Sufficiency and Effectiveness Review of the 1998 Protocol on Heavy Metals, UN/ECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution

7th draft, 2006-05-23

Assessments of Technological Developments and Improved Measures

Products and Product Groups

Contents

1 SUMMARY......................................................................................................................................4

2 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................7

BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................................................72.1.1 Parties to the Heavy Metals Protocol...............................................................................72.1.2 Review of product control measures and product management measures......................7

CONTRIBUTION TO AIR EMISSIONS FROM HEAVY METALS IN PRODUCTS..............................................8DEVELOPMENT OF GENERAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND MEASURES FOR MERCURY..................9

2.1.3 Canada Wide Standards.................................................................................................102.1.4 The EU Mercury Strategy...............................................................................................102.1.5 General bans on mercury-containing products..............................................................102.1.6 Reducing mercury releases in the United States............................................................11

3 PART I – PRODUCTS INCLUDED IN ANNEX VI AND VII................................................12

PRODUCT CONTROL MEASURES (ANNEX VI).....................................................................................123.1.1 Lead content of petrol.....................................................................................................123.1.2 Mercury content in alkaline manganese batteries..........................................................13

PRODUCT MANAGEMENT MEASURES (ANNEX VII)...........................................................................153.1.3 Mercury-containing Electrical Components..................................................................153.1.4 Mercury-containing Measuring Devices........................................................................183.1.5 Mercury-containing Fluorescent lamps.........................................................................203.1.6 Mercury-containing Dental Amalgam............................................................................233.1.7 Mercury-containing Pesticides.......................................................................................273.1.8 Mercury-containing Paint..............................................................................................273.1.9 Mercury-containing Batteries not covered by Annex VI................................................28

4 PART II – PRODUCTS NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN ANNEX VII.................32

PRODUCTS WITH POTENTIAL FOR DIRECT AIR EMISSIONS OF HEAVY METALS....................................324.1.1 Mercury in sewage sludge..............................................................................................32

PRODUCTS WITH POTENTIAL FOR INDIRECT AIR EMISSIONS OF HEAVY METALS................................33

5 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................34

6 ANNEX A......................................................................................................................................38

ANNEX VI - PRODUCT CONTROL MEASURES......................................................................................38

7 ANNEX B......................................................................................................................................39

ANNEX VII - PRODUCT MANAGEMENT MEASURES...........................................................................39

8 ANNEX C......................................................................................................................................41

OVERVIEW TABLES ON PRODUCT MEASURES....................................................................................41

9 ANNEX D......................................................................................................................................54

MERCURY IN PRODUCTS - OVERVIEW TABLE ON USED OR SOLD AMOUNTS AND EMISSIONS TO AIR..54

10 ANNEX E..................................................................................................................................57

PRODUCTS WITH POTENTIAL FOR INDIRECT AIR EMISSIONS OF HEAVY METALS................................5710.1.1 Cadmium-containing batteries.......................................................................................5710.1.2 Cadmium as surface treatment, stabiliser and colouring agent.....................................6010.1.3 Cadmium and lead in electrical and electronic equipment............................................6110.1.4 Lead-containing batteries...............................................................................................6210.1.5 Lead-containing paint.....................................................................................................63

2

10.1.6 Lead stabilisers in PVC-products...................................................................................6410.1.7 Heavy metals in packaging.............................................................................................6410.1.8 Heavy metals in sewage sludge......................................................................................6510.1.9 Heavy metals in vehicles.................................................................................................65

11 ANNEX F...................................................................................................................................66

PRODUCTS WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR INDIRECT AIR EMISSIONS OF HEAVY METALS ARISING FROM THEIR DISPOSAL IN MUNICIPAL, MEDICAL AND HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATORS..........................66

11.1.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................6611.1.2 Development of management measures to control indirect emissions...........................6611.1.3 Regulatory measures......................................................................................................6711.1.4 Non-regulatory measures................................................................................................69

3

1 Summary

The Heavy Metals Protocol contains two annexes with different approaches to product management measures. Annex VI contains binding product control measures and Annex VII contains guidance to Parties on a range of possible product management measures. This report describes how measures and technological developments have improved relative to the measures given in Annex VI and VII. It describes how many Parties have undertaken measures, what kinds of management measures have been introduced and how effective these have been in terms of reducing the products contributions to air emissions. It has not been possible to review if Parties have undertaken measures as a direct result of the Protocol. Several factors have influenced the development of product management measures, and the Protocol may be one of them.

Air emissions of heavy metals may occur at several steps of a product’s life cycle; during production of the metal, manufacturing of products, during the use, from landfills, from incineration of waste and sewage sludge, from cremation and when discarded products are recycled and for example used as steel scrap in secondary metal production. The potential for air emissions varies among products and the specific metals used; however, the total emissions from products may contribute significantly to total anthropogenic air emissions of heavy metals. Many products have long technical lives, and emissions of heavy metals may occur long after the products have entered the circulation. Therefore, it can be important to include various product measures (along with emissions regulations and other actions) in an overall emission reduction strategy for heavy metals.

A variety of measures have been introduced in Europe and North America to address the management of products containing heavy metals that have the potential to contribute to air emissions within the UNECE region. Generally, the approaches that are taken are a mix of regulatory and non-regulatory measures. However, Europe mainly uses regulatory measures including market restrictions and waste management control, while North America tend to use non-regulatory measures that include targets and time-lines for reducing or minimising waste, improved collection and recycling or other product stewardship measures.

Mercury has been the subject of particular attention within the UNECE region, including for example EU Directives, the EU Mercury Strategy, Canada Wide Standards and a wide range of regulatory and non-regulatory measures taken within the United States. These measures have resulted in significant reductions in mercury emissions.

The information on the consumption of mercury is limited. The most recent available data indicates that the consumption has decreased since the mid 1990s. Significant reductions have been achieved for batteries while for other products the reductions have not been as great. A very rough estimate suggests that more than 325 tonnes of mercury are still consumed each year in electrical components (>75 tonnes), measuring devices (>60 tonnes), fluorescent lamps (>40 tonnes), dental amalgam (>120 tonnes) and batteries (>30 tonnes) in the European Union and North America. The relation between the consumed amount of mercury and air emissions is depending on factors such as the efficiency of collection of products and the sorting out of mercury-containing products before incineration. This kind of information is limited, and it is therefore difficult to draw any general conclusions on the efficiency of such measures.

All Parties to the Protocol have phased-out the marketing of leaded petrol for use in on-road vehicles. Almost all Parties have introduced prohibitions with a limit on the content of lead in petrol of 0.005 gram per litre, which is lower than the limit set in the Protocol. Globally, only a handful of countries still use lead as an additive for use in petrol for on-road vehicles. Substitute lead-free lubricant additives are available for old vehicles. In general, however, extensive research has shown that for typical passenger car and light-duty truck engines with engines designed to use leaded petrol, unleaded petrol can be used without any special additives. This is also true for boats, some farm equipment and

4

tow vehicles. By the start of the 2008 season there will be lead-free fuels available for racing cars. For aircraft using piston engines there is lead-free petrol at least for engines certified for lower octane requirements. Work is ongoing to find and evaluate additional alternatives for aircraft.

Almost all Parties to the Protocol have implemented prohibitions on the content of mercury in batteries that are more stringent than the requirements in the Protocol (<0.0005 % Hg by weight or no intentionally added mercury in batteries, except for button cells) and have also introduced a limit on the content of mercury in button cells of <2 % Hg by weight. Also, several non-Parties (mostly EU members) have implemented similar bans. The use of mercury in various types of batteries has been among the largest uses of mercury in products. Since the prohibitions were introduced the consumption of mercury in batteries has been significantly reduced. However, the market for button cell batteries has increased and is expected to continue to grow the coming years. It has shown to be difficult to collect batteries, especially those that are incorporated in articles. The current content of mercury in button cells seems to be lower than 2 % mercury by weight and also several models of mercury-free alternatives are available.

Generally, technological developments are ongoing to address the mercury content in products as well as to improve their end-of-life management. Mercury-free alternatives are available for almost all uses. In general, most Parties to the Protocol have introduced measures to address the mercury-containing products highlighted in Annex VII.

Most Parties have implemented a variety of measures, both regulatory and non-regulatory, to manage the use of mercury in electrical components. Measures range from prohibition on the marketing of mercury-containing electrical and electronic equipment and regulations on hazardous waste handling (eg EU Directives) and recycling efforts. Mercury-free alternatives for almost all uses have been available since several years, however, mercury switches and relays are still available on the market for certain applications. The use has decreased but still >75 tonnes of mercury are consumed for electrical and electronic equipment each year within the UNECE region. Mercury-free alternatives are available for almost all uses of mercury-containing measuring devices and a few Parties have introduced prohibitions, which have resulted in a nearly total phase-out. A number of non-regulatory measures are in place, particularly in the health care sector, to reduce and eliminate the use of mercury containing equipment and to safely dispose of mercury-containing measuring devices. The consumption of mercury in measuring devises has decreased but still > 60 tonnes are consumed each year within the UNECE region. An estimate for the EU indicates that the air emissions have decreased, but still some 8 tonnes are released from one year’s consumption.

Parties have also introduced a number of programs with mercury-containing fluorescent lamp manufactures towards improving lamp efficiency while reducing the mercury content in each lamp along with collection and recycling programmes. Limits on mercury content in lamps have been introduced in the EU. There are as yet no mercury-free alternatives on the market to replace the mercury-containing fluorescent lamps for general lighting applications that match their level of energy efficiency and light intensity. Typically, the measures introduced, whether they are regulatory or non-regulatory, focus on setting limits for mercury content in various types of fluorescent lamps or they focus on efforts to improve end-of-life management issues related to the collection, recycling or safe disposal of fluorescent lamps.

The use of mercury in dental amalgam contributes significantly to air emissions of mercury from land application (evaporation from soil) and incineration of sewage sludge and from cremation. The measures introduced by some Parties aims mainly to reduce the discharges of mercury to the sewer systems by using amalgam separators at dental clinics. The use of dental amalgam within the UNECE region seems to differ greatly. Generally, the use in the European Union and the United States does not seem to have changed much over the last ten years, still > 120 tonnes of mercury is used for dental fillings each year. Alternatives are available to replace mercury-containing dental amalgam. In some

5

European countries the use of amalgam is going down and has been almost totally phased out in a couple of countries.

A considerable amount of effort has been placed on regulating mercury-containing pesticides and mercury in paint. Some use was reported in the Global Mercury Assessment (UNEP, 2002) but mainly in countries outside the UNECE region.

Limits on mercury contents in sewage sludge typically are used by many Parties to ensure that the sludge application to soil does not pose a threat to livestock or human consumers of crops grown on these amended lands, and to restrict the accumulation of mercury in the soil. However, these limits do not address the direct emission of mercury from the soils to the atmosphere or indirect emissions when sewage sludge is incinerated, which is common practise in many countries. Such emissions are believed to be significant and estimates for Canada for total releases to air from land application are 450 kg mercury per year. An estimate for North America of mercury emissions from incineration of sewage sludge is almost 800 kg per year.

There was a divergence of opinion in the Task Force on Heavy Metals whether or not to include products with a potential for indirect air emissions of heavy metals in the Sufficiency and Effectiveness review of the Protocol. Some experts felt that only products with demonstrated direct links to air emissions should be included, given that the Protocol is about long range transport of heavy metals as air pollution, not about issues with heavy metals in general. These experts believe that indirect emissions arising from stages in the life cycle other than product use are covered within the technical annexes of the Protocol that outline BAT and ELVs. Other experts are of the opinion that BAT can also be the use of less hazardous substances and the sorting out of waste containing heavy metals before incineration according to the technical annexes. The view of these experts is that the total emissions from products may contribute significantly to total anthropogenic air emissions of heavy metals and in line with Annex VII paragraph 2, management measures undertaken for products other than those specifically mentioned in paragraph 3 should be included in the Sufficiency and Effectiveness review of the Protocol, such as for example cadmium-containing batteries, cadmium- and lead-containing electrical and electronic equipment, cadmium-containing pigments, stabilisers and cadmium used as surface treatment. Because of the differences of opinion two annexes are presented in this report, one of which describes measures relating to a series of products with potential of indirect emissions and the other which was presented as an alternative approach proposed by one expert to outline measures to address indirect emissions. There was no consensus reached in favour of either annex.

6

2 Introduction

BackgroundPursuant to Articles 3 and 10 of the 1998 Protocol on Heavy Metals, and consistent with the conclusions of the Chairman's report of the Task Force on its second meeting (EB.AIR/WG.5/2005/2), the Task Force on Heavy Metals was given the mandate to prepare technical elements to assist the Working Group on Strategies and Review in its review on the sufficiency and effectiveness of the obligations as set out in the Protocol. Part of this review will focus on technological developments and how product measures have improved since the Protocol was adopted in 1998. The review includes products containing one or more of the metals in Annex I (mercury, cadmium and lead).

This report was prepared by a group of experts of the Task Force (experts from Canada, Netherlands, Sweden, United States, International Cadmium Association and Lead Development Association International) to contribute to the report by the Task Force on sufficiency and effectiveness of the Protocol to be presented to the Working Group on Strategies and Review in September 2006.

Information for this report was gathered from replies to the Convention's questionnaire on strategies and policies for air pollution (2004) and replies submitted by Parties to a questionnaire on product management measures sent out by the Secretariat in November 2005 to gather additional information. Supplementary information was used from various other reports and sources of information, such as the Global Mercury Assessment by UNEP (UNEP, 2002).

2.1.1 Parties to the Heavy Metals ProtocolIn January 2006 there were 27 Parties to the Protocol (ratifications). The Parties are Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, European Community, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America. In addition, there were 13 countries that have signed the Protocol, but as yet, have not ratified and 11 more countries who are Parties to the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution but who are not signatories to the Protocol. Most, but not all, members of the European Union have ratified the HM Protocol.

Enlargement of the European UnionIn 2004, ten new countries joined the European Union, which now comprises 25 member states. The new members are Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. As a consequence of their membership, the harmonised directives and regulations of the European Community, which among other things restrict the use of mercury, cadmium and lead in certain products and applications and stipulate requirements for the handling of hazardous waste, shall apply in these countries as well. In addition Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway are part of the European Economic Area (EEA) which mean that they have agreed to enact part of the EC legislation as well, for example in the areas of Environment and Consumer Protection.

2.1.2 Review of product control measures and product management measuresThe Heavy Metals Protocol contains two annexes with different approaches to product management measures. Annex VI contains binding product control measures and Annex VII contains guidance to Parties on a range of possible product management measures. This report concentrates on how measures and technological developments have improved relative to the measures given in Annex VI and VII. It will to the extent possible describe how many Parties have undertaken measures, what kind of management measures have been introduced and how effective these have been in terms of reducing the products contributions to air emissions. It has not been possible to review if Parties have

7

undertaken measures as a direct result of the Protocol. Several factors have influenced the development of product management measures, and the Protocol may be one of them.

Annex VI requires the Parties to the Protocol to put into place product control measures regarding lead content of marketed petrol intended for on-road vehicles and the mercury content of alkaline manganese batteries (for full text see Annex A in this report).

Annex VII provide guidance to Parties on product management measures. The Parties may consider appropriate product management measures where warranted as a result of the potential risk of adverse effects on human health or the environment from emissions of mercury, cadmium and/or lead, taking into account all relevant risks and benefits of such measures, with a view to ensuring that any changes to products result in an overall reduction of harmful effects on human health and the environment. Such management measures includes for example substitution, minimization of content, product information/labelling, use of economic incentives or voluntary agreements to reduce or eliminate content in products as well as implementation of programmes for collection, recycling or disposal of products in an environmentally sound manner (for full text see Annex B in this report).

Contribution to air emissions from heavy metals in productsAir emissions of heavy metals may occur at several steps of a product’s life cycle; during production of the metal, manufacturing of products, during the use, from landfills, from incineration of waste and sewage sludge, from cremation and when discarded products are recycled and for example used as steel scrap in secondary metal production. The potential for air emissions varies among products and the specific metals used; however, the total emissions from products may contribute significantly to total anthropogenic air emissions of heavy metals. Many products have long technical lives, and emissions of heavy metals may occur long after the products have entered the circulation. Therefore, it can be important to include various product measures (along with emissions regulations and other actions) in an overall emission reduction strategy for heavy metals.

Especially the use of elemental mercury in certain products has notable potential for air releases since elemental mercury is volatile and may be released directly to air. Air emissions may also occur indirectly during processes such as manufacturing, incineration and recycling since mercury is not captured efficiently by many control technologies. The only relevant primary techniques for preventing emissions of mercury into the air are those that prevent or control, if possible, the inclusion of mercury in waste. Removing mercury from the waste stream before it enters the incinerator is much more cost-effective than capturing mercury later from flue gases using emissions control devices. For waste incineration, average removal efficiencies for mercury is 30 – 60 % for installations with just dust removal equipment and about 80 % for more advanced installations like carbon filter beds and activated carbon injection (UNECE background document on Sufficiency and Effectiveness review of the Heavy Metals Protocol, Chapter B1: Assessments of technological developments: Best available techniques (BAT) and limit values). Higher efficiencies have been reached in certain installations (TNO, 2005).

Air emissions of cadmium and lead related to products may occur indirectly during processes such as manufacturing, incineration and recycling. However, the lower volatility of cadmium and lead than mercury means that dust control and other metal control methods are more effective at controlling these substances than mercury. For waste incineration, cadmium and lead will be reduced with the same efficiencies as particulate matter (over 99 %) but the reduction percentages will be somewhat less than 99% according to the enrichment of cadmium and lead in the fine particulate fraction (TNO, 2005).

There is not much data available on air emissions of mercury from specific products taking into account the products whole life cycle. In 1996 a study was performed to calculate mercury emissions from products during use, from incineration, from landfills and when used as steel scrap. The mercury emissions to air were estimated at 72 tonnes for batteries, measuring and control equipment, light

8

sources and electrical equipment from one year of mercury consumption (400 tonnes). The contribution to total anthropogenic emissions of mercury to air in Europe in the mid 1990´s was estimated to be: 4 % for batteries, 3 % for measuring and control instruments and 11 % for lighting and electrical equipment. The study concluded that product related emissions of mercury can contribute significantly to total air emissions and that mercury in products leads to significant wet deposition input in Scandinavia. The relative amount of the total deposition flux attributable to products was estimated to be 10-14 % (KemI, 1997b).

In the Risk Assessment Report for cadmium and cadmium oxide performed in EU, the air emissions from production of cadmium and cadmium oxide, production and recycling of cadmium batteries, cadmium alloys and municipal waste incineration1 has been estimated at 8 tonnes per year in the EU based on measured and modelled values. This represents 6.5 % of the total anthropogenic air emissions of cadmium in the EU. According to the report higher future cadmium air emissions are expected to occur related to an increase in the incineration practice in the EU. A 100 % incineration scenario (as compared to 24.4 % today) would result in a total emission of 14 tonnes Cd/year from waste incineration alone (EU Risk Assessment Report Cd/CdO, 2005). However, an improved collection of batteries and a lower consumption of cadmium batteries would counteract the increase.

For waste incineration air emissions of mercury, cadmium and lead were estimated for Europe in 1990. The emission estimates were 55 tonnes per year of mercury, 20 tonnes per year of cadmium and 491 tonnes per year of lead (UBA, 1997). For year 2000 the emissions from waste incineration for UNECE-Europe have been estimated by TNO at 39 tonnes of mercury, 9 tonnes of cadmium and 134 tonnes of lead. Projections for 2010-2020 have been made with the assumption that all UNECE countries ratify and comply with the Protocol before 2010. These scenarios suggest annual emissions from waste incineration at 16 tonnes for mercury, 5 tonnes for cadmium and 81 tonnes for lead. Next to industrial combustion and processes, the most important source of air emissions for lead in Europe will still be from lead in petrol. With the TNO calculations, based on the (where available) officially reported emissions data and expert estimates, lead in petrol would result in emissions in UNECE Europe of 1650 tonnes per year in 2010 and 1940 tonnes in 2020, representing about 25 % of the total lead emissions (TNO, 2005).

A waste characterization study undertaken in Canada to determine the type of trace metals entering a typical municipal solid waste incinerator found that, overall, nearly half the amount of lead and mercury in municipal solid waste was contributed by components that come mainly from the environment, yard and garden waste, food waste, wood and fines. The other half came from man-made products. The study found that when this material entered the furnace, less than 0.1 % of the lead and 0.2 % of the cadmium escaped to the atmosphere. Without the addition of powdered activated carbon [PAC], about 60 % of the mercury was released. Tests on facilities equipped with PAC addition and flue gas temperature control show reductions in stack emissions of in excess of 90 % of the uncontrolled value, implying that less than 10 % would escape to the atmosphere. The results from spiking tests suggested that the air emissions were relatively insensitive to the input metal concentration. The study concluded that efforts to increase recycling of components that contribute substantial portions of a trace element to the waste stream will improve the control of these trace elements but are unlikely to result in significant reductions of air emissions from these facilities (Chandler, 1997).

Development of general management strategies and measures for MercuryA number of countries have introduced a variety of measures to address the management of mercury-containing products that have the potential to contribute to air emissions within the ECE region including activities in Canada, the European Union and the United States.

1 The incineration of municipal waste may contain materials in which cadmium is present as an impurity.

9

2.1.3 Canada Wide StandardsIn Canada, the Government of Canada, together with Provincial and Territorial Government, through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), developed the Canada-wide Standards (CWSs) for Mercury Emissions in 2000. The standards address both existing and new facilities in the waste incineration and base metal smelting sectors. Waste incineration sectors include hazardous waste, sewage sludge, municipal waste, and medical waste. Implementation of the CWS is achieved through either regulatory or non-regulatory initiatives. Each jurisdiction reports programmes and progress to the CCME. At the start of the process, a review was undertaken to identify the remaining major uses of mercury in products in Canada. Sectors that use mercury-containing products and that could reduce their use and/or releases of mercury to the environment were identified and given priority.

2.1.4 The EU Mercury Strategy In January 2005 the European Commission presented a proposal of a community strategy with measures to protect human health and the environment from the release of mercury. The strategy has the objectives of, inter alia, reducing emissions, reducing the entry into circulation of mercury in society by cutting supply and demand and protecting against mercury exposure. In June 2005 the Council endorsed the Strategy, and in March 2006 the Parliament adopted its Resolution on the Strategy and called for more vigorous measures.

Mercury-containing products are already restricted in several directives within the community. In the strategy the Commission points out the following for future management of mercury-containing products:

The Commission intends to propose in 2005 an amendment to Directive 76/769/EEC to restrict the marketing for consumer use and healthcare of non-electrical or electronic measuring and control equipment containing mercury2.

The Commission is due to present proposals to include medical devices and monitoring and control instruments under the Directive on the restrictions of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment [2002/95/EC].

The Commission will in the short term (within three years) investigate the issue of marketing and use restrictions for dental amalgam.

The Commission will further study in the short term (within three years) the few remaining products and applications in the EU that use small amounts of mercury.

The Commission will undertake further study in the short to medium term of the fate of mercury in products already circulating in society.

In the medium (4-6 years) to longer term, any remaining uses may be subjected to authorisation and consideration under the proposed new chemicals Regulation (REACH), once adopted.

2.1.5 General bans on mercury-containing productsSwitzerland, Denmark and the Netherlands have introduced general bans on mercury-containing products, with some exemptions. The Swedish Government has recently notified a proposal of a national general ban to the European commission and the World Trade Organisation.

Already in 1986 a ban was introduced in Switzerland on the use of mercury in all products (UNEP, 2002). A list of products is given which are exempted from the ban if mercury-free substitution is not possible. The Ordinance, which was replaced in May 2005, prohibits the placing on the market of preparations and objects containing mercury as well as the use of mercury, mercury compounds and preparations.

2 The Commission adopted in February 2006 a proposal to amend Directive 76/769/EEC, COM(2006) 69 final.

10

In Denmark the general ban was first introduced in 1994. It now covers import, exports and sale of mercury and mercury containing products. Some exemptions have been granted. The current regulation is valid until July 2008.

As result of the Netherlands’ 1998 Decree on Mercury Containing Products, from January 2000 it is prohibited to manufacture a product containing mercury or to import it into the Netherlands. From January 2003 it is prohibited to have a product containing mercury in possession or to use it for trading or production purposes. Exceptions from these bans are made for a limited number of products. Products that have been taken into use before January 2003 can continue being used and may also be traded as second hand products.

The Swedish Government is proposing to extend the present ban on certain mercury-containing products to a general ban entering into force 1 January 2007. The ban prohibits mercury or mercury-containing products being placed on the Swedish market or exported commercially from Sweden. The proposal also contains a ban on the use of mercury. Mercury-containing products already in use may continue to be used. Exemptions are suggested for applications covered by harmonised EC legislation, for example button cell batteries and fluorescent lamps. Also, a number of time-limited exemptions for certain applications are suggested to provide time for development and transition to alternatives.

2.1.6 Reducing mercury releases in the United StatesThe United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issues regulations that require industry to reduce mercury releases to air and water and to properly treat and dispose of mercury wastes. Specifically, US regulations require municipal waste combustors and medical waste incinerators to limit their mercury emissions. Emissions have been reduced over 95% from these sources from 1990 to 2002 in the U.S.A. largely due to regulations in the 1990s to control emissions from these facilities as well as actions to limit the use of mercury in products (e.g., batteries and paints), thereby reducing the mercury content of waste. The Hazardous Waste Combustors Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards3 is designed to reduce mercury and other hazardous emissions generated from the combustion of hazardous wastes, which may contain some products mentioned in Annex VI and Annex VII, and other products containing hazardous constituents. In addition to the State laws requiring labelling and notification and recycling programs, there are sales or installation bans on certain electrical components containing mercury in the US.

EPA also works with industry to promote voluntary reductions in mercury use and releases, and with partners in state, local and tribal governments to improve their mercury reduction programs. The public is encouraged to contribute to mercury reduction efforts by purchasing mercury-free products and correctly disposing of products that contain mercury. Various programs also aim to reduce demand for products whose production leads to the release of mercury into the environment.In recent years, there has been a growing focus on the need to decrease the use of mercury in household and commercial products and to prevent the mercury in existing products from entering the waste stream. Information is available about the numerous stewardship efforts that have been initiated by government, industry, and non-governmental organizations, targeting a variety of mercury-containing products. Many states have enacted legislation and written regulations with the goal of reducing mercury emissions to air, land and water.

3 Final Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/combust/finalmact/index.htm, accessed December 8, 2005.

11

3 Part I – Products included in Annex VI and VII

Product Control Measures (Annex VI)The objective of this section of the report is to describe: the product control measures (both regulatory and non-regulatory) that have been implemented by the Parties; the development of alternatives or other product control measures; changes in amounts used; and the changes in emissions that have occurred due to product measures, to the extent feasible given available information.

3.1.1 Lead content of petrol The Protocol requires that, except as otherwise provided in the Annex VI, no later than six months after the date of entry into force of the Protocol, the lead content of marketed petrol intended for on-road vehicles shall not exceed 0.013 grams per litre (g/l) and that Parties marketing unleaded petrol with a lead content lower than 0.013 g/l shall endeavour to maintain or lower that level.

Regulatory measuresAll 27 Parties to the Protocol have, mainly by regulatory means, introduced measures to control the marketed lead in petrol for use in on-road vehicles. In addition, measures are in place in all 13 signatories to the Protocol and in 10 other countries that are Parties to the Convention. Annex C, table 1, outlines these measures, and when known, the date when the measures were introduced.

Almost all Parties and several signatories have introduced a limit of 0.005 g/l. Many of them have exemptions for old vehicles, which may use petrol with maximum 0.15 g/l, but the sales may not exceed 0.5 % of total yearly use of petrol.

Technological developments On-road vehiclesWith the recognition of the environmental damage caused by the lead, and the incompatibility of lead with catalytic converters which was introduced for vehicles, the use of lead additives such as tetraethyl lead [Pb(C2H5)4], began to wane in the 1980’s. Lead is found as a natural impurity in crude oil. Almost all Parties have introduced a limit on the content of lead in petrol of 0.005 g/l.

Other uses of leaded petrolTetraethyl lead remains an ingredient of aviation gasoline and is also still available from a limited number of outlets as a fuel additive, mostly for owners of classic and vintage cars and motorcycles. In vehicles built prior to 1971, the engines were equipped with “soft” valve seats and leaded petrol acted as a lubricant to prevent excessive wear. The use of unleaded fuel in high-speed/high-load situations may result in some valve-seat wear in these types of engines. Substitute lubricant additives are available to help this situation. In general, however, extensive research has shown that for typical passenger car and light-duty truck engines with engines designed to use leaded petrol, unleaded petrol can be used without any special additives. This is also true for boats, some farm equipment and tow vehicles.

In the United States a voluntary effort led by the National Association for Stock Car Automobile Racing (NASCAR) to work jointly with their primary fuel supplier was established to identify safer alternatives to alkyl-lead fuel additives for racing cars. In January 2006, NASCAR announced that a special unleaded fuel had been developed for use by the start of the 2008 season.

Aviation fuel, or avgas, is specifically designed for use in aircraft that use piston engines. Avgas has a lower volatility than motor vehicle fuels, which is important in higher altitude situations. The higher- octane requirements for avgas are achieved through the addition of tetraethyl lead. Different grades of Avgas have different levels of lead additives ranging from 0.13 g/l in Avgas 80/87 for use in low

12

compression ratio engines to a maximum of 1.12 g/l in Avgas 100/130 for high-octane applications. A low-lead replacement for Avgas 100/130 has been developed. Avgas 100LL contains a maximum of 0.56 g/l, and is now a widely available aviation gasoline (Air BP, 2000). Since 1981 there is lead-free gasoline for airplanes (Avgas 91/98 UL) on the Swedish market, which is used for aircraft with engines certified for lower octane requirements (Hjelmberg, personal communication). In the United States the Federal Aviation Agency and appropriate private parties are identifying safe substitutes for alkyl-lead compounds in aviation gas.

EmissionsAccording to estimates for 8 European countries the emissions of lead from road transport has decreased from almost 10,000 tonnes in 1990 to 47 tonnes in 2003 (UNECE background document on Sufficiency and Effectiveness review of the Heavy Metals Protocol, Chapter D: Overview of Emissions). With regard to the USA, lead emissions decreased sharply during the 1980s and early 1990s due to the phase out of lead in gasoline and reductions from industrial sources. Emissions continued to decline to a lesser extent in the mid-1990s to 2002. Overall emissions of lead decreased about 95 percent over the 21-year period 1982–2002 (U.S. EPA, 2003).

However, according to TNO calculations on lead air emissions for Europe following implementation of the Protocol the lead emissions will strongly decline from 2000 to 2010 due to the phase out of leaded petrol. Projections for 2010-2020 have been made with the assumption that all UNECE countries ratify and comply with the Protocol before 2010. With the TNO calculations, based on the (where available) officially reported emissions data and expert estimates, lead in petrol would result in emissions in UNECE Europe of 1650 tonnes per year in 2010 and 1940 tonnes in 2020, representing about 25 % of the total lead emissions (TNO, 2005).

SummaryAll Parties have phased-out the marketing of leaded petrol for use in on-road vehicles. Almost all Parties have introduced prohibitions with a limit on the content of lead in petrol of 0.005 gram per litre. Within the ECE region, also most non-Parties have implemented similar bans and phase out of the use of leaded petrol. Globally, only a handful of countries still use lead as an additive for use in petrol for on-road vehicles.

Emissions of lead from petrol for on-road vehicles have been significantly reduced both before and after the Protocol was adopted.

Substitute lead-free lubricant additives are available for old vehicles. In general, however, extensive research has shown that for typical passenger car and light-duty truck engines with engines designed to use leaded petrol, unleaded petrol can be used without any special additives. This is also true for boats, some farm equipment and tow vehicles. By the start of the 2008 season there will be lead-free fuels available for racing cars. For aircraft using piston engines there is lead-free petrol at least for engines certified for lower octane requirements. Work is ongoing to find and evaluate additional alternatives for aircraft.

3.1.2 Mercury content in alkaline manganese batteriesThis section deals with the control of mercury content in alkaline-manganese batteries according to the requirements in Annex VI of the Protocol. For further information regarding the development of measures and technological development for batteries see the section below titled “Mercury-containing Batteries not covered by Annex VI”.

13

The Protocol requires that each Party shall, no later than five years, or ten years for countries with economies in transition4, after the date of entry into force of this Protocol, achieve concentration levels that do not exceed - 0.05 % of mercury by weight in alkaline manganese batteries for prolonged use in extreme

conditions (e.g. temperature below 0° C or above 50° C, exposed to shocks); and - 0.025% of mercury by weight in all other alkaline manganese batteries. - These limits may be exceeded for a new application of a battery technology, or use of a battery in

a new product, if reasonable safeguards are taken to ensure that the resulting battery or product without an easily removable battery will be disposed of in an environmentally sound manner.

- Alkaline manganese button cells and batteries composed of button cells shall also be exempted from this obligation.

Regulatory measuresA total of 23 Parties to the Protocol have introduced prohibitions to control the mercury content in alkaline manganese batteries. In addition, 7 signatories have implemented prohibitions and an additional 2 countries that are Parties to the Convention have also introduced prohibitions. No information was available for 3 Parties. Annex C, table 2, outlines the measures.

Since 2000 the marketing of batteries containing >0.0005 % Hg by weight is prohibited in the EU, and also to incorporate them in articles (Dir. 91/157/EEC, amended 98/101/EC). Button cells <2 % Hg by weight are exempted from the ban.

In 1996 the United States prohibited the sale of any alkaline-manganese battery containing mercury, except button cells containing up to 25 mg mercury (Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act). Supplementing this US Federal law are an estimated 27 existing State battery laws and 18 proposed State laws which either ban battery manufacture, sale, and distribution or impose mercury-content limits for certain types of batteries.

Non-regulatory measuresCanada has introduced a non-regulatory measure in partnership with industry to voluntarily remove mercury from alkaline manganese batteries. The US has approximately 25 different States implementing voluntary programs focusing on collecting and recycling batteries as well as improving public awareness.

Use and emissionsThe use of mercury in various types of batteries has been among the largest uses of mercury in products. The use in batteries has been reduced and different estimates of the consumption have been made. For the European Community (12 Member States) the consumption was estimated to 166 tonnes in 1989 (Maxson et al, 1991) as compared to 15 tonnes in 2000 (15 Member States) (Concorde, 2004). The estimated 15 tonnes also includes mercury oxide batteries since trade statistics imply that in 2000 there was still some consumption of these batteries within the EU (the EU Directive entered into force in 2000).

Trade statistics also suggest the same consumption of mercury in batteries for the United States in 2000 (Concorde, 2004). In 1990 the consumption of mercury in batteries in US was 105 tonnes (UNEP, 2002). Mercury oxide batteries have been banned in many countries, but may still be in the waste stream and in new products produced in East and South Asia where there are still high output of mercury oxide batteries (Concorde, 2004). Usage of mercury in manufacturing batteries in the USA declined markedly from 1000 tonnes per annum in the early 1980s to 1 tonne in 1996. In 1995, mercury emission rates from battery production in the US were reported as being less than 100 kg per year. The 2004 emissions data were not available in time for this draft report.4 The intention by a Party to adopt a ten-year period shall be stated in a declaration to be deposited with the instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.

14

SummaryAlmost all Parties to the Protocol have implemented prohibitions on the content of mercury in batteries that are more stringent than the requirements in the Protocol (<0.0005 % Hg by weight or no intentionally added mercury in batteries, except for button cells). Almost all Parties have also introduced a limit on the content of mercury in button cells of <2 % Hg by weight. Also, several non-Parties (mostly EU members) have implemented similar bans.

The prohibitions have eliminated the content of mercury in alkaline-manganese batteries. No information is available to evaluate the efficiency of the non-regulatory measures.

Product Management Measures (Annex VII)The objective of this section of the report is to describe the product management measures (both regulatory and non-regulatory) that have been implemented by the Parties on products specifically mentioned in Annex VII, the development of alternatives or other product management measures and resulting changes in emissions or used amounts.

Annex VII provides guidance to Parties on product management measures. The Parties may consider appropriate product management measures where warranted as a result of the potential risk of adverse effects on human health or the environment from emissions of mercury, cadmium and/or lead, taking into account all relevant risks and benefits of such measures, with a view to ensuring that any changes to products result in an overall reduction of harmful effects on human health and the environment.

Management measures include for example substitution, minimization of content, product information/labelling, use of economic incentives or voluntary agreements to reduce or eliminate content in products as well as implementation of programmes for collection, recycling or disposal of products in an environmentally sound manner (for full text see Annex B in this report).

For mercury, seven specific product groups are listed in Annex VII for which Parties are encouraged to consider available information and to apply product management measures. The products listed are:

Mercury-containing Electrical components Mercury-containing Measuring devices Mercury-containing Fluorescent lamps Mercury-containing Dental amalgam Mercury-containing Pesticides Mercury-containing Paints Mercury-containing Batteries (other than those covered in Annex VI)

These products are listed on the basis that the product group contains an Annex I metal (mercury, cadmium and/or lead) and is the subject of regulatory or voluntary action by at least one Party to the Convention based for a significant part on the contribution of that product to emissions of one or more of the heavy metals. However, sufficient information was not yet available to confirm that the product listed in Annex VII are a significant source for all Parties, thereby warranting inclusion in Annex VI. Each Party was encouraged to consider available information and, where satisfied of the need to take precautionary measures, to apply product management measures listed in paragraph 2 of Annex VII to one or more of the products listed.

3.1.3 Mercury-containing Electrical ComponentsA total of 21 Parties and 7 Signatories to the Protocol have introduced restrictions on the marketing of mercury-containing electrical and electronic equipment and regulations on waste management measures to mercury-containing electrical components. One Party has introduced regulatory waste management measures. One Party has introduced non-regulatory waste management measures. Annex C, table 3, outlines these measures, and if known the date when the measures where introduced.

15

Regulatory measuresRestrictionsOn 1 July 2006 a new directive will enter into force in the EU, which will restrict the use of mercury, cadmium and lead in electrical and electronic equipment (EEE), the RoHS Directive (2002/95/EC). The directive applies to whole equipments including both electrical and also electronic equipment, and not primarily to “electrical components” as mentioned in Annex VII of the HM Protocol. The principal objective to introduce the restrictions is to protect soil, water and air from pollution and to ensure that these metals, which are causing major problems during waste management phase, are substituted. The judgment of the Commission is that stringent emission limit values on the incineration of waste is not enough, but have to be combined with a cleaner waste stream thereby reducing emissions caused by incineration or smelting of waste EEE (WEEE). This is of particular importance for metal smelters, for which the stringent emission limit values do not apply (European Commission, 2000).

According to the RoHS Directive, Member States shall ensure that electrical and electronic equipment placed on the EU market do not contain certain toxic substances, e.g. mercury. An annex to the Directive specifies exceptions from the ban, and certain use of mercury in lamps is therefore permitted (see section Mercury-containing Fluorescent lamps). The RoHS Directive shall be applied to the following product categories; Large and small household appliances, Information technology (IT) and telecommunications equipment, Consumer equipment, Lighting equipment, Electrical and electronic tools (with the exception of large-scale stationary industrial tools), Toys, leisure and sports equipment and Automatic dispensers. The Commission will in the near future decide if also the Directive shall cover Medical devices and Monitoring and control equipment.

Waste managementSince August 2005 all Member States must comply with a new directive (2002/96/EC) on waste of electrical and electronic equipment, WEEE. The WEEE Directive applies to the same product categories as RoHS, in addition also medical devices and monitoring and control equipment. The first priority of the Directive is the prevention of WEEE. The waste that is generated should be reused, recycled or recovered to reduce the disposal of waste. Producers have to mark their products and provide a system for the collection of electrical waste. Recovery targets of between 70 and 80 %, depending on product categories, must be met by 31 December 2006.

In the U.S.A., the Federal Universal Waste Rule, RCRA, and the Clean Air Act address mercury wastes and air emissions derived from electrical components. Also, there are four additional proposed Federal laws relating to electronic component recycling. There are an estimated 84 existing state laws and 103 proposed state laws that cover electrical components containing mercury. These laws most often contain removal, recycling, and label and notification requirements. U.S. State laws for electrical components also institute sales or installation bans.

The U.S. EPA is currently developing a regulation for Secondary Steel Mills that should reduce mercury emissions (due to the presence of mercury-containing switches in scrap steel) from this sector in the coming years.

Non-regulatory measuresIn North America, the Thermostat Recycling Corporation (TRC) was established on a voluntary basis as a private corporation by three of the largest manufactures of thermostats. The TRC provides a mechanism for the proper disposal of mercury switch thermostats, regardless of brand. Established in 9 states in 1998, the programme has expanded to the remaining lower 48 states, as well as parts of Canada. More than 1,300 heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning wholesalers participate in the TRC. For a one-time fee of $15, each participating wholesaler and contractor receives a protective plastic bin to store end-of-life thermostats, as they are removed during demolition and remodelling. When the bins are full, participants’ ship them free of charge to the TRC’s recovery centre, where the

16

switches are removed and forwarded to a mercury recycling facility. In 2005, TRC announced that it had recovered some 88,000 thermostats containing more than 370 kg of mercury.

In the U.S.A., there are several Federal and State voluntary programs which address promoting education and awareness, encouraging electrical component purchases which are more preferable, recycling and replacement efforts, and managing obsolete electronics in an environmentally safe way.

Technological developments Mercury’s ability to conduct electricity and its resistance to oxidization and corrosion, high density and linear expansion with heat made it a suitable material for use in a wide variety of electrical components for both commercial applications and consumer goods. Some common examples of electrical components that may contain mercury include electrical contacts, switches, circuit breakers, relays and thermostats.

Mercury-free alternatives for almost all uses have been available for several years. With a few exceptions there are no technical obstacles to replacing electrical components containing mercury. Also, conventional relays and other contacts, when these are contained in level switches, pressure switches and thermostats can normally be replaced by a corresponding mercury-free component. This is not only applicable when fitting components into equipment being manufactured, but also when exchanging spare parts in the majority of older equipment (UNEP, 2002; Gustafsson, 1997).

Use and emissionsThe use of mercury in electrical equipment has decreased in EU from over 100 tonnes5 (including lighting, EC-12) in 1989 (Maxson et al, 1991) to 25 tonnes in 2000 (EU-15) (Concorde, 2004). The RoHS Directive will probably reduce the consumption further, also in electronic equipment. The Swedish ban introduced in 1992 on switches, thermostats, relays, circuit breakers and contacts has resulted in a nearly total phase out of mercury in these products (a few exemptions are still valid for spare parts). The situation is similar in Denmark and Norway.

In the US, 1995 data indicate 84 tonnes of mercury were used during product manufacturing for electrical and electronic uses, specifically in wiring devices and switches. In 1997 data show a decrease to 57 tonnes (United States Geological Survey, 1995 and 1997). For 2000 the use has been estimated at 50 tonnes (Concorde, 2004). Canada estimates a use of 800 kg mercury (2004).

The use of mercury in electrical and electronic equipment contributes to mercury air emissions from manufacturing, landfills, incineration and recycling activities. For mid 1990´s air emissions for Europe from electrical components was estimated at 46 tonnes (including lamps) from use, incineration, landfills and when going into the steel scrap industry or recovery6 (KemI, 1997b).

US 2004 survey data estimate mercury emitted into air from Secondary Steel Mills (electric arc furnaces) used for automobile recycling was about 9.1 tonnes per year. These emissions are largely due to the presence of mercury-containing switches and other devices in the automobiles being used as scrap metal. US automakers began phasing out mercury switches in 1995 and by model year 2003, stopped using mercury switches in new cars. 7

In Canada, it has been estimated that the flux of mercury to the atmosphere (including emissions from incinerators as well as direct releases) from thermostats is 900 kg/y and 7720 kg/y from electric switches and gauges (Canada-Wide Standard For Mercury Update, 1999).

5 An estimate of the use in electrical components excluding lighting would probably be around 70 - 75 tonnes.6 The calculation takes into account a step of sorting the steel scrap, removing mercury-containing parts.7 http://www.cleanairfoundation.org/switch_out/html/e_switchout_hgvehicles.asp

17

SummaryThe use of mercury in electrical and electronic equipment contributes to mercury air emissions from manufacturing, landfills, incineration and recycling activities. Mercury-free alternatives to almost all uses have been available since several years, however, mercury switches and relays are still available on the market for certain applications. The use has decreased but still >75 tonnes of mercury are consumed for electrical and electronic equipment each year within the UN-ECE area.

Most Parties to the Protocol have implemented a variety of measures, both regulatory and non-regulatory, to manage the use of mercury in electrical components. Measures range from prohibition on the marketing of mercury-containing electrical and electronic equipment (eg EU Directive), to regulations that classify these components as hazardous waste, thereby triggering legislation for the safe handling and disposal of these components at the end of their life. Other measures that have been implemented require end-of-life management option, including improved labelling, recovery and recycling of mercury in certain applications. A number of industry lead initiatives are focused on removing mercury-containing electrical components from their products through the introduction of mercury-free alternatives together with take-back schemes and recycling programmes.

3.1.4 Mercury-containing Measuring DevicesA total of 4 Parties to the Protocol have introduced prohibitions on the marketing of mercury-containing measuring devices. In addition 20 Parties and 7 Signatories are in the process of adopting marketing restrictions. Three Parties have introduced non-regulatory management measures. Table 4, Annex C, outlines these measures and the date when the measures where introduced where available.

Many of the measures introduced to control electronic equipment also cover measuring devices as well. Where the measures are different, they tend to be directed towards the use of mercury in thermometers of other types of medical measuring equipment.

Regulatory measuresThe European Commission has recently forwarded a proposal to the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament to amend the Directive 76/769/EEC concerning restrictions on the marketing of mercury containing fever thermometers and also other mercury-containing measuring devices intended for sale to the general public, such as barometers and manometers. The sale or use of second-hand equipment containing mercury is excluded from the proposed ban. The Commission has indicated that it will study possible separate measures dealing with this stock of mercury. The proposal is currently under negotiations in the Council.

A number of European countries have prohibitions on mercury-containing fever thermometers. In Denmark, Netherlands and Sweden most measuring devices containing mercury have been prohibited for several years.

In the United States, state laws and proposals set labelling, notification, disposal requirements and selective bans on certain sales or usage of mercury-containing measuring devices.

Non-regulatory measuresIn the United States, voluntary actions directed at mercury-containing measuring devices include efforts at the Federal government level and the State government level. At the Federal level, the goal is to partner with health organizations and hospitals to reduce mercury waste and subsequent disposal costs. At the State level, there are approximately 21 existing State programs and one proposed program. The State voluntary programs generally focus on coordinating recycling and/or collection events and developing websites and information pamphlets to educate the public.

18

Hospitals for a Healthy Environment8 is a private-public partnership sponsored by the American Hospital Association (AHA), American Nurses Association, Health Care Without Harm, and U.S. EPA. The goal of the program is to eliminate mercury from the health care waste stream by 2005 and reduce the total volume of all types of waste generated in hospitals and health systems by one third by 2005 and by half by 2010. The NGO Health Care Without Harm also organises community thermometer exchanges in the United States.

Technological developments Mercury-free alternatives for almost all uses of measuring instruments have been available for several years (Gustafsson, 1997). Nonetheless, certain types of mercury-containing instruments have no viable or acceptable alternatives to using mercury (e.g., a few specialist instruments and instruments for calibration). For measuring devices used by households substitutes are available at similar prices as the mercury-containing products (European Commission, 2006).

HealthcareAlternatives to clinical mercury-thermometers, both electrical and electronic, have been made available for use for several years. The World Health Organisation in its policy paper on Mercury in Health Care cites a recent study that found that many non-mercury alternatives are available to address the full range of functions required by consumer products. For health care, these include blood pressure devices, gastrointestinal devices, thermometers, barometers, and in other studies, include the use of mercury fixatives uses in labs (WHO, 2005).

Both mercury and aneroid sphygmomanometers have been in use for about 100 years, and when working properly, either gives accurate results. Of all mercury instruments used in health care, the largest amount of mercury is used in mercury sphygmomanometers (80 to 100 g/unit), and their widespread use, collectively make them one of the largest mercury reservoirs in the health-care setting. By choosing a mercury-free alternative a health-care institution can make a tremendous impact in reducing the potential for mercury exposure to patients, staff and the environment. Aneroid sphygmomanometers provide accurate pressure measurements when a proper maintenance protocol is followed (WHO, 2005).

This is confirmed in a recent study that summaries the Swedish experiences of phasing out the use of mercury containing blood pressure equipment in healthcare. The study showed that there were only positive experiences reported from the phase out of mercury in sphygmomanometers. The mercury-free instruments that are used are aneroid sphygmomanometers (upper arm measurements are the most common) and devices relying on oscillometric-, Doppler- or photocell methods (mostly used for finger, toe, ankle and wrist measurements). No negative medical, practical or economic experiences were found from the phase out of mercury containing sphygmomanometers. There are no problems in diagnosing any condition using non-mercury sphygmomanometers. The alternatives that are replacing the mercury-containing strain-gauge equipment (plethysmographic equipment) that is used for measuring blood pressure in fingers, toes and other specialty areas are fully functioning and economically competitive and for many uses just as good, with the exception of a few specified medical conditions. It was estimated that within 4-5 years non-mercury plethysmographic equipment will be validated for all areas of use, clinical as well as research use (KemI, 2005b).

In the United States a survey conducted by Hospitals for a Healthy Environment in 2005 found that 97 percent of hospital respondents across the country were aware of the problem with mercury and had taken steps to address the issue, including labelling mercury-containing devices and phasing out their purchase in favour of safer, equally effective alternatives. 80 percent of respondents had completely eliminated the use of mercury fever thermometers. 73 percent had removed all mercury sphygmomanometers from their facilities (Hospitals for a Healthy Environment, 2006).

8 Hospitals for a Healthy Environment, http://www.h2e-online.org/

19

Use and emissionsThe use of mercury in measuring devices has decreased in the EU from over 50 tonnes in 1989 (EC-12) to 26 tonnes in 2000 (EU-15) (Maxson et al, 1991 and Concorde, 2004). An estimate from the European Commission is that 33 tonnes is used in measuring devices per year and that most mercury, 25 tonnes, is found in thermometers (European Commission, 2006). The sale or use of second-hand equipment containing mercury is excluded from the proposed ban. As a result, the Commission expects only a slow decline in environmental releases since there is more mercury in existing equipment than is added each year through new sales.

The Swedish ban introduced in 1992 on thermometers and other measuring instruments has been very efficient in reducing the amounts of mercury used in these products from >4800 kg (including electrical components) to approximately 20 kg (2003). A few exemptions for industrial use and for use in health care (strain gauges) have been granted during the years, corresponding to approximately 20 kg of mercury per year.

A US 1997 government data reporting for mercury use during product manufacturing of measuring and control instruments showed a marked decrease from 43 tonnes in 1995 to 24 tonnes in 1997. For 2000 the consumption in measuring and control devices was estimated at 35 tonnes, which applies to thermostats and thermometers (Concorde, 2004).

The use of mercury in measuring devices contributes to mercury air emissions from manufacturing, landfills, incineration, recycling activities and during use (for example breaking of thermometers). For mid 1990´s air emissions from measuring and control equipment was estimated at 11 tonnes for Europe from use, incineration, landfills and when used as steel scrap (KemI, 1997b). A more recent estimate suggests mercury emissions to air from one year’s consumption to be 8 tonnes and 27 tonnes of mercury entering the waste stream each year within the EU (European Commission, 2006).

In the US, one major source of emissions associated with measuring devices is the incineration of medical waste. Incinerated medical waste accounted for an estimated 14.5 tonnes of emissions in 1995, a major decrease from the estimated 45 tonnes for 1990 (U.S. EPA, 1999). In Canada, it has been estimated that flux to the atmosphere from hospital equipment and reagents, including emissions from incineration and direct releases are about 290 kg/y.

SummaryThe use of mercury in measuring devices contributes to mercury air emissions from manufacturing, landfills, incineration, recycling activities and during use (for example breaking of thermometers). The consumption of mercury in measuring devises has decreased but still > 60 tonnes are consumed each year within the UN-ECE area. An estimate on total emissions for measuring devices is only available for the EU. It indicates that the air emissions have decreased, but still some 8 tonnes are released from one year’s consumption.

Mercury-free alternatives are available for almost all uses of mercury-containing measuring devices and a few Parties have introduced prohibitions, which have resulted in a nearly total phase-out. The EU are in the process of adopting marketing restrictions on at least fever thermometers and also other mercury-containing measuring devices intended for sale to the general public. A number of non-regulatory measures are in place, particularly in the health care sector, to reduce and eliminate the use of mercury containing equipment and to safely dispose of mercury-containing measuring devices.

3.1.5 Mercury-containing Fluorescent lampsA total of 22 Parties and 7 signatories to the Protocol have introduced some form of regulatory management measures to mercury-containing fluorescent lamps. Two Parties have introduced non-regulatory management measures. Table 5, Annex C, outlines these measures, and the date when the measures where introduced where available. Typically, the measures introduced, whether they are

20

regulatory or non-regulatory, focus on setting limits for mercury content in various types of fluorescent lamps or they focus on efforts to improve end-of-life management issues related to the collection, recycling or safe disposal of fluorescent lamps.

Regulatory measuresWithin the European Union the new directive on restrictions on hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment, RoHS (see section Mercury-containing Electrical Components/Regulatory measures/Restrictions), sets out for Member States the maximum permitted content of mercury in fluorescent lamps from 1 July 2006. Compact fluorescent lamps may contain 5 mg Hg per lamp, straight fluorescent lamps for general purposes may contain: triphosphor lamps 5-8 mg (depending on lifetime) and halophosphate lamps 10 mg Hg per lamp. No limit is set for straight fluorescent lamps for special purposes.

Since August 2005 all Member States must comply with the directive (2002/96/EC) on waste of electrical and electronic equipment, WEEE. The waste that is generated should be reused, recycled or recovered to reduce the disposal of waste. Producers have to mark their products and provide a system for the collection of electrical waste. Recovery targets must be met by 31 December 2006.In Bulgaria a decree sets the requirements for collection and treatment of lamps containing mercury (Decree No. 260/2000).

In the United States, there are several laws regulating the management of fluorescent lamps. These laws cover waste handling and recycling, labelling, notification, and mercury content requirements. Standard mercury-containing fluorescent and high-intensity discharge (HID) lamps that fail the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), must be managed as a hazardous waste in accordance with various state laws or the federal Universal Waste Rule. Lamps that do not fail this test can be managed as regular municipal waste. Lamps generated as household waste are exempt from regulation as hazardous waste. Conditionally exempt small quantity generators (generate 100 kg or less of hazardous waste per month) are also exempt from the hazardous waste regulations.

Non-regulatory measuresIn Canada, the Canada-Wide Standard for mercury-containing lamps takes a pollution prevention approach to reducing environmental releases of mercury, by reducing the mercury content of lamps sold in Canada. This approach will reduce subsequent emissions at four stages in the life cycle of lamps: during lamp manufacturing; during transport; during landfilling and/or during incidental incineration. The manufacturers of mercury-containing lamps have reduced the mercury content of standard 4-foot T-12 lamps, with the average content declining from 48 mg/lamp in 1985 to 12 mg/lamp in 2000. Ongoing efforts to further reduce mercury content will translate directly into reduced emissions due to breakage and reduced mercury going into landfills.

The US Government has significant experience implementing voluntary programs addressing fluorescent lamps via voluntary collection and recycling events coupled with public awareness campaigns. The US Government has also evaluated the safety of using drum top lamp crushers used for lamp recycling and expects to issue a report later this year

In North America, the Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers (ALMR) is an organization that represents lamp recyclers, Universal Waste Handlers and related equipment manufacturers in the United States, Canada and Mexico. ALMR member companies network with each other so that lamps from anywhere in North America can be collected and recycled (www.almr.org). The International Association of Lighting Maintenance Companies represents lighting maintenance companies in the United States, which may provide spent lamp management recycling services as part of their lighting maintenance operations9.

9 www.nalmco.org

21

Technological developments Fluorescent lamps are approximately 75% more energy efficient than incandescent bulbs and last 5-10 times longer (California Energy Commission, 2006). Their use is being encouraged in a number of jurisdictions as a safe and cost effective alternative to incandescent bulbs to reduce electricity demand. In cases where fossil-fueled electric power plants are used, the use of mercury-containing lamps results in fewer emissions of smog-causing gases, greenhouse gases and mercury because they use less power per unit of light. While manufacturers have significantly reduced the amount of mercury used in lamps in the past 15 years, there are as yet no mercury-free alternatives on the market to replace the fluorescent lamps that match their level of energy efficiency and light intensity. Research is ongoing, and some companies are exploring nanotechnology as a means to obtain mercury-free low-energy lamps as well as fluorescent lamps. In the mean time, lamp manufacturers have developed fluorescent lamps that require much less mercury than in the past without sacrificing the lamp’s efficiency.

In Europe there are in principal two types of fluorescent tubes containing mercury; triphosphor lamps and halophosphate lamps. The triphosphor lamps on the European market contain 3 mg of mercury per lamp according to the Swedish Lighting Industry Association (LAMPA). These lamps are more expensive initially, but they have significantly longer lifetime than the halophosphate which gives a total price per hour approximately the same. It is possible to lower the content of mercury in the triphosphor lamps even further (below 3 mg) and to increase the lifetime, but that needs some time for technical development (Frantzell, personal communication).

Mercury-free xenon-based fluorescent discharges are available in a flat panel format, suitable for back lighting of liquid crystal displays (LCD) used for example in flat computer monitors and flat TV screens. The energy efficiency is approximately 30 % of a normal mercury-based fluorescent lamp (NEMA, 2001) and therefore this technology is not suitable to replace general lighting applications.

Use and emissionsThe use of mercury in fluorescent lamps contributes to mercury air emissions from manufacturing, landfills, incineration, recycling activities and during use (breaking of lamps). Air emissions in Europe from mercury in lamps were estimated at 46 tonnes, including electrical components for mid 1990´s. The estimate includes several steps of the lifecycle including releases due to breaking of lamps (KemI, 1997b). In Canada, it has been estimated that the flux to the atmosphere from fluorescent lamps is some 900 kg per year. It is not clear what parts of the life cycle are included in the estimate.

In the US, emissions primarily from the breakage of mercury-containing fluorescent lamps during disposal for 1997 were estimated to be 1,361 kg, emissions data from the National Emissions Inventory for 1999 showed a decrease to 916 kg (U.S. EPA, 1997 and 1999). The government data reporting shows that mercury use for electrical and electronic uses, specifically electric lighting, was 30 tonnes in 1995 and 29 tonnes in 1997. The consumption for lighting in 2000 has been estimated at 17 tonnes (Concorde, 2004). Lamp manufacturers use mercury both in lamps themselves and in the production process. In 2003, the US fluorescent lamp industry estimated mercury use to be 5.4 tonnes. These reductions in use amounts can be linked to reductions in mercury content of lamps sold in the US (U.S. EPA, 2004).

In 1989 it was estimated a consumption in the EU (EU-12) of over 100 tonnes, including also electrical equipment (Maxson et al, 1991). An estimate of the use in lighting excluding electrical equipment would probably be around 25-30 tonnes for 1989. The consumption for 2000 was estimated at 21 tonnes (EU-15) (Concorde, 2004). The triphosphor lamps on the European market have only about 30 % of the market according to the Swedish Lighting Industry Association (Frantzell, personal communication). A reduction of the used amounts of mercury in fluorescent tubes could be achieved if there were a driving force for companies and consumers to switch to the best available technique, which currently is the triphosphor lamps containing 3 mg Hg per lamp.

22

SummaryThe use of mercury in fluorescent lamps contributes to mercury air emissions from manufacturing, landfills, incineration, recycling activities and during use (breaking of lamps). The consumption of mercury in fluorescent lamps has decreased about 30-40 % since mid 1990s due to reductions in mercury content of lamps, but still >40 tonnes are consumed each year within the UN-ECE area.

There are as yet no mercury-free alternatives on the market to replace the mercury-containing fluorescent lamps for general lighting applications that match their level of energy efficiency and light intensity. For applications such as back lighting of liquid crystal displays (LCD) used for example in flat computer monitors and flat TV screens there are mercury-free alternatives available.

Most Parties have implemented a variety of measures to control the potential release of mercury from fluorescent lamps. Typically, the measures introduced, whether they are regulatory or non-regulatory, focus on setting limits for mercury content in various types of fluorescent lamps or they focus on efforts to improve end-of-life management issues related to the collection, recycling or safe disposal of fluorescent lamps.

3.1.6 Mercury-containing Dental AmalgamA total of 21 Parties to the Protocol and 7 non-ratified signatories have introduced regulations on waste management, which require that discharges of dental amalgam waste be eliminated10. Two Parties have introduced non-regulatory waste management measures. One Party has introduced regulations on emission limit values for crematories. 12 Parties and 4 non-ratified signatories are committed to a non-regulatory recommendation on BAT for crematories. One Party has banned the use of dental amalgam, with some exceptions, and one Party is in the process of introducing a ban. One Party has introduced economic incentives to promote the use of alternative filling materials. Two Parties have non-regulatory phase-out programmes. Table 6 (Annex C) outlines these measures and if known, the date when the measures where introduced.

Regulatory measuresRestrictionsIn Denmark the use of dental amalgam was covered by a general ban on mercury in 1998. Use on molars with wear on the filling was exempted from the ban. In 2003 the exemption was limited to permanent teeth, i.e. dental amalgam is not allowed for use in milk teeth.

In February 2006 Sweden notified a proposal of a national general ban on mercury with effect from 1 January 2007, to the European Commission and the World Trade Organisation. The ban includes the use of dental amalgam. The proposal contain a limited three-year exemption for use on adult patients within the hospital dental care where for special medical reasons the use of amalgam may be the only alternative today (KemI, 2004).

To make amalgam more cost-neutral against other filling materials, the Swedish Parliament decided in 1999 that no financial support should be given for amalgam fillings via the national dental insurance. Since 1999 the patient gets no reimbursement from the dental insurance for amalgam fillings.

In the US, there are several federal and state regulations that manage the use and disposal of dental amalgam. US dental amalgam laws encompass safety guidelines, amalgam separator use requirements, patient information tracking, and promoting insurance payment coverage for alternative fillings.

10 The compliance with these EC requirements is currently under study by the European Commission.

23

Waste managementIn the EU amalgam waste from dental care is classified as hazardous waste under the terms of Article 1(4) of Directive 91/689/EEC11. As such, this category of waste is subject to the provisions of the Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/689/EEC. Moreover, mercury and its compounds are listed in Directive 76/464/EEC as well as in 2000/60/EC (Water Framework Directive), which require that discharges must be eliminated. This means that necessary measures must be taken to ensure proper handling and management of dental care waste, such as legislative, regulatory and administrative measures prescribing the use of filters or separators by dental practices and the subsequent delivery of mercury waste to an authorised collector. The implementation and compliance of these EC requirements is currently under study by the European Commission.

In the US, waste disposal and related safety requirements of dental amalgam are regulated by the EPA’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In addition, there are approximately seven existing state laws and over 17 proposed laws addressing mercury in dental amalgam.

Non-regulatory measuresSubstitutionIn Norway a new guidance for dentists was adopted in 2002. The guide recommends i.a. that amalgam should not normally be the first choice for any indication of dental filling therapy and the use of amalgam should be limited as much as possible in consideration to the environment and possible adverse health effects (Sosial- og helsedirektoratet, 2003).

In Sweden an agreement was made between the state and the county councils in 1995 that amalgam should be phased out from children’s dentistry.

Waste managementIn 2004, the U.S. implemented a voluntary dental amalgam-recycling program. The recycling program was carried out via partnerships between the U.S. Government and the American Dental Association, dental amalgam producers, environmental service companies, and recycling companies. There are also numerous state voluntary programs focusing on collection, best management practices and public education and awareness related to mercury in dental amalgams. For example, one State program estimated about 2 tonnes of mercury were collected and diverted from solid waste disposal. A State dental association collected about 1000 kg of mercury. There are several other successful examples showing state programs coordinating with non-governmental organizations to collect mercury from dental offices within the U.S.

In Canada, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) endorsed the Canada-wide Standard (CWS) on Mercury for Dental Amalgam Waste in 2001. The objective of the CWS is to substantially reduce releases of mercury in waste amalgam from dental practices. The CWS is the application of "best management practices" to achieve a 95% national reduction in mercury releases from dental amalgam waste discharges to the environment, by 2005, from a base year of 2000.

In Sweden a voluntary agreement was made in 1979 with the dental industry, including the following: yearly rinsing of the water traps, separation of mercury containing waste, installation of amalgam separators on the outflow from the dental units.

In 2003 the OSPAR Convention adopted a recommendation on controlling the dispersal of mercury from crematoria (OSPAR Recommendation 2003/4). Parties to the OSPAR Convention shall ensure that BAT is applied, however the specific techniques to be applied depends on a number of factors such as size, construction, economic feasibility, location and age of the crematorium. It is recognised that some crematoria will not apply BAT, mainly for economic reasons. A first implementation report

11 European Waste Catalogue – Decision 2000/532/EC as amended – Code 180110*.

24

on mercury releases from crematoria is currently being drafted, and will probably be available in April 2006.

Technological developments AlternativesDental amalgam is mainly a material for direct technique12, and various alternative filling materials are commercially available. Most commonly used are composites (i.e. polymer resin based materials) that in some countries have replaced more or less all types of restorations where amalgam was previously used. Also, glassionomers13, compomers14 (modified composites) and ceramics are used (KemI, 2005a).

While alternative materials have been developed and marketed, some dentists are of the opinion that they still do not offer, in all situations, the same level of durability. Many of the alternatives have been used for well over ten years in several countries and according to the Swedish Board of Health and Welfare there are no signs from dentists or patients that imply that use of composites, which is used for about 80 % of all fillings in Sweden, would lead to less durable fillings (Ekman, personal communication). In Sweden 95 – 98 % of the total number of dental fillings is currently carried out using mercury free filling materials. In the dental care of children and young people the use of amalgam are 0.05 % of total fillings (KemI, 2005a).

Research continues towards the development of new materials. One example is hydrated ceramics, which form a body-compatible substance that is integrated chemically and biologically into the tissue. Another example is the mixture of ceramic powder into composite material that gives the filling increased strength (KemI, 2005a).

Waste managementAmalgam separators are used at dental clinics in some countries to reduce the releases of mercury to the sewer system. There is as yet no technique though to prevent the significant mercury releases to the sewer system that comes from faeces and urine due to leakage of mercury from the fillings while they are in the mouth (Sörme and Lagerkvist, 2002; Sörme et al, 2003).

There are different types of amalgam separators and they are either based on centrifugation, filtration or sedimentation. Amalgam separators based on sedimentation predominate the market. In order to meet the standards set by the International Organization for Standardization the amalgam separators shall remove at least 95 % of incoming mercury in a standardised laboratory test (ISO 11143). Studies on the efficiency of amalgam separators have shown that the reduction of mercury emissions can be as low as 60 % for conventional particle traps and that modern traps approved according to the ISO standard remove “almost all” mercury (Watson et al., 2002). However, studies have shown that the efficiency in practical use can be significantly less than the 95 % achieved in lab tests. In one study between 8-21 % of the mercury was not captured but was released to the sewer system. The released mercury was mainly adsorbed to colloids suspended in water and dissolved mercury which was not captured in the sedimentary type of amalgam separator. These fine particles are overlooked in the international standard procedure for laboratory tests, ISO 11143 (Hylander et al., 2006; Hylander, Lindvall, Gahnberg, 2006). Also, in Substance Flow Analyses it has been concluded that even if the traps' cleaning capacity were theoretically 95-99 % then the amount of mercury discharged would correspond to 2-11 % of the total quantity of pollution (Sörme, 2003). Other studies have shown that amalgam separators in some cases are installed incorrectly, blockages occur and they are often

12 In the case of direct techniques the material is introduced in a plastic state and hardens in the tooth, while in indirect techniques an impression is usually made which is used by a dental technician to make an inlay or crown.13 Ordinary glass ionomer cements consists mainly of poly acrylic acid and an acid soluble glass powder (calcium-, aluminium- and fluorosilicate glass). Resin modified glass ionomer cements contains of ordinary glass ionomers mixed with some acrylate monomers for example hydroxymethylmetacrylat (HEMA).14 A more correct denomination is polyacid modified composites.

25

maintained inadequately. In a study carried out in Sweden in 1998 one in four traps checked did not operate correctly, which could lead to increased discharges (Stockholm Vatten AB, 2000).

Use and emissionsThe use of dental amalgam leads to emissions of mercury to air, water and soil. The consumption of mercury for dental fillings is now the top area of use in products in the EU with an estimated consumption of 70 tonnes year 2000 (EU-15) (Concorde, 2004). In 1989 the used amount was estimated at 80 tonnes (EC-12) (Maxson et al, 1991). The consumption of mercury in dental amalgam has been reduced by 90 % in Sweden from 980 kg in 1997 to 103 kg in 2003. The same trend can be seen in Norway. In the United States the use is estimated at 32 tonnes mercury for the years 1995 and 2005. Other estimate suggests 44 tonnes of mercury consumption in the US in 2000 (Concorde, 2004). According to estimates by the American Dental Association (ADA) the number of amalgam fillings has decreased by 29 % between 1990 and 1999, from 99.5 million to 71 million restorations (Vandeven and McGinnis, 2005).

A national survey to assess the use and fate of dental amalgam in Canada estimated that, for the year 2003, 5.3 tonnes of mercury was used in the preparation of amalgam restorations, amalgam containing 2.3 tonnes of mercury was placed as finished restorations in teeth, and 3 tonnes of mercury was left over as amalgam scrap. Results indicated that dentists removed amalgam restorations containing approximately 2.5 tonnes of mercury. The study also showed that, by the end of 2003, 27 % of dentists had ISO certified amalgam separators, most of which had been installed since the year 2000. The Survey estimated that about 1 tonne of mercury entered the wastewater stream in 2003, but this could have been reduced to a mere 16 kg if all Canadian practices had installed separators that met ISO specifications (Canada-Wide Standards, 2005).

Mercury from sewage sludge may be released direct to air through land application and through incineration of sludge. In Canada estimated releases to air are on the order of 820 kg/year from both incineration and land-application. In the United States an estimated total of 427 kg of mercury were emitted from sewage sludge incinerators in the US in 2002, some part of which was due to dental amalgam. 400 kg was estimated from incineration in 2005. Another estimate of mercury air emissions from sewage sludge incinerators that can be attributed to mercury from dental amalgams suggested 180 kg per year for 2001 (Vandeven and McGinnis, 2005; American Dental Association, 2005). Mercury from dental amalgam is not the only source of mercury in sewage sludge; however, investigations of metal flows in Stockholm have shown that amalgam is the largest single source of the mercury in the sewage sludge. Almost half of this is mercury released from amalgam fillings, while they are in the mouth, and another large part comes from incomplete separation of amalgam from dental surgeries, including mercury in waste pipe sediment (Sörme and Lagerkvist, 2002; Sörme et al, 2003).

Mercury from dental amalgam fillings is also released direct to air through cremation. Estimates of mercury emissions per annum were reported from nine European countries that are Parties to the OSPAR convention, corresponding to a total of 1086 kg mercury (OSPAR Commission, 2003). A report regarding the implementation of the OSPAR recommendation 2003/4 is currently under preparation. In Europe the number of cremations differs greatly between countries ranging from 6 – 75 % of all deaths in 2002 (European Commission, 2005). Emissions from crematoria are expected to rise in several countries due to a rise in the average number of fillings per body (increasing life expectancy) and a rise in the number of cremations (OSPAR Commission, 2003).

In the United States, the US EPA determined (based on 1999 cremation rates provided by the Cremation Association of North America - CANA) that all US crematories, together, would have produced a total of 108 kg of mercury emissions in 1999. Estimates of total air emissions associated with dental preparation and use in the US are 649 kg in 1999 and 245 kg in 2002 (U.S. EPA, 1999).

26

SummaryThe use of dental amalgam within the UNECE area seems to differ greatly. Generally, the use in the European Union and the United States does not seem to have changed much over the last ten years, still > 120 tonnes of mercury is used for dental fillings each year. This use contributes significantly to air emissions of mercury from land application (evaporation from soil) and incineration of sewage sludge and from cremation. Large emission reductions can be achieved at dental clinics by using the best available amalgam separators. However, mercury emissions from the use of dental amalgam will still occur from the clinics, as well as significant discharges from everyday releases of mercury from the fillings.

Alternatives are available to replace mercury-containing dental amalgam. In some European countries the use of amalgam is going down and has been almost totally phased out in a couple of countries. The measures introduced by Parties aims mainly to reduce the discharges of mercury to the sewer systems by using amalgam separators at dental clinics. Regulatory requirements apply to 21 of 27 Parties. However, it is not clear how these requirements are actually implemented, and the European Commission is currently carrying out a review. Non-regulatory measures to reduce the releases to sewer systems have also been introduced by some Parties. Countries that are Parties to the OSPAR Convention shall ensure that BAT is applied at crematories to reduce releases, taking into account a number of factors when deciding what technique is BAT in the individual case.

3.1.7 Mercury-containing PesticidesA total of 22 Parties to the Protocol have introduced regulatory management measures to mercury-containing pesticides. No forms of non-regulatory management measures were identified. Table 7, Annex C, outlines these measures, and when known the date when the measures where introduced.

Both inorganic and organic mercury compounds were once commonly used in agriculture as pesticides. Uses included seed treatment (dressings), seed potatoes, apples, turf, lumber and tree wound dressing. Within industry both inorganic and organic mercury compounds have been used as biocide in cooling towers, pulp and paper mills, marine antifouling paint, in-can preservative for water-based paints and coatings, and preservative for fabric and laundry uses.

As early as 1973, OECD Ministers of Environment recognised the environmental effects of such applications for mercury and made a Council Recommendation, which called for OECD countries to eliminate alkyl-mercury compounds in agriculture. Since that time, many jurisdictions have either discontinued the registration and permitting for the manufacture and sale of mercury-containing pesticides or they have introduced import bans.

Mercury compounds are included in the Rotterdam Convention of Prior Informed Consent (FAO/UNEP) under the category of pesticides15. In the Global Mercury Assessment (UNEP, 2002) there are given indications of current use of mercury-containing pesticides in some African countries, Australia, Belarus, India, Ireland and Morocco.

3.1.8 Mercury-containing PaintA total of 22 Parties to the Protocol have introduced regulatory management measures to mercury-containing paint and one Party introduced non-regulatory management measures. Table 8, Annex C,

15 Information from export and import notifications during 2003-2006 (from the European database on export notifications) reveals that mercury compounds have been exported from EU countries, mainly Spain and Germany, to a range of countries. The importing countries during this time period have been for example Australia, Brazil, Canada, Côte d'Ivoire, Hong Kong, India, Malaysia, Romania, Taiwan, Singapore, South Africa, Switzerland, United States and Venezuela. However, the main parts of these mercury compounds are probably not for use as pesticides.

27

outlines these measures and the date when the measures where introduced where available. All of these measures have been introduced to eliminate or effectively ban the use of mercury in paint.

Phenyl mercuric acetate was commonly used as fungicide to control the growth of mildew in latex paints up until the 1990’s when concerns about the potential health and environmental risks associated with exposure, particularly for indoor household paints was raised. While most pesticidal uses of mercury were banned in 1970’s, the use of mercury in paint was allowed to continue because it was judged that effective alternatives were not available at that time. Alternative preservatives have since been developed and are in use by many paint companies.

By 1991 all registrations for mercury compounds in paints had been cancelled by the US Government or voluntarily withdrawn by the manufacturer. The paint industry’s demand for mercury in 1989 was 192 tonnes but fell to 6 tonnes in 1991, and had been completely eliminated in 1992.

In the Global Mercury Assessment (UNEP, 2002) there are given indications of current use of mercury-containing paint in Australia, Ghana, Guinea, India, Ireland, Samoa, Thailand (substitution ongoing) and Trinidad and Tobago (substitution ongoing or completed).

3.1.9 Mercury-containing Batteries not covered by Annex VIWhile restrictions on the mercury content of alkaline manganese batteries are covered under control management measures in Annex VI (see section Product Control Measures/Mercury content in alkaline manganese batteries), other mercury-containing batteries are included in Annex VII.

A total of 23 Parties to the Protocol have introduced prohibitions to control the mercury content in batteries. In addition, 7 signatories have implemented prohibitions and an additional 2 countries that are Parties to the Convention have also introduced prohibitions. No information was available for 3 Parties. Annex C, table 9, outlines the measures.

Regulatory measuresSince 2000 the marketing of batteries containing >0.0005 % Hg by weight is prohibited in the EU, including in those cases where these batteries are incorporated into appliances (Dir. 91/157/EEC, amended 98/101/EC). Button cells containing <2 % Hg by weight are exempted from the ban.

In 1996, the US began phasing out the use of mercury in most batteries with the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act. The Act specifically prohibited the sale of any alkaline-manganese battery, except for button cells containing up to 25 mg mercury. Also, zinc-carbon batteries that contain intentionally introduced mercury were prohibited, as well as button cell mercuric-oxide batteries. Other mercuric-oxide batteries are prohibited from being sold unless the manufacturer meets certain requirements. Supplementing this US Federal law are an estimated 27 existing State battery laws and 18 proposed State laws which either ban battery manufacture, sale, and distribution or impose mercury-content limits for certain types of batteries.

Waste managementThe EU directive (Dir. 91/157/EEC, amended 98/101/EC) requires the member states to ensure the separate collection of the batteries covered by the directive and to draw up programmes to reduce the heavy metal content of batteries and gradually reduce their share in the municipal solid waste stream. The batteries have to be labelled indicating their separate collection as well as their heavy metal content. However, the directive does not prescribe measurable instrument preventing uncontrolled disposal of batteries and the overall collection efficiency of spent batteries in the Community is low (European Commission, 2003). A revision of the directive is ongoing.

The Swedish Battery Ordinance (1997:645) imposes a charge on hazardous batteries, currently the charge is about 50 Euro (500 SEK) per kg hazardous battery, and furnish of information about

28

quantities for sale. This ordinance also requires the collection of all batteries and that the hazardous batteries are sorted and taken care of. Regarding the mercury-containing batteries they have been collected since the 1970’s and is now being treated to extract the mercury, which shall be put in terminal storage.

Non-regulatory measuresIn order to improve the collection rate of mercury-containing batteries, information campaigns aimed at the municipalities and the public are ongoing in Sweden since several years. Between 1999 and 2005 the part of the public that throw their batteries in the bin decreased by 15 %. In Switzerland, an awareness-raising program targeting a recycling rate of at least 80 % is ongoing.

In Canada and the United States, a number of battery retailers have initiated programmes to take back and send for recycling or safe disposal all consumer battery types (both primary cells and rechargeable cells).

The US has approximately 25 different States implementing voluntary programs focusing on collecting and recycling batteries as well as improving public awareness. In March 2006, the U.S. battery industry announced a commitment to eliminate added mercury from button cell batteries by June 30, 2011 (NEMA, 2006).

Technological developments Button cell batteries are used in a wide range of products, for example in hearings aids, digital thermometers, insulin pumps, portable medical monitors, hospital pagers, watches, toys and calculators. By the early part of this decade, the industry had lowered the amount of mercury in button cells to quantities well below historical levels. Most button cell batteries manufactured in the U.S. contain less than 1 % mercury by weight. The highest mercury content in batteries (and these are only very few) is 1.2 % (www.nema.org). Internationally, a number of battery manufacturers are working to find solutions to the problem of gas build up in button-cell batteries without the use of mercury. During the last years progresses have been made and several types of mercury-free button cells are available on the market.

The button cells are made up of different chemical systems and have different performance and areas of use. Below is a short description of the different types and available substitutes:

Zinc air button cells provide a nominal 1.4 volts per cell and are used primarily in hearings aids. Because of the need for a continuous supply of air, zinc air batteries cannot be used in tightly sealed products. In recent years mercury-free zinc air button cells have been available in Europe in four models. The batteries are fully compatible with mercury-containing zinc-air batteries, and the price is approximately the same. In Sweden the market share is about 20 % (Lindqvist, personal communication). Some countries still raise concerns over the safety of the alternatives as well as over a shortened life span. However, also the mercury-containing zinc air batteries should not be stored longer than 6 month, which would influence the life span of the product. The mercury-containing zinc air batteries contain 0.9 – 2 % mercury by weight (Tidblad, personal communication).

Silver oxide button cells provide a nominal 1.55 volts per cell and are mainly used in tightly sealed products. Common applications include cameras, watches and toys. In February 2005 ten models of mercury-free silver oxide batteries were commercialized on a worldwide basis by one big multinational company, a company that also manufactures huge amounts of electronics for the world market. The mercury content in the company’s mercury-containing silver oxide batteries still on the market is 0.2 % of the total content of a battery (www.sony.net). According to the world-leading company on consulting and testing of batteries (>10,000 batteries tested a year) the mercury content in silver oxide button cells today is max 0.25 % of the total weight of a battery (Selånger, personal communication).

29

Alkaline manganese button cells provide a nominal 1.5 volts per cell and are mainly used in tightly sealed products. Common applications include cameras, watches, toys and calculators. Mercury-free alkaline manganese button cells are available on the market but they have less capacity than the mercury-containing ones.

Lithium coin cells are similar in appearance to coins and mercury-free. They cannot be interchanged with other button cells because of their different size. There are both primary and rechargeable batteries. Primary cells provide a nominal 3 volts per cell, and the rechargeable batteries provide 1.5 – 2.5 volts for use in different applications. Mercury-containing button cells can be replaced with mercury-free lithium coin cells in any kind of application if the application is designed for the different size in advance. The storage property of lithium cells is much better than other button cells; they can be stored for 5-10 years (Selånger, personal communication).

Use and emissionsConsumptionThe use of mercury in various types of batteries has been among the largest uses of mercury in products. The use in batteries has been reduced and different estimates of the consumption have been made. For the European Community (12 Member States) the consumption was estimated to 166 tonnes in 1989 (Maxson et al, 1991) as compared to 15 tonnes in 2000 (15 Member States) (Concorde, 2004). The estimated 15 tonnes also includes mercury oxide batteries since trade statistics imply that in 2000 there was still some consumption of these batteries within the EU (the EU Directive entered into force in 2000).

Trade statistics also suggests the same consumption of mercury in batteries for the United States in 2000 (Concorde, 2004). In 1990 the consumption of mercury in batteries in US was 105 tonnes (UNEP, 2002). Mercury oxide batteries have been banned in many countries, but may still be in the waste stream and in new products produced in East and South Asia where there are still high output of mercury oxide batteries (Concorde, 2004). Usage of mercury in manufacturing batteries in the U.S.A. declined markedly from 1000 tonnes per annum in the early 1980s to 1 tonne in 1996. In 1995, mercury emission rates from battery production in the U.S. were reported as being less than 100 kg per year. The 2004 emissions data were not available in time for this draft report.

The market for button cell batteries has increased and is expected to continue to grow in the coming years. Button cells are used in electronics and in cheap, mass-produced products, which have exploded on the market in the last 5-10 years. The Swedish Battery Industry Association expect a rising demand for lithium cells in the future at the expense of mercury-containing button cells, however, due to the expected increase of the whole market for button cells, the Association predicts only a 10 % decline in the sales of mercury-containing button cells in 2011, presuming that there is no change in the legislation forcing a change-over to mercury-free alternatives.

Collection ratesThe overall collection efficiency of spent batteries in the EU is low (European Commission, 2003). Despite information campaigns and other efforts it has shown to be difficult to collect batteries, especially those that are incorporated in articles. This means that mercury still reaches the waste stream due to the use in button cell batteries.

A number of studies have indicated that collection of mercury-containing button cells is not cost effective and that the collection and transportation of batteries may have greater detrimental environmental effects (NEMA, 2003). Data also shows that mercury emissions from incinerators have decreased significantly since 1990 in the U.S. For example, the U.S. EPA estimates that mercury emissions from municipal waste combustors declined in the US from about 39 tonnes in 1990 to about 3.7 tonnes in 2002 (U.S. EPA, 1999 and U.S. EPA 2006). Based on these data, this represents less than 4 % of all manmade sources of mercury emissions in the US for 2002 (U.S. EPA, 1999 and U.S. EPA 2006).

30

SummaryAlmost all Parties to the Protocol have implemented prohibitions on the content of mercury in batteries that are more stringent than the requirements in the Protocol (<0.0005 % Hg by weight or no intentionally added mercury in batteries, except for button cells). Almost all Parties have also introduced a limit on the content of mercury in button cells of <2 % Hg by weight. Also, several non-Parties (mostly EU members) have implemented similar bans.

The use of mercury in various types of batteries has been among the largest uses of mercury in products. Since the prohibitions were introduced the use in batteries has been significantly reduced in Europe and the United States. However, the market for button cell batteries has increased and is expected to continue to grow the coming years. Button cells are used in electronics and in cheap, mass-produced products, which have exploded on the market in the last 5-10 years. Despite information campaigns it has shown to be difficult to collect batteries, especially those that are incorporated in articles. This means that within the UNECE-area tonnes of mercury still reach the waste stream due to the use in batteries, and contributes to the emissions from waste incineration.

Battery technology continues to evolve and new products are coming onto the market to replace mercury-containing batteries. Several models of mercury-free alternatives are available for zinc air batteries and silver oxide batteries. The current content of mercury in silver oxide button cells seems to be approximately 0.25 % of the total weight of a battery.

31

4 Part II – Products not specifically mentioned in Annex VII

The objective of this section of the report is to describe the product management measures, both regulatory and non-regulatory, that have been implemented by one or more Parties to mercury, cadmium or lead in products not specifically mentioned in Annex VII, as well as the technological developments achieved and data on emissions and used amounts where available.

Products with potential for direct air emissions of heavy metals

4.1.1 Mercury in sewage sludgeSewage sludge originates from the processing of waste water. Due to the physical-chemical processes involved in the treatment, the sludge tends to concentrate metals and poorly biodegradable trace organic compounds present in waste waters. Investigations of metal flows in Stockholm have shown that amalgam is the largest single source of the mercury in the sludge. Almost half of this is mercury released from amalgam fillings, while they are in the mouth, and another large part comes from incomplete separation of amalgam from dental surgeries, including mercury in waste pipe sediment (Sörme and Lagerkvist, 2002; Sörme et al, 2003).

Sludge is, however, rich in nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous and contains valuable organic matter. In many countries, sewage sludge is a valuable commodity which, when applied to farm fields, provides nutrients available to crops. Limits on heavy metals contents typically are used to ensure that the sludge application does not pose a threat to livestock or human consumers of crops grown on these amended lands, and to restrict the accumulation of heavy metals in the soil. However, these limits do not address the emission of mercury from the soils to the atmosphere - such emissions are believed to be significant and these contribute to the contamination of fish in distant lakes and rivers.

Estimates for Canada for total releases to air from land application are 450 kg/year. Reducing the allowable mercury level for land application, reducing mercury loadings to sewers, or requiring land-filling of sewage sludge are reviewed as standards for consideration in Canada.

In EU directive 86/278/EEC sets requirements of maximum levels of mercury, cadmium, lead, copper, chromium, nickel and zinc in sewage sludge as well as maximum concentrations of these metals in soil when sewage sludge is used as fertiliser. The mercury content in sewage sludge may not exceed 16-25 mg/kg dw and the concentration in soil may not exceed 1-1.5 mg/kg dw. Sweden and several other member states have implemented 10 – 100 times lower limit values than the requirements in the directive. A proposal for a revised EU directive is expected 2007.

SummaryLimits on mercury contents in sewage sludge typically are used to ensure that the sludge application to soil does not pose a threat to livestock or human consumers of crops grown on these amended lands, and to restrict the accumulation of mercury in the soil. However, these limits do not address the emission of mercury from the soils to the atmosphere - such emissions are believed to be significant and these contribute to the contamination of fish in distant lakes and rivers. Estimates for Canada for total releases to air from land application are 450 kg mercury/year.

32

Products with potential for indirect air emissions of heavy metalsThe Task Force on Heavy Metals was not able to reach consensus on how to treat products with potential for indirect air emissions. Consequently, the Task Force agreed that the various points of view would be presented here in a brief fashion, with two annexes again presenting these view points in greater length (Annexes E and F of this report).

Some technical experts felt that only products with demonstrated direct links to air emissions should be included in this chapter, given that the Protocol is about long range transport of heavy metals as air pollution, not about issues with heavy metals in general. These experts believe that indirect emissions arising from stages in the life cycle other than product use are covered within the technical annexes of the protocol - Annexes III and V - that outline BAT and ELVs for the production, recycling, and incineration of products. These experts also believe that this chapter should not include products or product groups for which a link to LRTAP concerns cannot be demonstrated. As such, these experts believe that the information in Annexes E and F should not be part of the Sufficiency and Effectiveness review of the Protocol.

Other experts are of the opinion that the use of BAT and ELVs in installations is not enough to control emissions from heavy metals during the products life cycle. These experts believe that according to Annex III, paragraph 2, 8 and 64 of the Protocol, BAT can also be the use of less hazardous substances and the sorting out of waste containing heavy metals before incineration. The potential for air emissions varies among products and the specific metals used; however, the view of these experts is that the total emissions from products may contribute significantly to total anthropogenic air emissions of heavy metals. Therefore the view of these experts is that, in line with Annex VII paragraph 2, management measures undertaken for products other than those specifically mentioned in paragraph 3 should be included in the Sufficiency and Effectiveness review of the Protocol, such as for example cadmium-containing batteries, cadmium- and lead-containing electrical and electronic equipment, cadmium-containing pigments, stabilisers and cadmium used as surface treatment (Annex E).

33

5 References

Air BP Ltd. (2000). Air BP Handbook of Products.

American Dental Association (2005). Summary of Recent Study of Dental Amalgam in Wastewater, 8/5/2005. Available at: http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/topics/topics_amalgamwaste_summary.pdf

California Energy Commission (2006). Consumer Energy Center (http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/lighting/bulbs.html)

Canada-Wide Standards For Mercury (1999). Update on Mercury Containing Products.

Canada-Wide Standards For Mercury (2005). A Progress Report.

Chandler, A.J. (1997). Sources and Emissions of Heavy Metals from Solid Waste Incineration Facilities. Report presented to the UNECE Working Group on Strategies, Geneva, March, 1997.

Concorde East/West Sprl (2004). Mercury flows in Europe and the world: the impact of decommissioned chlor-alkali plants. European Commission, DG Environment. Final Report.

Ekman, Agneta (2006). Swedish Board of Health and Welfare. Personal communication.

EU Risk Assessment Report Cd/CdO, Final December 2005, in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) 793/93, Member State Rapporteur Belgium. Available at the Federal Public Service Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment, contact person: Linda.Debacker@health.fgov.be. Will be available at: http://ecb.jrc.it/esis/ where currently the draft report from May 2003 is available.

European Commission (2000). Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste electrical and electronic equipment. Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. COM(2000) 347 final.

European Commission (2003). Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on batteries and accumulators and spent batteries and accumulators. COM(2003) 723 final.

European Commission (2005). Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Community Strategy Concerning Mercury. Extended Impact Assessment. COM(2005)20 final. 28.1.2005.

European Commission (2006). Annex to the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 76/769/EEC relating to restrictions on the marketing of certain measuring devices containing mercury. Impact assessment form. COM(2006) 69 final. 21.2.2006.

Frantzell, Magnus (2006). LAMPA. Personal communication.

Gustafsson, Eva (1997). Mercury in products and available substitutes - Discussion paper submitted by Sweden at the meeting of designated experts, Geneva, 17-21 March 1997, on annexes to the UNECE LRTAP Heavy Metals Protocol. Swedish Chemicals Inspectorate.

Hjelmberg, Lars (2006). Hjelmco Oil AB. Personal communication.

Hospitals for a Healthy Environment (2006). Fact Sheet 1/26/2006.

34

Hylander, L. D., Lindvall, A., Gahnberg, L. (2006). High mercury emissions from dental clinics despite amalgam separators. Science of the Total Environment. In press.

Hylander, L. D., et al. (2006). Mercury recovery in situ of four different dental amalgam separators. Science of the Total Environment. In press.

KemI (1997a). Experiences of the Swedish regulation concerning cadmium in stabilizers and pigments in plastics. Swedish Chemicals Inspectorate, PM No 4/97.

KemI (1997b). Mercury in products – a source of transboundary pollutant transport. Swedish Chemicals Inspectorate, Report No 10/97.

KemI (2004). Mercury – investigation of a general ban. Swedish Chemicals Inspectorate, Report No. 4/04.

KemI (2005a). Mercury-free dental fillings. Phase-out of amalgam in Sweden. Swedish Chemicals Inspectorate, PM No 9/05.

KemI (2005b). Mercury-free blood pressure measurement equipment – Experiences in the Swedish healthcare sector. Swedish Chemicals Inspectorate, PM No 7/05.

Lead Development Association International (LDA) (2005). European Union Voluntary Environmental Risk Assessment – Lead. Draft Final Report, May 2005.

Lindqvist, Jan (2006). Energizer. Personal communication.

Maxson et al (1991). Mercury. Rational paths through unchartered territory. Commission of the European Communities, DG XI.

NEMA (2001). Alternatives to Mercury-containing Light Sources.

NEMA (2001). Fluorescent Lamps and the Environment.

NEMA (2002). Household Batteries and the Environment.

NEMA (2003). Button Cell Battery Collection: Why it does Not Make Sense.

NEMA (2006). News Release by Jason Peak, NEMA: “NEMA Announces Battery Industry Commitment to Eliminating Mercury in Button Cells”, March 2, 2006.

Nordic Council of Ministers (2005). Cordless Power tools in the Nordic Countries, TemaNord 2005:535.

OSPAR Commission (2003). Mercury emissions from crematoria and their control in the OSPAR Convention Area.

OSPAR Recommendation 2003/4 on Controlling the Dispersal of Mercury from Crematoria.

Selånger, Per (2006). Catella Generics AB. Personal communication.

Sosial- og helsedirektoratet (2003). A national clinical guideline for the use of dental filling materials. Information for dental health care personnel. Directorate for health and social affairs, Norway.

Stockholm Vatten AB (2000). Kontroll av amalgamavskiljare i Stockholm och Huddinge 1999. In Swedish. Stockholm Water Company

35

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (1999). Action Programme for Collection of Mercury. Report No. 5030.

Sörme, L., Lagerkvist, R. (2002). Sources of heavy metals in urban wastewater in Stockholm. Science of the Total Environment 298:131-145.

Sörme, L., Lindqvist, A., Söderberg, H. (2003). Wastewater utilities capacity to influence sources of heavy metals to sewage sludge. Environmental Management. 31(3):421-428.

Sörme, L. (2003). Urban heavy metals stocks and flows. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Water and Environmental Studies, Linköping University, Sweden.

Tidblad, Annika (2006). Catella Generics AB. Personal communication.

TNO (2005). Study to the effectiveness of the UNECE Heavy Metals Protocol and costs of possible additional measures. Phase I: Estimation of emission reduction resulting from the implementation of the HM Protocol. TNO-Report, B&O-A R2005/193. Correction concerning lead emissions from H.Denier van der Gon, personal communication, 2006.

UBA (1997). The European Atmospheric Emission Inventory of Heavy Metals and Persistent Organic Pollutants for 1990. TNO Institute of Environmental Sciences, Energy Research and Process Innovation.

UNEP (2002). Global Mercury Assessment. United Nations Environment Programme - Chemicals, Geneva, Swizerland.

United States Geological Survey (1995 and 1997). Mercury Minerals Yearbook.

U.S. EPA (1994). Fact Sheet for the Final Air Toxics Rule for the Secondary Lead Smelter Industry. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. May 31, 1994. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/lead2nd/fs0594.html

U.S. EPA (1997). Mercury Study Report to Congress. December 1997.

U.S. EPA (1999). Draft Report Mercury Sources and Regulations, 1999 Update. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/bns/mercury/stephg.html

U.S. EPA (1999). National Emissions Inventory (NEI) Database.

U.S. EPA (1999). 1990 Emissions Inventory of Forty Potential Section 112(k) Pollutants. Final Report. May 21, 1999. EMAD, OAQPS, U.S. EPA, RTP, NC 27711

U.S. EPA (2003). National air quality and emissions trends report, and lead air quality trends data (1980 – 2001). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/lead2.html

U.S. EPA (2004). Binational Toxics Strategy Mercury Progress Report. Progress update: U.S. Mercury release and use reduction challenges. November 29, 2004.

U.S. EPA (2006). National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for year 2002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2002inventory.html

36

Vandeven J, McGinnis SL. (2005). An Assessment of Mercury in the Form of Amalgam in Dental Wastewater in the United States. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 2005; 164:349-366.

Waton, Philip et al (2002). A Study of the Fate of Mercury from the Placement and Removal Of Dental Amalgam Restorations, Presented to the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario.

World Health Organization (2005). Mercury in Health Care, Policy Paper. Available at: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/medicalwaste/mercurypolpaper.pdf

37

6 Annex A

Annex VI - Product control measures

1. Except as otherwise provided in this annex, no later than six months after the date of entry into force of the present Protocol, the lead content of marketed petrol intended for on-road vehicles shall not exceed 0.013 g/l. Parties marketing unleaded petrol with a lead content lower than 0.013 g/l shall endeavour to maintain or lower that level.

2. Each Party shall endeavour to ensure that the change to fuels with a lead content as specified in paragraph 1 above results in an overall reduction in the harmful effects on human health and the environment.

3. Where a State determines that limiting the lead content of marketed petrol in accordance with paragraph 1 above would result in severe socio-economic or technical problems for it or would not lead to overall environmental or health benefits because of, inter alia, its climate situation, it may extend the time period given in that paragraph to a period of up to 10 years, during which it may market leaded petrol with lead content not exceeding 0.15 g/l. In such a case, the State shall specify, in a declaration to be deposited together with its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, that it intends to extend the time period and present to the Executive Body in writing information on the reasons for this.

4. A Party is permitted to market small quantities, up to 0.5 per cent of its total petrol sales, of leaded petrol with a lead content not exceeding 0.15 g/l to be used by old on-road vehicles.

5. Each Party shall, no later than five years, or ten years for countries with economies in transition that state their intention to adopt a ten-year period in a declaration to be deposited with their instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, after the date of entry into force of this Protocol, achieve concentration levels which do not exceed:

(a) 0.05 per cent of mercury by weight in alkaline manganese batteries for prolonged use in extreme conditions (e.g. temperature below 0°C or above 50°C, exposed to shocks); and(b) 0.025 per cent of mercury by weight in all other alkaline manganese batteries.

The above limits may be exceeded for a new application of battery technology, or use of battery in a new product, if reasonable safeguards are taken to ensure that the resulting battery or product without an easily removable battery will be disposed of in an environmentally sound manner.Alkaline manganese button cells and batteries composed of button cells shall also be exempted from this obligation.

38

7 Annex B

Annex VII - Product Management Measures

1. This annex aims to provide guidance to Parties on product management measures.

2. The Parties may consider appropriate product management measures such as those listed below, where warranted as a result of the potential risk of adverse effects on human health or the environment from emissions of one or more of the heavy metals listed in annex I, taking into account all relevant risks and benefits of such measures, with a view to ensuring that any changes to products result in an overall reduction of harmful effects on human health and the environment:

(a) The substitution of products containing one or more intentionally added heavy metals listed in annex I, if a suitable alternative exists;

(b) The minimization or substitution in products of one or more intentionally added heavy metals listed in annex I;

(c) The provision of product information including labelling to ensure that users are informed of the content of one or more intentionally added heavy metals listed in annex I and of the need for safe use and waste handling;

(d) The use of economic incentives or voluntary agreements to reduce or eliminate the content in products of the heavy metals listed in annex I; and

(e) The development and implementation of programmes for the collection, recycling or disposal of products containing one of the heavy metals in annex I in an environmentally sound manner.

3. Each product or product group listed below contains one or more of the heavy metals listed in annex I and is the subject of regulatory or voluntary action by at least one Party to the Convention based for a significant part on the contribution of that product to emissions of one or more of the heavy metals in annex I. However, sufficient information is not yet available to confirm that they are a significant source for all Parties, thereby warranting inclusion in annex VI. Each Party is encouraged to consider available information and, where satisfied of the need to take precautionary measures, to apply product management measures such as those listed in paragraph 2 above to one or more of the products listed below:

(a) Mercury-containing electrical components, i.e. devices that contain one or several contacts/sensors for the transfer of electrical current such as relays, thermostats, level switches, pressure switches and other switches (actions taken include a ban on most mercury-containing electrical components; voluntary programmes to replace some mercury switches with electronic or special switches; voluntary recycling programmes for switches; and voluntary recycling programmes for thermostats);

(b) Mercury-containing measuring devices such as thermometers, manometers, barometers, pressure gauges, pressure switches and pressure transmitters (actions taken include a ban on mercury-containing thermometers and ban on measuring instruments);

39

(c) Mercury-containing fluorescent lamps (actions taken include reductions in mercury content per lamp through both voluntary and regulatory programmes and voluntary recycling programmes);

(d) Mercury-containing dental amalgam (actions taken include voluntary measures and a ban with exemptions on the use of dental amalgams and voluntary programmes to promote capture of dental amalgam before release to water treatment plants from dental surgeries);

(e) Mercury-containing pesticides including seed dressing (actions taken include bans on all mercury pesticides including seed treatments and a ban on mercury use as a disinfectant);

(f) Mercury-containing paint (actions taken include bans on all such paints, bans on such paints for interior use and use on children’s toys; and bans on use in antifouling paints); and

(g) Mercury-containing batteries other than those covered in annex VI (actions taken include reductions in mercury content through both voluntary and regulatory programmes and environmental charges and voluntary recycling programmes)

40

8 Annex C

Overview Tables on Product Measures To be reviewed. Add references and dates when measures were put in place.

Table 1. Control Measures for Marketed Lead in Petrol for On-road Vehicles

Parties to the Protocol Measure

Bulgaria Regulatory: Banned leaded petrol in January 2004Canada Regulatory: No longer marketed and shall not

exceed 0.005 g/l. Exception for aircraft, competition vehicles, and engines designed to use lead to power farm machinery, boats and trucks whose gross vehicle weight rating is greater than 3 856 kg. (0.03 g/l when produced for sale in Canada and 0.026 g/l when imported for sale in Canada)

European Community: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and United Kingdom.+Liechtenstein and Norway (European Economic Area)

Regulatory: According to Dir. 98/70/EC leaded petrol for vehicles may since 2000 no longer be marketed and shall not exceed 0.005 g/l. Old vehicles may use petrol with maximum 0.15 g/l. Sales not to exceed 0.5% total yearly use of petrol.

Monaco, Romania No longer marketed.

Moldova Regulatory: Ban planned for 2005Norway Regulatory: EC ban.

Leaded petrol allowed for aircraft, competition vehicles, and engines designed to use lead to power farm machinery, boats and large trucks.

Sweden

Regulatory: EC ban, but no exception for old vehicles. Leaded petrol allowed for aircraft with piston engine (0.8 g/l).

SwitzerlandRegulatory: No longer marketed and shall not exceed 0.005 g/l.

United StatesRegulatory: No longer marketed and shall not exceed 0.01g/l.

Non-Ratified Signatories to the Protocol Measure

Armenia Regulatory: Lowered the lead limit to 0.15 g/l effective March 2000; no leaded petrol used in 2001.

Belarus Regulatory: Banned leaded petrol in 1998Croatia Regulatory: 80% unleaded now; total phase out

planned for 1 January 2006. Leaded petrol will be withdrawn from the market as of 31 December 2005.

European Community: Greece, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Spain+ Iceland (European Economic Area)

Regulatory: According to Dir. 98/70/EC leaded petrol for vehicles may since 2000 no longer be marketed and shall not exceed 0.005 g/l. Old vehicles may use petrol with maximum 0.15 g/l. Sales not to exceed

41

Table 1. Control Measures for Marketed Lead in Petrol for On-road Vehicles0.5% total yearly use of petrol.

Kazakhstan Regulatory: Ban planned for 2005. National legislation states 0.005 g/l maximum lead content

Kyrgyzstan Regulatory: 100% unleaded as of 2002Ukraine Regulatory: 100% unleaded as of 2001

Other Parties to the LRTAP Convention Measure

Albania Regulatory: Ban planned for 2005. National legislation states 0.005 g/l maximum lead content

Azerbaijan Not produced since 1997Bosnia & Herzegovina Leaded petrol to be banned as of January 1, 2010.European Community: Estonia and Malta

Regulatory: According to Dir. 98/70/EC leaded petrol for vehicles may since 2000 no longer be marketed and shall not exceed 0.005 g/l. Old vehicles may use petrol with maximum 0.15 g/l. Sales not to exceed 0.5% total yearly use of petrol.

Georgia Regulatory: Banned leaded petrol in 2000Russian Federation Regulatory: 100% unleaded as of 2000San Marino No longer marketed.Serbia and Montenegro Both unleaded and leaded sold

The FYR of Macedonia Regulatory: As of December 2004, the lead content of leaded petrol was decreased from 0.6 g/l to 0.15 g/l while lead content in unleaded petrol was decreased from 0.02 g/l to 0.013 g/l. A complete ban is planned for 2006.

Turkey Regulatory: As of 2002, TUPRAS stopped production of leaded regular petrol, lead content of premium grade petrol has been decreased from 0.40 g/l to 0.1 g/l and unleaded premium grade petrol has a lead content of 0.013 g/l. Regulation TS 228, based on EN228 of 98/70/EC completely bans the use fo leaded gasoline in 2006. It also defines full transposition of EU regulations related to fuel quality as of 2009 and calls fo the replacement of lead by other additives.

Table 2. Control Measures for Mercury Content in Alkaline-Manganese Batteries

Parties to the Protocol MeasureBulgaria Regulatory: Not to exeed 0.0005% in batteries and

0.25% in devices and installationsCanada Non-regulatory: No longer used in most dry-cells

(Industry-lead voluntary initiative). Still in button cellsEuropean Community: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and United Kingdom.+Liechtenstein and Norway (European Economic

Regulatory: The marketing of batteries containing >0.0005 % Hg by weight is prohibited, also to incorporate them in articles (Dir. 91/157/EEC, amended 98/101/EC). Button cells <2 % Hg by weight are exempted from the ban.

42

Table 2. Control Measures for Mercury Content in Alkaline-Manganese BatteriesArea)Switzerland Regulatory: Hg in batteries is 0.025% (in % by

weight, for special conditions, 0.05%)United States Regulatory: Prohibited to sell, offer for sale, or offer

for promotional purposes any alkaline-manganese battery with a mercury content that was intentionally introduced (as distinguished from mercury that may be incidentally present in other materials). Hg content in alkaline-manganese button cells limited to 25 mg Hg per cell.

Moldova, Monaco, Romania No informationNon-Ratified Signatories to the Protocol Measure

Armenia, Belarus, Croatia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine.

No Information

European Community: Greece, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Spain+ Iceland (European Economic Area)

Regulatory: The marketing of batteries containing >0.0005 % Hg by weight is prohibited, also to incorporate them in articles (Dir. 91/157/EEC, amended 98/101/EC). Button cells <2 % Hg by weight are exempted from the ban.

Other Parties to the LRTAP Convention Measure

Albania, Azerbaijan, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Georgia, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia & Montenegro, The FYR of Macedonia and Turkey.

No information

European Community: Estonia and Malta

Regulatory: The marketing of batteries containing >0.0005 % Hg by weight is prohibited, also to incorporate them in articles (Dir. 91/157/EEC, amended 98/101/EC). Button cells <2 % Hg by weight are exempted from the ban.

Table 3. Management Measures for Mercury-containing Electrical Components

Parties to the Protocol Measure

Bulgaria Regulatory: None. A new regulation for waste electrical and electronic equipment is in preparation.

Canada Regulatory: None at the federal level. Options may be considered in future.

European Community: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and United Kingdom.+Liechtenstein and Norway (European Economic Area)

Regulatory: According to Directive 2002/95/EC (RoHS) electrical and electronic equipment put on the market from 1 July 2006 may not contain mercury (lighting excepted, see section Fluorescent lamps). Since August 2005 Directive 2002/96/EC (WEEE) requires labelling, collection and recycling.of waste of electrical and electronic equipment.

Netherlands Regulatory: EC measures plus ban on manufacture and trade except where no viable alternatives exist.

43

Table 3. Management Measures for Mercury-containing Electrical ComponentsNorway Regulatory: EC measures plus national regulation

on mercury components as EE-waste since 1998.

Sweden Regulatory: EC measure plus SE ban 1992 (Ordinance 1998:944).

Switzerland Regulatory: Prohibition with exceptions according to EU Directive 2002/95/EC.

United States Regulatory: Federal Universal Waste Rule. 84 state laws. Non-regulatory: Multiple Federal voluntary programs and 46 states with voluntary programs. National Thermostat Recycling Program collected > 325,000 thermostats, 25,000 automotive switches removed in states of Maine, New York and Oregon.

Moldova, Monaco, Romania No informationNon-Ratified Signatories to the Protocol Measure

Armenia, Belarus, Croatia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine.

No information

European Community: Greece, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Spain+ Iceland (European Economic Area) (WEEE not yet implemented, dead line 1 Feb 2006)

Regulatory: According to Directive 2002/95/EC (RoHS) electrical and electronic equipment put on the market from 1 July 2006 may not contain mercury (lighting excepted, see section Fluorescent lamps). Since August 2005 Directive 2002/96/EC (WEEE) requires labelling, collection and recycling.of waste of electrical and electronic equipment.

Other Parties to the LRTAP Convention Measure

Albania, Azerbaijan, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Georgia, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia & Montenegro, The FYR of Macedonia and Turkey.

No information

European Community: Estonia and Malta

Regulatory: According to Directive 2002/95/EC (RoHS) electrical and electronic equipment put on the market from 1 July 2006 may not contain mercury (lighting excepted, see section Fluorescent lamps). Since August 2005 Directive 2002/96/EC (WEEE) requires labelling, collection and recycling.of waste of electrical and electronic equipment.

Table 4. Management Measures for Mercury-containing Measuring Devices

Parties to the Protocol Measure

Canada Regulatory: None at federal level. Options may be considered in future.

Czech Republic Regulatory: EC measure plus Decree No. 352/2005 Coll. on Details of Disposal of Electrical and Electronic Equipment and of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment and Conditions of its Financing (transposing directives 2003/108/ES, 2002/95/ES) sets conditions of managing the disposal of measuring devices. Non-regulatory: Project on thermometers containing Hg launched in 2003 and finished early in 2004. The project helped to carry out

44

Table 4. Management Measures for Mercury-containing Measuring Devicesthe Government Order No. 197/2003 Coll., on the Waste Management Plan of the Czech Republic (Action programme on hazardous waste.)

Denmark Regulatory: EC measures plus national regulatory ban with exceptions.

European Community: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and United Kingdom.+Liechtenstein and Norway (European Economic Area)

Regulatory: The Commission has recently proposed restrictions on the marketing of (1) mercury containing fever thermometers and (2) other mercury-containing measuring devices intended for sale to the general public (proposed amendments to Directive 76/769/EEC).

Germany Regulatory: EC measures. Non-regulatory: Substitution recommended (amount of use declining).

Hungary Regulatory: EC measures. Non-regulatory: medical institutions (hospitals, ambulances) use mercury-free devices.

Netherlands Regulatory: EC measures plus ban on manufacture and trade except where no viable alternatives exist.

Sweden Regulatory: EC measures plus SE ban 1992 (Ordinance 1998:944). A few exemptions still valid.

Switzerland Regulatory: General prohibition for private uses (e.g. thermometers) with some exceptions for medical devices and laboratory uses.

United States Regulatory: Federal Universal Waste Rule and 21 state laws. Non-regulatory: Federal Hospitals for a Healthy Environment Program and 21 states with voluntary programs. Nationwide, >90% of pharmacy chains stopped selling Hg fever thermometers. In MA, >100,000 Hg thermometers collected over 2-yr period.

Moldova, Monaco, and Romania No information.Non-Ratified Signatories to the Protocol Measure

Armenia, Belarus, Croatia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine.

No information.

European Community: Greece, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Spain+ Iceland (European Economic Area)

Regulatory: The Commission has recently proposed restrictions on the marketing of (1) mercury containing fever thermometers and (2) other mercury-containing measuring devices intended for sale to the general public (amendments to Directive 76/769/EEC).

Other Parties to the LRTAP Convention Measure

Albania, Azerbaijan, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Georgia, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia & Montenegro, The FYR of Macedonia and Turkey.

No information.

European Community: Estonia and Malta

Regulatory: The Commission has recently proposed restrictions on the marketing of (1) mercury containing fever thermometers and (2) other mercury-containing measuring devices intended for

45

Table 4. Management Measures for Mercury-containing Measuring Devicessale to the general public (proposed amendments to Directive 76/769/EEC).

Table 5. Management Measures for Mercury-containing Fluorescent Lamps

Parties to the Protocol MeasureBulgaria Regulatory: Regulation on the requirements for

marketing of fluorescent and other lamps containing mercury and for treatment and transportation of spent fluorescent and other lamps containing Hg (SG, 101/12.12.2000 г.)

Canada Non-regulatory: Canada Wide Standards (CWS) calls for an 80% reduction in the average Hg content in lamps by 2010, from a 1990 baseline. The average Hg content of all Hg-containing lamps sold in 2003 was 11.4 mg/lamp. This represents a 73.5% reduction from the 1990 baseline of 43 mg/lamp, and exceeds the 2005 CWS target of 70% reduction.

Czech Republic Regulatory: EC measures plus Decree No. 352/2005 Coll. on Details of Disposal of Electrical and Electronic Equipment and of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment and Conditions of its Financing transposing directives 2003/108/ES, 2002/95/ES) sets conditions of managing the waste from fluorescent lamps.

Denmark Regulatory: EC measures plus national regulatory ban with exceptions.

European Community: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and United Kingdom.+Liechtenstein and Norway (European Economic Area)

Regulatory: RoHS-dir, 2000/95/EC: Hg in compact fluorescent lamps not exceeding 5 mg/lamp. Hg in straight fluorescent lamps for general purposes not exceeding: halophosphate: 10 mg, triphosphate with normal lifetime: 5 mg, triphosphate with long lifetime: 8 mg.

Hungary Regulatory: EC measures. Ministerial Decree 16/2004 controls Hg content of fluorescent lamps. (X.8.) KvVM

Netherlands Regulatory: EU measures. Because there is no viable alternative the Netherlands’ Hg Decree does not apply to gas discharge lamps, with the exception of certain fluorescent lamps containing more than 10 mg of Hg.

Switzerland Exception to the general prohibition.

United States Regulatory: Federal Universal Waste Rule and 20 state laws. Non-regulatory: 27 states with voluntary programs.

Moldova, Monaco, Romania No information.Non-Ratified Signatories to the Protocol Measure

Armenia, Belarus, Croatia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine.

No information.

46

Table 5. Management Measures for Mercury-containing Fluorescent Lamps European Community: Greece, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Spain+ Iceland (European Economic Area)

Regulatory: RoHS-dir, 2000/95/EC: Hg in compact fluorescent lamps not exceeding 5 mg/lamp. Hg in straight fluorescent lamps for general purposes not exceeding: halophosphate: 10 mg, triphosphate with normal lifetime: 5 mg, triphosphate with long lifetime: 8 mg.

Other Parties to the LRTAP Convention Measure

Albania, Azerbaijan, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Georgia, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia & Montenegro, The FYR of Macedonia and Turkey.

No information.

European Community: Estonia and Malta

Regulatory: RoHS-dir, 2000/95/EC: Hg in compact fluorescent lamps not exceeding 5 mg/lamp. Hg in straight fluorescent lamps for general purposes not exceeding: halophosphate: 10 mg, triphosphate with normal lifetime: 5 mg, triphosphate with long lifetime: 8 mg.

Table 6. Management Measures for Mercury-containing Dental Amalgam

Parties to the Protocol MeasureCanada Regulatory: None at federal level. Non-regulatory:

Canada Wide Standard for Dental Amalgam Waste is the application of "best management practices" to achieve a 95% national reduction in mercury releases from dental amalgam waste discharges to the environment, by 2005, from a base year of 2000. As of 2003 a national survey showed that 27% of practices had ISO certified amalgam separators, most of which had been installed since the year 2000. Variety of Provincial and municipal initiatives to promote the collection amalgam waste in dental offices.

Czech Republic Regulatory: EC measures. Non-regulatory: Agreement on reduction of impact of mercury on the environment between the Ministry of the Environment and Czech Dental Chamber was signed in 2001. There are about 6,500 dental care surgeries and laboratories in the Czech Republic. More then half of them have Hg separators with >95 % efficiency of Hg-removal till the end of 2004. In 2002, 1.1t of dental amalgam waste containing HG was collected 1.1 t. In 2003, 34.17 t of dental amalgam waste containing mercury was collected. (Source of information: The Czech Ministry of the Environment). Dental amalgam is fully recycled. (Source of information: The Czech Ministry of the Environment). Regulatory action -Decree No. 426/2004 Coll. about registration of chemical substances.

Denmark Regulatory: National ban with exceptions plus EC measures on waste.

47

Table 6. Management Measures for Mercury-containing Dental AmalgamNon-regulatory: OSPAR Rec 2003/4 on crematoria.

European Community: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and United Kingdom.+Liechtenstein and Norway (European Economic Area)

Regulatory: Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste requires that necessary measures must be taken to ensure proper handling and management of dental care waste.In the short term the Commission will ask the Medical Devices Expert Group to consider the use of Hg in dental amalgam, and will seek an opinion from the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks, with a view to considering whether additional regulatory measures are appropriate. (Action 6 in the EU Mercury Strategy)

OSPAR Convention PartiesBelgium, Denmark, the European Community, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom.

Non-regulatory: OSPAR Rec 2003/4 on crematoria. Parties shall ensure that BAT is applied, however the specific techniques to be applied depends on a number of factors such as size, construction, economic feasibility, location and age of the crematorium.

Germany Regulatory: EC measures. Non-regulatory: More and more substitutes are reportedly being used. Recycling of the amalgam waste is mandatory with at least 95% recovery rate. OSPAR Rec 2003/4 on crematoria.

Netherlands Regulatory: EC measures. The Netherlands’ Hg Decree does not apply to dental amalgam. Non-regulatory: OSPAR Rec 2003/4 on crematoria.

Norway Non-regulatory: A National Clinical Guideline for the Use of Dental Filling Materials came in 2003, amalgam should not be the first choise. This voluntary action has become the standard practice + OSPAR Rec 2003/4 on crematoria. Regulatory: Dental clinics must have a filter device for collecting amalgams. Filter devices must be certified to retain 95% of the amalgam. This measure came into force in 1998. Emissions from crematories: Regulation for crematoria since 1 January 2003. For units existing before this date the regulation enters into force from 1 January 2007. The regulation aims at reducing Hg emissions from crematoria through emission limits (applies to crematories above a certain activity rate).

Sweden Regulatory: Notification of a general ban 1 Jan 2007 covering dental amalgam. Since 1999 no reimbursement from dental insurance. Hg-free dental filling materials > 95 % of total fillings. EC measures on waste. Non-regulatory: Agreement in 1995 between county councils and the Swedish state to phase out use in children. OSPAR Rec 2003/4 on crematoria.

Switzerland Non-regulatory: Dentists are more and more avoiding amalgam fillings. OSPAR Rec 2003/4 on crematoria. Regulatory: Recycling of the amalgam waste in water effluent is mandatory.

United States Regulatory: Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act plus 7 state laws. Non-regulatory: EPA Gray Bag

48

Table 6. Management Measures for Mercury-containing Dental AmalgamVoluntary Program and 12 state voluntary programs. Bulk Hg collected from dental offices through state collection programs: MA: 2,200 lbs from 2000-2002. IN: 241 lbs in April 2003. VA: 400 lbs in April-May 2000.

Bulgaria, Moldova, Monaco, Romania No information.

Non-Ratified Signatories to the Protocol Measure

Armenia, Belarus, Croatia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine.

No information.

European Community: Greece, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Spain+ Iceland (European Economic Area)

Regulatory: Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste requires that necessary measures must be taken to ensure proper handling and management of dental care waste.In the short term the Commission will ask the Medical Devices Expert Group to consider the use of Hg in dental amalgam, and will seek an opinion from the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks, with a view to considering whether additional regulatory measures are appropriate. (Action 6 in the EU Mercury Strategy). Non-regulatory: OSPAR Rec 2003/4 on crematoria (Iceland, Ireland, Portugal, Spain).

Other Parties to the LRTAP Convention Measure

Albania, Azerbaijan, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Georgia, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia & Montenegro, The FYR of Macedonia and Turkey.

No information.

European Community: Estonia and Malta

Regulatory: Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste requires that necessary measures must be taken to ensure proper handling and management of dental care waste.In the short term the Commission will ask the Medical Devices Expert Group to consider the use of Hg in dental amalgam, and will seek an opinion from the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks, with a view to considering whether additional regulatory measures are appropriate. (Action 6 in the EU Mercury Strategy)

Table 7. Management Measures for Mercury-containing Pesticides (Including Seed Dressing)

Parties to the Protocol MeasureBulgaria Regulatory: Regulation on Import and Export of

Dangerous Chemical Substances and Preparations, CM Decree 161/12.07.2004, SG 63/2004, in force since 01.01.2005. The regulation introduces prohibition and restriction for use of Hg-compounds as preparations for plant protection and biocides.

Canada Regulatory: The sale of all mercurial fungicides was discontinued under the authority of the Pest Control

49

Table 7. Management Measures for Mercury-containing Pesticides (Including Seed Dressing)Products Act as of December 31, 1995. Existing stocks of these products were allowed to be sold and used until December 31, 2000, at which time it was assumed that the supply of products would be exhausted.

European Community: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and United Kingdom.

Regulatory: EC Directive 79/119/EEC: Pesticides containing mercury have been banned in the EU since 1979.

Norway Regulatory: No mercury containing products authorized since 1992.

Switzerland Regulatory: Banned.United States Regulatory: Banned in 1995.Liechtenstein, Moldova, Monaco, Romania No information

Non-Ratified Signatories to the Protocol Measure

Armenia, Belarus, Croatia, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine.

No information.

European Community: Greece, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Spain.

Regulatory: EC Directive 79/119/EEC: Pesticides containing mercury have been banned in the EU since 1979.

Other Parties to the LRTAP Convention Measure

Albania, Azerbaijan, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Georgia, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia & Montenegro, The FYR of Macedonia and Turkey.

No information.

European Community: Estonia and Malta

Regulatory: EC Directive 79/119/EEC: Pesticides containing mercury have been banned in the EU since 1979.

Table 8. Management Measures for Mercury-containing Paint

Parties to the Protocol MeasureBulgaria Regulatory: Regulation on bans and restrictions on

the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations, CM Decree 130/01.07.2002, SG 69/2002, amended and supplemented CM Decree 156/07.07.2004, SG 62/2004. The regulation introduces prohibition for use of Hg-compounds as substances used for wood preservation and hull treatment.

Canada Non-regulatory: Major Canadian paint manufacturers voluntarily removed mercurial compounds in latex paints. Hg-based antimicrobial pesticides, including those for exterior paints, were phased out in 1998.

European Community: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands,

Regulatory: Ban on use of mercury compounds in antifouling preparations and wood preservatives (Dir. 76/769/EEC).

50

Table 8. Management Measures for Mercury-containing PaintSlovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and United Kingdom.+Liechtenstein and Norway (European Economic Area)Norway Regulatory: EC ban. No general ban on use of Hg

compounds in paints exists, but no amounts are registered for use in paints according to the Norwegian Product Register.

Switzerland Regulatory: Prohibition with exception for artists’ paints intended for restorations.

United States Regulatory: Banned Federally in 1991; No state laws

Moldova, Monaco, Romania No information.Non-Ratified Signatories to the Protocol Measure

Armenia, Belarus, Croatia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine.

No information.

European Community: Greece, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Spain+Iceland (European Economic Area)

Regulatory: Ban on use of mercury compounds in antifouling preparations and wood preservatives (Dir. 76/769/EEC).

Other Parties to the LRTAP Convention Measure

Albania, Azerbaijan, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Georgia, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia & Montenegro, The FYR of Macedonia and Turkey.

No information.

European Community: Estonia and Malta

Regulatory: Ban on use of mercury compounds in antifouling preparations and wood preservatives (Dir. 76/769/EEC).

Table 9. Management Measures for Mercury-containing Batteries Other Than Those Covered in Annex VI

Parties to the Protocol MeasureBulgaria Regulatory: Regulation on the requirements for

marketing of batteries and accumulators and treatment and transportation of spent batteries and accumulators. The scope of the Regulation covers all types of batteries and accumulators, placed on the market in the Republic of Bulgaria as well as all spent batteries and accumulators irrespectively of their shape, capacity, weight, content or use. A prohibition exists on marketing of batteries and accumulators containing more than 0,0005% of Hg by weight, including the cases when these batteries are incorporated into appliance. The above mentioned prohibition shall not apply to galvanic elements “button” type having content not exceeding 2% Hg by weight.

Canada Options may be considered in future.

51

Table 9. Management Measures for Mercury-containing Batteries Other Than Those Covered in Annex VICzech Republic Regulatory: EC Measures plus Regulatory - Act No.

185/2001 Coll. on Waste. According to the Act and its amendments, it is obligatory to retake batteries. Contract between the Ministry of the Environment and The Czech Association of Producers and Importers of Batteries (ECOBAT). Based on the contract, 35 % of all collected batteries have been recovered.

European Community: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and United Kingdom.+Liechtenstein and Norway (European Economic Area)

Regulatory: The marketing of batteries containing >0.0005 % Hg by weight is prohibited in the EU, also to incorporate them in articles (Dir. 91/157/EEC, amended 98/101/EC). Button cells <2 % Hg by weight are exempted from the ban.

Norway Regulatory: National regulations since 1990.

Romania Regulatory: Battery Directive from 1991 and later revisions implemented.

Sweden Regulatory: EC measures plus the Swedish Battery Ordinance imposes a battery charge and furnish of information about quantities for sale. Non-regulatory: Ongoing Battery Collection information campaign aimed at the municipals and the public.

United States Regulatory: Federal Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act plus 27 state laws. 25 states with voluntary programs.

Moldova, and Switzerland No information.

Non-Ratified Signatories to the Protocol Measure

Armenia, Belarus, Croatia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine.

No information.

European Community: Greece, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Spain+Iceland (European Economic Area)

Regulatory: The marketing of batteries containing >0.0005 % Hg by weight is prohibited in the EU, also to incorporate them in articles (Dir. 91/157/EEC, amended 98/101/EC). Button cells <2 % Hg by weight are exempted from the ban.

Other Parties to the LRTAP Convention Measure

Albania, Azerbaijan, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Georgia, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia & Montenegro, The FYR of Macedonia and Turkey.

No information.

European Community: Estonia and Malta

Regulatory: The marketing of batteries containing >0.0005 % Hg by weight is prohibited in the EU, also to incorporate them in articles (Dir. 91/157/EEC, amended 98/101/EC). Button cells <2 % Hg by weight are exempted from the ban.

52

9 Annex D

Mercury in products - overview table on used or sold amounts and emissions to airTo be addedTable. Estimates of used or sold amounts of mercury in products, emissions to air and collection rates. The information is from the replies provided from Parties to the questionnaire on products 2005, unless otherwise stated.

Product group

Parties to the Protocol

Used or sold amounts of mercury in kg (year)

Mercury air emissions in kg (year)

Collection rate

Electrical components

Canada 800a (2004)Denmark 300 (1992/93)

10 (2001)0 (1992/93)0 (2001)

50 %

EC (100000b incl. lamps)75000* (1989, EC12)25000c (2000, EU15)

46000d incl. lamps (mid 1990´s)

Germany 20000 (1995)Norway 5 (1995)

5 (2003)0 (1995)0 (2003)

Sweden 600 incl. measuring devices (1995)0 (2003)

USA 84000 (1995)57000 (1997)

9000 (2004)

Measuring devices

Canada 1300 a (2004)Denmark 500 (1992/93)

30 (2001)<100 (1992/93)20-50 (2001)

50 %

EC >50000 b (1989, EC12)26000 c (2000, EU15)

11000 d (mid 1990´s)

Finland 320 (2000)Germany 10000 (1993)

2000 (2004)Norway 145 (1995)

40 (2003)75 (1995)14 (2003)

Sweden 600 incl. electrical components (1995)21 (2003)

USA 43000 (1995)24000 (1997)

Medical waste incineration: 14500 (1995)

Fluorescent lamps

Bulgaria 85 (2003)Canada 800 a (2004)Denmark 170 (1992/93)

115 (2001)120-140 (1992/93)1-9 (2001)

50 %

53

EC (100000 b incl. electrical equipment)25000* (1989, EC12)21000 c (2000, EU15)

46000d incl. electrical equipment (mid 1990´s)

Finland waste: 230 (2000) 50 %Germany 4000 (1993)

1000 (2004)Norway 130 (1995)

160 (2003)30 (1995)32 (2003)

70 %

Sweden 190 (1995)121 (2003)

USA 30000 (1995)29000 (1997)5400 (2003)- manufacturing

1360 (1997)900 (1999)

Dental amalgam

Belgium Crematoria: 3,7e

Canada 5400 (2004) 1046 (2004) not just air emissions

Denmark 1800 (1992/93)1200 (2001)

100 (1992/93)170 (2001)Crematoria: 60e

28 % (1992/93)40 % (2001)

EC 70000 c (2000, EU15)

Finland 30 (2000)France Crematoria: 200e

Germany 30000 (1993)20000 (2004)

Crematoria: 42-168e

Hungary 150 (2004)Netherlands Crematoria: 80e

Norway 840 (1995)139 (2003)

275 (1995)57 (2003)Crematoria: 70e

Slovakia 1300 Sweden 960 (1995)

103 (2003)Crematoria: 122e

Switzerland Crematoria: 45e

United Kingdom Crematoria: 400e

USA 32000 (1995)40000 (1997)31900 (2005)

Incineration of sewage sludge: 400 (2005)

Batteries

Bulgaria **Canada 400 a (2004)Czech Republic 65 %Denmark 222-339 (1996)

55-91 (2001)20-30 %

EC 166000 b (1989, EC12)15000 c (2000, EU15)

15000d (mid 1990´s)

Finland 50 %Germany 14000 (1993)

1300 (2004)

54

Norway 215 (1995)5 (2003)

2 (2003)

Sweden 1400 (1995)120 (2003)

60-65 %

Switzerland 8670 (1987)22 (2001)

66 %

USA <1000 (1996) Manufacturing: <100 (1994/95)

a These numbers are preliminary unpublished estimates.b Maxson et al (1991). Mercury. Rational paths through unchartered territory. Commission of the European Communities, DG XI.c Concorde East/West Sprl (2004). Mercury flows in Europe and the world. Final Report.d Swedish Chemicals Inspectorate (1997): Mercury in products – a source of transboundary pollutant transport.

KemI Report No 10/97.e OSPAR Commission (2003). Mercury emissions from crematoria and their control in the OSPAR Convention Area.

* Estimation that 1/4 of 100000 kg was used in lamps and ¾ in electrical components.** Batteries covered by Annex VI: 250840 kg batteries with HgO placed on the market per year (2000-2003).

55

10 Annex E

Products with potential for indirect air emissions of heavy metals

Because of the differences of opinion in the Task Force on Heavy Metals two annexes are presented in this report, Annexes E and F. This annex describes measures relating to a series of products with potential of indirect emissions. Annex F was presented as an alternative approach proposed by one expert to outline measures to address indirect emissions. There was no consensus reached in favour of either annex.

10.1.1 Cadmium-containing batteriesA total of 21 Parties to the Protocol have introduced regulatory management measures aiming at the collection of spent cadmium-containing batteries. Two Parties have introduced economic incentives to reduce the use. Many countries have introduced non-regulatory waste management measures.

There are two general classes of nickel-cadmium (NiCd) batteries: the small portable consumer cells (sealed) such as those used in power tools, household appliances, audio-visual equipment and cordless telephones; and the large industrial batteries which are utilized in railway, transit, aviation, stand-by power and remote area applications. According to the International Cadmium Association approximately 80 % of the cadmium used for batteries goes into the small portable consumer cells while the remaining 20 % is consumed in the large industrial NiCd batteries. Sealed NiCd-batteries contain approximately 15 % cadmium and open NiCd batteries used in industry contain approximately 5-10 % cadmium.

Regulatory measuresThe EU directive (Dir. 91/157/EEC, amended 98/101/EC) requires the member states to ensure the separate collection of batteries containing more than 0.025 % cadmium by weight and to draw up programmes to reduce the heavy metal content of batteries and gradually reduce their share in the municipal solid waste stream. The batteries have to be labelled indicating their separate collection as well as their heavy metal content. However, the directive does not prescribe measurable instrument preventing uncontrolled disposal of batteries and the overall collection efficiency of spent batteries in the Community is low (European Commission, 2003). A revision of the directive is ongoing and the present, almost final, draft includes a ban on portable batteries, including those incorporated into appliances, that contain more than 0.002 % of cadmium by weight, cordless power tools, among others, exempted The draft also have regulatory requirements on the collection and recycling of all kinds of batteries in certain quotas.

In Bulgaria a decree prohibits the production, import and sales of consumer products containing batteries, which are assembled in such a way that the consumer cannot remove them, or there is no instruction, and which contain more than 0.025 % cadmium (Decree No 134/2000). In 1990 an obligation on producer and importers to collect Ni/Cd batteries was adopted in Norway (Regulation No. 1823).

A battery charge is imposed on nickel-cadmium batteries in Sweden to encourage the use of cadmium-free batteries. The charge has increased from 4.6 Euro per kg in 1994 to 30 Euro per kg in 1997, which has lead to a gradual reduction in sales of cadmium batteries. Between 1997 and 2004 the sales decreased by 75 % in Sweden. The collection of nickel-metal-hydride batteries has increased from 40 tonnes in 2003 to 70 tonnes in 2004.

56

In the USA, the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act of 1996 established national, uniform labelling requirements for nickel cadmium (NiCd) batteries and mandated that NiCd batteries be easily removable from consumer products.

Non-regulatory measuresThe large industrial NiCd batteries are collected and recycled much in the same manner as the starting-lights-ignition lead acid batteries are collected and recycled from the automotive applications. In purchasing an aviation, railway, or other large industrial NiCd battery, if the spent NiCd which it is replacing is returned for recycling then a substantial discount is applied to the price of the battery. Therefore, the recycling rate for the large industrial NiCd batteries is generally regarded to be above 90% (International Cadmium Association).

Small portable consumer NiCd batteries must be collected and recycled, and it is these cells which may be found in municipal solid waste and which therefore may be incinerated and lead to cadmium air emissions. Active programs have now been undertaken in Europe, North America and Japan to collect and recycle small portable consumer cells along with the large industrial batteries and manufacturing scrap from NiCd battery production processes. According to the International Cadmium Association approximately one dozen major NiCd recycling plants are located throughout the world which today produces over 3,000 metric tones of cadmium per year by recycling. These programs are largely financed by the producers and users of NiCd batteries although there are different schemes in different countries. Mandatory labelling to ensure proper disposal and recycling is required in some jurisdictions, and many of these programs have spread to Asia, South America and Australia on a voluntary basis as well.

In North America the Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation (RBRC), a non-profit public service organization, is dedicated to recycling Nickel Cadmium (Ni-Cd), Nickel Metal Hydride (Ni-MH), Lithium Ion (Li-ion), and Small Sealed Lead (Pb) rechargeable batteries. More than 300 manufacturers support the recycling program by placing the RBRC Battery Recycling Seal on rechargeable batteries and portable electronic products containing these batteries. Some US states have disposal bans for Ni-Cd and Pb batteries that prohibit users from throwing used batteries into the trash. State law requires these batteries be recycled or properly disposed of through manufacturer/distributor or some other collection programmes. Consumers can recycle their spent rechargeable batteries by visiting one of the over 30,000 retail stores and community solid waste centres participating in RBRC’s recycling programme in the United States and Canada.

In Europe, collection programs for spent batteries began as early as 1979 in Sweden and in the 1980s in Switzerland and Austria. However, unlike the programs in the United States and Canada, the collection programs in Europe have evolved along generally national lines and the most widely implemented is a general collection scheme for all types of spent portable batteries, including both household and professional users. Programs of this type are currently in place in several EU countries, the collection rates are, however, in general rather low. There are also in Europe private collection systems initiated either by the battery producers, battery users or battery recyclers. Individual recyclers also have direct collection and recycling programs established with other companies, governmental organizations, the military, hospitals, transit authorities, railways, airlines, etc. to collect and recycle their spent NiCd batteries.

Technological developmentsIn general, the use of NiCd batteries has decreased since 1995 due to the development of higher performance batteries for certain applications and because of anticipated regulatory issues. However, NiCd batteries are still largely in use.

The main substitute to nickel-cadmium batteries in cordless power tools is nickel-metal-hydride (NiMH) batteries. NiMH has now gained substantial market shares both among professionals and

57

private consumers in the Nordic countries and in some of the countries they are on the verge of superseding NiCd on the markets for cordless power tools. In 2003, the share of NiMH for professional tools was estimated at about 60 % in Denmark and at 90 % in Sweden. This is a result of both regulatory pressure (NiCd charge in Denmark and Sweden) and improved technical performance of NiMH batteries (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2004).

NiMH batteries have higher cell capacity but can be recharged fewer times than NiCd. However, calculations show that NiMH batteries may have higher total work capacity during the full lifetime of the battery. Also, it has no memory effect, thus the batteries can be charged partially with no adverse effect on the battery. Regarding the temperature performance of NiMH batteries, they are accepted by high end users in cold climate. Improvements are in development, which enables NiMH batteries to operate better at high temperatures. Today NiMH battery nominal prices are higher per cell than NiCd, at least in the Nordic countries, however, the higher capacity may partly outbalance the higher NiMH prices. As regards battery effect over the full life time of the battery unit, the NiMH batteries would likely be only slightly more expensive than NiCd (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2004).

Use and emissionsIn 1996 the consumption of cadmium in Ni-Cd batteries in the EU was 1983 tonnes, representing 75.2 % of the total use of cadmium. 337 tonnes were recycled from collected batteries. (EU Risk Assessment Report Cd/CdO, 2005). In the Risk Assessment Report for cadmium and cadmium oxide performed in the EU the air emissions from production of cadmium and cadmium oxide, production and recycling of cadmium batteries, cadmium alloys and municipal waste incineration16 has been estimated at 8 tonnes per year in the EU based on measured and modelled values. This represents 6.5 % of the total anthropogenic air emissions of cadmium in the EU. The targeted risk assessment of cadmium used in batteries estimates that the air emissions from incineration of portable NiCd-batteries and accumulators are 323-1 617 kg cadmium per year, based on the overall EU incineration share of municipal solid waste of 24.4 % and assuming that NiCd batteries account for 10 – 50 % of the total cadmium content in the municipal solid waste. Higher future cadmium air emissions are expected to occur related to an increase in the incineration practice in the EU. A 100 % incineration scenario would result in an emission of 14 tonnes Cd/year from waste incineration, Ni-Cd batteries contributing with 1402 - 7009 kg Cd/year (EU Risk Assessment Report Cd/CdO, 2005). However, an improved collection of batteries and a lower consumption of cadmium batteries would counteract the increase.

SummaryIn general, the use of NiCd batteries has decreased since 1995 due to the development of higher performance batteries for certain applications and because of anticipated regulatory issues. However, NiCd batteries are still largely in use. Collection programs are in place in many countries, however the overall collection efficiency of spent batteries in the EU is low. No information on the collection efficiency is available for North America.

The production of cadmium and cadmium oxide, the production and recycling of cadmium batteries and incineration of municipal waste containing nickel-cadmium batteries contributes to significant air emissions in the EU. Higher future cadmium air emissions are expected to occur related to an increase in the incineration practice in the EU. 80 % of the cadmium used for batteries is consumed in small portable consumer cells. The main substitute to nickel-cadmium batteries in cordless power tools is nickel-metal-hydride (NiMH) batteries. They have gained substantial market shares both among professionals and private consumers in the Nordic countries. In 2003, the share of NiMH for professional tools was estimated at about 60 % in Denmark and 90 % in Sweden. This is a result of both regulatory pressure (NiCd charge) and improved technical performance of NiMH batteries.

16 The incineration of municipal waste may contain materials in which cadmium is present as an impurity.

58

10.1.2 Cadmium as surface treatment, stabiliser and colouring agentA total of 20 Parties and 7 signatories to the Protocol have introduced regulatory management measures to cadmium as surface treatment, stabiliser and colouring agent.

Regulatory measuresThe use of cadmium and cadmium compounds for surface treatment, as stabiliser and as colouring agent has been restricted in the EU since 1991. The Directive 76/769/EEC (amendments 91/338/EEC) restricts the use in surface treatments for certain types of products, the use as stabiliser in polymers used for certain types of products and the use as pigment in certain polymer materials. In 2002 a review of the directive was discussed and a draft Commission proposal that included further restrictions in the use of PVC was discussed. The review was however postponed and the discussions are likely to be reopened soon depending on the outcome of the Existing Substances Program where an extensive risk assessment has been done and measures to reduce the risks are currently being evaluated.

The Swedish restrictions (Ordinance 1998:944) are more general and extensive than the current restrictions in directive 76/769/EEC. Quantitatively large areas of use covered by the Swedish ban include cadmium stabilisers in PVC for outdoor applications and cadmium pigments in all applications of ABS (acrylonitrile/butadiene/styrene) and HDPE (High Density Poly Ethylene) plastics. According to an analysis performed in Sweden 1998, directive 76/769/EC covers 80 % of the potential cadmium use as pigments, stabilisers or surface treatment, whereas the Swedish Ordinance covers 97-98 % (based on the use in 1975). For the use as pigment the EU directive covers 30% of the use and the Swedish Ordinance 95%. According to company representatives the process of replacing cadmium pigments in ABS, HDPE and cadmium stabilisers in PVC for outdoor applications has generally not in the long time perspective influenced profit or market shares (KemI, 1997a). The technical and economical implications have in most cases been short in duration.

Non-regulatory measuresIn March 2000 the European PVC-industry signed a voluntary agreement where they, among other things, agreed to stop using cadmium stabilisers in PVC in 2001. The progress report from 2003 shows that all sale and use of cadmium stabilisers in the EU have ceased. Instead calcium/zinc, barium/zinc, tin and lead stabilisers are used (European Council of Vinyl Manufacturers, http://www.ecvm.org/pvc.cfm). Also in US the PVC industry has taken voluntary initiatives to phase out the use of cadmium stabilisers in their products.

Technological developmentsCadmium pigments are based on cadmium sulphide (CdS) in which part of the cadmium may be substituted for by zinc and part of the sulphur may be substituted for by selenium to yield a wide variety of bright red, orange and yellow pigments. These pigments are utilized mainly in plastics, but also to colour glasses, enamels, ceramics and in artists’ paints. Cadmium pigments are utilized because they withstand high temperature, high pressure and ultraviolet light exposure. As a result of the Swedish ordinance cadmium pigments used in ABS and HDPE plastics were mainly substituted by organic pigments.

Initially cadmium stabilisers in PVC for outdoor use were mainly replaced by lead, organo-tin and calcium/zinc compounds. The production processes often needed to be modified to suit the new additives in use and sometimes process equipment needed to be replaced. The replacement of stabiliser may affect eg. the weathering of the plastic or the welding ability. Today the main stabiliser for PVC is calcium/zinc compounds. There are however a couple of applications where tin is still used, e.g in transparent packaging material (KemI, 1997a).

Cadmium coatings are utilized on iron, steel, aluminium and titanium base metals to impart a combination of corrosion resistance, particularly in sea salt and alkaline environments, along with a low coefficient of friction, and high electrical or thermal conductivity. While other alternate coatings

59

may surpass cadmium in any one of these characteristics, no single coating has been found which offers the same combination of all three characteristics. Where only one or two of these characteristics are required, then alternate coatings have been developed and are being used. Alternates include a number of zinc alloy coatings such as Zn-Ni, Zn-Co, Zn-Fe, Zn-Si, Zn-Mn, Zn-Graphite, and “Ivadized” (ion-vapor-deposited) aluminium. These alternates possess, in some cases, good corrosion resistance, but usually do have much higher friction coefficients or lower electrical conductivity.

Use and emissionsThe EU regional consumption of cadmium reaches the value of 2 638 tonnes, which are distributed for 14.9 % to pigments, 5 % to stabilisers and 5 % into alloys and plating (EU Risk Assessment Report Cd/CdO, 2005). In 2003 299 tonnes of cadmium in pigments was consumed in the EU. In 1996 the consumption was 392 tonnes, thus the consumption has only slightly been reduced. In 1996 131 tonnes of cadmium in stabilisers was consumed in the EU. The consumption of cadmium oxide and cadmium metal for this application was estimated to be 50-120 tons in 2003 (EU Risk Assessment Report Cd/CdO, 2005).

As a consequence of the Swedish ban, the industrial use of cadmium in surface treatment, pigments and stabilisers was reduced from approximately 100 tonnes in 1975 to less than 2.5 tonnes in 1995.

Cadmium may be released to air during the production of cadmium and cadmium oxide, the production, recycling or incineration of products containing cadmium pigments, cadmium stabilisers and cadmium coatings. According to the International Cadmium Association most cadmium coated articles at the end of their useful life are remelted either as scrap steel or with scrap aluminium and are not incinerated as municipal solid waste. The one exception to this generalization is cadmium-coated aluminium components used as connectors in electrical and electronic equipment.

SummaryThe EU regional consumption of cadmium reaches the value of 2 638 tonnes, which are distributed for 14.9 % to pigments, 5 % to stabilisers and 5 % into alloys and plating. Cadmium may be released to air during the production of cadmium and cadmium oxide, the production, recycling or incineration of products containing cadmium pigments, cadmium stabilisers and cadmium coatings. The EU has introduced regulatory management measures to cadmium as surface treatment, stabiliser and colouring agent, and some countries have gone beyond these requirements and reduced the consumption of cadmium is these applications with more than 97%.

10.1.3 Cadmium and lead in electrical and electronic equipment A total of 21 Parties and 7 signatories to the Protocol have introduced restrictions on the marketing of cadmium- and lead-containing electrical and electronic equipment and regulations on waste management measures of the products.

Regulatory measuresRestrictionsThe 1 July 2006 a new directive will enter into force in the EU, which will restrict the use of mercury, cadmium and lead in electrical and electronic equipment (EEE), the RoHS Directive (2002/95/EC). The directive applies to whole equipments including both electrical and also electronic equipment, and not primarily to “electrical components” as mentioned in Annex VII of the HM Protocol. The principal objective to introduce the restrictions is to protect soil, water and air from pollution and to ensure that these metals, which are causing major problems during waste management phase, are substituted. The judgment of the Commission is that stringent emission limit values on the incineration of waste is not enough, but have to be combined with a cleaner waste stream thereby reducing emissions caused by incineration or the smelting of WEEE. This is of particular importance for metal smelters, for which the stringent emission limit values do not apply (European Commission, 2000).

60

According to the RoHS Directive, Member States shall ensure that electrical and electronic equipment placed on the EU market do not contain e.g. cadmium or lead. An annex to the Directive specifies exceptions from the ban, and certain use of cadmium is exempted in electrical contacts and cadmium plating, except for applications banned under Directive 76/769/EEC. The use of lead is exempted in such applications in EEE for which there are no feasible alternative available at present. These exemptions are listed in the Annex to the RoHS Directive. According to article 5 in the Directive a Technical Adaptation Committee, TAC, will carry out a review at least every four years “with the aim of considering deletion of materials and components of electrical and electronic equipment from the Annex”.

The RoHS Directive shall be applied to the following product categories; Large and small household appliances, IT and telecommunications equipment, Consumer equipment, Lighting equipment, Electrical and electronic tools (with the exception of large-scale stationary industrial tools), Toys, leisure and sports equipment and Automatic dispensers. The Commission will in the near future decide if also the Directive shall cover Medical devices and Monitoring and control equipment.

Waste managementSince August 2005 all Member States must comply with a new directive (2002/96/EC) on waste of electrical and electronic equipment, WEEE. The WEEE Directive applies to the same product categories as RoHS, in addition also medical devices and monitoring and control equipment. The first priority of the Directive is the prevention of WEEE. The waste that is generated should be reused, recycled or recovered to reduce the disposal of waste. Producers have to mark their products and provide a system for the collection of electrical waste. Recovery targets of between 70 and 80 %, depending on product categories, must be met by 31 December 2006.

SummaryA new EU Directive (RoHS), prohibits the placing on the EU market of electrical and electronic equipment containing e.g. cadmium or lead from 1 July 2006. An annex to the Directive specifies exceptions from the ban. The principal objective to introduce restrictions on mercury, cadmium and lead in electrical and electronic equipment and requirements on waste handling is to protect soil, water and air from pollution and to ensure that these metals, which are causing major problems during waste management phase, are substituted. Commission judges that stringent emission limit values on the incineration of waste is not enough, but have to be combined with a cleaner waste stream thereby reducing emissions caused by incineration or the smelting of electrical and electronic waste. This is of particular importance for metal smelters, for which the stringent emission limit values do not apply.

10.1.4 Lead-containing batteriesA total of 21 Parties to the Protocol have introduced regulatory management measures aiming at the collection of spent lead-containing batteries. One Party have introduced economic incentives. Many countries have introduced non-regulatory waste management measures.

Regulatory measuresThe EU directive (Dir. 91/157/EEC, amended 98/101/EC) requires the member states to ensure the separate collection of batteries containing more than 0,4 % lead by weight and to draw up programmes to reduce the heavy metal content of batteries and gradually reduce their share in the municipal solid waste stream. The batteries have to be labelled indicating their separate collection as well as their heavy metal content. However, the directive does not prescribe measurable instrument preventing uncontrolled disposal of batteries and the overall collection efficiency of spent batteries in the Community is low (European Commission, 2003). For lead-acid batteries though, the collection is considered as high with collection rates of > 90 %. A revision of the directive is ongoing and the present, almost final, draft includes regulatory requirements on the collection and recycling of all kinds of batteries in certain quotas. Directive (2000/53/EC) on end-of-life vehicles requires that lead-acid batteries should be removed for appropriate treatment (recycling) before a car is shredded.

61

In Bulgaria a decree prohibits the production, import and sales of consumer products containing batteries, which are assembled in such a way that the consumer cannot remove them, or there is no instruction, and which contain more than 4 % lead (Decree No 134/2000).

Several Parties to the Protocol have introduced regulatory or non-regulatory management measures to help maximise rates of recovery. In Austria, Italy and Sweden, for example, levies are imposed on the sale of lead-acid batteries to help cover the costs of collection, transport and recovery. In British Columbia (Canada), a similar levy funds Transportation Incentive Payments to ensure safe collection and transportation of scrap lead-acid batteries. Several countries employ refundable deposits on batteries to encourage consumers to return their old battery when buying a new one.

In the USA, many States have adopted legislation prohibiting the landfilling of used batteries and requiring retailers to accept an old battery from customers when a new one is purchased. The Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act of 1996 established national, uniform labelling requirements for certain Small Sealed Lead-Acid (SSLA) batteries and mandated that these SSLAs be easily removable from consumer products.

Non-regulatory measuresUsed batteries are recycled because the value of the constituents that can be recovered (lead, plastics, acid) makes recycling economically attractive. Collection and recycling infrastructures are therefore universal. According to the International Lead and Zinc Study Group about 71 % of lead produced in UNECE member countries comes from the recycling of used batteries and other lead-containing products, whilst 29 % comes from primary materials.

Use and emissionsLead-acid batteries are the most widely used rechargeable battery in the world, found in automobiles and other vehicles. Approximately 95 % of all lead-acid batteries are recycled at secondary lead smelters in the US (U.S. EPA, 1994). In 1990, an estimated 103 tonnes of lead were emitted to the air from Secondary Lead Smelters in the U.S. By 2002, the emissions had decreased over 95 % to an estimated 3.9 tonnes (U.S. EPA, 2006).

The total emissions in EU from both Primary and Secondary Smelters to the air is estimated to be 13 tonnes according to a voluntary risk assessment report on lead performed by Lead Development Association International. The fraction of these emissions that could be derived from lead-acid batteries is unknown. According to the same risk assessment the amount of lead used in lead-acid batteries within EU is 1,008,900 tonnes (LDA, 2005). The recycling rate of these batteries are very high, however, even a 1 – 5 % loss would represent a significant amount of lead which is not recirculated.

SummaryLarge amounts of lead are used in lead-acid batteries found in automobiles and other vehicles. Several Parties to the Protocol have introduced regulatory or non-regulatory management measures to help maximise rates of recovery, which is considered very high, > 90 - 95 %. The emissions of lead from lead smelters can be significant.

10.1.5 Lead-containing paintLead-containing paints once represented a major use of lead, but substitution took place very rapidly in the middle of the 20th century when titanium dioxide pigments became widely available. By the end of the century only a few specialist paints still contained lead. Although direct emissions to air do not occur during use, indirect emissions are possible for example via the incineration of lead-painted materials.

62

In addition to the replacement of lead as a paint pigment for technical and commercial reasons, many countries imposed limits on the permissible lead content of paints in order to protect health – particularly that of children. Limits of the order of 0.5 % were commonly employed, with subsequent reduction to trace levels to ensure no deliberate addition of lead.

Most UNECE member countries now have restrictions on the use of lead in paint. In Canada the lead content of interior paints was limited to 0.5 % in 1976 and a voluntary agreement further reduced this level to 0.06 % in 1995. In the USA paint containing more than 0.06 % was banned for residential use in 1978. Multiple states have existing laws that apply to lead-based paint. Many of these laws include requirements for inspection of housing that may contain lead-based paint. In residences where lead-based paint hazards have been identified, several states require landlords to remove and replace the paint. In addition, there is one proposed Federal law, the Home Lead Safety Tax Credit Act of 2005, which would provide tax credits to those who have removed lead-based paint hazards and several proposed state laws which would mandate inspection, disclosure and removal requirements.

The European Union adopted a Directive in 1989 (89/677/EEC) prohibiting the use of lead carbonates and lead sulphates in paints (with the exception of the restoration and maintenance of works of art and historic buildings).

10.1.6 Lead stabilisers in PVC-productsLead stabilizers can be added to PVC to prevent degradation by heat during processing and by ultraviolet light during service. They are integrated into the polymer matrix and the lead cannot readily be recycled. When lead-stabilized PVC products enter waste, there is potential for indirect air emissions of lead as a result of incineration.

Denmark introduced a ban on the use of lead stabilisers in 2001, with limited derogations until December 2003. Electrical cables incorporated into products are now the only application of PVC for which lead stabilisers are still permitted in Denmark. These will however be prohibited in all EU countries the 1 July 2006 when the RoHS Directive enter into force (2002/95/EEC).

The European Stabilisers Producers Association (ESPA) and the European Plastic Converters (EuPC) have committed to replace lead stabilisers by 100 % in 2015. The amount of formulated lead stabilisers on the European marked has dropped by 16.7 % from 127156 tonnes in year 2000 to 105940 tonnes in 2004 (the amount of pure lead in formulated lead stabilisers can be estimated to 50 %).

Alternative stabilisers based on metals other than lead do exist, and according to the Swedish trade organisation PVC forum, there are no application in which lead cannot be substituted theoretically. The existence of alternatives has therefore enabled PVC manufacturers to adopt substitutes for products which are subject to less severe conditions during manufacture and use.

10.1.7 Heavy metals in packagingThe management of packaging and packaging waste has been regulated within EU through the Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste. Limit values for heavy metals were set in order to ensure a high level of environmental protection, and to reduce air emissions when packaging is incinerated. Limit values has been gradually lowered, and since June 2001 the sum of concentration levels of mercury, cadmium, lead and hexavalent chromium may not exceed 100 ppm by weight in packaging or packaging components. The Directive apply to all packaging placed on the market within the Community. In the US, 19 states have laws that limit lead in packaging.

63

10.1.8 Heavy metals in sewage sludgeSewage sludge originates from the processing of waste water. Due to the physical-chemical processes involved in the treatment, the sludge tends to concentrate metals and poorly biodegradable trace organic compounds present in waste waters. Investigations of metal flows in Stockholm have shown that amalgam is the largest single source of the mercury in the sludge (Sörme and Lagerkvist, 2002; Sörme et al, 2003).

Limits on heavy metals contents in sludge typically are used to ensure that soil application does not pose a threat to livestock or human consumers of crops grown on these amended lands, and to restrict the accumulation of heavy metals in the soil. However, these limits do not address the emission of heavy metals to the atmosphere when sludge is disposed off through incineration. This is common practise in many countries. Estimates for Canada for releases of mercury to air are on the order of 370 kg/year from incineration. Under the Canada Wide Standard, sewage sludge incineration facility targeted a maximum concentration in the exhaust gases of 70 µg/Rm3. In the United States 400 kg of mercury was estimated from incineration of sewage sludge in 2005. Estimated emissions to water treatment plants were 5900 kg mercury in 2005.

Reducing the allowable mercury level for land application, reducing mercury loadings to sewers, or requiring land-filling of sewage sludge are reviewed as standards for consideration in Canada. In the US, there are several government bio solids regulations which require monitoring of lead among other heavy metals in sewage sludge, including sewage sludge that may ultimately be used for agricultural applications.

10.1.9 Heavy metals in vehiclesA total of 20 Parties to the Protocol have introduced prohibitions on the use of mercury, cadmium and lead in materials and components of vehicles.

In order to prevent the release to the environment of hazardous substances to facilitate recycling and to avoid the disposal of hazardous waste a EU directive on end-of-life vehicles (Dir. 2000/53/EC) prohibits the use of mercury, cadmium, lead or hexavalent chromium in materials and components of vehicles put on the market after 1 July 2003, other than in cases listed in an annex to the directive. Also spare parts are included in the ban. Most of the exemptions expire 1 July 2007 or 2008, and the exemptions will be reviewed regularly in face of technical and scientific progress. The first review took place in 2002, and the second took place 2005 (Council decision 2005.673.EC).

Current exemptions are the use of mercury in discharge lamps and instrument panel displays. For cadmium there are three exemptions applying to a) optical components in glass matrixes used for Driver Assistance Systems, b) thick film pastes and c) batteries for electrical vehicles. There is a range of exemptions for lead as an alloying element in materials and also for use in components. However the technical development is ongoing and the exemptions get fewer and fewer and the used amounts get lower. For some of the exemptions there are requirements that the components shall be labelled or made identifiable to ensure proper handling when the vehicle is dismantled.

64

11 Annex F

Products with the potential for indirect air emissions of heavy metals arising from their disposal in municipal, medical and hazardous waste incinerators

Because of the differences of opinion in the Task Force on Heavy Metals two annexes are presented in this report, Annexes E and F. Annex E describes measures relating to a series of products with potential of indirect emissions. This annex was presented as an alternative approach proposed by one expert to outline measures to address indirect emissions. There was no consensus reached in favour of either annex.

11.1.1 IntroductionThe practice of incinerating waste has been identified as an issue with regard to products that contain one or more of the Annex I metals. While the products in question do not themselves lead to an emission as a result of their direct use, the incineration of the products when entering the waste stream may, if not properly controlled, give rise to an emission. Several jurisdictions within the UNECE region have therefore introduced measures to control such indirect sources of emissions from these products in addition to measures to control emissions from waste incinerators.

Annex III of the Protocol outlines best available techniques for installations for the incineration of hazardous or medical waste with a capacity exceeding 1 t/hour, or for the co-incineration of hazardous or medical waste specified in accordance with national legislation and installations for the incineration of municipal waste with a capacity exceeding 3 t/hour, or for the co-incineration of municipal waste specified in accordance with national legislation. The Annex recommends that particular actions should be taken both before and after incineration to reduce these emissions.

11.1.2 Development of management measures to control indirect emissionsBoth regulatory and non-regulatory measures to deal with waste incineration fall into two main categories: product use restriction measures (bans, phase out and product substitution) and waste diversion through enhanced collection and recycling measures. Parties to the Protocol have implemented a wide range of measures to control indirect air emissions from incinerators depending on the product and policy approaches followed within that country and the degree to which incineration is applied as a waste management option. In some cases, measures to reduce the risk of exposure to Annex I metals from products has resulted in an indirect benefit from reduced input to incinerators. It should be noted, however, that such measures were implemented for reasons other than concerns over the potential contribution of Annex I metals to air pollution and are therefore considered to be outside the scope of this review.

The incineration of products to which heavy metals have deliberately been added only constitute a minor source of total heavy metal air emissions. In the case of cadmium-containing products, for example, both a presentation at the March 2005 UNECE Heavy Metals Task Group meeting and the European Union’s Risk Assessment for Cadmium and Cadmium Oxide have demonstrated that incineration of cadmium-containing products accounts for less than 2% of total cadmium air emissions from all sources.

The production and use of cadmium products contributes only 1% of total cadmium air emissions. Since cadmium emissions from the incineration of municipal solid waste involves emissions from both products to which cadmium has deliberately been added and materials in which cadmium is present as an impurity or residual component, it may be concluded that total cadmium emissions arising from the

65

production, use and incineration of products containing deliberate cadmium additions constitute less than 2% of total cadmium air emissions.

11.1.3 Regulatory measuresIn Canada, several jurisdictions have introduced legislation to mandate implementation of waste diversion programmes at the municipal level. Many of these programmes target household waste (beverage cans, plastics, glass, paper and in some municipalities food and yard wastes), used tyres, used oils and electronics. For example in Ontario, the Waste Diversion Act (WDA) established Waste Diversion Ontario, a corporation that develops, implements and operates waste diversion programs for a wide range of materials designated under the Act by the Minister of the Environment. In addition to the materials already highlighted above, possible future designated materials include household special waste, organic materials, pharmaceuticals and fluorescent tubes.

In Europe, measures have been introduced at the European level to address end-of-life management of certain products. On the basis of the EU strategy for waste management, which was endorsed in the Council Resolution of 7 May 1990, actions have focused on prevention/reuse, promotion of recovery, minimisation of final disposal, regulation of transport and remedial action. A progress report on the waste strategy was discussed by the Commission in Summer 1995. There have been a number of other developments affecting the implementation of the waste strategy, including experience with the instruments adopted between 1990 and 1995, important judgements by the European Court of Justice, and important developments at international level, in particular the adoption of the Basel Convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous waste and their disposal and, more generally, the trade and environment discussion (DG Environment).

For example, EU directive (Dir. 91/157/EEC, amended 98/101/EC) requires member states to ensure the separate collection of batteries containing more than 0.025 % cadmium by weight and to draw up programmes to reduce the heavy metal content of batteries and gradually reduce their share in the municipal solid waste stream. The batteries have to be labelled indicating their separate collection as well as their heavy metal content. However, the directive does not prescribe measurable instrument preventing uncontrolled disposal of batteries and the overall collection efficiency of spent batteries in the Community is low (European Commission, 2003). A revision of the directive is ongoing and the present, almost final, draft includes a ban on portable batteries, including those incorporated into appliances, that contain more than 0.002 % of cadmium by weight, cordless power tools, among others, exempted The draft also have regulatory requirements on the collection and recycling of all kinds of batteries in certain quotas.

A Directive on Packaging (Directive 94/62/EC) was adopted in 1994, setting recycling and recovery targets for packaging waste over the period 1996-2001, with a view to a revision during the five year period on the basis of experience gained in the Member States, the findings of scientific research and the evaluation of techniques such as “ecobalances”. Member States have the flexibility to select the appropriate systems. Several Member States already have such systems in place. A positive contribution can be expected from the inclusion of eco-label criteria for paper products that give credit to recycled fibres as a raw material. Limit values for heavy metals were set in order to ensure a high level of environmental protection, and to reduce air emissions when packaging is incinerated. Limit values has been gradually lowered, and since June 2001 the sum of concentration levels of mercury, cadmium, lead and hexavalent chromium may not exceed 100 ppm by weight in packaging or packaging components. The Directive apply to all packaging placed on the market within the Community. In the US, 19 states have laws that limit lead in packaging.

In order to facilitate the implementation of Europeam waste legislation, Council Decision 94/904 established a list of hazardous wastes, and Commission Decision 94/3 established a European Waste Catalogue. Further improvement in the definitions in particular the definition of waste, also in relation to OECD and the Basel Convention, is under discussion. At the end of 1994, the Council adopted a directive on the incineration of hazardous waste. This directive sets, for the first time, standards for the

66

incineration of hazardous waste in industrial plants, including emission limits for heavy metals and dioxins. The Commission has furthermore initiated a revision of the 1989 directives on the incineration of municipal waste. Member States are increasingly addressing waste disposal problems by focusing on ways to decrease disposal in landfill and incineration through economic measures e.g. taxes and duties, and/or recovery/recycling and treatment operations.

Extending producer responsibility plays a predominant role among the instruments deployed in Member States to limit waste generated by specific waste products that cause considerable waste disposal problems owing to their pollutant concentrations or to the quantities which are accumulating. Following a recent change in Swedish law, the Government has the possibility of getting the producers to take responsibility for their used products/ the waste the products will cause. To date, this producers' responsibility is introduced for packaging, paper, and for tyres, and respective provisions are under preparation for cars, building material and electronic and electric products. The German Act on Avoidance, Recycling and Disposal of Wastes, adopted in July 1994, is intended to implement product recycling on the basis of comprehensive production and product responsibility. Implementing laws that define duties to accept returned products and to recycle products are planned in the fields of batteries and accumulators, scrap cars, building rubble, scrap electronic components and waste paper. As a result of the German 1991 Packaging Ordinance, which imposes reuse or substance recycling requirements on product manufacturers and distributors, a reversal of the trend in packaging material use, especially of transport packaging, has set in.

In Austria legislation regulates take-back schemes for batteries, light bulbs, refrigerators. Since October 1993 an obligation is in force on packaging including recycling targets for each packaging material. Regarding PVC window frames and plastic piping the take-back scheme is organised by industry on a voluntary basis. A voluntary agreement between the motor vehicle industry and the government is in force on take-back of scrapped cars until the end of 1995. Better collection and processing of scrapped cars is also being implemented. The cement industry incinerates around 70% of used tyres. The sorting of building waste is regulated by law and it is recommended to the building industry to make a greater use of recycled materials.

In France, legislation and voluntary agreements are in preparation to shape producer responsibility for packaging materials, used tyres, vehicles; accumulators; electronic equipment and paper. Existing bottle refund systems ensure that 90% wine and spirit bottles and 98% beer bottles or non-alcoholic beverage bottles are refilled or recycled. The contents of one way bottles are charged with an extra fee. Lubricants are also charged with an extra fee, the revenue being earmarked for the financing of waste oil collection.

The UK motor vehicle, tyre, battery, electronic equipment, newspaper and packaging industries have been asked to significantly increase recovery and recycling of wastes under producer responsibility.Luxembourg and Austrian legislation deals with the "composting" of household organic waste. A battery charge is imposed on nickel-cadmium batteries in Sweden to encourage the use of cadmium-free batteries. The charge has increased from 4.6 Euro per kg in 1994 to 30 Euro per kg in 1997, which has lead to a gradual reduction in sales of cadmium batteries. Between 1997 and 2004 the sales decreased by 75 % in Sweden. The collection of nickel-metal-hydride batteries has increased from 40 tonnes in 2003 to 70 tonnes in 2004.

In Bulgaria a decree prohibits the production, import and sales of consumer products containing batteries, which are assembled in such a way that the consumer cannot remove them, or there is no instruction, and which contain more than 0.025 % cadmium (Decree No 134/2000). In 1990 an obligation on producer and importers to collect Ni/Cd batteries was adopted in Norway (Regulation No. 1823).

In the United States, the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) regulates household, manufacturing and hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The RCRA tightly regulates all hazardous waste from "cradle to grave." RCRA also controls garbage and industrial

67

waste. Common garbage is municipal waste, which consists mainly of paper, yard trimmings, glass, and other materials. Industrial waste is process waste that comes from a broad range of operations. Other federal agencies or state laws manage some wastes. Examples of such wastes are animal waste, radioactive waste, and medical waste (US EPA). The Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act of 1996 established national, uniform labelling requirements for nickel cadmium (NiCd) batteries and mandated that NiCd batteries be easily removable from consumer products.

Air emissions from both municipal waste combustors and hazardous waste combustion units are regulated under the Clean Air Act (CAA). In addition, combustion ash must be managed as potentially hazardous waste under the purview of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and must meet all applicable federal and state regulations for disposal. The municipal waste combustion (MWC) program supports the development of revised rules for air pollutant emissions from the MWC source category. Basic research is performed on MWC pollutant formation and control mechanisms for acid gas, trace organic, and trace metal emissions. The program also supports field tests, regulation development, and laboratory research for medical waste incinerators (MWI). Much of the MWC regulatory support effort has involved the development of good combustion practice and field evaluations of the performance of air pollution control (flue gas cleaning) systems.

11.1.4 Non-regulatory measuresIn response to concerns related to resource efficiency and improved materials management throughout the life cycle of products, a number of industry led initiatives have been established to improve the recovery and recycling of products.Large industrial NiCd batteries are collected and recycled much in the same manner as the starting-lights-ignition lead acid batteries are collected and recycled from the automotive applications. In purchasing an aviation, railway, or other large industrial NiCd battery, if the spent NiCd which it is replacing is returned for recycling then a substantial discount is applied to the price of the battery. Therefore, the recycling rate for the large industrial NiCd batteries is generally regarded to be above 90% (International Cadmium Association).

Small portable consumer NiCd batteries must be collected and recycled, and it is these cells that may be found in municipal solid waste and which therefore may be incinerated and lead to cadmium air emissions. Active programs have now been undertaken in Europe, North America and Japan to collect and recycle small portable consumer cells along with the large industrial batteries and manufacturing scrap from NiCd battery production processes. According to the International Cadmium Association approximately one dozen major NiCd recycling plants are located throughout the world, which today produces over 3,000 tonnes of cadmium per year by recycling. The producers and users of NiCd batteries largely finance these programs, although there are different schemes in different countries. Mandatory labelling to ensure proper disposal and recycling is required in some jurisdictions, and many of these programs have spread to Asia, South America and Australia on a voluntary basis as well.One example from North America is the Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation (RBRC). The RBRC is a non-profit public service organization dedicated to recycling Nickel Cadmium (Ni-Cd), Nickel Metal Hydride (Ni-MH), Lithium Ion (Li-ion), and Small Sealed Lead (Pb) rechargeable batteries. These batteries power a variety of portable electronic products such as cellular and cordless phones, power tools, laptop computers, camcorders, two-way radios and remote control toys. More than 300 manufacturers support the recycling program by placing the RBRC Battery Recycling Seal on rechargeable batteries and portable electronic products. This seal tells consumers and businesses that the battery can be recycled RBRC offers recycling plans for retailers, businesses, communities and public agencies. The program is free for consumers, retailers, communities and public agencies. Participating businesses only pay for shipping to the reclamation facility. RBRC provides collection materials and pays recycling costs. Some states have disposal bans for Ni-Cd and Pb batteries that prohibit users from throwing used batteries into the trash. State law requires these batteries be recycled or properly disposed of through manufacturer/distributor or some other collection

68

programmes. Consumers can recycle their spent rechargeable batteries by visiting one of the over 30,000 retail stores and community solid waste centres participating in RBRC’s recycling programme in the United States and Canada.

In Europe, collection programs for spent batteries began as early as 1979 in Sweden and in the 1980s in Switzerland and Austria. However, unlike the programs in the United States and Canada, the collection programs in Europe have evolved along generally national lines and the most widely implemented is a general collection scheme for all types of spent portable batteries, including both household and professional users. Programs of this type are currently in place in several EU countries, the collection rates are, however, in general rather low. There are also in Europe private collection systems initiated either by the battery producers, battery users or battery recyclers. Individual recyclers also have direct collection and recycling programs established with other companies, governmental organizations, the military, hospitals, transit authorities, railways, airlines, etc. to collect and recycle their spent NiCd batteries.

69

70