration, the nine mercury- based chlorine plants in the U.S. may rival the entire PPG power industry as the nation’s largest industrial 30% mercury polluter. (See Box 2) OTHER 47% Mercury-Emitting Chlorine Plants Rank First in Mercury Releases in Seven States PIONEER In 2002, in seven of the eight states where they were 23% operating, mercury-emitting chlorine plants released more mercury to the air than any other source in that state. In Georgia, the eighth state, the mercury-based chlorine plant ranked second. There are two other states with mercury-cell chlorine plants that have mercury than all other sources combined.114 In recently shut down or converted – one in Texas, which Delaware, a chlorine facility operated by OxyChem was idle in 2002 and cannot be considered, and a accounted for more than 70 percent of mercury Westlake Vinyls plant that was the largest single releases to the air, and 75 percent of the total mercury source of mercury air emissions in Kentucky in 2001, released (to air, water and off-site disposal).115 In prior to its conversion.113 Louisiana, two chlorine plants combined accounted for more than 50 percent of all air emissions.116 In In two states, Louisiana and Delaware, the chlorine Kentucky, before it closed, Westlake Vinyls emitted plants not only ranked first, but released more more than 20 percent of mercury released to air and about 68 percent of total mercury released in that state.

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL MERCURY RELEASES PERCENTAGE OF MERCURY AIR EMISSIONS (DELAWARE, 2002) (DELAWARE, 2002) Appendix I provides an analysis of each of these facilities and mercury pollution problems in each state.

Regulations Should be Strengthened

OTHER OTHER The regulations governing mercury emissions from 25% 30% chlorine plants urgently need to be strengthened. Because the plants release mercury into the air, they are subject to the Federal Clean Air Act and comparable state and local laws.117 In December 2003, the EPA weakened the rules that apply to mercury- OXYCHEM OXYCHEM cell chlorine plants. 75% 70% First, the agency essentially exempted mercury-cell chlorine plants from Clean Air Act standards that apply to mercury-free chlorine plants. Under the Clean Air Act, the agency requires facilities that emit hazardous pollutants such as mercury to use Maximum

16 HOLTRACHEM LEAVES MESSY LEGACY IN MAINE From 1967 to 2000, HoltraChem Manufacturing that the property and parts of the Penobscot River Company operated a mercury-cell chlorine plant are contaminated with mercury and other pollu- in Orrington, Maine, during which time the site tants, and the area is now a RCRA corrective was the subject of numerous violations for action site.128There is mercury contamination in mercury pollution and other offenses.125 Violations the soils and sediments, groundwater, surface since 1989 include discharges of mercury- water and biological samples, and elevated containing brine to leach fields, a 1995 discharge mercury levels have been found as far away as of 65,000 gallons (~246,000 L) of wastewater high 20 miles (13 km) down-river.129There are five in mercury, and a 1997 leak that spilled 30,000 to landfills on-site that contain hazardous waste.130 270,000 gallons(~113,550 to over 1 million L) of mercury-contaminated brine.126 The Maine People’s Alliance and the Natural Resources Defense Council filed and won a In 1986, the EPA had ordered the plant to clean lawsuit against HoltraChem and Mallinckrodt up the property and the river under RCRA. (the former owner) forcing a more detailed study Dissatisfied with the owner’s progress, the of the impact of the site on the Penobscot River*. United States filed a lawsuit in 1991 in federal The EPA and the Maine DEP are also proceeding court, which was settled in 1993 with the owner’s with a cleanup of the site and the mercury cell promise to clean up the property and river.127 is being dismantled.131 AWashington Post article The site has been the subject of numerous noted that after this plant’s 2000 closure, state investigations and enforcement actions by the officials concluded that mercury had permeated Maine Department of Environmental Protection the plant, seeped into the river, groundwater and (Maine DEP). soil and will take years and millions of dollars to clean up. In addition, despite the draining of the The plant permanently shut down in 2000, plant’s pipes and several years of cleanup, 33 tons leaving behind extensive pollution and an (30 metric tons) of mercury are still missing.132 expensive cleanup. An investigation determined

*See Maine People's Alliance, et al. v. Holtrachem Mfg. Co., et al., 211 F.Supp.2d 237 (D. Me. 2002); Maine People's Alliance, et al. v. Holtrachem Mfg. Co., et al., 295 F.Supp.2d 97 (D. Me. 2003).

Box 3 Acheivable Control Technology to limit air pollution activities or “work practices” designed to minimize emissions – in this case, mercury-free technology. But these emissions, without requirements for monitoring rather than requiring the antiquated plants to meet the to see if they are actually minimizing pollution.119 emissions standards of the majority of the industry by phasing out the mercury-based technology, the EPA The Natural Resources Defense Council and the established a loophole by creating a separate sub- Sierra Club have challenged the rule in court.120 category – and a separate set of emissions regulations Their lawsuit has been stayed pending EPA’s – just for these nine mercury-emitting plants. As a reconsideration of the new regulation. result, the regulations would effectively sanction the continued use of the hundred-year-old, mercury- polluting process, rather than requiring these plants Mercury-Cell Plants are Hazardous to move into the 21st century. Waste Sites

Second, as previously mentioned, U.S. regulations While mercury-cell plants contribute to the global allow the estimation of fugitive emissions. When mercury problem, they also have local consequences. revising the rules for mercury-cell chlorine plants, the In addition to their allowable mercury emissions (and EPA had the chance to require monitoring of these unknown “losses”), some of the companies still emissions, which has been shown feasible.118 Instead, operating mercury-cell chlorine plants in the United the new regulations require only a set of maintenance States have violated the Clean Air and Clean Water 17 Acts – both for the illegal disposal of mercury and for who worked at the company’s old plant (now a other illegal pollution. Nearly all of the companies still Superfund site) have also filed civil lawsuits, claiming operating mercury-cell plants have incurred substan- health damages from mercury exposure.134 tial fines and clean-up costs for past pollution. The vast majority of sites of past and current plants are now listed as Superfund or Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action Sites.121 GOVERNMENTS IN THE U.S. AND Seven of the nine operating chlorine plants using EUROPE HAVE WARNED WOMEN mercury-cell technology are RCRA Corrective Action AND CHILDREN AGAINST EATING Sites; an additional one is a proposed Corrective Action Site.122 RCRA regulates the generation, PARTICULAR FISH SPECIES transportation, handling, storage, and disposal of INCLUDING SWORDFISH, SHARK, hazardous wastes from “cradle to grave” in the TILEFISH, KING MACKEREL, MARLIN, United States. When hazardous wastes have been released into the environment, the EPA or a state PIKE AND TUNA. government can require an owner or operator of a site to investigate and clean up the wastes.123 [ Fourteen of the 32 inactive chlorine plants that once The risks of mercury exposure extend to local used mercury-cell technology are Superfund sites. 124 communities. Mercury released in wastewater enters The Superfund program, enacted in the local ecosystems even more directly. The pollution Comprehensive Environmental Responsibility, can build up in the food chain, and can be very Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, authorizes harmful to animals and people living in the vicinity. the EPA to require owners, operators and other In 2003, 45 states issued fish consumption advisories responsible parties to pay for the clean up of (2,300 in total) as a result of local mercury contamin- abandoned hazardous waste sites. The most serious ation.135 Twenty-one states warned citizens against hazardous waste sites are placed on the National eating fish from any lakes and/or rivers in their Priorities List (NPL) for possible long-term cleanup. states.136 In December 2004, West Virginia issued a statewide advisory, becoming the 22nd state to do so.137 Mercury Contaminates Our Environment, Our Communities Equally disturbing is the advisory issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is responsible and Our Food for advising the public about contaminants in commercial seafood. The FDA, in conjunction Mercury contamination from chlorine plants has with the EPA, has warned women and children not cascading effects, beginning in the factories to consume four commercially available types of fish: themselves. After mercury evaporates from the swordfish, tilefish, shark and king mackerel, and to mercury cells, and before it escapes through cell limit consumption of albacore tuna to six ounces room vents, much of it passes through the air in each week.138 which factory employees work, and which they breathe. These fish are contaminated with mercury from a variety of sources, not just chlorine factories. As this In the 1990’s, Olin Corporation settled a lawsuit with report shows, however, the nine mercury-based contracted workers who had been directed to sever a chlorine facilities in the United States are major pipe which, when cut, spilled mercury onto the floor contributors to national mercury emissions, and the and onto the clothes and skin of the employees. unnecessary pollution they produce ultimately adds They subsequently became ill, reporting symptoms to the contamination of fish around the world. including nausea, dizziness, headaches, cramps, joint pain and memory loss.133 In Riegelwood, North Carolina, at least 71 former HoltraChem employees

18 IV. MERCURY-EMITTING CHLORINE PLANTS: EUROPE

Mercury-Emitting Chlorine Production 24 Aragonesas Industrias y Spain 90.8 Still a Problem in Europe Energia SA Puerto 25 Ercros Industrial SA Spain 82.8 There are 53 mercury-emitting chlorine plants in Europe 26 Solvay Solexis S.p.A – Italy 66.5 (44 in Western Europe, seven in the EU 2004 accession Stabilimento di Bussi countries, and two in the EU 2007 accession countries).141 27 ECI Elektro-Chemie Germany 63.6 They are located in Belgium, the Czech Republic, 28 ICI ChlorChem (Ineos) Germany 61.1 Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the 29 Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV Netherlands 58.6 Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, 30 Quimica Del Cinca SA Spain 45 31 Eka Chemicals Oy Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.142 Finland 41.9 32 Eka Chemicals AB Sweden 33.6 In the last 15 years at least 34 sites in the 33 Tessenderlo Italia SRL Italy 33.1 Netherlands, Germany, United Kingdom, Finland, 34 Saline di Volterra (PI) Italy 29.8 France, Sweden, Norway, Italy, Portugal, Belgium, (Stabilimento sito) Spain, Austria and Denmark have shut down 35 Electroquímica de Hernani SA Spain 28.4 36 Hellenic Petroleum SA either all or part of their mercury-based production Greece 24.3 Inorganics Unit processes, with some of these plants converting 37 Aragonesas Industrias Y Spain 22 to membrane technology.143 Energía SA 38 Hydro Polymers Sweden 16.6 Emissions from Mercury-Cell Chlorine Plants 39 Akzo Nobel Base Sweden 16.5 (Europe 2001) Chemicals AB 40 Rhodia Eco Services LTD UK 14.7 TOTAL 41 PC Loos (Tessenderlo France 11 EMISSIONS RANK FACILITY COUNTRY (kg) Chemie) 42 Caffaro S.p.A – Stabilimento Italy 6.3 1 Ineos Chlor LTD UK 1151 di Brescia 2 Degussa AG Werk Germany 312 43 Enichem (Syndial Spa Italy 2.3 3 Vestolit Germany 273 Stabilimento di Assemini) 4 EniChem S.p.A (Syndial Italy 265 S.p.A. – Priolo) Source Oceana with data from the EPER database which has data Ta b l e 6 for the EU-15 countries and Norway and Hungary. Data unavailable 5 Solvay Electrolyse France 213.6 for one plant in France, one plant in Italy, two plants in Spain. 6 Atofina France 195 7 Solvay Quimica (Torrelavega) Spain 190 8 Vintron Germany 186 9 Solvay-Solvic SA Belgium 177.7 10 Tessenderlo Chemie Belgium 174.6 11 Albion Chemicals UK 173.2 12 BASF AG Germany 165 13 Aragonesas Industrias y Spain 162.4 Energia SA 14 Atofina France 161 15 Solvay Chimica Italia S.p.A Italy 155 16 Bayer AG Germany 146 17 Atofina France 144.4 18 Lll Europe Germany 142 19 Bayer AG Germany 133.4 20 Albemarle PPC France 125 21 Solvay NV Belgium 113 22 Vinnolit Germany 107 23 Borsodchem Rt Hungary 97

19 BAT. Therefore, facilities are required to phase out the MERCURY IN THE RIVER use of mercury by October, 2007.147

Mercury “has been seeping out into the River Euro Chlor, however, is promoting an alternative Elbe for decades – in Stalinist times as much timeframe that would result in 13 additional years as 2000 kg (4400 lbs) each year. The river winds of mercury releases to the environment. Some northwards into the sea at Hamburg in countries also have committed to phase-out mercury Germany, where the sludge in the harbor use, but according to a slower schedule than what is became so toxic that it had to be dredged.”139 required by the Directive.148 In addition, members Much of the mercury comes from factories, of the Paris Convention for the Prevention of Marine including the SPOLchemie chlorine plant in Pollution From Land-Based Sources (PARCOM) have Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic. This plant also agreed that mercury-cell chlorine plants should produces chlorine and many other chemicals. be phased out completely but have set a target date It is now undergoing renovations to comply with of 2010.149 European Union production standards.140 Sweden, Belgium, Poland, the Netherlands and Box 4 Finland all have timetables set to meet the 2010 Lost Mercury in Europe…and Steps deadline, while other countries have already met the to Solve It deadline. In Portugal, the only mercury-based plant already had converted to membrane cells in 2002.150 As in the United States, not all mercury is recycled It is anticipated that mercury being removed from within the chlorine production process. Some of European facilities that are subject to phase-outs the mercury is lost to air, water, wastes and products, may flow to countries with weaker, or no phase-out while some accumulates in equipment. requirements. The European chlorine industry has agreed to return used mercury to the mining In 2000, the chlorine plants in the first fifteen company Minas de Almaden. This mercury will member states of the EU-15 reported that they used then be resold, and will replace raw mercury that 104.5 tons (95 metric tons) of mercury.144 That same would otherwise be mined.151 year, the industry reported that 8.8 tons (8 metric tons) of mercury were released to the environment.145 Ninety-six tons (87 metric tons) of mercury were Chlorine Production Second only unaccounted for. This is almost three times the to Power as Main Mercury Source amount of mercury released to the air by all coal- fired power plants and residential heating in the Overall, in 1995, the mercury cell chlorine process EU that year, which totaled about 33 tons (30 was the number two source of European mercury metric tons).146 emissions (18%), behind the combustion of coal in power plants and residential heat furnaces which Regulation (Mercury Phase-Out together generated 31% of the emissions from the 152 Required in Europe) EU-15. In 2000, power plants over 50 megawatts in the EU-15 The European Commission agreed in 1996 to take released nearly 20 tons (18 metric tons) of mercury action to prevent releases of pollutants like mercury to air, compared to the 4.5 tons (4.1 metric tons) to water, air or land from industrial activities. As released by chlorine factories to the air in those same discussed previously, through the Integrated Pollution countries.153 Since the mercury-based chlorine plants Prevention and Control Directive (IPPC), the lost almost three times the total releases by all coal- Commission requires facilities to follow BAT, a fired power plants and residential heating in the EU concept and term similar to one used in the United that year, it is difficult to determine whether coal States. In Europe, due to the availability of cleaner, combustion or chlorine production is the number one more efficient technology, the mercury-emitting source of mercury releases. chlorine production process is not considered to be

20 In addition to conversion, PARCOM included Mercury released into the air or water can also travel requirements to reduce the amount of pollution that great distances, carried by wind and water currents a plant is allowed to release to the environment.154 and biological processes. Scientists believe that Because of this and closures and conversions, mercury released to the atmosphere may take the European mercury releases have been reduced anywhere from six days to two years to fall to land. considerably from 1977 levels.155 Some mercury found in rain may be coming from sources as far as 2,500 km (about 1,550 miles) away.159 Despite this reduction, chlorine plants are still It is estimated that 80% of the mercury deposited in producing thousands of kilograms of poisonous southern Sweden originates from other countries.160 mercury overall. This pollution is completely Even countries like Denmark, Norway and Estonia that avoidable, yet the legacy of pollution continues. have no mercury-cell chlorine plants receive mercury pollution from chlorine plants in other countries.161 • In Belgium, three of the top ten sources of mercury pollution were chlorine factories, As in the United States, some mercury-cell chlorine accounting for 20% of total mercury releases factories in the EU are responsible for mercury at 1023 lbs (465 kg). contamination of land and waterways on site. In many places, this contamination is a major environmental • In the United Kingdom, two of the three mercury- problem.162 In Sweden, two sites had high conta- cell chlorine factories ranked number one and mination, both on land, and in sediment in the sea or number three for mercury emissions. The three lakes nearby. In both cases, clean-up of the site was mercury-based plants alone accounted for over needed.163 In Germany, two chlorine factory sites were one-third of the mercury pollution in the entire cleaned up in Bitterfeld, and Sow-Leuna. Mercury- country at 2714 lbs (1234 kg).156 contaminated soil, building material and steel were removed at both sites, 65,000 metric tons (71,500 tons) • In France, chlorine plants account for 23% of and 230,000 metric tons (253,000 tons) respectively.164 the mercury air emissions, 38% of the mercury emissions to water and almost 25% of mercury emissions overall.157

Appendix II provides an analysis of many of these facilities and mercury pollution problems in eleven European countries.

Effects: Local and Distant Contamination

Mercury releases from mercury-cell chlorine plants have both local and distant effects. Mercury released in wastewater enters local ecosystems even more directly. The pollution can build up in the food chain, and can be very harmful to animals and people living in the vicinity – as well as long distances from the plant.

Studies in Europe show that mercury from chlorine plants can contribute over 60% of the industrial mercury in a given area. In some countries such as Ukraine, Belgium, and the United Kingdom, the (average) contribution from the chlorine industry in some areas exceeds ten percent of the total mercury deposited for the whole country.158

21 V. OCEANA SOLUTIONS

Oceana is seeking solutions to the global mercury Conclusion problem. Our goal is to defend the European Union’s mercury phase-out and to win a complete transition to The chlorine industry is a major mercury source that mercury-free technology there and in the United States. has been almost completely ignored, yet this industry can completely eliminate its mercury pollution. Recommendations Europe is moving toward an industry-wide transition to mercury-free technology; the U.S. should do the Maintain European phase-out same. By bringing their production processes into • The European Union should require full the 21st century, chlorine manufacturers can greatly compliance with the IPPC directive and reduce the amount of mercury that is released and the 2007 conversion deadline. carried into our environment, our communities and • The requirement should stand for all current our food. members of the EU and be a condition of becoming a member.

Phase out mercury-emitting chlorine production in the United States by 2008 • EPA should require all nine operating facilities to convert to mercury-free technology, which is the maximum achievable control technology for producing chlorine. • EPA should require any temporarily closed (idled) plants to shift to mercury-free technology before reopening. • Facilities still using mercury-emitting technology should be required to monitor fugitive emissions, and conduct tests to identify the status of the lost mercury.

Ensure the safe disposal of mercury when plants convert or shut down • Because mercury is a highly toxic substance, chemical companies and governments should be responsible for the cleanup of the site once a plant has been converted or closed. Surplus mercury and old equipment should be disposed of properly in a hazardous waste facility and not exported to other countries that are not currently subject to a phase-out. • Companies should properly treat and clean up mercury-contaminated groundwater, surface water, soils and sediments on the site of the plant.

22 APPENDIX I []UNITED STATES

STATE-BY-STATE ANALYSIS OF LOCAL MERCURY CONTAMINATION FROM MERCURY-CELL CHLORINE PLANTS

Today there are mercury-cell chlorine plants operating in eight states: Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia and Wisconsin. In seven of the eight states where mercury-cell chlorine plants are currently operating, they are the #1 source of mercury pollution in the states based on 2002 data.165

In 2003, 45 states issued fish consumption advisories as a result of local mercury contamination.166 This resulted in 2,300 advisories across the country that year due to mercury contamination in recreationally caught fish. Twenty-one states warned citizens against eating fish from any lakes and/or rivers in the state.167 In 2004, West Virginia issued a statewide advisory as well.168 ALABAMA

The only mercury-cell chlorine plant still operating in Alabama, Occidental Chemical Corporation’s (OxyChem) facility in Muscle Shoals, is the largest single source of mercury pollution in the state.169

Alabama has been plagued with mercury problems. Some of the state’s residents have been shown to have much higher levels of mercury in their blood than normal.170 While some of Alabama’s mercury has a distant origin, much of it may have come from chlorine factories in the state.

Alabama was once the site of at least five mercury-cell chlorine plants.171 Today only one remains in operation. The OxyChem plant is located in Muscle Shoals, in Northwest Alabama, near Pond Creek and the Tennessee River.172

Key statistics for OxyChem’s Muscle Shoals plant (in 2002)173 • #1 source of mercury released to the air in Alabama • #4 source of total mercury pollution in Alabama • Responsible for 18 % of mercury released to the air in Alabama • #17 source of mercury released to the air in the United States • #38 source of total mercury pollution in the United States • RCRA Corrective Action Site174

In 2002, this plant released 1087 lbs (494 kg) of mercury to the air and 9.6 lbs (4.4 kg) into water and disposed of 664 lbs (302 kg) off site (primarily in landfills). Of the air emissions, 1067 lbs (485 kg) of the mercury came from fugitive emissions while only 20 lbs (9 kg) were measured and released as stack emissions.175

TOP TENTOP SOURCES TEN SOURCES OF MERCURYOF MERCURY AIR AIR EMISSIONSEMISSIONS (ALABAMA (ALABAMA 2002) 2002)

1000 ) s b

l 800 (

d e s a e l 600 e R

y r u c r

e 400 M

200

. . T T T T T T T T L R Y P S C N T N T S O N N N N N N N N E T R A R N A N O A C I L W A A A A A A A

A T

E N E O T G M L L L L L L L L L O L N I B N U C S M R

P P P P P P P P L E R D W

M O A

L O

E L L O D N R O C F M M M M C I I M I I G

G A C

L C

S S O L

A A A A E A C P C .

T C C W I . E E E E S S

E W N A C A R A U P P

O T T T T M T E O O O V A N O S O A A E E S S S S C F F S V P T

E S H I R . T K Y L

. T S C G E . R R

S A E . U R C A N R U P A H C B A C

Facility Source: Oceana based on EPA Toxics Release Inventory Data

24 Former Plants, A Legacy of Pollution

Most of the chlorine plants that once operated within Alabama’s borders are gone, but the mercury is not. The Mobile area was once a chlorine industry hub, home to plants owned by the Olin Corporation, Stauffer Chemicals, and OxyChem, among others.176 The sites of these former plants are now Superfund and/or RCRA sites – areas identified by the government as contaminated with hazardous wastes that pose a threat to human health and the environment.177

One of the mercury-contaminated Superfund sites is at the location of Stauffer Chemical’s former plant at Cold Creek Swamp, in the Mobile-Tensaw Delta region, a few miles above the town of Axis.178

Another is the site of the former Olin plant, which operated using mercury-cell technology from 1952 to 1982, in the Olin basin, on the edge of the delta near the Mobile County – Washington County line.179 Olin continues to operate a chlorine plant at this site using diaphragm cell technology.180 Tests show that past releases of mercury and organic chemicals have contaminated the shallow groundwater beneath the former plant site, and that nearby wetlands along the Tombigbee River are contaminated from past wastewater discharges as well. 181 As part of a 2003 fish monitoring survey, the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) tested fish in the Olin Basin, even though this private waterbody is not accessible to the public. Mercury concentrations were above the FDA guidance level in bass, blue catfish, and black crappie.182

The last of Alabama’s former mercury-cell facilities in Mobile is OxyChem, and it is a RCRA Corrective Action Site.183 This plant was converted to membrane technology in 1991, reducing hazardous wastes generated from 38 tons per year to three tons per year.184

Mercury-Related Fish Advisories

In Alabama, there are two types of advisories issued by the Department of Public Health:185

A limited consumption advisory states that women of reproductive age and children less than 15 years of age should avoid eating certain types of fish from specific waterbodies. Other people should limit consumption to one meal per month. A no consumption advisory recommends that everyone should avoid eating certain species of fish in the defined area.

There were 26 advisories for mercury,186 including no-consumption advisories for certain species (in most cases, largemouth bass) in 19 bodies of water. One additional reservoir had a limited-consumption advisory.

A no-consumption advisory for all species was issued for Cold Creek Swamp, located very close to the site of a former mercury-cell chlorine plant.

The Department of Public Health also issued a statewide advisory for king mackerel caught anywhere on the Gulf Coast: citizens were warned not to eat king mackerel longer than 39 inches, and to consume limited amounts of smaller fish.187

25 DELAWARE

The only mercury-cell chlorine plant still operating in Delaware is the largest single source of mercury pollution in the state.

The Occidental Chemical Corporation (OxyChem) plant is located in Delaware City, near Red Lion Creek and the Delaware River.188

Key statistics for OxyChem’s Delaware City plant (in 2002)189 • #1 source of mercury released to the air in Delaware • #1 source of total mercury pollution in Delaware • Responsible for 71% of mercury air emissions in Delaware • Responsible for 75% of total mercury releases in Delaware • #20 source of mercury released to the air in the United States • #28 source of total mercury pollution in the United States • RCRA hazardous waste Corrective Action Site190

In 2002, this plant released 1074 lbs (488 kg) of mercury to the air and 20.8 lbs (9.5 kg) into the water and disposed of 1144 lbs (520 kg) off-site (primarily in landfills). Of the air emissions, 1046 lbs (475 kg) of the mercury came from fugitive emissions while 28 lbs (13 kg) were measured and released as stack emissions.191

This plant was partially idled in 2003 which will result in a decrease in emissions in that year.192

TOP SEVEN SOURCESMERCURY OF AIR MERCUR EMISSIOY NSAIR (DEL EMISSIONSAWARE 200 (DELA2) WARE 2002)

1000 ) s b

l 800 (

d e s a e l 600 e R

y r u c r

e 400 M

200

. .

. N N Y T R S G D S L D C P C . E O E T N G A R N R I A A N I I L V S I . R N A O T

T I O O T D L E O L F A N R A R A C A N

N P L D I A E T P

R L E Y . P E

S D

R R E U I

A A C S E E G R

N L C C H N E T T R E T I / I E

C N N N E R N G M W

Y O E E T E

O O O R G C S H P A O E P I

R V C V E T M U I I

I N T E D R C E

O G G M D E R N Facility Source: Oceana based on EPA Toxics Release Inventory Data 26 PERCENTAGEPERCENTAGE OF TOTAL MERCURY OF TOTAL RELEASES MERCURY RELEASES PERCENTAGEPERCENTAGE OF MERCURY OF AIR MERCURY EMISSIONS AIR EMISSIONS (DELAWARE,(DELAWARE, 2002) 2002) (DELAWARE,(DELAWARE, 2002) 2002)

OTHER OTHER OTHER OTHER 25% 25% 30% 30%

OXYCHEM OXYCHEM OXYCHEM OXYCHEM 75% 75% 70% 70%

Mercury Contamination

This OxyChem plant has released enough mercury into its surrounding environment to qualify as a RCRA Corrective Action Site.193 In 1991, the EPA directed the plant to investigate and treat contaminated soils, sediments, surface water or groundwater that may have been affected by hazardous waste releases. OxyChem removed and treated mercury-contaminated soil and was required to construct a barrier, to prevent mercury from leaching into groundwater, and to begin a waste monitoring system in 2004.194

2004 Mercury-Related Fish Advisories195

The state has issued four fish advisories for mercury: one for two lakes, one for the length of the Delaware River and one for the Delaware Bay. In fact the Delaware River and Bay are so contaminated that in March of 2004, Delaware and New Jersey jointly issued a fish consumption advisory for both waterways. Citizens were warned not to eat fish caught in the Delaware Estuary north of the Chesapeake, or in the Delaware Canal up to the Pennsylvania border; and not to eat large bluefish caught south of the canal. Children and women of child-bearing age were warned not to eat any striped bass, bluefish, white perch, American eel, channel catfish or white catfish caught in the estuary below the Pennsylvania border.

Two other advisories issued by the state of Delaware warned against eating finfish from Becks Pond more than once a year, and finfish from Silver Lake in Dover more than twice a year.

27 GEORGIA

The only mercury-cell chlorine plant still operating in Georgia is the second largest single source of mercury pollution in the state.196

The Olin Chemicals plant is located in Augusta, Georgia, near the Savannah River.197

Key statistics for Olin’s Augusta plant (in 2002)198 • #2 source of mercury released to the air in Georgia • #2 source of total mercury pollution in Georgia • Responsible for 17% of mercury released to air in Georgia • #39 source of mercury released to the air in the United States • #69 source of total mercury pollution in the United States • RCRA hazardous waste Corrective Action Site199

In 2002 this plant released 739 lbs (336 kg) of mercury to the air and 6.7 lbs (3.0 kg) into the water and disposed of 282 lbs (128 kg) off-site (primarily to landfills). Of the air emissions, 585 lbs (266 kg) of the mercury came from fugitive emissions while only 154 lbs (70 kg) were measured and released as stack emissions.200

TOPTOP TEN TEN SOURCES SOURCES OF OF MERCURY MERCURY AIR AIR EMISSIONS EMISSIONS (GEORGIA (GEORGIA 2002)2002) 1000

900

800 )

s 700 b l (

e 600 s a e l

e 500 R

y r

u 400 c r e

M 300

200

100

0 / . . . R R R R R R N H D Y N A S P D H O E C E E E E E E E E C N O G R R G C R L N - T

N S O I W W W W W W O A E U

S O R A A N O O O O O O M C O H O G I

N E Y G R P P P P P B B M C

K N N P N A N B I I R S T A A A A A A O A L A W E G A P H G G G G G D R O P A C U K A M P D C

A D P

N & A L N I Facility Source: Oceana based on EPA Toxics Release Inventory Data

28 Mercury Contamination

This Olin plant has leaked and released enough mercury into its surrounding environment to qualify as a RCRA Corrective Action Site.201 Throughout 2003 and 2004, the plant failed to monitor waste releases to groundwater as required by its RCRA permit.202

Additionally, LCP, a division of Hanlin Group (Allied) operated a mercury-cell plant in Brunswick, GA from 1957 to 1994. The Brunswick site, the majority of which is tidal marsh, is a Superfund site.203 EPA estimates that more than 380,000 pounds (over 170,000 kg) of mercury were “lost” in the area during the period of operation of the plant.204 Mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) have been detected in aquatic life at levels sufficient to produce a ban on commercial fishing in these areas and a seafood consumption advisory for part of the river and all of the creek.205

2004 Mercury-Related Fish Advisories206

Georgia issued 178 fish consumption advisories – relating to 40 different rivers and 34 lakes and ponds.

Near the Olin plant, in the Savannah River Basin, there were 24 advisories, affecting five rivers and seven lakes and ponds.

In the Purvis Creek area near the Brunswick Superfund site, Georgia currently recommends eating no more than one meal per week of red drum, and one meal per month of blue crab, spotted seatrout, Southern kingfish (whiting), and sheepshead, due to mercury contamination.207 These recommendations are based on data collected in 2002, three years after EPA excavated the vast majority of on-site soil and waste piles.208 The previous year’s (2003) consumption guidelines based on ecological data collected in 1995 were more restrictive (for example, it was not safe to eat red drum), which indicates that mercury levels may have decreased following the cleanup.209 The state also has issued mercury warnings for the whole estuary (St. Simon’s Estuary).

Georgia, Florida and South Carolina jointly issued an advisory recommending that no one eat king mackerel more than 39 inches long (15 –17 lbs.), and that pregnant women, nursing mothers and children restrict their consumption of smaller fish (33 – 39 inches) to one meal per month. The states also recommended that other adults limit their consumption of smaller King Mackerel (33 – 39 inches) to one meal per week.

29 KENTUCKY

In 2001, a mercury-cell chlorine plant in Kentucky was the largest source of mercury air pollution in the state, responsible for 68 percent of the total mercury releases in the state.210 The plant was operated by Westlake Vinyls. The mercury cells stopped operation in 2002 and the plant was converted to membrane technology which went online in January, 2003. The mercury cells were decommissioned by June, 2003.211

Key statistics for Westlake Vinyls’ Calvert City plant (in 2001 when using mercury-cell technology)212 • #1 source of mercury released to the air in Kentucky • #1 source of total mercury pollution in Kentucky • Responsible for 21% of air mercury emissions in Kentucky • Responsible for 68% of total mercury emissions in Kentucky • #14 source of mercury released to the air in the United States • #13 of total mercury pollution in the United States • RCRA Corrective Action Site • Landfill is a Superfund site213

In 2001, this plant released 1130 lbs (514 kg) of mercury to the air and disposed of 22,172 lbs (10078 kg) off site (primarily in landfills). In 2002, the year it was decommissioned, this plant reported the release of 6 lbs (2.7 kg) of mercury to the air and disposed of 27,777 lbs (12,626 kg) of mercury off-site.214

TOP TEN SOURCES OF MERCURY AIR EMISSIONS (KENTUCKY 2001)

1000 ) s b

l 800 (

d e s a e l 600 e R

y r u c r

e 400 M

200

/ . I E L T T S T C E I E K & E S N N N C N N

O L K L N N E N A E I S E C O N O O O R N S I C I I I I I B A I

N E A A G A

M O T T

O A

D L T T T L L S T R I L I . M L S E C W I G E T A A L P P A A A P T

L G R O I

L E I

R A / T T T S T R E L L A Y L L T U C Y T T I I H I S

I E S S D L

S T

A I P N

D L U S S L S I C V

S P I

Y R E I N S I W

T O N N S S S V E Y T T R L V A R I N C A A W O O A

K U & N V S E T

V U W F F I C S O C P C

T I U I Y H T C

O O U

R . . R U G M O E R K L P G I B S O

E S

L T . T H . C C . . B L E U M N C

O U U R W E

E & A T E C . L K E N E W E O K P Facility Source: Oceana based on EPA Toxics Release Inventory Data 30 PERCPENERCTAGENE TAGOF MERCUE OF MERCURY AIRYR EMISSIONS AIR EMISSIONS PERCENTAGEPERCENTAGE OF TOTAL OF TOTAL MERCURY MERCURY RELEASES RELEASES (KENTUCK(KENTUCKY, 2 001)Y, 2 001) (KENTUCKY,(KENTUCKY, 2001) 2001)

WESTLAWESKETLAKE VINYLS,VIN INC.YLS, INC. 20% 20% OTHEROTHER 32% 32%

WESTLAKEWESTLAKE OTHEROTHER VINYLSVIN, INC.YLS, INC. 80% 80% 68% 68%

In 2001 the mercury air emissions for the state of Kentucky totaled 5256 lbs. In 2002, after the plant was converted, the state’s mercury air emissions were reduced to 3727 lbs: a decrease of almost 30 percent. The plant’s conversion accounted for nearly 74% of this decline (the plant reduced its mercury air emissions by 1,124 lbs compared to the overall state decline of 1,529 lbs).

Mercury-Related Fish Advisories215

In 2000, a statewide fish consumption advisory was issued. Women of child-bearing age and children are advised to eat no more than one meal per week of freshwater fish from Kentucky (including the Ohio River) because of mercury. Also, five ponds in the West Kentucky Wildlife Management Area are under fish consumption advisories because of mercury.

31 LOUISIANA

The two mercury-cell chlorine plants still operating in Louisiana are the top two sources of mercury air emissions in the state.216

The two plants, owned by PPG and Pioneer, are located in Lake Charles and St. Gabriel, respectively. Together, they produce more than 50% of mercury pollution to air in Louisiana.217 Two other plants once operated in the towns of Geismar and Plaquemine.

Lake Charles is in Calcasieu Parish. It is nestled on the Calcasieu River some 30 miles upstream from the Gulf of Mexico. The lake itself is connected to the Gulf via a deep-water ship channel and is the seat and port of entry of Calcasieu Parish. The PPG plant is located near Bayou d’Inde and the Calcasieu River Estuary.218

Pioneer’s St. Gabriel facility is located on a 300-acre site near Baton Rouge, in Iberville county. The plant sits on the Mississippi River. This facility was the last mercury-cell plant built in the U.S.219

Key statistics for PPG’s Lake Charles plant (in 2002)220 • #1 source of mercury air pollution in Louisiana • #5 source of total mercury pollution in Louisiana • Responsible for 30% of the mercury air pollution in Louisiana • #13 source of mercury released to the air in the United States • #29 source of total mercury pollution in the United States • RCRA Corrective Action Site221

TOPTOP TEN TEN SOURCES SOURCE SOF OF MERCURY MERCURY AIR AIR EMISSIONS EMISSIONS (LOUISIANA (LOUISIANA 2002)2002)

1200

1000 ) s b l (

e 800 s a e l e R 600 y r u c r e

M 400

200

. .

. . . 2 . L S R E L

R M D S P N N Y R C C P C L E . . E A G N A U R F E P R N O O R L E L I L I P I I C E . I E U U . N

H O O I L O N . L L T T J L R A H L

O O C

C S C M O I I P A A O

Y A R I R S S A T E

D T T T H R R E C A P E E A

H M N S S A N E P T L

L I G E C W C

G O E T N I

O R R R I O D O G T P L R N R E E C B

A I I D P E O P E A

O H O B W W A T R P B M O N C T G O O O

N A C I T O N P P E M I E C K O N L C C A O C L X X E Facility Source: Oceana based on EPA Toxics Release Inventory Data 32 The PPG plant released 1222 lbs (555 kg) of mercury to the air, 7 lbs (3 kg) to water, and disposed of 231 lbs (105 kg) in landfills in 2002. Of the air emissions, 1045 lbs (475 kg) of the mercury came from fugitive emissions while 177 lbs (80 kg) were measured and released stack emissions.222

Key statistics for Pioneer’s St. Gabriel plant (in 2002)223 • #2 source of mercury air pollution in Louisiana • #6 source of total mercury pollution in Louisiana • Responsible for 23% of the mercury air pollution in Louisiana • #25 source of mercury released to the air in the United States • #60 source of total mercury pollution in the United States • Proposed RCRA Corrective Action Site224

PERCENTAGE OF MERCURY AIR EMISSIONS In 2002, the Pioneer plant released 910 pounds of mercury to (LOUISIANA, 2002 ) the air, 13 pounds to the water, and disposed of 261 pounds in landfills. Of the air emissions, 862 lbs (392 kg) of the mercury came from fugitive emissions while 48 lbs (22 kg) were measured and released as stack emissions.225

Together, these two facilities are responsible for more than half PPG (53%) of the mercury emissions to air in Louisiana. 30% OTHER Because of contamination, the PPG site is a RCRA Corrective 47% Action Site, while the Pioneer plant has been proposed for such a listing.226

Violations PIONEER 23% In the last two years Pioneer’s Louisiana Plant has been subject to three formal state enforcement actions and fines totaling $57,557 for violations of the Clean Water Act.227

PPG’s Lake Charles plant has been the subject of three enforcement actions under RCRA in the last two years and has paid a total of $48,446 in penalties. The EPA also fined the facility $99,000 for violations of the Clean Air Act in 2003 and a total of $4500 in 2002 and 2003 for violations of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (the Superfund law).228

2004 Mercury-Related Fish Advisories229

Louisiana issued 36 mercury advisories, 35 for inland bodies of water and one for the Gulf of Mexico. The most common inland prohibition is on bowfin for all adults and children. As with Georgia, Louisiana has a no-consumption advisory for King Mackerel for the entire coast for fish over 39 inches, and limited consumption for smaller fish.

Each county containing an operating chloralkali plant has one specific advisory. In Calcasieu County, women of childbearing age and children under 7 should not eat largemouth bass, bowfin, or freshwater drum, while the rest of the populations should limit meals to two per month combined from the Calcasieu River. In Iberville, women of childbearing age and children under 7 should limit consumption of largemouth bass, black crappie, and bowfin to no more than one meal per month combined, and no more than four meals combined for the rest of the population (from the I-10 Canal). In Ascension Parish, home to the former BASF plant, there is one specific warning on bowfin for the Blind River.

33 OHIO

The only mercury-cell chlorine plant still operating in Ohio is the largest source of mercury air pollution in the state and the fifth largest source of mercury air pollution in the nation. Only one power plant in the United States releases more mercury to the air than ASHTA’s Ohio chlorine plant.230

The ASHTA Chemicals facility is located in Ashtabula, near Lake Erie and the Ashtabula River, which is an EPA Area of Concern.231

Key statistics for ASHTA’s Ashtabula plant (in 2002)232 • #1 source of mercury air pollution in Ohio • #3 source of total mercury pollution in Ohio • This facility is responsible for 13% of the mercury air pollution in Ohio • #5 source of mercury air pollution in the United States • #44 source of total mercury pollution in the United States

In 2002, the ASHTA plant released 1395 pounds of mercury to air and disposed of 173 pounds off-site (primarily in landfills). Of the air emissions, 1046 lbs (475 kg) of the mercury came from fugitive emissions while 349 lbs (158.6 kg) were measured and released as stack emissions.

TTOPOP TEN SOSOURCESURCES OFOF MER MERCURYCURY A AIRIR EMI EMISSIONSSSIONS (OHI (OHIOO 20 2002)02) 1400

1200

1000 ) s b l (

e 800 s a e l e R 600 y r u c r e

M 400

200

. . . . L T T T T T T E T S N E C N N A C C T I C I I E L N N N N K N R A T O O N S N R N V I M L

I I I M N I A A A A A A H A

I T T A K T L L L L M L L A S U S S V

C E A D A G A P P P P P E R A L

T S A

N T E E R T R E S C E P S A L R T

O E I S A . . E E E N C E

V C N V I I C

H I M A

. O Y . A R W R R M C P J E C E W E

O E A E N L S I P P G H

L M A E Y C S A A K S V

. O P O I R R H O O C Facility Source: Oceana based on EPA Toxics Release Inventory Data

34 Violations

In 2001, EPA filed an administrative complaint against ASHTA for violating emissions limits; failure to properly operate and maintain an emissions control system; failure to maintain mercury emissions records; failure to meet requirements of air pollution control technology; producing a pesticide in an unregistered establishment; keeping incomplete records; distributing false, misleading and misbranded pesticide products; and failing to submit annual pesticide reports for 1996, 1997 and 1998. In the settlement of the case, without conceding the factual allegations, ASHTA paid $239,800 in penalties.233

In 2004, Ohio EPA agreed to offset a $1.54 million fine for alleged violations of ASHTA’s wastewater discharge permit at its Ashtabula plant in exchange for the company’s agreement to install air emissions control systems designed to reduce mercury air emissions by 1320 lbs. annually. Additionally, ASHTA has agreed to collect and treat stormwater runoff from the facility, and to pay stipulated penalties if the improvements are not completed on schedule (by the end of 2006).234

2004 Mercury-Related Fish Advisories

Ohio has a statewide advisory that warns adults and children not to eat more than one meal a week of fish caught in any body of water in Ohio because of mercury pollution.235

Statewide there are stricter fish consumption advisories on 51 bodies of water limiting consumption of certain fish to one meal per month.236 Four of these advisories are in Ashtabula County, including the Ashtabula River from Hilldom Road to the mouth at Lake Erie.237

35 TENNESSEE

The only mercury-cell chlorine plant still operating in Tennessee is the largest source of mercury air pollution in the state.238

The Olin plant is located in Charleston, in the foothills of the Smoky Mountains, near the Hiwassee River.239

Key statistics for Olin’s Charleston plant (in 2002)240 • #1 source of mercury air pollution in Tennessee • #3 source of total mercury pollution in Tennessee • Responsible for 31% of the mercury air pollution in Tennessee • #15 source of mercury air pollution in the United States • #24 source of total mercury pollution in the United States • RCRA Corrective Action Site241

In 2002, the Olin plant released 1130 lbs (514 kg) of mercury to the air, 14 lbs (6 kg) to water and 1368 lbs (622 kg) to landfills. Of the air emissions, 1045 lbs (475 kg) of the mercury came from fugitive emissions while 85 lbs (39 kg) were measured and released as stack emissions.242

TOP TEN SOURCES OF MERCURY AIR EMISSIONS (TENNESSEE 2002) 1200

1000 ) s b l (

e 800 s a e l e R 600 y r u c r e

M 400

200

0 . . . . - E T T T T T T T N N N N S P D C N O N C I N N N N N N N E P R U H O N N C R O T L I

A A A A A A A R

T O O O A

L S U L A L L L L L L L J S L C L E

O L

N A P P P P P P P O A

R E G L A C N H S C L L L L L L L

E I U S A N I I I I I I I I V A E I O T L B B V S S S S S S S S T

M R G J K

E O

T M . E S S S S S S S

A E . N D S A U A A H O O O O O O O . V S M V N V V A . C F F F F F F F C T U

E P E T T T U .

E R . A N . . T H O S L E . V S S S E L I A . L . . U I T E S V

U M U U . V V E R T S E . S O S U D H A Facility E

Source: Oceana based on EPA Toxics Release Inventory Data

36 Violations

In1994, Olin agreed to pay $1 million in civil penalties to settle a federal case filed in 1991 by the United States, which alleged that the company failed to minimize leakages of mercury and mercury-contaminated waste from the cells of its Charleston plant for approximately 17 months, in violation of the Clean Air Act.243 In 2002, the plant violated its Clean Water Act discharge permit by releasing mercury at levels 117% above allowances. Between July and September of 2003, mercury emissions levels at their highest exceeded Olin’s permit by 704%.244

2004 Mercury-Related Fish Advisories245

Tenessee issued two mercury-related advisories, warning citizens not to eat fish caught in the east fork of Poplar Creek (in Anderson and Roane counties) or in the north fork of Holston River (in Sullivan and Hawkins counties).

37 TEXAS

Texas’ last mercury-cell chlorine plant, an OxyVinyl plant located in Deer Park and owned by Occidental Chemicals Corporation, was temporarily closed (“idled”) in 2001 because of financial constraints.246 Though not currently operating, the plant could resume operations in future.

Key statistics for OxyVinyl’s Deer Park plant (when operating in 2001)247 • #4 source of mercury released to the air in Texas • #1 source of total mercury pollution in Texas • Responsible for 7% of the mercury air pollution in Texas • #19 source of mercury released to the air in the United States • #40 source of total mercury pollution in the United States

In 2001, this plant released 1095 lbs (497.7 kg) of mercury to the air, 2 lbs (0.9 kg) to water and disposed of 2233 lbs (1015 kg) off site (primarily in landfills). Of the air emissions, 1048 lbs (476 kg) of the air pollution came from fugitive emissions while 47 lbs (21.4 kg) were measured and released as stack emissions.248

Even while closed in 2002 it reported a considerable amount of mercury releases to the EPA.

Key statistics for OxyVinyl’s Deer Park plant (in 2002)249 • #5 source of mercury released to the air in Texas • #4 source of total mercury pollution in Texas. • Responsible for more than 6% of the mercury air pollution in Texas • #21 source of mercury released to the air in the United States • #36 source of total mercury pollution in the United States

In 2002, this plant reported releasing 1046 lbs (475 kg) of mercury to the air and disposed of 768 lbs (349 kg) off site (primarily in landfills). In 2003, the plant reported a minimal amount of mercury releases to the air.250

TOP TEN SOURCES OF MERCURY AIR EMISSIONS (TEXAS 2002) 1800

1600

1400 ) s

b 1200 l (

d e

s 1000 a e l e R 800 y r u c r

e 600 M

400

200

. E E X S T N T C C / L O Y C E N A S N P . I N D M G I E L / . N E N L E C Y N O L T I P L I O R O I L . O R L N L E L A Y E C I I K

I I

A T R O L T M T P E E M T E J

T N

T R E N L T T K

I E I O C A T E C C T M S O A A A Y P

A A I E R A T E V

P E D S T T R R I

O T

W L N T I A R T T . .

L L S A I R I S

E P Y O H F S C E S

N E E A

N P E

. A

W .

M F K N X G T . N R C J R G C E O O I G H / R I U A E A N M W E G O O H . E R I I

N R L E S L C S N M L L

G I O O

L I R L T

E A W L P T . R

O A & E R D P C N U

T E P

E A

E I O C D I A C T D . X A A C R R E A P M A T M S M L N P T E R E L U

E H R . A M A E E N R E C A M W A O E N I P . T O M S E L G S

W S . P . G K W . . J Facility O Source: Oceana based on EPA Toxics Release Inventory Data 38 2004 Mercury-Related Fish Advisories251

The Texas Department of Health issued twelve advisories for mercury pollution. There is one no-consumption advisory in Upper Lavaca Bay while the rest are for limited consumption. Like Georgia and Louisiana, they have a Gulf-wide advisory for King Mackerel. In Texas, King Mackerel over 43 inches should not be consumed. For fish between 43 and 37 inches, adults should only eat one eight ounce meal per week, while women of childbearing age and children should only eat one meal per month.

39 WEST VIRGINIA

The only mercury-cell chlorine plant still operating in West Virginia is the largest source of mercury pollution in the state.252

The PPG plant is located in Natrium/New Martinsville, near the Ohio River.253

Key statistics for PPG’s New Martinsville plant (in 2002)254 • #1 source of mercury air pollution in West Virginia • #1 source of total mercury pollution in West Virginia • Responsible for 24.2% of the mercury air pollution in West Virginia • #12 source of mercury air pollution in the United States • #29 source of total mercury pollution in the United States

In 2002, the PPG plant released 1233 pounds of mercury to the air, 34 pounds to the water, and disposed of 900 pounds in landfills. Of the air emissions, 1045 lbs (475 kg) of the mercury came from fugitive emissions while 188 lbs (85.5 kg) were measured and released as stack emissions.255

TOP TEN SOURCES OF MERCURY AIR EMISSIONS (WEST VIRGINIA 2002)

1200

1000 ) s b l (

d e

s 800 a e l e R

y 600 r u c r e

M 400

200

. . L P T T T T T S R C N R N R M N N N I C I W C L E E N N N N N E N O L O R N O O E T O I N O I I E

I I I I M I A A A A A

. M O

R L W H T H N T T T L L L L L M S Y I L T A Y O C A P A

I A A P P P P P A

A D S G A T G P T

T T P M T

I P .

W T K R N N S R E

S S / S I E T N

E M

N R E

P S A R R A O R M R N G U N O E P T E E E S E O E P E

P O I

A N F P W W Y S W R A Y M A

N O O R O N S P E P P E P A

E A H H H E D A G G L N E E P L A L L L L S A A Facility I Source: Oceana based on EPA Toxics Release Inventory Data

40 Violations

The PPG site in West Virginia has been in violation of RCRA from October 2002 to present, and the Clean Water Act from April 2003 to January 2004.256 The state filed compliance orders for the RCRA violations, but financial penalties have not been assessed.

2004 Mercury-Related Fish Advisories257

In December 2004, West Virginia issued mercury-related fish consumption advisories for eleven fish – caught in the state. They include: • Black bass (smallmouth, largemouth, spotted less than 12 in.), Sauger, Channel catfish over 17 inches, all suckers / 2 meals per month • Black bass (smallmouth, largemouth, spotted greater than 12 in.), Walleye, Saugeye, White bass, hybrid striped bass / one meal per month • Rainbow Trout / no limit • Channel catfish under 17 inches and all other species / one meal per week

In addition, there are stronger advisories for fish in twelve bodies of water.

41 WISCONSIN

The only mercury-cell chlorine plant still operating in Wisconsin is the largest source of mercury pollution in the state.258 The Vulcan Chemicals plant is located in Port Edwards, in Wood County near the Wisconsin River.259

Key statistics for Vulcan’s Port Edwards plant (in 2002)260 • #1 source of mercury air emissions in Wisconsin • #1 source of total mercury pollution in Wisconsin • Responsible for 28% of mercury air pollution in Wisconsin • #18 source of mercury air emissions in the United States • #48 source of total mercury pollution in the United States • RCRA Corrective Action Site261

In 2002, the Vulcan plant released 1082 lbs (492 kg) of mercury to the air, 2 lbs (0.9 kg) to the water and disposed of 377 lbs (171 kg) off-site (primarily to landfills). Of the air emissions, 1054 lbs (479 kg) of the mercury came from fugitive emissions while only 28 lbs (13 kg) were measured and released as stack emissions.262

TOPTOP TEN TEN SOURCES SOURCES OF MERCURY OF MERCURY AIR AIR EMISSIONS EMISSIONS (WISCONSIN (WISCONSIN 2002) 2002)

1000 ) s b

l 800 (

d e s a e l 600 e R

y r u c r

e 400 M

200

0 . E E R Y Y E Y T T T T N K N R R M R M M I O E E T T E E E G N N N N E G O E E A I I A R E C T I R T

R T T T A A A A C W S S W W A

R N E E L L L L S L S E A S S L O O R E C A A L N E N P P P P Y Y

U D

W P P P U

C E E

O M S S A K

V E R R R R W

P I N

L T

N D D T E E E E A A G R G G O S I E S N A N N N O

E D N N W W W W S P B P G A I A A

P T E A L T O O O O I M L L S T W P W A E O A L P P P P - Y Y U A A O N L M R L - R R E R O E I I A L E O O C N A A P N C C E D D E G G

Facility Source: Oceana based on EPA Toxics Release Inventory Data

42 Violations

Between April and June, 2002, the plant violated its discharge permit under the Clean Water Act, releasing wastes with mercury levels exceeding the permitted amount by 135 percent. Six months later, they exceeded their level by two percent. 263

2004 Mercury-Related Fish Advisories

Mercury has become a serious pollution problem in Wisconsin. Warnings about mercury levels in fish have been issued for all of its lakes and rivers.264 According to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, there is mercury in every single one of Wisconsin’s 15,057 lakes.265 The statewide advisory says that women of childbearing years, nursing mothers and all children under 15 should limit themselves to one meal per month of walleye, northern pike, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, channel catfish, flathead catfish, white sucker, drum, burbot, sauger, sturgeon, carp, white bass, rock bass or other species, and one meal per week of Bluegill, sunfish, black crappie, white crappie, yellow perch or bullheads. Muskellunge should not be eaten by women of child bearing age and children due to high mercury content.266

Women beyond their childbearing years and men should limit themselves to one meal per week of walleye, northern pike, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, channel catfish, flathead catfish, or other species.267

In 83 bodies of water, there are stricter fish consumption advisories for mercury.268 The majority of these say that women of child-bearing age and children should not eat certain species of fish (with size restrictions) from that body of water. The most common species to avoid is walleye, based on size. There are also additional species for which consumption should be limited to one meal per week.269

43 APPENDIX II []EUROPE

ANALYSIS OF MERCURY CONTAMINATION FROM MERCURY-CELL CHLORINE PLANTS FOR SELECTED COUNTRIES

There are 53 mercury-emitting chlorine plants in Europe (44 in Western Europe, seven in the EU 2004 accession countries, and two in the EU 2007 accession countries).270 They are located in Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, The Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.271

The following information is largely based on 2001 data from the European Pollutant Emission Register (EPER), provided the European Commission. Data were downloaded in December, 2004. BELGIUM

In Belgium in 2001, there were three plants in operation that use mercury-cell technology. All three rank in the top ten for mercury emissions in Belgium.

Emissions to Emissions to Total Emissions Facility Location air (kg) water (kg) (kg) Solvay Solvic SA Jemeppe 88 89.7 177.7 Tessenderlo Chemie Te s s ender l o 172 2.6 174.6 Solvay NV Anterwerpen / Lillo 109 4 113

Of the three mercury-cell chlorine factories operating in Belgium, Solvay S.A. – Solvic S.A.in Jemeppe ranked first in mercury emissions with 177.7 kg (391 lbs). Tessenderlo Chemie in Tessenderlo followed with 174.6 kg (384 lbs) released. Solvay NV in Antwerpen (Lillo) came in third with 113 kg (249 lbs).

According to the EPER database, these facilities account for 22% of the mercury air emissions and 26% or mercury emissions overall.

Compared with all sources reporting to EPER in Belgium, Solvay S.A. – Solvic S.A ranked 1st, Tessenderlo Chemie ranked 2nd and Solvay NV ranked 6th for total mercury releases. For mercury air releases, Tessenderlo Chemie ranked first, Solvay NV was number six and Solvay S.A. – Solvic S.A. ranked tenth.

200 TOP TEN SOURCES OF MERCURY AIR EMISSIONS (BELGIUM 2001) ) g

k 150 (

d e s a e l

e 100 R

y r u c r

e 50 M

- E E E E L L E - N O O A A L L A A A I

V E M L T T H E L O L L E C S S I S S S I I M I

N L

B L N X

R R M N C S E I E E E E E R R

C U E A Y O E L I - L N E E R R L R H U N

R F F R D I A E V E O E / K K B B E C Q I A T V L U N C I E H B H C C D L M M S V E C R O D

R G C A O O O E A A U S S L R A R O R - C C L S S S S E O B Y M C T A E E L B C

A C M T V E A L L L E O S

Facility Source: Oceana based on EPER data.

General Sources: OSPAR Commission 2003. “Mercury losses from the chlor-alkali industry” and 2001 data from the European Pollutant Emission Register (EPER), recently published by the European Commission. Data exported December, 2004. 45 FINLAND

In Finland, as of 2001 there was one mercury-cell plant owned by Eka Chemicals in Oulu. Eka Chemicals was the 2nd largest source of total mercury pollution in Finland. It was the third largest source of mercury pollution to the air.

Emissions to Total Emissions Facility Location Emissions to water (kg) air (kg) (kg) Eka Chemicals Oy Klooritehdas, Oulu 36.6 5.3 41.9

Overall, Eka Chemicals was responsible for more than 12% of the mercury releases to air and more than 13% of the mercury released overall in Finland in 2001, the most recent year for which data were available. This plant is expected to stop mercury-based operations in 2010 according to the OSPAR Commission.

TOP TEN SOURCES OF MERCURY AIR EMISSIONS (FINLAND 2001) TOTAL MERCURY AIR EMISSIONS (FINLAND, 2001) 50 ) g

k 40 (

d e s a e l 30 e R

y r u c r

e 20 M

s I u Y H Y Y S Y A E M N Y J A l R N Y N o Y K I N R t S E O u O O Y E O A N O O i

U M I O

G A

H a O N D O L D U S U N l T

O W Ö A R R L S , I A E C H L a E S U A K N E A A E P L s O T M I S N E G M L E a A E N N S m R N N L P A A M F i

T L A R N Y d E E E T C S H I A o L

O C

I M E Ä V h S S K M I v I S O F M U S Y

V e N L D R N T M , J Ä U t M n M M U i L E O E U M E A O N B R T E r e E Y L U T K P R H E o d A R A H V K K U e o T U U C T - l O C

v O A A F K a M A K M p P K I a U E a H

Facility Source: Oceana based on EPER data.

In 2001, there were seven active mercury cell plants in France, operated by Atofina (3), PC de Loos, Solvay, Albemarle PPC and SPC Harbonnières.

Emissions Emissions to Total Emissions Rank for Facility Location to air (kg) water (kg) (kg) total emissions Solvay Electrolyse Lavaux 202 11.6 213.6 #3 Atofina St Auban 170 25 195 #4 Atofina Lavera 147 14 161 #5 Atofina Jarrie 109 35.4 14.4 #6 Albemarle PPC Thann 80 45 125 #7 PC Loos (Tessenderlo Chemie) Loos 11 0 11 #64

Emissions data is available for all of the facilities except for SPC Harbonnières.

Of the seven mercury-cell chlorine factories in France, Solvay in Tavaux ranked first in mercury emissions with 213.6 kg (470 lbs). Atofina in St Auban followed with 195 kg (429lbs) released. Atofina in Lavera came in third with 161 kg (354 lbs). Of all sources, chlorine plants ranked These six facilities account for 23% of the in top ten for mercury air emissions. mercury air emissions, 38% of the mercury Rank for mercury emissions to water and almost 25% of mercury Facility emissions overall. air emissions Solvay Electrolyse #3 The PC de Loos plant had low mercury emissions Atofina St Auban in 2001 of 11 kg (24 lbs) but the plant produces #4 smaller amounts of chlorine. Atofina Lavery #5 Atofina Jarrie #7

TOP TEN SOURCESTOTAL OFAIR MERMERCURYCURY RELE AIRASES EMISSIONS (FRANCE, 2001) (FRANCE 2001) 300

250 ) g k (

d 200 e s a e l

e 150 R

y r

u 100 c r e

M 50

E L E E E E E E E Y ) S S E N N I I Y A A A A . I C I

L E E C C C S H N E O R A R N N N G O A O N I A . A I I I V Y N N N P T E O B R R L P L V F F F V T E R A U E . A A S M V E L U L A I A I F O E A T O O O V R R . R R A J N O A O S T R T T T

A N N R F F O C

S L E

S E

E E C . T E A A A R M

M G E N T C X S N P I I

I L A O E E ( C D E L G

S I E D N U I M M O C

Facility Source: Oceana based on EPER data. General Sources: OSPAR Commission 2003. “Mercury losses from the chlor-alkali industry” and 2001 data from the European Pollutant Emission Register (EPER), recently published by the European Commission. Data exported December, 2004. 47 GERMANY

In Germany in 2001, there were ten plants in operation that use mercury cell technology, according to the OSPAR Commission.

Emissions Emissions to Total Emissions Rank for Facility Location to air (kg) water (kg) (kg) total emissions Degussa AG Werk Lülsdorf 308 4 312 #3 Vestolit Marl 273 0 273 #6 Vintron Knapsack 186 0 186 #12 BASF AG Hg + D Ludwigshafen 163 2 165 #14 Bayer AG Leverkusen 130 16 146 #17 LII Europe Frankfurt 142 0 142 #20 Bayer AG (uses both Krefeld- 127 6.4 133.4 #21 mercury and membrane) Uerdingen Vinnolit Gendorf 107 0 107 #24 ECI Elektro-Chemie Ibbenbüren 63.6 0 63.6 #34 ICI ChlorChem (Ineos) Wilhelmshafen 61.1 0 61.1 #36

Of the 10 mercury-cell chlorine factories in Germany, Degussa AG Werk (Degussa-Huls) in Lülsdorf ranked first in mercury emissions with 312 (686 lbs). Vestolit in Marl followed with 273 kg (601 lbs) released. Vintron in Knapsack came in third with 186 kg (409 lbs).

These ten facilities account for 21.4% of the mercury air emissions and 21.4% of mercury emissions in Germany overall.

Compared with all sources, Degussa AG Werk (Degussa-Huls) in Lülsdorf was the number three source of mercury emissions to the air and total releases (to the air and water) in 2001. Six of the plants fell in the top twenty for both air emissions and total releases, out of 112 facilities reporting in Germany.

TOP TEN SOURCESTOTAL AIR OF MER MERCURYCURY RELE AIRASES EMISSIONS (GERMANY, 2001) (GERMANY 2001) 400 ) g

k 300 (

d e s a e l

e 200 R

y r u c r

e 100 M

F F E E T T , K N N N E G K G K I N G I R R K N S E E I G R U W R L A R A A

E G R R E O O E

V E G A E K A O

E E L R N H D D A A H W R T W W E

G W H U O R

S S

W S B

S M T R T N A G L H A R G E T S E F N R E F E E W I A E

Ü R F C A

U V A T O

T K E W A E L B S M

A G G R R U S R D H R H K R E W M E E A K K R I

R K R Y D R

R W G E E N A N F E A O B W W B . O - R E E Facility Source: Oceana based on EPER data. General Sources: OSPAR Commission 2003. “Mercury losses from the chlor-alkali industry” and 2001 data from the European Pollutant Emission Register (EPER), recently published by the European Commission. Data exported December, 2004. 48 GREECE

In Greece, there was one plant in operation that uses mercury cell technology, according to Euro Chlor.

FacilityLocation Emissions to air (kg) Emissions to water (kg) Total emissions

Hellenic Petroleum Thessaloniki20.2 4.1 24.3 S.A. Inorganics Unit

Compared with all other sources of mercury, Hellenic Petroleum’s inorganics chemicals unit in Thessaloniki is the sixth source of air and fifth largest source of total mercury emissions in the country based on EPER data. It is the number one source of mercury pollution to water.

This facility accounts for 3% of the mercury air emissions, 24% of mercury releases to water and 4% of mercury emissions overall.

SOURCES OF MERCURY AIR POLLUTION (GREECE 2001) 300

250 ) g k ( 200 d e s a e l 150 e R

y r

u 100 c r e M 50

- - . T T T O S A

S K I M T T I N N A C N O O O A N U . N N I N L A A C E E E C C R S U S

L L O O L G T C C F M M

T L S P P V E O

E E A

G G S I N ,

C A L P R S I C C E

E R I

S S E S A - T L

I E E E K N N - M . S E

K R L L L A . V E E A A A P I

A . K K G G A C A T T H L

. I I R S C R A A A H T I A S N

T T E R R - O C N

H A E E - E N

T I H H I

L . L T A E . H Facility S Source: Oceana based on EPER data.

General Sources: Euro Chlor “Western European chlor-alkali industry plant & production data,” Brussels Dec 2002 and 2001 data from the European Pollutant Emission Register (EPER), recently published by the European Commission. Data exported December, 2004. 49 HUNGARY

In Hungary, there was one plant in operation that uses mercury cell technology, according to Euro Chlor.

FacilityLocation Emissions to air (kg) Emissions to water (kg) Total emissions

Borsodchem Rt Kazinbarcika94 3 97

Compared with all other sources of mercury, Borsodchem Rt is the largest source of air emissions and second largest source of total mercury emissions in the country based on EPER data.

This facility alone accounts for 52% of the mercury air emissions and 27% of mercury emissions overall.

SOURCES OF MERCURY AIR POLLUTION (HUNGARY 2001) 100 PERCENTAGE OF MERCURY AIR EMISSIONS

) (Hungary 2001)

g 80 k (

d e s

a 60 e l e R

r 40 u c r e

M 20 OTHER 48% BORSODCHEM RT 52% 0 T T D A Y R T I L R L R

A A

R E I Ö Y Z M H Á R F E G A P G A M S H G E I P N I C A L A T

U E T R D T H T R N

O R I E

O M S I L A F M R C B A E Y O L C A N M B O E S F H C O J E H Facility Source: Oceana based on EPER data.

In Italy in 2001, there were eight plants in operation that use mercury cell technology, according to Euro Chlor.

Emissions Emissions to Total Emissions Facility Location to air (kg) water (kg) (kg) EniChem S.p.A.(Syndial S.p.A Priolo 250 15 265 – Stabilimento di Priolo) Solvay Chimica Italia S.p.A. Rosignano 84 71 155 Solvay Solexis S.p.A. – Bussi 44 22 66 Stabilimento di Bussi Tessenderlo Italia SRL Pieve Vergonte 28 5 33 Saline di Volterra (PI) Volterra 30 0 30 (Stabilimento sito) Caffaro S.p.A. – Stabilimento Toreviscosa 0 6.3 6.3 di Brescia Enichem (Syndial SPA Porto Marghera 0 2.3 2.3 Stabilimento di Assemini)

In 2001, only seven of the eight operating plants reported their releases to the EPER. There were no data for the Eredi Zarelli facility in Picinisco.

Of the 8 mercury-cell chlorine factories with data in Italy, EniChem S.p.A.(SYNDIAL S.p.A) in Priolo ranked first in mercury emissions with 265 kg (583 lbs). Solvay Chemica Italia S.p.A. in Rosignano followed with 155 kg (341 lbs) released. Solvay Solexis S.p.A. in Bussi came in third with 66.5 kg (146.3 lbs).

Compared with all sources in Italy, EniChem S.p.A.(SYNDIAL S.p.A) in Priolo was the number three source of mercury emissions to the air in 2001, while Solvay Chemica Italia S.p.A. in Rosignano was number six.

These seven facilities account for 15% of the mercury air emissions and 14% of mercury emissions overall.

TOP TEN SOURCES OF MERCURY AIR EMISSIONS (ITALY 2001) 1200

1000 ) g k ( 800 d e s a e l 600 e R

y r

u 400 c r e M 200

I I I ) - -

I –

. E E

A A A A A O T L O A A D D I O O O O O D O

T R A I A

A P S C R M T S . T L . G A R T T I M M T R A C E I I U T S A A P E P O N O R E

I . O I R N N . R R E L N C I H N C D G T C P T E E A O S

R I S T I E E A M E E

N E

I R A I G N S R I E N L R P L R T T T M M I R

P A D D I I M A F R Y H E I E

I E N A I T I A T E E I V I L O L L F V S L C L A L D G T S I I L M T

L L I ( L F R

I D

D A E A I I E E B B M A Y F B A A O B V R A L A T C D A A A . A I R R E A T E A V

T T P V T I R T T R . T L S S S S R D N N S

O E E O A S M . C C T E P . H S C I

N Facility E Source: Oceana based on EPER data. General Sources: Euro Chlor “Western European chlor-alkali industry plant & production data,” Brussels Dec 2002 and 2001 data from the European Pollutant Emission Register (EPER), recently published by the European Commission. Data exported December, 2004. 51 THE NETHERLANDS

The Netherlands decommissioned one mercury cell plant in 2000 and the country’s remaining plant is scheduled to be converted before 2010. The remaining plant is operated by Akzo Nobel in Hengelo.

Facility Emissions to air (kg) Emissions to water (kg) Total emissions

Akzo Nobel 57 1.6 58.6 Chemicals BV

Compared with all other sources of mercury, this Akzo Nobel facility is the second largest source of air emissions and total mercury releases in the country based on EPER data.

This facility accounts for 19% of the mercury air emissions and 18% of mercury releases overall.

SOURCES OF MERCURY AIR EMISSIONS (NETHERLANDS 2001) 125

100 ) g k (

d e

s 75 a e l e R

y r 50 u c r e M 25

E U V V H V N L V I T S - L I Y E B B E B B I N

N V A

B L E E E R R S L U I I I V A E O S E L L O V A Z T L M M S N N A C O S

U E A A E E L C

S T O C H R I U T S Z C T O M R H K

R N E . E E A P H V S . C C S N E

Facility Source: Oceana based on EPER data.

There are currently nine mercury-emitting chlorine plants in Spain. In 2001, only seven of the nine operating plants reported their releases to the EPER. There were no data for the Solvay facility in Martorel or for the Elnosa facility in Lourizan.

Emissions Emissions to To t a l Rank by Rank by Facility Location to air (kg) water (kg) emissions air total Solvay Quimica (Fábrica Torrelavega 100 190 #8 #5 de Torrelavega) 90 Aragonesas Industrias Y Vilaseca,Tarragona 154 8.4 162.4 #6 #7 Energia, SA Aragonesas Industrias y Huelva 83.9 6.9 90.8 #10 #9 Energía SA Puerto Ercros Industrial, SA Flix 69.3 13.5 82.8 #11 #12 Quimica del Cinca SA Monzon 35.8 9.2 45 #15 #16 Electroquimica de 0 Hernani 28.4 28.4 #36 #16 Hernani, SA Aragonesas Industrias Y Sabinanigo / 22 #23 #25 Energia, SA Huesca 22 0

Of the seven mercury cell chlorine factories reporting, Solvay Quimica in Torrelavega ranked first in mercury emissions with 190 kg (418 lbs). Aragonesas in Vileseca followed with 162.4 kg (357.2 lbs) released. Aragonesas in Huelva came in third with 90.8 kg (199.7 lbs).

These seven facilities account for 16% of the mercury air emissions, 46% of mercury released to water and almost 20% of mercury emissions overall. Based solely on TtheOP TENdata MERC forURY these AIR EMISSIsevenONS facilities (SPAIN, 200 reporting,1) the industry released 455 kg to the air, 166.3 kg to the water forT OPa total TEN MERC of 621.3URY AIR kg. EMISSI TheseONS numbers (SPAIN, 200 would1) clearly be higher with the addition of the other two plants. 500 TOP TEN SOURCES OF MERCURY AIR EMISSIONS (SPAIN 2001) 500 ) g

Compared with all sources, k 400 (

) d g e Solvay Quimica in Torrelavega k 400 ( s

a d e e l

was the number five source of s 300 e a R e

y 300

total mercury emissions to the e r R u

c y r

air and water in 2001. Four of r

e 200 u c M the plants fall in the top 15 for r e 200 total emissions, out of 48 M 100 facilities reporting in Spain. 100 Six of these plants made it 0

L L N

into the top 20. O S A A A O Z L A N S S A S A A . C E I A Y E O . E O I . R C N R E A 0 V O O E C L S A I I L A S S J

I L E L S R H V S

. I

R T G

. S

, V A

L M E O P L M N B O E C S A M A A A M O Z L A A I E N L S S E S A E G S A A A A A . C E E R I A Y

R U U E O . P E L O N I . R C A N N R E A V U C O Á O R O L N O E C E C L R S A L I R I L L A T S S I H J

I S I L E L S R H L V O O D S

R , A I A S

Q I R T G R C O O S E , V I A A M E O P M A R B E C E M A M A I E S A L G W E S E H G A P A N A A X E R G A B E

R U U P L N P A N C U C O Á A R O L N T C E R L R L A A B O T O I H I S L O I O D O R A R A S Q I R C O P O E L I R A N A R E I R S A G W H A S P N A X G A B E G A P C U E A T A A B O O E I O R P L R N I R A S G A U E E

Facility Source: OceanaF acilitybased on EPER data.

Sweden currently operates two mercury cell plants: Akzo Nobel – Eka Chemical in Bohus and Norsk Hydro/ Hydro Polymers in Stenungsund. In addition, the Akzo Nobel plant in Skoghall, which operates with membrane technology, reported releases of mercury in 2001.

Facility Location Emissions to air (kg) Emissions to water (kg) Total Emissions Eka Chemicals AB Bohus 29 4.6 33.6 Hydro Polymers Stenungsund 16.6 0 16.6 Akzo Nobel Base Chemicals AB Skoghall 15 1.5 16.5

Of the three chlorine factories reporting, Eka Chemicals (operated by Akzo Nobel) in Bohus ranked first in mercury emissions with 33.6 kg (73.9 lbs). Hydro Polymers/Norsk Hydro in Stenungsund followed with 16.6 kg (36.5 lbs) released. Akzo Nobel in Skoghall came in third with 16.5 kg (36.3 lbs).

In Sweden, the mercury based chlorine factory, Eka Chemicals (operated by Akzo Nobel) was the third largest releaser of mercury to the air, and second largest releaser of total mercury in 2001. In September 2004, Akzo Nobel announced they were closing that plant at the end of 2005. This will result in a significant reduction of mercury releases in Sweden.cclxx

In 2001, Hydro Polymers/Norsk Hydro in Stenungsund and Akzo Nobel in Skoghall ranked 5th and 6th respectively nationwide for total mercury releases.

These facilities combined released almost 25% of the mercury air emissions, 10% of mercury released to water and 22% of mercury releases overall in Sweden.

TOTAL MERCURYTOTAL MERCURY AIR EMISSIONS RELEASES (SWE (SWEDENDEN, 2001) 2001)

) 100 g k (

d e s a e l

e 50 R

y r u c r e M 0

N N S B B B L E B O B R N E E R A A A S A R E A

A Ä L I

K E

I L A D R S S K L R C T F M B I L L A E Y S E

E A Y E R R L A A H B P N V L T E T A C C S S N O

I I S B L N

Ö P A M M E O O I O R E E C P N K D

H H N A N A O C C T N

V U Z S A A F O K E P K A V E Facility A Source: Oceana based on EPER data.

Sweden has problems with mercury contamination of land and waterways from mercury chlorine plants. The soil at the Akzo Nobel site in Bohus is contaminated with mercury and other toxic compounds.

Sweden also has a problem with contamination in fish. In 1991, it was estimated that pike weighing one kilogram (2.2 lbs) in over 50% of the lakes in Sweden contained high levels of mercury, over 0.5 mg/kg wet weight. A more recent analysis has shown a 20% decrease in fish contamination since then because of reductions in emissions and deposition of mercury. It is estimated that the country will need to further decrease their mercury emissions by 80% to bring fish concentrations down below this toxic level

General Sources: Commission of the European Communities, “Consultation Document: Development of an EU Mercury Strategy, Invitation to Comment, Brussels (15 March 2004): 12; European Commission, “Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC): Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Chlor-Alkali Manufacturing Industry,” (December 2001): section 3.2; OSPAR Commission 2003. “Mercury losses from the chlor-alkali industry” and 2001 data from the European Pollutant Emission Register (EPER), recently published by the European Commission. Data exported December, 2004. 54 UNITED KINGDOM

In the United Kingdom in 2001, there were three plants in operation that use mercury cell technology.

Facility Location Emissions to air (kg) Emissions to water (kg) Total Emissions Ineos Chlor LTD Runcorn 1050 101 1151 Albion Chemicals LTD Sandbach 171 2.2 173.2 Rhodia Eco Services LTD Staveley 13.3 1.4 14.7

Of the three mercury cell chlorine factories in the United Kingdom, Ineos Chlor in Runcorn ranked first in mercury emissions with 1151 kg (2532 lbs). Albion Chemicals in Sandbach followed with 173.2 kg (381 lbs) released.

PERCENTAGE OF MERCURY AIR EMISSIONS Compared with all 74 mercury releasers in the country, Ineos (UK, 2001) Chlor ranked first, and Albion ranked third.

These three facilities account for 33% of the mercury air emissions, 46% of emissions to water and 33% of mercury emissions overall. CHLOR-ALKALI 33%

OTHER 67%

TOP TEN SOURCES OF MERCURY AIR EMISSIONS (UNITED KINGDOM 2001)

1000 ) g

k 800 (

d e s a e l 600 e R

y r u c r

e 400 M

200

0 ) ) E Y Y Y Y S S R N C N L N D D D N A R P E E D I E L R G G G O O T T A A T O E I T P C C L L O N I L R G T R R T

C I I

W L B

R E E E E E T N R W L Y R C S V V O L R N N U A N N M A U L O A G R R O N P

A E T

E E E E E I T

P E E L A I Y O

S Z T F F P P W S S H C R R T N M I O E E D D O C B S N A

A E E O M I A A P E

S T M E R I E T O L W H R I ( E W O C P K N R C I (

1 Jane Hightower and Dan Moore, “Mercury in High-End 12 Environmental Protection Agency, Mercury Report to 34 Research Triangle Institute, “The Chlorine Industry: A Consumers of Fish,” Environmental Health Perspectives Congress, Volume II, ES-4. Profile”, draft report to the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Division, August (April 2003): 604-608. 13 European Commission, “Integrated Pollution 2000,http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/EIAs/chlorine 2 Prevention and Control (IPPC): Reference Document on Jun Ui, Industrial pollution in Japan, Tokyo: The United %20profile.pdf; Environmental Protection Agency, Best Available Techniques in the Chlor-Alkali Nations University (1992): Ch. 4. “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Manufacturing Industry,” (December 2001): section Pollutants.” 3 Associated Press. “Mercury poison still haunts city.” 4.2.1.1 Augusta Chronicle, (20 July 1998), 35 Euro Chlor, “Mercury process for making 14 Environmental Protection Agency, Toxics Release http://www.augustachronicle.com/stories/072098/tec_124 chlorine,”http://www.eurochlor.org/chlorine/issues/merc Inventory, 2002, http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer/ Note: -5932.shtml. ury.htm (Accessed 12 Dec 2004). This report relies on emissions reported to EPA’s Toxic 4 Developing precise estimates of risk is difficult and is Release Inventory in 2002, the latest year available in a 36 European Commission, “IPPC”, 2001; Hansen, 1996, 36. never an exact science. Estimates can vary depending comprehensive form. EPA recently has released 2003 37 European Commission, “IPPC”, 2001. on a variety of assumptions, years studied, and other TRI information electronically in a separate database, variables. Studies have predicted a range of cord blood but that information has not undergone final data quality 38 Alabama Department of Environmental Management, to maternal blood ratios (summarized in Mahaffey et al. checks. http://www.epa.gov/tri-efdr/ Accessed 12/15/04. Environmental Summary 2001, 2001: 2004) and female blood mercury levels (see Mahaffey et 23,http://www.adem.state.al.us/Publications/EnvSumma 15 Environmental Protection Agency, “National Emission al. 2004; Mahaffey, 2004; CDC, 2004 and CDC, 2001) ry/2001/ES01pg16-30.pdf (Accessed 1 Dec 2004). which, when compared to population figures available Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Mercury 39 See note 4. from the U.S. Census Bureau, all place the number of Emissions from Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants; Final newborns at risk in the hundreds of thousands for the Rule,” 68 Fed. Reg. 70904 (Dec. 19, 2003); Environmental 40 See note 4. United States population alone. This does not consider Protection Agency. Toxics Release Inventory, 2000. 41 J Tressou, et al., “Probabilistic exposure assessment the additional number of newborns at risk in other 16 Peter Maxson, “Mercury Flows in Europe and the to food chemicals based on Extreme Value Theory. countries where similar risk levels are likely to occur. It is World: The impact of decommissioned chlor-alkali Application to heavy metals from fish and sea likely that as many as 630,000 newborns in the United plants,” Report by Concorde East/West Sprl for the products”, Food and Chemical Toxicology 42,no 8, (Aug. States are at risk each year, based on studies by an EPA Directorate General for Environment, (Brussels 2004):1349-58 Scientist (Mahaffey, 2004, Mahaffey et al 2004.) European Commission, February, 2004): ES-4. Mahaffey, K. R., R. P. Clickner, and C. C. Bodurow. 2004. 42 Hightower, “Mercury in High-End Consumers of Fish,” 17 Euro Chlor. “Reduction of Mercury Emissions from "Blood Organic Mercury and Dietary Mercury Intake: 2003. the West European Chlor Alkali Industry” (June 2001): 4. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999 http://www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/2001-ngo- 43 Committee on the Toxicological Effects of and 2000. Environmental Health Perspectives. 112:562- sub/eurochlor/sub1ngoatt8.pdf (accessed 12/4/04). Methylmercury, National Research Council, Toxicological 570. K. R. Mahaffey, “Methylmercury: Epidemiology effects of methylmercury, (National Academy Press, Update,” Presentation at the National Forum on 18 J.M Pacyna, et. al, “Global Mercury Emissions, Washington DC, 2000); Christine M.Y Choy, et al. Contaminants in Fish, San Diego: 28 January 2004, “Presentation at the Long Range Transport Workshop, “Infertility, blood mercury concentrations and dietary http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/forum/2004/prese Ann Arbor, Michigan, (16-17 September 2003). seafood consumption: a case-control study,” BJOG: an ntations/monday/mahaffey.pdf (accessed 12 June 2004). 19 Environmental Protection Agency, “National Emission International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 109, Centers for Disease Control. 2004. “Blood Mercury Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.” ( October 2002): 1121-1125. Levels in Young Children and Childbearing-Aged Women -- United States, 1999-2002”. Morbidity and Mortality 20 Juliet Eilperin. “EPA to Probe Missing Mercury,” 44 The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Weekly Report 53, no 43 (5 Nov 2004):1018-1020. Centers Washington Post, 30 May 2004. Registry, “ToxFAQs Mercury,” April 1999, 22 Nov. 2004, http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts46.html (Accessed 14 for Disease Control. 2001. Blood and Hair Mercury Levels 21 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release Dec. 2004) in Young Children and Women of Childbearing-Age --- Inventory. 2002. United States, 1999. In: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly 45 Mahaffey, K. R., R. P. Clickner, and C. C. Bodurow. 22 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release Report, March 2, 2001. 50(08);140-3. 2004. "Blood Organic Mercury and Dietary Mercury Inventory. 2002. 5 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Intake: National Health and Nutrition Examination Mercury Study Report to Congress Volume I: Executive 23 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release Survey, 1999 and 2000. Environmental Health Summary (Washington, US EPA, Dec. 1997): 3-3; Inventory. 2002. Perspectives. 112:562-570. Environment Canada, “Mercury and the Environment: 24 Environmental Protection Agency. Mercury Report to 46 Mahaffey, et al. 2004. Environment and Health, Global Mercury; Budget.” Congress, Volume II, ES-4. 47 Environmental Protection Agency. Mercury Study http://www.ec.gc.ca/MERCURY/EH/EN/eh- 25 Euro Chlor. “Chlor-alkali Technology Change No Report to Congress, Volume V. mb.cfm?SELECT=EH (Accessed 14 Dec 2004). Threat to Mercury Market Stability”. News Release 48 Environmental Protection Agency. Mercury Study 6 United Nations Environment Programme Chemicals. March 29 2004. Report to Congress, Volume V. Global Mercury Assessment. (December 2002): 26 European Commission, European Pollutant Emission Summary, iii. 49 The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Register, 2001, Registry “ToxFAQs Mercury,” April 1999. 7 United Nations Environment Programme Chemicals, http://www.eper.cec.eu.int/eper/default.asp (Accessed 2002, 60. December 2004). 50 United Nations Environment Programme Chemicals, 2002, 60. 8 Environmental Protection Agency. “National Listing 27 Olin Corporation v. Yeargin Inc., 146 F.3d 398, 401-402 of Fish Advisories” August 2004, (6th Cir. 1998). 51 Environment Canada, “Mercury and the Environment: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/advisories/factsh Environment and Health, Global Mercury; Budget.” 28 “Workers lawsuits over contamination are moving eet.pdf (Accessed 8 Dec. 2004) slowly; Cases against HoltraChem not likely to reach 52 Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Proposes 9 European Commission, Health and Consumer trial before 2005,” Wilmington Star News, 24 Dec 2003. Options for Significantly Reducing Mercury Emissions Protection Directorate-General, “Information: Note on from Electric Utilities,” 29 Jan. 2004, 29 Environmental Protection Agency, “Cleanup of Methyl mercury in fish and fishery products,” Brussels, http://www.epa.gov/mercury/hg_factsheet1_29_04.pdf. Mercury-Contaminated Chlor-alkali Sites” 12 May 2004; United States Department of Health and 53 United Nations Environment Programme Chemicals, Human Services and the EPA “What You Need to Know 30 ATSDR, “Mercury: Toxicological Profile for Mercury,” 2002, iii. About Mercury in Fish and Shellfish,” Washington, March 1999. Section 5.3.1 March 2004, http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp46-c5.pdf 54 European Commission, Health and Consumer http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/admehg3.html Protection Directorate-General, “Information: Note on 31 Chlorine Institute. North American Chlor-Alkali (Accessed 12 Dec. 2004). Methyl mercury in fish and fishery products,” 2004. Industry Plants and Production Data Report. Pamphlet 10 See note 4. 10: 15. 55 US Department of Health and Human Services and the EPA “What You Need to Know About Mercury in Fish 11 Kurt Hansen, “Engineering and Economic 32 Euro Chlor, “Chlorine Production” 14 Dec. 2004 and Shellfish,” March 2004. Considerations of a Chlor-alkali Plant Conversion from http://www.eurochlor.org/chlorine/issues/environment.htm Mercury-Cell to Membrane-Cell Technology”. Master's 56 Environmental Protection Agency. “National Listing of 33 Maxson, 2004, ES-7. Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison (Aug 1996): 21. Fish Advisories,” 2004. 56 57 A. Renzoni, et. al, “Mercury Levels along the food 80 Pacyna, “Global Mercury Emissions”, 2003; Euro Chlor. 114 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release chain and risk for exposed populations,” Environmental “Reduction of Mercury Emissions from the West Inventory. 2002. Research 77 (1998): 68-72. European Chlor Alkali Industry” June 2001: 4. 115 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release http://www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/2001-ngo- 58 R. Eisler, 1987. Mercury hazards to fish, wildlife, and Inventory. 2002. sub/eurochlor/sub1ngoatt8.pdf (accessed 4 Dec 2004). invertebrates: a synoptic review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 116 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release Service Biology Report 85(1.10). Washington, D.C.: U.S. 81 Pacyna, “Global Mercury Emissions”, 2003. Inventory. 2002. Department of the Interior. 90pp. Wiener, J. G. and D. J. 82 Chlorine Institute, “Seventh Annual Report to EPA For Spry. 1996. Toxicological significance of mercury in 117 Pioneer Companies, Inc. Form 10-K filings with the the Year 2003,” 22 July 2004, 8. freshwater fish. In: Beyer, W.N., G.H. Heinz, and A.W. United States Secuirty and Exchange Commission for Redmon-Norwood (eds.). Environmental Contaminants 83 Chlorine Institute, “Seventh Annual Report to EPA For fiscal year ending Dec. 31, 2003. in Wildlife: Interpreting Tissue Concentrations. Special the Year 2003,” 22 July 2004, 8. http://www.piona.com/financials/0310kpci.pdf Publication of the Society of Environmental Toxicology 84 Chlorine Institute, North American Chlor-Alkali 118 Kinsey, 2004. and Chemistry. Boca Raton, Florida: Lewis Publishers. Industry Plants and Production Data Report. 494 pp. Nielsen, J.B., F. Nielsen, P-J. Jorgensen, and P. 119 Environmental Protection Agency, “National Grandjean. 2000. Toxic Metals and Selenium in Blood 85 Research Triangle Institute; EPA, “National Emission Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.” Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.” from Pilot Whales (Globicephala melas) and Sperm 120 Natural Resources Defense Council, “Petition for Whales (Physeter catodon). Marine Pollution Bulletin, 86 Euro Chlor, “Chlorine Production” Reconsideration. In the Matter of the Final Rule: 40: 348-351. http://www.eurochlor.org/chlorine/issues/environment.ht National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 59 Environmental Protection Agency. Mercury Study m (Accessed 14 Dec. 2004); Maxson, 2004, ES-7. Pollutants: Mercury Emissions from Mercury Cell Chlor- Alkali Plants,” Before the Administrator, United States Report to Congress. Volume I, 3-3. 87 Euro Chlor. “Mercury process for making chlorine”. Environmental Protection Agency (17 Feb 2004). 60 Environment Canada, “Mercury and the Environment: 88 Maxson, 2004, ES-7. Environment and Health, Global Mercury; Budget.” 121 Environmental Protection Agency, “Cleanup of 89 Maxson, 2004, ES-7. Mercury-Contaminated Chlor-alkali Sites.” 61 United Nations Environment Programme Chemicals, 90 Environmental Protection Agency, “National Emission 2002, Summary, 10. 122 Environmental Protection Agency, “Cleanup of Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.” Mercury-Contaminated Chlor-alkali Sites.” 62 Environmental Protection Agency, “National 91 Maxson, 2004, ES-7. Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants”; 123 Environmental Protection Agency, “RCRA Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release 92 European Commission, “IPPC”, 2001; Hansen, 1996, 36. Orientation Manual”, 15 Dec. 2004, Inventory. 2000. http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/general/orientat/rom39.pdf. 93 European Commission, “IPPC,” 2001, Section 4.2.2. 63 Maxson, 2004, ES-4; Euro Chlor. “Reduction of 124 Environmental Protection Agency, “Cleanup of 94 Alabama Department of Environmental Management, Mercury Emissions from the West European Chlor Alkali Mercury-Contaminated Chlor-alkali Sites.” Environmental Summary 2001, 23. Industry” June 2001. p. 4. 125 Maine Department of Environmental Protection. http://www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/2001-ngo- 95 Alabama Department of Environmental Management, “Site Information,”, sub/eurochlor/sub1ngoatt8.pdf accessed 12/4/04; Environmental Summary 2001, 23. http://www.state.me.us/dep/rwm/holtrachem/site.htm, Pacyna, “Global Mercury Emissions”, 2003. 96 European Commission, “IPPC,” 2001, Section 4.2.2. (accessed 14 Sept. 2004). 64 Hansen, 1996, 21. 97 Environmental Protection Agency, 1995 Mercury 126 Maine DEP, “The DEP Timeline for HoltraChem Site,” 65 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release Study Report to Congress as quoted in Hansen, 1996, 51. http://www.state.me.us/dep/rwm/holtrachem/timeline.ht m (accessed 14 Sept. 2004).. Inventory. 2002. Note: This includes the nine active plants 98 European Commission, “IPPC,” 2001, Section 4.2.2. and idled Oxy Vinyl. 127 Maine DEP, “Enforcement History & Documents,” 99 Alabama Department of Environmental Management, http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/holtrachem/documents. 66 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release Environmental Summary 2001, 23. Inventory. 2002. htm (accessed 17 Dec. 2004). 100 European Commission, “IPPC,” 2001, Section 4.2; 128 Environmental Protection Agency, “Cleanup of 67 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release OSPAR Commission, “Mercury losses from the chlor- Mercury-Contaminated Chlor-alkali Sites.” Inventory. 2002. alkali industry in 2001,”(OSPAR Commission, 2003): 29. 129 Maine DEP, “Site Information.”; Judd, Richard and 68 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release 101 CSE India. “Dealing with Mercury Pollution”. 20 Oct. Laura Bouzan. “Orrington Plant Clean-up” OP-ED, Inventory. 2002. 2004 www.cseindia.org/dte-supplement/verdict.htm. Bangor Daily News, 12 Feb. 2004, 69 Euro-Chlor, “News Release: Chlor-alkali Technology 102 OSPAR Commission, 2003, 7 and 35. www.mainepeoplesalliance.org/richlaura.htm (Accessed Change No Threat to Mercury Market Stability,” 29 14 Sept 2004); Maine People’s Alliance et al. v. 103 European Commission, “IPPC,” 2001, Section 4.2.2. March 2004. Holtrachem Mfg. Co. et al, 211 F.Supp.2d 237 (D.Me. 70 European Commission, European Pollutant Emission 104 Environmental Protection Agency, “Cleanup of 2002). Mercury-Contaminated Chlor-alkali Sites”. Register, 2001. 130 Environmental Protection Agency. “Waste Site 71 Maxson, 2004. 105 Kinsey, 2004, 635. Cleanup & Reuse in New England - HoltraChem.” 14 Sept 2004, http://yosemite.epa.gov/r1/npl_pad.nsf/ 72 Euro Chlor. “Mercury process for making chlorine.” 106 Research Triangle Institute, “The Chlorine Industry: A Profile,” 2000. 0/be304d469591d6c185256c2200605fcb?OpenDocument 73 John S. Kinsey, et.al., “Characterization of the fugitive 131 Environmental Protection Agency. “Waste Site mercury emissions at a chlor-alkali plant: overall study 107 Research Triangle Institute, “The Chlorine Industry: Cleanup & Reuse in New England - HoltraChem.”; Maine design,” Atmospheric Environment 38 (2004); 636. A Profile,” 2000. DEP “HoltraChem” 14 Sept. 2004 www.state.me.us/dep 74 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release 108 Research Triangle Institute, “The Chlorine Industry: /rwm/holtrachem. Inventory. 2002. A Profile,” 2000. 132 Eilperin. “EPA to Probe Missing Mercury,” 30 May 75 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release 109 European Commission, “IPPC”, 2001, section 4.2.1.1. 2004. Inventory. 2002. 110 Environmental Protection Agency, “National 133 Olin Corporation v. Yeargin Inc. 76 European Commission, “IPPC,” 2001 section 4.2.1.1. Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.” 70,920. 134 “Workers lawsuits over contamination are moving 77 Environmental Protection Agency, “National Emission slowly; Cases against HoltraChem not likely to reach Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants” 70904. 111 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release trial before 2005,” Wilmington Star News, 24 December, Inventory. 2002. 2003 78 Environmental Protection Agency, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants” 70904; 112 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release 135 Environmental Protection Agency, “National Listing Environmental Protection Agency, Toxics Release Inventory. 2002. of Fish Advisories,” August 2004. Inventory 2000. 113 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release 136 Environmental Protection Agency, “National Listing 79 Maxson, 2004, ES-4. Inventory. 2002.; Environmental Protection Agency. of Fish Advisories,” August 2004. Toxics Release Inventory. 2001. 57 137 Brian Farkas, “Statewide fish consumption advisory 165 Environmental Protection Agency, Toxics Release 187 Alabama DPH, “Fish Advisories”. issued for mercury,” Associated Press Newswires, 13 Inventory. 2002. 188 Natural Resources Defense Council, “Know Where Dec. 2004. 166 Environmental Protection Agency, “National Listing It’s Coming From: Chlor-Alkali Plants Using Mercury Cell 138 US Department of Health and Human Services and of Fish Advisories,” August 2004. Technology.” the EPA “What You Need to Know About Mercury in Fish 167 Environmental Protection Agency, “National Listing 189 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release and Shellfish,” 2004. of Fish Advisories,” August 2004. Inventory. 2002. 139 European Research News Centre, “Micro-organisms 168 Farkas, “Statewide fish consumption advisory issued 190 Environmental Protection Agency, “Cleanup of and macro-results,” 26 Nov 2001, for mercury,” 2004. Mercury-Contaminated Chlor-alkali Sites.” http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/news- centre/en/env/01-12-env02.html, (Accessed 17 Dec 2004). 169 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release 191 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release Inventory. 2002. Inventory. 2002. 140 European Research News Centre, “Micro-organisms and macro-results,” 26 Nov 2001. 170 Environmental Protection Agency, “Cleanup of 192 Occidental Petroleum Corporation, Form 10-k Mercury-Contaminated Chlor-alkali Sites.” “Occidental Petroleum Corp /DE/ - OXY.” filed 1 March 141 Euro Chlor, “News Release: Chlor-alkali Technology 2004. Change No Threat to Mercury Market Stability,” March 171 Environmental Protection Agency, “Cleanup of 29 2004. Mercury-Contaminated Chlor-alkali Sites.” 193 Environmental Protection Agency, “Cleanup of Mercury-Contaminated Chlor-alkali Sites.” 142 Euro Chlor, “Western European chlor-alkali industry 172 Natural Resources Defense Council, “Know Where plant and production data: 1970-2001,” (Eur Chlor, It’s Coming From: Chlor-Alkali Plants Using Mercury Cell 194 EPA Region 3. “Region 3 GPRA Baseline RCRA Brussels, Dec 2002). Technology,” http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/ Corrective Action Facility – Occidental Chemical mercury/chlor-alkali.asp (Accessed 1 Dec 2004). Corporation.” http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/ 143 Maxson, 2004, ES-1. ca/de/pdf/ded003913266.pdf Accessed 12/1/04 173 Environmental Protection Agency, Toxics Release 144 Maxson, 2004, ES-4. Inventory, 2002. 195 Delaware Department of Natural Resources and 145 Euro Chlor. “Reduction of Mercury Emissions from Environmental Control and Delaware Division of Fish 174 Environmental Protection Agency, “Cleanup of the West European Chlor Alkali Industry” June 2001: 4. and Wildlife, “Fish Consumption Advisories,” 1 Dec 2004, Mercury-Contaminated Chlor-alkali Sites.” http://www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/2001-ngo- http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/fw/advisory.htm. sub/eurochlor/sub1ngoatt8.pdf (accessed 12/4/04). 175 Environmental Protection Agency, Toxics Release 196 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release Inventory, 2002. 146 Pacyna, “Global Mercury Emissions”, 2003. Inventory. 2002. 176 Bill Finch and Ben Raines, “Who did this? Special 147 Maxson, 2004, ES-7. 197 Natural Resources Defense Council, “Know Where Report,” Mobile Register, 23 Dec. 2003, It’s Coming From: Chlor-Alkali Plants Using Mercury Cell 148 Maxson, 2004, ES-7. http://www.al.com/specialreport/mobileregister/?merc20 Te chno l og y.” .html (Accessed 1 Dec 2004). 149 “PARCOM Decision 90/3 of 14 June 1990 on 198 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release Reducing Atmospheric Emissions from Existing Chlor- 177 Environmental Protection Agency, “Cleanup of Inventory. 2002. Alkali Plants. http://www.ospar.org/documents/ Mercury-Contaminated Chlor-alkali Sites.” dbase/decrecs/decisions/pd90-03e.doc (Accessed 199 Environmental Protection Agency, “Cleanup of 178 Environmental Protection Agency, “Superfund 12/8/04). Mercury-Contaminated Chlor-alkali Sites.” (Comprehensive Environmental Response, 150 OSPAR Commission, 2003, 37. Compensation, and Liability Information System 200 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release (CERCLIS)) database,” http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad Inventory. 2002. 151 Maxson, 2004, ES-2. /cursites/ccontinfo.cfm?id=0400144 (Accessed 1 Dec 201 EPA. “Cleanup of Mercury-Contaminated Chlor-alkali 152 European Commission Working Group on Mercury, 2004). Sites”. “Ambient Air Pollution by Mercury (Hg) Position Paper,” 179 Environmental Protection Agency, CERCLIS 17 Oct. 2001: 11-25, http://europa.eu.int/comm/ 202 EPA “ECHO” 4 Oct 2004, http://www.epa.gov/cgi- database, http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/ environment/air/pdf/pp_mercury.pdf bin/get1cReport.cgi?tool=echo&IDNumber=1324500017& cursites/ccontinfo.cfm?id=0400153; Finch and Raines, media_tool=ECHO_AFS. 153 Pacyna, “Global Mercury Emissions”, 2003. “Who did this? Special Report,” 2003. 203 Environmental Protection Agency, “Cleanup of 154 “PARCOM Decision 90/3.” 180 Environmental Protection Agency, Record of Mercury-Contaminated Chlor-alkali Sites.” 155 Euro Chlor. “Reduction of Mercury Emissions from Decision System (RODS) Abstract Information, “Olin 204 Environmental Protection Agency, “Georgia the West European Chlor Alkali Industry,” June 2001, 4. Corp (McIntosh Plant),” http://cfpub.epa.gov/superrods/ rodinfo.cfm?mRod=04001531995ROD216 (14 Dec 2004); NPL/NPL Caliber Cleanup Site Summaries,”, 156 European Commission, European Pollutant Emission Olin Chlor alkali Products, http://www.chloralkali.com, http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/npl/nplga/lcpincga.ht Register, 2001. (Accessed 14 Dec 2004). m (Accessed 15 Dec 2004). 157 European Commission. European Pollutant Emission 181 Environmental Protection Agency, Land Clean-up 205 Environmental Protection Agency, “Georgia Register, 2001. and Wastes. “Alabama NPL/NPL Caliber Cleanup Site NPL/NPL Caliber Cleanup Site Summaries.” 158 Meteorological Synthesizing Centre – East of EMEP, Summaries – Olin Corp (Macintosh Plant)” 206 Georgia Department of Natural Resources. “Modeling of mercury pollution form chlor-alkali plants in http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/npl/nplal/olinmcal.htm “Guidelines For Eating Fish From Georgia Waters” Europe,” Contribution to the EMECAP Project, Jan. 2004. (Accessed 1 Dec 2004). (Georgia, 2004) http://www.dnr.state.ga.us/dnr/ http://www.msceast.org/reps/emecap.pdf 182 Alabama Department of Environmental Management environ/gaenviron_files/fishadvs_files/fcg_2004.pdf. 159 The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease “ADEM Announces Fiscal Year 2003 Fish Tissue 207 Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Registry, “Mercury. Toxicological Profile for Mercury.” Monitoring Results,” 3 March 2003, “Guidelines For Eating Fish From Georgia Waters,” 2004. http://216.226.179.150/pressreleases/2003/3fishtissue%2D 160 Commission of the European Communities. 2003.htm (Accessed 1 Dec 2004). 208 Environmental Protection Agency, “Georgia “Consultation Document: Development of an EU NPL/NPL Caliber Cleanup Site Summaries.” Mercury Strategy, Invitation to Comment, ” (Brussels, 183 Environmental Protection Agency, “Cleanup of 209 Environmental Protection Agency, “Georgia 15 March 2004): 12. Mercury-Contaminated Chlor-alkali Sites.” NPL/NPL Caliber Cleanup Site Summaries.” 161 Meteorological Synthesizing Centre – East of EMEP, 184 Alabama Department of Environmental 210 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release “Modeling of mercury pollution form chlor-alkali plants in Management. Environmental Summary 2001. Inventory. 2001. Europe,” 2004. 185 Alabama Department of Public Health (DPH), “Get 211 Environmental Protection Agency, “Cleanup of 162 European Commission, “IPPC,” 2001. Hooked on Health,” May 2002, http://www.adph.org/ RISK/gethookedonhealth.pdf (Accessed 1 Dec 2004). Mercury-Contaminated Chlor-alkali Sites.” 163 European Commission, “IPPC,” 2001. 186 Alabama DPH, “Fish Advisories,” March 2004, 212 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release 164 K Plus S Group. “Contaminated sites Projects and http://www.adph.org/RISK/Alabama%20Fish%20Cons%2 Inventory. 2002. case studies” http://www.ks- 0Advisories%20March%202004.pdf (Accessed 1 Dec 213 Environmental Protection Agency, “Cleanup of entsorgung.com/altlasten/projekte_en.cfm?Print=True 2004). Mercury-Contaminated Chlor-alkali Sites.” (Accessed 12 Dec. 2004). 58 214 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/fishadvisory/limitmeals. (Accessed 4 Oct 2004). Inventory. 2001. html, (Accessed 14 Oct 2004). 257 West Virginia Department of Health and Human 215 Kentucky Division of Water. “Fish Consumption 236 Ohio EPA, Division of Surface Water, “2004 Ohio Resources, “Fish Consumption Advisories Available for Advisories in Kentucky”, 1 July 2004, 8 Dec 2004, Sport Fish Consumption Advisory - Limit Meals.” 2005,” http://www.wvdhhr.org/fish/current.asp http://www.water.ky.gov/sw/advisories/fish.htm. (Accessed 15 Dec 2004). 237 Ohio EPA, Division of Surface Water, “Ohio Sport 216 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release Fish Consumption Advisory - Ashtabula County,” 2004, 258 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release Inventory. 2002. www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/fishadvisory/counties/Ashtab Inventory. 2002. ula.html (Accessed 14 Oct 2004). 217 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release 259 Natural Resources Defense Council, “Know Where Inventory. 2002. 238 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release It’s Coming From: Chlor-Alkali Plants Using Mercury Cell Inventory. 2002. Technology.” 218 Natural Resources Defense Council, “Know Where It’s Coming From: Chlor-Alkali Plants Using Mercury Cell 239 Natural Resources Defense Council, “Know Where 260 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release Technology.” It’s Coming From: Chlor-Alkali Plants Using Mercury Cell Inventory. 2002. Technology.” 219 Natural Resources Defense Council, “Know Where 261 Environmental Protection Agency, “Cleanup of It’s Coming From: Chlor-Alkali Plants Using Mercury Cell 240 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release Mercury-Contaminated Chlor-alkali Sites.” Technology.” Inventory. 2002. 262 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release 220 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release 241 Environmental Protection Agency, “Cleanup of Inventory. 2002. Inventory. 2002. Mercury-Contaminated Chlor-alkali Sites.” 263 Environmental Protection Agency, “ECHO” 221 Environmental Protection Agency, “Cleanup of 242 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/get1cReport.cgi?tool=echo Mercury-Contaminated Chlor-alkali Sites.” .” Inventory. 2002.. &IDNumber=5514180100&media_tool=ECHO_AFS (Accessed 4 Oct 2004). 222 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release 243 Olin Corporation. Filing with Security and Exchange Inventory. 2002. Commission Form 10-K, Jan. 31, 1994, at 13. 264 Great Lakes United, “Wisconsin Challenges,” http://www.shareholder.com/olin/EdgarDetail.cfm?CIK= January 1999, http://www.glu.org/english/ 223 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release 74303&FID=950130-94-389&SID=94-00 (Accessed 12/1/04); projects/special-projects/binational-toxics- Inventory. 2002. U.S. Department of Justice, “Notice of Lodging of strategy/road-to-zero-report/rwiscon2.html (Accessed 1 224 Environmental Protection Agency, “Cleanup of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Clean Air Act,” 59 Fed. Dec 2004). Mercury-Contaminated Chlor-alkali Sites.” Reg. 23,233, (May 5, 1994), http://frwebgate3.access.gpo. 265 Wisconsin State Public Interest Research Group, gov/cgibin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=1335531889+1+0+0 225 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release “Mercury Pollution,” http://wispirg.org/WI.asp? &WAISaction=retrieve (Accessed 15 Dec 2004). Inventory. 2002. id2=3385&id3=WI&, (Accessed 1 Dec 2004). 244 Environmental Protection Agency, “ECHO,” 226 Environmental Protection Agency, “Cleanup of 266 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR), http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/get1cReport.cgi?tool= Mercury-Contaminated Chlor-alkali Sites.” ”. “Hook into Healthy Fish,” (Wisconsin: DNR, 2004), echo&IDNumber=4701100014&media_tool=ECHO_AFS http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/fhp/fish/pages/consumption/ 227 Environmental Protection Agency, (Accessed 4 Oct 2004). “ECHO,”http://www.epa.gov/cgi- hookintohealthyfish04.pdf (Accessed 1 Dec 2004). 245 Tennessee Department of Environment and bin/get1cReport.cgi?tool=echo&IDNumber=2204700011& 267 Wisconsin DNR. “Hook into Healthy Fish,” 2004. media_tool=ECHO_AFS, (Accessed 4 Oct 2004). Conservation, “Bacteriological and Fishing Advisories in Tennessee” 19 March 2004, http://www.state.tn.us/ 268 Wisconsin DNR. “Choose Wisely: A health guide for 228 Environmental Protection Agency, “ECHO,” environment/wpc/publications/advisories.pdf (Accessed eating fish in Wisconsin” (Wisconsin: DNR, 2004), http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/get1cReport.cgi?tool= 1 Dec, 2004). http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/fhp/fish/pages/consumption/ echo&IDNumber=2201900004&media_tool=ECHO_AFS , choosewisely04.pdf (Accessed 1 Dec 2004). (Accessed 4 Oct 2004). 246 Occidental Petroleum Corporation, form 10-k, 2004. 269 Wisconsin DNR. “Choose Wisely: A health guide for 247 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release 229 Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals eating fish in Wisconsin,” 2004. Office of Public Health, “Louisiana Health/Fish Inventory. 2001. 270 Euro Chlor, “News Release: Chlor-alkali Technology Consumption Advisories (Mercury),” 2004,http://www. 248 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release Change No Threat to Mercury Market Stability,” March oph.dhh.state.la.us/environmentalepidemiology/healthfis Inventory. 2001. 29 2004. h/docs/2004%20advisories/hg_advisories_07_01_04.pdf. 249 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release 271 Euro Chlor, “Western Europe chlor-alkali industry 230 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release Inventory. 2002. plant and production data: 1970-2001,” (EurChlor, Inventory. 2002. 250 Note: EPA recently has released 2003 TRI Brussels, Dec 2002). 231 Natural Resources Defense Council, “Know Where information electronically in a separate database, but It’s Coming From: Chlor-Alkali Plants Using Mercury Cell that information has not undergone final data quality Technology”; Environmental Protection Agency, checks. Environmental Protection Agency, “Electronic - “Ashtabula River Area of Concern” 14 June 2001, Facility Data Release” http://www.epa.gov/tri-efdr/ http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/ashtabula.html, (Accessed 15 Dec 2004). (Accessed 1 Dec 2004). 251 Texas Department of State Health Services, Bureau 232 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release of Food and Drug Safety: Seafood Safety Division, Inventory. 2002. “Listing of Waterbodies with Advisories or Bans,” 233 Environmental Protection Agency Region 5. “EPA http://www.tdh.state.tx.us/bfds/ssd/fiscount.html Cites ASHTA Chemicals for Air Pollution and Pesticide (Accessed 14 Dec 2004). Violations,” 18 July 2001, 1 Dec 2004, 252 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release http://www.epa.gov/region5/news/news01/01opa114.htm Inventory. 2002. and EPA Region 5. Consent Agreement and Final Order 253 Natural Resources Defense Council, “Know Where in the matter of Ashta Chemicals; Inc., Ashtabula It’s Coming From: Chlor-Alkali Plants Using Mercury Cell County, Ashtabula, Ohio, Respondent. Docket No.: CAA- Te chno l og y.” 5-2001-010; FIFRA-5-2001-019; MM-5-2001-004, 1 February 2002, http://pesticide.net/x/enforce/E05-20020201A.html 254 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release (Accessed 1 Dec 2004). Inventory. 2002. 234 Ohio EPA, News Release, “Ashta Chemicals, Inc. 255 Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release Agrees to Reduce Mercury Emissions to Settle Permit Inventory. 2002. Violations”, 22 Sept. 2004. 256 Environmental Protection Agency, “ECHO,” 235 Ohio EPA, Division of Surface Water, “2004 Ohio http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/get1cReport.cgi?tool=echo Sport Fish Consumption Advisory - Limit Meals,” 2004, &IDNumber=5405100002&media_tool=ECHO_AFS 59 Oceana campaigns to protect and restore the world’s oceans. Our teams of marine scientists, economists, lawyers and advocates win specific and concrete policy changes to reduce pollution and to prevent the irreversible collapse of fish populations, marine mammals and other sea life. Global in scope and dedicated to conservation, Oceana has campaigners based in North America (Washington, D.C.; Juneau, AK; Los Angeles, Calif.), Europe (Madrid, Spain; Brussels, Belgium) and South America (Santiago, Chile). More than 300,000 members and e-activists in over 150 countries have already joined Oceana.