national phase down of mercury...international and domestic case studies, from which conservative...
TRANSCRIPT
National Phase down of Mercury
Ratification of the Minamata Convention
on Mercury
Final Regulation Impact Statement – Exposure Draft
December 2016
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Mercury1 significantly damages human and environmental health. In Australia an estimated
18 tonnes of mercury is emitted to the air or released to land or water every year. On a per-
capita basis, Australia’s mercury pollution is high, at approximately double the global average.
Australia’s mercury pollution occurs despite existing regulatory controls, partly because State
and Territory laws limit the concentration of mercury in emissions to air (for example, metal
manufacturing) or releases to land and water (for example, in fungicide sprayed on sugar
cane), but there are few incentives to reduce the absolute level of current emissions and
releases over time.
Mercury pollution also occurs because there is little regulation of the importation, sale and
disposal of many products that contain mercury, such as fluorescent lights. These products
end up in landfills around the country, unless recycled.
Reducing the concentration of mercury emissions and releases reduces the health hazards of
acute exposure. However, mercury builds up in the environment so any level of release
creates the conditions for human exposure to exceed safe levels. Since firms make valuable
products (for example, metal, electricity, sugar) using processes that emit/release mercury
(such as through coal combustion), market processes will continue to fail to restrain the growth
in pollution. It is expected that, without policy actions such as those discussed in this
Regulation Impact Statement (RIS), mercury emissions and releases are likely to increase
over the long term as the Australian economy and population grows.
Mercury is internationally mobile, meaning that emissions and releases anywhere in the world
can harm Australians (for example, through consuming fish) and Australian emissions can
harm citizens of other nations.
This Regulation Impact Statement outlines a range of measures that Australia can take to
reduce mercury pollution from Australian sources, which will benefit the health of Australians
and people internationally. Recognising the global nature of mercury pollution and its
transboundary effects, this RIS recommends that Australia ratifies the Minamata Convention
which commits all participant nations to reduce their own levels of mercury pollution.
For simplicity, the cost-benefit analysis prepared for this RIS assumes that reductions in
Australian emissions and releases directly benefit the health of Australian people, since
Australians reside in closest proximity to the sources of our emissions and releases and thus
are most likely to benefit. For the same reasons, the cost-benefit analysis does not estimate
the value to the health of Australians by other nations reducing their own emissions and
releases.
The Problem
Mercury is classed by the World Health Organisation as one of the top ten chemicals of major
public health concern, posing a serious risk to the environment and human health worldwide.
Mercury can cause a range of adverse health impacts which include; cognitive impairment
1 ‘Mercury’ refers to both elemental mercury (CAS NO. 7439-97-6) and mercury compounds (any substance consisting of atoms of mercury and one or more atoms of other chemical elements that can be separated into different components only by chemical reactions).
..............................................................................................................................................
3
(mild mental retardation), permanent damage to the central nervous system, kidney and heart
disease, infertility, and respiratory, digestive and immune problems. It is strongly advised that
pregnant women, infants, and children in particular avoid exposure.2
Mercury is a naturally occurring element that can be emitted and released as a result of both
natural processes and human activities. Once emitted or released, mercury persists in the
environment where it circulates between air, water, sediments, soil and living creatures. It can
travel long distances which are far from its original source and becomes increasingly
concentrated in the tissues of organisms as it rises up the food chain (generally having been
transformed by aquatic organisms into its more toxic form, methylmercury). Mercury can be a
source of serious adverse effects on ecosystems and wildlife, particularly through its tendency
to cause reproductive and developmental impairment.
Human exposure to mercury occurs primarily through ingestion of seafood and freshwater fish
containing methylmercury. Australia has the world’s third largest fishing zone, with commercial
fishing being the fifth most valuable industry in Australia.3 Traditionally, Australians are heavily
reliant on seafood as a food source, annually consuming 47 per cent (approximately 8kg)
more per capita than the world average. Compared with the average world apparent
consumption of various food commodities, Australians have a 147 per cent higher per person
availability of seafood.4 This leads to concerns of Australians having a greater risk of mercury
exposure through their diet. The higher risks of mercury contamination in a staple food source
like seafood have the potential to further marginalize already vulnerable groups such as
regional and remote coastal populations (particularly indigenous peoples) who traditionally rely
on seafood and marine mammals as primary sources of nutrition.
One of the most critical effects of methylmercury exposure is developmental brain toxicity. In
utero methylmercury exposure is linked to a loss of Intelligence Quotient (IQ), with associated
lower school performance and educational attainment, leading to long-term impacts on
society. These consequences can be expressed in terms of economic impacts; through both
international and domestic case studies, from which conservative valuations were determined,
the total value of harm caused by mercury emissions and releases to the Australian
environment has been calculated at $4,862 per kilogram of mercury5. Furthermore, it has been
estimated that in 2013 alone, approximately 732 Australian children were exposed to elevated
levels of mercury in utero and are likely to have suffered IQ loss6. Note that these estimates do
not include the less quantifiable adverse impacts of mercury on other aspects of human
health.
Common sources of mercury emission and release in Australia include; air emissions from
coal-fired power stations and non-ferrous metal smelters; the application of mercury-containing
pesticide to sugarcane; and disposal of damaged fluorescent and low-energy lamps; leaking
mercury-containing thermometers and batteries; and amalgam waste from dental practices.
According to the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI), industry reported the emission and release
of 10.2 tonnes of mercury in the 2014/2015 reporting period the impact of which equates to a
human health cost of approximately $49.6 million (calculated cost of $4,862 per kilogram) per
2 World Health Organisation 2013, ‘Mercury and Health’, Factsheet No361. 3 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2012, Australia’s food & nutrition, p. 72. 4 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2012, Australia’s food & nutrition, p. 65. 5 Appendix B, p. 73 6 Appendix B, p. 70
..............................................................................................................................................
4
annum7,8. Note that only point sources that emit over five kilograms per annum are required to
report to the National Pollutant Inventory. Industries such as sugarcane farmers and the dental
industry are unaccounted for in this pollutant register. Through consultations with various
industry peak bodies, the Department has attempted to account for these additional emissions
and releases in this RIS. The estimates therefore contain a level of uncertainty due to a lack of
data delineating the cause and effect relationship associated with mercury in Australia.
The costs of environmental contamination by mercury, and the subsequent human exposures,
are well documented internationally. One such example is the Minamata Convention’s
namesake, whereby industrial contamination of Minamata Bay in Japan led to costs of
approximately AU$132 million per year for remediation and compensation from 1971-1991. In
Australia, there are also a number of examples demonstrating that, with regulation, industries
can be responsive to change, becoming incentivised to innovate (refer to Section 3.2.1).
The most effective means to reduce the risk of mercury exposure is to prevent its emission
and release from anthropogenic sources. Accordingly, Australia’s ratification of the Minamata
Convention and the adoption of a national approach to phase down mercury will fill gaps within
the existing regulatory framework and deliver significant benefits for human health and the
environment both domestically and internationally. In addition, Australian business and
industry will benefit from a more streamlined, transparent and predictable approach to the
management of mercury.
Policy Objectives
The reforms are being driven by two overarching objectives:
To significantly reduce the risks of mercury exposure to human health and the environment
domestically, and
To encourage neighbouring countries to reduce their emissions and releases. This will also
serve to reduce the total amount of mercury that is liberated for transboundary pollution
internationally.
Options for Action
To address the serious risk that mercury poses to human health and the environment in
Australia and contribute to a global solution, a series of policy options have been developed:
7 Mercury emitted has a direct affect on the human health costs. If emissions and releases increase, then human health costs i.e. human health costs = $4,862/kg x mercury emissions. 8 2014/2015 is the most recent data published by the NPI.
..............................................................................................................................................
5
Option 1 (base case):
No Policy Change
Australian governments and industry maintain current policy, programmes and practices into the future.
Option 2:
Ratification of the
Minamata Convention
Australian Governments enable ratification of the Minamata Convention on Mercury including meeting the timelines and requirements outlined in the Convention
This would involve making legislative amendments to better control:
import and export of mercury and products containing
mercury
manufacture of mercury and products containing mercury
mining for mercury
interim storage of mercury
emissions of mercury to the atmosphere
releases of mercury to land or water, and
management, recovery, recycling, reclamation and reuse of
mercury.
Option 3:
Ratification of the
Minamata Convention
with Dental Amalgam
waste programme
Option 2 and after ratification, the Commonwealth Government runs a national communications campaign promoting voluntary installation of dental amalgam waste traps and separators.
Option 4:
Ratification of the
Minamata Convention
with enhanced national
phase down
Option 3 plus an earlier cancelation of the registration for mercury-containing pesticides.
Impact Analysis
The considerable human health, economic and environmental costs associated with mercury
contamination and exposure have been recorded worldwide, with the bioaccumulative and
transboundary nature of mercury being a cause of increasing concern. The international
community has developed an international legally binding instrument to reduce global levels of
mercury while promoting sustainable development - the Minamata Convention on Mercury.
..............................................................................................................................................
6
Addressing mercury emissions and releases, under Options 2, 3 and 4 in Australia would
result in improvements to environmental health, lowered risks to key environmental assets
such as the Great Barrier Reef, and reduced pathways and vectors of human exposure to this
toxic substance.
To assess the health impacts of mercury in Australia and the potential health benefits from the
phasing-down of mercury, the primary domestic exposure pathways for the Australian
population were identified. Where data that is specific to the Australian population was not
available, comparable international data was used and extrapolated to suit Australian
circumstances.
Relative to Option 1 (no policy change, or base case), there was a significant net benefit
resulting from each of the options considered. The greatest net benefit was achieved from
Option 4 at $207.0 million. Option 2, through ratification of the Minamata Convention, would
improve regulation of mercury through its lifecycle. Option 3 would build on Option 2, and
would seek to reduce releases of dental amalgam to the environment. Options 2 and 3 had net
benefits of $145.4 million and $148.6 million, respectively.9
The phase down approach associated with Option 4 would build on the regulatory framework
set out in Option 2, and the reduced releases of dental amalgam to the environment from
Option 3, and would impose an accelerated phase-out schedule on the sugarcane industry for
the mercury-containing pesticide Shirtan Liquid Fungicide, averting the release of 15,840 kg
(over three years) of elemental mercury into the environment, and saving over $77 million in
costs to human health. The net benefit of Option 4 is estimated to be $207.0 million.
Implementing Options 2, 3 or 4 would see the development of legislation (and/or amendments
to existing regulation) required for Australia to meet obligations under the Minamata
Convention. The legislation would control: the import, export and manufacture of mercury and
products containing mercury; mining activities; storage; emissions and releases of mercury,
and management, recovery, recycling, reclamation and reuse of mercury. This is likely to be
implemented through the design and adoption of an overarching national legislative framework
to support the sound management of chemicals that would provide a nationally consistent,
transparent, predictable and streamlined approach to managing chemicals in the environment.
This process will be aligned with the implementation of the National Standard for the Risk
Management of Industrial Chemicals and will be a significant step in reducing the overall
complexity for chemicals management, including mercury, across Australia.
9 Values are provided in 2015 Australian dollar values and are calculated in real terms. These values are calculated using a 7% real discount rate and are calculated over 10 years. See Appendix B for further detail.
..............................................................................................................................................
7
Estimated Net Present Value (NPV) and Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) for each of the proposed Options relative to No Policy Change
Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
$million $million $million
Impact on the community 202.3 249.9 308.7
Impact on industry -53.1 -97.4 -98.8
Impact on government -3.9 -3.9 -3.9
Total net benefit 145.4 148.6 207.0
Benefit Cost Ratio 3.6 2.5 3.0
Recommendation
This Regulation Impact Statement has assessed that the preferred Option for Australia to
adopt to address the serious health and environmental risks posed by mercury is Option 4:
ratify the Minamata Convention and implement an enhanced national phase down of mercury
releases to the environment.
This conclusion is based on the following:
The impact analysis indicates that there is likely to be a net benefit as a result of
implementing either Options 2, 3 or 4 relative to no policy change (Option 1), with
Option 4 providing for the greatest net benefit.
Option 1 would not meet the overarching objective for Australia to ratify the Minamata
Convention on Mercury, nor would it meet the objective to significantly reduce mercury
exposure to human health and the environment with the associated risks of exposure.
The likely costs of Option 1 will outweigh the net benefits.
Options 2, 3 and 4 involve the continuation of work that is consistent with the
internationally accepted practices outlined in the Minamata Convention on Mercury,
and regulating and tightening controls on mercury imports, exports, mining,
manufacture, handling and waste management.
Option 2 is expected to enable the ratification of the Minamata Convention. It is not
expected that the reduction in mercury emissions and releases will be as significant as
the projected reductions for Options 3 and 4.
Option 3 is expected to meet both of the overarching objectives of the reforms.
o The net benefit for Option 3 is greater than Option 2 due to increased benefits
to human health by reducing mercury releases. This is particularly influenced by
a communications campaign for dentists to separate dental amalgam waste
from waste water (through installation of amalgam waste traps and separators).
o Option 3 will enable the sugarcane industry a transition period (until 2020) from
mercury-containing pesticides to existing alternatives.
o The benefit-cost ratio for Option 3 is lower than that of Options 2 and 4.
..............................................................................................................................................
8
Option 4 is expected to have greatest benefit to human health and the environment:
o The likely benefits associated with Option 4 are significantly greater than
Options 2 and 3, with the associated costs approximately equal to those of
Option 3.
..............................................................................................................................................
9
CONTENTS
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 2
The Problem ......................................................................................................................... 2
Policy Objectives .................................................................................................................. 4
Options for Action ................................................................................................................. 4
Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 5
Recommendation .................................................................................................................. 7
Acronyms and Abbreviations .............................................................................................. 12
1. Overview of the Regulation Impact Statement ............................................................... 14
1.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................................ 14
1.2 Report structure ............................................................................................................ 14
1.3 Making a submission .................................................................................................... 15
2. Background and Policy Context ...................................................................................... 17
3. Nature and Extent of the Problem ................................................................................... 22
3.1 Mercury and its Impacts on Human Health and the Environment .................................. 22
3.2 The Situation in Australia .............................................................................................. 25
3.2.1 Industrial Processes ............................................................................................... 25
3.2.2 Mercury-Containing Products ................................................................................. 31
3.2.3 Consumption of Contaminated Seafood ................................................................. 36
3.3 Current Regulatory Arrangements ................................................................................ 39
3.3.1 Commonwealth Responsibilities ............................................................................. 40
3.3.2 State and Territory Responsibilities ........................................................................ 41
4. The Need for Government Action .................................................................................... 46
5. Options for Government Action ...................................................................................... 48
5.1 Option 1: No Policy Change .......................................................................................... 51
5.2 Option 2: Ratification of the Minamata Convention ........................................................ 52
5.3 Option 3: Ratification of the Minamata Convention with dental amalgam waste
programme ......................................................................................................................... 54
5.4 Option 4: Ratification of the Minamata Convention with Enhanced National Phase down
........................................................................................................................................... 54
6. Impact Analysis of Each Option ...................................................................................... 56
6.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................. 57
6.1.1 Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................. 58
6.2 Impact on Government .............................................................................................. 59
6.3 Impact on Industry ..................................................................................................... 59
6.3.1 Industries with potential air emissions..................................................................... 61
..............................................................................................................................................
10
6.3.2 Cane growers ......................................................................................................... 62
6.3.3 Dental Practices ..................................................................................................... 63
6.3.4 Lighting Sector ....................................................................................................... 64
6.3.5 Waste and Recycling Sector ................................................................................... 66
6.3.6 Oil and Gas Production .......................................................................................... 66
6.4 Impact on Community ................................................................................................ 66
6.5 Benefits to the Environment .......................................................................................... 67
6.6 Benefits to Human Health ............................................................................................. 68
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 68
7. Regulatory Burden Measurement ................................................................................... 70
7.1 Regulatory burden cost by industry ............................................................................... 70
7.1.1 Industries with potential air emissions..................................................................... 70
7.1.2 Sugarcane Growers ................................................................................................ 70
7.1.3 Dental ..................................................................................................................... 71
7.1.4 Lighting ................................................................................................................... 71
7.1.5 Waste and recycling ............................................................................................... 72
7.1.6 Oil and Gas ............................................................................................................ 72
7.2 Regulatory Burden Summary and Conclusions ............................................................. 72
8. Consultation ..................................................................................................................... 73
8.1 Regulation Impact Statement for Australia’s Entry into Negotiations - 2010 .................. 73
8.2 Regulation Impact Statement for Australia’s Signature of the Convention – 2013 ......... 73
8.3 Public Consultation Paper – 2014 ................................................................................. 74
8.4 Cost-Benefit Analysis Consultation - 2015 .................................................................... 75
8.5 Outcomes of Consultation ............................................................................................. 77
9. Assessment of Options and Recommendation .............................................................. 78
9.1 Summary of Option 1 .................................................................................................... 78
9.2 Summary of Options 2, 3 and 4 ..................................................................................... 78
9.3 Preferred Option ........................................................................................................... 78
10. Implementation and Review of Preferred Option ......................................................... 79
10.1 Implementation ........................................................................................................... 79
10.1.1 Legislative approaches ......................................................................................... 79
10.1.2 Funding ................................................................................................................ 80
10.1.3 Enabling a strong international response .............................................................. 80
10.2 Review ........................................................................................................................ 80
Appendices ........................................................................................................................... 81
Appendix A ........................................................................................................................... 82
..............................................................................................................................................
11
Sources and Impacts of Mercury in Australia .................................................................... 82
A.1 Coal Burning, Mining and Smelting ............................................................................... 83
A.2 Cement Production ....................................................................................................... 83
A.3 Oil Refining ................................................................................................................... 84
A.4 Therapeutic Goods ....................................................................................................... 84
A.4.1 Dental Amalgam .................................................................................................... 84
A.5 Mercury-containing Products ........................................................................................ 85
A.5.1 Pesticides .............................................................................................................. 85
A.5.2 Measuring Equipment, Lighting and Batteries ........................................................ 86
A.6 Occupational Exposure ................................................................................................. 87
A.7 Exposure through Food Sources .................................................................................. 88
Appendix B ........................................................................................................................... 90
Appendix C ........................................................................................................................... 91
12
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AAC Australian Aluminium Council
ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics
ACBPS Australian Customs and Border Protection Service
ACCC Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
APPEA Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association
APVMA Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority
ASCC Australian Safety and Compensation Council
ASGM Artisanal and Small-scale Gold Mining
BAT/BEP Best Available Techniques/Best Environmental Practices
CBA Cost Benefit Analysis
CFL Compact Fluorescent Lamp
COP Conference of the Parties
COP1 First Conference of the Parties
the Department The Department of the Environment and Energy
Emissions Air emissions that contain mercury or mercury compounds
EPA Environment protection agency/authority
EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999)
EU European Union
FRLI Federal Register of Legislative Instruments
FSANZ Food Standards Australia New Zealand
FTE Full-time equivalent
GEL Generally Expected Level
GEMS Greenhouse and energy minimum standards
HPMV High Pressure Mercury Vapour (lamp)
INC Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee
IQ Intelligence Quotient
LBI Legally Binding Instrument
LFL Linear Fluorescent Lamp
MCA Minerals Council of Australia
..............................................................................................................................................
13
MEMC methoxy ethyl mercuric chloride
µg/L Micrograms per litre
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
NEPC National Environment Protection Council
NEPM National Environment Protection Measure
NGO Non-Government Organisation
NICNAS National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment
Scheme
NOPSEMA National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental
Management Authority
NPV Net present value
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OH&S Occupational Health and Safety
PV Present value
Releases Releases of mercury or mercury compounds to land and/or water
RIS Regulation Impact Statement
RBM Regulatory Burden Measurement
SAICM Strategic Approach to International Management of Chemicals
SDI Southern Dental Industries
TGA Therapeutic Goods Administration
UN United Nations
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
USA United States of America
..............................................................................................................................................
14
1. OVERVIEW OF THE REGULATION IMPACT STATEMENT
1.1 Purpose
This Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) examines options to address the human health and
environmental problems caused by the release of mercury into the environment. Australia’s
ratification of the Minamata Convention on Mercury and an associated national phase down of
mercury would help address these problems. Should Australia opt to not ratify the Convention,
nor phase down mercury nationally, costs to human health and the environment are likely to
increase into the future.
This RIS has been prepared by the Australian Government Department of the Environment
and Energy on behalf of the Commonwealth, in consultation with State and Territory
governments and primary stakeholders. It follows the Office of Best Practice Regulation’s
Australian Government Guide to Regulation and builds on two previous Regulation Impact
Statements concerning Australia’s entry into negotiations for a global legally binding
instrument on mercury and signature of the Minamata Convention on Mercury. Further detail
on past consultations relating to those RIS processes is provided in Section 8.
All options have been measured using the Australian Government’s Regulatory Burden
Measurement Framework. Preliminary regulatory burden costings have been included. The
Regulatory Burden Measurement Framework provides an estimate of regulatory costs or
savings for business, community organisations and individuals using an activity-based costing
methodology. For further information on the Regulatory Burden Measurement Framework, see
https://www.dpmc.gov.au/resource-centre/regulation/regulatory-burden-measurement-
framework-guidance-note
1.2 Report structure
The RIS is structured as follows:
Chapter 2 provides the background and policy context for the RIS.
Chapter 3 describes the problem that governments are seeking to address, and identifies
current regulatory arrangements and core stakeholders.
Chapter 4 establishes the principles and objectives of government action.
Chapter 5 describes the policy options for consideration in this RIS.
Chapter 6 outlines the impact analysis that has been undertaken on each of the options
described in Chapter 5.
Chapter 7 details the Regulatory Burden Measurement for each of the proposed options.
Chapter 8 summarises consultation during the development of this RIS.
Chapter 9 assesses the options within the context of the Regulatory Burden Measurement,
cost-benefit analysis and stakeholder consultation.
Chapter 10 summarises the proposed implementation and review processes for the
preferred policy option.
..............................................................................................................................................
15
Questions are posed throughout this document, and the Australian Government seeks the
views of government, industry and public stakeholders. These are posed in question boxes
throughout the RIS.
1.3 Making a submission
The Department invites submissions on the options presented in this RIS from industry
groups, businesses members of the community, state and territory governments, local
government and any other interested parties.
Responses received will inform the Final Regulatory Impact Statement which will be
considered by the Australian Government in early 2017.
Each submission, unless it is explicitly provided in confidence, will be published on the
Department’s website. Copyright of submissions will reside with the author(s) and not with the
Australian Government.
Submissions should be lodged electronically, via the email address below. Alternatively they
may be sent to the postal address below.
All submissions must be received by COB Friday 17 March 2017.
Email: [email protected]
Post: Chemicals Management and Standards Section
Department of the Environment and Energy
GPO Box 787
CANBERRA ACT 2601
Privacy statement
Views are being sought by the Department on the possible ratification of the Minamata
Convention. Personal information provided will be used for the following purposes:
To seek input in relation to the RIS
Where a submission raises a matter relevant to the portfolio interests of another
agency such that it is appropriate to disclose your personal information to that agency
Personal information included in your submission may also be disclosed in subsequent
Departmental publications that are relevant to the portfolio interests of the Department.
The Department’s privacy policy contains information about how personal information may be
accessed, how a request for correction of personal information can be made and how a
complaint may be made in relation to the handling of personal information. Should you require
a copy of the Department’s Privacy Policy, please contact 02 6274 1427.
Confidentiality Statement
It is preferred that submissions do not contain confidential elements to be consistent with a
transparent review and decision making process.
..............................................................................................................................................
16
All submissions will be treated as public documents, unless the author(s) of the submission
clearly requests otherwise. Public submissions may be published in full on the Department’s
website, including any personal information of authors and/or other third parties contained in
the submission.
If a part of a submission includes confidential or sensitive information it should be provided in a
separate attachment. Alternatively a redacted version may be submitted.
If a submission contains personal information about any person who is not an author of the
submission, please indicate on the cover sheet if the person or persons have not consented to
the publication of this information.
Any requests under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 for access to a submission marked
‘confidential’ will be determined in accordance with that Act.
..............................................................................................................................................
17
2. BACKGROUND AND POLICY CONTEXT
Australia, and 127 other countries (with the European Union as a regional bloc), signed the
Minamata Convention on 10 October 2013. Signature indicates that Australia is obliged to
refrain, in good faith, from acts that would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty (but is
not obliged to ratify). The objective of the Minamata Convention is to protect human health and
the environment from anthropogenic emissions and releases of mercury through a range of
measures. It does so by addressing the various stages of mercury’s lifecycle, including:
production of mercury; intentional use in products and processes; unintentional emission and
release from industrial processes; and the management of end-of-life issues such as waste
and contaminated sites, and the recovery of mercury and its re-use.
Box 2.1: Minamata Bay Environmental Disaster
The Minamata Convention on Mercury was named after the town of Minamata, Japan, famous for the
widespread poisoning of thousands of people by mercury in the mid-20th century.
The industrial poisoning of Minamata Bay, which caused widespread mercury contamination throughout
the region, is classed as one of the greatest environmental disasters in human history. The release of
wastewater by the chemicals manufacturer Chisso Corporation contaminated fish and shellfish with
methylmercury, which was then consumed by the local people. Widespread suffering and death from
this incident led to mercury poisoning symptoms now being referred to as “Minamata disease”.
While it has been over 55 years since the initial identification of the disease, the impact and legacy
continues to be a significant issue in contemporary Japan. A substantial number of legal and
compensation claims remain active, and environmental remediation efforts continue (see Figure 2.4).10
The final text of the Minamata Convention is the result of increasing scientific evidence
attributing significant adverse environmental and human health impacts to the liberation of
mercury from anthropogenic sources.11 One particular environmental health impact of mercury
that is of particular concern is the bioaccumulation and biomagnification of methylmercury in
ecosystems, causing reproductive and developmental impairment of species at the top of the
food chain (such as dolphins, whales and certain fish-species) and serving as vectors for
human exposure. In regards to human health, exposure to mercury can damage the central
nervous system and affect the function of major organs. Some neurological and behavioural
disorders can also indicate mercury contamination and cognitive and motor dysfunction as a
result of exposure.12 The adverse effects on human health and the environment can be
minimised by reducing the total amount of mercury being liberated in the environment from
anthropogenic emissions and releases.
Mercury is a naturally occurring element, and as such, there are many natural sources of
mercury emissions and releases: volcanic eruptions, natural weathering of mercury containing
rocks, and geothermal activity. However, anthropogenic sources of mercury emissions and
releases contribute greatly to the total amount of mercury being liberated into the environment.
At the global level, the greatest anthropogenic sources of mercury emissions and releases
10 Harada, M 1995, ‘Minamata Disease: Methylmercury Poisoning in Japan Caused by Environmental Pollution’, Critical Reviews in Toxicology, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 1-24. 11 Global Mercury Assessment 2002 12 Mercury: Time to Act, UNEP 2013
..............................................................................................................................................
18
include: coal burning; mining, smelting and production of iron and non-ferrous metals; cement
production; oil refining; artisanal and small scale gold mining; wastes from consumer products
and dental amalgam.13
In 2010, global anthropogenic emissions of mercury to the atmosphere were estimated at
1,960 tonnes.14 Australia’s share of global mercury emissions is estimated at less than
one per cent (approximately 10 tonnes) per year.15 Australian anthropogenic emissions of
mercury remained at this level from 2009 to 2015, but are generally expected to increase in
the future.16 In addition to emissions of mercury to the air, Australia’s releases of mercury to
land and water are estimated at approximately eight tonnes per year.17 Similar to emissions,
Australia’s share of anthropogenic releases of mercury to land and water are just under one
per cent of total global releases, estimated at approximately 1000 tonnes per year. The charts
in Figure 2.2 below highlight the most significant anthropogenic sources of mercury in
Australia and their approximate contribution to total mercury emissions and releases
domestically.
Figure 2.2: Australia's 2014-15 anthropogenic sources of mercury, and their volume (tonnes)
2.2a Emissions - air 2.2b Releases – land and water
While Australia’s mercury emissions and releases are relatively minor when considered in the
global context, at a national level, the emissions and releases are high and are estimated18 at
approximately double the global average, on a per capita basis. At a national level, the
emissions and releases are significant enough to cause considerable impacts that warrant
further government action (see section 3.2).
13 Global Mercury Assessment 2013: Sources, emissions, releases and environmental transport 14 Global Mercury Assessment 2013: Sources, emissions, releases and environmental transport 15 National Pollutant Inventory 2010 data for point source emissions of mercury and mercury compounds. In 2014-2015, the National Pollutant Inventory reported emissions of 10.2 tonnes of mercury and compounds. 16 See page 73 of the cost-benefit analysis (Appendix B). 17 Releases estimate is based on information provided in the cost-benefit analysis (Appendix B) and specific releases sources are referenced throughout this RIS. Refer to Section 3.2.2 for further information on these releases sources. 18 Estimates are based on 2010 Australian and global population counts, 22 million and 6.8 billion respectively, and Australian and global emissions and releases data provided in this RIS.
6.3, 63%
2.7, 27%
0.1, 1%0.7, 7%
0.2, 2%
Non ferrous metal manufacturing
Coal fired power generation
Cement, lime, plaster and concrete manufacture
Mining for coal, construction material and metals
Ferrous metal manufacturing
5.3, 65%
1.5, 19%
1.3, 16%
Shirtan(mercury containing pesticide)
Fluorescent lights
Dental amalgam waste
..............................................................................................................................................
19
Ratification of the Minamata Convention would provide momentum for a national framework
that would complement existing regulatory and voluntary measures, and where necessary,
facilitate the development of new regulations to address mercury throughout its life cycle.
Ratification of the Convention would also enable Australia to influence future negotiations on
mercury management. As it has done with other international agreements, Australia could also
exercise a significant level of leadership in our region by encouraging neighbouring countries
to reduce their mercury emissions and releases. The consequences of not ratifying the
Minamata Convention prior to the first Conference of the Parties (COP 1) are outlined in Box
2.3.
The Minamata Convention will enter into force on the 90th day after the 50th country has
ratified, with COP 1 to be held within 12 months of that date (currently scheduled for late 2017
or early 2018). This is regardless of any actions taken by Australia.
Box 2.3: Impacts resulting from failure to ratify the Minamata Convention until after COP 1
Failure to ratify the Convention, or ratification after COP 1, would disable Australia’s ability to effectively
contribute to decisions and guidance on trade provisions and certification; technical guidelines for
atmospheric emissions; financial and reporting arrangements; the election of members to the
Implementation and Compliance Committee and may lead to reduced information being made available
to Australian stakeholders who are likely to be affected by trade-related provisions.
A decision not to ratify the Convention before COP 1 is also likely to diminish Australia’s influence in
other multilateral fora and could lead to unfavourable criticism of Australia by other countries and non-
government organisations. Australia would also be unable to participate in important decision-making
processes for certain elements of the Minamata Convention.
Therefore, the notion of deferring ratification until after COP 1 is an unattractive option within this RIS.
20
Figure 2.4: Timeline of the major events and ongoing effects of the Minamata Bay disaster (Japan).19
19 Adapted from: United Nations Environment Programme 2013, Mercury: Time to Act, Division of Technology, Industry and Economics, p. 11.
21
To date, 35 countries have ratified the Convention. More significantly, despite having signed
but not ratified other chemicals and wastes treaties, the United States of America (USA)
became the first country in the world to ratify the Minamata Convention on 6 November 2013.
China ratified the Convention on 31 August 2016, and Japan, the site for the Minamata Bay
disaster in the 1950s, ratified on 2 February 2016. It is understood that most developed
economies intend to become ratified Parties and that the European Union, Canada and New
Zealand are all poised to ratify.
In 2014, the then Department of the Environment sought feedback from industry and other
stakeholders on the potential impacts of Australia’s ratification of the Convention through both
targeted engagement and a public consultation paper outlining the Articles under the
Convention. This RIS takes into account industry feedback and builds on it by evaluating three
possible options for ratification alongside a business-as-usual scenario (representing no
change in current policy).
More specifically, this RIS critically analyses:
The feasibility of Australia’s ratification of the Minamata Convention;
The costs and benefits of ratification and associated national phase down of mercury;
and
How Australia can maximise the benefits of phasing-down mercury through enhanced
national measures.
..............................................................................................................................................
22
3. NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM
This Chapter:
details the adverse effects of mercury on human health and the environment
describes the current situation in Australia, including an outline of the regulatory
environment
concludes that a national phase down of mercury will reduce the Australian population’s
risk of mercury exposure and the associated human health, environmental and economic
costs, and
determines that without further intervention by government, these risks will continue to
have human health, environmental and economic consequences.
3.1 Mercury and its Impacts on Human Health and the Environment
Mercury is a naturally occurring element that can be emitted and released as a result of both
natural processes and human activities (refer to Figure 3.1). Once emitted or released,
mercury persists in the environment where it circulates between the air, water, sediments, soil
and living organisms. It can travel far from its original source, and becomes increasingly
concentrated in the tissues of organisms as it rises up the food chain. Mercury can cause
serious adverse effects on ecosystems and wildlife, particularly through its tendency to cause
reproductive and developmental impairment.
Figure 3.1: Sources of Mercury Exposure to the Environment20
20 United Nations Environment Programme 2013, Mercury: Time to Act, Division of Technology, Industry and Economics, p. 21.
..............................................................................................................................................
23
Exposure to mercury poses a serious risk to environmental health worldwide (refer to Figure
3.2).21 Inhaled mercury is readily absorbed into the blood stream and can damage the central
nervous system, thyroid, kidneys, heart, lungs, immune system, eyes, gums and skin.
Neurological and behavioural disorders can also indicate mercury contamination, with
symptoms including tremors, insomnia, memory loss, neuromuscular effects, headaches, and
cognitive and motor dysfunction.22 In extreme cases, rapid onset insanity, paralysis, coma and
death can also occur.23
Mercury is considered by the World Health Organization as one of the top ten chemicals of
major public health concern. Contamination contributes to the overall global burden of
diseases, injuries and risks that are attributed to hazardous chemical exposure. Mitigating and
resolving these problems can be costly, particularly in regard to remediation activities.24 The
United Nations Environment Programme reported that in 2008, the global environmental costs
due to human emissions and releases of mercury totalled US$22 billion.25
The most common source of direct mercury exposure for humans is through the consumption
of fish and seafood contaminated with methylmercury. Once ingested, 95 per cent of the
chemical is absorbed in the body.26 Infants, children and pregnant women (due to trans-
placental contamination) are most vulnerable to the adverse effects of mercury. In children and
infants, mercury can cause severe neurological damage resulting in mental retardation,
seizures, vision and hearing loss, delayed development, language disorders and memory loss.
Children with elevated mercury levels are also more likely to be diagnosed with an attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder.27,28
The loss of IQ associated with in utero mercury exposure and subsequent methylmercury
toxicity is of primary concern, as the resulting loss of intelligence causes diminished economic
productivity and persists over a lifetime. This lost productivity has been estimated to cost
US$8.7 billion annually in USA alone.29
In the EU, more than 1.8 million children are born each year with methylmercury exposures
above the recommended limit of 0.58 µg/g. It has been estimated that the total annual
economic benefits of exposure prevention are between €8 billion and €9 billion per year.30
21 World Health Organisation 2005, Mercury in Health Care – Policy Paper, WHO/SDE/WSH/05.08. 22 World Health Organisation 2013, ‘Mercury and Health’, Factsheet No361. 23 United Nations Environment Programme 2013, Mercury: Time to Act, Division of Technology, Industry and Economics, p. 23. 24 World Health Organisation 2013, ‘Mercury and Health’, Factsheet No361. 25 United Nations Environment Program 2013, Costs of Inaction on the Sound Management of Chemicals. 26 United Nations Environment Programme 2013, Mercury: Time to Act, Division of Technology, Industry and Economics, p. 23. 27 World Health Organisation 2013, ‘Mercury and Health’, Factsheet No361. 28 Boucher, O et al., 2012, ‘Prenatal Methylmercury, Postnatal Lead Exposure, and Evidence of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder among Inuit Children in Arctic Québec’ Environmental Health Perspectives, vol 120, no 10, pp1456-1461. 29 Transande, L et.al 2005, ‘Public Health and Economic Consequences of Methyl Mercury Toxicity to the Developing Brain’, Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 113, no. 5, pp. 590-596. 30 Bellanger, M et al. 2013, ‘Economic Benefits of methylmercury exposure control in Europe: Monetary value of neurotoxicity prevention’, Environmental Health, vo. 12, no. 3, pp. 1-10.
24
31Figure 3.2: Global Distribution of Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions to Air in 201032
32 United Nations Environment Programme 2013, Global Mercury Assessment 2013: Sources, Emissions, Releases and Environmental Transport, Division of Technology, Industry and Economics, p. 11.
25
3.2 The Situation in Australia
There is a paucity of data on the distribution of liberated mercury and extent of mercury
exposure in Australia, constraining the development of a comprehensive quantitative analysis.
Consequently, this RIS draws on evidence gathered through a review of international and
domestic literature; economic, environmental, trade and other official data; and consultations
with Commonwealth, State and Territory government agencies, relevant industries, and non-
government organisations.
In Australia, the three most significant anthropogenic source categories of mercury exposure
are:
industrial processes – including coal-fired electricity generation, non-ferrous smelting and
roasting processes and gold roasting
mercury-containing products – including pesticides, lighting and dental amalgam, and
consumption – primarily from contaminated seafood.
Studying the effects of mercury on human health and the environment is extremely challenging
because, as it is an element, it is never destroyed, and can be recycled in various forms
through the environment. For example, mercury that is deposited to soils, lakes, wetlands, or
oceans may later enter the food chain, for example as methylmercury, or be re-released into
the atmosphere where it can then be redeposited elsewhere. Therefore, it is highly likely that
the Australian population is being affected by mercury pollution emitted or released overseas.
As mercury is a global pollutant, the commencement of the Minamata Convention globally will
impact on mercury concentrations in Australia which derive from mercury emissions and
releases in other countries. However, for simplicity, the cost-benefit analysis prepared for this
RIS assumes that reductions in Australian emissions and releases directly benefit the health of
Australians. For the same reasons, the cost-benfit analysis does not estimate the value to the
health of Australians by other nations reducing their own emissions and releases.
3.2.1 Industrial Processes
Industrial processes contribute significantly to concentrations of mercury in the environment.
These sources include (but are not limited to); coal burning, mining, and industrial activities
that process ores or other raw materials to produce refined metals or cement. Through these
activities, mercury is emitted or released to the environment because it is present as an
impurity in the fuels and raw materials. This is sometimes referred to as ‘by-product’ or
‘unintentional’ emission and release.
According to the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI), industry reported the emission and release
of 10.2 tonnes of mercury33 in the 2014/2015 reporting period (See Figure 3.4).34 The
reporting threshold for mercury and mercury compounds is exceeded if:
for mercury as a ‘category 1b’ substance – the activities of the facility involve the use of
five kilograms or more of the substance in the relevant reporting period
for mercury as a ‘category 2b’ substance:
33 Reported as emissions of mercury and mercury compounds. The reporting threshold for this pollutant is 5kg per annum. 34 National Pollutant Inventory 2016, 2014/2015 data within Australia – Mercury & Compounds from All Sources.
..............................................................................................................................................
26
- the activities of the facility involve the burning of 2,000 tonnes or more of fuel or waste
in the relevant reporting period
- the activities of the facility involve the consumption of 60,000 megawatt hours or more
of electrical energy in the period for other than lighting or motive purposes
the maximum potential power consumption of the facility at any time in the relevant
reporting period is rated at 20 megawatts or more for other than lighting or motive
purposes.
Over 1300 facilities reported mercury use or emissions in 2014-2015. The ‘hotspots’ shown in
Figure 3.3 relate to coal burning, mining, and industrial activities that process ores or other raw
materials to produce refined metals or cement.
Table 3.3 shows the number of facilities that reported mercury emissions in 2014-2015 (note
that some facilities that have reported mercury emissions are not industrial sources listed
under the Minamata Convention on Mercury).
Table 3.3: Facilities that have reported mercury emissions
Jurisdiction Number of facilities reporting mercury
emissions
Australian Capital Territory 12
New South Wales 259
Northern Territory 37
Queensland 318
South Australia 106
Tasmania 46
Victoria 252
Western Australia 297
The source activities that produce mercury emissions are covered by state and territory
environmental protection legislation, and in some jurisdictions, a licensing scheme operates in
addition to approval processes. For other jurisdictions, authorities administering environmental
protection legislation have a power to veto approval under planning legislation, and direct
imposition of certain conditions on approvals.
27
Figure 3.4: Mercury emission hot spots – The spatial distribution of reported anthropogenic mercury emissions and releases in Australia35
35 National Pollutant Inventory 2016, 2014/2015 data within Australia – Mercury & Compounds from All Sources.
28
Gold roasting
The roasting of gold is the largest point source of mercury emissions into the atmosphere in
Australia36. However, recent upgrades to the Gidgi gold roasting facility, north of Kalgoorlie,
Western Australia, have reportedly reduced the amount of mercury emitted, with a decrease of
five tonnes per annum of mercury emissions, approximately a 90 per cent reduction on
historical emissions. This has led to a fewer incidents when emissions exceed acceptable
limits and consequent temporary closure of the plant.37 The state licence for the facility no
longer requires reporting of mercury emissions38. This change of practice can be attributed to a
collaborative working relationship between industry and state regulators to achieve improved
environmental outcomes.39
Questions:
State and Territory government:
Given that mercury emissions have been removed from the licence condition for this facility,
what measures do you employ to ensure mercury no longer being emitted or released to the
environment?
Industrial processes
Unintentional mercury emissions from industrial processes can be reduced by applying
pollution control measures (such as electrostatic precipitators and carbon filters). Box 3.5
details the provision within the Minamata Convention that provides for the development of
guidelines on the Best Available Techniques and Best Environmental Practices (BAT/BEP) for
controlling emissions from defined source categories.
Box 3.5: BAT/BEP Guidelines for Atmospheric Emissions
Article 8 of the Minamata Convention establishes the requirements for controlling, and, where feasible,
reducing emissions of mercury and mercury compounds to the atmosphere from a number of specified
point source categories. Point source categories are listed in Annex D of the Convention and are:
- coal-fired power plants
- coal-fired industrial boilers
- smelting and roasting processes used in the production of non-ferrous metals (lead, zinc, copper
and industrial gold)
- waste incineration facilities, and
- cement clinker production facilities.
Each Party to the Convention may establish criteria to identify the sources (for example, individual
facilities) within the remit of the listed source categories. The criteria for identifying point sources within
a category are flexible, as long as at least 75 per cent of the emissions from that category (Article 8,
paragraph 2b) are included.
36 National Pollutant Inventory, 2012/2013 report for Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd, Gidji Operations – Kanowa, WA, accessed June 2015, www.npi.gov.au. 37 https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/Barnett/2015/06/Reduced-emissions-an-industry-success-story.aspx 38 Licence details can be found: https://www.der.wa.gov.au/component/k2/itemlist/filter?fitem_all=Gidji&=&=&=&moduleId=94&Itemid=136 39 Due to the upgrades of the facility, mercury emissions from the Gidgi gold roasting facility were not included in the cost-benefit analysis associated with the preparation of this RIS (page 75 of Appendix B).
..............................................................................................................................................
29
While aluminium production is not specifically mentioned in Annex D, many aluminium refineries and
smelters are supported by coal-fired power generation (a listed point source category) and therefore
may be in scope for this particular obligation.
The structure of Article 8 differentiates between existing sources of emissions (emissions from existing
plant and facilities) and new emissions (emissions from either existing plant which have undergone
‘substantial modification’40 or new plant and facilities).
New Sources
New sources are defined with reference to the date of entry of force of the Convention. New sources are
sources for which the construction or substantial modification of which is commenced at least one year
after the date of entry into force of the Convention.41 Assuming the timeline for the Convention that is
established in Chapter 2, new sources are those whereby construction commences after the
Convention enters into force (expected for 2017).
Article 8, paragraph 4 of the Convention specifies: ‘For its new sources, each Party shall require the use
of best available techniques (BAT) and best environmental practices (BEP) to control and, where
feasible, reduce emissions, as soon as practicable but no later than five years after the date of entry into
force of the Convention for that Party. A Party may use emission limit values that are consistent with the
application of best available techniques.’
The guidance on BAT/BEP is being developed by a technical expert working group. The draft guidance
was discussed at the seventh meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (March 2016),
and will be negotiated and agreed at the first Conference of the Parties.
Existing Sources
Existing sources are defined as any sources which are not defined as a new source.42
For existing sources, each Party to the Convention is required to select one or more of five possible
measures for implementation within ten years of the Convention entering into force. The five measures
are:
‘(a) A quantified goal for controlling and, where feasible, reducing emissions from relevant sources;
(b) Emission limit values for controlling and, where feasible, reducing emissions from relevant sources;
(c) The use of best available techniques and best environmental practices to control emissions from
relevant sources;
(d) A multi-pollutant control strategy that would deliver co-benefits for control of mercury emissions;
(e) Alternative measures to reduce emissions from relevant sources’.43
Previous discussions with industry have indicated that the least costly option to enable Australia’s
compliance with the Convention is the introduction of Article 8, Paragraph 5 (b): ‘Emission limit values
for controlling and, where feasible, reducing emissions from relevant sources’. The department has
interpreted this to mean specifying the limits for mercury emissions from point sources (such as coal-
fired power plants), which form part of the environmental licensing conditions currently imposed under
state and territory environmental legislation.
40 ‘Substantial modification’ means modification of a relevant source that result in a significant increase in emissions, excluding any change in emissions resulting from by-product recovery. It shall be a matter for the Party to decide whether a modification is substantial or not. See Article 8, paragraph 2(d) of the Conventions. 41 Article 8, Paragraph 4 of the Minamata Convention. 42 Article 8, Paragraph 2(e) of the Minamata Convention. 43 Article 8, Paragraph 5 of the Minamata Convention
..............................................................................................................................................
30
It is also noted that the selection of measures under the Convention should ’take into account [each
Party’s] national circumstances and the economic and technical feasibility and affordability of the
measures’.4445
Due to the status of the guidance during the development of the cost-benefit analysis and the unknown
outcomes of the multi-staged negotiation process between Parties prior to implementation, it is not
possible to provide precise detail of the requirements (and resulting costs and benefits) of the BAT/BEP
guidance for emissions. However, a sensitivity analysis was developed by Marsden Jacob (in
consultation with industry representatives) that identified the ‘most likely’ outcomes and impacts.
The potential risks raised by the unknown nature of the BAT/BEP guidance include the (currently)
unpredictable nature of the requirements (and related costs and benefits) of the guidance. Two
alternative outcomes were considered and consulted as a part of the cost-benefit analysis. They were
the:
- ‘lower’ requirement, where guidance would be brought to an OECD level and would not impose any
costs compared to a ‘business as usual’ situation in Australia. This requirement is not thought to further
reduce mercury emissions, or
- ‘higher’ requirement, where ‘best available techniques’ is taken literally and identifies leading
technology and approaches from around the world, and indicates these forms of technologies and
approaches should be used.
It is important to note that achieving Party status will enable Australia to participate in decision-making
for the Convention during the COP1. This includes the negotiation of, and agreement to, the final
BAT/BEP guidance on emissions.
Some of the mercury captured from these pollution control technologies is refined and may re-
enter the commercial supply chain, however, large amounts of mercury captured in materials
such as fly ash and oil refinery waste must be stored or managed. Some of these wastes are
then used as raw materials in construction, but large amounts are most commonly disposed in
landfill, again becoming potential sources of mercury emission and release if not contained
appropriately.
Questions:
Industry:
Which of the proposed measures for reducing emissions (from existing sources) best suit your
industries? Why?
What is your view of the other measures to reduce mercury emissions from existing sources?
State and Territory governments:
Do you apply emission limits as part of licence approvals?
Are emission limits standard across facilities, or do they vary based on the nature and
operation of the individual facility?
44 Article 8, Paragraph 5 of the Minamata Convention. 45 For its cost-benefit analysis, Marsden Jacob interpreted that the Convention does not seek to impose mercury emission reduction measures to the extent that prevent individual plants or being viable. Recognition of national circumstances may be interpreted in Australia’s context in a number of ways, including requirement for economies of scale, isolation factors and lack of alternative treatment or production methods
..............................................................................................................................................
31
How often are the emission limits reviewed?
What is your view of the other measures to reduce mercury emissions from existing sources?
What is your preferred method to reduce mercury emissions from existing sources?
How do you measure and control waste?
3.2.2 Mercury-Containing Products
Mercury is used in a wide range of products, including batteries, switches, electrical and
electronic devices, thermometers, blood-pressure gauges, fluorescent lamps, biocides,
pesticides, topical antiseptics and cosmetics. Annex A of the Minamata Convention provides a
list of products subject to Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Convention (see Appendix C). Products
containing mercury generally enter the waste stream through landfill or incineration at the end
of their life cycle. Under the Convention, these products have a compulsory phase-out date of
2020, which the Commonwealth anticipates would be enacted through legislation.
Questions:
Industry:
Should Australia ratify the Convention, the manufacture, import and export of mercury in
batteries, switches, electrical and electronic devices, thermometers, blood-pressure gauges,
biocides, topical antiseptics and cosmetics will be banned by 2020. What impact will this have
on your industry? What can industry do to ensure it can meet this change?
State and Territory governments:
What measures would you be willing to take to ensure products containing mercury are
recycled?
What measures would you be willing to take to prevent mercury waste not be allowed to leach
in landfill?
In Australia there are three mercury-containing products that represent the most significant
sources of mercury in this category: pesticides, lighting and dental amalgam.
Pesticides
In Australia, one mercury-containing product is registered with the Australian Pesticides and
Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) (see Box 3.6). Shirtan Liquid Fungicide® is a
mercury-containing pesticide that is widely used by sugarcane growers for the control of
pineapple disease. Growers that use Shirtan apply the chemical to sugarcane setts prior to
planting46. While there is a comparable alternative product available (discussed below), the
mercury-containing pesticide has substantial market penetration with approximately
46 Sugarcane is a semi-perennial crop and individual fields are replanted approximately every four to six years. Sugarcane is planted by using cuttings (referred to as ‘setts’), is harvested annually and the root stock and base of the plant are left in place over the four to six year duration.
..............................................................................................................................................
32
80 per cent of new plantings being treated, equating to an average of 44,000 litres of product
per annum.
Shirtan contains 120 grams of mercury per litre, present as the active ingredient methoxy ethyl
mercuric chloride (referred to as MEMC)47. Due to the extensive use of the product by the
sugar industry, approximately 5,280 kg of elemental mercury is released into the Australian
environment each year. This release of mercury, through projected estimates of harm to
human health per kilogram of mercury, costs Australia approximately $25.8 million annually.48
Sediment samples collected from the Great Barrier Reef have identified mercury
concentrations of up to 100 µg/kg, ten times higher than background concentrations49.
According to a report released by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, these
concentrations are attributed to the contemporary application of mercury-based pesticides on
sugarcane farms.50 Recent research shows that coral reefs are under threat from land-based
pollutants, with the vulnerability of the early life stages of coral being a particular concern. This
research found that the pesticide containing MEMC is extremely toxic to corals at barely
detectable concentrations, affecting coral fertilisation and metamorphosis, and causing coral
bleaching and host tissue death.51 Mass spawning on the Great Barrier Reef generally occurs
during November and December each year, often coinciding with the first rains of the wet
season in tropical North Queensland, potentially increasing the risk of contamination from
agricultural runoff. The use of MEMC was banned in most countries during the 1970s and
1980s due to its serious adverse effects on the environment and toxicity to animals.52
Alternative non-mercury based pesticides are available on the Australian market. A range of
propiconazole based pesticides are available under different trade names and are registered
for control of both pineapple sett rot and smut.53 More significantly, a relatively new pesticide
(Sinker Fungicide®) using flutriafol as the active constituent has entered the market. This
product is more expensive than Shirtan, as it is a proprietary formulation, however, alternative
pesticides are likely to become available in approximately 2018 once competitors formulating
flutriafol-based pesticides are able to enter the market. It is expected that costs will decrease
and Sinker will become more competitive with Shirtan.54 Anecdotally, the Department has
learned that transition rates to non-mercury products have been low due to sugarcane growers
electing to stay with the known product.
Box 3.6: Deregistration of mercury-containing pesticides in Australia
The APVMA (formerly the National Registration Authority) cancelled the registration of agricultural
products containing mercury in August 1995. The only exception was Shirtan® for use on sugarcane,
provided that soil monitoring is undertaken to confirm that soil mercury contents do not exceed
background levels55. At the time, concerns were with the potential persistence of mercury in soils. It is
47 Crop Care Australia 2011, Material Safety Data Sheet Shirtan Liquid Fungicide. 48 Utilizing a range of case studies, Marsden Jacob developed a benefit transfer methodology that is suitable for application to Australian circumstances and estimates the likely impact of mercury emissions and releases at $4,862 per kg of mercury. 49 Markey KL, Baird AH, Humphrey C, Negri AP 2007, ‘Insecticides and a fungicides affect multiple coral life stages’, Marine Ecology Progress Series, vol.330, pp.127-137. 50 GBRMPA, Water Quality Guidelines for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park: Revised Edition 2010, p. 74. 51 Markey Kl et al. 2007, ‘Insecticides and a fungicide affect multiple coral life stages’, Marine Ecology Progress Series, vol.330, pp.127-137. 52 James, G 2006, ‘Diseases’, Sugarcane: Second Edition, p. 58. 53 Bhuiyan, S.A; Croft, B.J & Tucker, G.R 2014, ‘Efficacy of the fungicide flutriafol for the control of pineapple sett rot of sugarcane in Australia’, Australasian Plant Pathology, vol. 43, p. 418. 54 Once the data used for registration with APVMA becomes publicly available. 55 http://apvma.gov.au/node/12591
..............................................................................................................................................
33
understood that additional assessments relating to the environmental and human health impacts of
Shirtan were not conducted (such as air emissions and soil runoff). There are no known ongoing soil
monitoring programmes in relation to Shirtan.
In 2008, the APVMA published a Project to achieve greater alignment between substances listed in
Appendix J of the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Drugs and Poisons and Products declared as
Restricted Chemical Products. Within this document it reads:
“Methoxyethylmercuric chloride [MEMC] is present in one product used for dipping sugar cane setts.
The acute toxicity of the product is expected to be high and developmental toxicity potential is an
additional concern. There are significant environmental concerns regarding the use of mercury
containing pesticides. Shirtan Liquid Fungicide may have an effect that is harmful to human beings and
the environment and is considered to meet two of the [Restricted Chemical Products] criteria.
Restriction of Shirtan Liquid Fungicide will ensure that persons authorised by the State/Territory
authorities, including licensed pest control operators, have access to the chemical. Restricted access
only to authorised people will prevent its use by untrained people who are unaware of the specific
requirements for use of the product. This will protect human health and the environment. There is no
detriment to the public because even under current arrangements the public should not have access to
Shirtan Liquid Fungicide.”
Despite this assessment, Shirtan was not ultimately listed as a Restricted Chemical Product. There is
no current APVMA activity in this area.
Questions:
Industry:
What is the current rate of change over from using Shirtan to alternative pesticides?
What is the appetite for change over to non-mercury alternatives?
State and Territory governments:
Do you have monitoring data for mercury run off from the use of mercury pesticides?
Are there environmental licences/restraints in place for the use of Shirtan on sugarcane? If so,
what are these?
Lighting Some domestic or commercial lighting includes some quantity of mercury. Mercury-containing
lamps include small compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) used mostly in homes, linear
fluorescent lamps (LFLs) or tubes used mostly in offices, commercial or industrial facilities,
and high intensity discharge lamps such as high pressure mercury vapour lamps (HPMVs)
used for street lighting and sports grounds.
In 2010, new energy efficiency standards were introduced by the Commonwealth, limiting the
mercury content of fluorescent tubes and compact fluorescent lamps to approximately two
milligrams per lamp. The Department is currently, separately, consulting with industry on these
requirements.
..............................................................................................................................................
34
Non-mercury lighting products are available and include the light-emitting diode (LED) lamps.
High pressure sodium vapour lights and other energy efficient alternatives are also available.
Mercury-containing products, including lighting, enter the waste stream and accumulate in
landfill across Australia. Mercury in landfill converts to methylmercury and spreads into the
wider environment through air, water and soil.56 Segregation of mercury-containing wastes
from general household waste at the point of generation is the most effective method of
management. There is currently no regulatory control on the disposal of used lamps.
Encouraging the use of alternative, non-mercury containing lighting products would effectively
and efficiently reduce the total amount of mercury entering the waste stream. Manufacturers
are not required to provide for collection and recycling, however there is one industry-led
initiative that is aiming to address the issue of lamp recycling from commercial and public
lighting sectors.
FluoroCycle is a voluntary, industry funded and managed scheme aimed at reducing the
amount of mercury-containing waste being disposed of to landfill from the commercial and
public lighting sectors. No such scheme exists for domestic waste lighting. In 2012, lamp
recycling directly attributable to FluoroCycle was calculated to be 1.7 per cent. From this, the
estimated weight of mercury recovered was 25.9 kg.57
Questions:
Industry:
Should Australia ratify the Convention, the manufacture, import and export of mercury in
lighting (within certain requirements) will be banned by 2020. What impact will this have on
your industry? What can industry do to ensure it can meet this change?
Would you be willing to enter into a product stewardship agreement with FluoroCycle to
ensure that waste (commercial and public) lighting is sent to a recycling facility?
State and Territory governments:
What measures would you be willing to take to ensure domestic lighting containing mercury is
recycled, and not sent to landfill?
Dental Amalgam
Mercury-containing dental amalgam is used for some dental fillings. Its use in Australia
comprises approximately 25 per cent of new fillings. Dental practitioners in Australia have now
adopted the use of alternative, non-mercury containing products such as resin composite and
glass-ionomer in the majority of their dental restoration work, largely due to increasing
consumer preference for tooth-coloured alternatives.58
Australia complies with the obligations associated with dental amalgam in the Minamata
Convention (Article 4, Annex A, Part II). This Article requires a Party to comply with two or
more measures from the list in Annex A, Part II. Table 3.7 contains input provided by the
56 FluoroCycle, ‘Why should we recycle our waste lighting?’ accessed April 2015, <http://www.fluorocycle.org.au/why-recycle.php>. 57 FluoroCycle Annual Report, 2013-2014. 58 Department of Health 2014, Submission to Department of the Environment: Ratification of the Minamata Convention Consultation, 17 July 2014, p. 2.
..............................................................................................................................................
35
Australian Dental Association which compares the current situation to the listed measures
from Annex A, Part II of the Convention.
Table 3.7: Measures to phase down dental amalgam in the Minamata Convention vis-à-vis the
current situation in Australia
Minamata Convention Provision Current Situation in Australia
(i) Setting national objectives aiming at dental
caries prevention and health promotion, thereby
minimizing the need for dental restoration;
Federal, State & Territory Governments have preventive programmes
(ii) Setting national objectives aiming at minimizing
its use;
None exist but dental amalgam use is declining as alternative restorative materials improve and patient demand for tooth coloured fillings increases.
(iii) Promoting the use of cost-effective and
clinically effective mercury-free alternatives for
dental restoration;
Composite and glass-ionomer use is high and growing in Australia.
In some situations, the use of dental amalgam is the clinically superior option, so it is important that the option to use dental amalgam, where appropriate, is preserved.
(iv) Promoting research and development of quality
mercury-free materials for dental restoration;
Some research in Australia but most is conducted overseas.
According to the industry peak body, current government research grants in relation to this are small.
(v) Encouraging representative professional
organizations and dental schools to educate and
train dental professionals and students on the use
of mercury-free dental restoration alternatives and
on promoting best management practices;
Already occurs at all dental schools.
(vi) Discouraging insurance policies and
programmes that favour dental amalgam use over
mercury-free dental restoration;
The most suitable material as agreed by patient and practitioner is customarily used.
(vii) Encouraging insurance policies and
programmes that favour the use of quality
alternatives to dental amalgam for dental
restoration;
The most suitable material as agreed by patient
and practitioner is customarily used.
(viii) Restricting the use of dental amalgam to its
encapsulated form;
All dental amalgam in Australia sold by dental supply companies is in encapsulated form.
Encapsulated form will be the only form that will comply with the new ISO standard that is currently under development (ISO/CD 13897).
(ix) Promoting the use of best environmental
practices in dental facilities to reduce releases of
mercury and mercury compounds to water and
land.
Promotion via Dentists for Cleaner Water project that was successful in Victoria.
The collection of hard amalgam waste occurs in Australia but is not standard practice.
Mercury may be released to the environment from the removal of existing amalgams from
patients during dental procedures (replacement fillings, crowns and extractions). Extracted
..............................................................................................................................................
36
amalgam materials are either rinsed into sewage systems or are disposed of as municipal
waste. There is currently no national regulation governing the use, control or release of
mercury waste from dental practices.
The best management practice to reduce mercury releases from dental facilities is to install
traps and separators that collect the mercury-containing waste before it enters the sewage
system; the trapped waste can then be recycled for reuse as dental amalgam. The Victorian
‘Dentists for Cleaner Water Program’ which ran from 2008 and 2011 facilitated the installation
of dental amalgam traps and separators in private sector dental practices across the state.
The Victorian Government invested $1 million, and 725 amalgam separators were installed
across Victoria.59
Encouraging expansion of this programme across Australia (Options 3 or 4) could impact on
approximately 9,800 dentists (approximately 90 per cent of dentists in Australia), with an
installation cost of $900 per unit and a $500 annual waste collection and recycling cost (see
Section 5.3 of Appendix B for further detail). Approximately 1,284 kilograms of mercury would
be collected each year. Through projected estimates of avoided harm to human health per
kilogram of mercury, this would save Australia approximately $6.2 million annually.
Questions:
Industry:
How likely would you be willing to install dental amalgam traps or separators?
The Australian Government has previously encouraged small businesses (through the
Australian Dental Association) to deduct expenses associated with installing amalgam traps
and separators from their tax return. Have or would you use this offer?
State and Territory governments:
Do you grant approvals for release of mercury waste from dental facilities?
If so, are release limits standard across facilities? How often are the release limits reviewed?
3.2.3 Consumption of Contaminated Seafood
Human exposure to mercury occurs primarily through ingestion of seafood and freshwater fish
containing methylmercury which has accumulated through the food chain. Mercury exposure
from high-seafood diets has been associated with a range of health effects including
neurological, renal and cardiovascular effects.
Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) administers the Australia and New
Zealand Food Standards Code. The Code prescribes maximum levels of mercury in food,
including fish. All seafood offered for commercial scale must be less than the following levels:
1 mg mercury/kg for species of fish that are known to contain high levels of mercury
(swordfish, southern Bluefin tuna, barramundi, ling, orange roughy, rays and shark), and
0.5 mg mercury/kg for all other species of fish, crustaceans and molluscs.
59 Dentists for Cleaner Water Program Evaluation Report, p. v.
..............................................................................................................................................
37
Pregnant women, women intending to become pregnant and small children are encouraged to
limit their consumption in some types of fish. FSANZ has also advised that people can safely
eat two to three serves a week of most types of fish, however pregnant women, women
planning pregnancy and small children should eat broadbill, marlin, swordfish, southern Bluefin
and shark (flake) no more than once a fortnight, and no other fish during that fortnight. Orange
roughy and catfish should not be eaten more than once per week, and no other fish should be
eaten during that week.
To assess the health impacts of mercury from the consumption of contaminated seafood in
Australia, and the potential health benefits from the national phase down of mercury, the
exposure pathways for the Australian population were identified. Where data specific to the
Australian population was not available, comparable international data was used and
extrapolated to suit Australian circumstances.
The effects of mercury on cognitive development in children have been extensively studied.60
Mercury exposure during development (most critically in utero) is linked to a loss in IQ, with
associated lower school performance and educational attainment, thereby leading to long-term
impacts on society.61 These consequences can be expressed in terms of economic impacts,
as has been demonstrated by studies in both the US and Europe.62
The only available Australian data on maternal blood mercury levels is from studies conducted
in Perth and the south-west of Western Australia.63 Assuming that five per cent of women of
child bearing age, as found in the Western Australian study, have blood mercury levels above
the perceived ‘no effects’ level of 3.5 µg/L, an estimated 732 children were born in 2013 in
Australia that may be affected by in utero mercury exposure. The methodology for this
hypothesis is explained in further detail in the cost-benefit analysis at Attachment B. The
estimated likely economic impact of mercury on the Australian population’s IQ is $4,862 per
kilogram of mercury emitted and/or released (see Box 3.8). Table 3.9 highlights the total value
of the mercury prevented from entering the Australian environment under each Option.
Box 3.864: Monetising the harm of mercury on the Australian Population
Monetising the effects of mercury is complicated by the ability of mercury emissions and releases to
move globally through atmospheric and oceanographic process. This makes it extremely difficult to
obtain data that directly links specific domestic emissions and releases of mercury to harmed
Australians. Therefore the following simplifying assumptions are used to assess the human health and
environmental benefits arising from a national phase down of mercury and ratification of the Minamata
Convention, and are adopted for the cost benefit analysis:
60 (1) United States Environmental Protection Agency 2011, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, EPA-452/R-11-011; (2) Trasande L, et al. 2006, ‘Applying cost analyses to drive policy that protects children: mercury as a case study’, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 1076, pp.911-23; (3) Bellanger M, et al. 2013, ‘Economic benefits of methylmercury exposure control in Europe: Monetary value of neurotoxicity prevention’, Environmental Health, vol. 12:3; (4) Pichery, C et al. 2012, ‘Economic evaluation of health consequences of prenatal methylmercury exposure in France’, Environmental Health, vol. 11, p. 53. 61 Shimshack, J.P & Ward, M.B 2010, ‘Mercury advisories and household health tradeoffs’, Journal of Health Economics, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 674–685. 62 Bellanger, M et al. 2013, ‘Economic Benefits of methylmercury exposure control in Europe: Monetary value of neurotoxicity prevention’, Environmental Health, vo. 12, no. 3, pp. 1-10. 63 Hinwood, A.L et al. 2013, ‘Cadmium, lead and mercury exposure in non-smoking pregnant women’, Environmental Research, vol. 126, pp. 118-124. 64 Box 3.7 is a summary of Section 6 within the cost-benefit analysis (Appendix B).
..............................................................................................................................................
38
- mercury that is likely to be disposed of through hazardous waste or recycling processes is unlikely to
enter the environment
- all mercury emissions were considered equally toxic irrespective of medium (air, land or water) and
the form of mercury (elemental mercury and mercury compounds), and
- the analysis focussed only on Australian emissions impacted by the Convention and the resulting
benefit to the Australian population and environment.
In the cost-benefit analysis, the following benefits are considered:
- improved environmental conditions
- improved health across the Australian population, and
- reduced incidence of workplace accidents involving mercury exposure.
Due to a lack of data, any benefits to the environment (flora and fauna) were considered qualitatively.
Several cost-benefit analyses have been conducted internationally to inform decisions in relation to
actions to reduce mercury levels. Monetisation of the loss of IQ in children has been valued as part of
previous studies on the impacts of mercury and other heavy metals. Based on a value per IQ point lost,
and developing a dose-response formula, the value of harm caused by mercury was estimated at
AUD$4,862 per kilogram of mercury emitted and/or released.
Table 3.9: Total value of the mercury prevented from entering the environment ($million)
Year Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
2016 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2017 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2018 $0.00 $1.56 $27.23
2019 $0.00 $3.12 $28.79
2020 $0.00 $4.68 $30.36
2021-2029 $25.67 $31.92 $31.92
2030 $25.67 $31.92 $31.92
2031 $25.67 $31.92 $31.92
2032 $25.67 $31.92 $31.92
2033 $25.67 $31.92 $31.92
2034 $25.67 $31.92 $31.92
2035 $25.67 $31.92 $31.92
Present Value $166.71 $214.26 $273.11
..............................................................................................................................................
39
3.3 Current Regulatory Arrangements
The Minamata Convention aims to protect human health and the environment from
anthropogenic emissions and releases of mercury and mercury compounds by:
restricting trade in, and manufacture of, certain products that contain mercury
prohibiting certain manufacturing processes in which mercury is used
controlling atmospheric emissions and releases to land and water from industrial
processes, and
managing end-of-life issues such as waste, contamination, recovery and its re-use.
In Australia, most of the responsibility for environmental management rests with the States
and Territories. However, each level of government (Commonwealth, State/Territory and local)
plays an important role in preventing or minimising pollutant emissions and releases (see
Table 3.10).
Mercury is a substance for which a variety of measures have evolved over time within each
jurisdiction to control emissions and releases, exposures, the use of mercury-containing
products, waste and contaminated sites. As a consequence, any regulations and voluntary
measures associated with ratification of the Minamata Convention and a national phase down
of mercury will involve a nationally coordinated approach with negotiation and agreement
across jurisdictions and include considerations across a range of government portfolios.
Table 3.10: Current Australian Measures to Regulate Mercury
Lead Jurisdiction Regulatory Measure
Commonwealth • Customs legislation relating to the import and export of mercury as
well as mercury in products
• Therapeutic goods, agricultural and veterinary chemicals and
industrial chemicals legislation relating to the import and export of
mercury
Commonwealth / States
and Territories
• Environmental assessment legislation provides the framework for the
assessment of potential impacts on the environment arising from
proposals.
• Other actions which include reporting requirements (NPI) and
voluntary reduction programmes.
States and Territories • Regulations that control mercury emissions and releases into the
environment; these may include source emission limits and/or
guidelines for releases to air and water, and restrictions on methods
and locations for storage and waste management.
• Regulations which aim to limit mercury exposures in dangerous goods
transportation and in the workplace to acceptable levels
..............................................................................................................................................
40
3.3.1 Commonwealth Responsibilities
The Commonwealth has responsibility for the national interest, which includes ensuring that
Australia meets its international obligations.
Australia has a number of existing obligations to regulate mercury under international law:
Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and
Their Disposal - technical guidelines have been adopted for the environmentally sound
management of wastes consisting of, containing, or contaminated with mercury or mercury
compounds (“mercury wastes”).
Import and export of hazardous waste is the responsibility of the Commonwealth
Government under the Hazardous Waste Act 1989 which derives its head of power from
the Basel Convention. A waste is considered hazardous if it is listed in Annex I of the Basel
Convention and includes wastes with mercury concentrations exceeding one per cent by
weight.
Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous
Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade - Annex III lists chemicals that are subject
to prior informed consent procedures. Mercury compounds, including inorganic mercury
compounds, alkyl mercury compounds and alkyloxyalkyl and aryl mercury compounds are
included in this listing.
As a Party to the Rotterdam Convention since 2004, Australia must ensure that the export
of listed chemicals (including mercury and mercury compounds) is only allowed with
written consent from a designated authority in a receiving country.
The import and export of some mercury-containing goods into Australia is controlled through
customs legislation, Commonwealth legislation for industrial chemicals, agricultural and
veterinary chemicals, and therapeutic goods. These products can only be imported into
Australia if they have been registered or assessed by the relevant authorities in accordance
with relevant legislation.
The Commonwealth Government is also responsible for the assessment and registration of
chemicals on the Australian Inventory of Chemical Substances (AICS). This is administered by
the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS).
The use of certain mercury-containing agricultural or veterinary chemical products is regulated
at the Commonwealth level by the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Act
1992. Before an agricultural or veterinary chemical product can be legally imported, supplied,
sold, or used in Australia, it must be registered with the APVMA.
The Commonwealth, in cooperation with the States and Territories, also has responsibility for:
the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI), which tracks pollution across Australia, and ensures
that the community has access to information about the emission and transfer of
substances which may affect them locally. Mercury is one of the 93 toxic substances
currently tracked (refer to Box 3.11).
..............................................................................................................................................
41
National Environment Protection Measures that apply to Movement of Controlled Waste
between States and Territories and Assessment of Site Contamination
Box 3.11: Reporting Australia’s Mercury Emissions and Releases
The National Pollutant Inventory, as Australia’s national pollutant release and transfer register, is a
cooperative arrangement between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories.
Industrial facilities provide data on emissions, releases and transfers to State and Territory governments
as part of annual NPI facility reports. NPI facilities must report their mercury emissions, releases and
transfers if their annual usage, emission or release of mercury exceeds five kilograms per annum. State
and Territory Governments also produce emissions data for diffuse sources on a less frequent
schedule. State and Territory governments provide this data to the Commonwealth Government for
publication on the publically available NPI website.
The NPI satisfies the international obligation within the Minamata Convention (Article 18) that requires
Parties to collect and disseminate information on annual quantities of mercury and mercury compounds
that are emitted or released through human activities, however lacks the reporting requirement for
disposal of mercury.
In regards to management of mercury under the Minamata Convention, the Commonwealth’s
primary responsibility would be to ensure that trade provisions are enabled in legislation and
that a national framework is created for preventing or minimising emissions and releases of
mercury into the environment.
3.3.2 State and Territory Responsibilities
The majority of responsibility for the management of mercury emissions, releases, storage and
waste resides with State and Territory governments.
Control measures for mercury emissions to the atmosphere and releases to land or water vary
across Australia as each State and Territory has developed its own guidelines and standards.
Two approaches are used to control emissions of mercury from Australian industrial sources:
1. regulatory emissions limits for individual industrial facilities, and
2. where no regulatory emissions limits are set, conditions as part of a licensing or approval
process may limit mercury emissions and/or releases.
An overview of how States and Territories manage their mercury emissions in their respective
jurisdictions is provided in Box 3.12:
3.12: Overview of State and Territory mercury emissions controls
States and Territories have environment protection licensing schemes for activities which have the
potential to significantly impact the environment.
In the ACT, the Environment Protection Act 1997, the administering authority must take into account
certain matters in determining conditions, including the potential for the activity to cause environmental
harm, including the likelihood over time of that potential changing or that harm being serious or material
environmental harm, and any relevant environment protection policy
..............................................................................................................................................
42
In New South Wales, the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, specifies that the
administering authority must take into consideration certain matters in determining conditions, including
any protection of the environment policies, and the pollution caused or likely to be caused by the
carrying out of the activity or work concerned and the likely impact of that pollution on the environment..
In the Northern Territory, the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act, the administering authority
must have regard to certain matters in determining conditions, including the objectives of the Act, all
relevant environment protection objectives and best practice environmental management for the
particular activity specified to which it is intended the approval or licence is to relate.
Queensland’s Environmental Protection Act 1994, specifies that the administering authority must
comply with any ‘regulatory requirement’ (that is, requirement under an environment protection policy or
a regulation) when determining conditions. A regulatory requirement may require the authority to impose
a particular condition.
South Australia’s Environment Protection Act 1993, outlines that an environment protection policy
(made under the Act) may set out matters to be taken into account by the administering authority in
determining licence conditions.
In Tasmania, the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994, specifies licence
conditions.
Victoria’s Environmental Protection Act 1970, specifies that the administering authority must have
regard to policy when determining licence conditions, but may impose more stringent conditions
Western Australia uses the Environmental Protection Regulations 1987 to list different categories of
industrial processes. These processes are then subject to authorisations under the Environmental
Protection Act 1986. Any atmospheric emissions limits for a particular facility would be specified as a
condition of an authorisation or a licence.
In other States and Territories, emissions limits can be prescribed as part of the approval to construct,
or licence to operate industrial facilities. Prior to construction of an industrial facility, an environmental
impact assessment is developed to identify the sources of environmental harm, whether through
emissions to the atmosphere or releases to land and water.
Regardless of State and Territory approaches to management of mercury emissions, there
has been some, but limited, success in reducing mercury emissions over the last few decades.
Figure 3.13, below, demonstrates an upward trend in mercury emissions since reporting under
the National Pollutant Inventory commenced. There has been variation in mercury emissions,
with most notable spike occurring in 2004-2006 period. Emissions plateau at around 10 tonnes
in 2009-10, and staying at that level since then. The top value is the cumulative effect of
mercury emissions, the two middle values are for non-ferrous metal manufacturing, and the
effect of the Gidgi gold roasting facility, respectively, and the bottom line shows emissions
from combustion of coal for electricity generation. It is encouraging that mercury emissions
have not risen over the last four years. It can be expected that mercury emissions will
decrease by approximately 35 per cent in the coming reporting years due to the decreased
emissions from the Gidgi gold roasting facility (as shown in graph), and further with the
anticipated closure of the Hazelwood power station in 2017.
..............................................................................................................................................
43
Figure 3.13 Australian annual mercury emissions65 from industrial sources
In addition to annual mercury emissions from industrial sources, it is worthwhile considering
the annual volume of mercury added to the environment. Once mercury is emitted, or
released, it persists in the environment where it circulates between the air, water, sediments,
soils and living organisms. This means that future emissions, or releases, are adding to the
volumes of mercury already in the environment as it cannot be destroyed. Figure 3.14
demonstrates the cumulative effect of repeated mercury emissions and it shows that Australia
alone has liberated about 160 tonnes of mercury from industrial sources over the last 15 years
(the lower line on the graph specifies emissions relating to the combustion of coal for electricity
generation).
Figure 3.14 Australian cumulative emissions of liberated mercury
65 National Pollutant Inventory emissions data for mercury and mercury compounds
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Me
rcu
ry e
mis
sio
ns
(to
nn
es)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Lib
era
ted
me
rcu
ry (
ton
ne
s)
..............................................................................................................................................
44
Current State and Territory regulations impose limits on mercury emissions which allow some
mercury to be emitted, rather than having measures in place to reduce or prevent emissions.
By ratifying the Minamata Convention, emissions of mercury will decrease over time.
Additional sources that contribute to liberated mercury include releases of waste mercury from
dental amalgam and end-of-life mercury containing products, including (but are not limited to)
fluorescent lamps, thermostats, temperature and pressure measuring devices, pesticides,
dental amalgam and electrical switches and relays.
The states and territories also manage mercury waste (relating to end of life mercury products,
and potentially legacy sites from previous industrial or mining activities). However, there are
generally no specific controls for disposal of mercury-containing products and most of these
products are discarded to landfill the end of their life. Some jurisdictions have household
collection services in which hazardous waste, including mercury-containing waste, for
recycling or recovery is either free of charge or on a fee-for-service basis. There is only one
mercury recycling facility in Australia.
Ratification of the Minamata Convention would provide an incentive for jurisdictions to further
address mercury releases from waste and initiate action on recovery and subsequent safe
storage of mercury.
Box 3.15: Mercury Recovery Facilities in Australia
The only licensed mercury recovery facility in Australia operates in Victoria. There is some capacity for
mercury recycling in New South Wales. All other jurisdictions are likely to transfer mercury waste to
Victoria or New South Wales. The Victorian plant accepts dental amalgam wastes, used fluorescent
light tubes, measuring equipment, electrical components, batteries, and other mercury-containing
products. The recovered mercury is then sold to the dental industry for re-use in the manufacture of
dental amalgam.
..............................................................................................................................................
45
Summary Mercury has been recognised by the WHO as one of the top ten chemicals of major public
health concern. It is a toxic pollutant that can circulate globally through the oceans and
atmosphere for years, and sometimes decades. Mercury can cause significant harm to human
health and the environment through its long range transport around the globe, environmental
persistence, and tendency to biomagnify in ecosystems. While there is a paucity of
environmental data in relation to the distribution and extent of mercury exposure in Australia,
there is well-established international research confirming that the emission and release of
mercury from sources such as minerals processing or agriculture leads to increased
concentrations of mercury (most commonly present as methylmercury) in the food chain.
Human exposure to mercury in Australia occurs primarily through ingestion of seafood and
freshwater fish containing methylmercury. Internationally, the impact of methylmercury on a
population’s IQ is the most robust measure of economic impact. It is estimated that the likely
economic cost of mercury due to reductions in the affected Australian population’s IQ, is
$4,862 per kilogram of mercury emitted and/or released. According to the National Pollutant
Inventory, industry reported the emission and release of 10.2 tonnes of mercury in the
2014/2015 reporting period. The impact of the mercury from this reporting period alone
equates to a human health cost of approximately $49.6 million per annum.
In Australia, there is a demonstrated market failure to sufficiently address the negative impacts
caused by mercury. These significant adverse impacts, such as reduced IQ in children via
maternal ingestion of seafood, occur far from the original sources of mercury (for example, use
of mercury-containing products and the emission of mercury from industrial mining processes).
Mercury emissions and releases disperse broadly in the environment from a wide range of
both point and diffuse sources, with limited instances of direct discernible pathways between a
specific originator and the adversely affected group. It follows that current market pricing
mechanisms do not adequately build in the costs caused by mercury emissions. This has been
recognised as an issue internationally, with the development of the Minamata Convention to
encourage national governments to adopt more extensive, proactive and effective actions.
Australian governments have been active in seeking to reduce the Australian population’s risk
of exposure to mercury. Regulation of mercury and mercury-containing products is currently
delivered through a range of Commonwealth and State/Territory statutes. Most industries
have, and continue to, respond to the regulation of mercury, but have little incentive to phase
down mercury emissions and releases without further intervention. The Department is
exploring whether meeting the requirements of the Convention in domestic Australian law will
address this.
A national phase down strategy, underpinned by ratification of the Minamata Convention,
would assist industry to plan, and where necessary, seek innovative methods to replace,
reduce and/or appropriately treat mercury emissions and releases. This is unlikely to occur
under current regulatory and voluntary arrangements. The ratification of the Minamata
Convention and adoption of a nationally consistent approach to phase down mercury would
provide substantial benefits to the Australian population and environment. This will be
particularly evidenced through the avoidance of future costs to human health and the
environment.
..............................................................................................................................................
46
4. THE NEED FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
As highlighted in Section 3, mercury can adversely affect human health and the environment
through emissions to air and releases to land and water. Recognising these risks, Australian
governments have been active in seeking to reduce the exposure of the Australian population
to mercury. In 2007, the Department commissioned a domestic review of regulatory and
voluntary measures associated with mercury in products and processes, and emissions and
releases. The report concluded that existing Australian measures to address mercury
throughout its life cycle did not lead to an overall reduction in emissions and releases, and
recommended additional regulatory approaches to reduce the Australian population’s risk of
exposure.66 Nonetheless, a piecemeal approach has resulted in inefficient and at times,
inconsistent mercury risk reduction across the nation. It follows that, without reform, mercury
related health and environmental impacts will continue to increase in Australia.67
A national approach to the phase down of mercury that uses the Minamata Convention as a
basis for action would provide substantial benefits to human health, the environment and the
economy through avoided future costs. More effective and internationally accepted
management of mercury is unlikely to occur under the current regulatory framework.
Most industries have, and continue to, respond to the regulation of mercury, but have little
incentive to adopt a phase down approach without further intervention (as was demonstrated
by the case of the Gidgi gold roasting facility, see Box 3.4). A reformed phase down strategy,
driven by the Commonwealth and state and territory and local governments, would assist
industry to plan, and where necessary, seek innovative methods to replace, reduce and/or
appropriately treat mercury emissions and releases. One way this could be addressed is
through regulation at all levels of government.
Amending regulations in Australia will prevent excess mercury from entering the environment,
coupled with information campaigns, to reduce the health risks and potential harms to the
Australian environment (the detail for regulatory amendment is in Section 5). Domestic action
would strengthen and build on Australia’s international leadership in the chemicals and waste
management.
Should Australia become a Party to the Minamata Convention, it would participate in
discusssions with, and encourage, the wider international community to introduce more
stringent measures to reduce emissions and releases of mercury to the environment. As
mercury emissions cycle globally, the Australian population will benefit from any reductions of
mercury emissions and releases from international sources, particularly those within the Asia-
Pacific region.
4.1 Objectives of Government Action
The objectives are to:
reduce the risk of mercury exposure to human health and the environment
66 Nelson, P 2007, ‘Study of Current Regulatory and Voluntary Measures Related to Mercury in Australia’, Final Report to the Australian Department of Environment and Water Resources. 67 With reference to data collated by Marsden Jacob (see page 73 of Appendix B), under the base case (Option 1) it is
expected that mercury emissions in Australia would remain steady in the short term, then would continue to increase in the
future as mercury emitting sources are expanded and new sources are constructed.
..............................................................................................................................................
47
increase the consistency of the regulation of mercury and mercury-added products across
Australia, and
ensure that any approach provides a net benefit to the community, while minimising the impact and costs to business/industry while still meeting the first two objectives.
..............................................................................................................................................
48
5. OPTIONS FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
Previous work on the Minamata Convention has been informed by stakeholder input. As there
are a range of mechanisms to address the human health and environmental problems caused
by mercury emissions, the Australian Government is seeking input on the content and
feasibility, and assumptions that underpin the options proposed in this RIS. Options 2, 3 and 4
have been developed to align with the objectives of government action (see section 4.1).
Table 5.1: Overview of Options for Government Action
Option 1 (base case):
No policy change
Australian governments and industry maintain current policy, programmes and practices into the future.
Option 2:
Ratification of the
Minamata Convention
Australian Governments enable ratification of the Minamata Convention on Mercury including meeting the timelines and requirements outlined in the Convention.
This would involve making legislative amendments to better control:
import and export of mercury and products containing
mercury
manufacture of mercury compounds and products
containing mercury
mining for mercury
interim storage of mercury
emissions of mercury to the atmosphere
releases of mercury to land or water, and
management, recovery, recycling, reclamation and reuse of
mercury.
Option 3:
Ratification of the
Minamata Convention
with Dental Amalgam
waste programme
Option 2 and after ratification, the Commonwealth Government runs a national communications campaign promoting voluntary installation of dental amalgam waste traps and separators.
Option 4:
Ratification of the
Minamata Convention
with enhanced national
phase down
Option 3 plus an earlier cancelation of the registration for mercury-containing pesticides.
..............................................................................................................................................
49
Implementation of the options outlined in Table 5.1 would require the measures identified in
Table 5.2 below.
Following the Minamata Convention on Mercury’s entry into force and if Australia decides to
ratify it, additional implementation activities are anticipated as a result of amendments to the
Convention’s annexes. Such additional obligations would be the subject of separate
Regulation Impact Statements and domestic treaty making processes.
Table 5.2: Implementation Measures and Deadlines for Government Action under each Option68
Measure Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Commonwealth
Ban mercury mining
Identify individual stocks of mercury, and
sources of mercury supply generating stocks
Manage excess mercury from chlor-alkali
facilities
Upon
ratification
Upon
ratification
Upon
ratification
Only import mercury from a Party (with
conditions)69
Ban export of mercury (with conditions)70
Upon
ratification
Upon
ratification
Upon
ratification
Prohibit manufacture, import or export of mercury
added products71:
Batteries, switches and relays 2020 2020 2020
Fluorescent lamps and high
pressure mercury vapour lamps
2020 2020 2020
Cosmetics 2020 2020 2020
Pesticides, biocides and topical
antiseptics
2020 2020 Upon
ratification
(for
Shirtan)
Non electronic measuring devices:
barometers, hygrometers,
manometers, thermometers, and
sphygmomanometers
2020 2020 2020
68 This implementation timeline assumes that Australia would ratify the Convention in 2017. 69 Except where Australia has given consent to import, and has received certification from the non-Party that mercury is not from mercury mining or mercury from decommissioned chlor-alkali facilities 70 Except where the importing country is a Party to the Convention, and will be a use allowed by the Convention, and is stored in a manner approved by the Convention If the importing country is not a Party, Australia provides written consent, including certification that the non-Party can show that it can protect human health and the environment, and is able to comply with the provisions for the storage and waste disposal of mercury established by the Convention. 71 The list of products will be reviewed by the Convention within five years of its commencement
..............................................................................................................................................
50
Measure Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Take two or more measures in relation to the
ongoing use of dental amalgam –
communications campaign for dentists to
separate dental amalgam waste from waste
water.
- Upon
ratification
Upon
ratification
Introduce a ban on the use of mercury in
specified manufacturing processes72.
From 2018 From 2018 From 2018
Maintain controls on the management of trade in
mercury waste.
2017 Upon
ratification
Upon
ratification
Upon
ratification
States/Territories
Maintain controls, and where feasible, reduce
emissions of mercury from (75 per cent of)
existing sources.
For new sources, this will be through the use of
best available techniques and best environmental
practices to control and reduce emissions73
Sources are: coal-fired power plants; coal-fired
industrial boilers; smelting and roasting
processes used in the production of non-ferrous
metals (lead, zinc, copper and industrial gold);
waste incineration facilities; and cement clinker
production facilities
2017 Upon
ratification
Upon
ratification
Upon
ratification
Control and, where feasible, reduce releases of
mercury, (expressed as ‘total mercury’), to land
and water from the relevant point sources not
addressed in other provisions of the Convention.
2017 Upon
ratification
Upon
ratification
Upon
ratification
Manage mercury waste in an environmentally
sound manner (taking into account the guidelines
developed under the Basel Convention).
Only recovered, recycled, reclaimed or directly
reused mercury is allowed for a use under the
Convention. Mercury waste is not to be
transported across international boundaries
except for environmentally sound management.
2017 Upon
ratification
Upon
ratification
Upon
ratification
Endeavour to develop appropriate strategies for
identifying and assessing sites contaminated by
mercury and reduce risks posed by such sites in
2017 Upon
ratification
Upon
ratification
Upon
ratification
72 Chlor-alkali production to cease in 2025; acetaldehyde production (where mercury is used as a catalyst) in 2018; reductions in vinyl chloride monomer production from 2020, sodium or potassium methylate or ethylate production from 2020 and polyurethane production (using mercury as a catalyst) within 10 years of ratification 73 BAT/BEP guidance for atmospheric emissions is expected to be adopted by the Parties at the first Conference of the Parties. Draft guidance is available from http://mercuryconvention.org/Negotiations/INC7/tabid/4506/Default.aspx
..............................................................................................................................................
51
Measure Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
an environmentally sound manner (with an
assessment of the risks to human health and the
environment).
Facilitate the exchange of:
a) Scientific, technical, economic and legal
information including on:
i. reduction or elimination of the
production, use, trade, emissions and
releases of mercury and mercury
compounds
ii. technically and economically viable
alternatives; and
b) Epidemiological information.
Upon
ratification
Upon
ratification
Upon
ratification
Promote and facilitate:
i. Provision to the public of
available information
ii. Education, training and public
awareness.
Upon
ratification
Upon
ratification
Upon
ratification
Collect and disseminate information on estimates
of its annual quantities of mercury emitted,
released or disposed through human activities.
Upon
ratification
Upon
ratification
Upon
ratification
5.1 Option 1: No Policy Change
Option 1 (no policy change) represents the scenario in which government and industry
maintain current policy and practices into the future, and do not take specified actions to phase
down mercury. Within this scenario, Australia will not meet the objectives of government action
as set out in Section 2, nor will it meet the obligations required to ratify the Minamata
Convention.
Irrespective of Australia’s position on ratification, this scenario assumes that the Minamata
Convention will enter into force mid 2017. This assumption is possible due to the current state
of ratifications internationally; significantly, the USA became the first party to ratify in 2013, and
Australia’s major trading partners (such as the EU, Japan, China and New Zealand) have
ratified or are in the process of ratification. Should Australia not ratify, Australia’s ability to
import and export mercury and mercury-added products will be restricted. For example, the
import of elemental mercury and specified mercury vapour lighting from ratified Parties will be
phased-out by 2020.
..............................................................................................................................................
52
5.2 Option 2: Ratification of the Minamata Convention
In selecting Option 2, Australian Governments would enable ratification of the Minamata
Convention, including meeting the timelines outlined in the Convention. The strategy for
Option 2 consists of:
Commonwealth:
Introducing or amending appropriate regulations to limit the import/export of mercury and
mercury-containing compounds to the purposes allowed by the Convention
- This may be through establishing national standards under new national legislation, or
through amendments to the existing agricultural and veterinary chemicals, therapeutic
goods and industrial chemicals legislation, as the mercury and/or compounds are
used.
Introduce legislation that would ban current and future mercury mining, and artisanal and
small scale gold mining and processing.
- This may be through new legislation, or through amendment of existing
Commonwealth and state and territory mining (or planning legislation in the ACT) and
subordinate legislation.
Introduce/amend legislation banning manufacture, import and export of all mercury-added
products listed in Annex A of the Minamata Convention by 2020 (see Appendix C).
- Controls on manufactured therapeutic products or agricultural and veterinary chemicals
would be controlled by the TGA or the APVMA, respectively.
- Controls on industrial chemicals would be managed by the states and territories, under
the national standards enacted under new national legislation.
Introduce/amend legislation to prevent the incorporation of mercury containing compounds
(see Appendix C) into assembled products which are not to be manufactured, imported or
exported under the Convention.
- These may be through establishing national standards under new national legislation,
or through amendments to the existing agricultural and veterinary chemicals,
therapeutic goods and industrial chemicals legislation, as the mercury is used.
Introduce/amend legislation to prevent the use of mercury or mercury compounds in the
specified manufacturing processes: chlor-alkali production, acetaldehyde, vinyl chloride
monomer production, sodium or potassium methylate or ethylate and production of
polyurethane.
- This may be through new national legislation, or through amendments to the existing
industrial chemicals legislation, as the mercury is used.
Introduce/amend legislation to prevent use mercury in new74 manufacturing processes
74 New sources are those that are established following the Convention’s entry into force.
..............................................................................................................................................
53
- This may be through new legislation or through amendments to the existing agricultural
and veterinary chemicals, therapeutic goods and/or industrial chemicals legislation, as
the mercury is used.
Ensure mercury is stored (on Commonwealth land) in an environmentally sound manner
through implementation of guidelines on interim storage following their adoption by the
Conference of the Parties
- This may be through national standards enacted under new national legislation.
States/Territories:
Establish controls preventing the manufacture of all mercury-added products listed in
Annex A of the Minamata Convention by 2020 (see Appendix C), for industrial processes,
under the national standards enacted under new national legislation.
Maintain/amend existing controls on the emission and release of mercury to air, land and
water. In doing this, the draft Minamata Convention BAT/BEP atmospheric emission
guidelines and BAT/BEP guidelines on releases to land and water could be considered
following their adoption by the Conference of the Parties.
- This may be through establishing national standards established under new national
legislation, or liaising with jurisdictions to attempt ensuring that state and territory
environmental protection, air quality and water quality legislation, subordinate
regulation, policies, guidance, orders and related licensing schemes are fit for purpose.
Such legislation includes the Environment Protection Act 1997 (ACT), the Protection of
the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW), the Waste Management and Pollution
Control Act (NT), the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld), the Environment
Protection Act 1993 (SA), the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act
1994 (TAS), the Environmental Protection Act 1970 (Vic), the Environmental Protection
Act 1986 (WA).
Maintain/amend existing controls on the identification and management of land
contaminated with mercury.
- This may be through meeting the requirements under the National Environment
Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure, through standards
established under new national legislation, and/or through environmental protection
legislation in the ACT, Queensland, SA, Tasmania and Victoria, and contaminated
sites legislation in NSW, NT and WA.
Ensure the interim storage of mercury is undertaken in an environmentally sound manner.
- This may be through meeting national standards established under new national
legislation, through agricultural and veterinary chemicals management legislation,
and/or work health and safety legislation. All states and territories, other than the ACT,
Victoria and WA, have adopted the Model Work Health and Safety Regulations that
regulates hazardous chemicals at a workplace, and could be amended to address with
requirements of the Convention. The ACT, Victoria and WA have separate regulations
for the storage of hazardous chemicals, the Dangerous Substances Act 2004 (ACT),
..............................................................................................................................................
54
the Dangerous Goods (Storage and Handling) Regulations 2012 (Vic) and the
Occupation Health and Safety Act 1984 (WA).
This Option would enable Australia to ratify the Minamata Convention.
5.3 Option 3: Ratification of the Minamata Convention with dental amalgam waste
programme
In selecting Option 3, the controls applying to Option 2 would apply, and Australian
Governments would run a national communications campaign promoting voluntary installation
of dental amalgam waste traps and separators. The strategy for Option 3 consists of:
Commonwealth:
Legislative amendments as per Option 2.
States/Territories:
Legislative amendments as per Option 2.
Commonwealth and States/Territories
In cooperation with States and Territories and peak industry bodies, the Australian
Government would run a national communications campaign for dentists to separate
dental amalgam waste from waste water through installation of amalgam waste traps and
separators.
This Option would enable Australia to better meet the environmental and human health
objectives of government action, and includes a number of measures that exceed the baseline
obligations of the Minamata Convention.
5.4 Option 4: Ratification of the Minamata Convention with Enhanced National Phase
down
In selecting Option 4, the initiatives applying to Option 3 apply and Australia would implement
an accelerated national phase down of mercury in pesticides. The key difference of Option 4
when compared to Option 3 is the accelerated phase down of mercury in pesticides in addition
to the national communications campaign promoting voluntary installation of dental amalgam
waste traps and separators. The strategy for Option 4 consists of:
Commonwealth:
Legislative amendments as per Option 2.
States/Territories:
Legislative amendments as per Option 2.
Commonwealth and States/Territories
In cooperation with Australian Governments, mercury-containing pesticides would be
phased out at the time of ratification, under amendments to the agricultural and veterinary
chemicals management legislation (Commonwealth).
..............................................................................................................................................
55
In cooperation with States and Territories and industry bodies, the Commonwealth
Government would run a national communications campaign promoting voluntary
installation of dental amalgam traps and separators.
Work regionally to assist neighbouring countries with their obligations under the
Convention from 2017-2020.
This Option would enable Australia to meet enhanced environmental and human health
objectives at an accelerated pace, and includes a number of measures that exceed the
baseline obligations of the Minamata Convention. Option 4 would send a strong signal to the
international community of Australia’s commitment to protect and sustainably manage human
health and the environment.
..............................................................................................................................................
56
6. IMPACT ANALYSIS OF EACH OPTION
An impact analysis seeks to identify and, where possible, quantify the costs and benefits of
each of the options relative to Option 1 (no policy change). The purpose of the impact analysis
is to provide stakeholders with an indication of the likely impacts that would arise from
implementing each of the Options, and provide decision makers with an indication of the
Option that is likely to deliver the greatest benefit to the community as a whole.
This Chapter describes:
the methodology and key assumptions underpinning the impact analysis; and
the application of a sensitivity analysis to the various options.
In 2015, the then Department of the Environment commissioned Marsden Jacob Associates,
with support from Toxikos, to undertake a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of various scenarios
associated with a national phase down of mercury and the feasibility of Australia’s ratification
of the Minamata Convention. The analysis included a regulatory burden measurement of
private sector costs that would be associated with these scenarios.
The results of the cost-benefit analysis are summarised using two main metrics:
Net present value, which is the present value of benefits delivered by the policy less the
present value of costs incurred. It measures the expected benefit (or cost) to society of
implementing each scenario; and
Benefit Cost Ratio, which is the ratio of the present value of benefits to present value of
costs.
The net present values over 20 years for Options 2, 3 and 4 are estimated to be
$145.4 million, $148.6 million and $207.0 million, respectively.75
Option 4 has the greatest net present value (NPV) and is therefore expected to deliver the
greatest benefit to the community.
Table 6.1: Estimated NPV and Benefit Cost Ratio for each of the proposed Options relative to No Policy Change
Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
$million $million $million
Impact on the community 202.3 249.9 308.7
Impact on industry -53.1 -97.4 -98.8
Impact on government -3.9 -3.9 -3.9
Total net benefit 145.4 148.6 207.0
Benefit Cost Ratio 3.6 2.5 3.0
75 All values in the cost benefit are provided in 2015 Australian dollar values and are calculated in real terms. These values are calculated using a 7% real discount rate.
..............................................................................................................................................
57
6.1 Methodology
Marsden Jacob, on behalf of the Department, undertook a CBA. The CBA (Appendix B)
considered the expected cost impacts on, and benefits to, business, government, and the
wider community that would arise from ratifying or not ratifying the Convention and any
associated national-phase down initiatives, and identified and assessed the costs and benefits
to human health and the environment. The CBA identified the NPV over 20 years, distribution
of costs and benefits and included a sensitivity analysis.
The CBA determined the incremental impact of Options 2, 3 and 4 compared to Option 1 (no
policy change). The impacts were considered across a range of stakeholder categories (Table
6.2).
Table 6.2: Summary of Costs and Benefits
Stakeholder Base Case (non-ratification) Options
Costs
Government As per current costs. Costs associated with ratification and a
national phase down initiative:
Development of guidelines
Financial resources required
Regulation, compliance costs
Changes to ongoing regulation,
compliance costs.
Industry As per current costs but with
potential for trade-related
measures.
Costs associated with ratification and a
national phase down initiative:
Increased costs to implement phase-out of
mercury-containing products
Costs for new and existing point sources
(such as gold production facilities and
coal-fired facilities)
Changes to ongoing costs (and revenues)
as a result of ratification.
Benefits/avoided costs
Health
outcomes
Health outcomes consistent with
current trends/ experience but with
some improvement due to other
countries’ decisions to ratify
Potential for improved health outcomes within
Australia as a direct result of domestic
changes.
Environmental
outcomes
Environmental outcomes consistent
with current trends / experience but
with some improvement due to
other countries’ decisions to ratify.
Potential for improved environmental
outcomes within Australia as a direct result of
domestic changes.
..............................................................................................................................................
58
6.1.1 Sensitivity Analysis
To test the outcomes of the CBA, Marsden Jacob undertook two forms of sensitivity analyses.
Firstly, the most likely outcome under alternative discount rates was considered. Secondly,
the analysis considered ‘most likely’, ‘best case’ and ‘worst case’ outcomes for each Option
(see page 12 of the cost-benefit analysis at Appendix B). This approach reflects alternative
assumptions on key variables about the potential impacts of a national phase down of mercury
and Australia’s ratification of the Minamata Convention.
Table 6.3 summarises the net present values estimated under each of the Options relative to
no policy change (Option 1). The analysis indicates that Option 4 provides the highest benefit
under each discount rate, and also highlights that there is likely to be a net benefit to the
community as a result of implementing any of the Options relative to no policy change.
Table 6.3: Sensitivity Analysis of the Net Present Value for each Option
Net present value ($ millions)
Discount Rate
Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
3% 274.70 282.36 350.35
7% 145.37 148.62 207.02
10% 86.64 87.97 140.29
In summary, the impact analysis indicates that
Option 2 has the highest Benefit Cost Ratio;
Compared to Options 2 and 4, Option 3 has the lowest Benefit Cost Ratio;
Compared to Options 2 and 3, Option 4 has the highest Net Present Value and is
therefore expected to deliver the greatest benefit to the community.
Figure 6.4: Net Benefits and Benefit Cost Ratio for each scenario76 ($m, ratio)
76 Marsden Jacob Analysis, see Appendix B.
..............................................................................................................................................
59
6.2 Impact on Government
Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments all play a role in Australia’s regulation of
mercury. As identified in Chapter 3, the majority of responsibility for the management of
mercury resides with State and Territory governments, while the Commonwealth has
responsibility for the national interest, including meeting international obligations such as those
associated with the Minamata Convention.
The basic premise for this RIS is that expanding current regulatory arrangements will largely
be sufficient to enable ratification of the Convention and a national phase down initiative.
Therefore, there are no additional implementation costs identified for State and Territory
Governments, however the Department seeks the views of the states and territories on this
matter.
The main costs associated with ratification are attributed to the financial contribution
associated with being a Party to the Convention, and to the allocation of two full time
equivalent staff within the Department of the Environment and Energy to manage
administration of Australia’s obligations, including monitoring and reporting. These costs are
detailed in Table 6.5.
The main impact of Options 2, 3 and 4 on government relates to the ratification and entry into
force of the Convention. All costs to the Commonwealth rely on implementation using existing
regulatory arrangements (where appropriate) with minimal or nil costs to reform.77
Table 6.5 – Summary of Impact on Government
Activity Estimated annual cost NPV of estimated cost (7% over 20 years)
Financial Contributions under the Minamata Convention - Article 13
$120,000 $1,270,000
Department of the Environment and Energy budget
$250,000 $2,650,000
Other government departments $0 $0
Total $370,000 $3,920,000
6.3 Impact on Industry
To calculate the impact on industry, a review of all Articles of the Convention and their
associated obligations was undertaken. Furthermore, mechanisms through which to achieve a
national phase down of mercury were identified. Table 6.6 provides an overview of each
industry’s relationship to the various Articles of the Convention and phase down mechanisms.
Table 6.6 – Overview of Relevant Articles and Affected Industries
77 Refer to the CBA in Appendix B for further detail.
..............................................................................................................................................
60
Industry Impacted
Area
Relevant Article/Phase down Mechanism
Point source category
(Annex D of the Convention):
- coal-fired power plants
- coal-fired industrial boilers
- smelting and roasting
processes used in the
production of non-ferrous
metals;78
- Waste incineration facilities;
- Cement clinker production
facilities.
- Plant
emissions
- Waste
incineration
- Fly Ash
Article 8 – Emissions
Measures to control atmospheric emissions
of mercury.
Article 9 – Releases
Measures to control releases of mercury to
land and water.
Article 11 – Mercury wastes
Maintain compliance with the Basel
Convention79.
Sugarcane Growers Mercury
containing
pesticide
Article 4 – Mercury-added products
Phase-out of products listed in Annex A of
the Convention by 2020.
Enhanced Phase down mechanism (Option
4)
Further reduce releases to land and water
with a phase-out of mercury-containing
pesticides.
Dental Dental
amalgam
Article 3 – Mercury supply sources and
trade
Ensure compliance with those obligations
relating to the export of mercury to other
Parties.
Article 4 – Mercury-added products
Ensure compliance with at least two of the
phase down measure listed in Annex A,
part II of the Convention.
Article 11 – Mercury wastes
Ensure that mercury waste is only recycled,
recovered, reclaimed or directly re-used for
a use allowed under the Convention.
Phase down mechanism (Options 3 and 4)
Voluntary installation of dental amalgam
waste traps and separators.
Public Lighting Mercury-
containing
lighting
Article 4 – Mercury-added products
Phase-out of products listed in Annex A of
the Convention by 2020.
Waste and Recycling - Waste
incineration
- Releases to
Article 4 – Mercury-added products
Phase-out of products listed in Annex A of
the Convention by 2020.
78 For the purposes of Annex D in the Minamata Convention, “non-ferrous metals” refers to lead, zinc, copper and industrial gold. 79 The Convention may establish further requirements on managing mercury waste in the future.
..............................................................................................................................................
61
Industry Impacted
Area
Relevant Article/Phase down Mechanism
land and water
Article 8 – Emissions
Measures to control atmospheric emissions
of mercury.
Article 9 – Releases
Measures to control releases of mercury to
land and water.
Article 11 – Mercury wastes
Ensure that mercury waste is only recycled,
recovered reclaimed or directly re-used for a
use allowed under the Convention.
Recognising the significant threat that mercury poses to human health and the environment,
Australian governments have been active in seeking to reduce the Australian population’s risk
of exposure to mercury. The regulation of mercury is delivered through a range of
Commonwealth and State/Territory statutes. Most industries have, and continue to, respond to
the regulation of mercury, but have little incentive to accelerate its phase down without further
intervention. To meet the baseline requirements of the Minamata Convention in domestic law,
further government action will be required. This action will be limited and, where possible, will
use existing regulatory instruments.
A national phase down strategy that is underpinned by Australia’s ratification of the Minamata
Convention would assist industry to plan, and where necessary, seek innovative methods to
replace, reduce and/or appropriately treat mercury. As highlighted in Section 3.2, this is
unlikely to occur under current regulatory and voluntary arrangements.
The ratification of the Minamata Convention and adoption of a nationally consistent approach
to phase down mercury would provide substantial benefits to the Australian population and
environment. This will be particularly evidenced through the avoidance of future costs. Costs
to industry would also be reduced through a less complex, more consistent approach to the
control of mercury nationally.
6.3.1 Industries with potential air emissions
Under Option 1 (no policy change), it is assumed that current operations would continue in line
with existing planned industry upgrades. Based on consultation with industry peak bodies, no
new facilities are expected for smelting lead, zinc and copper in the next 20 years. The
commissioning of two new industrial gold facilities is considered feasible in approximately
2025.
In relation to Options 2, 3 and 4, new industrial gold facilities could face additional capital and
operating costs if Australia ratifies the Minamata Convention and adopts BAT/BEP guidelines
for emissions. However, given uncertainties surrounding the likely future needs of new
facilities, current legislative requirements, and Australia’s involvement at the international level
..............................................................................................................................................
62
in the development of appropriate BAT/BEP guidance, additional costs to industry are
considered to be negligible.80
6.3.2 Cane growers
Mercury is used in some pesticides and biocides. However, only one mercury-containing
pesticide product in Australia is registered with the APVMA. Shirtan Liquid Fungicide® is a
mercury-containing pesticide that is widely used by sugarcane growers for the control of
pineapple disease (caused by the fungus Ceratocyctis paradoxa).
Growers that use Shirtan apply the chemical to sugarcane setts prior to planting
(approximately every four to six years). While there are comparable alternative products
available (discussed below), Shirtan has substantial market penetration with around 80 per
cent of new plantings being treated with this product (equating to an average of 44,000 litres
per year over the period 2011 to 2014).
The active ingredient of Shirtan is methoxy ethyl mercuric chloride (referred to as MEMC).
Shirtan contains 120 grams of mercury per litre,81 which equates to approximately 5,280 kg of
elemental mercury being released into the Australian environment each year. This release of
mercury, through projected estimates of harm (to human health) per kilogram of mercury,
costs Australia approximately $25.8 million annually.82
Alternative non-mercury based pesticides are available on the Australian market for the control
of both pineapple sett rot and smut,83 However transition rates to non-mercury products have
been low due to lack of familiarity of alternative products amongst growers. Sinker, introduced
to the market (currently a proprietary formulation, and therefore more expensive) in 2013, is
likely to become the preferred alternative for the sugarcane industry should Shirtan be phased-
out. Alternative pesticides based on the chemistry of Sinker are likely to become available
when competitors manufacturing generic formulations are able to enter the market. At this
time, it is expected that costs will drop and become more competitive with the current mercury-
containing pesticide.
Under Option 1 (no policy change), Shirtan use would continue at current rates. Should
Australia elect not to ratify the Minamata Convention, importing mercury for the production of
mercury-containing pesticides would only be possible from other countries which have also not
ratified.84
Under Options 2 and 3, the manufacture of the mercury-containing pesticide would cease by
2020. The cost differential between mercury and non-mercury containing pesticide products
represents a transfer between parties and would not impact on economic costs for Australia as
a whole (all products are manufactured in Australia). During consultation for the cost-benefit
analysis, the industry peak body, CANEGROWERS indicated to Marsden Jacob that there are
negligible costs for the sugarcane industry to change from the mercury-containing pesticide to
alternative products.
80 Not that all new facilities associated with the point source categories listed in Annex D of the Convention would be obligated to adhere to the BAT/BEP guidelines for Article 8 (Emissions). 81 Crop Care Australia 2011, Material Safety Data Sheet Shirtan Liquid Fungicide. 82 Utilizing a range of case studies, Marsden Jacob developed a benefit transfer methodology that is suitable for application to Australian circumstances and estimates the likely impact of mercury emissions and releases at $4,862 per kg of mercury. 83 Bhuiyan, S.A; Croft, B.J & Tucker, G.R 2014, ‘Efficacy of the fungicide flutriafol for the control of pineapple sett rot of sugarcane in Australia’, Australasian Plant Pathology, vol. 43, p. 418. 84 Under Article 3, Paragraph 6b parties to the Convention are prohibited from exporting mercury to non-Parties for uses prohibited by the Minamata Convention. The manufacture, import and export of mercury-containing pesticides post-2020 are prohibited under Annex A of the Convention.
..............................................................................................................................................
63
Option 4 would accelerate the phase-out of the mercury-containing pesticide. It is expected
that an early phase-out may impose additional costs on Crop Care Australasia (the distributers
of both Shirtan and Sinker) and the distributors of other alternative products through increased
resourcing requirements (comprising advisors and sales staff) to assist farmers in the
transition. Accelerating the date for the phase-out of mercury-containing pesticides may
reduce the ability for Alpha Chemicals (who manufacture Shirtan) to restructure its business in
time.
6.3.3 Dental Practices
Dental amalgam is a material used for dental fillings, both in Australia and globally. The usage
of dental amalgam in Australia is declining and currently comprises approximately 25 per cent
of new fillings in Australia. Alternative products, such as glass-ionomer and resin composite
fillings are being used more frequently, as consumers generally prefer ‘tooth’ coloured
alternatives, despite them being more expensive (roughly 50 to 100 per cent more expensive)
and having a shorter lifespan, than the ‘older’ dental amalgam fillings.
Under the Convention, Article 4 requires Parties to undertake measures (as outlined in Annex
A, Part II) to phase down the use of dental amalgam. Australia is already compliant with this
obligation. It is important to note that the Minamata Convention does not prohibit the
manufacture, import, export or use of amalgam fillings.
Articles 3 and 11, associated with mercury trade and the management of mercury waste, could
also apply to the dental industry. Mercury is (and could continue to be) imported under
Article 3 for the purpose of dental amalgam manufacture, with trade in mercury for this
purpose not being restricted. Waste dental amalgam however, is not specifically listed in the
Convention, but does pose a risk to human health and the environment as it is released to
land and water. Waste dental amalgam can be captured by installing separation devices in
dental practices – preventing the waste amalgam entering waste water systems and enabling
the opportunity for the mercury to be recycled.
Under Option 1 (no policy change), any changes in costs to industry will be driven by changes
in Australia’s ability to:
import mercury for the continued manufacture of dental amalgam, and
import and export of amalgam.
Australia’s ability to import mercury for the continued manufacture of dental amalgam
predominantly depends on decisions by other countries in relation to the future of mercury.
The Convention does not restrict trade in mercury for dental amalgam (subject to consents
being agreed between Parties); however, it will restrict the development of primary mercury
mines in the future. This will result in the availability of ‘new’ mercury becoming less common
over time. It follows that the supply of mercury internationally could reasonably reduce as a
consequence of the Convention entering into force. This is regardless of any action taken by
Australia regarding the Minamata Convention.
It is not expected that the Convention will affect the supply of mercury to Australia for dental
amalgam in the immediate future (10 to 15 years). Under Option 1 it remains unclear whether
recycling could generate sufficient mercury to meet the demand for dental amalgam in the
absence of mercury imports.
As noted earlier, the introduction of the Convention will potentially have some impacts on
international trade in mercury and mercury-added products (see Appendix C) – but following
..............................................................................................................................................
64
stakeholder consultation, it was concluded that the impacts will be the same whether Australia
ratifies or not.
Under Options 2, 3 and 4, wherein Australia satisfies the requirements to ratify the Minamata
Convention, no additional costs or benefits are anticipated as Australia already complies with
the relevant obligations in Article 4(3).
The primary source of mercury waste from dental amalgam is through the removal of old
fillings. Some mercury residue also enters the waste water streams when new mercury fillings
are installed. It follows that Options 3 and 4 include a provision for the Australian Government
to promote a national communications campaign promoting voluntary installation of dental
amalgam traps and separators. It is estimated that if the programme were expanded in 25 per
cent of the 11,862 dental surgeries across Australia, approximately 357 kilograms of mercury
per annum would be prevented from entering sewer systems85,86. Through projected
estimates of avoided harm (to human health) per kilogram of mercury, this would save
Australia up to $1.7 million annually. Should there be a 90 per cent uptake under this
communications campaign (as presented in the Cost Benefit Analysis); approximately 1,284
kilograms of waste mercury in amalgam would be collected, equating to approximately $6.2
million in avoided human health costs.
With either Option 3 or Option 4, dentists may incur an estimated one-off installation cost of
$900 and an annual waste collection and recycling cost of $500 (see Section 5.3 of
Appendix B for further detail).
6.3.4 Lighting Sector
Article 4 of the Minamata Convention prohibits the import, export and manufacture of certain
mercury-added products, including compact and linear fluorescent lights, and high pressure
mercury vapour lamps. Compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) are commonly used in homes,
linear fluorescent lights (LFLs) are most commonly found in office spaces and buildings, and
high pressure mercury vapour (HPMV) lamps are used in public lighting (main roads,
streetlights and public spaces).
The supply of specified mercury-containing compact and linear fluorescent lights in Australia is
prohibited by the Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards Act 2012 and its
determinations. These mechanisms promote the development and adoption of products that
would reduce energy and greenhouse gas production by applying greenhouse and energy
minimum standards (GEMS). Compliance with relevant Australian Standards in relation to
maximum mercury content is mandated by the relevant GEMS determinations. Furthermore,
current Australian Standards already conform to the content requirements for fluorescent lights
specified in Annex A of the Minamata Convention.
While the supply of fluorescent lamps is already (partly) regulated through GEMS
determinations and compulsory Australian Standards, prohibitions on the manufacture, import
and export of mercury containing fluorescent lamps after 2020, specific to mercury content,
would need to be legislatively based. Discussions with industry stakeholders have not
previously identified any regulatory burden costs in complying with this obligation.87 It follows
85 Statistics collected from the Victorian Dentists for clean water programme 86 The scale of the uptake of the programme is difficult to estimate, however an assumption of a 25 per cent uptake is presented here, noting that the use of new mercury based amalgam in dentistry is on a downward trajectory. Waste mercury amalgam may be collected for a number of decades to come. 87 See page 17 of the cost-benefit analysis (Appendix B).
..............................................................................................................................................
65
that introduction of any new Australian legislation that would prohibit the manufacture, import
and export of compact and linear fluorescent lights would be negligible.
In relation to high pressure mercury vapour lamps, the situation in Australia is different. It is
estimated that there are one million HPMV lamps remaining in service (of an approximate 2.28
million streetlights nationally88), with 92 per cent currently installed in residential streets and
public open spaces (low wattage: 50W, 80W and 125W lamps), while the remaining eight per
cent is used for lighting main roads (high wattage: 250W, 400W and 700W lamps).89 Australia
relies on the import of HPMV lamps as there is no domestic manufacturing. At present, the
most suitable and readily available non-mercury alternatives are light emitting diode and high
pressure sodium vapour lights. These non-mercury alternatives are preferable due to their
energy efficiency and lower-cost maintenance.
Similar to fluorescent lights, energy efficiency considerations are the main driver for change in
the high wattage HPMV sector. Current proposed changes to energy efficiency design
requirements in Australian Standard series 1158 for Category V installations (main or major
roads) will prevent the use of mercury technology on energy efficiency grounds (irrespective of
any action taken by Australia regarding the Minamata Convention). The Australian Standard
series 1158 already specifies that mercury vapour technology is not to be used in new
installations. While this Australian Standard series is voluntary, there is a high level of industry
adherence. It is important to note that this standard only applies to higher wattage lights (main
roads) and it would not affect lower wattage mercury vapour lamps used in other street lights.
In the context of the Minamata Convention, high wattage street lights would not be impacted
by the Minamata Convention as the transition to alternatives, in this sector, is already
underway and it is expected to continue in compliance with the phase-out dates of the
Convention.
Like high wattage HPMV lamps, low wattage lamps are imported to Australia, and as such,
Australia is dependent on imports for the supply of mercury vapour globes for use in street
lights. When comparing the no policy change scenario (Option 1) with Options 2, 3 and 4, the
main difference is in the time taken to replace HPMV lamps with low mercury or non-mercury
alternatives. Under Option 1, the transition to non-mercury alternatives is likely to continue
due to cost savings derived from more energy efficient lights and consequent reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions. However, this transition is likely to be gradual, with an estimated
completion date of 2030, as there is no regulatory impetus for an earlier retirement of HPMV
lamps.
Options 2, 3 and 4, all of which propose ratification of the Minamata Convention and do not
include any additional measures for mercury containing lamps, would have a significant impact
on lamp owners after 2020 when the import supply of lamps would cease. Therefore, Options
2, 3 and 4 would accelerate the transition from remaining mercury lamps still in use after 2020.
Given that streetlight HPMVs are subject to a 3-4 year replacement cycle, use of these lamps
would cease by 2023 at the earliest. This date of completion is seven years earlier than the no
policy change scenario.
88 Commonwealth of Australia 2011, ‘Draft Strategy Paper: Street Light Strategy’, prepared by Ironbark Sustainability on behalf of the Equipment Energy Efficiency Program, a joint initiative of Australian, State and Territory and New Zealand Governments, <http://www.energyrating.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/Energy_Rating_Documents/Library/Lighting/Street_Lighting/Draft-streetlight-Strategy.pdf>. 89 See page 48 of the cost-benefit analysis (Appendix B).
..............................................................................................................................................
66
The cost of transitioning to non-mercury alternatives is estimated at $400 per lamp. This value
represents the standard full rate replacement cost of the luminaires90 (consisting of the lamp
and its casing). However, there may be instances where retrofit of the lamps alone would be
possible. The cost of transitioning to alternative lamps would primarily be borne by electricity
distribution companies, local councils and other government organisations (the owners of the
streetlights).
6.3.5 Waste and Recycling Sector
Australia’s current compliance with the Basel Convention means that any incremental impacts
arising from Australia’s ratification of the Minamata Convention are likely to be minimal.
Options 2, 3 and 4 may drive an increase in some mercury containing wastes – such as the
additional flue gases that may require capture in order to decrease mercury emissions. The
costs for management of mercury wastes are already included in the previously identified
costs to each of the point source category industries.
6.3.6 Oil and Gas Production
While oil and gas production is not specifically mentioned in the Convention, it is potentially
affected by Article 9, which focuses on releases of mercury to land and water from “significant
anthropogenic point sources”.
Most offshore facilities already have release limit values as part of their environmental plan, or
adhere to published levels such as the ANZECC Water Quality Guidelines. Accordingly,
current legislative requirements (for offshore oil and gas) are expected to be consistent with
the Minamata Convention and if so, would not experience any additional costs. Confirmation of
this is sought through the Exposure Draft consultation phase.
Question for States and Territories and Industry:
Do the release limit values adhere with published levels?
If not, what limits do you apply, and what are the reasons for this?
6.4 Impact on Community
There will be a significant benefit to the community from Australia’s ratification of the Minamata
Convention and the associated national phase down of mercury. Human exposure to mercury
occurs primarily through ingestion of seafood and freshwater fish containing methylmercury. It
has been estimated that the economic cost of mercury to Australia is $4,862 per kilogram of
mercury emitted and/or released. According to the National Pollutant Inventory, industry
reported the emission and release of 10.2 tonnes of mercury in the 2014/2015 reporting
period. The impact of this mercury alone equates to a human health cost of approximately
$49.5 million.
Other human health benefits are also expected to occur through the improved management of
mercury. Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) regulations manage the risks to human
health in the workplace. Additional public health benefits from reduced exposures outside of
workplaces are also expected. Ratification of the Convention is likely to reduce the exposure
of workers to mercury – such as ceasing the use of mercury-containing pesticide by sugarcane
growers, and the reduced use of mercury vapour lamps. In contrast, there is potentially a
90 Also referred to as the ‘light fixture’ in the cost-benefit analysis (Appendix B).
..............................................................................................................................................
67
small increase in the number of workers employed in the mercury management and mercury
recycling sectors.91
In situations where the total costs of operations of a company are increased, the transfer of
additional costs to consumers may be sought.92 However, with likely costs to industry already
captured and the likelihood of a company to passing on higher costs to consumers across
such a broad range of industries unknown, the calculation of industry-specific costs to
consumers was considered beyond the scope of the cost-benefit analysis.93
6.5 Benefits to the Environment
In Australia, there is a paucity of data for environmental levels of mercury. This restricts a
comprehensive quantitative analysis of the likely environmental benefits arising from a national
phase down of mercury and Australia’s ratification of the Convention. With the exception of
carbon and energy savings from the adoption of more energy efficient (non-mercury) lighting,
environmental benefits are only qualitatively discussed. Quantitative results of the cost-benefit
analysis (Appendix B) should be viewed in this light.
Marine ecosystems are increasingly subject to a wide range of pressures, including over-
exploitation, ocean acidification, climate change, invasive species and pollution.94 The relative
longevity of marine mammals, coupled with their predator position in food chains, results in a
higher likelihood for the bioaccumulation of contaminants such as mercury.95 Mercury is of
particular concern as it is highly toxic and has detrimental health effects in mammals, including
neurological disorders, suppression of the immune system and reproductive disorders that can
all lead to death.96 Mercury contamination in coastal waters represents a potential major health
risk to marine mammal populations.97
Recent Australian studies assessed the two main populations of the Burrunan dolphin
(Tursiops australis) in south eastern Australia for mercury contamination.98 The species is
restricted to two (known) resident populations in Port Phillip Bay and the Gippsland Lakes. The
research determined that the average mercury concentrations in this particular species is
higher than has been reported for small cetaceans in East Australia, New Zealand, America,
England, Hong Kong and the Mediterranean. Further evidence suggests premature deaths of
the Burrunan dolphin can be linked to mercury contamination.99
Other domestic research found that mercury concentrations in black bream (Acanthopagrus
butcheri) from the Gippsland Lakes were at least 58 per cent higher in 1999 than for those
black bream tested during 1978-79. It is important to note that while the mercury
91 See Appendix B. 92 It is noted that industry did not indicate whether any individual costs would be passed on to consumers. 93 Factors influencing a company’s ability to pass on higher costs to consumers will include: levels of buyer power and supplier power; availability of substitutes; threat of entry; and existing levels of competition in the market for that product. 94 Worm, B et al. 2005, ‘Global patterns of predator diversity in the open oceans’, Science, vol.309, no. 5739, pp. 1365-1369. 95 Das, K et.al. 2003 ‘Heavy metals in marine mammals’ in Vos, J.G et al (eds) Toxicology of Marine Mammals, New Perspectives: Toxicology and the Environment, Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 135-167. 96 Monk, A et al. 2014, ‘Comparison of Mercury Contamination in Live and Dead Dolphins from a Newly Described Species, Tursiops australis’, PLOS ONE, vol. 9, no. 8, p. 1. 97 Monk, A et al. 2014, ‘Comparison of Mercury Contamination in Live and Dead Dolphins from a Newly Described Species, Tursiops australis’, PLOS ONE, vol. 9, no. 8, p. 1. 98 Monk, A et al. 2014, ‘Comparison of Mercury Contamination in Live and Dead Dolphins from a Newly Described Species, Tursiops australis’, PLOS ONE, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 1-6. 99 Monk, A et al. 2014, ‘Comparison of Mercury Contamination in Live and Dead Dolphins from a Newly Described Species, Tursiops australis’, PLOS ONE, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 1-6.
..............................................................................................................................................
68
concentrations in the 1999 study were below the maximum concentration permitted in fish for
human consumption, they demonstrate an increase in mercury levels over time.100
Coral reefs are also under threat from land-based pollutants, with the vulnerability of the early
life stages of coral being a particular concern. Research has found that the pesticide with the
active ingredient of MEMC (Shirtan) is extremely toxic to corals at barely detectable
concentrations, affecting coral fertilisation and metamorphosis, and causing coral bleaching
and host tissue death.101 Mass spawning on the Great Barrier Reef generally occurs during
November and December each year, often coinciding with the first rains of the wet season in
tropical North Queensland, potentially increasing the risk of contamination from agricultural
runoff. The use of MEMC is banned in many countries due to its adverse effects on the
environment.102
Great Barrier Reef sediment cores have identified mercury concentrations of up to 100 µg/kg,
ten times higher than background concentrations. These concentrations are attributed to the
contemporary application of mercury-based pesticides on sugarcane farms.103
6.6 Benefits to Human Health
Human exposure to mercury occurs primarily through ingestion of seafood and freshwater fish
containing methylmercury. Because the critical effect of methylmercury exposure is
developmental brain toxicity, exposures among women of reproductive age groups are of
primary concern. In utero methylmercury exposure is linked to a loss of IQ, with associated
lower school performance and educational attainment, thereby leading to long-term impacts on
society. These consequences can be expressed in terms of economic impacts.
Through both international and domestic case studies, from which conservative valuations
were determined, the total value of harm caused by mercury emissions and releases to the
Australian environment has been calculated at $4,862 per kilogram of mercury. Furthermore, it
has been calculated that in 2013 alone, approximately 732 Australian children were exposed
to elevated levels of mercury in utero and are likely to have suffered IQ loss.
Summary
Under Option 1 (no policy change) it is expected that mercury emissions would remain steady
in the short term and increase in the future as mercury emitting sources are expanded and the
construction of new sources is undertaken (see Figure 6.8).
Under Options 2, 3 and 4 it is expected that there would be a step change in mercury
emissions in the short term, and remaining stable in the long term as new sources in the future
become subject to more stringent controls. In the cost-benfit analysis, Marsden Jacob detailed
a benefit transfer methodology, developed from a range of international and domestic case
studies. When applied to the Australian circumstance, it is estimated that the economic cost of
mercury is $4,862 per kilogram emitted and/or released. It follows that the benefits/avoided
100 Fabris, G et al.1999, ‘Mercury and Organochlorines in Black Bream, Acanthopagrus butcheri, from the Gippsland Lakes, Victoria, Australia: Evidence for Temporal Increases in Mercury levels’, Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 970-976. 101 Negri, A et al. 2007, ‘Insecticides and a fungicide affect multiple coral life stages’, Marine Ecology Progress Series, vol. 330, pp.127-137. 102 Bhuiyan, S.A et al. 2014, ‘Efficacy of the fungicide flutriafol for the control of pineapple sett rot of sugarcane in Australia’, Australasian Plant Pathology, vol. 43, p. 418. 103 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 2010, Water Quality Guidelines for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park: Revised Edition 2010, p. 74.
..............................................................................................................................................
69
costs are estimated to be $206.1 million under Option 2, $253.6 million under Option 3 and
$312.4 million under Option 4 across the 20 year timeframe of the analysis.
Figure 6.8: Expected mercury emissions under each Option
Table 6.9: Total value of the mercury prevented from entering the environment ($millions)
Year Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
2016 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2017 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2018 $0.00 $1.56 $27.23
2019 $0.00 $3.12 $28.79
2020 $0.00 $4.68 $30.36
2021-2029 $25.67 $31.92 $31.92
2030 $25.67 $31.92 $31.92
2031 $25.67 $31.92 $31.92
2032 $25.67 $31.92 $31.92
2033 $25.67 $31.92 $31.92
2034 $25.67 $31.92 $31.92
2035 $25.67 $31.92 $31.92
Present Value $166.71 $214.26 $273.11
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
Esti
mat
ed
me
rcu
ry e
mis
sio
ns
and
re
leas
es
(kg)
Year
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
70
7. REGULATORY BURDEN MEASUREMENT
At the request of the Department, Marsden Jacob undertook a Regulatory Burden
Measurement (RBM) consistent with Australian Government policy. The RBM focuses on
quantifying the regulatory burden for the private sector and Government Owned Corporations
as applicable.
The RBM values are provided as a simple average of costs to industry over the first 10 year
period (2016 to 2025) using 2015 values and have been disaggregated by the following cost
types:
Administrative compliance costs – costs that are primarily driven by the need to
demonstrate compliance with the Convention (such as annual reporting)
Substantive compliance costs – which are directly attributable to ratification of the
Convention and which fall outside of the usual business costs. These costs may include
the capital costs of plant upgrades as well as operational costs from process changes or
additional staff training.
Delay costs were considered but do not apply in relation to the options considered in this
RIS.
The RBM focuses on the costs to industry that would not otherwise be incurred. Business-as-
usual costs, being those arising from existing legislation or actions that industry would
undertake regardless of government intervention are excluded from the calculation.
7.1 Regulatory burden cost by industry
7.1.1 Industries with potential air emissions
Through discussions with industry and government, no costs to this particular industry group
were identified as the Convention would have negligible impact on existing facilities.
Furthermore, no new facilities are expected to be developed in the 10 year RBM period.
The average regulatory burden for industries with potential air emissions under each scenario
over the period from 2016 to 2025 is $0 per annum.
7.1.2 Sugarcane Growers
The phase-out of mercury-containing pesticides would impact on a number of stakeholder
groups; namely, sugarcane growers (who use a mercury-containing pesticide), Crop Care
(who distribute the mercury-containing pesticide), and Alpha Chemicals (who manufacture the
mercury-containing pesticide). A range of potential costs were considered and have been
previously discussed with the industry peak body, CANEGROWERS.
A range of potential substantive compliance costs were considered, but no costs were
identified through discussions with industry stakeholders and government for Option 2. Costs
that were considered include:
capital cost of changing machinery to add sprayers
cost difference of alternative products, and
effectiveness of alternative products.
..............................................................................................................................................
71
A potential offset benefit was identified, as the alternative product also provides protection
against other fungi and diseases. Industry advised that the removal of mercury-containing
pesticides from the market would impact on changes in emergence and budding in adverse
conditions, however, recent published research has found that alternative pesticides (that do
not contain mercury) have a greater benefit to emergence and budding in adverse conditions
when compared to Shirtan. Consequently for Options 2 and 3, the regulatory burden for
sugarcane growers is $0 per annum over the period from 2016 to 2025.
Under Option 4, mercury-containing pesticides are phased out when Australia ratifies the
Convention. This brings forward the phase-out period to the point where the alternative non-
mercury containing product (Sinker®) may still be a proprietary product, therefore costing more
than the existing mercury-containing product. The increased cost would only occur for one
year, and is estimated at $84,000 across the industry (equating to a one-off increase in costs
of approximately $26 per farm).104 Using the ten year averaging rule, the regulatory burden for
sugarcane growers collectively over the period from 2016 to 2025 is $8,400 per annum.
7.1.3 Dental
In assessing the regulatory burden for dental industries, the impact of ratification on both
manufacturers of dental amalgam and dental practitioners was considered. Through
discussions with industry and government, no regulatory burden impacts were identified under
Option 2. Additional administrative costs for mercury imports were considered, but appear
unchanged from Option 1 (no policy change) as they are due to wider international actions
associated with the Minamata Convention.
The RBM analysis prepared by Marsden Jacob indicated that if approximately 90 per cent of
dentists (9,800 dentists) may choose to install and maintain amalgam separators at an
installation cost of $900, and an annual waste collection and recycling cost of $500 (with
installations commencing in 2017 and being phased-in over a 4 year period), the burden would
be an average of $4,068,000 per annum over the first 10 years (2016 to 2025). Given this is
an option that dentists would be encouraged (rather than required) to undertake, these costs
are not included as a regulatory burden for this RIS105.
7.1.4 Lighting
Lighting is affected by Article 4 of the Convention (mercury-added products), and is considered
in terms of domestic and commercial lighting, as well as public lighting (see Section 6.3.4 and
Appendix C). Through discussions with industry stakeholders and government agencies, no
regulatory burden costs were identified for domestic and commercial lighting (predominantly
compact and linear fluorescent lights).
Public lighting
It is estimated that there are approximately 1 million HPMV lamps in service, with 92 per cent
installed in residential streets and public open spaces (low wattage: 50W, 80W and 125W
104 Research indicates that Shirtan cost $27.50/ha and Sinker costs $29.00/ha across 56,000 hectares of cane planting. 105 Marsden Jacob included dental as a regulatory requirement in their assessment, and therefore a ‘burden’ for measurement. This element has been removed for the RIS.
..............................................................................................................................................
72
lamps), and the remaining eight per cent being used for lighting main roads (high wattage:
250W, 400W and 700W lamps).
Under Options 2, 3 and 4, it has been determined that only the lower wattage street lighting
(50W, 80W, and 125W) would have accelerated transition to non-mercury lamps compared to
current trends (base case under Option 1). Higher wattage lighting on main roads (250W,
400W, and 700W lamps) would be unaffected by ratification of the Convention.
Under the RBM framework, only compliance costs that are a direct consequence of the HPMV
import ban at 2020 are included. This means that the regulatory burden costing starts at year
2020. It follows that, even if distribution businesses decide to take pre-emptive action to
accelerate the transition from mercury vapour lamps prior to 2020 due to ratification of the
Minamata Convention, this behaviour is not considered. Thus, the phase-out of HPMV lamps
follows the base-case until 2020.
The average cost of compliance with this obligation is $12.59 million over the first 10 years,
comprising 315,000 lamp replacements at an assumed cost of $400 per lamp. This cost is
offset by both energy savings and greenhouse gas savings. Note this saving is realised by the
users (i.e. local councils) who pay the energy costs, and is therefore not an offset of the
regulatory burden for distribution businesses.
7.1.5 Waste and recycling
Through discussions with industry and government for the waste and recycling sector, no
regulatory burden costs were identified under each of the options.
7.1.6 Oil and Gas
No regulatory burden was identified for the oil and gas industry under each of the options.
7.2 Regulatory Burden Summary and Conclusions
The regulatory burden summary for affected sectors under Options 2,3 and 4 relative to Option
1 (no policy change) is summarised Table 7.2.
Table 7.2: Regulatory Options – Annual Regulatory Costs to Business
Average annual regulatory costs
Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Sugar Cane Growers
$0 $0 $8,400
Public Lighting $12,589,794 $12,589,794 $12,589,794
Total $12,589,794 $12,589,794 $12,598,194
..............................................................................................................................................
73
8. CONSULTATION
The Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy has undertaken
stakeholder consultation in relation to a national phase down of mercury and the possible
ratification of the Minamata Convention.
The main theme that emerged through the consultation process was an overall level of support
for Australia’s ratification of the Convention, with the qualification that implementation be
executed in a cooperative manner between governments, and consultation with affected
stakeholders is continued. This Exposure Draft of the Final RIS is part of that process. It was
also highlighted that existing regulatory frameworks should be used where possible.
8.1 Regulation Impact Statement for Australia’s Entry into Negotiations - 2010
Following international debate over a number of years, the UNEP Governing Council made the
decision in February 2009 to commence negotiations on a global legally binding instrument
(LBI) on mercury. It was mandated that an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC)
begin negotiations for the LBI on mercury in 2010.
A RIS for Australia’s entry into negotiations for an LBI on mercury was developed, with the
recommendation for Australia to formally enter into negotiations approved in April 2010.
Throughout the formulation of this RIS, a targeted consultation process was conducted; it
included:
a background paper – circulated to relevant stakeholders in July 2009, this consisted of
information on the proposed LBI on mercury and a summary of international movements,
multiple face-to-face meetings and teleconferences with key stakeholders - including group
question and answer sessions, and one-on-one meetings, and
circulation of international meeting documents for comment and input.
Five sessions of negotiations by the INC occurred between 2010 and 2013 to agree the text of
the Convention. Key stakeholders were consulted at each stage of the negotiations.
8.2 Regulation Impact Statement for Australia’s Signature of the Convention – 2013
Prior to signature of the Minamata Convention in 2013, further targeted consultation was
undertaken with relevant government agencies (including Commonwealth, State and
Territory), industry stakeholders and non-government organisations. With signature, Australia
is not legally bound to any international obligations; rather, it indicates the Australian
Government’s in-principle agreement to the stated objectives of the Convention.
Consultation highlighted that affected stakeholders appreciated the early opportunity to be
briefed on issues and expressed an interest in further consultation. There was considerable
support for Australia to sign the Convention and to continue participating in the negotiation
process so as to protect Australia’s national interests.
The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee completed the text for the Convention in
January 2013. A second RIS was compiled, recommending Australia sign the Minamata
Convention at the Diplomatic Conference scheduled for October 2013.
..............................................................................................................................................
74
8.3 Public Consultation Paper – 2014
Following signature of the Convention in October 2013, a public consultation paper was
released by the then Department of the Environment on 1 April 2014. This paper sought views
on the potential domestic impacts of Australia’s ratification of the Minamata Convention. This
process built on the foundations of the extensive stakeholder consultation from 2010 onwards.
As the Minamata Convention addresses the entire life cycle of mercury, a wide range of
stakeholders could potentially be affected. The official call for submissions to the public
consultation paper closed on 30 June 2014, with nineteen responses having been received
and published on the Department’s website (two listed as confidential at the request of the
respondents). Table 8.1 summarises the submissions.
Table 8.1 Summary of responses to the Public Consultation Paper
Respondent Comments
Australian Aluminium
Council
Support ratification. Affected by use of coal-fired electricity generation. Propose that implementation measures should, where possible, rely on existing systems and frameworks, and that any measures or responses must consider the natural variability in emissions.
Australian Coal-Based
Electricity Generators
Support ratification. Mercury emissions from Australian coal-fired electricity are relatively low. Encourage a holistic approach to mercury emissions assessment and mitigation; where warranted, using a range of policy instruments that include current air emissions licensing protocols and related licence requirements.
Australian Dental
Association
Support ratification.
Australia is already compliant with the Convention’s
requirements in regard to dental amalgam.
Supports the development of a programme to separate dental
amalgam waste from waste water.
Canegrowers Support ratification.
Request an exemption for mercury-containing pesticides.
Cement Industry
Association and
National Lime
Association of Australia
Support ratification. Total mercury emissions are expected to decline due to existing decommission plans for multiple cement manufacturing operations.
Centennial Park
(Cemetery Authority)
Support ratification.
Australian crematoria should adopt the BAT/BEP practices of
Western Europe in which the benefits to the environment and
..............................................................................................................................................
75
the communities outweigh the economic costs.
Department of Health
(Australian Government)
Support Ratification.
Obligations within the Convention will have minimal impact on
the Australian health sector due to pre-specified exclusions and
medical technology advances.
Energy Cost Attack –
LED Lighting Specialist
Support ratification.
Alternative products for linear fluorescent tubes and bulbs are
readily available.
Hg Recoveries
Support ratification.
Concerns regarding remnant mercury from historical gold mining
and industrial facilities in Australia, advised remediation of
affected sites, or suitable long-term mercury storage.
Concerns regarding the use of mercury-containing pesticides on
Australian sugarcane. Advised immediate phase-out.
Lighting Council
Australia
Support ratification.
Ratification will encourage additional signatories to FluoroCycle
and will further facilitate the collection and recycling of end-of life
mercury-containing lamps from industry.
Alternatives to mercury-added products will be commercially
available by the 2020 phase-out date.
Minerals Council of
Australia
Support ratification.
Implementation planning should be inclusive of the minerals
sector and ensure sufficient time and flexibility for the
development of appropriate ‘fit for purpose’ management
responses that complement existing State/Territory processes.
NOBody Needs Mercury
(NGO)
Support ratification.
World Alliance for
Mercury-Free Dentistry
(NGO)
Support ratification.
8.4 Cost-Benefit Analysis Consultation - 2015
In developing the cost-benefit analysis of the ratification of the Minamata Convention and a
national phase down of mercury, consulting firm Marsden Jacob, in concert with the
Department, engaged key stakeholders through a targeted consultation process.
These stakeholders directly assisted in providing further detail on the potential impacts of
Australia’s ratification of the Convention and a national phase down of mercury to business
..............................................................................................................................................
76
and industry, the community and government. The analysis included an identification of core
business needs and an estimation of likely costs and benefits.
Figure 8.2 Stakeholder Matrix for the Cost-Benefit Analysis
Cement
Industry
Federation
Energy
Supply
Association
Australian
Aluminium
Council
Cane
Growers
Crop Care
Alpha
Chemicals NOPSEMA
APPEA Ecocycle
SDI Limited
Australian
Dental
Association Australian
Dental
Industry
Association
Energex
Ironbark
Sustainability
Lighting
Council
Australia
CSIRO
Safe Work
Australia
Minerals
Council of
Australia
Australian
Coal-based
Electricity
Generators
Cost-Benefit
Analysis
Stakeholder
Consultation
..............................................................................................................................................
77
8.5 Outcomes of Consultation
Consultation has been conducted throughout the various stages in the evolution of the
Minamata Convention: the development of text for a global legally binding instrument on
mercury, Australia’s signature of the Convention, and domestic ratification processes which
included more targeted consultation in the development of a cost-benefit analysis. This has
ensured that all likely impacts to business, the community and government arising from
Australia’s ratification of the Minamata Convention and a national phase down of mercury
were identified and mitigated in the policy options.
All stakeholders maintained their overall support for Australia’s ratification of the Minamata
Convention, with some having identified qualifiers or requesting clarifications to their support.
These are detailed in Table 8.1 and in the cost-benefit analysis (Appendix B). The policy
options have been developed in an iterative manner throughout the various stages of
consultation. It follows that core issues identified, and subsequently addressed within this RIS,
include:
a review of the feasibility for a five-year exemption from the Minamata Convention for
the manufacture and use of the mercury-containing pesticide Shirtan (MEMC being the
active ingredient)
ensuring existing regulatory frameworks are used (where appropriate) when
addressing emissions and releases, and
actively encouraging the reduction of waste mercury releases from dental practices.
..............................................................................................................................................
78
9. ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
9.1 Summary of Option 1
Under the Option 1 (no policy change), Australia chooses not to phase down mercury and
does not ratify the Minamata Convention. While Australia is a signatory to the Convention, this
does not create any legal ramifications if Australia does not ratify.
For clarity, it is assumed that Option 1 has the following characteristics:
no significant change in industry numbers would occur as a direct response to Australia
not ratifying – that is, non-ratification would not lead to the development of new industries
manufacturing mercury-containing products, or to the relocation of manufacturing plant
(that use mercury) from ratified countries to Australia and
existing plant would not change current processes or practices as a direct result of a
decision not to ratify the Convention.
For many industries, Option 1 would represent minimal change from the current circumstance.
However, the Convention’s entry into force, and decisions by some key trading partners in
relation to ratification, would impact Australia’s ability to import mercury and mercury-added
products in the future.
9.2 Summary of Options 2, 3 and 4
Under a scenario where Australia ratifies the Minamata Convention, it is assumed that
ratification will broadly align with the following timetable:
The Convention is ratified by the 50th country in early 2017.
The Convention will enter into force in early-mid 2017.
The first Conference of the Parties will be held in later 2017 or early 2018.
Australia would ratify the Convention ahead of the first Conference of the Parties.
The net benefit to Australia under Option 2 is $145.4 million.
The net benefit to Australia under Option 3 is $148.6 million.
The net benefit to Australia under Option 4 is $207 million.
9.3 Preferred Option
This Regulation Impact Statement has assessed Option 4 as being the preferred option, on
the basis of the cost benefit analysis. This option, involving Australia’s ratification of the
Minamata Convention and the implementation of a national phase down of mercury, has the
greatest net benefit.
Option 4 would enable Australia to meet the conditions necessary to ratify the Minamata
Convention and play a leading role in reducing the risk of adverse effects of mercury
domestically and globally.
Questions:
Noting the impact analysis, what is your view of each of these options and what is your
preferred option?
..............................................................................................................................................
79
10. IMPLEMENTATION AND REVIEW OF PREFERRED OPTION
10.1 Implementation
Obligations under the Convention are spread throughout the supply chain for mercury and
apply to importers through to end users. As such, a coordinated national approach is required
to ensure Australia is able to meet its obligations through Commonwealth, State and Territory
responses.
The first step will be to secure the agreement of Australian Government to ratify the Minamata
Convention and adopt a cooperative approach on the enhanced national phase down of
mercury. This approach recognises that the majority of the responsibility for the management
of mercury emissions and releases resides with the States and Territories, while the Australian
Government has responsibility for the national interest, including meeting international
obligations.
10.1.1 Legislative approaches
Existing responsibility for the management of mercury in Australia is shared between the
Commonwealth, States and Territories. Responsibility for import, export, manufacture and
supply controls currently rests with the Commonwealth while the States and Territories are
responsible for managing waste, emissions and releases to land and water. These
responsibilities are consistent under all Options.
In order to satisfy the legal obligations to enable ratification the following activities would be
necessary:
amend existing Commonwealth legislation or enact new legislation
advise states and territories of the need to amend jurisdictional legislation
rely on existing State and Territory controls which limit and require reporting of
emissions and releases of mercury
rely on or tighten reporting requirements to the National Pollutant Inventory, and
cancel registration of products containing mercury (when appropriate).
Implementing obligations could leverage existing Commonwealth, State and Territory
regulatory frameworks. Using existing frameworks reduces change and regulatory burden for
industries that use mercury. It also reduces the risk to successful implementation. Any risks
will be mitigated by extensive communications between jurisdictions and industry peak bodies
to align regulatory change, timing and transition processes.
From a Commonwealth perspective, it is not possible to wholly rely on existing regulatory
frameworks to implement obligations under the Convention. Areas that are not covered include
domestic manufacture, distribution and/or sale of products containing mercury.
Alternatively, the Convention could be implemented through a new piece of framework
legislation, which could establish a nationally consistent framework for the management of
chemicals in the environment. This framework legislation would enable the implementation of
Australia’s obligations under the Minamata Convention.
The detail of the approach for this will be determined through the consultation period
associated with this Exposure Draft of the RIS.
..............................................................................................................................................
80
10.1.2 Funding
This Regulation Impact Statement does not explore funding options. However, a range of
funding options for resourcing the preferred ratification and national phase down approach
could be considered, including cost recovery arrangements.
Should the Australian Government agree to proceed with the preferred option (Option 4 -
ratification and an enhanced national phase down initiative), further consultation and
engagement regarding funding arrangements may be conducted with all relevant
stakeholders, including State and Territory governments, as a core component of the
implementation process.
10.1.3 Enabling a strong international response
Ratification of the Minamata Convention by late 2017 would enable Australia to play a leading
role in reducing the adverse effects of mercury worldwide, and participate in important
decision-making processes for certain elements of the Convention (such as the adoption of
guidance on trade provisions and certification, and technical guidelines for atmospheric
emissions). Options 2, 3 and 4 involve the continuation of work that is consistent with the
Minamata Convention, where possible, without the overlay of additional regulation and
complexity.
10.2 Review
It is proposed that the Minamata Convention ratification process and the national phase down
of mercury be reviewed five years after the commencement of the implementing legislation, or
consistent with the review provisions in existing legislation. This approach would enable ample
time for all primary actions in the ratification process and national phase down to be completed
or substantially progressed. Some of the unknowns outlined in this RIS are dependent on
further negotiations and agreement between ratified Parties to the Minamata Convention as it
matures, and from domestic consequences resulting from implementation. The review will
adopt a cooperative approach and is included in any agreements with States and Territories.
A timeline of key milestones and government action items for implementation and review will
be developed pending a final decision on the preferred Option.
..............................................................................................................................................
81
APPENDICES
Appendix A Sources and Impacts of Mercury in Australia
Appendix B Cost-Benefit Analysis
Appendix C Annex A of the Minamata Convention – Mercury-added Products
..............................................................................................................................................
82
APPENDIX A
SOURCES AND IMPACTS OF MERCURY IN AUSTRALIA
Mercury is an element that exists naturally in the earth’s crust and that can be emitted and
released as a result of both natural processes and human activities. Once emitted or released,
mercury persists in the environment where it circulates between air, water, sediments, soil and
living creatures. It can travel long distances which are far from its original source, and
becomes increasingly concentrated in the tissues of organisms as it rises up the food chain.
Mercury can be a source of serious adverse effects on ecosystems and wildlife, particularly
through its tendency to cause reproductive and developmental impairment.
Mercury is common in the environment and has three forms: organic, inorganic and metallic.
The organic form of mercury, and in particular methylmercury, is the most dangerous.
Methylmercury is formed when mercury is deposited in oceans, lakes, and rivers.
Methylmercury is present in most aquatic species and bioaccumulates in the aquatic food-
chain, which may lead to high concentrations in fish, shellfish, and marine mammals. Mercury
content is highest in large carnivorous species and older fish. The major source of human
exposure to methylmercury is ingestion of contaminated fish and seafood (seafood includes
shellfish and marine mammals, such as whales). High exposures can occur among
populations with high fish consumption (for example, subsistence fishers and sport fishers).
Environmental contamination ‘hotspots’ can also occur near industrial and mining activities
where pollution of local water bodies may result in elevated levels of methylmercury in aquatic
species.106 The effects of methylmercury exposure on wildlife (including fish) can include
mortality, reduced fertility, slower growth and development, and abnormal behaviours that
affect survival rates.107
Because the critical effect of methylmercury exposure in humans is developmental brain
toxicity, exposures among women of reproductive age groups are of primary concern. In utero
methylmercury exposure is linked to a loss of Intelligence Quotient (IQ), with associated lower
school performance and educational attainment, thereby leading to long-term impacts on
society. These consequences can be expressed in terms of economic impacts.
Through both international and domestic case studies, from which conservative valuations
were determined, the total value of harm caused by mercury emissions and releases to the
Australian environment has been calculated at $4,862 per kilogram of mercury. Furthermore, it
has been calculated that in 2013 alone, approximately 732 Australian children were exposed
to elevated levels of mercury in utero and are likely to have suffered IQ loss.
Anthropogenic sources contribute significantly to concentrations of mercury in the
environment. These sources include; coal burning, mining and industrial activities that process
ores or other raw materials to produce refined metals or cement. In these activities, mercury is
emitted because it is present as an impurity in the fuels and raw materials. This can result in
the emission and release of mercury to the environment (sometimes referred to as ‘by-
products’ or ‘unintentional’ emissions and releases).
Unintentional mercury emissions and releases from these sectors can be reduced by the
application of pollution control measures in power plants and other industrial plant. Some of
106 World Health Organization 2008, ‘Mercury: Assessing the environmental burden of disease at national and local levels’, Environmental Burden of Disease Series, no. 16, p.3. 107 United States Environmental Protection Authority, Environmental Effects: Fate and Transport and Ecological Effects of Mercury, accessed 13 April 2015, <http://www.epa.gov/mercury/eco.htm>.
..............................................................................................................................................
83
the mercury captured with this pollution control technology is refined and enters the
commercial supply chain; however, large amounts of mercury captured in materials such as fly
ash and oil refinery waste must be managed. Some of these wastes are used as raw materials
in construction, but large amounts are disposed of in landfills, again becoming a potential
source of mercury emission and release.
A.1 Coal Burning, Mining and Smelting
Coal burning, and to a lesser extent, the use of other fossil fuels, is one of the most significant
anthropogenic sources of mercury emissions to the atmosphere. Australian coal does not
generally contain high concentrations of mercury, but the combination of the large volume of
coal burned, and the reality that a significant portion of the mercury present in coal is emitted
to the atmosphere, produces large overall emissions from this sector. The specific mercury
content of coal varies widely as it is primarily dependent on the local geology and processing
technology of each individual facility.
Mining, smelting, and the production of iron and non-ferrous metals are also a large source of
global mercury emissions to the air, and contribute to releases of mercury to water. Most of the
mercury by-product is captured during the mining and processing of metals, and is then either
stockpiled or sold for alternative uses, thereby creating anthropogenic sources associated with
intentional use.
In Australia, the roasting of gold has been the largest point source of mercury emissions into
the atmosphere. The Gidji gold roasting facility North of Kalgoorlie has traditionally released
approximately three tonnes of mercury per annum108, however, upgrades to the plant are
expected to reduce this amount in the coming years.
Artisanal and Small-scale Gold Mining (ASGM) is the greatest source of direct mercury
emission and release worldwide. Miners use the mercury to create an amalgam, separating
the gold from other materials. The mercury is then separated from the gold by heating it to the
point where the mercury volatilises and leaves behind the concentrated gold. The ASGM
sector is widely dispersed, unregulated, and often illegal. The miners are typically poor and
have little awareness of the hazards of mercury and the availability of pollution control devices.
There is evidence to suggest a small number of recreational artisanal and small-scale gold
miners practice this in Australia.
A.2 Cement Production
Cement production involves the burning of fossil fuels to heat required materials, and is
another major anthropogenic source of mercury emissions as both the raw materials and the
fuel may contain mercury and lead to emissions. The amount of mercury liberated varies with
the mercury content of the fuels.
108 National Pollutant Inventory, 2012/2013 report for Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd, Gidji Operations – Kanowa, WA, accessed 10 June 2015, <www.npi.gov.au>.
..............................................................................................................................................
84
A.3 Oil Refining
Oil deposits generally contain mercury at low concentrations. Mercury is removed from most
petroleum products and natural gas prior to combustion, therefore combustion-related
emissions are low. Most of the mercury in crude oil is associated with solid waste that is
disposed of in landfills, however, emissions and releases during oil and gas extraction,
transport, refining and flaring also occur.
Mercury levels vary from one reserve to another. Some examples of mercury measurements
from existing industry environmental impacts statements are:
200-250 parts per billion of mercury for a particular reserve in the Bass Strait109; and
Measurements taken from a Browse exploration well indicate that reservoir fluids may
contain mercury, with concentrations expected to range between 38 and 83 μg/Sm3
(micrograms of mercury per standard cubic meter) in the gas stream and between 35 and
41 μg/Sm3 in the condensate stream.110
There are five potential points of mercury emission and release in oil and gas production.
These comprise: drill cuttings, produced water, mercury in the petroleum and gas streams, air
emissions, and mercury management.
A.4 Therapeutic Goods
In Australia, therapeutic goods (prescription medicines and non-prescription medicines –
including complimentary medicines, herbal products, vitamins and nutritional products) are
regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) is
responsible for administering the provisions of the legislation.
In Australia, there are two topical antiseptics containing mercury that are registered on the
Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods: Mercurochrome 1% and Mercurochrome 2%.
According to the Australian Government Department of Health, these products are not
currently sold commercially in Australia.
A.4.1 Dental Amalgam
Dental amalgam is a mercury-containing material that is used for dental fillings. The use of
dental amalgam in Australia is declining and currently comprises approximately 25 per cent of
new fillings.
The majority of dental practitioners now make use of alternative products such as resin
composite and glass-ionomer. The industry reports that the declining use of dental amalgam
is largely due to increasing consumer preference for tooth-coloured alternatives.111
The largest single source of dental mercury released into the environment is from the removal
of existing amalgams from patients during dental procedures (replacement fillings, crowns and
109 ExxonMobil Australia 2013, Kipper Mercury Removal Project: Fact Sheet, <http://www.exxonmobil.com.au/Australia-English/PA/Files/publications_mercury.pdf>. 110 Woodside 2014, Browse FLNG Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement EPBC 2013/7079, November 2014, p. 55, <http://www.woodside.com.au/Our-Business/Browse/Pages/Draft-Environmental-Impact-Statement.aspx>. 111 Department of Health 2014, Submission to Department of the Environment: Ratification of the Minamata Convention Consultation, 17 July 2014, p. 2.
..............................................................................................................................................
85
extractions). Extracted amalgam materials are either rinsed into sewage systems or are
disposed of as municipal waste. There is currently no regulation governing the use, control or
discharge of mercury from dental practices.
The best management practice to reduce mercury releases from dental practices is to use
traps and separators to collect mercury-containing waste before it enters the sewage system.
The trapped wastes can then be recycled for reuse in dental amalgam. Sewage sludge
contains significant amounts of essential plant nutrients and organic matter that can benefit
crop production. With appropriate treatments, sewage sludge (biosolids) can be applied to
agricultural land. In Australia, States and Territories regulate sewage sludge disposal by
issuing licenses to facilities producing biosolids. There are no uniform national standards
relating to the disposal of sewage sludge on agricultural lands in Australia, but existing
jurisdictional regulations apply the classification of principles set out in the Guidelines for
Sewerage Systems: Biosolids Management (2004). The guideline for a maximum
concentration of mercury contaminants in dry biosolids is 1 mg/kg. If the dry solids exceed
15 mg/kg of mercury contamination, they should not be used. Adhering to these guidelines will
assist in the protection of agricultural produce, ecosystems and human health.
When bodies are cremated, mercury in fillings can be emitted to the air. Mercury can also be
emitted and released during production and preparation of fillings and from the disposal of
removed fillings. This is not currently addressed within the provisions of the Minamata
Convention.
A.5 Mercury-containing Products
Consumer products containing mercury generally enter the waste stream through landfill or
incineration at the end of their life cycle. Mercury is still used in a wide range of products,
including batteries, paints, switches, electrical and electronic devices, thermometers, blood-
pressure gauges, fluorescent and energy-saving lamps, pesticides, medicines and cosmetics.
While mercury in landfills may slowly become re-mobilized to the environment, waste that is
incinerated can be a major source of atmospheric mercury, especially from uncontrolled
incineration. Incinerators employing appropriate BAT/BEP technologies and practices have
low emissions.
A.5.1 Pesticides
Mercury is used in some pesticides and biocides. However, in Australia one product that is
registered with the APVMA is listed as containing mercury. Shirtan® is a mercury-containing
pesticide that is widely used by sugarcane growers for the control of pineapple disease
(caused by the fungus Ceratocystis paradoxa).
Growers that use Shirtan apply the chemical to sugarcane setts prior to planting
(approximately every four to six years). While there are comparable alternative products
available (discussed below), Shirtan has substantial market penetration, with approximately
80 per cent of new plantings being treated annually (equating to an average of 44,000 litres
per year over the period 2011 to 2014).
The active ingredient of Shirtan is methoxy ethyl mercuric chloride (referred to as MEMC).
Shirtan contains 120 grams of mercury per litre,112 which equates to approximately 5,280 kg of
112 Crop Care Australia 2011, Material Safety Data Sheet Shirtan Liquid Fungicide.
..............................................................................................................................................
86
elemental mercury being released into the Australian environment each year. This release of
mercury, through projected estimates of harm (to human health) per kilogram of mercury,
costs Australia approximately $25.8 million annually.113
Alternative non-mercury based pesticides are available on the Australian market. A range of
propiconazole based pesticides are available under differing trade names and are registered
for the control of both pineapple sett rot and smut.114 A flutriafol-based pesticide (Sinker®) is
commercially available. Currently a proprietary formulation, this product is more expensive;
however, alternative flutriafol-based pesticides are likely to become available once competitors
using flutriafol-based pesticides are able to enter the market. At this time, it is expected that
costs will drop and become more competitive with Shirtan.115
A.5.2 Measuring Equipment, Lighting and Batteries
Measuring Equipment
In Australia, industry recyclers currently report low levels of recycling. This is despite the best
available technique for the control of mercury from this source category being its prevention
from disposal to landfill.
In Australia, thermometers and sphygmomanometers containing mercury are rapidly being
replaced by digital products, reflective of medical technological advances.
Lighting
A number of lights used at either a domestic or commercial level include some quantity of
mercury. Mercury-containing lamps include; small compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) used
mostly in homes, linear fluorescent lamps (LFLs) or linear fluorescent tubes commonly used in
offices, and high intensity discharge lamps such as high pressure mercury vapour lamps
(HPMVs) used for street lighting and sports grounds.
In 2010, and again more recently, new energy efficiency standards were introduced by the
Australian Government, limiting the mercury content of fluorescent tubes and compact
fluorescent lamps to approximately two milligrams per lamp. Alternative non-mercury lighting
products are widely available and include the increasingly popular light-emitting diode (LED)
lamps. High pressure sodium vapour lights and other energy efficient alternatives are also
available as an alternative to HPMV lamps.
As mercury-containing products (such as mercury-containing lamps) enter the waste stream
and accumulate in landfill across Australia, they become an increasing cause for concern.
Mercury in landfill converts to the toxic methylmercury and spreads into the wider environment
through air, water and soil.116 Segregation of mercury-containing wastes from general
household waste at the point of generation is the most effective method of management.
There is currently no regulatory control on the disposal of used lamps. Manufacturers are not
113 Using a range of case studies, Marsden Jacob developed a benefit transfer methodology that is suitable for application to Australian circumstances and estimates the likely impact of mercury emissions and releases at $4,862 per kg of mercury. 114 Bhuiyan, S.A; Croft, B.J & Tucker, G.R 2014, ‘Efficacy of the fungicide flutriafol for the control of pineapple sett rot of sugarcane in Australia’, Australasian Plant Pathology, vol. 43, p. 418. 115 Once the data used for registration with APVMA becomes publicly available. 116 FluoroCycle, ‘Why should we recycle our waste lighting?, accessed 14 April 2015, <http://www.fluorocycle.org.au/why-recycle.php>.
..............................................................................................................................................
87
required to provide for collection and recycling, however there is one industry-led initiative that
is aiming to address the issue of lamp recycling from commercial and public lighting sectors.
FluoroCycle is a voluntary, industry funded and managed scheme aimed at reducing the
amount of mercury-containing waste being disposed of to landfill from the commercial and
public lighting sectors. No such scheme exists for domestic waste lighting. In 2012, lamp
recycling directly attributable to FluoroCycle was calculated to be 1.7 per cent. From this, the
estimated weight of mercury recovered was 25.9 kg.117 There have been a number of
difficulties and interruptions to the services of this programme which has limited its
effectiveness. The use of alternative, non-mercury containing products would more effectively
reduce the total amount of mercury entering the waste stream.
The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and
Their Disposal (to which Australia is a Party) recommends the separation of waste containing
mercury from other wastes, when feasible, and recovery of the mercury from these sources.
Further, technical guidelines for mercury under the Basel Convention require consideration of
a number of items for the design of collection programmes; this is applicable to CFLs and
LFLs.
Batteries
Some batteries contain mercury. Zinc air, alkaline and silver oxide batteries typically contain
0.1-2.0% mercury, while mercuric oxide batteries contain 30-40% mercury by weight. In
Australia, there are no national controls on battery use and disposal, however States and
Territories have household hazardous collection programmes. Once each year, residents are
invited to bring their unwanted household hazardous chemicals (including batteries) to a
specified location for disposal. Despite this initiative, most (if not all) used batteries are still
likely to be disposed of in landfill.
A.6 Occupational Exposure
States and Territories maintain the responsibility for the laws which control occupational health
and safety (OH&S). The Commonwealth, through the Australian Safety and Compensation
Council (ASCC) provides assurance in achieving nationally consistent regulation by producing
national standards and Codes of Practice as a model for laws in the States and Territories.
These measures are not legally enforceable unless State and Territory governments adopt
them under their OH&S legislation.
In considering the incidence of workplace injuries and illness caused by exposure to mercury,
workers’ compensation data was obtained from the National Data Set for Compensation-
Based Statistics. The National Data Set contains accepted workers’ compensation claims,
which are derived from State, Territory and Commonwealth workers’ compensation authorities.
Over the period 2000-01 to 2011-12, the total number of accepted claims relating to mercury
was 59, and the total compensation paid was $687,167. Over an 11 year period, this equates
to an average of 5.3 claims per year and average value of compensation paid as $57,264.
117 FluoroCycle Annual Report, 2013-2014.
..............................................................................................................................................
88
A.7 Exposure through Food Sources
As previously explained, there is a paucity of data regarding the distribution of liberated
mercury and extent of mercury exposure from seafood in Australia. Furthermore, one of the
challenges of studying the cycling of mercury is that because it is an element, it is never
destroyed, and can be recycled in various forms through the environment. For example,
mercury that is deposited to soils, lakes, wetlands, or oceans, may later enter the food chain or
be re-released into the atmosphere where it can then be redeposited elsewhere. Therefore, it
is highly likely that the Australian population is affected by mercury pollution emitted or
released from international sources.
Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) is an independent statutory agency
established by the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act (1991). The Australia New
Zealand Food Standards Code prescribes maximum levels for mercury in some foods,
(including fish). Standard 1.4.1 of the Code includes two separate maximum levels for mercury
in fish:
1.0 mg mercury/kg for species of fish that are known to contain high levels of mercury
(such as swordfish, southern bluefin tuna, barramundi, ling, orange roughy, rays and
shark).
0.5 mg/kg for all other species of fish, crustaceans and molluscs.
These limits apply to all seafood offered for commercial sale. Pregnant women, women
intending to become pregnant, and young children are more sensitive to mercury exposure
and should limit their consumption of some types of fish. For this section of the population,
FSANZ recommend an intake of no more than 1.6 µg methylmercury/kg body weight per week
(approximately half the level recommended for the general population).
The Code does not include prescribed maximum levels for some particular foods. In these
cases, Generally Expected Levels (GELs) have been established to assist both enforcement
agencies and industry to maintain contaminant levels at the lowest achievable levels.
The following advisory has been released by FSANZ in order to limit exposure118:
People can safely eat 2–3 serves a week of most types of fish. However, because of the
presence of higher levels of mercury in some fish there are a few types you should limit in your
diet, especially if you are pregnant.
Pregnant women, women planning pregnancy and young children should eat shark (flake),
broadbill, marlin and swordfish no more than once a fortnight and should not eat any other fish
during that fortnight. Orange roughy and catfish should be eaten no more than once a week,
and no other fish should be eaten during that week. The general population should also only
eat shark (flake), broadbill, marlin and swordfish once per week and no other fish that week.
The named fish may contain more mercury than other species because they are long living
fish and/or predators and can accumulate higher levels of mercury by eating other fish.
118 Food Standards Australia New Zealand 2011, ‘Mercury in Fish’, accessed 24 August 2015, <http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/chemicals/mercury/pages/default.aspx>.
..............................................................................................................................................
89
Mercury is an element found both naturally and as an introduced contaminant. It tends to
affect the nervous system, and the developing nervous system in the unborn baby is
particularly sensitive to mercury.
Number of serves of different types of fish you can safely eat
Pregnant women and women planning pregnancy
1 serve equals 150 grams#
Children (up to 6 years) 1 serve equals 75 grams #
Rest of the population
1 serve equals 150 grams #
2 – 3 serves per week of any fish and seafood not listed below
2 – 3 serves per week of any fish and seafood not listed in the column below
OR OR
1 serve per week of Orange Roughy (Sea Perch) or Catfish and no other fish that week
1 serve per week of Shark (Flake) or Billfish (Swordfish / Broadbill and Marlin) and no other fish that week
OR
1 serve per fortnight of Shark (Flake) or Billfish (Swordfish / Broadbill and Marlin) and no other fish that fortnight
# A 150 gram serve for adults and older children is equivalent to approximately two frozen
crumbed fish portions.
A 75 gram serve for children is approximately three fish fingers (Hake or Hoki is used in fish
fingers).
Canned fish is sold in various sizes; for example, the snack- size cans of tuna are
approximately 95 grams.
90
APPENDIX B
Cost-Benefit Analysis – Marsden Jacob Associates
..............................................................................................................................................
91
APPENDIX C
Annex A of the Minamata Convention – Mercury-added Products
The following products are excluded from this Annex:
(a) Products essential for civil protection and military uses;
(b) Products for research, calibration of instrumentation, for use as reference standard;
(c) Where no feasible mercury-free alternative for replacement is available, switches and
relays, cold cathode fluorescent lamps and external electrode fluorescent lamps (CCFL and
EEFL) for electronic displays, and measuring devices;
(d) Products used in traditional or religious practices; and
(e) Vaccines containing thiomersal as preservatives.
Part I: Products subject to Article 4, paragraph 1
Mercury-added products Date after which the manufacture, import
or export of the products shall not be
allowed (phase-out date) –Options 2-4
Batteries, except for button zinc silver oxide
batteries with a mercury content <2% and
button zinc air batteries with a mercury
content <2%
2020
Switches and relays, except very high
accuracy capacitance and loss measurement
bridges and high frequency radio frequency
switches and relays in monitoring and control
instruments with a maximum mercury content
of 20mg per bridge, switch or relay
2020
Compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) for
general lighting purposes that are ≤30 watts
with a mercury content exceeding 5mg per
lamp burner
2020
Linear fluorescent lamps (LFLs) for general
lighting purposes:
(a) Triband phosphor < 60 watts with a
mercury content exceeding 5mg per lamp;
(b) Halophosphate phosphor ≤ 40 watts with a
mercury content exceeding 10mg per lamp
2020
High pressure mercury vapour lamps (HPMV)
for general lighting purposes
2020
Mercury in cold cathode fluorescent lamps
and external electrode fluorescent lamps
(CCFL and EELF) for electronic displays:
(a) short length (≤ 500mm) with mercury
content exceeding 3.5 mg per lamp
2020
..............................................................................................................................................
92
Mercury-added products Date after which the manufacture, import
or export of the products shall not be
allowed (phase-out date) –Options 2-4
(b) medium length (> 500mm and ≤ 1500mm)
with mercury content exceeding 5mg per
lamp
(c) long length >1500mm) with mercury
content exceeding 13mg per lamp
Cosmetics (with mercury content above
1ppm), including skin lightening soaps and
creams, and not including eye are cosmetics
where mercury is used as a preservative and
no effective and safe substitute preservatives
are available119
2020
Pesticides, biocides and topical antiseptics 2020
The following non-electronic measuring
devices except non-electronic measuring
devices installed in large-scale equipment or
those used for high precision measurement,
where no suitable mercury-free alternative is
available:
(a) barometers;
(b) hygrometers;
(c) manometers;
(d) thermometers;
(e) sphygmomanometers.
2020
119 The intention is not to cover cosmetics, soaps or creams with trace contaminants of mercury.