Sufficiency and Effectiveness Review of the 1998 Protocol on Heavy Metals, UN/ECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
5th draft, 2006-04-06
Prepared for the Task Force Meeting in Ottawa, 9-12 May 2006
Assessments of Technological Developments
and Improved Measures
Products and Product Groups
Contents
1Summary
2Introduction
2.1Background
2.1.1Parties to the Heavy Metals Protocol
2.1.2Review of product control measures and product management measures
2.2Contribution to air emissions from heavy metals in products
2.3Development of general management strategies and measures for Mercury
2.3.1Canada Wide Standards
2.3.2The EU Mercury Strategy
2.3.3General bans on mercury-containing products
2.3.4Reducing mercury releases in the United States
3Part I – Products included in Annex VI and VII
3.1Product Control Measures (Annex VI)
3.1.1Lead content of petrol
3.1.2Mercury content in alkaline manganese batteries
3.2Product Management Measures (Annex VII)
3.2.1Mercury-containing Electrical Components
3.2.2Mercury-containing Measuring Devices
3.2.3Mercury-containing Fluorescent lamps
3.2.4Mercury-containing Dental Amalgam
3.2.5Mercury-containing Pesticides
3.2.6Mercury-containing Paint
3.2.7Mercury-containing Batteries not covered by Annex VI
4Part II – Products not specifically mentioned in Annex VII
4.1Products with potential for direct air emissions of heavy metals
4.1.1Mercury in sewage sludge
4.2[Products with potential for indirect air emissions of heavy metals]
4.2.1Cadmium-containing batteries
4.2.2Cadmium as surface treatment, stabiliser and colouring agent
4.2.3Cadmium and lead in electrical and electronic equipment
4.2.4Lead-containing batteries
4.2.5Lead-containing paint
4.2.6Lead stabilisers in PVC-products
4.2.7Heavy metals in packaging
4.2.8Heavy metals in sewage sludge
4.2.9Heavy metals in vehicles
4.3[Products with the potential for indirect air emissions of heavy metals arising from their disposal in municipal, medical and hazardous waste incinerators ]
4.3.1Development of management measures to control indirect emissions
4.3.2Regulatory Measures
4.3.3Non-regulatory measures
5References
6Annex A
6.1Annex VI - Product control measures
7Annex B
7.1Annex VII - Product Management Measures
8Annex C
8.1Overview Tables on Product Measures
9Annex D
9.1Mercury in products - overview table on used or sold amounts and emissions to air
1Summary
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 concentrates on 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 ECE region. Generally, the approaches that are taken are a mix of regulatory and non-regulatory measures. However, Europe mainly use regulatory measures including market restrictions and waste management control, while North America tend to use more of non-regulatory measuresthat include targets and time-lines for reducing or minimising waste, improved collection and recycling or other product stewardship measures. In the EU a Mercury Strategy has been adopted which calls for further restrictions on the marketing and use of mercury in products within the coming three years, and possibly authorisation requirements for any remaining use.
Mercury-free alternatives are available for almost all uses. The information on the consumption of mercury is limited. The most recent available data is mainly from 2000 and indicates that the consumption has decreased since the mid 1990s. For products such as batteries the reduction has been very big, while for dental amalgam the reduction is small. 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 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. 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. 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.
Almost all Parties 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 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. Despite information campaigns it has shown to be difficult to collect batteries, especially those that are incorporated in articles. Within the UNECE-area tonnes of mercury still reach the waste stream due to the use in batteries, and contribute to the emissions from waste incineration. 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.
In general, most Parties to the Protocol have introduced measures to address the mercury-containing products highlighted in Annex VII. 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 UN-ECE area.
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 UN-ECE area.
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 UN-ECE area. 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 UN-ECE 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. 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.
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.
In addition to the mercury-containing products several Parties have introduced measures, or are in the process of introducing measures, for certain products containing cadmium and lead, for example electrical and electronic equipment containing cadmium or lead, nickel-cadmium batteries and cadmium used as surface treatment, stabiliser in polymers and as colouring agent. These are examples of products which may contribute to air emissions of cadmium and lead during manufacturing, from incineration and recycling processes. Air emissions from production of cadmium and cadmium oxide, production and recycling of cadmium batteries, cadmium alloys and municipal waste incineration has been estimated at 8 tonnes per year in the EU based on measured and modelled values (EU-16). This represents 6.5 % of the total anthropogenic air emissions of cadmium in the EU. Municipal waste incineration alone contributes more than 3 tonnes of cadmium each year. Higher future cadmium air emissions are expected to occur related to an increase in the incineration practice in the EU.
About 75 % of the total use of cadmium is used in small portable nickel-cadmium batteries. 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. Substitutes to nickel-cadmium batteries in cordless power tools have gained substantial market shares both among professionals and private consumers in the Nordic countries.
The principal objective to introduce restrictions in the EU 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. The EU Commission judges that stringent emission limit values on the incineration of waste are not enough, but have to be combined with a cleaner waste stream thereby reducing emissions caused by incineration or smelting of electrical and electronic waste. This is of particular importance for metal smelters, for which the stringent emission limit values do not apply.
2Introduction
2.1Background
Pursuant 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).
2.1.1Parties to the Heavy Metals Protocol
In 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 Union
In 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.
2.1.2Review of product control measures and product management measures
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 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 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).