PETITION TO PROMULGATE REPORTING RULES FOR MERCURY MANUFACTURING, 

PROCESSING, AND IMPORTATION UNDER SECTION 8(a) OF THE TOXIC SUBSTANCES 

CONTROL ACT

June 24, 2015

Notice of Petition 

Gina McCarthy

Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Mail Code: 1101A

Washington, DC 20460
2

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Index of Exhibits ..................................................................................................................................................iii

I. Introduction.............................................................................................................................................. 1

II. Petitioners ................................................................................................................................................. 1

III. Statutory Background........................................................................................................................... 4

IV. EPA should promulgate a section 8(a) reporting rule that captures 

comprehensive data about ongoing mercury and mercury-compound 

manufacture, processing, and importation .................................................................................. 6

A. Definitions................................................................................................................................... 6

B. Persons who must report under the rule and exemptions ...................................... 7

C. Information to report............................................................................................................10

1. Mercury, mercury compounds, and mixtures 

containing mercury .................................................................................................10

2. Mercury-added products.......................................................................................11

D. Timing of reporting requirements and method for reporting..............................12

E. Certification..............................................................................................................................12

F. Recordkeeping.........................................................................................................................12

V. There is a reasonable basis to conclude that ongoing domestic 

mercury uses in products and processes present an unreasonable 

risk to human health and the environment................................................................................13

A. Toxicity.......................................................................................................................................13

B. Exposure ....................................................................................................................................15

C. Risks presented by releases into the environment from 

ongoing uses of mercury in products and processes ...............................................16

D. Risk reduction..........................................................................................................................19
ii

VI. A section 8(a) reporting rule covering ongoing mercury and 

mercury-compound production, and uses in products and processes,

would result in substantial benefits..............................................................................................20

A. EPA lacks data about ongoing mercury uses in products 

and processes...........................................................................................................................20

B. Comprehensive data will improve EPA’s ability to assess risks 

from mercury and make informed decisions about how to 

reduce those risks ..................................................................................................................22

1. EPA needs data on mercury use in polyurethane 

manufacturing to reduce the health risks to the 

public from such use ...............................................................................................22

2. Reporting is needed to gather data about mercury 

use in products..........................................................................................................24

3. EPA needs data on mercury stocks ...................................................................28

VII. Petitioners seek rulemaking under TSCA because no other 

federal law or state authority provides a mechanism sufficient to 

gather comprehensive data about mercury use and production 

in the United States ..............................................................................................................................28

VIII. Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................................35
iii

Index of Exhibits

1. Minamata Convention on Mercury

2. David Lennett & Richard Gutierrez (2014), Minamata Convention on Mercury Ratification and 

Implementation Manual

3. About Us, Zero Mercury Working Group

4. U.S. EPA, Economic Analysis for the Final Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) Modifications Rule

5. U.S. EPA, EPA Strategy to Address Mercury-Containing Products 

6. Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse, Instructions, Mercury-added 

Product Notification Form

7. NEWMOA, State Mercury-Added Product Notification Process

8. United Nations Environment Programme, Summary of Supply, Trade and Demand Information 

on Mercury

9. Wilburn, D. R. (2013). Changing patterns in the use, recycling, and material substitution of 

mercury in the United States

10. Applied Minerals, Applied Minerals—Metals & Stocks

11. U.S. EPA, Mercury, Health Effects

12. U.S. EPA, What You Need to Know About Mercury in Fish and Shellfish

13. Environmental Council of the States, Quicksilver Caucus, Status Report on Select Products, 

Processes and Technologies Utilizing Mercury 

14. U.S. EPA, National Listing of Fish Advisories: General Fact Sheet 2011

15. U.S. EPA, EPA’s Roadmap for Mercury

16. Myers, G. J., & Davidson, P. W. (1998). Prenatal methylmercury exposure and children: 

neurologic, developmental, and behavioral research

17. Grandjean, P., White, R. F., Weihe, P., & Jørgensen, P. J. (2003). Neurotoxic risk caused by stable 

and variable exposure to methylmercury from seafood

18. Debes, F., Budtz-Jørgensen, E., Weihe, P., White, R. F., & Grandjean, P. (2006). Impact of prenatal 

methylmercury exposure on neurobehavioral function at age 14 years

19. Oken, E., Wright, R. O., Kleinman, K. P., Bellinger, D., Amarasiriwardena, C. J., Hu, H., RichEdwards, J. W., Gillman, M. W. (2005). Maternal fish consumption, hair mercury, and infant 

cognition in a U.S. cohort
iv

20. Oken, E., Radesky, J. S., Wright, R. O., Bellinger, D. C., Amarasiriwardena, C. J., Kleinman, K. P., Hu, 

H., & Gillman, M. W. (2008). Maternal fish intake during pregnancy, blood mercury levels, and 

child cognition at age 3 years in a US cohort

21. Davidson, P. W., Myers, G. J., & Weiss, B. (2004). Mercury exposure and child development 

outcomes

22. Yoshida, M., Shimizu, N., Suzuki, M., Watanabe, C., Satoh, M., Mori, K., & Yasutake, A. (2008). 

Emergence of delayed methylmercury toxicity after perinatal exposure in metallothionein-null 

and wild-type C57BL mice

23. Yokoo, E. M., Valente, J. G., Grattan, L., Schmidt, S. L., Platt, I., & Silbergeld, E. K. (2003). Low level 

methylmercury exposure affects neuropsychological function in adults

24. Guallar, E., Sanz-Gallardo, M. I., Veer, P. V., Bode, P., Aro, A., Gómez-Aracena, J., Kark, J. D., 

Riemersma, R. A., Martín-Moreno, J. M., & Kok, F. J. (2002). Mercury, fish oils, and the risk of 

myocardial infarction

25. Salonen, J. T., Seppänen, K., Nyyssönen, K., Korpela, H., Kauhanen, J., Kantola, M., Tuomilehto, J., 

Esterbauer, H., Tatzber, F. & Salonen, R. (1995). Intake of mercury from fish, lipid peroxidation, 

and the risk of myocardial infarction and coronary, cardiovascular, and any death in eastern 

Finnish men

26. Choi, A. L., Weihe, P., Budtz-Jørgensen, E., Jørgensen, P. J., Salonen, J. T., Tuomainen, T. P., Murata,

K., Nielsen, H. P., Petersen, M. S., Askham, J., Grandjean, P. (2009). Methylmercury exposure and 

adverse cardiovascular effects in Faroese whaling men

27. Jacob‐Ferreira, A. L., Passos, C. J., Jordao, A. A., Fillion, M., Mergler, D., Lemire, M., Gerlach, R. F.,

Barbosa, F., Jr., & Tanus‐Santos, J. E. (2009). Mercury Exposure Increases Circulating Net Matrix 

Metalloproteinase (MMP)‐2 and MMP‐9 Activities

28. U.S. EPA, How People are Exposed to Mercury

29. USGS. 2009. Recent Findings from the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) and Toxic 

Substances Hydrology Programs

30. USGS. 2009. Mercury in Fish, Bed Sediment, and Water from Streams Across the United States, 

1998-2005

31. Wathen, J. B., Lazorchak, J. M., Olsen, A. R., & Batt, A. (2015). A national statistical survey 

assessment of mercury concentrations in fillets of fish collected in the US EPA national rivers 

and streams assessment of the continental USA

32. Hintelmann, H., Harris, R., Heyes, A., Hurley, J. P., Kelly, C. A., Krabbenhoft, D. P., Linberg, S., 

Rudd, J. W., Scott, K.J. & St. Louis, V. L. (2002). Reactivity and mobility of new and old mercury 

deposition in a boreal forest ecosystem during the first year of the METAALICUS study

33. Manolopoulos, H., Snyder, D. C., Schauer, J. J., Hill, J. S., Turner, J. R., Olson, M. L., & Krabbenhoft, 

D. P. (2007). Sources of speciated atmospheric mercury at a residential neighborhood impacted 

by industrial sources
v

34. Dvonch, J. T., Graney, J. R., Keeler, G. J., & Stevens, R. K. (1999). Use of elemental tracers to source 

apportion mercury in south Florida precipitation

35. White, E. M., Keeler, G. J., & Landis, M. S. (2009). Spatial variability of mercury wet deposition in 

eastern Ohio: summertime meteorological case study analysis of local source influences

36. Biester, H., Müller, G., & Schöler, H. F. (2002). Estimating distribution and retention of mercury 

in three different soils contaminated by emissions from chlor-alkali plants: part I

37. Evers, D. C., Han, Y. J., Driscoll, C. T., Kamman, N. C., Goodale, M. W., Lambert, K. F., Holsen, T. M., 

Chen, C. Y., Clair, T. A., & Butler, T. (2007). Biological mercury hotspots in the northeastern 

United States and southeastern Canada

38. Frederick, P. C., Hylton, B., Heath, J. A., & Spalding, M. G. (2004). A historical record of mercury 

contamination in southern Florida (USA) as inferred from avian feather tissue

39. Driscoll, C. T., Han, Y. J., Chen, C. Y., Evers, D. C., Lambert, K. F., Holsen, T. M., Kamman, N.C., & 

Munson, R. K. (2007). Mercury contamination in forest and freshwater ecosystems in the 

northeastern United States

40. National Research Council, Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury

41. U.S. EPA, Trends in Blood Mercury Concentrations and Fish Consumption Among U.S. Women of 

Childbearing Age NHANES, 1999-2010

42. Mahaffey, K. R., Clickner, R. P., & Jeffries, R. A. (2009). Adult women’s blood mercury 

concentrations vary regionally in the United States: association with patterns of fish 

consumption (NHANES 1999–2004)

43. Personal communication, Jeffrey Bigler, U.S. EPA, Bigler.Jeff@epa.gov, January 2014 (Data from 

the U.S. EPA Trends study of 2013)

44. Hightower, J. M., O'Hare, A., & Hernandez, G. T. (2006). Blood mercury reporting in NHANES: 

identifying Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, and multiracial groups

45. Patricia McCann, Minnesota Department of Health, Mercury Levels in Blood from Newborns in 

the Lake Superior Basin

46. Trasande, L., Schechter, C. B., Haynes, K. A., & Landrigan, P. J. (2006). Mental retardation and 

prenatal methylmercury toxicity

47. Trasande, L., Schechter, C., Haynes, K. A., & Landrigan, P. J. (2006). Applying cost analyses to 

drive policy that protects children: mercury as a case study

48. Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, Mercury in Products Phase-Down Strategy

49. U.S. EPA, Economic Analysis for the TSCA Section 8(a) Proposed Reporting Requirements for 

Certain Chemical Substances as Nanoscale Materials 
vi

50. Minnesota Department of Health, Mercury Flooring Testing and Mitigation: Guidance for 

Environmental Professionals

51. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 

Health Consultation: Mercury-Containing Polyurethane Floors in Minnesota Schools

52. Ohio Department of Health, Bureau of Environmental Health, Mercury Exposure Tartan Brand 

Polymer Flooring

53. Commission Regulation (EU) No. 848/2012 (Sept. 19, 2012), published in the Official Journal of 

the European Union

54. United States of America Notification Under Article 4, Paragraph 2, of Information on Domestic 

Measures & Strategies Implemented to Address Mercury-Added Products, Including those 

in Part I of Annex A to the Minamata Convention on Mercury

55. IMERC Fact Sheet: Mercury Use in Switches & Relays

56. U.S. EPA, Initial Risk-Based Prioritization of Mercury in Certain Products (Nov. 2008)

57. European Commission, Restriction of Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic 

Equipment

58. Products Containing Mercury Regulations, 148 Canada Gazette 2686

59. Washington State Department of Ecology, Children’s Safe Product Act Reported Data

60. Tenex Elbow Shock Absorber

61. Amazon, Tenex Tennis Elbow Reliever

62. Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, Great Lakes Mercury in Products Phase-Down Strategy 

Progress Report

63. ASHTA Chemicals Inc. Announces Significant Capital Investment in Northeast Ohio 

Benefiting the Environment and Local Community

64. U.S. EPA, Mercury, Consumer and Commercial Products

65. Commission for Environmental Cooperation, North American Regional Action Plan for Mercury 

Close-Out Report 

66. U.S. EPA, Report to Congress: Potential Export of Mercury Compounds from the United States 

for Conversion to Elemental Mercury

67. U.S. EPA, 2011 National Emissions Inventory (2011 facility total mercury (Hg)) 

68. U.S. EPA, Background Paper for Stakeholder Panel to Address Options for Managing U.S. NonFederal Supplies of Commodity-Grade Mercury
vii

69. U.S. EPA, Chemical Data Access Tool (CDAT)

70. NEWMOA, Mercury-Added Products Database

71. U.S. EPA, Subpoena and Information Request
1

I. Introduction 

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the majority of the state 

members of the Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association (NEWMOA) petition 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate a rule under section 8(a) of 

the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)1 requiring recordkeeping and reporting by 

manufacturers, processors, and importers into the United States of mercury, mercury 

compounds, or mercury-added products. Petitioners file this petition pursuant to TSCA 

section 21.2

The lack of comprehensive data on mercury production and use in the United States 

has been acknowledged by virtually all of the federal and state agencies involved in 

tracking or regulating the chemical in commerce. There is no mechanism in place for 

obtaining such data, and these data are necessary to prevent unreasonable risks of injury to 

human health and the environment created by the ongoing manufacture, processing, and 

importation of mercury and mercury compounds. The existing mechanism for gathering 

data on mercury use in products, administered by some states through the Interstate 

Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC), no longer collects data on most 

switches and relays, the largest mercury use in products, and contains significant gaps due 

to non-reporting. EPA acknowledged the need to act almost ten years ago, but the problem 

remains.

 

The recently adopted Minamata Convention on Mercury provides an additional 

impetus for collecting the mercury data necessary to protect the public from unreasonable 

risks from mercury exposure. By joining the Convention, the United States will assume 

obligations related to mercury uses in products and processes that cannot be discharged 

with the current gaps in data availability.

For the reasons set forth below, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the rule 

Petitioners request is necessary to protect human health and the environment against an 

unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment caused by ongoing mercury uses

in products and processes in the United States.3

II. Petitioners

NRDC is a membership-based, non-profit environmental and public health advocacy 

organization with more than 1.4 million members and online activists nationwide. NRDC’s 

mission is to safeguard the Earth: its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems 

on which all life depends. To further this mission, NRDC works to reduce mercury pollution 

both domestically and internationally. 

 

1 15 U.S.C. § 2607(a).

2 Id. § 2620. 

3 See id. § 2620(b)(4)(B)(ii).
2

Domestically, NRDC has advocated for substantial mercury-emission reductions 

during most of the relevant EPA rulemakings, and in rulemakings governing the potential 

phase-out of mercury use in the chlor-alkali sector. In addition, at the state level, NRDC 

works with a network of non-governmental organizations to develop state programs 

restricting mercury uses in products, and to improve the safe collection and management

of mercury-added products at the end of their useful life. This state work has contributed to 

a large portion of the mercury reductions in product manufacturing achieved domestically 

to date.

Internationally, NRDC actively participated in negotiations culminating in the 

creation of the Minamata Convention on Mercury (the Convention), an international 

agreement whose objective is “to protect human health and the environment from 

anthropogenic emissions and releases of mercury and mercury compounds.”4 To facilitate 

implementation of the Convention, NRDC staff recently co-authored the Minamata 

Convention on Mercury Ratification and Implementation Manual, which provides guidance 

to government officials about how to meet their obligations under the Convention.5

NRDC also participates in a global non-governmental organization network called 

the Zero Mercury Working Group (ZMWG). ZMWG sponsors mercury awareness-raising 

and reduction activities in many countries, and promotes early ratification and 

implementation of the Convention.6

NRDC’s address and phone number are: 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

40 West 20th Street

New York, NY 10010

Tel.: (212) 727-2700 

For further information regarding NRDC’s mercury activities, please contact David Lennett 

at (202) 289-6868 or dlennett@nrdc.org.

NEWMOA is a non-profit, non-partisan interstate association whose membership is 

composed of the state environmental agency directors of the hazardous waste, solid waste, 

waste site cleanup, and pollution prevention programs in Connecticut, Maine, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The 

majority of member states support NEWMOA’s involvement in this petition. As described 

 

4 Minamata Convention on Mercury art. 1, Oct. 2013, available at http://www.mercuryconventi

on.org/Portals/11/documents/Booklets/Minamata%20Convention%20on%20Mercury_booklet_E

nglish.pdf (last visited Feb. 4, 2015) [hereinafter Minamata Convention] (attached as Exhibit 1). 

5 See David Lennett & Richard Gutierrez (2014), Minamata Convention on Mercury Ratification 

and Implementation Manual, available at http://www.nrdc.org/international/files/minamataconvention-on-mercury-manual.pdf (last visited Dec. 15, 2014) (attached as Exhibit 2). 

6 See About Us, Zero Mercury Working Group, http://www.zeromercury.org/index.php?option=

com_content&view=article&id=116&Itemid=11 (last visited May 26, 2015) (attached as Exhibit 3).
3

below, NEWMOA administers IMERC, which has both NEWMOA state members and nonNEWMOA state members. Minnesota and Washington, non-NEWMOA state members of 

IMERC, expressly support NEWMOA’s involvement in this petition as a co-petitioner on 

behalf of NEWMOA and IMERC. 

NEWMOA's mission is to develop, lead, and sustain an effective partnership of states 

that helps achieve a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment by exploring, developing, 

promoting, and implementing environmentally sound solutions for:

 Reducing materials use and preventing pollution and waste;

 Properly reusing and recycling discarded materials that have value;

 Safely managing solid and hazardous wastes; and

 Remediating contaminated sites.

NEWMOA manages the Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse 

(IMERC) to provide:

 Ongoing technical and programmatic assistance to states that have enacted 

mercury education and reduction legislation; and

 A single point of contact for industry and the public for information on mercuryadded products and member states’ mercury education and reduction programs.

IMERC facilitates deliberations that provide advice and assistance to the individual 

states for their decision-making. IMERC: 

 Collects and manages data submitted by manufacturers of mercury-added 

products to implement notification provisions of state mercury-reduction 

legislation; 

 Facilitates interstate collaboration on the development and implementation of 

public education and outreach programs on mercury-added products; 

 Makes information on mercury-added products available to industry and the 

public; 

 Responds to requests for information on mercury-added products, the 

requirements of the member states, and the status of state implementation of 

their laws; and 

 Provides technical assistance and facilitates member reviews concerning 

manufacturers’ applications for labeling of and exemptions to the phase-out of 

mercury-added products and manufacturers’ plans for collection and proper 

waste management of mercury-containing materials. 

IMERC's membership includes all NEWMOA member state agencies and non-NEWMOA 

member state agencies of California, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, North 

Carolina, and Washington. 
4

NEWMOA’s address and phone number are: 

Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association 

129 Portland Street, 6th Floor

Boston, Massachusetts 02114-2014

(617) 367-8558

For further information regarding NEWMOA’s mercury activities, please contact Terri 

Goldberg, Executive Director of NEWMOA, at (617) 367-8558 or tgoldberg@newmoa.org.

III. Statutory Background 

Congress enacted TSCA “with the express purpose of limiting the public health and 

environmental risks associated with exposure to and release of toxic chemical substances 

and mixtures,”

7 with a particular emphasis on “fill[ing] . . . regulatory gaps.”8 To facilitate 

EPA’s regulation of chemical substances whose release into the environment may present 

unreasonable risks to public health and the environment, section 8(a) of TSCA “authorizes 

EPA to promulgate rules under which manufacturers (including importers) and processors 

of chemical substances must maintain records and submit information as the EPA 

Administrator may reasonably require.”9 Under section 8(a), EPA may require chemical 

manufacturers, processors, and importers to keep records of and report, among other 

information, “[t]he categories or proposed categories of use of each [chemical] substance,” 

and “[t]he total amount of each such substance . . . manufactured or processed,” including 

“the amount manufactured or processed for each of its categories of use.”10 “To the extent 

feasible,” EPA must not require reporting “which is unnecessary or duplicative.”11

Information gathering under section 8(a) can help EPA create “a total picture of the 

current situation” of uses of chemical substances.12 As explained in more detail below, see 

infra Part VI.B, this total picture can help the agency attribute risk from the chemical to 

specific products or industrial processes, which in turn can help EPA identify the best tools 

and approaches to further reduce that risk. As EPA has explained, “[w]ith incomplete 

information regarding toxic chemical substances, public and private decision makers are 

unable to make adequate assessments of the benefits and costs of actions involving these 

substances.”13

Section 8(a) rules are warranted when “adequate data are not otherwise available” 

for EPA “to determine where unreasonable risks from [the chemical] exist and the 

 

7 Physicians Comm. for Responsible Med. v. Johnson, 436 F.3d 326, 327 (2d Cir. 2006). 

8 S. Rep. No. 94-698, at 1 (1976), as reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4491, 4491. 

9 Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals and Mixtures, 79 Fed. Reg. 28,664, 28,665 (May 19, 2014). 

10 15 U.S.C. § 2607(a)(2)(B), (C). 

11 Id. § 2607(a)(2).

12 Asbestos Reporting Requirements, 47 Fed. Reg. 33,198, 33,198 (July 30, 1982). 

13 U.S. EPA, Economic Analysis for the Final Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) Modifications 

Rule 7-2 (June 30, 2011) (attached as Exhibit 4). 
5

appropriate approaches to reduce those risks.”14 EPA has in the past promulgated section 

8(a) rules to enable the agency to remain “apprised of the production volume of and 

exposure to [chemicals]” with “known adverse environmental effects and potential adverse 

human health effects.”15 Such section 8(a) rules enable the agency to “confirm the actual 

current uses” of a chemical of concern, which in turn enables the agency to “assess 

exposures and potential risks.”

16

As this petition explains in detail, adequate data are not currently available for 

ongoing mercury uses in products and processes, from which EPA could make informed 

and sound decisions about how best to reduce the associated risks to human health and the 

environment. Because EPA currently has no mechanism to collect information about 

ongoing mercury uses, the agency is also unable to monitor the possible development of 

new uses, which may increase potential exposure and may have significant human health 

and environmental effects.17

Through section 21 of TSCA, Congress enabled citizens to petition the EPA 

Administrator to initiate a TSCA section 8 rulemaking proceeding.18 Section 21 petitions 

must “set forth the facts which it is claimed establish that it is necessary to issue . . . a rule” 

under section 8.19 Section 21 also sets the applicable standard for judicial review if EPA 

denies a petition for rulemaking: the court shall order EPA to initiate the requested 

rulemaking proceeding when “there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the issuance of 

such a rule . . . is necessary to protect health or the environment against an unreasonable 

risk of injury to health or the environment.”20 

As set forth below in Parts V and VI, Petitioners have demonstrated that there is a 

reasonable—indeed, an ample—basis to conclude that a section 8(a) reporting rule for 

mercury is necessary to protect health and the environment against an unreasonable risk 

of injury to health and the environment from ongoing domestic uses of mercury in 

products and processes. EPA lacks adequate data from which it can evaluate possible 

approaches to further reduce risks from ongoing uses of mercury, which EPA itself has 

acknowledged “will . . . create potential exposure and risk for human health and the 

 

14 Asbestos Reporting Requirements, 47 Fed. Reg. at 33,199. 

15 Hexachloronorbornadiene; Submission of Notice of Manufacture, Import, or Processing and 

Determination of Significant New Use, 50 Fed. Reg. 47,534, 47,535 (Nov. 19, 1985). 

16 EDTMPA and its Salts; Submission of Notice of Manufacture or Import, 53 Fed. Reg. 41,335, 

41,335 (Oct. 21, 1988). 

17 See Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Category of Chemical Substances Known as 

Chlorinated Naphthalenes; Submission of Notice of Manufacture or Import, 49 Fed. Reg. 33,649, 

33,651 (Aug. 24, 1984) (promulgating a section 8(a) rule in part because of a “concern[]” about 

increased exposure risk that could arise due to the development of new uses of the chemical). 

18 15 U.S.C. § 2620(a).

19 Id. § 2620(b)(1). 

20 Id. § 2620(b)(4)(B)(ii).
6

environment.”21 EPA cannot assess which regulatory or other options will reduce 

unreasonable risks from mercury exposure without comprehensive and current data about 

how mercury is being used in products and industrial processes. We urge EPA to collect 

this data pursuant to a reporting rule under TSCA section 8(a) to prevent such 

unreasonable risks. 

IV. EPA should promulgate a section 8(a) reporting rule that captures 

comprehensive data about ongoing mercury and mercury-compound 

manufacture, processing, and importation

Petitioners request that EPA promulgate a TSCA section 8(a) rule that requires 

persons who manufacture, process, or import into the United States mercury, mercury 

compounds, or mercury-added products to keep records of and submit information to EPA 

concerning such manufacture, processing, or importation of mercury. As EPA itself has 

already found, gathering this updated information, along with subsequent analysis of that 

information, is “necessary” to inform EPA’s future actions to reduce ongoing mercury uses 

in the United States.22

A. Definitions 

Petitioners propose that the following definitions be applied to their proposed rule: 

1. Mercury means the substance mercury, also identified as CAS No. 07439-97-6.

2. Mercury-added product means a product or product component that contains 

mercury or a mercury compound that was intentionally added, and is not 

excluded under section 3(2)(B) of TSCA.

23

3. Mercury compound means 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.24

4. Mixture means any combination of two or more chemical substances if the 

combination does not occur in nature, and is not, in whole or in part, the result of 

a chemical reaction; except that such term does not include any combination 

 

21 U.S. EPA, EPA Strategy to Address Mercury-Containing Products 1 (Sept. 2014), available at 

http://www.epa.gov/mercury/pdfs/productsstrategy.pdf (last visited May 11, 2015) [hereinafter 

EPA Strategy Document] (attached as Exhibit 5). 

22 Id. at 2.

23 This definition is taken from Article 2(f) of the Minamata Convention, and is intended to be 

consistent with the IMERC notification requirements. See Interstate Mercury Education and 

Reduction Clearinghouse, Instructions, Mercury-added Product Notification Form, http://www.ne

wmoa.org/prevention/mercury/imerc/InstructionsSingle.pdf (attached as Exhibit 6), except 

insofar as TSCA precludes coverage of such products in the rule, such as medical devices, cosmetics, 

and other products regulated under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as provided in Section 3 of 

TSCA. See 15 U.S.C. § 2602(2)(B)(vi). 

24 This definition is taken from the Minamata Convention. See Minamata Convention, supra note 

4, at art. 2(e). Petitioners understand this definition to have the same meaning as EPA’s definition 

under the Toxic Release Inventory. See 40 C.F.R. § 372.65(c). 
7

which occurs, in whole or in part, as a result of a chemical reaction if none of the 

chemical substances comprising the combination is a new chemical substance 

and if the combination could have been manufactured for commercial purposes 

without a chemical reaction at the time the chemical substances comprising the 

combination were combined.

5. The Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC) means 

the entity composed of state officials designated to receive mercury-added 

product notifications from product manufacturers under applicable state law. 

B. Persons who must report under the rule and exemptions

Petitioners request that EPA require the following persons to report under the rule: 

Any person who manufactures25 or processes for distribution in commerce26

mercury, mercury compounds, or mixtures containing mercury at any point during 

an applicable reporting period under this rule. This includes manufacturers or 

processors of mercury-added products.

Petitioners propose that any processor or manufacturer who has submitted a mercuryadded product notification approved by IMERC be considered in compliance with the 

federal reporting requirements under this rule for the products and calendar year covered 

by the IMERC notification.27

In addition, Petitioners propose that the exemptions set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 704.5 

apply to this rule, with the exception of exemptions (a) (articles), (b) (byproducts) and (f) 

(small manufacturers). With respect to articles, Petitioners propose that EPA promulgate a 

section 8(a) reporting rule for mercury without the exemption in 40 C.F.R. § 704.5(a) for 

mercury imported or processed solely as part of an article. EPA has previously recognized 

that the articles exemption is not appropriate for TSCA reporting rules relating to mercury; 

all of the Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) for mercury uses in products eliminated the

more general exemption for importing or processing elemental mercury as part of an 

 

25 Petitioners use the term “manufacturer” to mean a person that “manufactures” a chemical 

substance, as defined under TSCA. See 15 U.S.C. § 2602(7) (“The term ‘manufacture’ means to 

import into the customs territory of the United States . . ., produce, or manufacture.”). Petitioners’ 

use of “manufacturer” thus includes those who import mercury, mercury compounds, or mercuryadded products into the United States. 

26 Petitioners use the term “distribution in commerce” as that phrase is defined in 15 U.S.C. 

§ 2602(4). 

27 See NEWMOA, State Mercury-Added Product Notification Process, http://www.newmoa.org/pr

evention/mercury/imerc/notificationinfo.cfm (last updated Apr. 17, 2015) (attached as Exhibit 7). 

Petitioners have not included in this petition reporting from persons who propose to manufacture 

or process mercury or mercury compounds, because we anticipate EPA using its SNUR authorities 

after the reporting rule is issued to require notifications of potential new uses or sources of 

mercury and mercury compounds, consistent with the three limited mercury-product SNURs 

already issued and cited immediately below.
8

article.28 Mercury use as part of articles, including, e.g., switches and relays, is an important 

ongoing use of mercury in the United States. Without reporting information on uses of 

mercury as part of mercury-added products, the utility of the information EPA gathers 

under such a rule would be limited. 

The general reporting exemption for byproducts is inappropriate in this case 

because one of the principal sources of mercury domestically and globally is byproduct 

mercury from mining other metals (such as gold) and natural gas production.29 Because 

byproduct mercury from gold production is particularly significant in this country, 

excluding byproduct-mercury production from reporting would impair data collection on 

mercury-supply sources and the ultimate disposition of the mercury.30

Regarding small manufacturers, EPA has discretion to “prescribe standards for 

determining the manufacturers and processors which qualify as small manufacturers and 

processors” for purposes of TSCA section 8.31 Under 40 C.F.R. § 704.3, which is applicable 

to other reporting rules, a company is exempt from reporting if it produces less than 

100,000 pounds annually of an individual substance at any facility under the company’s 

control and company total sales are less than $40 million per year (criterion 1), or if its 

sales are less than $4 million annually regardless of the quantity produced (criterion 2). 

Because mercury is a low-volume, bio-accumulative chemical, and is toxic at very low 

concentrations, the definition of “small manufacturer” contained in 40 C.F.R. § 704.3 is not 

appropriate here.32

Instead, Petitioners propose that EPA define “small manufacturers” for the portion 

of this section 8(a) rule applying to manufacturers (including importers) and processors of 

mercury, mercury compounds, or mixtures containing mercury (except those 

manufacturers or processors producing a mercury-added product) using the same quantity 

 

28 Mercury Switches in Motor Vehicles; Significant New Use Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. 56,903, 56,904 

(Oct. 5, 2007); Mercury Use in Flow Meters, Natural Gas Manometers, and Pyrometers; Significant 

New Use Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 42,330, 42,331 (July 21, 2010); Elemental Mercury Used in Barometers, 

Manometers, Hygrometers, and Psychrometers; Significant New Use Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 31,728, 

31,729 (May 30, 2012).

29 See United Nations Environment Programme, Summary of Supply, Trade and Demand 

Information on 

Mercury 28-31 (Nov. 2006), available at http://www.unep.org/chemicalsandwaste/Portals/9/Mer

cury/Documents/Publications/HgSupplyTradeDemandJM.pdf (attached as Exhibit 8).

30 See Wilburn, D. R. (2013). Changing patterns in the use, recycling, and material substitution of 

mercury in the United States. US Geological Survey: Reston, VA, 32, available at

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2013/5137/pdf/sir2013-5137.pdf (attached as Exhibit 9).

31 15 U.S.C. § 2607(a)(3)(B). 

 

32 See e.g., Chemical Substances When Manufactured or Processed as Nanoscale Materials; TSCA 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, 80 Fed. Reg. 18,330, 18,335-56 (Apr. 6, 2015) (EPA 

proposal to eliminate the criterion one threshold for nanoscale materials due to the low volume 

production profile of the relevant sector); see also infra Part VII (discussing EPA’s Chemical Data 

Reporting Rule).
9

thresholds that EPA uses under the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Program.33 Under such a 

definition, a manufacturer or processor of mercury, mercury compounds, or mixtures 

containing mercury would be exempt from the reporting and recordkeeping requirements 

if it manufactured or processed less than ten pounds of mercury or mercury compounds in 

a calendar year.

The ten-pound threshold is warranted given mercury’s persistent and bioaccumulative nature: once released into the environment, mercury remains in the 

environment “for significant periods of time and concentrate[s] in the organisms exposed” 

to the chemical.34 Even “small quantities of [persistent, bio-accumulative] chemicals are of 

concern”—indeed, chemicals like mercury that are both persistent and bio-accumulative 

“have the potential to pose significant exposures to humans and ecosystems over a longer 

period of time; even small amounts of [persistent bio-accumulative toxic] chemicals that 

enter the environment can accumulate to elevated concentrations in the environment and 

in organisms, and therefore have a greater potential to result in adverse effects on human 

health and the environment.”35 In the TRI context, EPA recognized that using higher 

thresholds for data collection for low-volume chemicals like mercury would capture “only a 

fraction of the releases from facilities otherwise subject to” the reporting requirements, 

and that the data on chemicals would provide “a distorted picture of potential exposures to 

humans and the environment.”36 Such incomplete data would be of “limited use for 

evaluating the potential exposures to humans and the environment” from ongoing mercury 

uses in products and processes.37 As EPA has explained, using a higher reporting threshold

for mercury—in the TRI context, the prior threshold was 10,000 or 25,000 pounds per 

year—would “not present a comprehensive view of toxic chemical exposure.” These same 

considerations justify altering the definition of “small manufacturers” in the context of a 

mercury section 8(a) reporting rule.

We recognize that, in addition to quantity thresholds, the TRI Program limits 

reporting to those facilities that have ten or more full-time employees.38 However, EPA’s 

TSCA definition of small manufacturer in 40 C.F.R. § 704.3 does not contain a comparable 

employee numeric threshold for reporting. 

Instead, as noted above, the TSCA definition contains two alternative annual sales 

thresholds, but given mercury’s low volume and sales commercial profile, even mercury 

manufacturers and processors with small annual sales can be responsible for a significant 

segment of mercury production and use, and thus need to be included in the reporting 

scheme. For example, with total mercury production in the United States significantly less 

 

33 See 40 C.F.R. § 372.28. 

34 Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic (PBT) Chemicals; Lowering of Reporting Thresholds for 

Certain PBT Chemicals; Addition of Certain PBT Chemicals; Community Right-to-Know Toxic 

Chemical Reporting, 64 Fed. Reg. 58,666, 58,668 (Oct. 29, 1999). 

35 Id. at 58,669, 58,688. 

36 See id. at 58,688.

37 Id. 

38 40 C.F.R. § 372.22(a).
10

than 200 metric tons (MT) annually,

39 and the current purchase price of mercury at $3,000 

per flask (34.5 kg),40 the total value of mercury production in the United States is 

significantly less than $18 million. Thus, a manufacturer could produce up to 45.4 MT of 

mercury, account for 25% or more of total U.S. mercury production, and be exempt from 

reporting under 40 C.F.R. § 704.3. Similarly, under the second sales threshold criterion ($4 

million sales regardless of quantity), a company could produce as much or even more 

mercury (up to 46 MT at current market prices) while remaining exempt from reporting. 

Such a result would eviscerate the reporting rule, and thus Petitioners propose no sales 

threshold.

For the portion of this section 8(a) rule applying to manufacturers or processors of 

mercury-added products, Petitioners propose no reporting exemption for small 

manufacturers. Under the federal rule we envision, the IMERC reporting program will 

continue to be the primary mechanism for obtaining the necessary mercury-product data, 

and the IMERC reporting program does not exempt small manufacturers regardless of how 

they may be defined. Accordingly, a federal reporting exemption for small manufacturers 

will create unnecessary confusion between the federal and state reporting requirements, 

and provide little or no economic benefit for companies already required to report under 

state law.

C. Information to report 

1. Mercury, mercury compounds, and mixtures containing mercury

Petitioners request that EPA require manufacturers (including importers41) and 

processors of mercury, mercury compounds, or mixtures containing mercury (except those 

manufacturers or processors producing a mercury-added product) to submit at least the 

following information to EPA: 

1. The company name and headquarters mailing address;

2. The name, mailing and email address, and telephone number of the reporter’s 

principal technical contact;

3. The name and address of each site where mercury, mercury compounds, or 

mixtures containing mercury are manufactured or processed; 

4. The total quantity (by weight) of mercury, mercury compounds, and mixtures 

containing mercury manufactured or processed for distribution in commerce

per site during each calendar year of the reporting period, and the country of 

origin (and associated quantity) of any mercury, mercury compound, or mixture 

containing mercury imported during the calendar year;

 

39 See infra p. 32-33.

40 See Applied Minerals, Applied Minerals—Metals & Stocks, http://www.appliedminerals.us/

Metals.html (last visited Mar. 4, 2015) (attached as Exhibit 10).

41 Petitioners are using the term “importer” to mean “anyone who imports a chemical substance 

. . . into the customs territory of the U.S. and includes the person liable for the payment of any duties 

on the merchandise, or an authorized agent on his behalf.” 40 C.F.R. § 712.3(d).
11

5. For each site, the total quantity (by weight) of mercury, mercury compounds, or 

mixtures containing mercury sold or transferred offsite after having been 

manufactured or imported in each calendar year during the reporting cycle;

6. For each site, the maximum quantity of mercury or mercury compounds stored 

at any given time during the calendar year; 

7. A narrative description of all categories of end uses of any mercury, mercury 

compounds, or mixtures containing mercury that are manufactured or processed 

by the reporter, including estimates of the amount of mercury, mercury 

compounds, or mixtures containing mercury (by weight) to be manufactured or 

processed for each of the categories of use identified. Reporters shall report all 

information that is known or reasonably ascertainable by the person reporting. 

In lieu of providing such estimates, the reporter may provide the identity and 

quantities by persons that received mercury, mercury compounds, or mixtures 

containing mercury from the reporter; and

8. A narrative description of the manufacturing or processing operation(s) 

involving mercury, mercury compounds, or mixtures containing mercury at each 

site. 

2. Mercury-added products 

Petitioners request that EPA require manufacturers or processors of mercury-added 

products (including products with mixtures of mercury) to submit the following 

information to EPA, consistent with the IMERC notification requirements: 

1. The company name and headquarters mailing address;

2. The name, mailing and email address, and telephone number of the reporter’s 

principal technical contact;

3. The product(s) or categories of products manufactured, processed, or imported; 

4. Description and location of mercury-added components contained in each 

product (if applicable, listing each component separately); 

5. Number of mercury-containing components in one unit of the larger product; 

6. Total quantity (by weight in milligrams for fabricated products or concentration 

in parts per million for formulated products) of mercury in each mercury-added 

component of the product; 

7. Total quantity of mercury (in grams) in all units sold within the United States in 

the particular calendar year of the reporting cycle; 

8. For manufacturers or processors of mercury-added switches and/or relays, 

information concerning whether the switches and/or relays are manufactured 

or processed solely for the purpose of replacement where no feasible mercuryfree alternative for replacement is available.42

 

42 While information on switch and relay “replacement” status was not historically collected by 

IMERC, we note IMERC no longer requires reporting on most switches and relays, and thus EPA can 

and should collect these replacement data to facilitate its determination as to whether reported 

switch and relay manufacturing may fall within the replacement exclusion of the Minamata 

Convention, Annex A, subparagraph (c), supra note 4.
12

D. Timing of reporting requirements and method for reporting

Petitioners request that EPA require persons subject to this rule to submit the 

required reporting information once every three years, starting with calendar year 2016, 

on the same deadlines as those that apply to IMERC reporting. Accordingly, Petitioners

request that reporters be required to submit the requisite information to EPA by March 31 

of the calendar year following the year for which the report is prepared.

Petitioners also request that EPA require electronic reporting, similar to the 

reporting required under EPA’s Chemical Data Reporting Rule under TSCA.43 Such 

electronic submission will allow EPA to “immediately process and quickly begin to use the 

information” submitted,44 and “save time, improve data quality, and increase efficiencies 

for both the submitters and the Agency.”45 We note IMERC has instituted electronic 

reporting, the IMERC electronic database is designed to share information with EPA 

through a National Environmental Information Exchange Network node, and an EPA 

electronic reporting database would facilitate the sharing of the data between IMERC and 

EPA (and the public as well).

E. Certification 

Petitioners request that EPA require persons subject to this rule to attach the 

following statement to any information submitted to EPA in response to this rule: “I hereby 

certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, all of the attached information is 

complete and accurate.” EPA should require that the statement be signed and dated by the 

company’s principal technical contact. Such a statement is typically required to enhance the 

integrity of such reporting programs and to facilitate enforcement in the event of false 

reporting.

F. Recordkeeping

Petitioners propose that persons subject to the reporting requirements of this rule 

be required to retain documentation of information contained in their reports for a period 

of three years from the date of the submission of the report.46

 

43 40 C.F.R. § 711.35; see also Chemical Substances When Manufactured or Processed as 

Nanoscale Materials, 80 Fed. Reg. at 18,336-37.

44 TSCA Inventory Update Reporting Modifications, 75 Fed. Reg. 49,656, 49,661 (Aug. 13, 2010). 

45 Chemical Substances When Manufactured or Processed as Nanoscale Materials, 80 Fed. Reg. 

at 18,331-32.

46 A three-year recordkeeping requirement is typical in the context of section 8(a) reporting 

rules. See 40 C.F.R. § 704.11. 
13

V. There is a reasonable basis to conclude that ongoing domestic mercury uses in 

products and processes present an unreasonable risk to human health and the 

environment 

As explained in detail below, exposure to mercury, methylmercury, and other 

mercury compounds may cause adverse health impacts, especially neurological harms.47

The potential for mercury exposure to cause health harms is significant enough that EPA, 

along with fifty states, has published advisories encouraging people to limit their 

consumption of certain kinds of fish known to have high concentrations of 

methylmercury.48 Eighty-one percent of all fish advisories in the United States are based at 

least partly on mercury, with twenty-five states having published statewide advisories for 

freshwater lakes and rivers, and sixteen states having published statewide advisories for 

coastal waters.49 Despite the fact that “[s]ignificant progress”50 has been made over the last 

three decades to reduce health risks from mercury uses in products and processes in the 

United States, EPA acknowledged in September 2014 that “mercury from ongoing uses will 

eventually be released [into the environment] and create potential exposure and risk for 

human health and the environment.”51 

Below, we amplify and explain in detail EPA’s concern, which Petitioners share, that 

ongoing mercury uses “will . . . create potential exposure and risk for human health and the 

environment.”52

A. Toxicity 

Mercury in its most toxic form, methylmercury, readily crosses the placenta and the 

blood-brain barrier and is known to be neurotoxic, especially to the developing brain.53

Several very large studies have shown solid associations between intrauterine 

 

47 See U.S. EPA, Mercury, Health Effects, http://www.epa.gov/mercury/effects.htm (last updated 

Dec. 29, 2014) (attached as Exhibit 11); Mercury Switches in Motor Vehicles; Significant New Use 

Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. at 56,904. 

48 See, e.g., U.S. EPA, What You Need to Know About Mercury in Fish and Shellfish, http://water.ep

a.gov/scitech/swguidance/fishshellfish/outreach/advice_index.cfm (attached as Exhibit 12); 

Environmental Council of the States, Quicksilver Caucus, Status Report on Select Products, 

Processes and Technologies Utilizing Mercury 8 (2013) [hereinafter Quicksilver Caucus Report] 

(attached as Exhibit 13). 

49 See U.S. EPA, National Listing of Fish Advisories: General Fact Sheet 2011, http://water.epa.gov

/scitech/swguidance/fishshellfish/fishadvisories/generalfs2011.cfm (last updated Dec. 20, 2013) 

(attached as Exhibit 14).

50 U.S. EPA, EPA’s Roadmap for Mercury 3 (2006), http://www.epa.gov/mercury/archive/roadm

ap/pdfs/FINAL-Mercury-Roadmap-6-29.pdf (attached as Exhibit 15). 

51 EPA Strategy Document, supra note 21, at 1 (emphasis added). 

52 Id.

53 Myers, G. J., & Davidson, P. W. (1998). Prenatal methylmercury exposure and children: 

neurologic, developmental, and behavioral research. Environmental Health Perspectives, 106 (Suppl 

3), 841 (attached as Exhibit 16).
14

methylmercury exposure and impaired neurobehavioral performance.54,55 Neurological 

effects in children can also occur from early life exposures to mercury at low doses; the

resulting effects can include diminished visual recognition memory (VRM)56 and other 

neurological impairments such as decreased visual motor development and receptive 

vocabulary.57,58 Some neurobehavioral deficits related to mercury exposure may take many 

years to manifest.59

Recent research has revealed that elevated levels of mercury in adults can trigger 

neurological deficits impacting fine-motor speed, dexterity, concentration, verbal learning, 

and memory.60 Cardiovascular effects have also been reported in adults at environmentally 

relevant exposure levels, indicating increased risks of myocardial infarction (e.g., heart 

attacks), increased blood pressure, and thickening of the carotid artery (a measurement of 

atherosclerosis).

61,62,63,64 EPA has summarized the health and environmental effects of 

mercury in previous TSCA rulemakings.65

 

54 Grandjean, P., White, R. F., Weihe, P., & Jørgensen, P. J. (2003). Neurotoxic risk caused by 

stable and variable exposure to methylmercury from seafood. Ambulatory Pediatrics, 3(1), 18-23 

(attached as Exhibit 17).

55 Debes, F., Budtz-Jørgensen, E., Weihe, P., White, R. F., & Grandjean, P. (2006). Impact of 

prenatal methylmercury exposure on neurobehavioral function at age 14 years. Neurotoxicology 

and Teratology, 28(5), 536-547 (attached as Exhibit 18).

56 Oken, E., Wright, R. O., Kleinman, K. P., Bellinger, D., Amarasiriwardena, C. J., Hu, H., RichEdwards, J. W., Gillman, M. W. (2005). Maternal fish consumption, hair mercury, and infant 

cognition in a U.S. cohort. Environmental Health Perspectives, 1376-80 (attached as Exhibit 19).

57 Oken, E., Radesky, J. S., Wright, R. O., Bellinger, D. C., Amarasiriwardena, C. J., Kleinman, K. P., 

Hu, H., & Gillman, M. W. (2008). Maternal fish intake during pregnancy, blood mercury levels, and 

child cognition at age 3 years in a US cohort. American Journal of Epidemiology, 167(10), 1171-1181

(attached as Exhibit 20).

58 Davidson, P. W., Myers, G. J., & Weiss, B. (2004). Mercury exposure and child development 

outcomes. Pediatrics, 113(Supplement 3), 1023-1029 (attached as Exhibit 21).

59 Yoshida, M., Shimizu, N., Suzuki, M., Watanabe, C., Satoh, M., Mori, K., & Yasutake, A. (2008). 

Emergence of delayed methylmercury toxicity after perinatal exposure in metallothionein-null and 

wild-type C57BL mice. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116(6), 746-751 (attached as Exhibit 22).

60 Yokoo, E. M., Valente, J. G., Grattan, L., Schmidt, S. L., Platt, I., & Silbergeld, E. K. (2003). Low 

level methylmercury exposure affects neuropsychological function in adults. Environmental Health. 

2(1):8 (attached as Exhibit 23).

61 Guallar, E., Sanz-Gallardo, M. I., Veer, P. V., Bode, P., Aro, A., Gómez-Aracena, J., Kark, J. D., 

Riemersma, R. A., Martín-Moreno, J. M., & Kok, F. J. (2002). Mercury, fish oils, and the risk of 

myocardial infarction. New England Journal of Medicine, 347(22), 1747-1754 (attached as Exhibit 

24).

62 Salonen, J. T., Seppänen, K., Nyyssönen, K., Korpela, H., Kauhanen, J., Kantola, M., Tuomilehto, 

J., Esterbauer, H., Tatzber, F. & Salonen, R. (1995). Intake of mercury from fish, lipid peroxidation, 

and the risk of myocardial infarction and coronary, cardiovascular, and any death in eastern Finnish 

men. Circulation, 91(3), 645-655, available at http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/91/3/645.long 

(attached as Exhibit 25).

63 Choi, A. L., Weihe, P., Budtz-Jørgensen, E., Jørgensen, P. J., Salonen, J. T., Tuomainen, T. P., 

Murata, K., Nielsen, H. P., Petersen, M. S., Askham, J., Grandjean, P. (2009). Methylmercury exposure 

and adverse cardiovascular effects in Faroese whaling men. Environmental Health Perspectives. 

117(3):367-72 (attached as Exhibit 26).
15

B. Exposure 

Mercury is a highly neurotoxic contaminant that is most toxic when methylated. 

Biological processes in the watershed convert the mercury to methylmercury which 

accumulates in the food chain resulting in elevated levels in fish, other wildlife, and 

ultimately in humans.66 Commonly consumed fish may have methylmercury levels 100,000 

times that of the ambient water.67 Mercury contamination of fish stocks is widespread in 

the United States.68,69 Studies of mercury levels in fish in rivers, lakes, and streams across 

the United States found mercury levels exceeding the level for human health concern for a 

significant portion of the sites sampled.70

Newly deposited mercury has been shown to be more bioavailable and more rapidly 

converted to methylmercury and represents a greater fraction of the methylmercury which 

is incorporated into food chains and ultimately into fish.71,72 Local sources have been 

implicated in elevated levels of mercury measured in ambient air,73 precipitation,74,75

 

64 Jacob‐Ferreira, A. L., Passos, C. J., Jordao, A. A., Fillion, M., Mergler, D., Lemire, M., Gerlach, R. F.,

Barbosa, F., Jr., & Tanus‐Santos, J. E. (2009). Mercury Exposure Increases Circulating Net Matrix 

Metalloproteinase (MMP)‐2 and MMP‐9 Activities. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, 

105(4), 281-288 (attached as Exhibit 27).

65 See, e.g., Mercury Switches in Motor Vehicles; Proposed Significant New Use Rule, 71 Fed. Reg. 

39,035, 39,040-41 (July 11, 2006). 

66 U.S. EPA, How People are Exposed to Mercury, http://www.epa.gov/mercury/exposure.htm 

(last updated Dec. 29, 2014) (attached as Exhibit 28).

67 Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Dental Category, 79 Fed. Reg. 63,258, 

63,277 (Oct. 22, 2014).

68 USGS. 2009. Recent Findings from the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) and 

Toxic Substances Hydrology Programs (as presented to the NAWQA National Liaison Committee, 

Aug. 21, 2009) (attached as Exhibit 29).

69 What You Need to Know About Mercury in Fish and Shellfish, supra note 48.

70 USGS. 2009. Mercury in Fish, Bed Sediment, and Water from Streams Across the United 

States, 1998-2005 (attached as Exhibit 30); Wathen, J. B., Lazorchak, J. M., Olsen, A. R., & Batt, A. 

(2015). A national statistical survey assessment of mercury concentrations in fillets of fish collected 

in the US EPA national rivers and streams assessment of the continental USA. Chemosphere, 122, 52-

61., abstract available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653514012636 

(attached as Exhibit 31). 

71 Recent Findings, supra note 68. 

72 Hintelmann, H., Harris, R., Heyes, A., Hurley, J. P., Kelly, C. A., Krabbenhoft, D. P., Linberg, S., 

Rudd, J. W., Scott, K. J. & St. Louis, V. L. (2002). Reactivity and mobility of new and old mercury 

deposition in a boreal forest ecosystem during the first year of the METAALICUS study. 

Environmental Science & Technology, 36(23), 5034-5040 (attached as Exhibit 32).

73 Manolopoulos, H., Snyder, D. C., Schauer, J. J., Hill, J. S., Turner, J. R., Olson, M. L., & 

Krabbenhoft, D. P. (2007). Sources of speciated atmospheric mercury at a residential neighborhood 

impacted by industrial sources. Environmental Science & Technology, 41(16), 5626-5633 (attached

as Exhibit 33).

74 Dvonch, J. T., Graney, J. R., Keeler, G. J., & Stevens, R. K. (1999). Use of elemental tracers to 

source apportion mercury in south Florida precipitation. Environmental Science & 

Technology, 33(24), 4522-4527 (attached as Exhibit 34).
16

soils,76 and methylmercury levels in biota, including fish.77 Reductions in local mercury 

emissions levels have been tied to decreasing levels measured in the environment and 

biota.78,79,80 Therefore, to achieve the National Academy of Sciences’ public-health goal of 

reducing mercury concentrations in fish,81 current mercury emissions should be ratcheted 

down, thereby decreasing the amount of mercury cycling through aquatic systems and

reducing contamination of fish and people.

In addition to these sources of exposure, there may be other potential sources of 

exposure from mercury use in products and processes. As explained in detail below, see 

infra Part VI, there is insufficient national information about some categories of mercury 

use in products and processes, including, e.g., mercury exposure from flooring using 

polyurethane, and mercury in children’s toys, to meaningfully assess the actual or potential 

exposure to humans from such uses. Petitioners ask EPA to promulgate a section 8(a) 

reporting rule so that such information can be gathered and analyzed so as to inform an 

adequate assessment of the sources of exposure to mercury from ongoing mercury uses in 

products and processes.

C. Risks presented by releases into the environment from ongoing uses of 

mercury in products and processes

EPA very conservatively estimates that more than 75,000 newborns each year may 

have increased risk of learning disabilities associated with in-utero exposure to 

methylmercury.82 This figure likely underestimates the extent of risks to newborns: due to 

 

75 White, E. M., Keeler, G. J., & Landis, M. S. (2009). Spatial variability of mercury wet deposition 

in eastern Ohio: summertime meteorological case study analysis of local source 

influences. Environmental Science & Technology,43(13), 4946-4953 (attached as Exhibit 35).

76 Biester, H., Müller, G., & Schöler, H. F. (2002). Estimating distribution and retention of 

mercury in three different soils contaminated by emissions from chlor-alkali plants: part I. Science 

of the Total Environment, 284(1), 177-189 (attached as Exhibit 36).

77 Evers, D. C., Han, Y. J., Driscoll, C. T., Kamman, N. C., Goodale, M. W., Lambert, K. F., Holsen, T.

M., Chen, C. Y., Clair, T. A., & Butler, T. (2007). Biological mercury hotspots in the northeastern 

United States and southeastern Canada. Bioscience, 57(1), 29-43 (attached as Exhibit 37).

78 Frederick, P. C., Hylton, B., Heath, J. A., & Spalding, M. G. (2004). A historical record of mercury 

contamination in southern Florida (USA) as inferred from avian feather tissue: Contribution 

R‐09888 of the Journal Series, Florida Agricultural Experiment Station. Environmental Toxicology 

and Chemistry,23(6), 1474-1478 (attached as Exhibit 38).

79 Driscoll, C. T., Han, Y. J., Chen, C. Y., Evers, D. C., Lambert, K. F., Holsen, T. M., Kamman, N.C., & 

Munson, R. K. (2007). Mercury contamination in forest and freshwater ecosystems in the 

northeastern United States. BioScience, 57(1), 17-28 (attached as Exhibit 39).

80 Mercury in Fish, Bed Sediment, and Water from Streams Across the United States, 1998-2005, 

supra note 70.

81 National Research Council, Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury (2000) (attached as Exhibit 

40).

82 U.S. EPA, Trends in Blood Mercury Concentrations and Fish Consumption Among U.S. Women of 

Childbearing Age NHANES, 1999-2010 (July 2013) (attached as Exhibit 41); see also How People are 

Exposed to Mercury, supra note 66. 
17

bio-concentration of methylmercury across the placenta, blood mercury concentrations 

exceeding 3.5 μg/L in maternal blood are a level of concern, in addition to concentrations 

exceeding 5.8 μg/L, which is the current U.S. EPA reference dose.83 Three times more 

women of childbearing age—7.3%—have blood mercury levels exceeding 3.5 μg/L, 

indicating that up to 265,000 or more infants are born each year facing cognitive impacts 

from mercury exposure based on maternal blood levels.84

Some populations may face even greater risks: Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Native 

Americans are all more likely to have elevated blood mercury levels, as are women living in 

the Northeast and other coastal areas, or consuming a lot of fish.85,86 A 2011 study of 1,465 

newborns in Minnesota’s Lake Superior Basin found eight percent of the newborns had 

blood mercury levels above 5.8 μg/l.87

Researchers have estimated that in the United States methylmercury toxicity is 

associated with between 376 and 14,293 excess cases per year of a level of cognitive 

impairment that would be considered mental retardation. The cost of caring for these 

children has been estimated between $500 million and $17.9 billion annually, and this cost 

will be incurred every year until mercury emissions are reduced. 88,89

Mercury releases associated with mercury uses in products and processes 

contribute “significantly” to this mercury pollution.90 For example, the disposal of mercury 

products at the end of their useful life has been identified as a significant source of mercury 

pollution leading to statewide advisories. This disposal may occur at steel plants that 

 

83 Mahaffey, K. R., Clickner, R. P., & Jeffries, R. A. (2009). Adult women’s blood mercury 

concentrations vary regionally in the United States: association with patterns of fish consumption 

(NHANES 1999–2004). Environmental Health Perspectives, 117(1), 47-53 (attached as Exhibit 42). 

84 Based on data from the U.S. EPA Trends study of 2013 provided via personal communication, 

Jeffrey Bigler, USEPA, Bigler.Jeff@epa.gov, January 2014 (attached as Exhibit 43).

85 Hightower, J. M., O'Hare, A., & Hernandez, G. T. (2006). Blood mercury reporting in NHANES: 

identifying Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, and multiracial groups. Environmental Health 

Perspectives, 114(2),173-175 (attached as Exhibit 44).

86 Mahaffey, K.R., et al., 2009, supra note 83.

87 Patricia McCann, Minnesota Department of Health, Mercury Levels in Blood from Newborns 

in the Lake Superior Basin, GLNPO ID 2007-942, Final Report, November 30, 2011 (attached as 

Exhibit 45).

88 Trasande, L., Schechter, C. B., Haynes, K. A., & Landrigan, P. J. (2006). Mental retardation and 

prenatal methylmercury toxicity. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 49(3), 153-158 (attached

as Exhibit 46).

89 Trasande, L., Schechter, C., Haynes, K. A., & Landrigan, P. J. (2006). Applying cost analyses to 

drive policy that protects children: mercury as a case study. Annals of the New York Academy of 

Sciences, 1076: 911–923, abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17119266

(attached as Exhibit 47).

90 Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, Mercury in Products Phase-Down Strategy 1 (June 2008), 

available at http://www.glrc.us/documents/MercuryPhaseDownStrategy06-19-2008.pdf (attached 

as Exhibit 48).
18

recycle steel scrap contaminated with mercury switches and relays, and at waste 

incinerators that receive mercury-added products.91

Additional significant exposures may occur during product use, as a consequence of 

breakage or other factors. For example, EPA issued Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) for 

certain mercury-added measuring devices in 2012. Although at least some of the 

measuring devices involved were not associated with particularly high volumes of mercury 

use, EPA issued the SNUR because:

At any point in the lifecycle, there is potential for mercury to be released as 

liquid or vapor. Workers and others can be exposed to the mercury and it can 

be released into water, air, or onto land as the mercury is transported, 

stored, and handled during manufacturing. While the barometers, 

manometers, hygrometers, and psychrometers are in use, the mercury can 

vaporize or spill due to breakage during transport, installation, maintenance, 

refilling, or repair. Other opportunities for release can occur at the end of the 

lifecycle of barometers, manometers, hygrometers, and psychrometers as 

these devices are removed from equipment and facilities, and handled during 

waste management.92

For these reasons, EPA and the Great Lakes states, for example, developed a strategy to 

phase out the use of mercury in these and other products.93

The lack of adequate data on mercury use in products and processes prevents a 

complete accounting of the full extent of the human health risks from exposure to mercury.

This is exactly why the recordkeeping and reporting rule that Petitioners seek is necessary. 

EPA cannot fully address the health and environmental risks from mercury exposure 

without adequate data about ongoing mercury uses: “The lack of detail in available 

information means that [EPA] is not able to analyze the effects that regulatory or voluntary 

actions on a single product may have on a multi-product industry and to quantify expected 

reductions in risk.”

94 In addition, such data collection is necessary to allow EPA to monitor 

any development of new mercury uses, so that the agency can assess the risks to human 

health that may be presented by such new uses.95 

 

91 Id. at 9; see also Mercury Switches in Motor Vehicles; Significant New Use Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. at 

56,905 (promulgating Significant New Use Rule for mercury-added motor vehicle switches due to 

risks posed by mercury emissions from steel plants recycling steel scrap).

92 Elemental Mercury Used in Barometers, Manometers, Hygrometers, and Psychrometers; 

Significant New Use Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. at 31,730.

93 Mercury in Products Phase-Down Strategy, supra note 90, at 26-30. 

94 Asbestos Reporting Requirements, 47 Fed. Reg. at 33,199.

95 See Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Category of Chemical Substances Known as 

Chlorinated Naphthalenes; Submission of Notice of Manufacture or Import, 49 Fed. Reg. 33,649, 

33,649, 33,651 (Aug. 24, 1984). 
19

D. Risk reduction 

EPA has repeatedly recognized the need to reduce risks from mercury, and has 

previously taken regulatory action under TSCA and other federal laws to work toward 

reducing those risks. For example, EPA promulgated a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) 

under TSCA section 5(a) for elemental mercury used in certain “convenience light switches, 

anti-lock braking system (ABS) switches, and active ride control system switches.”96 While 

EPA could not quantify the benefits of this action, EPA took this action because “reduction 

in mercury emissions from various sources could lead to improvements in overall 

ecosystem health.”97

Similarly, EPA promulgated a SNUR covering mercury-added flow meters, natural 

gas manometers, and pyrometers, because of the risk of human exposure to mercury 

during the products’ manufacture, use, and disposal at the products’ end of life.98 About 

two years later, EPA promulgated a SNUR covering mercury-added barometers, 

manometers, hygrometers, and psychrometers, essentially for the same reasons.99 

EPA recently proposed a rule under the Clean Water Act that sets technology-based 

pretreatment standards “for discharges of pollutants [including mercury] into publicly 

owned treatment works” from dental practices. The proposed standards are estimated to 

reduce nationwide annual mercury discharges to surface waters from 880 pounds to 

fourteen pounds.100 EPA took this action even though limitations regarding the scientific 

understanding of the environmental fate and transport of mercury prevented preparation 

of a quantified environmental benefits analysis.101 EPA also recently finalized rules 

governing emission standards for hazardous air pollutants, including mercury, from coaland oil-fired electric utility steam-generating units.102

 

Based on available cost analyses from previous TSCA rulemakings, the cost of 

Petitioners’ proposed rule would likely be relatively small. For example, EPA estimated that 

the costs to produce a full report for the TSCA section 8 Inventory Update Reporting rule 

would be approximately $8,000 to $9,000 per report for the initial cycle (including 

compliance determination, recordkeeping, rule familiarization and preparation and 

submission of the report), and between $5,000 and $6,000 for each reporting cycle 

 

96 Mercury Switches in Motor Vehicles; Significant New Use Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. at 56,903.

97 Mercury Switches in Motor Vehicles; Proposed Significant New Use Rule, 71 Fed. Reg. at 

39,039.

98 Elemental Mercury Used in Flow Meters, Natural Gas Manometers, and Pyrometers; 

Significant New Use Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. at 42,332.

99 Elemental Mercury Used in Barometers, Manometers, Hygrometers, and Psychrometers; 

Significant New Use Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. at 31,730.

100 Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Dental Category, 79 Fed. Reg. at 

63,258, 63,277.

101 Id. at 63,277.

102 See Reconsideration of Certain Startup/Shutdown Issues: National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants, 79 Fed. Reg. 68,777 (Nov. 19, 2014).
20

thereafter.103 EPA estimated that it would cost the agency roughly $15 to process each 

report for the first reporting cycle, and only $2 to process each report for all future 

reporting cycles.104 These cost figures overestimate the cost of a report under Petitioners’ 

proposed section 8(a) rule, because the Inventory Update Reporting rule we are using as a 

comparator requires reporting of more information than does Petitioners’ proposed 

section 8(a) rule for mercury.105

The universe of manufacturers and processors subject to new reporting 

requirements as a consequence of the proposed rule would be relatively small, although 

Petitioners cannot quantify the universe because (as the U.S. Geological Survey has 

observed) there is no current mechanism for identifying the companies involved. It is 

simply not known how many companies use mercury or mercury compounds in industrial 

processes, or manufacture or import mercury-added products but do not provide data on 

mercury use to IMERC.106 The universe of U.S. mercury producers appears limited (based 

on representations EPA has made to NRDC), and historical IMERC data on switch and relay 

manufacturers suggests this number is fewer than fifty. Given that manufacturers of 

mercury-added products that are already reporting to IMERC would incur no increased 

costs under our proposal, it is reasonable to expect the overall costs imposed by this rule 

would be minimal. 

 

VI. A section 8(a) reporting rule covering ongoing mercury and mercurycompound production, and uses in products and processes, would result in 

substantial benefits

A. EPA lacks data about ongoing mercury uses in products and processes

Almost a decade ago, in its 2006 Roadmap for Mercury, EPA pledged to create a 

national database on mercury use in products and processes. Under the heading “Need for 

a National Mercury Use Database,” EPA stated: 

Reliable and publicly available data on mercury use is a prerequisite 

to gauging the success of EPA initiatives to reduce the use of mercury. 

 

103 Economic Analysis for the Final Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) Modifications Rule, supra 

note 13, at 4-58 tbl.4-53 (numbers reported in 2008$) (note that some sites may submit multiple 

reports because multiple chemical compounds may be manufactured or processed at a given site). 

104 Id. at 5-32 tbl.5-48. 

105 See 40 C.F.R. § 711.15. Similarly, we note most of the cost burden estimate of reporting under 

the proposed section 8(a) rule for nanoscale materials is associated with information not covered 

by this petition, such as data on human exposure and environmental releases, and test data. See U.S. 

EPA, Economic Analysis for the TSCA Section 8(a) Proposed Reporting Requirements for Certain 

Chemical Substances as Nanoscale Materials 3-3 tbl.3-3 (Mar. 12, 2015) (attached as Exhibit 49). 

106 4,4’-Methylenebis (2-Chloroaniline); Final Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, 51 

Fed. Reg. 13,220, 13,222 (Apr. 18, 1986) (explaining that EPA “is not able to determine the total 

cost of industry compliance with the section 8(a) reporting requirements, because it is not possible 

to estimate accurately the number of companies that will submit section 8(a) reports in response to 

the rule”). 
21

In 1998 the US Geological Survey discontinued its annual reporting of 

mercury use, due to low voluntary response from mercury use 

manufacturers.

107 

Citing the limited reach of data provided by the chlor-alkali sector, and the IMERC database 

for mercury use in products, EPA determined that a national mercury-use database was 

needed to make further progress toward reducing mercury-related risks. EPA indicated it 

would explore “various mechanisms” to improve the “comprehensiveness and reliability” 

of the existing data on mercury use, supply, and substitutes, with the goal of developing the 

database in 2007.108 

Now, nine years later, there is still no national database on mercury supply or use; 

the gaps in the data collected by others are worsening (as explained further below); and 

EPA is currently pursuing a voluntary strategy to obtain the necessary data 

notwithstanding the earlier U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) experience that a voluntary 

strategy was ineffective. The Executive Branch has turned full circle, but still has neither a 

mercury production and use database, nor a credible plan to develop one.

Indeed, in its recently published Strategy to Address Mercury-Containing Products 

(“EPA Strategy”), the Agency acknowledged the continuing need for “more robust” data on 

mercury used in products and processes, and to “enhance” data on the manufacture, 

import, and export for some categories of mercury product use, in order to determine 

priorities for additional mercury reduction activities.109 EPA “hope[d]” that such 

information would be forthcoming voluntarily from mercury producers, importers, and 

others, but pointed to no substantial evidence that would justify such a hope (let alone to 

rebut the evidence from which one could reasonably conclude that this hope would be 

dashed), and acknowledge[d] that regulatory options may need to be developed if the 

voluntary responses are insufficient.110 Now, months later, as explained below in Part VII, 

mercury producers have not voluntarily supplied the information EPA sought, and the 

Agency will now need to turn to involuntary approaches. 

As EPA points out in its Strategy, the need for an adequate national mercury supply 

and use database is twofold: (1) to achieve additional mercury-use reductions to prevent 

unreasonable risks to human health and the environment from mercury releases into the 

environment; and (2) to assist the United States in its implementation obligations under 

the Minamata Convention on Mercury. The first justification is consistent with the Agency’s 

2006 Roadmap. The second justification arises from the United States officially joining the 

Convention in 2013, and thus makes the case for the national database even more 

compelling.

 

107 EPA’s Roadmap for Mercury, supra note 50, at 38 (emphasis added). 

108 See id. at 38-39.

109 EPA Strategy Document, supra note 21, at 1. 

110 Id. at 1-3.
22

B. Comprehensive data will improve EPA’s ability to assess risks from 

mercury and make informed decisions about how to reduce those risks

EPA has already recognized that to evaluate possible methods by which risks from 

mercury pollution can be reduced, the Agency must first update its information about 

ongoing uses of mercury in products and processes.111 As EPA has explained, “[s]creening 

chemical substances for potential risks is an essential first step in developing and 

prioritizing risk management activities. Effective risk-screening by EPA depends on the 

ability to characterize chemical substance uses accurately and to predict potential 

exposures.”112 In this way, incomplete and non-comprehensive data hampers EPA’s ability 

to effectively assess risks from exposure to mercury. “The more EPA can base its decisions 

on actual data, rather than on assumptions, the better EPA is able to tailor its risk 

management decisions to the level of actual risk, . . . Ultimately, an enhanced risk screening 

process will have positive consequences for human and ecosystem health, and will use 

EPA’s and society’s resources more efficiently.”113 EPA has further explained: 

[D]ecisions regarding whether, when, and how to target chemical 

substances for further risk assessment can be misdirected if basic 

risk-screening information is unavailable or inadequate. With more 

information, EPA can better direct its limited resources towards highpriority risks. Improved information can therefore help lead to more 

socially optimal reductions in risks to humans and the 

environment.114 

Accordingly, as a general matter, EPA has already recognized the benefits of 

obtaining comprehensive data about chemical exposure for its risk-assessment and 

risk-reduction activities. Below we identify specific benefits relevant to mercury and 

mercury compounds.

1. EPA needs data on mercury use in polyurethane manufacturing 

to reduce the health risks to the public from such use 

State officials recently identified mercury use in polyurethane manufacturing as a 

priority data gap for EPA.115 They considered it a priority because “[m]ercury-based 

 

111 Id. at 2-3.

112 Economic Analysis for the Final Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) Modifications Rule, supra 

note 13, at 7-2. 

113 Id. at 7-1. 

114 Id. at 7-2.

115 See Quicksilver Caucus Report, supra note 48, at 12-14. The Quicksilver Caucus is a coalition 

of state environmental association leaders working on mercury use and release reduction. Those 

associations are the Environmental Council of the States, the Association of Clean Water Agencies, 

the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, the Association of State and Territorial 

Solid Waste Management Officials, the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, and the National 

Pollution Prevention Roundtable.
23

catalysts are known to have been extensively used in product manufacture with mercury 

being incorporated in some products. Documented exposures to children attributable to 

mercury releases from gym flooring and mats raise the level of concern. There is very 

limited data on overall use.”116

Examples of this documented exposure and risk to children include guidance from 

the Minnesota Department of Public Health indicating that “if [a] floor contains mercury at 

20 ppm or more, the mercury vapor in the gym may approach or exceed levels of health 

concerns under some conditions,”117 and recommendations from the Ohio Department of 

Public Health regarding a particular floor product made using a mercury catalyst.118 In 

response to the risks posed by the presence of use of mercury catalysts in polyurethane 

manufacturing, the European Union (EU) recently prohibited the manufacture or sale of 

five mercury catalysts used for this purpose if the mercury concentration exceeds 0.01% by 

weight, as well as the sale of products containing such catalysts if the mercury 

concentration in the products exceeds 0.01% by weight, effective October 10, 2017.119

Because of the lack of data regarding mercury use in polyurethane manufacturing, the 

Quicksilver Caucus recommended that EPA “track” this mercury use in manufacturing 

using TSCA and/or other mechanisms.120

Under Paragraph 3 of Article 5, and Annex B of the Convention, the United States 

must take measures to restrict mercury-catalyst use in polyurethane manufacturing, 

aiming to phase out this use within ten years of the entry into force of the Convention. 

Under Paragraph 5 of Article 5, the United States must also endeavor to identify 

polyurethane manufacturing facilities using mercury in this country within three years of 

the Convention entering into force,121 submit information on the number of facilities and 

the estimated quantity of mercury or mercury compounds used at these facilities, and take 

 

116 Id. at 45. 

117 Minnesota Department of Health, Mercury Flooring Testing and Mitigation: Guidance for 

Environmental Professionals, http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/mercury/

hgflooringprofguide.html (last updated Sept. 27, 2012) (attached as Exhibit 50). A Health 

Consultation conducted by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry within the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services found mercury vapor concentrations in some Minnesota 

school gyms to be above the agency’s recommended limits. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Health Consultation: Mercury-Containing 

Polyurethane Floors in Minnesota Schools (Sept. 28, 2006), available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/

HAC/pha/MercuryVaporReleaseAthleticPolymerFloors/MercuryVaporRelease-FloorsHC092806.pd

f (attached as Exhibit 51). 

118 See Ohio Dep’t of Health, Bureau of Envtl. Health, Mercury Exposure Tartan Brand Polymer 

Flooring, available at http://www.odh.ohio.gov/~/media/ODH/ASSETS/Files/eh/HAS/mercuryflo

orstartan.ashx (attached as Exhibit 52). 

119 See Commission Regulation (EU) No. 848/2012 (Sept. 19, 2012), as published in Official 

Journal of the European Union, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:

32012R0848&from=EN (attached as Exhibit 53). 

120 Quicksilver Caucus Report, supra note 48, at 14.

121 Assuming the Convention enters into force in 2016 or 2017, the facilities should be identified 

by 2019 or 2020 respectively.
24

measures to reduce mercury emissions and releases from such facilities. Accordingly, for 

both risk-reduction and Convention-obligation purposes, EPA will need data on the 

companies engaged in mercury-catalyst use, production, and importation for polyurethane 

manufacturing. 

2. Reporting is needed to gather data about mercury use in 

products

Similarly, with respect to mercury-added products, the United States indicated in its 

ratification instrument that it will meet its Convention obligations using the alternative 

compliance mechanism of Article 4, Paragraph 2.122 Under Paragraph 2, the United States 

government must demonstrate it has already achieved a de minimis level of mercury use 

for a majority of the mercury-added products to be restricted under the Convention, and 

then implement measures or strategies to reduce mercury use in restricted products for 

which a de minimis value is not yet obtained. In its ratification instrument, the United 

States indicated it lacks sufficient data to demonstrate a de minimis value for switches and 

relays.123 Significantly, this data gap will now become more severe since the states stopped 

collecting most data on national mercury use in switch and relay manufacturing in 2010, as 

discussed further below.124 

In 2010, IMERC estimated that 19.43 tons of mercury was used to make switches 

and relays sold in the United States. This was the largest value for any domestic mercury 

product category in 2010, and not de minimis at that time.125 An individual switch can 

contain up to sixty-seven grams of mercury, while a relay unit may contain up to 400 

grams. EPA’s own 2008 risk-based prioritization for mercury in products found switches 

and relays to be a “high priority, special concern,” warranting action to reduce human and 

environmental exposures to elemental mercury and methylmercury.126

The risks have driven regulatory action in other countries, and in many states. The 

European Union generally prohibits the use of mercury in electronic products, such as 

 

122 See United States of America Notification Under Article 4, Paragraph 2, of Information on 

Domestic Measures & Strategies Implemented to Address Mercury-Added Products, Including those 

in Part I of Annex A to the Minamata Convention on Mercury, available at http://www.mercuryconv

ention.org/Portals/11/documents/submissions/USA%20declaration_Art%204%20para%202.pdf

(attached as Exhibit 54). 

123 Id. at 5.

124 See IMERC Fact Sheet: Mercury Use in Switches & Relays 4 (Jan. 2014), available at 

http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/imerc/factsheets/switches_relays_2014.pdf (last 

visited May 11, 2015) (attached as Exhibit 55).

125 Id. 

126 See U.S. EPA, Initial Risk-Based Prioritization of Mercury in Certain Products 6 (Nov. 2008), 

available at http://www.epa.gov/hpvis/rbp/Mercury_RBP_10.31.08_FINAL.pdf (attached as 

Exhibit 56). 
25

switches and relays, in the RoHS Directive first promulgated in 2003.127 Similarly, Canada 

recently promulgated regulations generally prohibiting the manufacture or import of a 

mercury-added switch or relay.128 As IMERC reports, sixteen states prohibit the sale of at 

least some mercury-added switches and relays.129 

Therefore, for both risk-reduction and Convention-obligation purposes, EPA will 

require new and better data to either demonstrate a de minimis value has now been 

achieved for switches and relays, or to develop mercury-reduction measures and strategies 

for this product category, and then track the progress achieved.130

Other various activities undertaken by the states reinforce the need for better 

mercury-use data on other products and processes to achieve mercury risk reductions. For 

example, the recent State Quicksilver Caucus Report points to rotational balancing 

products (i.e., wheel weights) in which up to twenty-eight ounces of mercury is placed 

inside a tubal ring for use on axles and flyweights. As the Quicksilver Caucus observed, this 

large quantity of mercury in individual units “and the nature of the application would 

appear to involve risks of product leakage/breakage.”131

Several states prohibit the use of mercury in wheel weights, but national use data 

are lacking on this product notwithstanding applicable IMERC reporting requirements. 

Non-mercury alternatives are readily available. Accordingly, the Quicksilver Caucus 

recommended that EPA collect data on the quantity of these devices manufactured and 

imported into the United States (and presumably the quantity of mercury involved), among 

other data needed to support further mercury-reduction actions.132

Under the State of Washington Children’s Safe Product Act, RCW 70.240, 

manufacturers of children’s products sold in that state must report the presence of high 

concern chemicals in these products.133 Mercury and mercury compounds are on the list of 

“high concern” chemicals.134 Under this program, manufacturers have reported a wide 

variety of intentional uses of mercury or mercury compounds in children’s products, 

including:

 

127 See European Commission, Restriction of Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic 

Equipment, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/rohs_eee/legis_en.htm (last updated June 16, 

2015) (attached as Exhibit 57). 

128 See Products Containing Mercury Regulations, 148 Canada Gazette 2686, 2861-2904 (Nov. 

19, 2014), available at http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2014/2014-11-19/pdf/g2-14824.pdf 

(attached as Exhibit 58).

129 See IMERC Fact Sheet, supra note 124, at 4. 

130 In its recent EPA Strategy Document, the Agency singles out the importance of updating the 

data set for the switches-and-relays product category, presumably for this reason. 

131 Quicksilver Caucus Report, supra note 48, at 45. 

132 Id. at 15-17. Canada recently prohibited mercury use for this and other product applications, 

singling out wheel weights as an important justification for its regulatory approach. See Products 

Containing Mercury Regulations, supra note 128, at 2861-2904. 

133 Wash. Rev. Code § 70.240.040 (2015). 

134 Wash. Admin. Code § 173-334-130 (2015). 
26

 Germicidal or preservative agents in children’s car seats;

 Coloring agents in footwear and card games;

 Stabilizers in children’s jewelry, puzzles and board games;

 Plasticizers/softeners in paint supplies; and

 Manufacturing additives in children’s clothing, including underwear.135

Manufacturers also reported the presence of mercury and mercury compounds in 

other children’s products, such as body wash, fragrances, false nails, lipsticks, bibs, 

sleepwear and other clothing, and toy vehicles. In several instances, the mercury 

concentration exceeded 1,000 ppm (in handwear). The breadth of the reported mercury 

uses and detections just for children’s products demonstrates that mercury uses in 

products and processes overall are both ongoing and significant. In its 2008 risk-based 

prioritization of mercury in products, EPA acknowledged the need to gather additional 

information on mercury-containing toys, jewelry, and novelty items, categorizing these 

products as a “high priority special concern.”136

Under Article 5, Paragraph 7 of the Convention, the United States must discourage 

the intentional use of mercury or mercury compounds in any manufacturing process which 

did not exist when the Convention comes into force, or otherwise demonstrate to the 

satisfaction of the Convention Conference of the Parties (COP) that no mercury-free 

alternatives provide comparable significant environmental and health benefits. To comply 

with this Convention mandate, the United States will likely require a mechanism for 

identifying and reaching those manufacturing processes using mercury which may be 

initiated after the Convention comes into force, and thus by implication will greatly benefit 

from a database of the manufacturing processes using mercury before the Convention 

enters into force. Such a database would also facilitate U.S. compliance with Paragraph 8 of 

Article 5 and Paragraph 1 of Article 17 regarding the exchange of information regarding 

mercury use in manufacturing processes, and in the review of Annex B of the Convention 

under Paragraphs 10 and 11 of Article 5.

Similarly, under Article 4, Paragraph 6 of the Convention, the United States must 

discourage the intentional use of mercury or mercury compounds in any product 

manufacturing which did not exist when the Convention comes into force, unless an 

assessment demonstrates environmental or human health benefits. The United States is

required to provide information on the risks and benefits of such new product types. To 

comply with this Convention mandate, the United States will likely require a mechanism for 

identifying new types of mercury products which may be produced after the Convention 

comes into force, and thus by implication will greatly benefit from a complete database of 

the products using mercury before the Convention enters into force. Such a database would 

 

135 Washington State Department of Ecology, Children’s Safe Product Act Reported Data,

https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/cspareporting/Reports/ReportViewer.aspx?ReportName=ChemicalR

eportByName (last visited Mar. 4, 2015) (search “mercury & mercury compounds including methyl 

mercury (22967-92-6)” from [June 1, 2012] to [December 6, 2014]) (attached as Exhibit 59). 

136 See Initial Risk-Based Prioritization, supra note 126, at 6. 
27

also facilitate United States compliance with Paragraph 1 of Article 17 regarding the 

exchange of information regarding mercury-added products and their alternatives, and in 

the review of Annex A under Paragraphs 8 and 9 of Article 4.

This need for vigilance regarding new mercury uses in products and industrial 

processes is reinforced by a newly invented mercury-added product now on the market 

which allegedly protects against “tennis elbow.”137 This product is available on Amazon, but 

the website product description fails to inform potential buyers that the “high density 

liquid” used to absorb vibrations is mercury.138 Buyers therefore may be completely 

unaware they have brought a mercury product into their homes, creating potential health 

risks if the product breaks or leaks.

Similarly, the Quicksilver Caucus identified potential new applications of mercury in 

nanotechnology as a priority concern due to the rapid growth of these technologies: 

The use of existing systems to track and restrict the use of nanomercury is most likely the most challenging project the U.S. and state 

human and environmental health agencies may need to tackle. Given 

how new this technology is, it makes sense to begin assessing the use 

of nano-mercury in research and unregulated products.139

Noting the lack of laws or regulations to currently identify mercury uses in 

nanotechnology, the Caucus recommended that the U.S. government implement 

mechanisms to track such mercury uses.140 The use of TSCA section 8(a) authority would 

meet this need.141

In their recent progress report on the Great Lakes mercury-product phase-down 

strategy, EPA (Region V) and the Great Lakes states identified new mercury uses in 

automotive headlamps and wheel and driveshaft/flywheel balancing products in the 

transportation sector as applications where non-mercury alternatives were historically 

employed. They further noted mercury novelty items “ha[ve] become a serious issue,” and 

thus concluded: 

Because of the extensive resources that will be required to prevent 

mercury in these new uses from entering the environment, it is 

counterproductive to allow new uses to gain hold. Therefore, it is 

 

137 Tenex Corp., https://www.tennis-elbow.com/ (last visited Mar. 4, 2015) (attached as Exhibit 

60). 

138 See Amazon, Tenex Tennis Elbow Reliever, http://www.amazon.com/Tenex-Tennis-ElbowReliever-Color/dp/B003MHUE9A (last visited May 11, 2015) (attached as Exhibit 61). 

139 Quicksilver Caucus Report, supra note 48, at 27.

140 Id. at 31.

141 Indeed, EPA recently proposed a one-time section 8(a) reporting requirement for nanoscale 

materials. See Chemical Substances when Manufactured or Processed as Nanoscale Materials, 80 

Fed. Reg. 18,330. 
28

important that legislation banning mercury in products be as broad as 

possible, and not limited to existing uses.142

In sum, there are glaring data gaps on mercury use in products and processes which 

present a significant potential for human and environmental exposure to mercury and 

methylmercury. These data gaps have been identified by both EPA and state officials, and 

acknowledged years ago by EPA without corrective action taken. With the Convention 

obligations now pending as well, EPA should seize the moment and collect the data 

necessary to develop an accurate inventory of mercury production and use in the United 

States.

3. EPA needs data on mercury stocks

Under Article 3, Paragraph 5(a) of the Convention, governments are obligated to 

endeavor to identify stocks of mercury or specified mercury compounds (as defined in 

Paragraph 1(b) of Article 3) exceeding fifty metric tons, and sources of mercury supply 

generating stocks exceeding ten metric tons per year.143 The types of private companies or 

facilities which may potentially own or generate such stocks in the United States include, 

but are not limited to:

 Mercury or mercury compound traders (i.e., companies importing elemental or 

commodity-grade mercury, or importing/exporting mercury compounds);

 Non-ferrous metal mining or processing facilities;

 Mercury cell chlor-alkali facilities;

 Mercury waste treatment or product recycling facilities (i.e., facilities with 

mercury retorts); and

 Mercury compound and catalyst producers.

For most of these companies or facilities, there are no data currently collected, as 

discussed immediately below. Even with respect to mercury imports, which are reported 

under various trade databases, the transactions are not individually recorded, thus 

company-specific data are not typically available. 

VII. Petitioners seek rulemaking under TSCA because no other federal law or state 

authority provides a mechanism sufficient to gather comprehensive data 

about mercury use and production in the United States 

Petitioners seek relief under TSCA because there is no other federal or state 

mechanism in place that collects the data on mercury production and use in the United 

States necessary to inform risk-reduction activities. Recently, the USGS attempted to 

quantify the principal sources of mercury in this country and their subsequent flows in 

 

142 Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, Great Lakes Mercury in Products Phase-Down Strategy 

Progress Report 18 (July 31, 2013), available at http://glrc.us/initiatives/toxics/MercuryPhaseDow

n.pdf (attached as Exhibit 62).

143 Minamata Convention, supra note 4, at art. 3, para. 5(a). 
29

commerce. USGS was forced to estimate “[m]uch of the data,” because “[r]eliable annual 

data are difficult to obtain because the use of mercury has been in decline, mercury is a 

low-volume commodity, and tracking of mercury recycling and sales are not mandated.”144

With respect to mercury production, while the State of Nevada collects information 

on mercury produced as a byproduct of gold and silver mining in that state, no information 

is collected on the secondary production of mercury from other sources, such as the 

recycling of wastes and products, because “there is no data collection or reporting program 

at the national level.”145 Since different mercury recycling companies mix different inflow 

materials, use different processes to produce mercury, and the byproduct mercury 

recovered from the gold mining sector is combined with the mercury from other sources at 

mercury processing facilities, Nevada’s data alone are insufficient to quantify U.S. mercury 

production and shed little light on the ultimate uses of the mercury.

146

Regarding mercury use in products and processes, there is no ongoing process for 

collecting data on mercury use in industrial processes.147 IMERC collects data on mercury 

use in products, but as state officials acknowledge, the IMERC program is insufficient by 

itself for a variety of reasons, as explained further below: 

No mechanism currently exists in many states or at the federal level to 

identify and track products and processes that use mercury. Although 

several states require manufacturers of mercury-added products to 

report their mercury use to IMERC, many states do not participate and 

available information suggests incomplete or non-existent reporting 

in some sector categories.148

To be sure, IMERC has performed an invaluable service by creating and maintaining 

the database on mercury use in products, a database which EPA refers readers of its 

website to as the source of information on the amount of mercury used in switches and 

relays, and in products generally.149 Nonetheless, the IMERC reporting program cannot 

provide the needed data on mercury production and use in products and processes. This is 

because the IMERC reporting program:

 

144 Wilburn, Changing Patterns, supra note 30, at 9, 12.

145 Id. at 7.

146 Id. at 5-7.

147 As noted above, the Chlorine Institute historically reported on mercury use in the chloralkali sector, but to the best of our knowledge, these reports are no longer provided. In any case, 

within a short period of time, only one mercury cell plant will be operating in the United States, 

according to a recent press release from one of the two remaining companies using mercury in this 

process. See ASHTA Chemicals, Inc., ASHTA Chemicals Inc. Announces Significant Capital Investment 

in Northeast Ohio Benefiting the Environment and Local Community (June 25, 2014), http://www.as

htachemicals.com/Uploads/ASHTA_Press_Release%206-25-14.pdf (attached as Exhibit 63).

148 Quicksilver Caucus Report, supra note 48, at 45.

149 See U.S. EPA, Mercury, Consumer and Commercial Products, http://www.epa.gov/mercury/co

nsumer.htm (last visited May 11, 2015) (attached as Exhibit 64) (heading “Switches and Relays”). 
30

 Does not cover mercury production or imports;

 Does not cover mercury compounds manufactured or imported for use in 

industrial processes;

 No longer covers most mercury uses in switches and relays; and

 Contains significant data gaps due to underreporting and non-reporting, as 

acknowledged above.

It is for these reasons that the Quicksilver Caucus seeks federal action to obtain the 

necessary data on a variety of mercury uses in products and processes. We too seek federal 

action, noting particularly the legislative and resource challenges states are facing to 

increase their mercury reporting and regulatory capabilities.

150

The lack of ongoing IMERC coverage for switches and relays is particularly 

noteworthy, because it was the largest mercury-use product sector in 2010 according to 

IMERC, was considered a “high priority, special concern” by EPA, and is the major existing 

product category for which EPA needs data to meet Convention obligations. IMERC is no 

longer collecting most data for this sector because all of its member states ban the sales of 

these products, and thus these states can no longer review data on the continuing use 

elsewhere in the country.151 This dynamic may extend to other product categories in the 

future, and is another reason the IMERC database, by itself, does not and will not provide 

adequate data-collection on mercury use in products nationally.152

As discussed above, EPA acknowledged the limitations of the IMERC reporting 

program in its 2006 Roadmap, identifying the need for a national mercury use database 

notwithstanding the IMERC data. And this was before this new and significant gap in 

IMERC coverage for switches and relays emerged.

Significantly, this petition for rulemaking takes full advantage of the IMERC 

database where that database continues to provide valid data on mercury use in products. 

Specifically, we have proposed that the federal reporting requirement be fully coordinated 

with the IMERC reporting program. Our proposal is similar to the reporting scheme Canada 

recently promulgated in that our proposal would time the federal reporting to coincide 

 

150 See e.g., Great Lakes Mercury in Products Phase-Down Strategy Progress Report, supra note 

142, at 17-18.

151 See IMERC Fact Sheet, supra note 124, at 4. IMERC is only accepting data on a mercury use in 

switches and relays which is exempt from phase-out requirements in an IMERC state, due to either 

a statutory exemption or an administrative action.

152 See Commission for Environmental Cooperation, North American Regional Action Plan for 

Mercury Close-Out Report 43 (May 2013), available at http://www3.cec.org/islandora/en/item/11

354-north-american-regional-action-plan-mercury-close-out-report-en.pdf (attached as Exhibit 65) 

(“The IMERC database is the best source of current information on mercury use in products sold in 

the United States, but the data will gradually become less comprehensive over time as IMERCmember states ban the sale of specific products and no longer require reporting of those banned 

products.”).
31

with the IMERC reporting system.153 In addition, we propose that companies which submit 

reports on mercury use in products that are accepted by IMERC be considered in 

compliance with the federal reporting requirement with respect to the information 

provided to IMERC. In this way, the value of the IMERC program remains fully utilized, 

reporting obligations are not duplicated, and the federal reporting requirement targets the 

mercury production and uses IMERC is not reaching. Accordingly, for producers of 

mercury-added batteries, lamps, and measuring devices—products covered by this petition 

for which EPA indicated in its Convention ratification instrument mercury use has already 

achieved de minimis levels, the IMERC reporting system will suffice and no new reporting 

burden will be imposed on producers complying with the IMERC reporting program. 

However, companies not complying with IMERC requirements, such as perhaps

some product importers, will be subject to the reporting obligation and federal 

enforcement, thereby providing critical support for and coordination with the IMERC 

program. As observed by state officials, the IMERC program experiences significant nonreporting and underreporting, but to our knowledge, no state enforcement action has ever 

been taken against recalcitrant companies. For this reason, we do not propose to exempt 

outright those product categories subject to the IMERC reporting obligation. Moreover, 

since EPA relied upon the IMERC data as one of the principal bases for its de minimis 

Convention declaration,154 EPA should cooperate with IMERC to ensure these data reflect

actual mercury use, rather than non-reporting or underreporting by importers and other 

producers.

We file this petition under TSCA because it is the best federal vehicle for obtaining 

the required data on mercury production and use, and will likely be the appropriate 

principal vehicle for taking further regulatory actions needed to reduce mercury use in 

products and processes.155 It is the only federal law that can produce quantitative and 

comprehensive data on mercury production and the vast majority of its uses in products 

and processes.156 

For example, under the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) program, companies must 

provide data on the quantity of mercury or mercury compounds entering the various 

environmental media onsite, and quantities transferred offsite for waste management 

 

153 See Products Containing Mercury Regulations, supra note 128, at 2864-2867 (sections on 

Labeling, Testing and Reporting, ¶¶ 8-12).

154 See United States of America Notification Under Article 4, Paragraph 2, supra note 122, at 

section 1, Part I of Annex A. 

155 Cf. Mercury Switches in Motor Vehicles; Significant New Use Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. 56,903; 

Mercury Use in Flow Meters, Natural Gas Manometers, and Pyrometers; Significant New Use Rule, 

75 Fed. Reg. 42,330; Elemental Mercury Used in Barometers, Manometers, Hygrometers, and 

Psychrometers; Significant New Use Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 31,728; EPA’s Roadmap for Mercury, supra 

note 50, at 39; Initial Risk-Based Prioritization, supra note 126, at 6. 

156 We are aware that even TSCA has its limitations. See 15 U.S.C. § 2602(2)(B)(vi) (excluding 

drugs and devices otherwise covered by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act from coverage 

under TSCA).
32

purposes.157 In addition, companies are asked whether they produce or import mercury, if 

the mercury is used for onsite use or processing, and if it is used or processed onsite, the 

general function of mercury in the process or use (i.e., used as a reactant, chemical 

processing aid, etc.). In its 2006 EPA Roadmap for Mercury, EPA used TRI data to quantify 

mercury discharges to water.158

However, under TRI, no data are requested or provided on the specific industrial 

process or product manufacturing involved, the quantities of mercury or mercury 

compounds which are produced or imported, or the quantity of mercury or mercury 

compounds that may be involved in the particular product or product use. It is not possible 

to determine this information indirectly either, since, for example, EPA (and the states) 

have been unable to determine the magnitude of mercury use in polyurethane 

manufacturing based upon the TRI database and other available information. These 

shortcomings are confirmed in a 2009 Report to Congress, where EPA found databases 

tracking trade could not be used to provide import data on mercury compounds because 

the data track only aggregated quantities of mercury compounds and do not track 

individual compounds, and the existing data were uncertain due to conflicts between 

existing databases.159 

Other relevant laws are directed toward particular environmental media, or waste 

management. For example, EPA has used its authority under the Clean Air Act to produce a 

detailed inventory of mercury releases to air.160 However, these laws and the underlying 

data they can generate will not provide the mercury use production and use data which can 

be gathered using TSCA section 8(a) authority.

Similarly, EPA’s existing regulatory mechanism to collect data on mercury 

production under TSCA, the Chemical Data Reporting Rule (CDR Rule) (formerly known as 

the Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) rule), does not collect the comprehensive data on 

mercury and mercury-compound manufacturing, processing, and imports that EPA needs 

to make sound and informed mercury risk-reduction decisions.

First and foremost, the thresholds for reporting under the CDR Rule will exclude the 

majority of mercury producers and importers of mercury and mercury compounds: 

reporting is not required if a manufacturer meets the definition of “small manufacturer” or 

if the manufacturer produces less than 25,000 pounds (11.34 MT) of mercury per year at a 

single site. Most mercury producers do not exceed 25,000 pounds at a single location, 

 

157 See 40 C.F.R. § 372.85 (toxic chemical release reporting form and instructions). 

158 EPA’s Roadmap for Mercury, supra note 50, at 25-26.

159 U.S. EPA, Report to Congress: Potential Export of Mercury Compounds from the United States 

for Conversion to Elemental Mercury 12 (Oct. 14, 2009), available at http://www.epa.gov/hg/pdfs/

mercury-rpt-to-congress.pdf (attached as Exhibit 66). 

160 Indeed, EPA’s detailed mercury air emissions inventory stands in sharp contrast to the 

absence of federal data on mercury production and use. See U.S. EPA, 2011 Facility Total Mercury, 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/net/2011inventory.html (under “Maps and Fusion Tables,” next to 

“Mercury,” select “Table”) (last visited May 11, 2015) (attached at Exhibit 67). 
33

because they produce or import mercury at multiple locations and/or total domestic 

mercury production in the country is significantly less than 200 MT annually.161 As we 

explained above,162 these high thresholds are not appropriate for a low-volume, bioaccumulative chemical like mercury that is toxic even at very low concentrations. Indeed, 

for the 2012 reporting period for the CDR Rule, only two companies reported that they 

manufactured or imported mercury or mercury compounds.

163

Other features of the CDR Rule also severely limit its utility for gathering 

comprehensive data on domestic mercury use in products and processes. The CDR Rule 

applies only to manufacturers (including importers) of mercury, and not to processors.164

In addition, the Rule does not apply to persons who import mercury solely as part of an 

article, so reporting under the CDR Rule will not capture mercury-added products.165 As we 

explained above,166 mercury use as part of articles, such as switches and relays, is an 

important ongoing use of mercury in the United States.

 

Finally, the CDR Rule may not capture sufficiently detailed information to be useful 

for EPA’s assessment of risk-reduction activities, even for those manufacturers and 

importers that are required to report under the Rule. Manufacturers are required to report 

an industrial-sector “code” that describes “the industrial activities associated with each 

industrial processing or use operation.”

167 However, the codes, e.g., “electrical equipment, 

appliance, and component manufacturing,” do not provide enough detail about the use of 

mercury for EPA to understand exactly what products or processes the mercury is being 

used for. 

EPA’s Strategy Document for mercury implicitly acknowledges that the CDR Rule 

and its other existing reporting mechanisms are not sufficient to gather the data necessary 

to make sound decisions about mercury risk-reduction activities. Despite the Agency’s 

collection of some data under the CDR and TRI rules, EPA concluded that it needed a 

strategy to “provid[e] insight into the current marketplace [for mercury]” and to “update 

its data set of mercury quantities used in products and processes.”168

We recognize that EPA expressed an initial preference for obtaining the necessary 

information voluntarily. This voluntary approach is inadequate for a variety of reasons. 

 

161 See U.S. EPA, Background Paper for Stakeholder Panel to Address Options for Managing U.S. 

Non-Federal Supplies of Commodity-Grade Mercury (Mar. 14, 2007), available at

http://www.epa.gov/earlink1/mercury/archive/stocks/backgroundpaper.pdf (attached at Exhibit 

68) (excluding mercury from decommissioning chlor-alkali plants because all but two have already 

closed or converted).

162 See supra pp. 7-8. 

163 See U.S. EPA, Chemical Data Access Tool (CDAT), http://java.epa.gov/oppt_chemical_search/ 

(last updated July 23, 2014) (search “mercury”) (attached as Exhibit 69).

164 See 40 C.F.R. § 711.8. 

165 See id. § 711.10(b).

166 See supra p. 6.

167 Id. § 711.15(b)(4)(i)(B). 

168 EPA Strategy Document, supra note 21, at 1.
34

First, as we understand it, EPA’s outreach to collect the data voluntarily initially targeted 

just nine domestic mercury producers, to avoid triggering obligations under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. EPA anticipated that some producers would provide data on the quantities 

of mercury they produce and companies buying the mercury from them.

However, this approach will not reach importers of either mercury-added products 

or mercury compounds destined for use in industrial processes (such as mercury catalysts 

used in polyurethane manufacturing), since it is extremely unlikely that EPA could 

accurately target or otherwise limit its inquiries to just nine potential importers.

169

Moreover, not every domestic mercury producer was contacted by EPA, since there were

more than nine potential producers initially identified. 

Similarly, tracking the mercury to end users will surely involve more than nine 

companies, and thus EPA will face inevitable choices regarding which company data to 

pursue under the “maximum of nine” limitation.

170 By its very nature, the data collected 

will be significantly incomplete at best. And unless EPA repeatedly initiates the voluntary 

data request (which the companies may then reject), the Agency will at best obtain a onetime snapshot view of mercury production and flows. Such information would not be 

sufficient to allow the Agency to track progress over time, identify new uses, or satisfy 

ongoing Convention obligations.

Last but not least, the voluntary approach has not worked thus far,

171 and there is no 

reasonable basis for believing it ever will given the USGS prior experience. Therefore, both 

in design and implementation, EPA’s voluntary effort has not produced and is not likely to 

produce the comprehensive, reliable data set necessary to inform further risk-reduction 

activities. Accordingly, the need for and the utility of a rulemaking that would require 

mandatory reporting from all mercury, mercury-compound, and mercury-mixture

manufacturers and processors has been demonstrated. 

 

169 EPA indicates in its Strategy that it will use information from international organizations 

such as the Global Mercury Partnership to enhance data on mercury-added product and mercurycompound imports, but since most of the relevant trade transactions are not publicly reported, 

these international organizations will face the same challenges as EPA. See e.g., United Nations Envt. 

Programme, Summary of Supply, Trade & Demand Information on Mercury, supra note 29, at 5-6 

(most transactions involving mercury compounds are not publicly reported, there are far fewer 

details regarding mercury end uses in many nations). Indeed, many trade reporting categories for 

products and chemical compounds do not differentiate those containing mercury, and thus cannot 

be used to determine quantities of mercury involved.

170 For example, there are more than nine companies which historically reported to IMERC that

they produced mercury switches and relays, for just that one mercury-use product category. See

NEWMOA, Mercury-Added Products Database, https://imerc.newmoa.org/publicsearch/

NEWMOA_IMERC.aspx (last visited Feb. 24, 2015) (under “Browse by Product Category,” the 

database lists 29 companies that have historically manufactured switches or components used in 

switches, and 12 companies that have historically manufactured relays or components used in 

relays) (attached as Exhibit 70).

171 See U.S. EPA, Subpoena and Information Request (Mar. 20, 2015), available at http://www.ep

a.gov/mercury/pdfs/Hg_Formal%20Request_SIGNED_03-20-2015.pdf (attached as Exhibit 71).