COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Ratification and Implementation by the EU of the Minamata Convention on Mercury Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on mercury, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008
Date: 2016-02-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU production, dental medicine, environmental protection, export restriction, import restriction, international convention, mercury, metal pollution, mining of ore, underground storage of waste

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 2.2.2016  SWD(2016) 17 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT  Ratification and Implementation by the EU of the Minamata Convention on Mercury Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on mercury, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 {COM(2016) 39 final} {SWD(2016) 14 final} {SWD(2016) 18 final}  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................ i 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................. iii 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1 

1. 

POLICY CONTEXT, PROBLEM DEFINITION AND SUBSIDIARITY .................................. 2 

1.1.  Policy context ..................................................................................................................... 2 

1.2.  Problem definition .............................................................................................................. 3 

1.3.  What are the underlying causes of the problem? ................................................................ 4 

1.4.  How will the problem evolve? ............................................................................................ 6 

1.5.  Who is affected and how? .................................................................................................. 6 

1.6.  The EU's right to act and justification ................................................................................ 8 

1.7. 

Issues identified in the assessment of the Mercury Export Ban Regulation ....................... 8 

2.   OBJECTIVES ..............................................................................................................................11 

3. 

POLICY OPTIONS ......................................................................................................................12 

3.0   Baseline - “No EU Action” ...............................................................................................12 

3.1 

Import of mercury (P1) ......................................................................................................12 

3.2  Export of certain mercury-added products (P2) ................................................................13 

3.3  Mercury use in new products/processes (P3) ....................................................................13 

3.4  Use of mercury in certain manufacturing processes (P4) ..................................................13 

3.5  Mercury use in Artisanal and Small-scale Gold Mining (ASGM) (P5) ............................15 

3.6  Use of dental amalgam (P6) ..............................................................................................15 

3.7 

Summary ............................................................................................................................16 

3.8  Legal instrument ................................................................................................................17 

4.  ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS ..........................................................................................................19 

4.0   Baseline - “No EU Action” ...............................................................................................19 

4.1 

Import of mercury (P1) ......................................................................................................21 

4.2  Export of certain mercury-added products (P2) ................................................................24 

4.3  Use of mercury in new products/processes (P3) ................................................................28 

4.4  Mercury use in the manufacturing processes listed in MC Annex B (P4) ........................31 

4.5  Mercury use in Artisanal and Small-scale Gold Mining (ASGM) (P5) ............................33 

4.6  Use of dental amalgam (P6) ..............................................................................................34 

5.  COMPARING THE OPTIONS ...................................................................................................43 

5.1  Definition of scenarios .......................................................................................................43 

5.2  Comparison of scenarios against the baseline ...................................................................44 

6.  MONITORING AND EVALUATION ........................................................................................47 

7. ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................................48 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page i 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1 – PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ..................................................................................48 

APPENDIX -  LIST OF SOURCES AND EVIDENCE .......................................................................49 

ANNEX 2 – STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION .............................................................................52 

APPENDIX A – STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP OF 7 JULY 2014 ..................................................53 

APPENDIX B – RESULTS OF THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION ....................................................56 

ANNEX 3 – WHO IS AFFECTED BY THE INITIATIVE AND HOW .............................................82 

ANNEX 4A – MERCURY AS A GLOBAL ISSUE ............................................................................86 

ANNEX 4B – MAJOR MERCURY PATHWAYS ..............................................................................90 

ANNEX 5 – THE MINAMATA CONVENTION ON MERCURY ....................................................92 

ANNEX 6 – CURRENT EU LAW ON MERCURY AND MERCURY COMPOUNDS ...................95 

ANNEX 7 – REGULATORY GAP ANALYSIS OF EU LAW ........................................................102 

ANNEX 8 – ASSESSMENT OF THE MERCURY EXPORT BAN REGULATION ......................115 

APPENDIX 8.1 – MEMBER STATE RESPONSES .........................................................................118 

APPENDIX 8.2 – OTHER STAKEHOLDER RESPONSES ............................................................125 

ANNEX 9A – DETAILED IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF P2 (PRODUCTS) ...................................136 

ANNEX 9B – DETAILED IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF P4O2 (PROCESSES) .............................139 

ANNEX 10A – DENTAL AMALGAM SUMMARY .......................................................................144 

ANNEX 10B – EMISSIONS FROM DENTAL AMALGAM ...........................................................155 

ANNEX 10C – USE OF SEPARATORS IN DENTAL PRACTICES ..............................................179 

ANNEX 10D – ENVIRONMENTAL COST OF DENTAL AMALGAM USE ...............................183 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page ii  

 
 
 
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS  

AMAP 

Art. 

ASGM 

BAT 

BAU 

BEP 

BR 

BREF 

CED 

Arctic Monitoring and Assessment programme 

Article(s) 

Artisanal and Small-scale Gold Mining 

Best Available Techniques 

Business as usual 

Best Environmental Practices 

Better Regulation 

BAT Reference Document 

Council of European Dentists 

CONTAM 

EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain 

COP 

EEB 

EFSA 

ELV 

EPBA 

EU 

FAO 

Hg 

IASG 

IED 

INC 

IPPC 

MC 

MCP 

MS 

NGO 

OECD 

PIC 

PRTR 

PUR 

PVC 

R&D 

RoHS 

Conference of the Parties 

European Environmental Bureau 

European Food Safety Authority 

Emission Limit Values  

European Portable Battery Association 

European Union 

Food Agricultural Organisation 

Mercury 

Impact Assessment Steering Group 

Industrial Emissions Directive 

Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee 

Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control 

Minamata Convention on Mercury 

Medium Combustion Plants 

Member State(s) 

Non-Governmental Organisation 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 

Prior Informed Consent 

Pollutant Release and Transfer Register 

Polyurethane 

Polyvinylochloride 

Research and Development 

Restriction of Hazardous Substances 

SCENIHR 

Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks 

SCHER 

TFEU 

Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks 

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page iii  

 
 
 
TWI 

UNEP 

USA 

USD 

VCM 

WEEE 

WFD 

WHO 

WPIEI 

WSR 

WTO 

Tolerable Weekly Intake 

United Nations Environment Programme 

United States of America 

United States Dollar 

Vinyl chloride monomer 

Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment 

Water Framework Directive 

World Health Organisation 

Working Party on International Environmental Issues 

Waste Shipment Regulation 

World Trade Organisation 

WWTP 

Waste Water Treatment Plant 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page iv  

 
 
INTRODUCTION 

Mercury is a global pollutant that poses significant threats to human health and the environment. The 
general population is exposed to mercury mainly through their diet,  especially the consumption of 
fresh water and marine fish and seafood. 

The  European  Union  (EU)  has  a  well-developed  policy  and  legislative  framework  to  control  the 
risks posed by mercury. The overall policy framework is the EU Mercury Strategy adopted by the 
European Commission (“Commission”) in 2005, with the objective to reduce mercury levels in the 
environment and  associated human exposure. The 2010  evaluation and review of the EU Mercury 
Strategy concluded that it had delivered on most of its actions.  However, as EU action alone proved 
not to be sufficient to address the mercury problem, the Commission considered the negotiation of a 
legally  binding  instrument  on  mercury  under  the  auspices  of  the  United  Nations  Environment 
Programme (UNEP) as a priority for further work. The European Parliament and the Council have 
also emphasised the importance of the international dimension of mercury policy. 

The  EU  played  an  instrumental  role  in  the  international  negotiations  on  mercury  launched  by  the 
Governing  Council  of  UNEP  in  February  2009  and  concluded  successfully  in  January  2013.  The 
Minamata Convention on Mercury1 (MC) adopted in October 2013 in Japan has been signed by 128 
parties (including the EU and 26 MS) and it has already2 been ratified by 19 countries3. As the entry 
into force of the Convention requires 50 ratifications, an early ratification by the EU and its Member 
States  (MS)  could  trigger  its  entry  into  force  and  an  early  implementation,  which  is  an  objective 
supported by all MS. 

The MC has been inspired to a great extent by existing EU legislation. As a consequence, the vast 
majority  of  its  provisions  mirror  EU  law  on  mercury  and  thereby  contribute  to  levelling  the 
international playing field regarding mercury use and emission controls.  
Yet, the comparative analysis4 of the Convention text vis-à-vis the EU acquis shows that ratification 
of  the  MC  would  necessitate  limited  adjustments  to  EU  legislation  in  certain  areas,  including 
imports  of  metallic  mercury;  exports  of  mercury-added  products5;  use  of  mercury  in  industrial 
processes; new mercury uses in products and processes; artisanal and small-scale gold mining; and 
use of dental amalgam. 

Hence, this impact assessment focuses on the adaptations of the EU mercury legislation required to 
comply with the Convention and enable the EU to ratify it, as a means to trigger regulatory action at 
global level that would significantly complement existing EU action on mercury. 

The present report provides an in-depth assessment on how best to address the identified issues. 

1   http://www.mercuryconvention.org/  
2   As of 14/12/2015 
3  Chad,  Djibuti,  Gabon,  Guinea,  Guyana,  Jordan,  Lesotho,  Madagascar,  Mauritania,  Mexico,  Monaco,  Mongolia, 

Nicaragua, Panama, Samoa, Seychelles, United Arab Emirates, United States of America, Uruguay. 

4   See Annex 7  
5   “Mercury-added product” means a product or product component that contains mercury or a mercury compound that 

was intentionally added. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 1 of 186 

 
 
 
                                                 
1.  POLICY CONTEXT, PROBLEM DEFINITION AND SUBSIDIARITY 

1.1. 

Policy context 

Mercury  is  recognised  as  a  global  threat  to  human  health  and  the  environment  and  there  is  broad 
consensus internationally on the need to phase it out. Annex 4 provides a general description of the 
mercury issue and its global dimension. 

The EU has made considerable progress in addressing domestically the challenges posed by mercury 
since it launched the EU Mercury Strategy6 in 2005, which was supported by an impact assessment7 
addressing the mercury issue and areas for possible action. The Mercury Strategy was welcomed by 
Council Conclusions on 24 June 20058 and a European Parliament Resolution on 14 March 20069. It 
is  a  comprehensive  plan  consisting  of  20  measures  aiming  at  reducing  mercury  emissions,  cutting 
mercury  supply  and  demand  and  at  protecting  individuals  against  exposure,  especially  to 
methylmercury found in fish.   

The Mercury Strategy recognises the global character of the mercury issue and hence the imperative 
need  for  action  at  global  level.  Thus,  seven  of  its  actions  (actions  14  to  20)  support  and  promote 
international activities. 

As  described  in  Annex 6,  the  existing  EU  acquis  covers  the  whole  mercury  lifecycle  (supply, 
demand, products, trade, emissions, waste, etc.) via a broad range of policy areas (e.g. environment, 
energy, health and trade). One of the key measures in implementing the EU Mercury Strategy was 
the  adoption  of  the  Mercury  Export  Ban  Regulation10,  which  set  an  export  ban  on  mercury  and 
certain mercury compounds and mixtures that entered into effect on 15 March 2011. 
The Commission evaluated the EU Mercury Strategy in 201011, examining in particular: 

  progress made in implementing the Strategy and each of its 20 actions; 
  areas where implementation was lagging behind and the need for complementary measures; 
  amendments,  as  needed,  as  well  as  additional  actions,  taking  into  account  new  studies,  best 

practices, and policy initiatives at the EU and international levels. 

On the basis of this evaluation,  in December 2010, the Commission adopted a  Communication on 
the review of the Community Strategy concerning Mercury12, which concluded the following:  

  While the EU Mercury Strategy has resulted in significant progress in some areas, such as the 
establishment of a ban on EU exports of mercury from March 2011 and the ban on mercury use 
in some measuring devices, its implementation, however, has been lagging behind in other areas, 
e.g. the industrial emissions of mercury, the issue of dental amalgam use and waste management.  
Internal  EU  legislation  alone  could  not  guarantee  effective  protection  of  the  European  citizens 
and  the  negotiation  of  a  global  legally  binding  instrument  on  mercury,  under  the  auspices  of 
UNEP, was therefore identified as priority for further action.  

 

The EU contributed to a great extent to the adoption in 2009 of a UNEP decision on the start of such 
negotiations.  The  EU  actively  participated  in  and  influenced  the  outcome  of  these  international 
negotiations. The Minamata Convention on Mercury, adopted in October 2013 in Japan,  seeks "to 

6   COM(2005)20final, 28.1.2005 
7  SEC(2005)101, 28.1.2005 
8  Community Strategy Concerning Mercury – Draft Council Conclusions, 9470/05, 16/6/05 and 

Report on proceedings in the Council’s other configurations 11017/05  of 13/7/2005 

9   European Parliament resolution on the Community strategy concerning mercury, P6_TA(2006)0078, 14.3.2006 
10  Regulation (EC) 1102/2008,  OJ L304 of 14/11/08, p.75 
11  BioIntelligence Service, Review of the Community Strategy Concerning Mercury- Final Report, 4.10.2010  
12  COM/2010/0723 final, 7.12.2010 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 2 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
protect  the  human  health  and  the  environment  from  anthropogenic  emissions  and  releases  of 
mercury and mercury compounds". This objective is fully in line with the EU Mercury Strategy, as 
well  as  with  the  European  Parliament's13  and  the  Council’s14  statements  on  this  issue.  Some  key 
provisions  of  the  MC  are  described  in  Annex 5.  The  EU  has  an  advanced  legislative  framework 
regarding mercury and the vast majority of the binding provisions of the MC are already covered by 
the EU acquis, including in particular: 

  not allowing primary mining of mercury; 
  banning the export of mercury; 
  not allowing the marketing and import of the mercury containing products listed in Annex A to 

the MC; 

  not allowing the use of mercury in chlor-alkali plants after 2017; 
  establishing inventories of industrial emissions of mercury to air, soil and water from the sectors 

listed in Annex B to the MC; 

  preventing and reducing the industrial emissions of mercury to air, soil and water from the sectors 

listed in Annex B to the MC by the application of Best Available Techniques (BAT); 

  environmentally sound management of mercury waste. 

Given the instrumental role played by the EU in concluding the Convention, the important benefits 
expected at global and EU levels from its implementation, including in terms of levelling the global 
playing  field  regarding  the  use  of  mercury  in  products  and  processes  and  the  controls  of  mercury 
emissions to the environment, it is in the interest of the EU to ratify it as soon as possible.  
The Convention has been signed by 128 parties15 and it has been ratified by 19 parties so far2. It will 
enter into force once it is ratified by at least 50 parties. 
The EU and 26 of its MS16 have signed the MC and thereby committed themselves to work towards 
its ratification and implementation. As the MC's provisions have been inspired to a great extent by 
EU  legislation,  full  compliance  with  the  Convention  requires  only  few  additional  measures  or 
amendments. 

This impact assessment complements previous work by focusing on the measures needed to ensure 
that the international action called for by the EU Mercury Strategy materialises. It assesses options 
for the ratification of the MC and examines how these contribute to the overall objective of reducing 
exposure to mercury, taking into particular account the global dimension of the issue. 

1.2. 

Problem definition 

Exposure to high levels of mercury can cause harm to the brain, lungs, kidneys and immune system 
of people of all ages. Human exposure through eating of contaminated fish is due to the increased 
levels  of  mercury  in  the  environment.  The  EU  has  already  taken  action  to  tackle  the  problem  by 
reducing  mercury  emissions  and  use  domestically.  However,  the  global  character  of  the  mercury 
problem  implies  that  the  EU  cannot  provide  sufficient  protection  to  its  citizens  on  its  own,  as 
exposure in the EU to mercury is largely due to emissions originating in other parts of the world. 

Hence, the EU actively supported the international negotiations for a global treaty on mercury and 
signed the Minamata Convention on Mercury. 

However,  as  long  as  the  MC  is  not  ratified  by  at  least  50  Parties,  it  does  not  enter  into  force  and 

13  European Parliament resolution on the Community strategy concerning mercury, P6_TA(2006)0078, 14.3.2006 
14  3075 Environment Council meeting, Brussels, 14 March 2011 
15  A list of the signatories and the parties is available at http://www.mercuryconvention.org/Countries   
16  Portugal and Estonia did not sign but fully supported the Minamata process and they intend to ratify. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 3 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
therefore the above problem is not being tackled at a global scale. 

Given  the  significant  extent  of  the  EU  mercury  acquis  and  as  the  Convention  is  to  a  large  extent 
modelled after the EU acquis, ratification would require only a limited number of adjustments to the 
EU acquis. Following a detailed analysis of the Convention text vis-à-vis the EU acquis presented in 
tabular form in Annex 7, existing gaps have been identified where EU legislation does not cover the 
requirements of the MC Convention: 

1.  imports  of  metallic  mercury:  imports    into  the  EU  of  mercury  from  countries  not  party  to  the 
Convention are not controlled with a view to ensure that the mercury does not come from certain 
sources; 

2.  exports  of  certain  mercury-added  products:  the  export  from  the  EU  of  a  number  of  mercury 

containing products listed in the MC is not prohibited under EU law; 

3.  mercury use in new products and processes: putting on the market of new products or processes 

using mercury that do not currently exist is not sufficiently discouraged; 

4.  use of mercury in certain manufacturing processes: two industrial processes using mercury and 
prohibited under the MC are still allowed in the EU and certain restrictions applicable under the 
MC to  three other  processes, e.g. concerning the use  of  mercury and the reduction of  mercury 
emissions, are not applied within the EU; 

5.  mercury use in Artisanal and Small-scale Gold Mining (ASGM): no steps are taken in EU law to 

reduce and were feasible eliminate the use of mercury in ASGM;  

6.  use  of  dental  amalgam:  there  are  no  special  measures  for  the  phase  down  of  the  use  of  dental 

amalgam. 

1.3.  What are the underlying causes of the problem? 

Mercury  can  enter  our  environment  (and  subsequently  the  food  chain)  in  many  different  ways. 
Emissions  of  mercury  can  travel  through  air  and  water  and  end  up  thousands  of  kilometers  away 
from their source. Unless it is properly disposed of, mercury produced, used or discarded adds up to 
the  global mercury  pool,  persists  in  the  environment,  and is  concentrated  mainly  in  predatory fish 
that  may  be  consumed  by  humans.  Additionally,  significant  quantities  reach  the  environment  as 
unintentional emissions, e.g. through the burning of fossil fuels and biomass. 

Global  mercury  emissions  from  human  activity  have  been  estimated  at  1960t/y.  This  represents 
about  30%  of  annual  mercury  emissions  to  air.  Another  10%  comes  from  natural  sources  (e.g. 
volcanoes), and the remaining 60% is caused by re-emission, which again is largely due to mercury 
accumulated in the environment due to human activity over several centuries.  Figure 1-a indicates 
the  origin  of  these  emissions  on  a  global  basis.  It  is  clear  that  EU's  contribution  is  rather  limited 
(4,5%), while almost half of global emissions (931t) originate in Asia.  

The origin of atmospheric mercury deposition can differ substantially in different areas in the EU. 
Emission models predict currently that atmospheric deposition originating in Europe is up to 60% in 
certain  industrialised  areas,  while  in  other  areas,  such  as  the  Mediterranean,  European  emissions 
contribute  only  20%  or  less  to  the  total  deposition.  It  is  thus  obvious,  that  the  transboundary 
component  of  mercury  pollution  is  very  significant  and  addressing  the  problem  requires  not  only 
local or regional, but global action. 

The  underlying  cause  of  the  problem  of  the  exposure  of  EU  citizens  to  mercury  is  therefore 
significantly linked to the transboundary character of mercury pollution and to the fact that only the 
EU  and  a  few  other  countries  (e.g.  Norway,  Switzerland,  the  USA,  Canada  and  Japan)  have 
their 
implemented  advanced  policies  addressing  mercury  emissions  and  use,  minimising 
contribution to the global mercury pool in the last two decades, while there was an opposite trend 
with  significant  increases  of  mercury  emissions  (currently  contributing  almost  50%  of  the  global 
total) by countries in Asia due to their industrialization.  

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 4 of 186 

 
 
Figure 1-a17 Anthropogenic mercury emissions in 2010 on a regional basis 

Figure 1-b17 Long-range mercury transport 

17  UNEP (2013), Mercury: Time to Act 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 5 of 186 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
1.4. 

How will the problem evolve? 

Figure 1-c  shows  clearly  the  increase  of  mercury  deposition  since  the  industrial  age.  While 
emissions  may  have  been  slightly  reduced  after  reaching  a  peak  during  the  1970s  mainly  due  to 
control  measures  in  Europe  and  North  America,  there  are  nowadays  indications  that  this  trend  is 
reversed  due  to  the  exponential  industrialisation  in  East  and  South-East  Asia.  As  a  result, 
concentrations in marine animals have increased substantially (in some areas, e.g. the Arctic, up to 
10-12 times) compared to pre-industrial times. 

Given  the  size  of  the  global  mercury  pool  (estimated  at  350 000t),  it  will  take  decades  before 
reductions in atmospheric emissions can have a visible impact on mercury levels in the environment 
and  fish.  Delaying  the  ratification  of  the  MC  would  thus  have  long-term  consequences  both  for 
Europe  and  the  rest  of  the  world  leading  to  unacceptably  high  contamination  of  marine  and 
freshwater foods. 

Figure 1-c Atmospheric mercury deposition during the last three centuries (UpperFremont Glacier, 

Wyoming, USA 1991&1998) 

1.5.  Who is affected and how? 

Citizens:   

All  individuals  will  be  exposed  to  mercury  through  fish  consumption  to  some  extent.  However, 
certain  groups  (toddlers,  women  in  childbearing  age  and  high  fish  consumers)  are  particularly 
vulnerable.  The  level  of  exposure  can  obviously  vary  greatly  depending  on  dietary  habits, 
contamination  levels  and  the  species  consumed.  Everybody  is  affected  to  some  extent,  but 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 6 of 186 

 
 
 
indigenous  people  in  the  Arctic  and  citizens  in  Southern  Europe  are  at  higher  disk  due  to  dietary 
habits and the availability of large fish species from the Mediterranean.  

In  its  scientific  opinion  on  the  risk  for  public  health  related  to  the  presence  of  mercury  and 
methylmercury in food18, the EFSA Panel on contaminants in the food chain (CONTAM) concluded 
that high fish consumers, which might include pregnant women, may exceed the Tolerable Weekly 
Intake (TWI) for methylmercury by up to approximately six-fold. While dietary inorganic mercury 
exposure  in  Europe  does  not  exceed  the  TWI19  in  most  cases,  parallel  inhalation  exposure  of 
elemental  mercury  from  dental  amalgam  is  likely  to  increase  the  internal  inorganic  mercury 
exposure; thus the TWI might be exceeded.  

Unborn  children  constitute  the  most  vulnerable group.  Due to  the  critical  effect  of methylmercury 
exposure  to  the  brain  of  the  embryo,  exposures  of  pregnant  women  are  of  major  concern.  The 
DEMOCOPHES  project20  has  analysed  exposure  levels  on  the  basis  of  mercury  concentrations  in 
the hair of women of reproductive age in different countries. It was found that parts of the European 
population exceed the tolerated level (0,58 μg/g hair). The percentage of the population exceeding 
this level differs between the 17 participating European countries, with some exhibiting levels higher 
than 0,58 μg/g  hair in over 50%  of the population,  while in others less than 5%  of the population 
exceeded the tolerated level. 

Economic operators: 

This  includes  mainly  importers  and  exporters  of  mercury  and/or  mercury  containing  products, 
manufacturers of products containing mercury, industries using or emitting mercury, waste handlers 
and  recyclers.  Mercury  is  still  used  in  several  sectors,  such  as  the  chlor-alkali  industry21,  dental 
amalgam fillings, light sources, batteries, measuring equipment, switches and relays, chemicals, etc. 
However, since mercury use is heavily regulated within the EU (while this is not the case in most 
other  countries),  non-EU  companies  producing  goods  containing  mercury  enjoy  a  competitive 
advantage. A study report22 carried for the Commission in 2008 provides detailed information on all 
remaining uses of mercury, sectors involved and EU companies concerned. 

Member States: 
Twenty six MS16 have signed the MC and they would also need to ratify and implement it. Lack of 
global action makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for MS to guarantee to their citizens the 
required level of protection from the risks posed by mercury.  MS will obviously share the burden of 
implementation, but will also reap the environmental and health benefits.  

Third countries:   

Given the lack of strict regulatory control, populations in third countries are at even higher risk of 
exposure to mercury. ASGM is one of the major sources of anthropogenic emissions of mercury, in 
more than 70 countries, mainly in Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Around 10-15 million 
people  are  directly  involved  (among  those  4-5  million  women  and  children)  and  are  exposed  to 
dangerous levels of elemental mercury. 

18  EFSA Journal 2012;10(12):2985 [241 pp.]  
19  The  TWI  (=Tolerable  Weekly  Intake)  is  the  amount  of  a  substance  that  can  be  consumed  weekly  over  an  entire 

lifetime without an appreciable risk to health. 

20  LIFE09ENV/BE/000410 
21  Chlor-alkali refers to the industry that produces chlorine (Cl2) and alkali, in the form of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) or 

potassium hydroxide (KOH), by electrolysis of a salt solution. 

22  Options for reducing mercury use in products and applications and the fate of mercury already circulating in society. 

Study contract carried for the European Commission by COWI A/S and Concorde East West, 2008. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 7 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
1.6. 

The EU's right to act and justification  

The  MC  is  a  multilateral  environmental  agreement  addressing  the  mercury  problem  on  a  global 
scale.  It  establishes  a  legally-binding  framework  providing  for  trade-related  measures  (import  and 
export restrictions on mercury, mercury compounds and mercury-added products) falling under the 
exclusive competence of the EU in accordance with Art. 3(1)(e) of the Treaty on the Functioning of 
the European Union ("TFEU") and for environmental protection measures (e.g. reduction of mercury 
emissions from certain manufacturing processes) regarding which competence is shared between the 
EU and the MS by virtue of Art. 4(2)(e) TFEU.    

Hence,  this  Convention  is  a  so-called  "mixed  agreement",  as  not  all  the  matters  covered  by  it  fall 
exclusively  within  the  competence  of  the  EU  or  of  its  MS.  As  such,  the  MC  is  an  agreement  to 
which both the EU and the MS are signatories and which can be ratified by the EU and the MS.    

The  EU's  legal  right  to  act  regarding  the  MC  is  based  on  the  external  competences  of  the  EU,  as 
defined  in  Art. 216  TFEU,  on  the  basis  of  which  the  EU  may  conclude  international  agreements, 
where  the  conclusion  of  an  agreement  is  necessary  to  achieve  one  of  the  objectives  of  the  EU, 
including the establishment of a common commercial policy and the protection of the environment.  

To control and reduce mercury use and pollution fits clearly with the EU environmental objectives 
established in Art. 191(1) and (2) TFEU that are concerned with e.g. the preservation, protection and 
improvement of the quality of the environment, the protection of human health and the promotion of 
measures  at  international  level  to  deal  with  regional  or  worldwide  environmental  problems.  The 
transposition  into  EU  law  of  the  trade-related  measures  provided  for  in  the  MC  and  aiming  at 
restricting  imports  and/or  exports  of  mercury  and  mercury-added  products  fits  also  with  the 
objectives  of  the  EU  common  commercial  policy.  The  proposed  EU  mercury  regulation  has 
therefore a twofold legal basis, namely Art. 192 and 207 TFEU that entitle the EU to regulate in the 
field of the environment and of common commercial policy. 

The legal right of the EU to act regarding the MC is also based on the mere fact that EU competence 
in  the  fields  of  mercury  trade  and  environmental  protection  from  mercury  is  already  widely 
exercised, as demonstrated by the significant EU acquis on mercury described in Annex 6. In fact, 
the  EU  acquis  covers  already  most  of  the  issues  addressed  by  the  MC,  including  mercury  export 
restrictions, the placing on the market of mercury-added products, the use of mercury and mercury 
compounds  in  industrial  processes, the  control  of  mercury  emissions  from  large  point  sources and 
the  management  of  mercury  waste.  It  is  also  worth  noting  that  the  negotiating  positions,  and 
subsequently the content of the MC, were developed in close cooperation between the Commission 
and the MS, in accordance with Art. 218(3) and (4) TFEU. 

Not only has the EU the right to act vis-à-vis the MC, but  EU action is clearly justified given the 
significant  transboundary  component  of  mercury  emissions,  which  therefore  requires  action  at  EU 
level.  

EU  action  is  also  necessary  as  MS  would  not  be  entitled  to  ratify  the  MC  in  the  absence  of  EU 
transposing  legislation.  Indeed,  as  specified  above,  since  the  MC  trade-related  measures  are  to  be 
addressed within the context of the establishment of an EU common commercial policy, only the EU 
is competent to set out trade restrictions on mercury and mercury-added products. Furthermore, the 
EU acquis covers MC provisions relevant for the EU internal market. Hence, the ratification of the 
MC  and  its  implementation  within  the  EU  requires  beforehand  the  enacting  of  EU  transposing 
legislation.              

1.7. 

Issues identified in the assessment of the Mercury Export Ban Regulation 

The Commission contracted COWI A/S in 2014 to carry out an ex-post assessment of the Mercury 
Export  Ban  Regulation.  Such  assessment  was  limited,  given  the  short  time  period  for 
implementation  of  the  Export  Ban  (2011-2015)  and  concomitantly,  the  limited  evidence  base 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 8 of 186 

 
 
available.  Therefore,  this  assessment  was  also  limited  in  scope  as  it  covered  3  evaluation  criteria: 
effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. Yet, COWI’s study23, based on stakeholder consultation and 
available statistical data, provides important information on the performance of the Mercury Export 
Ban Regulation so far and guidance on potential improvements24.  

Overall, the export ban seems to be effective in reducing the global mercury supply:  

  As a result of the export ban, it is estimated that approximately 650t of mercury are prevented 
annually  from  reaching  the  global  market,  corresponding  to  approximately  20%  of  the  global 
mercury supply.  

  Available  data  indicates  that  the  decrease  in  mercury  supply  may  not  have  been  replaced  by 
increased mine production outside the EU and that the threefold increase in the price of mercury 
can most probably be attributed to the decreased supply of mercury from the EU and the USA.  

However,  the  effectiveness  of  the  Mercury  Export  Ban  Regulation  has  not  been  entirely  met 
regarding the safe storage of mercury as waste. 

Whilst  Art. 4(3)  of  that  Regulation  foresees  the  adoption  of  criteria  for  the  admissibility  of  such 
waste in landfills, only criteria for the temporary storage, for a period up to 5 years, have so far been 
enacted by Council Directive 2011/97/EU25, as there was so far no majority amongst MS enabling 
the adoption of criteria for permanent storage of metallic mercury which is liquid26. The issue of the 
lack of criteria for the permanent safe storage of mercury as waste has been identified as a concern 
by stakeholders consulted, since there may be stocks in 2016 of mercury waste that would have been 
stored for 5 years. However, as other forms of environmentally sound storage exist (i.e. in solidified 
form),  the  lack  of  permanent  storage  criteria  for  mercury  in  liquid  form  is  considered  as  a  minor 
issue  not  leading  to  significant  impacts.  Therefore,  this  issue  is  not  pursued  further  in  this  Impact 
Assessment.       

As regards the efficiency of the Mercury Export Ban Regulation, it is likely that the health benefits 
significantly  outweigh  the  costs  associated  with  the  export  ban.  On  the  one  hand  the  cost  to  the 
chlor-alkali  industry  of  storage  of  surplus  mercury  is  estimated  at  an  average  of  0,6-2  million 
EUR/y,  while  the  lost  revenue  from  sale  of  mercury  is  estimated  at  3-5  million  EUR/y.  The  most 
affected  industry  group  is  that  of  recyclers  and  exporters  of  mercury.  The  total  lost  revenues  are 
estimated at an average of 5-7 million EUR/y i.e. of the same size as the lost revenue to the chlor-
alkali sector from sale of mercury to the recyclers and exporters. On the other hand, the total benefits 
of  preventing  the  650 t/y  in  reaching  the  global  mercury  market  cannot  be  fully  assessed.  As  an 
illustrative  example:  assuming  that  the  reduced  export  of  mercury  from  the  EU  would  result  in  a 
10% decrease in the expected impacts from lost IQ due to ingestion and inhalation of mercury (one 
of the environmental and health impacts of mercury), and using available estimates of the costs of 
mercury impacts, the total benefits can be estimated to be at least 400 million EUR/y at global level 
and likely significantly higher. 

Concerning  the  coherence  of  the  Mercury  Export  Ban  Regulation,  the  assessment  carried  out  by 
COWI  and  the  analysis  undertaken  by  DG  ENV  services,  have  identified  the  following  two 
opportunities for simplification24: 
  Art. 3 of the Mercury Export Ban Regulation foresees the application of the Seveso Directive27 

23  COWI,  BiPRO  (2015).  Ratification  of  the  Minamata  Convention  by  the  EU  -  Complementary  Assessment  of  the 

Mercury Export Ban (June 2015). 

24  See Annex 8 for an overview of the key findings.  
25  Council Directive 2011/97/EU, OJ L328, 10.12.2011, p.49 
26  Metallic  mercury  is  liquid.  Mercury  can  be  stored  also  in  solidified  form.  Annex  8  explains  the  possibility  to  use 

solidification technologies for the disposal of metallic mercury. 

27 Directive 2012/18/EU, OJ L 197, 24.7.2012, p. 1 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 9 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
for  all  mercury  waste  above-ground  temporary  storage  facilities.  However,  following  the 
adoption  of  Council  Decision  2011/97/EU,  this  obligation  could  now  be  considered  as 
disproportionate in view of the limited added-value of the application of the Seveso Directive to 
facilities that are regulated by the Landfill Directive28. 

  Certain  reporting  obligations  established  under  Art. 5  and  6  of  the  Mercury  Export  Ban 
Regulation  are  now  outdated  as  they  refer  for  instance  to  information  that  had  to  be 
communicated to the Commission and to the competent authorities of the MS by 1st July 2012. 

Considering  that  those  two  issues  are  very  minor  and  will  not  significantly  affect  existing  EU 
legislation, they are not pursued any further in this impact assessment. 

28 Directive 1999/31/EC, OJ L182, 16.7.1999, p.1 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 10 of 186 

 
 
 
                                                 
2.   OBJECTIVES 

The  general  objective  of  this  initiative  is  to  enable  a  significant  reduction  of  global  mercury 
pollution by international action complementing EU efforts. This objective has been identified as a 
priority following the 2010 review of the EU Strategy concerning mercury. 

Given the current international developments and the global context, the general objective can best 
be achieved by narrowing it down to the following specific objective. 

The specific objective is an early ratification of the MC by the EU and its MS, its early entry into 
force and implementation on the global scale.  

The operational objectives are to adapt the EU acquis to the points required by the MC and not yet 
reflected in the EU acquis, by addressing the legislative gaps in the areas listed below in an effective 
and efficient manner: 

import of metallic mercury; 

 
  export of certain mercury-added products; 
  mercury use in new products and processes; 
  use of mercury in certain manufacturing processes; 
  mercury use in Artisanal and Small-scale Gold Mining (ASGM); 
  use of dental amalgam. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 11 of 186 

 
 
3.  POLICY OPTIONS 

It  should  be  noted  that  other  approaches  were  initially  considered  despite  calls  from  the  EU  and 
other  countries  for  a  legally  binding  instrument  on  mercury.  In  2005,  UNEP  Governing  Council 
decision  23/9  launched  global  mercury  partnerships  between  governments  and  other  stakeholders. 
Such partnerships still exist today and cover a number of areas (coal combustion, cement production, 
chlor-alkali,  mercury  in  products,  supply  and  storage,  mercury  waste,  ASGM  and  air  transport). 
However, they were not successful in addressing the global mercury problem as only few (less than 
30) governments were involved, not including major polluters such as Asian countries contributing 
nearly 50% of the global mercury anthropogenic emissions. Partnership projects could be continued 
on a voluntary basis or be encompassed by the MC framework, however, there is no obligation even 
for participating countries to implement or even take into account the outcome of the process. The 
limited  success  of  voluntary  approaches  (e.g.  partnerships)  so  far,  confirms  the  necessity  of  a 
legally-binding  instrument  to  address  the  mercury  problem  on  a  global  scale,  which  was  already 
called for in the EU Mercury Strategy. 

Different policy options for the ratification of the MC have been examined and are presented below. 
As the majority of the provisions in the Minamata Convention are binding, for those provisions only 
legally binding policy options would serve the objective of future ratification of the Convention. The 
options considered hereunder are based on: 

1.  the minimum actions required to fulfil the obligations set-out in the MC; 
2.  more stringent measures in the cases where they have been suggested by stakeholders and which 
would  allow  to  further  tackle  the  mercury  problem.  These  options  go  beyond  what  is  strictly 
required by the MC, and represent another way to address the operational objectives. 

It  should  be  noted  that  the  MC  allows  the  Parties  to  take  additional  domestic  measures  that  are 
consistent with its provisions (as indicated in the preamble).  

The measures foreseen under the different policy options would address the existing gaps in the EU 
legislation  and  would  allow  the  ratification  of  the  MC,  which  in  turn  foresees  the  appropriate 
measures to tackle the mercury issue on a global scale. 

3.0   Baseline - “No EU Action” 

Under  the  baseline,  the EU  would  not  take  any additional  measures.  This  would  correspond  to  an 
option O0 for each of the various provisions described below. 

Under the baseline, the MS would not be able to ratify the MC, as certain provisions in the MC (e.g. 
trade or internal market related) are exclusive EU competence or would have an impact on the EU 
acquis. 

3.1 

Import of mercury (P1) 

The export of metallic mercury and certain mercury compounds is already banned under existing EU 
legislation. The export ban is  intended to  reduce  the global mercury supply and prevents the EU's 
mercury  surplus  from  entering  the  global  market  and  (particularly)  being  diverted  to  polluting 
activities, such as ASGM.  

No  import  restrictions  for  metallic  mercury  currently  exist  under  EU  law.  The  MC  establishes  a 
Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure for imports from non-Parties. In particular, Art. 3(8) of the 
Convention restricts imports of metallic mercury and certain mercury compounds and mixtures from 
non-Parties,  when  such  mercury  is  derived  from  sources  not  allowed  under  the  Convention  (e.g. 
primary mining or excess mercury from the decommissioning of chlor-alkali facilities).  

When  considering  implementation  of  Art. 3(8)  of  the  Convention,  the  EU  has  the  option  of 
restricting  imports  only  from  non-Parties,  as  foreseen  by  the  Convention  (P1O1),  or  adopting  a 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 12 of 186 

 
 
stricter approach (P1O2) by legislating a prohibition on imports from all non-EU countries. 

3.2 

Export of certain mercury-added products (P2) 

In many parts of the world, mercury is still used in products quite extensively. Art. 4(1) of the MC 
foresees  a  prohibition  on  the  manufacture,  import  and  export  of  nine  major  mercury-containing 
product  categories:  batteries,  switches  and  relays,  compact  fluorescent  lamps,  linear  fluorescent 
lamps, 
cosmetics, 
pesticides/biocides/topical  antiseptics  and  non-electronic  measuring  devices  such  as  barometers, 
hygrometers, manometers, thermometers, sphygmomanometers, after the phase-out date of 2020, as 
specified in Annex A, Part I of the Convention.  

pressure  mercury 

electronic 

displays, 

vapour 

lamps, 

high 

Under  EU  law,  products  in  the  above  categories  containing  mercury  are  already  regulated  under 
various  regimes  (e.g.  RoHS  Directive29,  Batteries  Directive30,  REACH  Regulation31),  making  it 
illegal to place them on the EU market (or indeed to import them). However, no export restrictions 
currently exist. 
The internal market restrictions under EU law are in some cases stricter than those under the MC32. 
An EU export prohibition could thus apply either to all products already prohibited on the internal 
EU market (P2O2) or only to those prohibited for export under the Convention (P2O1). 

3.3 

Mercury use in new products/processes (P3) 

The MC obliges Parties to take measures discouraging mercury use in new (i.e. not yet placed on the 
market  at  global  level)  products  and  processes,  unless  an  assessment  of  the  risks  and  benefits 
demonstrates environmental or human health benefits (Art. 4(6) and 5(7) of the Convention). There 
is currently no provision in EU law that would reflect this obligation. 

One option to implement this would be to establish an obligation for operators and MS to notify the 
use of mercury in new products and processes. This would enable an assessment to be made by the 
Commission in consultation with MS experts of potential risks and benefits (P3O1) and could lead 
to a notification to the MC Secretariat for inclusion in the list of products or processes prohibited by 
the Convention. An alternative approach would be to enact an a priori prohibition of mercury use in 
new products and processes (P3O2), while it would remain possible to grant future derogations in 
case an assessment of the risks and benefits demonstrates environmental or human health benefits. 

3.4 

Use of mercury in certain manufacturing processes (P4) 

The  MC  covers  five  manufacturing  processes  in  which  mercury  or  mercury  compounds  are  used, 
namely the production of: 

  chlor-alkali;  
  acetaldehyde; 
  vinyl chloride; 
  sodium (or potassium) methylate (or ethylate); 
  polyurethane.  

Phase-out  dates  are  foreseen  in  the  Convention  for  mercury  use  in  chlor-alkali  production  and 
acetaldehyde production (2025 and 2018, respectively), while a number of measures to be taken by 
the Parties are specified for each of the other processes. 

29 Directive 2011/65/EU, OJ L174, 1.7.2011, p.88 
30 Directive 2006/66/EC, OJ L266, 26.9.2006, p.1 
31 Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, OJ L396, 30.12.2006, p.1 
32 For example for some lamps the amount of mercury allowed in each lamp is lower under EU rules than under the MC. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 13 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
Processes subject to a phase out date 

Emissions  from  industrial  installations  are  currently  regulated  under  EU  law  by  the  Industrial 
Emissions  Directive  2010/75/EU  (IED).  The  IED  imposes  the  use  of  Best  Available  Techniques 
(BAT)  aiming  at  reducing  the  environmental  impact  of  industrial  activities,  and  covers  to  a  great 
extent  the  requirements  concerning  the  manufacturing  processes  undertaken  by  the  EU  in  view  of 
ratifying  the  Convention.  As  an  example,  Commission  Implementing  Decision  2013/732/EU, 
concerning the chlor-alkali industry, concludes that the mercury cell technique cannot be considered 
BAT under any circumstances and hence, this process will have to be phased out in the EU by end 
2017, much earlier than the 2025 deadline specified in the Convention. 

There is no acetaldehyde production using mercury catalysts in the EU. 

Processes for which the Convention foresees certain restrictions  

The  manufacturing,  placing  on  the market  or  use  of  five  phenylmercury  compounds,  known  to  be 
used especially as catalysts in polyurethane systems, as well as the placing on the market of articles 
containing  these  substances  above  a  certain  concentration  limit  is  restricted  by  EU  law  under 
REACH as from 10 October 2017.   

There  is  only  one  plant  in  the  EU  that  is  using  catalysts  containing  mercury  in  the  production  of 
vinyl  chloride  as  an  ancillary  activity.  Ongoing  work  on  the  review  of  the  reference  document  on 
best  available  techniques  on  large  volume  organic  chemicals  includes  conclusion  that  use  of  such 
mercury-based  catalysts  would  not  qualify  as  BAT,  which  means  that  such  use  should  not  be 
allowed under the Industrial Emissions Directive.  

There are two plants in the EU that use a mercury process for the production of sodium or potassium 
methylate or ethylate. 

The  measures  listed  in  the  Convention  differ  depending  on  the  process  and  fall  in  the  following 
categories: 

  prohibiting the use of mercury from primary mining and reducing the use of mercury from other 

sources; 
reducing emissions and releases of mercury; 

 
  supporting research and development in respect of mercury-free processes. 
In practice, given the measures already taken by the EU and the activities that take place within the 
EU, as described above, and as EU policy on research allows for supporting research in these fields, 
the mandatory measures to be taken are: 

 
 

for the three processes concerned, the duty not to use mercury from primary mining; 
for  the  production  of  sodium  or  potassium  methylate  or  ethylate,  the    obligation  to  reduce 
mercury emissions and releases to air and water by 50% by 2020 compared to 2010. 

In  transposing  and  implementing  this  Article,  the  EU  could  opt  for  the  following  option  which 
restricts such processes (P4O1): 

  prohibit by 2018 the use of mercury in the production of acetaldehyde and vinyl chloride; 
 
  encourage  through  dialogue  Germany  and  the  concerned  companies  to  find  solution  for 

impose the measures listed above to other processes; 

conversion of the two installations producing alcoholates into non-mercury technologies.  

The other option would consist in establishing a stricter approach by simply prohibiting mercury use 
in these processes (P4O2). 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 14 of 186 

 
 
3.5 

Mercury use in Artisanal and Small-scale Gold Mining (ASGM) (P5) 

ASGM  is  an  important  source  of  mercury  emissions  on  a  global  scale  with  an  estimated  37% 
contribution to the global anthropogenic mercury emissions in 201017
.  However, the only part of the 
EU concerned is the overseas department of French Guiana. 

Art. 7  of  the  Convention  (in  conjunction  with  Annex  C)  foresees  measures  to  reduce  (and  where 
feasible, eliminate) both the use and the emissions of mercury from ASGM and requires a national 
action plan from the Parties in case such activity on their territories is “more than insignificant”. 

Given the limited scope of this activity in the EU and the existence of relevant legislation at Member 
State level  (France),  transposition  of  this  provision  into  EU  law  would have  limited  consequences 
from the practical point of view. 

However, there are again two options: transpose all requirements as they are set out in Art. 7 (and 
Annex  C)  of  the  Convention  (P5O1)  or  adopt  a  stricter  approach  by  prohibiting  mercury  use  in 
ASGM altogether (P5O2). 

3.6 

Use of dental amalgam (P6) 

Dental amalgam has been used for over 150 years in the treatment of dental cavities and is still used, 
in  particular  in  large  cavities  due  to  its  excellent  mechanical  properties  and  durability.  Dental 
amalgam is a combination of alloy particles and mercury that contains about 50% of mercury in the 
elemental form. Overall, the use of alternatives is increasing either due to their aesthetic properties 
or alleged health concerns related to the use of dental amalgam. 

Mercury vapour is released from dental amalgam and absorbed in a variety of tissues; however the 
clinical significance of mercury toxicity and its potential health impacts have remained a matter of 
debate for more than a century. Improperly managed dental amalgam waste can pose a risk for the 
environment. If it ends up in a landfill, mercury may be released into the groundwater or air; if it is 
incinerated,  mercury  may  be  released  to  the  atmosphere;  even  mercury  in  fillings  may  eventually 
end up in the environment as a consequence of cremation or burial. 
Dental amalgam and its substitutes are regulated under the Medical Devices Directive33, according 
to which they must comply with the essential requirements laid out in the Directive, in particular in 
relation to the health and safety of the patients. 

In 2008, the Commission consulted two independent scientific committees, the Scientific Committee 
for  Health  and  Environmental  Risks  (SCHER)  and  the  Scientific  Committee  for  Emerging  and 
Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), on the health and environmental risks posed by mercury 
in dental amalgam. Whilst SCENIHR concluded that dental amalgam was safe to use and that there 
was no evidence of systemic disease caused by its use, SCHER concluded that on the basis of the 
information  available,  it  was  not  possible  to  "comprehensively  assess  the  environmental  risks  and 
indirect health effects from use of dental amalgam", and identified a number of gaps that would have 
to be addressed. 

In  reviewing  the  Community  Strategy  Concerning  Mercury  in  2010,  the  Commission  identified 
dental  amalgam  as  one  the  biggest  remaining  use  of  mercury  in  the  EU  and  undertook  a 
comprehensive  study.  The  study  focuses  mainly  on  the  environmental  impacts  of  dental  amalgam 
use and seeks also to address, to the extent possible, the gaps identified in the SCHER 2008 opinion. 
It  concluded  that  a  prohibition  on  the  use  of  mercury  in  dentistry  in  combination  with  better 
enforcement of EU waste legislation would reduce the environmental impact of dental amalgam use. 
The  main  conclusions  of  the  study  are  summarised  below,  while  a  detailed  summary  of  the  study 
report is provided in Annex 10A:  

33 Council Directive 93/42/EEC, OJ L 169, 12.7.1993, p. 1 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 15 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
  Mercury demand for dentistry in the EU was estimated at around 75 t/y representing 24% of total 
mercury use (ca. 320 t/y). Despite its decline in the last few years, dental use of mercury remains 
a significant contributor to overall mercury releases to water in the EU. 
In  some  MS  (e.g.  SE,  DK,  IT,  EE)  the  use  of  dental  amalgam  is  very  limited  due  to  policy 
measures in place, while in others (e.g. FR, PL) it is still rather widespread. 

 

  Around 46 t/y of mercury from EU dental practices end up in chair side effluents, with only part 

of it being captured and treated as hazardous waste. 

  Only 14 MS adopted national legislation obliging dental practices to use separators (to capture 
mercury in the waste stream), while around 25% of EU dental facilities were still not equipped 
with separators. 

  The total stock of mercury in European citizens’ mouths has been estimated at 1000 t. Given the 
longevity of amalgam fillings (10-15 years), this means that the environmental problem cannot 
be addressed only by measures restricting future use of mercury in fillings. 

  Alternative mercury-free filling materials are available and gain momentum (mainly on aesthetic 

grounds); they comprise ca. 66% of tooth restorations in the EU. 

  There  are  significant  differences  among  MS  regarding  the  cost  of  dental  amalgam  restorations 
born  by  the  patients,  mainly  due  to  differences  in  labour  costs  and  insurance  reimbursement 
schemes.  A  major  component  of  the  cost  is  the  time  required  for  the  placement  of  the  filling, 
which is linked to some extent with the training of the dentists. The WHO has pointed out that 
staff training is a major component for success in using mercury-free alternatives. 

In Annex A, Part II, the MC requires Parties to take at least two out of a list of measures covering 
the following areas: 
  national health care policies and systems; 
  education and research; 
  best environmental practices; 
 

restrictions on the form of dental amalgam used by dentists. 

Most of these measures would be best addressed by MS. 

As  promotion  of  research  at  EU  level  is  covered  by  EU  research  programme  Horizon2020,  it  is 
considered  that  the  EU  is  already  taking  one  of  the  measures  listed  in  the  Minamata  Convention. 
Hence, at the minimum the EU would have to take at least one more measure out of the following 
measures listed in the Convention: 

restrict the use of dental amalgam to its encapsulated form; 

 
  promote  best  environmental  practices  at  dental  clinics  by  imposing    the  use  of  separators  in 

dental practices.  

In implementing this article, the EU could seek to meet the minimum requirement of the Convention 
by taking only one additional measure. This could be either restricting the use of dental amalgam to 
its encapsulated form (P6O1a) or imposing the use of separators in dental practices (P601b). As the 
Minamata Convention encourages Parties to take more than two measures, the EU could also opt for 
taking both P601a and P601b, which are independent from each other. 

Alternatively, the EU could legislate with the aim of prohibiting the use of dental amalgam (P6O2). 

3.7 

Summary 

The information above is presented in a summary form in the following tables.  Table 3-a lists the 
MC provisions not covered by EU law that would have to be transposed before ratification. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 16 of 186 

 
 
Table 3-a Summary of Minamata Convention provisions to be transposed in EU law 

Provision  MC Article 

Description 

P1 

P2 

P3 

P4 

P5 

P6 

3(8) 

4(1) 

Restrict the import of metallic mercury from non-Parties 

Prohibit the export of certain mercury-added products (Annex A) 

4(6) & 5(7) 

Discourage mercury use in new products and processes 

5(2) 

7 

4(3) 

Restrict mercury use in manufacturing processes (MC Annex B) 

Restrict mercury use in ASGM 

Restrict the use of dental amalgam 

In  identifying  options  for  each  of  the  provisions  listed  in  Table 3-b,  O1  corresponds  to  the 
requirements of the MC, while O2 goes beyond that: 

Table 3-b  Summary of options 

Provision 

Option 

Description 

P1 

P2 

P3 

P4 

P5 

P1O1 

P1O2 

P2O1 

P2O2 

P3O1 

P3O2 

P4O1 

P4O2 

P5O1 

P5O2 

Import restrictions at EU level for metallic mercury from non-Parties 

General EU import prohibition of metallic mercury 

Export prohibition of the mercury-added products listed in MC Annex A 

Export prohibition of all mercury-added products currently not allowed 
in the EU market 

Notification of mercury use in new products and processes 

Prohibition of mercury use in new products and processes 

Restriction of mercury use in certain processes listed in MC Annex B 

Prohibition of mercury use in the processes listed in MC Annex B 

Controls on mercury use in ASGM 

Prohibition of mercury use in ASGM 

P6O1a 

Restrict the use of dental amalgam to its encapsulated form 

P6 

P6O1b 

Impose the use of separators in dental practices 

P6O2 

Phase out of dental amalgam use 

Various  combinations  of  these  options  are  obviously  possible,  such  combinations  (consisting  of  6 
options each) are defined and examined as scenarios in Section 6. 

3.8 

Legal instrument 

As mentioned earlier, certain provisions of the MC are not covered by the existing EU  acquis and 
they would need to be introduced into EU legislation before the ratification of the Convention by the 
EU  and  by  the  MS.  Such  provisions  concern  different  areas  including  trade,  products,  chemicals, 
environment, etc. A number of legislative options were examined for each provision (whatever the 
level of its ambition), including amending already existing EU legislation specific to the area under 
consideration. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 17 of 186 

 
 
In  line  with  the  principles  of  better  law  making,  an  approach  with  a  single  legislative  proposal 
addressing all necessary provisions appears to be more appropriate, in terms of both legal clarity and 
workload/time needed in the inter-institutional process, than proceeding with amendments of various 
regulations and directives. This single legislative proposal could complement the internal market ban 
by  an  international  trade  ban  of  mercury-added  products  which  are  so  far  regulated,  in  terms  of 
restricting  their  placing  on  the  market,  under  several  pieces  of  waste  legislation  (WEEE/RoHS, 
Batteries, End-of-Life Vehicles) as well as under REACH, and cosmetics legislation. 

Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 on the banning of exports of metallic mercury forms a good basis for 
adding provisions needed to ensure compliance with the MC. It already contains trade measures and 
provisions for the storage of waste mercury and it has a double legal base (environment and trade). 

However, given that: 

  the amendments (additions) to be made are numerous and outweigh the existing text, 
  the scope of the instrument will be extended, which should also be reflected in its title, 

in the interest of legal clarity and readability, a proposal for a new Regulation, integrating the new 
elements  and  the  existing  provisions  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1102/2008,  as  well  as  repealing  the 
latter, would appear as the most straightforward way. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 18 of 186 

 
 
 
 
4.  ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS

34 

4.0  

Baseline - “No EU Action” 

At  the  time  of  drafting  this  report,  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Convention  requires  31  additional 
ratifications  (19  parties  have  ratified  so  far).  On  the  basis  of  available  information,  a  few  other 
countries (e.g. Japan, Switzerland, Peru, Bolivia, Brazil) intend to ratify very soon and the number 
of ratifications is expected to reach 25 early in 2016. Therefore, ratification of the Convention by the 
EU and its MS (planned for 2016) would most likely trigger its entry into force in 2016.  

In view of the leading role the EU played in the negotiations and the expressed political will, both at 
the  EU  and  MS  level,  to  address  the  mercury  problem  globally,  the  international  community  is 
aware  of  EU’s  strong  commitment  to  ratify  the  Convention.  Most  important  countries  in  terms  of 
mercury pollution35 have signed the Convention and there are reasonable expectations they will also 
ratify it36.  

Non-ratification by the EU would not only have a negative impact on EU’s reputation and credibility 
on the international scene but would additionally send a strong negative signal that would discourage 
ratification  by  other  countries.  In  particular,  it  could  be  expected  that  several  key  developing 
countries would probably not ratify unless a critical mass of developed countries (such as the EU, 
Japan and USA) have ratified first. Ratification by many developing countries could also be delayed 
or  even  deterred  by  an  EU  decision  not  to  ratify,  as  many  of  them  look  forward  to  the  EU  in 
particular for capacity-building, technical assistance and technology transfer (Article 14 of the MC) 
for implementing the Convention. 

Based  on  these  considerations,  with  a  strong  commitment  by  the  EU,  entry  into  force  of  the 
Convention  would  likely  take  place  in  2016,  otherwise  entry  into  force  will  probably  be  delayed 
substantially, most likely to a date not earlier than 2020. In such a case, the Convention would also 
be significantly weakened as its Parties would be limited in terms of number (ca. 50-60) and impact 
(e.g.  due  to  non-participation  of  major  polluters).  As  explained  earlier,  given  the  long-range 
transboundary  character  of  the  mercury  pollution,  in  such  a  case,  the  environmental  and  health 
impacts would be experienced both on the global scale and within the EU and the overall objective 
would not be met. Models conclude that without measures to control mercury pollution on the global 
scale, mercury emissions are likely to be substantially higher in 2050 than they are today. 

Furthermore, early ratification of the MC by the EU and its MS is essential as only then can they 
participate as a Party in the first meetings of the COP that will elaborate (among others) the rules of 
procedure of the Implementation and Compliance Committee and adopt guidance on best available 
techniques used to reduce and/or prevent emissions of mercury from industrial activities.  It is very 
difficult  to  quantify  either  the  cost  of  inaction  or  expected  benefits  of  a  ratification  by  the  EU,  as 
these depend on actions undertaken by the rest of the world to reduce emissions.  Bellanger et al37 
estimated  the  annual  benefits  of  removing  mercury  exposure  to  be  approximately  €9  billion  in 

34  The information and analysis used in this section are based on the  ICF, COWI, BiPRO, Garrrigues (2015). Study on 
EU Implementation of the Minamata Convention on Mercury (March 2015). The reader is referred to this study for a 
more detailed explanation. 

35 The main polluting activities on a global scale are linked to power generation, in particular through coal burning in 
China  and  India,  and  ASGM  in  developing  countries  (many  of  them  in  Latin  America).  As  such  activities  depend 
heavily on locally available resources (e.g. coal and gold), the participation of those countries in the Convention is 
essential for its effectiveness.  

36  Kyrgyzstan  has  active  primary  mercury  mining  but  did  not  sign  the  MC,  although  it  actively  participated  in  the 
negotiations.  Given  the  restrictions  the  Convention  imposes  on  mercury  use  from  non-Parties,  it  is  expected  that 
Kyrgyzstan  will  be  inclined  to  accede,  also  taking  into  account  the  funding  possibilities  available  to  support 
implementation of the Convention by developing countries. 

37  Bellanger et al (2013).  Economic  benefits  of  methylmercury  exposure  control  in  Europe:  Monetary  value  of 

neurotoxicity prevention. Environ. Health, 12:3 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 19 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
Europe.  A  comprehensive  study  on  the  socio-economic  costs  of  continuing  the  status-quo  of 
mercury  pollution38  undertaken  by  the  Nordic  Council  estimated  at  2 439  tonnes  the  global 
emissions  of  mercury  to  the  atmosphere  in  2020  for  a  Status  Quo  scenario  (no  further  actions  to 
control  mercury)  and  the  corresponding  annual  damage  costs  due  to  loss  of  IQ  at  8  billion  USD, 
acknowledging  that  the total  cost to  society  of  mercury  pollution  would  be  considerably  higher  in 
view of the additional costs not taken into account in the analysis.  

While one can safely conclude that the cost of inaction would be very high, such costs can neither be 
estimated  accurately  nor  easily  monetised  and  the  authors  themselves  acknowledge  that  such 
estimates  are highly influenced by uncertainties.   Most studies  so far analysed  neurotoxic impacts, 
but  they  have  not  taken  into  account  a  significant  body  of  evidence  on  potential  elevated  risk  for 
cardiovascular diseases, especially myocardial infarction. A thorough analysis of societal costs and 
benefits  would  require  the  consideration  of  certain  other  aspects,  e.g.  co-benefits.  Moreover, 
regional aspects may be quite important, therefore extrapolation to a global scale is very difficult. 

In order to demonstrate the impact of a ratification/non-ratification of the MC to the competitiveness 
of the European businesses, a few illustrative examples are presented below: 

the 

transition 

  Most of the mercury-added products listed in Annex A of the MC have already been phased out 
within the EU. By way of example, mercury thermometers and sphygmomanometers are illegal 
to place on the EU market since 10 April 201439, thus the European businesses concerned have 
already  undergone 
to  alternative,  mercury-free  products  (i.e.  electronic 
thermometers  and  electronic  or  anaerobic  sphygmomanometers).  Provided  the  MC  enters  into 
force, a phase out obligation would be imposed to all Parties by 2020. China, one of the main 
players in this business sector, has a production capacity of 183 million mercury thermometers 
and  4,18  million  mercury  sphygmomanometers  and  an  employment  of  5 50040.  Production 
capacity  for  both  products  has  been  increasing  in  recent  years  and  this  trend  will  certainly 
continue in the coming years due to rapid economic growth unless these products are regulated. 
Provided China becomes Party to the MC, this whole business sector would face the need of a 
transition that would entail significant costs (e.g. due to technology introduction, investment in 
alternative equipment). It should be mentioned that there is no available mature technology for 
the  production  of  electronic  thermometers  and  sphygmomanometers  in  China  and  thus  basic 
electronic components would have to be imported from other countries (e.g. Germany) creating 
potential business opportunities for European companies in this field. As an additional example, 
battery producers within the EU are already subject to a prohibition on placing on the EU market 
of batteries containing mercury41, a restriction that MC would impose on Parties by 2020. In fact, 
all  mercury-added  products  listed in  Annex A of  the MC are already restricted within the EU, 
thus the Convention would establish a level playing field in these sectors. 

  Certain provisions of the MC on processes using mercury (Article 6 in conjunction with Annex 
B)  would  have  minimal  impact  on  European  industry,  as  such  processes  are  either  practically 
non-existent in Europe (e.g. acetaldehyde production, vinyl-cloride monomer production) or are 
already regulated beyond the requirements of the Convention (e.g. chlor-alkali production, where 
mercury technology will be phased-out by 2017 within the EU, while the phase-out date foreseen 
by the Convention is 2025). For example, while PVC in Europe is produced almost exclusively 
from oil or natural gas, China, one of the major producers of PVC globally, uses an alternative 
process  with  coal  as  a  raw  material,  utilising  a  mercury-containing  catalyst.  In  fact,  PVC 

38  Pacyna, J., Sundseth, K., Pacyna, E., Munthe, J.  The socio-economic costs of continuing the status-quo of mercury 

pollution,  Nordic Council, 2008 

39   Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, OJ L396, 30.12.2006, p.1 
40  Socio-economic Analysis on Mercury Thermometer and Sphygmomanometer Transition towards Mercury Free 

Products in China. UNEP/CRC-MEP(2012) 
41   Directive 2006/66/EC, OJ L266, 26.9.2006, p.1 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 20 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
production is the largest intentional use of mercury in China with an annual consumption of ca. 
1000 t  of  mercury  in  recent  years and  with  a  forecast  of  significant  growth  in  the  future.  As a 
Party to the Convention, China would have to reduce the use of mercury in this sector by 50% by 
the  year  2020  or  even  eliminate  such  use  once  alternative  mercury-free  catalysts  become 
technically  and  economically  viable.  Such  a  transition  would  entail  costs  for  Chinese  PVC 
producers,  while  there  is  no  economic  impact  on  the  European  industry.  In  fact,  there  are 
business  opportunities,  as  a  European  company  (Johnson  Matthey)  reported  promising  results 
from a pilot-scale test of a mercury-free catalyst carried out in China.42 

 

Industrial  emissions  of  mercury  have  been  regulated  within  the  EU  since  long.  The  Industrial 
Emissions  Directive  (IED)  currently  into  force  requires  the  application  of  Best  Available 
Techniques  (BAT)  and  Best  Environmental  Practices  (BEP)  that  cover  all  major  industrial 
sectors43. The MC will impose similar obligations to Parties with regard to the industrial sectors 
listed in  Annex  D  (Coal-fired  power  plants;  coal-fired  industrial  boilers; smelting  and  roasting 
processes used in the production of non-ferrous metals; waste incineration facilities; and cement 
clinker production facilities). Guidance will be adopted at the first meeting of the Conference of 
the  Parties  on  the  basis  of  documents  currently  developed  by  an  expert  group  on  emissions, 
where  the  Commission  is  actively  participating.  Adoption  of  stricter  emission  standards  by 
industry  in  other  countries  will  entail  for  them  a  compliance  cost,  the  EU  industry  is  already 
facing.  It  would  thus  establish  a  level  playing  field  and  have  a  positive  impact  on  the 
competitiveness of the sectors concerned. 

It  should  be  noted,  that  given  the  high  number  of  signatory  countries  (128)  and  the  restrictions 
imposed  by  the  Convention  to  non-Parties,  the  risk  of  potential  competition  by  non-acceding 
countries is minimal.  

4.1 

Import of mercury (P1) 

Mercury  supply  in  the  EU  is  currently  estimated  at  around  200 t/y,  of  which  100 t/y  represents 
imports,  while  another  100 t/y  is  mercury  originating  from  recycling  activities  within  the  EU. 
Mercury  demand  at  the  moment  is  estimated  at  260-400  t/y,  but  projected  consumption  in  2025-
2030 is estimated at 40-220 t/y (see Table 4-e for details). The expected decline is justified mainly 
by  the  phase-out  of  the  use  of  mercury  in  the  chlor-alkali  industry  by  2017,  which  accounts  for 
ca. 40% of current mercury consumption within the EU.  

Table 4-a Current and projected mercury (Hg) EU consumption (t/y) 

Current Hg consumption  

Projected Hg consumption in 2025-2030  

Low 

260 

40 

High 

400 

220 

On the basis of historical data, mercury prices could be expected to fluctuate significantly based on 
the  relative  decrease  of  supply  and  demand  in  2025-2030,  when  the  MC  would  have  been 
implemented.  It  would  be  reasonable  to  assume  that  such  fluctuation  would  range  from  -50%  to 
+100% of current mercury prices, hence (after rounding) between 19 000 €/t and 78 000 €/t.  

42  http://www.matthey.com/innovation/innovation_in_action/vcm-catalyst 
  http://www.matthey.com/innovation/innovation_in_action/making-pvc-production-more-sustainable 
43  http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/  

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 21 of 186 

 
 
 
                                                 
Table 4-b Current and projected mercury (Hg) market prices (€/t) 

Current Hg price 

Projected Hg price in 2025-2030  

Low 

38 900 

19 000 

High 

38 900 

78 000 

Given the high number of signatories (128) of the MC and the fact that most of the major EU trading 
partners  are  currently  working  on  its  ratification,  it  is  reasonable  to  assume  that  about  90%  of 
mercury imports to the EU would originate from future Parties, while only 10% (hence about 10 t/y) 
may originate from countries that will not become Parties to the Convention. 

Option P1O1 (import restrictions at EU level for metallic mercury from non-Parties) would result in 
annual import loss = 10t/y, of a total value of 10t/y*€38 900/t44= €389 000/y. 

Option P1O2 (general import prohibition of metallic mercury) would result in annual import loss = 
100 t/y, of a total value of 100 t/y*€38 900/t= €3 890 000/y. 

Depending  on  mercury  demand,  imports  from  allowed  sources  and  for  allowed  uses  may  increase 
and  outweigh  or  even  overcompensate  the  possible  losses  of  revenue  under  option  P1O1.  Option 
P1O1  is  not  expected  to  impose  additional  costs  on  industry,  while  option  P1O2  may  do  so,  but 
much depends on how the demand for mercury will change in the years ahead. 

Both options will potentially lead to a lower supply of mercury. Option P1O1 could lead to a small 
decrease  in  mercury  supply  (under  an  assumption  that  import  restrictions  from  non-Parties  will 
reduce supply imports from 100 to 90 t/y; and the remaining supply will be about 190 t/y). Option 
P1O2 could lead to a significant decrease in mercury supply; the remaining supply would be about 
100 t/y.  Yet  demand  is  also  expected  to  drop  as  a  consequence  of  the  MC  (to  40-220 t/y).   
Decreasing supply and decreasing demand have inverse effects on mercury prices.  

No  mercury  shortage  is  expected  under  the  option  P1O1,  while  some  shortage  may  occur  under 
option P1O2, if demand for mercury remains high (see Table 4-c below).  

Table 4-c Expected supply, demand and balance of supply and demand 

BAU (no import restrictions) 

Option P1O1 

Option P1O2 

Supply (t/y) 

Demand (t/y) 

Balance (t/y) 

~200 

40 to 220 

+160 to -20 

~190 

40 to 220 

+150 to -30 

~100 

40 to 220 

+60 to –120 

If EU demand for mercury remains high (up to 220 t/y) it may lead to higher prices and additional 
costs to industry. If demand falls to the lower range of the estimate (down to 40 t/y) then prices may 
fall, with commensurate cost savings to industry. 

If prices increase, substitution is expected first to occur in those areas where it is most economically 
feasible and costs of mercury-free alternatives are not significantly higher than those of the mercury 
use. Substitution costs cannot however be estimated at this stage. If prices fall, additional costs of 
substitution  would  not  become  relevant  (at  least  not  due  to  increased  mercury  prices).  Based  on 
these considerations, any actual costs of substitution will be similar to the costs of the corresponding 
mercury  use,  unless  the  alternatives  provide  added  functional  benefits  (which  represent  an  added 
value). 

44  Average mercury price in the period 2011-2014 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 22 of 186 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
In  a  foreseeable  future  (2025-2030),  industry  would  need,  as  per  projections  of  demand  above,  to 
purchase between 40 and 220 t /y of mercury at an average price of €38 900/t45, equalling a value of 
€1,6  to  €8,6  million/y  (average  €5,1  million/y).   In  case  of  an  average  demand  of  130 t/y,  the 
incremental costs of option P1O2 would thus correspond to 0 – 5,1 million EUR/y. If demand would 
be in the lower end of the projected interval, cost savings for industry could be possible.  If demand 
would be at the top of the interval, estimated cost increases (compared to business as usual) would 
be between 9-16 million EUR/y46. Therefore, across the whole range of possible developments, the 
incremental costs interval would be 0-16 million EUR/y. 

Under both options, extra administrative costs for importers and competent authorities would arise, 
however they are expected to be low. As the option P1O1 requires a procedure for checking imports 
from  non-Parties  to  the  MC,  its  administrative  burden  (for  industry  and  authorities)  would  be 
expected  to  be  higher  than  that  of  option  P1O2,  where  only  regular  import  (border)  control  is 
required.  

As indicated above, option P1O1 will practically not reduce mercury imports in the EU, while they 
would fall from current levels of 100 t/y to 0 t/y under option P2O2. A reduction in mercury supply 
within  the  EU  under  a  general  import  prohibition  would  have  a  positive  environmental  impact  at 
local level. However, in  the global context, this would probably  be  more than counterbalanced by 
the negative impact expected due to increased supply in the rest of the world (following reduced use 
in  the  EU)  and  particularly  in  the  areas  and  activities  (such  as  ASGM),  where  environmental 
management  is  markedly  worse  than  in  the  EU.  It  should  be  noted  that  while  mercury  use  has 
significantly  decreased  in  the  OECD  countries  in  the  last  20-30  years,  mercury  consumption 
increased  in  many  developing  countries,  particularly  in  South  East  Asia  and  Central  and  South 
America.  The  main  reasons  are  a  general  shift  of  mercury  product  manufacturing  operations  from 
OECD  to  developing  countries,  as  well  as  ASGM  activities.  Global  mercury  flows  have  been 
extensively  analysed  in  a  dedicated  study47  contracted  by  the  Commission  in  preparation  of  the 
Mercury Export ban legislation. 

Social impacts (e.g. job losses) are difficult to assess in detail, but are deemed to be minimal, based 
on the relatively low cost.  

The table below compares the impacts of options P1O1 and P1O2. 

Table 4-d  Overview of impacts of option P1O1 vs. option P1O2 

Provision 

Option P1O1 

Option P1O2 

P1 – import 
restrictions 

foregone 

No  significant  cost  impacts  (0-0,4 million 
EUR 
imports  but  may  be 
outweighed  or  even  overcompensated  by 
imports  from  allowed  sources  and  for 
allowed uses).  
Larger administrative burden than P1O2. 
Reduced  releases  from  primary  Hg  mining 
globally. 

Possible  cost  for  Hg  importers:  0-4  million 
EUR/y. 
Potential  cost  range  for  industry  due  to 
raised Hg prices: 0-16 million EUR/y. 
Low administrative burden. 
Environmental  benefits:  uncertain  and 
potentially negative. 

45  The average price of mercury in 2011-1014 is taken as a basis for the calculations for comparison purposes 
46   €9 million   = 220t * €78 000/t –220t*€38 900/t 
     €16 million = 220t * €78 000/t – 40t*€38 900/t 
47  Concorde Sprl, Mercury flows in Europe and the World: the Impact of Decommissioned Chlor-Alkali Plants, study 

prepared for DG ENV, 2004. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 23 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
Stakeholder consultation 

The  vast  majority  of  stakeholders  responding  to  the  relevant  question  in  the  public  consultation 
favoured  option  P1O2  (43%),  with  only  7%  preferring  option  P1O1.  Another  50%  of  the 
participants  did  not  submit  a  response.  Individual  respondents  are  in  favour  of  a  strict  approach 
concerning  import  restrictions.  When  it  comes  to  organisations,  NGOs  are  clearly  in  favour  of  a 
strict approach, while private sector and other organisations have a split view concerning this issue. 
However, among the participants in the public consultation, even organisations that opted for option 
P1O1 would mostly not reject a stricter approach, provided their worries concerning the effects of 
P1O2 on the global mercury market were addressed. A strict approach (preference for option P1O2) 
was  favoured  by  Dragon  Recycling  Solutions  Ltd,  a  private  company  in  the  UK,  who  argued  that 
mercury supply within Europe would be more than sufficient to cover potential demand. 

Conclusions 

The expected economic impacts under option P1O2 are 0-20 million EUR, significantly higher than 
those of option P1O1. 

Concerning environmental impacts, the general objective of the MC to reduce mercury supply and 
use  would  be  better  achieved  within  the  EU  by  implementing  Option  P1O2,  i.e.  prohibiting  the 
import from all countries. However, on a global scale, this option may have negative environmental 
impacts as the reduction of mercury demand in the EU may well result in an increased availability of 
mercury  on  the  worldwide  market  and  potentially  increased  mercury  consumption  elsewhere,  in 
particular in areas and activities, such as ASGM, where supply restrictions are most needed. Option 
P1O2 would probably be less effective than P1O1 and it goes further than necessary, it could thus 
be considered disproportionate. 

Social impacts (e.g. job losses) are difficult to assess in detail but are expected to be minimal based 
on the relatively low cost. 

Keeping in mind the general objective of achieving a reduction of mercury pollution on the global 
level, P1O1 would score higher than P1O2 in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and coherence.  As 
an additional consideration, given that there are no clear environmental advantages of option P1O2 
in relation to option P1O1, import restrictions going beyond the MC would be difficult to defend in 
view of relevant WTO provisions. 

Therefore, P1O2 is not retained and P1O1 is the preferred option. 

4.2 

Export of certain mercury-added products (P2) 

A comprehensive study on the use of mercury in products and applications within the EU had been 
carried out by DG ENV in 200848. The consumption of mercury (and its distribution across different 
uses) back in 2007, along with an update for 2014-2015 and a projection for 2025-2030 are shown in 
Table 4-e49. As the information in the table is based on the MC and EU legislation requirements, as 
well  as  background  knowledge  of  trends  and  technical  considerations,  ranges  have  been  used  in 
certain cases, where the lower and upper end limits represent correspondingly the best and the worst 
case scenario. 

For  the  majority  of  mercury-added  products  controlled  under  the  MC  export  prohibition  (e.g. 
batteries, switches and relays, cosmetics, pesticides, non-electronic measuring devices, etc.) mercury 
use is minimal due to already existing EU restrictions; lamps is the only product category within the 

48  COWI, Concorde East/West (2008). Options for reducing mercury use in products and applications and the fate of 

mercury already circulating in society (Dec 2008) 

49  ICF,  COWI,  BiPRO,  Garrrigues  (2015).  Study  on  EU  Implementation  of  the  Minamata  Convention  on  Mercury 

(March 2015) 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 24 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
EU, where substantial amounts of mercury are still used. The analysis of options will thus focus on 
this, however, all other products categories are discussed in Annex 9A. 

Table 4-e Mercury consumption within the EU 

Intentional mercury use 

2007 (EU25) 
(t/y) 

2014-2015 (EU28) 
(t/y) 

2025-2030 (EU28) 
(t/y) 

Batteries 

Switches and relays 

Lamps 

Barometers, hygrometers, manometers, 
thermometers, sphygmomanometers 

Preservatives in vaccines and cosmetics 
+ disinfectants (including cosmetics, 
pesticides, biocides, topical antiseptics) 

Dental amalgam 

Chlor-alkali production with Hg cells 
(CAK-Hg) 

Acetaldehyde production with mercury 
catalysts 

“Chemical intermediates and catalysts 
except PUR” (may include VCM 
production with mercury catalysts) 

7-25 

0,3-0,8 

11-15 

7-17 

0 

0,3-0,8 

11-15 

<3 

0 

0,3-0,8 

11-15 

0 

1,1-2,5 

1,1-2,5 

1,1-2,5 

90-110 

160-190 

55-95 

160-190 

Unknown 

0 

10-20 

10-20 

Alcoholates (sodium or potassium 
methylate or ethylate) 

(perhaps part of CAK-
Hg above) 

0,3-1 

Polyurethane production using mercury 
catalysts 

ASGM (illegal) 

Hg compounds in laboratories and 
pharmaceutical industry 

Preservatives in paints 

Porosimetry, pycnometry and hanging 
drop electrodes 

Other miscellaneous uses 

Total50  

20-35 

Likely below 20-35 

3-6 

3-10 

4-10 

10-100 

1-14 

320-530 

3-6 

3-10 

0 

12-58 

1-14 

~260-400 

10-95 

0 

0 

0-10 

0,3-1 

0-10 

3-6 

3-10 

0 

10-50 

1-14 

~40-220 

Under the baseline scenario (i.e. EU does not ratify the Minamata Convention), EU exports might be 
negatively affected by import restrictions imposed by the Parties to the Convention. 

Under  option  P2O1,  the  export  of  mercury-added  products  that  do  meet  the  MC  specifications 
would  not  be  affected  and  manufacturing  and  export  could  continue.  On  the  other  hand,  the 

50  Rounded and adjusted to avoid double counting of intermediates,  e.g. the mercury used as “chemical intermediates 

and catalysts except PUR” is not included when calculating the total. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 25 of 186 

 
 
 
                                                 
manufacturing and export of mercury-added products that do not meet the MC specifications would 
have  to  cease;  which  may  lead  to  a  loss  of  associated  production  jobs.  This  impact  is  considered 
insignificant as industry reported that there are no such exports.  

Under option P2O2, the EU exports would be regulated by stricter standards than those applicable to 
similar production outside the EU (where the MC standards would likely dominate). Therefore, any 
such  production  currently existing  inside the EU and intended  for export may simply  be relocated 
outside the EU, with consequent losses of EU revenues and jobs. 

the  environmental 

input  and 
When  examining 
emissions/releases will remain unchanged. Under option P2O2, mercury use and releases inside the 
EU  will  be  reduced,  but  if  production  of  the  targeted  products  is  relocated  out  of  the  EU  to  the 
countries with lower environment and health standards than in the EU, the global negative impact of 
mercury emissions/releases on the environment and health may increase. 

impact,  under  option  P2O1,  mercury 

Lamps 

Mercury-containing  non-electronic  measuring  devices  are  regulated  within  the  EU  by  the  RoHS 
Directive51 that has prohibited the placing on the EU market of electrical and electronic equipment 
containing mercury, with certain exemptions. 

LightingEurope (2014) has advised that, of the lamps concerned by the MC, only fluorescent lamps 
of  the  halophosphate  type  would  be  affected  under  option  P2O2,  but  not  under  option  P2O1. 
LightingEurope  estimates  that  around  143  million  pieces  of  halophosphate  lamps  per  year  are 
manufactured in the EU for export, which comply with the standard set by the MC (maximum 10 mg 
mercury  per  lamp)  but  do  not  comply  with  the  standard  applicable  for  marketing  within  the  EU 
(0,1% of mercury by weight, which is in practice lower than 10 mg mercury per lamp). Assuming an 
average  consumer  price  of  5  EUR/piece  (within  a  range  of  between  2  and  8  EUR)  the  consumer 
market value of these lamps is estimated at 715 million EUR/y. 

The actual export revenue from this production was not reported, but would probably not exceed one 
third to half of this amount, or approximately 240–360 million EUR/y. As these lamps are reported 
to have mercury content below 10 mg/piece, their export would not be affected under option P2O1, 
but could be eliminated under the option P2O2, meaning loss of export revenues of maximum 240–
360 million EUR/y. The number of jobs at risk was not reported. 

No  specific  quantitative  information  on  mercury  emissions  and  releases  from  production  of  lamps 
for  export  was  provided,  but  these  are  assumed  to  be  minimal  in  EU  production.  Conservatively 
assuming  that  the  lamps  exported  contain  an  average  of  10 mg  of  mercury  per  lamp,  the  total 
mercury  in  these  lamps  would  be  1,4 t/y.  This  defines  the  maximum  potential  mercury 
emissions/releases  in  the  life  cycle  of  the  lamps  under  option  P2O2.  While  some  lamps  may  be 
recycled and mercury therein reused or deposited as waste, most of this mercury is expected to end 
up in the environment. Under option P2O1, no environmental impacts are expected. 

Table 4-f Overview of impacts of option P2O1 vs option P2O2  

Provision 

Option P2O1 

Option P2O2 

P2 - export prohibition of 
the mercury-added 
products listed in MC 
Annex A 

Very minor impacts are expected, as 
targeted products are already restricted for 
placing on the market within the EU and 
for several products the existing export is 
in conformity with MC requirements as 
reported by EU industry.  

Lost export revenues from the lamps 
industry is estimated at 240-360 million 
EUR/y with possible associated job losses.  
Potential reductions in mercury input to 
society (0-5 t/y). However, negative global 
environmental impacts are expected, in case 
production is moved outside the EU. 

51  Directive 2011/65/EU, OJ L174, 1.7.2011, p.88 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 26 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
Table  4-f  above  presents  the  impacts  generated  by  the  two  options.  The  types  of  impacts  are  the 
same for both options, but the scale of impact will be higher under option P2O2 for the stakeholders 
involved in production and export of products which are targeted by EU marketing restrictions but 
not  by  MC  marketing  restrictions.  Table  4-g  below  provides  an  overview  of  the  stakeholders 
affected and the impacts expected. 

Table 4-g Stakeholders affected by options in question and impacts in summary. 

Options assessed 

Stakeholders 
affected 

Impacts 

P2O1: 
Export prohibition of the 
mercury-added products 
listed in MC Annex A 
and 
P2O2: 
Export prohibition of all 
mercury-added products 
currently not allowed in the 
EU market 

Industry and exporters 

Competent authorities 

Environment and 
consumers globally 

Costs: Loss of revenues from exports of targeted products 
manufactured in the EU. 
Social: Loss of jobs with cessation or reduction of 
production and export of targeted products manufactured in 
the EU. 
Impacts could be qualified as insignificant for option P2O1 
and as limited for option P2O2. 

Administrative burden of enforcement: as control 
programmes are already conducted for diverse restrictions 
of marketing of mercury containing products, incremental 
efforts are deemed minimal. 

Environmental: Reduction of releases of mercury from the 
life cycle of the targeted products (from manufacture in EU; 
from use and disposal outside the EU).  
No impact under option P2O1, potentially negative impact 
under option P2O2, in case production is moved outside the 
EU. 

Stakeholder consultation 

The  majority  of  respondents  (39%)  in  the  public  consultation  favoured  option  P2O2,  while  10% 
expressed a preference for option P2O1.  The rest of the participants (51%) did not respond to the 
relevant  question  in  the  public  consultation.  The  percentage  of  supporters  of  a  strict  approach 
(option P2O2) is higher (51%) among participating organisations than among individual participants 
(39%).  Certain  business  sectors  (e.g.  button  cell  batteries)  expressed  clear  support  for  the  option 
going beyond the requirements of the MC (EPBA position paper of 14/8/2015), while others such as 
LightingEurope  (the  industry  association  representing  the  European  Lighting  manufacturers 
preferred  the  simple  transposition  option  as  certain  types  of  lamps  for  which  EU  law  sets  stricter 
standards than those established in the MC could still be exported after the entry into force of the 
Convention. All stakeholders’ views, included the ones referred to earlier have been published and 
are available on our mercury webpage52. 

Conclusions 

The main economic impact is expected from the potential loss of exports of 143 million pieces of 
halophosphate  lamps  per  year,  corresponding  to  an  estimated  loss  of  revenues  of  about  240-360 
million EUR/y under option P2O2. The number of jobs at risk is not known. No specific quantitative 
information  for  the  mercury  emissions  and  releases  from  production  of  lamps  for  export  was 
received but these are assumed to be minimal. While this option could have a positive environmental 
impact  due  to  the  elimination  of  up  to  1,4  t  of  mercury  input  to  society,  this  would  probably  not 
materialise if production is moved outside the EU. Even worse, increases of emissions/releases from 
manufacturing  and  waste  disposal  may  occur,  thus  leading  to  a  negative  environmental  impact, 

52 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/ratification_en.htm  

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 27 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
which would be contradictory to the general objective. P2O2 is thus less effective than P2O1 and it 
goes  further  than  necessary,  it  could  thus  be  considered  disproportionate.  P2O1  is  therefore 
preferable to P2O2 in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. For this reason P2O2 is not 
retained. 

Under  option  P2O1,  no  environmental  impacts  are  expected  and  therefore  P2O1  is  the  preferred 
option. While preference to P2O1 means that the standards foreseen in Annex A of the MC will be 
applied, care will be taken to maintain stricter provisions where relevant (e.g. those foreseen by the 
batteries  directive,  given  especially  the  support  expressed  by  EPBA,  main  representative  of  the 
business sector concerned). 

4.3 

Use of mercury in new products/processes (P3) 

These provisions of the MC relate to future products and processes which are unknown today, so a 
specific impact assessment is not possible. It is only possible to outline the type of impacts that may 
occur. 

Impacts of the two considered options on stakeholders are summarised in Table 4-h below: 

Table 4-h Stakeholders affected by options in question and impacts in summary 

Options assessed 

Stakeholders affected 

Impacts 

P3O1: 
notification of 
mercury use in new 
products and 
processes 

Researchers and 
developers of new 
products and processes 

Possible stimulation to develop mercury-free alternatives. 
Possible jobs and profits related to inventions for mercury-free 
alternatives.  

Industry 

Competent authorities 

Possible loss of jobs and profit in industry related to products 
which will not be placed on the market and manufacturing 
processes which will not be used. 
Possible creation of jobs and profit related to mercury-free 
products and processes which will be placed on the market or 
used instead of products and processes using mercury. 

Possible costs at competent authorities in order to manage 
increased administrative burdens. Administration efforts for 
implementation may vary quite heavily depending on the 
implementation mode. However, they are expected to be very 
limited given the low likelihood of new products or processes. 

Consumers 

Possible cost impacts (positive or negative) due to changes in 
manufacturing costs. 
Reduced risk of exposure due to avoidance of new mercury uses. 

Workers 

Reduced risk of exposure due to avoidance of new mercury uses. 

Environment 

Reduced risk of exposure due to avoidance of new mercury uses. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 28 of 186 

 
 
P3O2: 
Prohibition of 
mercury use in new 
products and 
processes 

Researchers and 
Developers of new 
products and processes 

Industry 

Competent authorities 

Generally the same as above for option P3O1 - potentially more 
effective and with higher signal value. 

Generally the same as above for option P3O1. 
Moreover, possible additional (authorisation) costs for (i) the 
assessment of the risks and benefits of mercury related products 
to demonstrate (or not) environmental or human health benefits 
and/or (ii) for the assessment whether a manufacturing process 
provides significant environmental and health benefits and that 
there are no technically and economically feasible mercury-free 
alternatives available providing such benefits. 

Possible costs for market surveillance. However, this is expected 
to be very limited given that (1) any such activity would be 
combined with the current market surveillance related to the vast 
mercury acquis, where the illegal import of existing product is 
the main issue, and (2) the low likelihood of new products or 
processes. 

Consumers 

Workers 

Generally the same as above for option P3O1. 

Generally the same as above for option P3O1. 

Environment 

Generally the same as above for option P3O1. 

Mercury is being phased out in most of its former uses in commercial products and manufacturing 
processes.  The  probability  that  new  mercury  related  commercial  products  and  manufacturing 
processes will achieve significant market scale is considered as very low, but the possibility cannot 
be  entirely  excluded.  A  conditional  restriction  would  be  an  effective  means  of  discouraging  such 
applications. However, R&D activities are exempted from the MC and would thus still be possible.  

Introduction of authorisation requirements would impose new cost barriers to bringing new products 
and  processes  to  market  and  provide  additional  protection  against  the  health  and  environmental 
impacts  of  mercury  use  in  circumstances  where  there  are  no  significant  social  benefits.  Such 
requirements  would  discourage  new  uses  of  mercury  and  impose  no  significant  direct  costs  on 
business if no new products are developed (i.e. there is no need for requests for authorisation).  

If  a  "soft"  discouragement,  as  in  option  P3O1  is  chosen,  it  could  be  considered  to  establish  a 
reporting  obligation  (e.g.  to  the  Commission  through  MS  authorities)  on  new  types  of  mercury 
products  and  processes,  in  order  to  monitor  development  and  demonstrate  conformity.  Given  the 
limited  number  of  potential  new  developments,  the  associated  administrative  cost  would  be 
negligible. 

An explicit prohibition (option P3O2) will have a stronger signal value both internally in the EU and 
towards  other  Parties  of  the  MC,  thereby  reducing  the  likelihood  that  economic  operators  would 
engage  in  potentially  very  costly  development  of  products  or  processes  that  would  not  meet  the 
environmental  and  health  benefits  condition  and  thus  reduce  any  related  wastage  of  human  and 
financial resources. 

On  the  basis  of  experience  with  similar  procedures  under  REACH,  industry  could  face  additional 
costs in the 100-450 kEUR53 range for authorisation costs and fees. 

53 1kEUR = 1 000 EUR 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 29 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
Table 4-i below compares the impacts of option P3O1 vs option P3O2.  

Table 4-i Overview of impacts of option P3O1 vs option P3O2 

Provision 

Option P3O1 

Option P3O2 

P3 -  restrictions on 
mercury use in new 
products and 
processes 

Limited  impacts,  both  cost-wise  and 
environmentally.  

Limited economic impact. 
More effective and with higher signal value than 
P3O1, reducing the risk that economic operators 
in  costly  developments  and 
would  engage 
marketing  of  new  products  or  processes  that 
would be subsequently prohibited.  

Stakeholder consultation 

The majority of respondents in the public consultation (47%) favoured option P3O2, while only 6% 
expressed  a  preference  for  option  P3O1.  Again,  47%  of  the  participants  did  not  respond  to  the 
relevant  question.  Among  individual  participants,  only  5%  are  in  favour  of  P3O1,  47%  were  in 
favour  of  P3O2,  while  48%  did  not  respond  to  the  relevant  question.  Among  participating 
organisations, the corresponding figures are 21% for P3O1, 54% for P3O2 and 25% not responding.  

Conclusions 

Economic and social impacts: The discouragement of mercury uses in new products or processes 
can eliminate potential risks. The mercury applications used today are based on technology invented 
50 or more years ago (though some variants are more recent). There are currently no indications of 
new products or processes involving mercury being brought to the market at any significant scale. 
The probability that such products and processes will be developed is considered low, but it cannot 
be ruled out completely. However, R&D activities are exempted from the scope of the MC, as well 
as  under  existing  EU  law  relevant  to  mercury,  therefore,  the  development  of  new  products  and 
processes would still be possible. 

The main impact  of the  considered options is their signal value. The stronger the signal, the more 
unlikely  it  would  be  that  operators  would  waste  substantial  resources  in  developing  new  uses  of 
mercury that do not have significant environmental and health benefits. 

Under option  P3O2, determination of whether the  MC conditions for significant  environmental or 
human health benefits are fulfilled would be necessary before a product was placed on the market or 
a process deployed. This has a significantly stronger signal value than monitoring of the market and 
possible prohibition of a new use after an assessment process under option P301. 

Environmental  impacts:  The  choice  of  option  could  result  in  anything  between  “no  effect”  (but 
conformity  with  the  MC)  and  virtually  full  elimination  of  mercury  input  to  society  via  novel 
mercury uses. 

P3O2 would better achieve the objectives set and at a lower cost, it could thus be considered both 
more effective and efficient than P3O1, while both options seem to score equally well in terms of 
coherence. P3O2 is therefore the preferred option. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 30 of 186 

 
 
4.4 

Mercury use in the manufacturing processes listed in MC Annex B (P4) 

Prohibition of the use of mercury from primary mining 

Currently, the main industrial activities using mercury in their processes are plants producing chlor-
alkali  or  alcoholates.  Any  mercury  replenishment  need  for  these  plants  comes  from  stocks  of 
mercury  the  operators  already  have.  Therefore,  a  prohibition  of  the  use  of  mercury  from  primary 
mining would not induce any additional costs. 

Reduction of emissions to air 

The cost of 50% reduction of emissions of mercury to air per unit production by 2020 compared to 
2010, from production of alcoholates, is estimated at 0,6-1 million EUR/y. 

Prohibition of using the mercury process 

The acetylene mercury catalyst-based process for production of vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) is 
only used in the EU by Fortischem in the Slovak Republic, in parallel to the mercury-free ethylene 
process.  It  is  used  for  approximately  25%  of  the  total  VCM  production.  The  main  reason  of  still 
using  this  process  is  reportedly  the  availability  of  certain  quantities  of  low  quality  (off-
specifications)  calcium  carbide,  which  is  easily  converted  to  acetylene  and  subsequently  used  for 
VCM/PVC  production.  Approximately  20t  of  catalyst  containing  10%  by  weight  of  mercury 
chloride  (2t)  is  consumed  annually.  Used  catalyst  at  the  end  of  its  life  span  is  sent  for  recovery. 
While there is no information on the intentions of the company regarding phase out of the acetylene 
process, the dependence on this process is limited, as the company uses in parallel the mercury-free 
ethylene process. The concerned company has not expressed any objections to the prohibition of the 
use  of  mercury  catalysts.  To  comply  with  the  prohibition  the  company  would  either  have  to  use 
mercury-free catalysts that are available on the market at a higher cost or discontinue this ancillary 
activity. 

Existing alternative catalysts (based on palladium/platinum) that could be used as a replacement for 
mercuric  chloride  are  relatively  more  expensive.  However,  two  European  companies  (Johnson 
Matthew  catalysts  in  the  UK  and  Aker  Solutions  from  NO)  have  developed  a  catalyst  for  the 
acetylene  process  that  would  easily  (with  no  need  for  changes  to  process)  substitute  mercuric 
chloride. This would have an even higher yield compared to the mercury catalyst and would have a 
low  impact  on  the  process  cost.    Higher  catalyst  costs  (5-15EUR  per  ton  of  PVC)  would  be 
compensated  to  a  great  extent  by  achieving  a  higher  yield.  Given  the  minimal  production  cost 
increase expected in relation to the PVC production cost (400EUR/t) and market price (900EUR/t), 
the new catalyst could provide a sustainable solution from an environmental and economic point of 
view.  The  additional  cost  of  using  the  mercury-free  catalyst  was  estimated  at  less  than  1%  of  the 
total PVC production cost. 

Four  alcoholates  -  substances  used  as  catalysts  in  biodiesel  production  and  in  several  other 
syntheses of organic chemicals – are produced in the EU in two plants using a mercury process. The 
main chemical concerned, by far the economically most important, is sodium methylate. However, 
the companies concerned consider the production of the four alcoholates as economically mutually 
dependent and therefore state that they may have to terminate the production of all four substances, 
should the use of the mercury-based process be prohibited in the EU. 

Two German companies (Evonic and BASF) are the world leaders in production of these substances. 
While they use the mercury-based process in their EU production, they make use of a non-mercury 
alternative process in their facilities located in North and South America for sodium methylate. All 
other global production is based on non-mercury technology. In the EU, the non-mercury production 
method  is  used  by  a  French  company,  EnviroCat,  which  accounts  for  10%  of  the  total  EU-based 
production of sodium methylate. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 31 of 186 

 
 
Non-mercury  technologies  are  also  commercially  available  for  the  production  of  sodium  ethylate 
and potassium methylate, although they seem not to allow the production of potassium methylate in 
the quantities and quality required by the market. 

The  production  of  potassium  ethylate  with  non-mercury  technology  appears  to  be  possible  at 
laboratory  scale,  but  the  EU  producers  using  mercury  do  not  consider  it  technically  and 
economically  feasible  on  an  industrial  scale.  The  substance  is  currently  not  registered  under 
REACH, meaning that (if used) EU consumption is less than 100 t/y. The substance is reported by a 
stakeholder  to  be  produced  without  mercury  in  India,  but  this  has  not  been  confirmed  by  other 
sources.  The  producers  argued  that  cessation  of  production  of  potassium  ethylate  would  make 
downstream users suffer from scarcity of the substance. This argument could not be verified based 
on available information. 

The total costs for the industry of substitution for all four alcoholates is estimated at between 60 and 
76 million EUR/y54, of which about half are investments annualised over a 10 year period and the 
other half are operational costs. Research costs cannot be quantified precisely, but it is expected that 
a reasonable research activity would generate costs of 2 million EUR/y. Therefore, the substitution 
costs could range between 2 and 76 million EUR/y. 

Summary of impacts of the options 

The costs of reducing emissions under option P4O1 are estimated at 0,6-1 million EUR/y. As these 
measures would be taken in a context of discouragement of the use of this process, depending on the 
measures taken by Germany or voluntarily by industry, costs of research and/or substitution may be 
also incurred bringing the potential costs range to 3-77 million EUR/y. 

For option P4O2, the costs of prohibition of the mercury process for alcoholates production the costs 
could range from 61 to 77 million EUR/y. 

Social  impacts  of  option  P4O2:  While  the  numbers  available  are  considered  uncertain  and  not 
necessarily  consistent  with  the  lower  production  costs  of  the  mercury-based  process,  they  could 
indicate that the mercury-based production technology is more labour-intensive, and the loss of 80-
200 jobs cannot be ruled out. Under option P4O1, such impacts may be also observed depending on 
the measures taken by Germany or voluntarily by industry, the transition will come more slowly, or 
not at all (in case adequate alternatives are not developed for all four alcoholates), and consequently 
potential job losses would range between 0 and 200. 

Environmental benefits under both options are moderate in the EU context. For option P4O2, the 
reduction  in  air  emissions  is  estimated  at  about  190  kg/y  and  reductions  of  the  mercury  input  at 
about 0,3-1,0 t/y. The reductions potentially achieved under option P4O1 can also not be quantified 
more  precisely  than  up  to  0,3-1,0  t/y,  while  in  the  short  term  emission  reductions  should  drop  by 
95kg/y. 

54 A detailed analysis is presented in Annex 9B. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 32 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
Table 4-j Overview of impacts of option P4O1 vs option P4O2 

Provision 

Option P4O1 

Option P4O2 

P4  –  restrictions  on  the 
use  of  mercury  in  the 
manufacturing 
processes  listed  in  MC 
Annex B 

Moderate  to  substantial  impacts  (costs  3-
77 million EUR/y), depending on whether 
an  alternative  process  for  the  last  of  the 
four  alcoholates  considered  technically 
and economically feasible is identified and 
implemented following measures taken by 
Germany or voluntarily by industry.  
Reductions of mercury air emissions by at 
least 95kg/y and mercury use by 0,3-1t/y. 

Stakeholder consultation 

impacts:  Annual 

Significant  economic 
estimated costs of 61-77 million EUR/y.  
Reductions  of  mercury  air  emissions  by 
190kg/y and mercury use by 0,3-1t/y 

The  majority  of  respondents  in  the  public  consultation  (45%)  favoured  option  P4O2,  while  7% 
expressed a preference for option P4O1, with 48% of the respondents not responding to the relevant 
question. Among individuals, 45% favoured option  P4O2, against 7% favouring option P4O1 and 
48% not responding.  Among organisations, the corresponding figures are 54% for P4O2, 27% for 
P4O1 and 19% for no response. However, while the overwhelming majority of NGOs are in favour 
of  P4O2,  most  private  sector  organisations  (9  out  of  14)  favour  P4O1,  i.e.  an  implementation  as 
foreseen in the MC. The business sector concerned is divided, as mentioned above, as the companies 
using the mercury technology clearly favour P4O1, while their competitors support an outright ban 
(option P4O2). 

Conclusions 

Phase-out  of  the  use  of  mercury  in  VCM  production  does  not  have  significant  impacts,  as  the 
company concerned could easily switch to the ethylene process or alternatively use a mercury-free 
catalyst that would have a minimal impact on the process cost. 

Whilst  there  is  a  clear  non-mercury  alternative  for  the  production  of  sodium  methylate,  the 
companies using the mercury-based production process state that they would have to terminate the 
production of  all  four  substances  if  the  use  of  the  mercury-based  process  is  prohibited  for sodium 
methylate as the activity would not be economically viable anymore. There remains uncertainty on 
the potential negative impacts that such cessation would imply for downstream users of two of the 
four chemicals. 

P4O2 is associated with an economic impact of 61-77 million EUR/y corresponding to a reduction 
of  mercury  emissions  of  about  190  kg/y  and  potential  losses  of  80-200  jobs.  On  the  other  hand, 
P4O1 could achieve similar environmental benefits over time with potentially much lower cost, as 
the economic impact was estimated between 3-77 million EUR/y depending on the measures taken 
by Germany or voluntarily by industry. While P4O2 is more effective than P4O1, the latter would 
probably be slightly more efficient. P4O2 would score better in terms of coherence as the mercury 
process used will be phased out in the chlor-alkali industry within the EU by 2017. 

P4O1 is thus the preferred option. 

4.5 

Mercury use in Artisanal and Small-scale Gold Mining (ASGM) (P5) 

Artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM) activity is defined by Art. 2(1) MC as “mining and 
processing in which mercury amalgamation is used to extract gold from ore.”  

Art. 7(2) of the MC requires the Parties for which such activity is relevant to take steps “to reduce, 
and where feasible eliminate, the use of mercury and mercury compounds in, and the releases to the 
environment of mercury from, such mining and processing.”  

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 33 of 186 

 
 
ASGM is not prohibited under the MC, but where a Party determines that ASGM and processing in 
its territory is “more than insignificant”, it is required to develop a National Action Plan (Art. 7(3) 
MC), in line with the requirements of Annex C to the MC. Such plans have to be submitted to the 
Secretariat of the Convention within three years after its entry into force with a review every three 
years.  

ASGM activities are very widespread in developing countries, particularly in South America, Africa 
and South-East Asia. Within the EU, the only Member State concerned is France (as ASGM takes 
place  in  the  overseas  department  of  French  Guiana),  resulting  in  mercury  pollution  despite  the 
prohibition under French law to use mercury for such an activity. 

The incremental impact of the transposition into EU law of a general obligation to restrict the use of 
mercury for ASGM would therefore be minimal since France has already taken measures and, as a 
Party to the Convention, would have to provide a National Action Plan, which would also serve as 
the EU’s contribution to this issue. 

Given that ASGM activity is informal and often takes place illegally, there would practically be little 
difference  between  options  P5O1  and  P5O2  in  terms  of  effectiveness  and  efficiency,  while  both 
would score equally well in terms of coherence. However, as France has already prohibited ASGM, 
there is no need for legislation beyond the requirements of the Convention at EU level and therefore 
option P5O2 is discarded.  

Option P5O1 is thus the preferred option for transposing this provision of the Convention. 

4.6 

Use of dental amalgam (P6) 

Contextual information 

The  following  analysis  of  options  P6O1a  and  P601b  is  based  on  data  collected  in  the  Bio 
Intelligence  Service  (2012)  study.  Annexes  10B,  10C  and  10D  reproduce  information  on  the 
environmental impact due to mercury emissions from dental amalgam, the use of separators in MS, 
and the environmental cost of dental amalgam use respectively. 

As  can  be  seen  from  Figure  4-a,  dental  amalgam  use  varies  greatly  among  MS.  The  solid  line 
indicates  the  estimated  demand,  while  the  light  line  indicates  the  uncertainty  of  the  estimate. 
Mercury consumption for this use has been estimated at 55 to 95 t/y in 2010, with an average value 
of 75 t/y. This corresponds to approximately 125 million restorations, while another 245 million are 
carried  out  by  using  mercury-free  materials  (ca.  66%  of  the  total  number  of  370 million 
restorations).  There has been a downward trend in the use of dental amalgam over the last years, the 
greatest decreases being observed in the countries that have imposed restrictions on its use.  

In  future,  the  use  of  dental  amalgam  may  continue  to  decline  in  the  EU,  mainly  as  a  result  of 
growing  aesthetic  concerns.  The  Bio  Intelligence  (2012)  study  provides  an  estimate  of  a  potential 
drop in demand for dental amalgam if no further EU action is undertaken by classifying MS in three 
groups as depicted in Table 4-k. 

On the basis of the information presented above, at least a 5% reduction of dental amalgam use is 
expected annually, leading to a projected overall use in 2025 ca.50% lower than in 2010. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 34 of 186 

 
 
 
 
Figure 4-a Demand for dental mercury in EU Member States (t Hg/year) 

Source:  Data  provided  by  national  dental  associations  and/or  health  authorities  via  the  study  questionnaire,  taken  from  previous 
studies or estimated by BIO using available data.   

*Estimated by BIO  

Table 4-k Projected demand for mercury in dental amalgam 

Group 

Group 1 
DK, EE, SE, 
IT, FI 

Group 2 
BG, BE, CY, 
DE, HU, IE, 
LU, NL, PT, 
ES, LV 

Group 3 

AT, CZ, FR, 
GR, LT, MT, 
PL, RO, SK, 
SI, UK 

Share of 
dental 
amalgam in 
2010 (in % 
restorations) 

Expected share 
of dental 
amalgam in 
2025 (in % 
restorations) 

Dental 
Hg use 
in 2010 
(t) 

Projected 
dental Hg 
use in 
2025 (t) 

Comments 

0-5% 

0% 

0.3-0.4 

0 

6-35% 

5 to 15% 

9 – 12 

3– 8 

>35% 

20-30% 

46 - 78 

23-35 

EU 

55 - 95 

27-43 

This group includes countries where amalgam 
use is very limited and is expected to cease in 
the mid-term due to policy measures in place 
(e.g. SE) or other factors.  

In these countries, demand for dental amalgam 
is expected to continue to decrease until it 
reaches a relatively low share of restorations.  

This group includes countries where dental 
amalgam is still widely used, as well as less 
wealthy countries where the extra cost may be 
an important factor in view of citizen’s income. 
In addition, due to the currently high use of 
dental amalgam in these countries, there would 
also be a high proportion of dentists unwilling 
to change their current practices. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 35 of 186 

051015202530SwedenEstonia*Luxembourg*Finland*Cyprus*DenmarkMalta*Latvia*ItalyHungary*Netherlands*BulgariaIrelandPortugal*SloveniaBelgium*Lithuania*AustriaSlovakia*Spain*Greece*GermanyCzech RepublicUnited KingdomRomania*PolandFrance 
 
 
 
 
 
Option P6O1a – restrict the use of dental amalgam to its encapsulated form 

There  are  two  main  ways  to  prepare  dental  amalgam:  by  using  pre-dosed  capsules  containing  the 
substances  to  be  mixed  in  an  apparatus  (amalgamator)  or  by  mixing  dental  alloy  and  mercury, 
purchased as separate products.  

The use of pre-dosed capsules (instead of bulk mercury) contributes to reducing emissions occurring 
during  amalgam  storage  and  preparation,  and  the  exposure  of  dental  personnel  to  these  mercury 
vapours.  There  is  thus  a  clear  positive  impact  to  the  occupational  health  and  safety  of  dental 
workers,  including  dental  assistants,  dental  nurses,  and  hygienists,  in  particular  when  they  are 
women of childbearing age, which makes them particularly susceptible to the occupational hazards 
caused  by  mercury  vapours.  Additionally,  there  is  a  risk  of  mercury  overdose  in  amalgams  made 
from  metal  alloys  and  mercury  in  bulk  form,  a  risk  practically  eliminated  when  using  pre-dosed 
capsules.  

Out of 62 companies producing dental filling materials in the EU, 38 produce exclusively mercury-
free materials and would not be affected at all by any measure restricting the use of dental amalgam 
to its encapsulated form. There are 20 companies producing both dental amalgam and mercury-free 
fillings, half of them located in Germany. Only 3 companies had been identified as producing solely 
mercury for dental restoration applications, two of them55 trading solely mercury for dental amalgam 
in bulk form either directly to dental practices or to the manufacturers of dental amalgam capsules. 
One company produces solely dental amalgam alloys (silver/copper/tin) and precious metals alloys 
for  crown  and  bridge  work56.  While  enforcing  a  restriction  on  the  use  of  dental  amalgam  to  its 
encapsulated form would have a negative economic impact for these companies, it would probably 
be compensated by increased supply of mercury to manufacturers of capsules, rather than directly to 
dental practices. 

Pre-dosed  capsules  use  in  dentistry  was  estimated  by  COWI  and  Concorde  East/West  (2008)  at 
approximately 70%, the rest being prepared by using bulk mercury. A recent survey by CED carried 
in  26  European  countries  suggests  that  in  12  countries  the  use  of  dental  amalgam  in  encapsulated 
form is required by law, in another two it is highly recommended, in two countries dental amalgam 
use  is  prohibited,  while  in  9  countries  it  is  not  regulated.  In  terms  of  use,  seventeen  European 
countries reported 100% use of pre-dosed capsules, another four reported very high percentages (65-
95%), while another four provided no estimates. 
For  dental  amalgam,  whether  in  bulk  or  in  encapsulated  form,  the  average  cost57  of  the  filling 
material  is  very  low  (1  EUR)  in  comparison  to  the  total  cost  of  dental  restoration  (36  EUR  on 
average  for  an  amalgam  restoration)58.  Given  that  mercury-free  dental  filling  materials  are  used 
more often than dental amalgam (66% of restorations in 2012), and the fact that pre-dosed capsules 
are  used  in  70%  of  dental  amalgam  restorations,  the  use  of  bulk  mercury  concerns  a  very  small 
percentage  (ca.  10%)  of  the  total  number  of  fillings.  The  number  of  dentists  concerned  would 
probably be much less than 10% of the total number of dentists59 i.e. less than 31 050 dentists. 

Implementing  this  option  would  also  imply  that  all  dental  practices  using  dental  amalgam  would 
need  to  get  equipped  with  amalgamators,  if  this  this  not  currently  the  case.  Amalgamators  are 
relatively cheap equipment, available on the market at a cost as low as 100 EUR.  

Hence, implementation of this restriction would impact only a small percentage of dentists (less than 

55 The Czech company Bome S.R.O and the Dutch company M&R Claushuis B.V. 
56   The Cookson Precious Metals Ltd company (UK) manufactures dental amalgam alloys (silver/copper/tin) as well as 
gold fillings and inlays. Amalgam alloy is sold to wholesale companies  as well as to producers of dental amalgam 
capsules.  

57  Covers the use of both pre-dosed capsules and mercury in bulk form. 
58  Corresponding values for a composite or glass ionomer dental filling would be 5 EUR and 49 EUR respectively. 
59  Estimated at 310 500 on the basis of Eurostat data in 2009 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 36 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
10%)  using  exclusively  dental  amalgam  in  non-encapsulated  form  and  not  currently  owning  an 
amalgamator, and they would face only very low costs. 

Option P6O1b –impose the use of separators in dental practices 

There are three main pathways for the release of mercury from dental amalgam to the environment: 

  discharges from dental clinics to wastewater systems; 
  as solid waste; 
 

through cremation or burial of bodies containing dental amalgam fillings. 

Most dental practices are equipped with filters (called amalgam separators) aiming to minimise the 
quantity  of  mercury  escaping  to  the  sewage  system.  Amalgam  separators  are  designed  with  an 
efficiency  of  95%  (percentage  of  mercury  captured  in  dental  effluents)  however,  this  presupposes 
appropriate regular maintenance.  On the basis of responses received from 23 MS, at least  14 MS 
have  a  legal  requirement  for  the  installation  of  amalgam  separators.  Annex  10C  presents  detailed 
information  from  which  it  can  be  seen  that  the  share  of  dental  practices  equipped  with  amalgam 
separators vary widely across MS. 

An  estimate  of  the  share  of  dental  facilities  equipped  with  amalgam  separators  is  available  for  16 
MS (see Annex 10C and Table 4-l below). 

Table 4-l: Share of dental facilities equipped with dental amalgam separators 

Share of dental facilities equipped with amalgam 
separators 

Member States 

~100% 

90-100% 

Unknown 

10 MS: AT, CZ, DK, FI, DE, LV, MT, PT, SE, UK 

5 MS: BE, CY, FR, IT, NL, SI 

11 MS: BG, EE, ES, GR, HU, IE, LT, LU, PL, RO, SK 

On  the  assumption  that  in  the  MS  where  no  concrete  information  is  available  only  20%  of  dental 
facilities  are equipped  with  separators, the average EU-wide  figure60 for dental  practices  equipped 
with amalgam separators is around 75%. 

Bio Intelligence Service  (2012) estimated that the actual  average efficiency was around  70%, as  a 
number  of  the  existing  separators  were  not  adequately  maintained.  On  the  basis  of  the  analysis 
presented  in  Annex  10B,  the  installation  of  properly  functioning  (95%  efficiency)  amalgam 
separators in all dental facilities would result in approximately 7 t/y of avoided mercury releases to 
urban Waste Water Treatment Plants (WWTP).  

The impact of imposing the use of separators in dental practices would be more significant in those 
MS where only a small proportion of dental facilities are already equipped with separators.  

A co-benefit of this option would be to increase the capture of other metals present in amalgam and 
released from dental chairs (e.g. Ag, Sn, Cu, and Zn).  

It would also increase the quantity of mercury-containing waste sent to hazardous waste treatment 
facilities (assuming 100% of the mercury waste generated will follow this route) and will avoid the 
presence  of  mercury  in  the  municipal  and  biomedical  waste  streams.  With  all  mercury-containing 
waste treated as hazardous waste, emissions of mercury to air and water resulting from inadequate 
waste handling and treatment will be avoided, which corresponds to approximately 7 t/y of avoided 
Hg emissions to air, 2 t/y of avoided mercury emissions to water and 11 t/y of avoided Hg emissions 

60  weighted by the number of dentists per MS (assumed to be proportional to the number of dental practices) 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 37 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
to  soil  and  groundwater  (based  on  the  environmental  assessment  presented  in  Annex 10B).  All 
mercury from dental waste will be either recycled or sequestered for long-term, essentially removing 
it from the global mercury pool where it could potentially become bioavailable and accumulate in 
the food chain. 

In case this option is implemented, the number of additional dental clinics that would have to install 
a separator had been estimated at 34 200. The cost of an amalgam separator had been estimated by 
COWI/Concorde (2007) to  be in  the range of 400-500 EUR/y  including installation, servicing, in-
situ  evaluation  of  filter  efficiency  and  accreditation,  while  Bio  Intelligence  (2008)  considered  a 
wider  range  of  150  to  750  EUR/y  as  more  appropriate,  given  the  small  size  of  European  dental 
clinics  (2,1  practising  dentists  per  dental  clinic).  The  installation  of  amalgam  separators  in  34 200 
dental clinics would therefore represent a total cost of 5 to 26 million EUR/y  (including amalgam 
sludge  treatment).  An  additional  cost  of 5  to  32  million  EUR/y  had  been  estimated  by  Bio 
Intelligence  Service  (2008)  with  regard  to  the    improved  maintenance  and  waste  management  of 
clinics already equipped with a separator but not yet reaching the expected 95% efficiency target. 

The cost of this sub-option for dentists would be counter-balanced by additional revenues for waste 
management companies involved in the maintenance of amalgam separators and/or in the collection 
and treatment of dental amalgam waste.  

The  implementation  of  sub-option  P6O1b  would  result  in  a  lower  mercury  content  of  dental 
effluents  entering  WWTPs.  This  may  reduce  the  need  for  municipalities  to  invest  in  expensive 
mercury  abatement  devices  in  sewage  sludge  incineration  plants.  In  certain  cases,  it  may  also 
increase  the  possibilities  of  using  sewage  sludge  for  agricultural  purposes,  a  cheaper  management 
option for sewage sludge. Overall, this will have a positive economic impact on municipalities, and 
consequently  on  local  taxpayers,  as  it  will  reduce  the  environmental  costs  associated  with  the 
management of mercury pollution from dental amalgam. 

Finally,  the  administrative  costs  of  P6O1b  for  public  authorities  mainly  correspond  to  increased 
awareness raising activities towards dental clinics and/or a higher frequency of inspections of dental 
clinics in order to ensure compliance. It is difficult to quantify these costs in the absence of adequate 
data.  Assuming  that  each  inspection  (including  a  visit  and  follow-up  reporting)  would  take 
approximately 4 hours and that 10% of EU dental clinics would be inspected each year, this would 
result in approximately 35 000 h annually, corresponding to a labour cost of approximately 1 million 
EUR/y  for  public  authorities61.  However,  the  actual  administrative  burden  across  the  EU  would 
probably  be  lower  since  effective  inspection  schemes  are  reportedly  already  in  place  in  some  MS 
(e.g.  Germany,  Sweden)  and  the  above  calculation  represents  a  rather  conservative  upper  limit 
estimate. If MS impose financial penalties as a tool to enforce compliance, some revenues might also 
be generated through the collection of fines, which may partly offset the labour costs dedicated to 
inspection. 

The impact of option P6O1b is expected to be positive with regard to employment. Job creation is to 
be expected in companies involved in the manufacturing, installation and maintenance of amalgam 
separators  and  in  companies  specialising  in  the  collection  and  treatment  of  mercury-containing 
waste.  Properly  functioning  dental  effluents’  treatment  devices  (chairside  traps  and  amalgam 
separators)  will  reduce  exposure  of  dental  personnel  to  mercury  vapours  and  would  hence  have  a 
positive impact to the health and safety of dental workers. 

61  at an hourly wage of 31 EUR 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 38 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
Option P6O1b would contribute significantly to the reduction of releases to urban WWTPs and 
corresponding releases to environmental media, particularly sewage sludge. A positive impact to 
public health and safety can thus be expected by the implementation of option P6O1b. 

Option P602 – prohibition of the use of dental amalgam 

The  economic  impacts  of  a  ban  on  dental  amalgam  had  been  examined  by  the  Bio  Intelligence 
Service study62 in 2012. When replacing 762 million dental amalgam restorations with mercury-free 
restorations  in  a  fifteen  year  reference  period  (2010-2025),  the  additional  costs  to  be  borne  by 
patients  had  been  estimated  at  3,9  to  27  billion  EUR  (or  8-54EUR  per  capita)  calculated  on  the 
assumption that the average cost difference between mercury-free restorations and dental amalgam 
would remain stable over the reference period. On the  assumption that the average cost difference 
between  mercury-free  restorations  and  dental  amalgam  would  decrease  by  3%  annually  the 
corresponding figures would be 2,9 to 20 billion EUR (or 6-40 EUR per capita).  

Detailed estimates for the countries where additional costs are expected are shown in the table below 
copied from the above-mentioned study: 

Table 4-m Additional costs borne by patients in case of a ban on the use of dental amalgam for the 

period 2010-2025 

MS with cost 
differences 

Total number of dental 
amalgam restorations 
substituted with Hg-free 
materials in 2010-2025 
(‘000) 

Additional costs 
borne by EU patients 
in 2010-2025 if no 
change in price 
difference (million 
EUR) 

Additional costs borne by 
EU patients in 2010-2025 
if 3% annual decrease in 
price difference (million 
EUR) 

13,954 - 23,722 

837 - 2,420 

622 - 1,797 

Austria 

Czech 
Republic 

Germany 

Greece* 

62,794 - 106,749 

1,005 - 1,708 

47,270 - 80,359 

0 - 2,411 

47,080 - 80,037 

518 - 2,129 

Netherlands* 

6,399 - 10,878 

Poland 

174,427 - 296,526 

Luxembourg* 

512 - 871 

Portugal* 

10,853 - 18,451 

70 - 2,89 

0 - 10,971 

1 - 8 

26 - 165 

746 - 1,269 

0 - 1,791 

385 - 1,581 

52 - 215 

0 - 8,149 

1 - 6 

19 - 123 

Romania* 

89,380 - 151,945 

983 - 4,042 

730 - 3,002 

Slovakia 

22,592 - 38,407 

Spain* 

Latvia 

46,922 - 79,767 

2,778 - 4,722 

0 - 307 

113 - 715 

0 - 38 

0 - 228 

84 - 531 

0 - 28 

62  Bio Intelligence Service S.A. (2012). Study on the potential for reducing mercury pollution from dental amalgam and 

batteries. Final report prepared for the European Commission. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 39 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
MS with cost 
differences 

Total number of dental 
amalgam restorations 
substituted with Hg-free 
materials in 2010-2025 
(‘000) 

Additional costs 
borne by EU patients 
in 2010-2025 if no 
change in price 
difference (million 
EUR) 

Additional costs borne by 
EU patients in 2010-2025 
if 3% annual decrease in 
price difference (million 
EUR) 

Lithuania* 

13,864 - 23,569 

Ireland 

Malta 

8,966 - 15,241 

1,726 - 2,934 

Slovenia* 

10,989 - 18,681 

153 - 627 

90 - 457 

0 - 17 

121 - 497 

113 - 466 

67 - 340 

13 - 0 

90 - 369 

EU27 

560,505 - 952,858 

3,934 - 26,784 

2,922 - 19,893 

* Estimated values. For these MS the average cost difference is assumed to be equal to the average value for the group of 
MS they belong to. 

NB: The average restoration costs take into account possible amounts reimbursed by national health insurance schemes, 
where they exist.  

Given  the  clear  disagreement  between  stakeholders  on  the  nature  of  potential  environmental  and 
health impacts of the use of dental amalgam, the Commission requested SCHER and SCENIHR to 
update  their  2008  opinions  on  the  basis  of  the  latest  scientific  information.  SCHER  published  an 
updated opinion in 2014, while SCENIHR’s opinion was published in May 2015.  
SCHER  concluded63  that  the  information  available  is  not  sufficient  for  a  comprehensive  risk 
assessment for the environment, in particular for soil and air. For the aquatic environment, mercury 
from dental amalgam does not represent a risk for European surface waters in general. However, a 
risk for the aquatic ecosystem cannot be completely excluded, as under exceptional local conditions, 
the amount of mercury released could be exceed the relevant environmental quality standards. 
The SCENIHR opinion64 issued in April 2015: 

  concluded  that  current  evidence  does  not  preclude  the  use  of  either  amalgam  or  alternative 
materials  in  dental  restorative  treatment.  However,  the  choice  of  material  should  be  based  on 
patient characteristics such as primary or permanent teeth, pregnancy, the presence of allergies to 
mercury  or  other  components  of  restorative  materials,  and  the  presence  of  impaired  renal 
clearance; 
recognised  a  need  for  further  research,  particularly  relating  to  (i)  evaluation  of  the  potential 
neurotoxicity  of  mercury  from  dental  amalgam  and  the  effect  of  genetic  polymorphisms  on 
mercury  toxicity  and  (ii)  to  expand  knowledge  of  the  toxicity  profile  of  alternative  dental 
restorative materials; and 
recommended that for primary teeth, and for pregnant patients, alternative materials to amalgam 
should be the first choice.  

 

 

The opinions of the scientific committees thus clearly indicate that significant negative impacts of 
dental  amalgam  on  health  are  not  proven,  but  there  may  be  situations  where  the  release  of  dental 
amalgam to water induces increased pollution endangering the quality of water. Furthermore, there 
is a clear declining trend of the use of dental amalgam mainly for aesthetic reasons. 

63 Environmental risks and indirect health effects of mercury from dental amalgam, SCHER, 2014 
64 The safety of dental amalgam and alternative dental restoration materials for patients and users, SCENIHR, 2015 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 40 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
Therefore, P6O2 would not be a proportionate measure and it is not retained for further assessment. 
P6O1a  and  P6O1b  would  score  equally  well  in  terms  of  coherence.  While  P6O1b  would  score 
higher in terms of effectiveness, both P6O1a and P6O1b are considered equally efficient. 

Therefore,  option  P6O2  would  not  be  a  proportionate  measure  and  it  is  not  retained  for  further 
assessment. 

Stakeholder consultation 

The majority of respondents in the public consultaion (85%) favoured option P6O2, while only 12% 
expressed  a  preference  for  option  P6O1.  Only  3%  of  the  participants  did  not  respond  to  this 
question, indicating the strong interest this issue raised among participants. Among individuals, 86% 
favoured  option  P6O2,  against  11%  favouring  option  P6O1  and  3%  not  responding.  Among 
organisations,  the  corresponding  figures  are  61%  for  P6O2,  23%  for  P6O1  and  16%  for  no 
response. Concerning sub-options P6O1a,b, 47% of the respondents gave the highest ranking (5) to 
option P6O1a, while acceptance was even higher (69% gave the highest ranking) for option P6O1b. 
It should be noted that the issue of dental amalgam is the most controversial as certain dentists are 
very  much  in  favour  of  an  immediate  prohibition  (option  P6O2),  while  the  Council  of  European 
Dentists (CED) rather support softer measures aiming at the gradual phase down of this use (option 
P6O1).  

Conclusion 

In  the  light  of  scientific  advice,  a  measure  prohibiting  the  use  of  dental  amalgam  would  not  be 
proportionate. Therefore option P602 is not assessed any further. 

Options  P601a  and  P601b  would  accelerate  current  trends  to  improved  practices,  i.e.  the  use  of 
dental  amalgam  capsules  rather  than  free  mercury  and  the  use  of  amalgam  separators  and  sound 
management of the dental amalgam waste. To comply with the Convention, the EU would have to 
implement at least one of those options. The EU could also choose to take both measures as they are 
independent and both reinforce current trends that are favourable to protection of human health and 
the environment.   

Therefore, taking both options P601a and P601b is preferred. It should be noted that the Council of 
European Dentists (CED), the main European professional association of dentists, has endorsed both 
the exclusive use of encapsulated amalgam and the use of amalgam separators in its resolution on 
responsible care65 already since November 2011. 

It  should  be  noted,  that  although  the  majority  of  the  businesses  concerned  would  qualify  as 
microenterprises, they would not be disproportionally affected by the proposed measures as: 

1.  given the type of activity they would not suffer from competition with larger undertakings, 
2.  the implementation cost of the measure is limited and would require only low investment, and 
3.  no jobs loss is expected in the dentistry sector.  

However,  as  such  undertakings  would  need  time  to  adapt  to  the  obligations  set  out  in  this 
Regulation, a transitional period could be granted before entry into force of the obligation. Finally, 
the requirement to use amalgam in an encapsulated form would not cause any additional burden to 
dentists who have opted out from using dental amalgam.  

65 CED resolution on responsible practice (2011) 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 41 of 186 

 
 
 
                                                 
5.  COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

5.1 

Definition of scenarios 

For  the  purpose  of  comparing  the  impacts  of  options,  it  is  helpful  to  define  packages  of  options 
covering  all  of  the  legislative  gaps  that  have  to  be  filled  in  order  to  ratify  the  MC.  Three  policy 
scenarios have been defined as follows: 

Scenario  1  is  defined  as  the  implementation  of  the  measures  identified  in  Section  4,  which 
correspond  to  the  strict  minimum  the  EU  would  have  to  do  in  order  to  comply  with  the  MC.  For 
dental amalgam it includes option P6O1a which has a lower economic cost than option P6O1b. 

Scenario 2 is the combination of the preferred options indicated in Section 4. 

Scenario 3 corresponds to a more stringent implementation approach, going beyond the provisions 
foreseen in the MC and composed of the stringent options that have a clear environmental and health 
benefit at EU and global levels. 

Scenario 1  

Scenario  1  follows  a  “simple  transposition”  approach,  meaning  that  EU  law  is  amended  only  as 
necessary  to  comply  with  the  provisions  of  the  MC,  without  going  beyond  the  minimum 
requirements.  

This  scenario  would  be  a  combination  of  all  O1  options  assessed  in  Sections  4.1  to  4.6.    This  is 
indicated in the following table: 

Option 

P1O1 

P2O1 

P3O1 

P4O1 

P5O1 

Description 

import restrictions at EU level for metallic mercury from non-Parties 

export prohibition of certain mercury-added products listed in MC Annex A 

notification of mercury use in new products and processes 

restriction of mercury use in certain processes listed in MC Annex B 

controls on mercury use in ASGM 

P6O1a 

restrict the use of dental amalgam to its encapsulated form 

Scenario 2 

Scenario 2 combines all preferred options. 

Option 

P1O1 

P2O1 

P3O2 

P4O1 

P5O1 

Description 

import restrictions at EU level for metallic mercury from non-Parties 

export prohibition of certain mercury-added products listed in MC Annex A 

prohibition of mercury use in new products and processes 

restriction of mercury use in certain processes listed in MC Annex B 

controls on mercury use in ASGM 

P6O1a 

restrict the use of dental amalgam to its encapsulated form 

P6O1b 
Scenario 3 

impose  the use of separators in dental practices 

Scenario 3  corresponds  to  a  stringent  implementation  approach  going  beyond  the  provisions 
foreseen in the MC that would consist of the options retained after the analysis in Section 5 as they 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 42 of 186 

 
 
have  a  clear  environmental  and  health  benefit  at  EU  and  global  levels.  Options  P1O2,  P2O2  and 
P6O2 that have not been retained are not included in this scenario, which is thus a combination of 
options P3O2, P4O2 with options P1O1, P2O1 and P6O1. 

Option 

P1O1 

P2O1 

P3O2 

P4O2 

P5O1 

Description 

import restrictions at EU level for metallic mercury from non-Parties 

export prohibition of certain mercury-added products listed in MC Annex A 

prohibition of mercury use in new products and processes 

prohibition of mercury use in certain processes 

controls on mercury use in ASGM 

P6O1a 

restrict the use of dental amalgam to its encapsulated form 

P601b 

impose  the use of separators in dental practices 

5.2 

Comparison of scenarios against the baseline 

The  combination  of  options  in  the  defined  scenarios  is  not  expected  to  create  synergies  or 
interactions between the options and therefore it is considered that costs and benefits of the separate 
options add up within the scenarios.  

The  impacts  of  the  ratification  of  the  MC  by  the  EU  can  be  analysed  from  two  perspectives:  the 
direct  impacts  caused  by  measures  taken  within  the  EU  and  the  indirect  impacts  resulting  from 
ratification by third countries. 

5.2.1 Indirect impacts 

Once implemented, important provisions of the Convention, such as phase out of existing primary 
mining,  prohibition  of  new  primary  mining,  ASGM  restrictions,  or  limitations  of  emissions  from 
industrial  activities,  are  expected  to  have  a  huge  positive  indirect  environmental  impact  both 
globally  and  for  the  EU,  while  the  additional  cost  for  the  EU  is  marginal,  as  such  activities 
practically do not exist on the EU territory or are already regulated.  

As  it  is  expected  that  all  major  EU  trading  partners  would  adhere  to  the  Convention,  the  indirect 
positive  impacts  on  competitiveness  resulting  from  ratification  by  third  countries  is  likely  to  be 
significant: 

  The Convention foresees a number of measures that mirror existing EU legislation on products 
(restrictions on mercury use imposed by the batteries directive, RoHS, REACH etc). European 
companies  have  already  developed  products  (e.g.  low  mercury  content  batteries,  fluorescent 
lamps) needed to comply with existing legislation, their production therefore would practically 
need no adaptation due to the ratification of the MC. On the contrary, many non-EU countries 
would need to adapt considerably after the phase-out date foreseen by the Convention in order to 
reach the standards prescribed in Annex A of the MC. 

  As third countries implement the Convention, they will apply similar standards as those currently 
in force within the EU to many industrial activities. This will help address potential competitive 
advantages currently enjoyed by companies in third countries due to more relaxed (or even non-
existing) environmental standards and possibly open new markets for EU companies specialising 
in  environmental  technology.  For  example,  the  Convention  provisions  on  mercury  emissions 
from certain industrial activities (in particular the production of cement, non-ferrous metals, iron 
and steel sectors as well as energy production using coal) will practically expand the use of Best 
Available Techniques and Best Environmental Practices (already applied by the EU industry) to 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 43 of 186 

 
 
numerous industrial facilities emitting mercury on the global scale. Thus, the entry into force of 
the Convention will improve the competitive position of EU companies in these sectors. 

  Following  the  entry  into  force  of  the  MC,  EU  companies  may  also  capitalise  on  their  existing 
patent portfolios and know-how relating to non-mercury technologies by technology transfer and 
joint ventures with companies situated in third countries. 

5.2.2 Direct impacts 

Table 5-a below lists the identified impacts of the three scenarios against the baseline.  

Table 5-a Comparison against the baseline 

Alternatives 

Economic 

Environmental 

Social 

Impacts 

Scenario 1 

3-77 million EUR/y  

Scenario 2 

13-135 million EUR/y  

Scenario 3 

71-135 million EUR/y  

++ 

+++ 

+++ 

0 

+ 

- 

Direct Economic Impacts 

In  all  cases,  the  measures  taken  by  the  EU  to  comply  with  the  Convention  have  limited  direct 
economic impacts. As these impacts do not concern exporting sectors, but mainly other sectors (e.g. 
dentists), any negative impact on EU competitiveness is likely to be negligible, in contrast with the 
positive indirect impacts of entry into force of the Minamata Convention on competiveness. 

The  most  significant  economic  impacts  are  expected  in  the  chemicals  production  sector,  where  a 
mercury process is currently applied in two German plants for the production of alcoholates used for 
various catalytic processes. 

Total cost of Scenario 1 is estimated at 3-77 million EUR/y mainly due to the provision on phase-
out of mercury use in certain processes. The cost range is large as it uncertain whether two industrial 
plants will be converted to mercury-free processes. Some limited additional costs are expected that 
could  not  be  quantified.  This  includes  mainly  the  costs  of  equipping  dental  practices  with  the 
appropriate  amalgamator  to  enable  the  use  of  pre-dosed  capsules,  which  is  expected  to  be  low  as 
recent information suggests that most dentists are already equipped with such devices.  

Scenario 2  (preferred  scenario)  entails  an  additional  cost  of  10-58  million  EUR/y  in  relation  to 
Scenario  1  due  to  the  extra  cost  of  installing  and  maintaining  amalgam  separators.  However,  this 
Scenario would also result in avoided health damage costs in the range of 35-140 million EUR/y66, 
and an increased annual turnover for the EU waste management and recycling sector, linked also to 
a positive impact on EU employment, reflected in an improved environmental and social impact in 
relation to Scenarios 1a and 1b.  

The  lower  end  of  the  cost  range  for  Scenario  3  is  significantly  higher  than  for  the  two  other 
scenarios as it implies the conversion of two industrial plants to mercury-free processes. 

66  Bio Intelligence Service S.A. (2012). Study on the potential for reducing mercury pollution from dental amalgam and 

batteries. Final report prepared for the European Commission. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 44 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
Direct Environmental Impacts 

Whilst,  the  measures  taken  within  the  EU  to  ratify  the  MC  would  deliver  additional  direct 
environmental  benefits  in  terms  of  reduced  use  and  emissions  of  mercury,  this  would  be  more 
modest that the indirect environmental benefits. 

All three scenarios generate environmental benefits by reducing the trade of mercury and its use in 
products and processes, hence reducing the emissions of mercury to the environment within the EU 
and  globally.  These  environmental  benefits  are  however  much  less  significant  than  the  indirect 
environmental  benefits  that  will  be  obtained  from  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Convention  and  its 
application by third countries, which will help solving the main remaining mercury problem, i.e. the 
transboundary transport of mercury pollution from third countries. 

Scenarios 2 and 3 have more significant environmental benefits as they include a measure that will 
end  the  major  release  of  mercury  to  water  within  the  EU,  i.e.  installation  of  dental  amalgam 
separators at dental clinics. 

As the positive environmental impact of solving the mercury releases to water from dental clinics is 
significantly greater than the positive environmental impact of the options defined for the other areas 
addressed in this impact assessment, the difference in environmental benefits generated by scenarios 
2 and 3 are very small. 

Direct Social Impacts 

Scenario 1 entails the loss of jobs due mainly to the restrictions imposed on products and processes 
and hence a negative social impact. However, reduced occupational health and safety risks for dental 
workers thanks to option P6O1a generate positive impacts. 

Given the additional positive contribution of P6O1b compared to Scenario 1, Scenario 2 would be 
expected  to  have  a  positive  social  impact  with  some  job  creation  in  the  sector  involved  in 
manufacturing  of  amalgam  separators  and  the  waste  sector  as  well  as  improved  safety  for  dental 
workers.  Some  job  losses  might  occur  due  to  restricting  the  use  of  mercury  in  products  and 
processes, however there are less likely than under Scenario 3. 

On  top  of  the  measures  included  in  Scenario  2,  Scenario  3  entails  prohibitions  of  mercury  use  in 
certain processes generating limited job losses. 

5.2.3 Effectiveness, efficiency and coherence 

As  the  indirect  impacts  are  the  same  for  all  three  scenarios  and  are  significantly  bigger  than  the 
direct  impacts,  there  is  only  a  small  difference  in  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  coherence  between 
these scenarios. 

Scenario  2  gathers  the  individual  options  that  come  out  most  favourably  in  the  analysis  of 
effectiveness, efficiency and coherence presented in section 4 for the sub-options: 

  Effectiveness: Scenario 2 compares favourably to Scenario 1 as it enables the EU to drastically 
reduce the emissions of mercury to water that mainly originate from dental clinics not equipped 
with  amalgam  separators.  Scenario  3  is  slightly  more  effective  than  Scenario  2  as  it  reduces 
more the mercury emissions to air from two plants; 

  Efficiency:    Scenario  2  has  the  highest  efficiency  as  it  includes  measures  with  high  emission 

reductions but excludes measures with high costs for very limited emissions; 

  Coherence:  Scenarios 1 and  2 show good coherence; there is  uncertainty  on the coherence of 
Scenario 3 as it might affect the good functioning of certain downstream economic activities.  

5.2.4 Preferred Scenario 

As a result of the above analysis, the preferred scenario is Scenario 2. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 45 of 186 

 
 
6.  MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

One  of  the  main  objectives  of  this  action  is  early  entry  into  force  of  the  MC  and  its  broad 
implementation globally. A key progress indicator is the number of ratifications of the MC. As the 
Convention  will  enter  into  force  after  50  Parties  have  ratified,  the  EU  (along  with  its  MS)  could 
actually trigger the entry into force once 22 ratifications have been reached. 

Art. 19 of the MC includes provisions on monitoring, while Art. 21 of the MC summarises reporting 
obligations for all Parties, concerning trade, processes, ASGM, emissions and releases. The format 
of reporting will be decided by the Conference of the Parties at its first meeting (possibly in 2017).  

Environmental performance of the measures on the European and global scale can be judged thanks 
to existing monitoring mechanisms.  

Environmental impacts of mercury pollution have been monitored within certain projects funded by 
the Commission as early as 1998, e.g.:  

  MAMCS   
  MOE 
  MERCYMS  An Integrated Approach to Assess the Mercury Cycling in the  

Mediterranean Atmospheric Mercury Cycle System  
Mercury Over Europe 

Mediterranean Basin  

More  recently  (2010-2015),  the  Commission  contributed  6,8  million  EUR  to  a  9 million  EUR 
project involving more than 20 partners and aiming to establish a worldwide observation system for 
the measurement of atmospheric mercury. 

  GMOS 

Global Mercury Observation System. 

GMOS supported various international programmes (such as the UNEP mercury programme and the 
Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme - AMAP) that helped build the case for global action 
and reach agreement on the MC in 2013. 

Detailed  information  is  available  on  the  project  website  (www.gmos.eu),  the  project  will  be 
completed  by  the  end  of  2015,  but  the  consortium  envisages  its  extension  to  the  developing 
countries, provided further financial support is available. 

As  the  main  source  of  human  exposure  is  methylmercury  in  fish  and  seafood,  achievement  of  the 
objectives would ultimately be judged by reductions in the concentration of methylmercury in fish 
and seafood products intended for human consumption.  

The  first  Conference  of  the  Parties  will  establish  a  monitoring  system  that  will  provide  the 
information  needed  for  the  evaluation  of  the  Convention’s  performance.  The  Commission  will 
coordinate implementation at EU level. Concerning dental amalgam, the main issue to monitor is the 
reduced  impact  of  mercury  releases  on  water  quality  and  operation  of  urban  waste  water  plants, 
which will be based on information gathered under existing EU water legislation. 

Concerning  products,  imports  surveillance  would  be  based  on  existing  systems  operated  by  MS 
customs, while market surveillance would be based on existing national systems, whereby operators 
who wish to place a new product on the market must inform the competent national authorities. 

Art. 22  of  the  MC  foresees  an  effectiveness  evaluation  no  later  than  six  years  after  the  entry  into 
force of the Convention. As the global dimension would be a major aspect of any evaluation of EU 
mercury policy, the EU will undertake a full-fledged review and evaluation of its mercury policy in 
parallel to the Convention's effectiveness evaluation. 

On the assumption that the Convention will enter into force in 2017, an effectiveness evaluation will 
take  place  by  2023  at  Convention  level.  It  is  at  this  stage  that  the  EU  would  undertake  a  full 
evaluation of mercury policy and legislation. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 46 of 186 

 
 
 
 
7. ANNEXES 

ANNEX 1 – PROCEDURAL INFORMATION  

Lead DG: DG ENV 

Agenda planning/WP reference: 2014/ENV/014 

Organisation and timing  

Work on this impact assessment started in September 2013, when DG ENV signed a contract with 
an  external  contractor  to  assess  the  impacts  of  potential  measures  envisaged  in  view  of  the 
ratification by the EU of the Minamata Convention on Mercury. 

An Impact Assessment Steering Group (IASG) led by DG ENV was set up in December 2013 and 
met 4 times since then, between January 2014 and September 2015. Whilst the  Directorates-General 
(DGs)  of  the  Commission  SG,  SJ,  ECFIN,  GROW,  EMPL,  ENER,  CLIMA,  TAXUD,  SANTE, 
TRADE  and  DEVCO  were  invited  to  participate  in  the  work  of  this  group,  EMPL  and  CLIMA 
declined whereas ECFIN and ENER did not nominate any representative. GROW, TRADE and SG 
were the DGs that contributed the most actively to the work of the IASG. All nominated members of 
the group were regularly consulted and informed on progress. 

Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

The Regulatory Scrutiny Board issued a positive overall opinion with three main recommendations 
on potential further improvements. 

1. To  include  information  on  the  likelihood  that  the  most  important  mercury  emitters  amond  third 

countries would ratify the Convention and how the Convention would be enforced. 

This was addressed by inserting a new subsection in Section 4, where the important role of certain 
third countries in terms of mercury pollution is highlighted and the role of an EU ratification in their 
decision to ratify is explained. The importance of an early ratification by the EU in influencing the 
compliance mechanism and consequently enforcement of the Convention is also made clear. 

2. To  assess  the  impact  of  the  Convention  on  the  competitive  position  of  EU  companies  vis-à-vis 

companies of third countries. 

The impact of the MC ratification on the competitiveness of EU companies was better explained, by 
providing  specific  examples  (e.g.  in  relation  to  mercury-added  products,  Section  1.5),  by  better 
defining  the  baseline  (Section  4)    and  by  inserting  additional  explanation  in  Section  5.2  which 
compares impacts against the baseline. 

3. To better explain the reasons for discarding a ban on dental amalgam. 

Additional information on the economic impacts of option P6O2 was included in Section 4.6  

A  number  of  other  comments  of  more  technical  nature  were  also  addressed  by  amending  the 
corresponding sections, or providing additional information where needed.  

External expertise and consultation of interested parties 

This impact assessment draws on knowledge and expertise on mercury built up over several years 
both  in  the  EU  and  internationally.  A  broad  range  of  studies  have  been  taken  into  consideration, 
notably those commissioned by DG ENV67, but also work done by UNEP within the framework of 

67  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/studies_en.htm  

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 47 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
the international negotiations for a global mercury convention, and other organisations (e.g. WHO, 
EFSA). References to the most important background work are provided in the above list of sources 
and evidence.  

The Commission assessed in detail the impacts of various options for filling the legislative gaps and 
was supported in this through a study contract signed with ICF International in September 2013. The 
current impact assessment is to a great extent based on the conclusions of this study68.  

Sources used in the impact assessment  

The main sources and evidence that have been used in the course of the elaboration of this Impact 
Assessment Report are listed in the appendix to this annex. 

Whereas there was no single statistical and scientific model that could be used to assess the mercury 
issues addressed in this report, the robustness and quality of those sources and evidence has not been 
challenged  by  the  experts  and  stakeholders  who  have  been  consulted  throughout  the  IA  process, 
including  at  the  workshop  organised  on  7  July  2014  with  MS  authorities  and  stakeholders  (see 
Appendix A to Annex 2).    

APPENDIX -  LIST OF SOURCES AND EVIDENCE      

BASF/EVONIK  (2012):  Factual  Information  on  alcoholate  specialties  derived  from  amalgam 
process. Received from EVONIK 2014. 

Biodiesel  Magazine  (2012):  Catalyzing  Biodiesel  Growth  -  An  analysis  of  conventional  acid  and 
base  catalysts  used  in  today’s  biodiesel  industry  (by  Brian  Sims).  Biodiesel  Magazine,  2012, 
accessed March 2014 at http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/articles/8371/catalyzing-biodiesel-growth. 

BIO IS (2010): Review of the Community Strategy Concerning Mercury. Bio Intelligence Service. 
Final 
at 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/pdf/review_mercury_strategy2010.pdf 

Environment. 

Commission, 

Available 

European 

report. 

DG 

BIO  IS  (2012):  Study  on  the  potential  for  reducing  mercury  pollution  from  dental  amalgam  and 
batteries.  Bio  Intelligence  Service.  Final  report.  European  Commission,  DG  Environment,  11  July 
2012. 

BiPRO  (2010):  Requirements  for  facilities  and  acceptance  criteria  for  the  disposal  of  metallic 
mercury. BiPRO on behalf of European Commission, DG Environment. Final report, 16 April 2010 

CEMBUREAU  (2014):  Personal  communication  with  Vagner  Maringolo,  CEMBUREAU,  July 
2014. 

CEWEP  (2014):  Personal  communication  with  Marta  Gurin,  CEWEP,  Confederation  of  European 
Waste-to-Energy Plants, July 2014. 

Concorde  East/West  (2006):  Mercury  flows  and  safe  storage  of  surplus  mercury.  Available  at 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/pdf/hg_flows_safe_storage.pdf 

Concorde East/West (2004): Mercury flows in Europe and the world: - The impact of 
decommissioned chlor-alkali plants. Available at 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/pdf/report.pdf 

68  ICF,  COWI,  BiPRO,  Garrrigues  (2015).  Study  on  EU  Implementation  of  the  Minamata  Convention  on  Mercury 

(March 2015) 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 48 of 186 

 
 
 
                                                 
COWI (2012): Cost effectiveness of options for a global legally binding instrument on mercury - in 
the perspective of the European Union. Available at 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/pdf/Report-Support-Hg-Negotiations.pdf 

COWI (2014): Survey of mercury and mercury compounds. Part of the LOUS-review. 
Environmental Project No. 1544, 2014. COWI for the Danish EPA. Available at 
http://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2014/01/978-87-93026-98-8.pdf 

COWI and Concorde East/West (2008): Options for reducing mercury use in products and 
applications, and the fate of mercury already circulating in society. For the European Commission, 
DG Environment. Available January 2014 at 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/pdf/study_report2008.pdf. 

EC  (2014b):  Proposal  for  a  Directive  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the 
limitation  of  the  emission  of  certain  pollutants  in  to  the  air  from  medium  combustion  plants  – 
Information note. COM info note EC ST10056-EN14 on MCP Dir. 

EC  (2014c):  Proposal  for  a  Directive  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the 
limitation  of  the  emission  of  certain  pollutants  in  to  the  air  from  medium  combustion  plants  – 
Information note. COM memo ST10976-EN14 Cion aggregation rule. 

ECHA  (2014a).  ECHA  database  on  registered  substances.  European  Chemicals  Agency  (ECHA). 
Accessed  14  April  2014  at:  http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/information-on-chemicals/registered-
substances 

EnviroCat (2014): Personal communication with E. Beaurepaire and B. Gastinne, March-May 2014. 

Evonik (2014): Personal communication with Norbert Nimmerfroh, Evonik, and submitted material, 
April 2014. 

EPBA (2014): Personal communication with Nicolas Fuentes Colomer, August 2014.  

EPBA (2015): Personal communication with Hans Craen, January 2015.  

Eurelectric (2014): Personal communication with Hélène Lavray, July 2014. 

Eurometaux (2014): Personal communication with Director Guy Thiran. December 2014. 

European  Commission  (2013).  Best  Available  Techniques  (BAT)  Reference  Document  for  Large 
Combustion Plants. Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU. Joint Research Centre. Draft 1 (June 
2013).  

European Commission (2013). JRC Reference Reports. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference 
Document for the Production  of Cement, Lime, Magnesium Oxide.  Industrial  Emissions Directive 
2010/75/EU. 2013.  

GIMS (2011): «Mercury free» sodium methylate: A green alternative for biodiesel manufacturing. 
Sodium Methylate Importers Association (GIMS), June 2011. Received from Envirocat in personal 
communication with E. Beaurepaire, March 2014.  

ICF, COWI, BiPRO, Garrrigues (2015). Study on EU Implementation of the Minamata Convention 
on Mercury (March 2015) 

Jackson, S. (2006): Standard – for good reason. Biodiesel Magazine, 2006. Accessed March 2014 at 
http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/articles/715/standard-for-good-reason. 

LightingEurope  (2014):  Personal  communication  with  Attila  Mórotz,  LightingEurope,  Brussels, 
August 2014. 

UNECE  (2012).  Press  Release.  UNECE  Air  Convention  Parties  adopt  more  stringent  controls  of 
heavy metals emissions and measures to help Parties from Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central 
Asia to join in. Available at: http://www.unece.org/index.php?id=31845 [Accessed 30 May 2014]   

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 49 of 186 

 
 
UNEP  (2010):  Study  on  mercury  sources  and emissions,  and  analysis  of  cost  and  effectiveness  of 
control  measures  “UNEP  Paragraph  29  study”.  UNEP,  Division  of  Technology,  Industry  and 
Economics (DTIE), Chemicals Branch, Geneva, Switzerland, November, 2010 

UNEP (2011): Technical guidelines for the environmentally sound management of wastes consisting 
of elemental mercury and wastes containing  or contaminated with  mercury. UNEP,  Conference of 
the  Parties  to  the  Basel  Convention  on  the  Control  of  Transboundary  Movements  of  Hazardous 
Wastes and Their Disposal UNEP/CHW.10/6/Add.2/Rev.1, Unedited Advance, 31. October 2011. 

UNEP,  2011a:  Further  comparative  analysis  of  options  for  financial  mechanisms  to  support  the 
global legally binding instrument on mercury. UNEP(DTIE)/Hg/INC.3/4. UNEP, Aug 2011. 

UNEP (2013): Toolkit for Identification and Quantification of Mercury Releases, Reference Report 
and  Guideline  for  Inventory,  Level  2,  Version  1.2.  UNEP,  Division  of  Technology,  Industry  and 
Economics (DTIE), Chemicals Branch, Geneva, Switzerland, April, 2013. 

USGS (2013): Mineral commodity summaries – Mercury. 
Accessed at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/mercury/  

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 50 of 186 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2 – STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION   

MS  authorities  and  stakeholders,  including  major  players  (e.g.  BASF,  Lightening  Europe, 
Eurelectric,  CED)  and  environmental  non-governmental  organisations  (e.g. 
the  European 
Environmental Bureau) were consulted at a workshop held in Brussels on 7 July 2014. The basis for 
the  consultation  was  the  draft  study  contracted  by  the  Commission  and  carried  out  by 
ICF/COWI/BiPRO/Garrigues. The objective was to ask and obtain from participants views, data and 
information  that  would  help  to  strengthen  the  collective  understanding  of  the  nature,  scale  and 
distribution  of  the  impacts  of  the  various  measures  considered  in  the  study.  In  complement  to 
opinions raised at the workshop, written comments were submitted by stakeholders and several MS 
to follow-up on their interventions at the workshop. Input received was taken into account in in the 
consultants'  report.  All  written  contributions  received  were  made  publicly  available  on  the 
Commission's website. 

A  summary  of  the  main  issues  discussed  in  of  the  workshop  is  provided  in  Appendix  A  to  this 
Annex. 

A  broad  on-line  public  consultation  was  run  from  14 August 2014  until  14  November 2014  and 
publicised on the  "Your voice in Europe" webpage69 using a questionnaire70. The objective of this 
survey was to get a better understanding of the views of the public and stakeholders concerning the 
ratification of the MC and specific issues related to the transposition and implementation of the MC 
and  in  particular  in  relation  to  the  key  areas  where  EU  legislation  may  need  to  be  amended.  The 
target  groups  were  citizens,  public  authorities,  research  organisations,  academia,  non-profit/non-
their  representative 
governmental  organisations,  consultancies  and  private  companies  and 
organisations. DG ENV informed major stakeholders (e.g. MS, Euro Chlor, EPBA, CED, EEB and 
various NGOs) of this consultation.  

The  results of  the  on-line  public consultation  are  summarised  and  presented in  Appendix  B  to this 
Annex. 

69 http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/consultations  
70 Questionnaire available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/pdf/MinamataConvention.pdf   

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 51 of 186 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
APPENDIX A – STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP OF 7 JULY 2014 

This Appendix summarises the issues raised by stakeholders in the workshop of 7 July 2014 on the 
basis of an interim draft report made available by the consultant. Each topic was introduced through 
a presentation with slides that were made available to all participants. 

Mercury supply & waste 

The  contractor  presented  key  findings  on  the  impacts  of  measures  to  implement  the  Minamata 
Convention’s  provisions  on  the  supply  of  mercury  and  environmentally  sound  management  of 
mercury  waste71,  especially  the requirement  of  MC  Art.  3(8) to  introduce  a  binding  obligation  for 
the Parties to restrict the import of mercury from new primary mining and excess mercury of chlor-
alkali  facilities  from  Non-Parties  and  Art. 11(3)  relating  to  recycling  of  mercury  (etc.).  While  a 
minimal implementation of these Articles were assessed to have no major impacts within the EU, the 
presentation  noted  that  a  combination  of  a  mercury  import  prohibition  and  prohibition  of  mercury 
recycling - in a scenario where the EU goes beyond the requirements of the MC  - would in effect 
eliminate the supply of mercury to the EU.  It also discussed the balance of the measures, impacts 
within the EU and elsewhere in the world, and the associated uncertainties in predicting the response 
of the world market. 

The subsequent discussion centred on: 

 

 

 

the content, conclusions and availability of a study prepared for the German government on the 
environmental  impacts  of  final  storage  of  metallic  mercury  wastes  above  ground,  in  hard  rock 
and in salt mines72; 
the  signalling  effect  of  the  EU  allowing  storage  of  liquid  mercury  in  salt  mines  for  third 
countries that might not have similar storage possibilities; 

the  collaboration  in  progress  on  mercury  waste management  under the UNEP  mercury  storage 
partnership, which included a review of solidification technologies; 

  what activities are being captured in EU data on trade in mercury and mercury compounds (e.g.  

reported mercury exports in 2012 and 2013); 

 

 

 

 

the challenges of making decisions in the face of the uncertainty about how EU action to restrict 
imports or impose restrictions on recycling would impact on the global mercury market; 

the  need  for  prior  informed  consent,  documentation  and  traceability  to  support  any  system  of 
regulated imports, including distinguishing between mercury from recycled and other sources; 

the definition of high and low concentration mercury wastes; 

the presence of implementation and enforcement challenges of new and existing legislation. 

The Commission noted the uncertainty associated with the some of the measures and that the margin 
for  improvement  is  comparatively  modest  compared  to  the  progress  already  made  in  the  EU  in 
reducing the environmental and health risks associated with mercury. 

Mercury use in processes 

71  Supply/imports  covered  in  slides  16  to  27,  waste  in  28-39  and  final  disposal  in  slides  40-43  of  the  presentation 
available to download at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/pdf/Final-Presentation-EU-Hg.pdf  
72  Hagemann et al. 2014: Study investigating the risks for operational and long-term safety of underground storages of 
metallic mercury in salt formations and their potential mobilisation by saline solutions.  Available to download from 
https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/378/publikationen/texte_07_2014_behaviour_of_mercur
y_and_mercury_compounds_at_the_underground_disposal_in_salt_formations-summary.pdf  

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 52 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
The  contractor  presented  the  analysis  of  the  potential  EU  response  to  the  Minamata  Convention’s 
regulation of mercury use in processes.  Relevant terms here are Art. 5(3 and 6) and Part II of Annex 
B  which  covers  VCM,  polyurethanes  and  alcoholates.  The  presentation  focused  on  alcoholates 
production where the most significant impacts were expected to arise. It was noted that general, but 
not  specific  coverage,  is  provided  by  the  IED.    The  MC  would  require  the  EU  to  make  efforts  to 
phase out of mercury-based alcoholates production; an alternative ‘beyond MC’ option would be to 
introduce a new regulation that banned alcoholates production using mercury cells. 

The ensuing discussion covered: 

  The estimation of mercury releases avoided by cessation of such processes (as compared to the 

costs implicated); 

  The implications for the EU economy of a ban on mercury-based processes, the availability of 
alternative  processes  for  production  of  different  alcoholates  and  the  costs  of  any  transition  to 
such processes; 

  The interpretation of the MC terms governing a phase-out of mercury in this production. 

  That regulation of polyurethanes and VCM would also be needed. 

Participants were  again asked to supply  information  on:  available alternatives especially regarding 
potassium  ethylate;  impacts  on  downstream  users  of  cessation  of  potassium  ethylate  production; 
costs of reduction of emissions and releases from the mercury process. 

Emissions and releases 

The  presentation  on  the  study’s  findings  in  relation  to  mercury  emissions  and  releases  focused  on 
MC Art. 8 and Annex D, noting also the option provided (Art. 8(2)) to “establish criteria to identify 
the  sources  covered  within  a  source  category  listed  in  Annex  D  so  long  as  those  criteria  for  any 
category  include  at  least  75  per  cent  of  the  emissions  from  that  category”.  The  target  source 
categories are coal-fired power plants; coal-fired industrial boilers; smelting and roasting processes 
used  in  the  production  of  lead,  zinc,  copper  and  industrial  gold;  waste  incineration  facilities;  and 
cement clinker production facilities.  The presentation highlighted the coverage in the EU provided 
by  the  IED  and  the  forthcoming  MCP  Directive,  but  also  that  there  was  still  work  to  be  done  to 
define aspects of the MC requirements and that the outcomes of those negotiations could potentially 
have  impacts  for  the  EU.  The  contractor  flagged  the  lack  of  data  on  how  much  of  the  mercury 
emissions  are  currently  covered  by  the  IED  for  certain  source  categories.  The  ensuing  discussion 
provided: 

  Offers of data on mercury emissions and activity rates; 

 

Information of participants that representatives of the cement industry are working to establish 
EU  BAT  conclusions  as  the  basis  for  definition  of  global  standards  in  current  global  industry 
discussions on reducing the air pollution associated with cement production. 

Products and processes 

Art. 4(6) and 5(7), respectively, require the discouragement of the manufacture and the distribution 
in commerce of new mercury-added products, and the introduction of new mercury-based processes. 
The  presentation  of  the  study’s  work  on  regulation  of  mercury  in  products  (for  export  and  EU 
domestic consumption) looked in particular at the gaps between standards defined in the MC and EU 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 53 of 186 

 
 
 
 
law,  and  the  absence  of  inventions  and  innovations  dependent  on  mercury  in  recent  decades.  
Meeting participants mentioned: 

  Offers  of  data  on  current  export  of  mercury-added  products  restricted  in  the  EU  and  the  MC, 

respectively; 

  The EU’s role as a source of the mercury that is used in artisanal gold mining in South America 

and elsewhere; 

  The option of having a notification system for innovations that involved use of mercury; 
  The  reported  emergence  of  some  products  containing  mercury  in  the  US  (e.g.  “tennis  elbow” 

arm band with mercury). 

Dental amalgam 

The Convention requires parties to phase down the use of dental amalgam, taking into account their 
domestic circumstances and relevant international guidance. The contractor explained that the study 
was  not  tasked  with  developing  new  analysis  on  dental  amalgam  given  the  previous  studies  and 
work of the scientific committees.  The shape of potential options for compliance and going beyond 
compliance with the Minamata Convention (via a ban on amalgam) had, however, been outlined. 

In  the  discussion,  various  views  were  presented  on  the  further  regulation  of  dental  amalgam,  the 
relative merits (and costs) of amalgam and its substitutes, and implications of providing exemptions 
from a general ban on use of amalgam.  The Commission noted that two scientific committees have 
been  considering  the  amalgam  question;  the  SCHER  opinion  (which  focuses  mostly  on 
environmental issues) was published in March 2014 and the SCENIHR opinion (on the health risks) 
is in preparation. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 54 of 186 

 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX B – RESULTS OF THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION   

Summary 

The  on-line  public  consultation  on  the  EU  ratification  of  the  MC  reached  a  significant  level  of 
participation. In  total 3 702 responses from individuals and organisations were  received, including 
6 405 comments. The questionnaire included 8 thematic questions, 6 questions concerning specific 
MC  provisions  (such  as 
in  new 
products/processes,  restrictions  on  certain  processes  using  mercury  and  dental  amalgam)  and  2 
general questions seeking feedback on current EU legislation (and in particular the Mercury Export 
Ban Regulation) and general suggestions on the implementation of the Convention. 

import  restrictions,  product  exports,  use  of  mercury 

Individuals  from  28  MS  and  organisations  from  18  MS,  as  well  as  respondents  from  14  non-EU 
countries  participated  in  this  survey.  The  United  Kingdom  (937  responses),  Germany  (825)  and 
France (654) were the countries with the highest participation rates, whereas MS which joined the 
EU  after  2004  had  the  lowest  response  rates  (2  responses  from  Lithuania,  up  to  45  from  Poland). 
Whilst  most  of  the  participants  (98%)  were  individuals,  contributions  were  also  received  from  81 
organisations representing a wide variety of stakeholders.  

The  categories  of  respondents,  individuals  and  organisations,  have  been  analysed  in  more  detail 
concerning  number,  distribution  and  content  of  the  responses  and  the  comments  provided. 
Additionally, 81 participating organisations were analysed according to their type, stakeholder and 
interest group aspects and then grouped in clusters.  

Participants  included  organisations  representing  the  traditional  green  and  environmental  sectors, 
representatives  of  the  medical  and  health  sector,  medical  industry,  labour  unions  and  the  private 
sector, including the chemicals, waste and mining sectors, as well as representatives of governments. 
Hence, a wide range of interests and points of view is reflected in the responses received. 

Significant  differences  between  the  interests  of  individual  respondents  and  organisations  can  be 
observed.  While  individual  respondents  mostly  focused  on  dental  amalgam  and  the  corresponding 
health issues, participating organisations were rather interested in a broad range of mercury-related 
issues  and  delivered  substantial  contributions  concerning  regulatory  amendments  needed  vis-à-vis 
the  MC.  In  this  context,  it  should  be  mentioned  that  a  significant  number  of  participants  did  not 
answer all of the questions (On average, 40% the questions remained unanswered). 

There were no significant differences in the content of the responses given by individual respondents 
and  organisations.  Most  of  them  (39-85%)  opted  for  a  stricter  approach  in  transposing  and 
implementing  the  MC  and  the  respective  amendments  to  EU  law.  A  rather  small  number  of 
respondents (2-12%) preferred a less strict approach, but then justified their decision with detailed 
arguments  in  the  comments  area  and  only  very  few  demanded  exemptions  for  mercury  use  in 
products  and  processes.  Nevertheless,  also  these  participants,  who  were  in  favour  of  a  less  strict 
approach,  shared the  opinion that  the  use  of  mercury  in  the  EU  and  world-wide  should  be  phased 
down.  

The vast majority of respondents expressed their serious concerns about the effects  of mercury on 
the environment and health and requested a strict and consistent approach, as well as a phase out of 
the  use  of  mercury  in  the  short  term.  A  large  number  of  participants  mentioned  that  they  were 
affected by mercury poisoning either themselves or their friends or relatives. A significant number 
of  dentists  and  people  of  the  medical  sector  reported  their  negative  experiences  with  mercury, 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 55 of 186 

 
 
especially  relating  to  dental  amalgam.  More  than  half  of  the  representatives  of  the  private  sector 
were also in favour of an approach going further than the MC, while advocating for a consistent and 
well prepared regulatory implementation process. 

1.  Approach to the analysis of the survey 

The information gathered through the online consultation was analysed and the results are presented 
in this report. 

Regarding the quantitative representativeness of the responses, 3.702 responses from all over the EU 
and  non-EU  countries  were  received.  Individuals  from  all  28 MS  participated  as  well  as 
organisations from 18 MS. 

Answers that could be judged as biased (e.g. exactly the same responses and comments by several 
respondents)  were  studied,  and  their  significance  concerning  the  overall  results  of  the  survey  was 
assessed. Certain obvious errors were corrected when analysing the results. 

With regard to the representativeness of the stakeholder groups that took part to this consultation, the 
analysis of the data and comments differentiates between individual respondents and organisations 
while taking into consideration the type of organisation or sector. For questions 1 to 6 an analysis of 
the  responses  by  organisations  has  been  added  concerning  each  of  the  following  sectors:  private 
(15), NGOs (43) and others (consultancy, research, educational, national government, regional/local 
authority and other; 26). 

The only mandatory fields of the questionnaire were those related to identification, hence it was not 
compulsory to answer all of the 8 questions. The numbers or percentages of participants who did not 
answer to a question are indicated in the charts as N/A (No Answer). 

Comments provided by the respondents, individuals and organisations were also examined. Hence, 
in  addition  to  the  quantitative  results,  comments  to  each  of  the  questions  were  selected  which 
explain,  specify  and/or  reveal  in  more  detail  the  individual  motivation  or  points  of  view  of  the 
participants. 

The  selection  criteria  for  comments  retained  were  frequency,  relevance  concerning  the  specific 
question  and  range  of  opinions.  Frequent  and  very  frequent  comments  with  similar  content  or 
expressing  similar  opinions  where  always  taken  into  account.  For  each  question  only  those 
comments were taken in consideration, which referred to the topic and content of this question. And 
in a final step, the selected comments to the respective question were revised under the aspect of the 
range  of  opinions  expressed  by  the  individuals  and  organisations,  then  classified  on  the  base  of 
topics and points of view and duplicates or very similar comments were reduced to one. 

Less  strict  criteria  were  applied  to  feedback  and  comments  to  question  7  and  8,  as  the  number  of 
contributions was quite low and the quality of contributions high.  

2.  Descriptive analysis of the categories of respondents 

A total of 3702 respondents from all over the EU (96%) and other countries (4%) participated in this 
public  consultation.  The  distribution  and  number  of  respondents  per  country  (see  chart  below)  is 
uneven but correlates significantly with the total population of the MS. Respondents from all 28 EU 
MS participated.  The United  Kingdom (937), Germany (825),  France (654), Italy (263) and Spain 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 56 of 186 

 
 
(171) show the highest participation numbers while Bulgaria (5), Croatia (5), Malta (5), Estonia (4) 
and Lithuania (2) the lowest.  

1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

Number of responses by EU Member State & other countries 

937 

825 

654 

117 

62 

171 

73 

5  10  9 

4  24 

11 

5  23 

263 

93 

2  8  6  5 

76  45  32  27  52 

13  9 

T
A

E
B

G
B

Y
C

Z
C

E
D

K
D

E
E

L
E

S
E

I
F

R
F

R
H

U I
E
H

T
I

T
L

U
L

V
L

T
M

L
N

O
P

T
P

O
R

I

E S
S

K
S

K
U

138 

r
e
h
t
O

Figure 1: Distribution of the public consultation responses by EU Member State (in alphabetic order)  
and for other non-EU countries  

Furthermore,  individuals  and  organisations  from  all  over  the  World  and  other  European  countries 
participated in this survey. A total of 138 responses from non-EU MS were received, including the 
USA (53), Switzerland (50), Canada (10), Australia (8), Norway (5), South Africa (3), Brazil (2) and 
Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, New Zealand, Pakistan, Singapore and Ukraine (1). 

To  organize  the  data  of  respondents  by  MS  and  according  to  the  year  of  EU  integration  of  each 
country (see chart below) shows a correlation with the respective dates of EU integration. Citizens 
and  organizations  from  the  founding  and  long  life-time  MS  tend  to  participate  more  in  public 
consultations launched by the EU while those from countries which joined the EU in 2004, 2007 and 
2013 still have very low participation rates. Apart from a possibly different level of interest in the 
MS  concerning  EU  issues  and  decisions  in  Brussels  the  significantly  varying  participation  rates 
could also be based on the still existing regionally differing access to the internet and in consequence 
to the online public consultations itself. In addition to this, language barriers can also be a reason. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 57 of 186 

 
 
 
 
 
Number of responses by  EU Member State  
& year of EU integration 

937 

825 

654 

263 

76  62 

8 

93  73 

1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

171 

117 

24 

32 

52  11  45  23  13  10  9  9  6  5  4  2  27  5  5 

DE FR IT NL BE LU UK IE DK EL ES PT AT SE FI PL HU SI CY CZ SK LV MT EE LT RO BG HR

1958

1973 1981 1986

1995

2004

2007 2013

Figure 2: Distribution of the public consultation responses by EU Member State and year of EU integration 

In the identification part of the questionnaire to this public consultation participants were asked, if 
they were responding on behalf of an organisation or as an individual. The chart below shows the 
participation  due  to  these  two  categories  of  respondents.  In  total  3.621  individual  respondents 
provided  their  opinion  representing  all  28  MS  and  81  organisations  from  18  MS  as  well  as  138 
individuals and organisations from other non-EU countries. 

Distribution of responses by categories of respondents 

Total respondents

3702 

Organisations

81 

Individuals

% Total respondents

Number respondents

Individuals
98%

3621

3621 

Organisations
2%

81

Total respondents
100%

3702

Figure 3: Distribution of the public consultation responses by categories of respondents 

Representatives  of  organisations  were  additionally  asked  to  specify  their  type  of  organisation  and 
thereby  the  sector  and  group  of  interest  they  represent.  As  shown  below  non-profit  and  non-
governmental  organisations  (51%)  and  the  private  sector  (18%)  are  the  most  represented 
organisation types in this survey, while the participation rates of consultancy firms, regional / local 
authorities  and  national  governments  as  well  as  organisations  belonging  to  the  educational  / 
academic and research sector do not even exceed 5% of the total number of organisations (81). As in 
this survey individual respondents were not asked if they had expert knowledge or represent a sector 
or interest group, hence a sector analysis for individual respondents is not available. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 58 of 186 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Distribution of responses by organisation types 

Private sector 
18% 

National 
government 
5% 

Research 
Organisation 
5% 

Educational/Acade
mia 
3% 

Consultancy firm 
2% 

Other 
13% 

Non-profit/Non-
governmental 
organisations 
51% 

Regional/local 
authority 
3% 

Figure 4: Distribution of the public consultation responses by organisation types (% of total organisations) 

Apart from the sector analysis based on the organisation types the participating organisations were 
additionally examined more in detail and then grouped in clusters according to their focus of interest 
and expertise. The following table shows the clusters/interest groups which were identified through 
the analysis and examples are given for each of them. 

Cluster / Interest Groups 

Organisation Types / Stakeholders and Examples 

1) Green / Environmental 

2) Medical / Dental / Health 
(excluding Medical / Dental Industry 
and Medical Technologies) 

NGOs, associations; 
Examples: Friends of the Earth Germany (BUND e.V.), France Nature 
Environnement, Ecologistas en Acción, EEB 

Associations / chambers / organisations of doctors / dentists especially 
with focus on alternative / holistic / environmental medicine and chronic 
diseases / toxicology; 
Examples: Associazione Nazionale Dentisti Italiani, Irish Doctors' 
Environmental Association, Interdisziplinäre Gesellschaft für 
Umweltmedizin, CED 

3) Medical / Dental Industry and 
Medical Technologies 

Manufacturers, associations; 

Examples: Eucomed, German Medicines Manufacturers' Association, 
British Dental Industry Association 

4) Private Sector / Industry 

Manufacturers of scientific instruments; 

Examples: Russell Scientific Instruments, Ludwig Schneider 
Messtechnik 

5) Chemical / Waste / Recycling 

Environmental friendly chemistry, recycling solutions; 

6) Mining Industry / Sector 

Examples: Envirocat, Evonik Industries, Draon Recycling Solutions; 
European Union for Responsible Incineration and Treatment of Special 
waste 

Mining companies / industries, associations; 
Examples: Vattenfall Europe Mining, European Association of Mining 
Industries, Metal Ores and Industrial Minerals 

7) Labour Unions 

Examples: Industriegewerkschaft Bergbau, Chemie, Energie; Workers 
Council of Evonik 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 59 of 186 

 
 
 
8) Government / Authorities 

Examples: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (UK), 
Ministry of Agriculture (Hungary) 

Table 1: Participation of organisations in the public consultation classified according to clusters / interest groups 

Considering the results of the above stakeholder analysis, the Medical/Dental/Health cluster/interest 
group  was  predominating  in  terms  of  participation,  followed  by  the  clusters  Green/Environmental 
and Medical/Dental Industry and Medical Technologies.  

It has to be highlighted that organisations of very different sectors and interest groups participated in 
this survey and provided their opinion. This variety of contrasting points of view on mercury and the 
associated  environmental  and  health  impacts  indicates  that  the  survey  results  for  organisations 
reflect the whole range of opinions and are representative. 

3.  Level of participation and focus of interest for question 1 to 6 

Due  to  a  significantly  varying  participation  rate  in  the  questions  of  this  public  consultation 
concerning the Ratification by the EU of the MC a more detailed analysis has been carried out for 
this  survey  differentiating  between  contributions  of  individual  respondents  and  organisations.  The 
number of responses to each of the questions has been compared with the contribution of comments 
per  question  and  has  been  additionally  compared  with  the  total  of  participating  individuals  or 
organisations. 

The  results  of  the  analysis  for  individual  respondents  can  be  seen  in  the  chart  below.  Individual 
respondents obviously had a special interest in question 6 and the dental amalgam issue. Question 6 
reached  the  highest  scores  of  participation  in  this  survey  in  terms  of  responses  (3.518)  as  well  as 
comments (2.117), which means that 97% of individuals participating in this survey answered to this 
question  and  additionally  2.117  of  them  contributed  with  individual  comments.  By  contrast  the 
participation ratio of individuals with respect to questions 1 to 5 was comparatively low. Just 1 out 
of  2  participating  individuals  responded  to  these  questions  and  less  than  half  of  them  provided 
comments. It is obvious that most of the individuals were not interested in mercury issues related to 
industry, industrial processes and products and the corresponding amendments under the MC. It has 
to  be  pointed  out  that  individual  respondents  had  a  clear  focus  of  interest  on  dental  amalgam  and 
mercury related health issues. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 60 of 186 

 
 
 
Number of responses & comments per question 
for individual respondents  

Comments per question (Q1-Q6)

Responses per question (Q1-Q6)

1050 

2097 

721 

600 

711 

594 

1797 

1765 

1896 

1865 

2117 

3518 

Q 1

Q 2

Q 3

Q 4

Q 5

Q 6

Figure 5: Comparison of the number of responses and comments for questions 1 to 6 for individual respondents 

In contrast the results for organisations draw a completely different and more balanced picture as it 
can be seen in the chart below. About 80% of the participating organisations (81) responded to each 
of the six questions, a quite high participation ratio, and more than half of them (except question 6) 
additionally  contributed  with  comments.  Question  1,  which  related  to  the  participants'  support 
concerning the Ratification of the MC by the EU, received most of the responses from organisations 
and  most  of  the  comments  as  well.  Organisations,  which  participated  in  this  public  consultation, 
obviously were interested in all of the questions and aspects on mercury and the MC revealed in this 
survey  and  additionally  contributed  with  lots  of  comments  reflecting  the  range  of  views  of  the 
participating stakeholder groups. 

Number of responses & comments per question 
for respondents of organisations 

Comments per question (Q1-Q6)

Responses per question (Q1-Q6)

Q 1

Q 2

Q 3

Q 4

Q 5

Q 6

38 

39 

35 

34 

33 

50 

71 

60 

60 

61 

66 

68 

Figure 6: Comparison of the number of responses and comments for question 1 to 6 for organisations 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 61 of 186 

 
 
 
 
4.  Descriptive analysis by questions 

Question 1. Ratification 

The participants to the survey were asked their opinion concerning the intent of the EU to ratify the 
MC. As shown by the chart below a majority (57%) supports the intent of the EU to swiftly ratify 
the  MC  and  voted  with  "Yes"  whereas  only  a  very  small  number  (2%)  of  participants  voted  with 
"No". 

Focussing  on  the  categories  of  respondents  the  results  differ  significantly.  Whereas  42%  of  the 
individuals  did  not  answer  this  question,  it  is  worth  noting  that  82%  of  the  participating 
organisations, including the sectors of mining, chemical and medical industry expressed support for 
a swift EU ratification of the MC. 

Q1: Do you support the intention of the EU to speedily ratify 
the Minamata Convention? 

Organisations

Individuals

Total responses

82% 

6% 

12% 

56% 

57% 

2% 

2% 

42% 

41% 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes

No

N/A

Figure 7: Distribution of the public consultation responses to question 1 by categories of respondents 
(% of total) 

In addition 1100 respondents (1050 individuals, 50 organisations) provided comments in relation to 
this  question.  The  analysis  of  the  comments  provided  along  with  question  1  shows  how  different 
they can be when submitted by individuals or by organisations. 

Most individuals are seriously concerned about the adverse effects of mercury on the environment 
and health particularly with regard to dental amalgam.  

Frequent statements provided by individuals in the comments section were the following. 

  Mercury is toxic and dangerous. 

  Mercury is a health threat. 

  We ALL have only ONE life and only ONE planet to live on! 

Furthermore individual respondents requested EU leadership. 

  This  leadership  is  needed  by  the  EU  to  meaningfully  address  the  global  mercury  problem.  In 

particular related to supply, demand and use of mercury globally. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 62 of 186 

 
 
 
 
Moreover  a  significant  number  of  comments  were  received  from  individuals  who  were  affected 
personally and feel deeply concerned by the adverse effects of mercury on health and especially of 
dental amalgam. 

  It is time to restrict the use of mercury. I had all of my mercury fillings taken out around 10 years 
ago, and my health improved dramatically after that. Having mercury fillings is a health hazard. 

  I  have  struggled  with  chronic  health  problems  for  30  years,  and  these  all  disappeared  after 

removal of my amalgam fillings and a heavy metal detox. Mercury is pure poison. 

  I was poisoned after having mercury amalgam drilled out. My life has been ruined. I am unable to 
function  in  a  normal  way.  I  have  severe  cognitive,  neurological  and  physical  problems  from 
mercury. 

It  has  to  be  pointed  out  that  in  the  comments  to  this  question  individual  respondents  clearly 
expressed their support for a ratification of the MC and a strict approach in all mercury related issues 
and  frequently  argued  very  emotionally.  Nevertheless  it  has  to  be  noted  that  whilst  56%  of  the 
individual respondents support  the intention of the EU to  speedily ratify the Convention, 42% did 
not even answer this question. 

Distribution of responses to question 1 by organisation types 

Private Sector

10 

3 

NGOs

Others

38 

1 

21 

1 

Yes

No

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Figure 8: Distribution of the public consultation responses to question 1 by organisation types  

(number of responses for private sector, NGOs and all other organisations, total 84, N/A 10) 

Regarding  the  distribution  of  responses  by  organisation  types  (see  chart  above),  it  is  worth  noting 
that  the  overwhelming  majority  of  all  organisation  types  /  sectors  strongly  supports  a  swift 
ratification by the EU. An extract of general and EU focused comments submitted by organisations 
is listed below. 

  The problems related to mercury are not going to vanish on their own. We have again the chance 

to lead with excellence. 

  Rapid  ratification  and  implementation  of  the  MC  is  essential  to  enable  coordinated  action 

worldwide to reduce mercury emissions and protect human health and the environment. 

  The convention is in line with the position of the World Dental Federation (FDI) to phase down 

the use of dental amalgam. 

Furthermore specific comments from the industrial sector were received. 

  Mercury  is  a  valuable  commodity  which  would  be  better  recovered  from  existing  products  and 

processes rather than mined and recovered from Cinnabar. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 63 of 186 

 
 
 
 
  Environmentally sound management of mercury and mercury containing waste is one of the main 

concerns of the hazardous waste sector.  

It is worth mentioning that organisations participating in this survey represented a very wide range 
of interest groups from the green, medical to the chemicals and mining sector. Nevertheless all these 
representatives  mostly  agreed  in  addressing  all  mercury  related  issues  by  a  stricter  approach  than 
foreseen in the MC and especially for Question 1 the consensus is very high. 

Question 2. Import restrictions 

Under  the  EU  acquis  no  import  restrictions  for  metallic  mercury  exist.  The  MC  establishes 
procedures for imports from non-Parties. In transposing and implementing the Convention, the EU 
can  either  restrict  imports  only  from  non-Parties  as  foreseen  in  the  Convention  or  adopt  a  stricter 
approach consisting in a ban on imports from all non-EU countries.  

As  shown  by  the  chart  below,  most  respondents  to  Question  2  are  in  favour  of  such  stricter 
approach.  However,  26%  of  the  organisations  prefer  to  restrict  import  only  from  non-Parties  but 
supported their decision with substantial arguments in the comments section. 

Q2: In your opinion, should the EU restrict all imports of 
metallic mercury and certain mercury compounds and 
mixtures from .. 

Organisations

26% 

48% 

26% 

Individuals

7% 

Total responses

7% 

43% 

43% 

50% 

50% 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

a) non-Parties to the Minamata Convention?

b) all non-EU countries (including non-Parties to the Convention)?

c) N/A

Figure 9: Distribution of the public consultation responses to question 2 by categories of respondents 

(% of total) 

A total of 759 comments were received for Question 2, including 721 from individuals and 38 from 
organisations.  

The  predominating  arguments  and  perceptions  of  individual  respondents  are  reflected  in  the 
comments below. 

  Zero tolerance.  

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 64 of 186 

 
 
 
 
 
  To  force  the  world  economy  to  search  for  healthy  and  thorough  tested  alternatives  regarding 

mercury. 

  If there's no market for mercury in the EU, this will discourage its production in non-EU states. 

There is no doubt that individual respondents are in favour of a strict approach concerning import 
restrictions. They argue that mercury is a poison, a threat for health and environment and want the 
EU to be a mercury-free market. 

Distribution of responses to question 2 by organisation types 

Private Sector

5 

6 

NGOs

Others

0

7 

9 

5

26 

10 

a)

b)

10

15

20

25

30

35

Figure 10: Distribution of the public consultation responses to question 2 by organisation types  

(number of responses for private sector, NGOs and all other organisations, total 84, N/A 21) 

Focussing on the responses provided by organisations (see chart above) it can be seen that NGOs are 
clearly in favour of a stricter approach concerning import restrictions meanwhile the private sector 
and  other  organisations  have  a  split  view  on  this  issue.  Two  central  arguments  given  by 
organisations are the following. 

  There will remain a demand for mercury for the next decades. It is very important to ensure that 

the demands are regulated at the international level.  

  EU  is  the  largest  user  of  dental  mercury  in  the  world,  consuming  90  tons  in  2010.  This  is  an 
international embarrassment. Phasing out amalgam is the only way to stop mercury pollution. 

The  range  of  views  regarding  import  restrictions  is  reflected  in  the  comments  area.  Though  a 
significant  part  of  the  organisations  opted  for  import  restrictions  from  non-Parties  to  the  MC  they 
mostly would not reject a stricter approach but worry about the effects an import restriction from all 
non-EU countries could have on the global mercury market. 

Question 3. Product exports 

Mercury  is  still  used  in  many  products  all  over  the  World.  The  MC  foresees  an  export  ban  of the 
products  containing  mercury  listed  in  Annex  A  of  the  Convention.  Under  the  EU  acquis,  these 
products  are  regulated  under  several  regimes,  which  forbid  their  placing  on  the  EU  market. 
Nevertheless no export restrictions exist. 

An EU export ban could apply to all products already prohibited on the EU market or only to those 
banned  for  export  under  the  MC.  One  notes,  that  the  current  restrictions  under  EU  law  are  often 
tighter  than  they  would  be  under  the  Convention.  In  Question  3  the  participants  were  asked  their 
point of view on an EU export ban of mercury-added products. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 65 of 186 

 
 
 
 
As  in  previous  questions,  the  majority  of  respondents  opted  for  the  stricter  approach  and 
implementation  as  can  be  seen  in  the  chart  below.  The  percentage  of  supporters  of  a  stricter 
approach is even higher (51%) in organisations than in individuals. Reasons for this were given by 
the organisations in the comments section and are listed further down. 

Q3: In your opinion, should the EU ban the exports of 
mercury-added products .. 

Organisations

23% 

51% 

26% 

Individuals

10% 

Total responses

10% 

39% 

39% 

51% 

51% 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

a) .. as indicated in the Minamata Convention (Annex A, Part I)

b) .. in all cases when they are not allowed in the EU market?

c)    N/A

Figure 11: Distribution of the public consultation responses to question 3 by categories of respondents  

(% of total) 

Additionally a total of 635 comments were given, 600 from individuals and 35 from organisations. 
The following main points of view concerning product exports were provided by individuals: 

  Stricter rules already applied in the EU should remain valid. If the MC is less strict the Minamata 

Rules are not acceptable. 

  Products which the EU does not allow in their own market should not be produced and exported 

to cause potential harm anyone in other countries! 

Moreover some individuals mentioned that they would like to see the EU as a global leader. 

  Europe  should  lead  by  example,  as  consumers  demand  more  technical  advanced  and 

environmentally products this would place Europe as global leaders. 

It has to be pointed out that although individuals contributed with 635 comments, 51% of them did 
not even answer this question. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 66 of 186 

 
 
 
 
Distribution of responses to question 3 by organisation types 

Private Sector

NGOs

Others

0

4 

6 

6 

8 

5

27 

12 

a)

b)

10

15

20

25

30

35

Figure 12: Distribution of the public consultation responses to question 3 by organisation types  

(number of responses for private sector, NGOs and all other organisations, total 84, N/A 21) 

Regarding the distribution of responses by organisation type (see chart above) it can be stated that 
the results differ significantly. The majority of NGOs supports a strict approach, other organisations 
have  a  split view  concerning  exports  of  mercury-added  products  and  the  private  sector  favours  an 
implementation as foreseen in the MC. Some aspects put forward by organisations are represented in 
the following comments. 

  Given the fact that no export restrictions for mercury-added products currently exist, we are of the 
opinion  that  the  EU  should  ban  the  export  in  all  cases  when  they  are  not  allowed  in  the  EU 
market. 

  When elaborating the scope of the EU ban, a very careful examination, deeper assessment of the 

potential/practical effects is proposed to be carried out. 

Nevertheless, the majority of organisations agree with a stricter approach regarding product exports 
but lots of them, especially those from the private sector are very concerned about the future legal 
situation and possibly contradictory regulations. 

Question 4. Mercury use in new products/processes 

Question 4 focusses on the use of mercury in new products and processes. The MC obliges parties to 
take  initiatives  discouraging  mercury  use  in  new  products  and  processes  with  some  defined 
exemptions.  The  current  EU  law  does  not  include  such  an  obligation  as  foreseen  under  the 
Convention. 

Implementing the MC would oblige economic actors to notify any use of mercury in new products 
and  processes  and  be  submitted  to  an  assessment  procedure.  An  alternative  and  stricter  approach 
would be a complete ban of mercury use in new products and processes. 

Regarding the results of the survey concerning question 4 (see chart below), again the majority of 
respondents opted for the stricter alternative, i.e. a complete ban of mercury use in new products and 
processes  not  yet  placed  in  the  market.  And  again  the  ratio  of  acceptance  for  the  stricter 
implementation  alternative  of  the  MC  is  higher  in  the  category  of  organisations  (54%)  than  in 
individuals (47%). The corresponding arguments can be found in the extract of comments below. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 67 of 186 

 
 
 
 
 
Q4: In your opinion, the use of mercury in new (not yet 
placed in the market) products and processes .. 

Organisations

21% 

54% 

25% 

Individuals

5% 

Total responses

6% 

47% 

47% 

48% 

47% 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

a) .. should be subject to approval by the EU following an assessment.

b) .. should not be allowed in the EU.

c)    N/A

Figure 13: Distribution of the public consultation responses to question 4 by categories of respondents  

(% of total) 

Plenty of comments were added by the respondents to this question, 711 by individuals and 34 by 
organisations.  The  main  points  of  view  of  individual  respondents  are  reflected  in  the  following 
comments. 

  We don't want toxic products anymore. 

  New use should not be permitted - it only prolongs the problem 

  Only  products  that  have  absolutely  no  alternative  should  be  allowed,  and  only  if  they  meet 

stringent safety criteria, and recyclability. If not, ban them outright. 

Though  individual  respondents  clearly  support  a  strict  approach  concerning  the  use  of  mercury  in 
new  products  and/or  processes  and  only  5%  are  in  favour  of  an  approval  by  the  EU  following  an 
assessment, it has to be taken into account that 48% of all participating individuals did not answer 
this question.  

Distribution of responses to question 4 by organisation types 

Private Sector

6 

6 

NGOs

4 

29 

Others

7 

12 

a)

b)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Figure 14: Distribution of the public consultation responses to question 4 by organisation types  

(number of responses for private sector, NGOs and all other organisations, total 84, N/A 20) 

With regard to the responses provided by organisations (see chart above) they differ according to the 
sectors  /  organisation  types  as  seen  in  the  previous  questions.  NGOs  strongly  support  a  stricter 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 68 of 186 

 
 
 
 
 
 
approach  meanwhile  the  private  sector  and  other  organisations  have  a  split  view.  The  following 
extract of comments presents the range of opinions provided by organisations to this question. 

  Mercury  use  in  new  products  and  processes  should  be  completely  banned  in  order  to  achieve 

phase out soon and to implement the highest protection level. 

  By  preventing  the  use  of  mercury  in  new  products,  processes  and  facilities  the  EU  will  help 
prevent  any increase in  the market for  mercury and will help drive a transition  to mercury-free 
technologies. 

  There may be applications with no feasible alternative to Hg/Hg compounds and where desired 
performance/properties are inherent to the physical/chemical properties of the material (see final 
section). 

  Authorization  procedures  often  impede  real  efforts  from  the  industrial  to  look  for  substitution. 
Better  to  have  both  authorization  procedures  and  compulsory  obligation  to  substitute  with  a 
deadline. 

Though a significant number of organisations (21%) opted for a less strict approach and 25% did not 
answer the question, it has to be noted that the majority of organisations (54%) believe that the use 
of mercury in new products and/or processes should not be allowed in the EU.  

Question 5. Restrictions on certain processes using mercury 

The  MC  foresees  phase-out  dates  for  mercury  use  in  chlor-alkali  and  acetaldehyde  production  as 
well as a number of measures to be taken by the parties concerning the processes of vinyl chloride, 
sodium methylate and polyurethane production.  

Industrial emissions are currently regulated under the IED. The obligations under the Convention are 
covered  to  a  great  extent  by  the  present  EU  legislation  and  include  measures  such  as  reducing 
mercury  use  and  emissions  to  the  environment  as  well  as  a  ban  on  the  mercury  use  from  primary 
mining.  

Implementing the corresponding article of the MC the EU could opt for the restrictions as foreseen 
in the Convention or pursue a stricter approach by banning mercury use in these processes. The chart 
below  reveals  that  the  majority  of  all  respondents  to  this  question,  individuals  and  organisations, 
would appreciate a stricter approach of implementation concerning the use of mercury in facilities 
located in the EU for certain industrial processes. Nevertheless, 7% of the individuals but 27% of the 
organisations  favour  a  less  strict  approach  as  foreseen  in  the  Convention  and  pros  and  cons  were 
given in the comments row. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 69 of 186 

 
 
 
Q5: In your opinion, the use of mercury in facilities located in 
the EU for certain processes as described in Annex B, Part II 
to the Minamata Convention should be .. 

Organisations

27% 

54% 

19% 

Individuals

7% 

Total responses

7% 

45% 

45% 

48% 

48% 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

a) .. restricted as foreseen in the Convention

b) .. banned altogether in the EU

c) N/A

Figure 15: Distribution of the public consultation responses to question 5 by categories of respondents 

(% of total) 

A  total  of  633  additional  comments  were  received  for  this  question,  594  from  individuals  and  39 
from  organisations.  Individual  respondents  mainly  expressed  the  following  arguments  in  their 
comments and again demanded EU leadership. 

  Complete ban. Require full pressure on industries to make the effort to promptly implement new 

techniques. 

  Wherever alternative production processes are available, mercury should be banned. 

  As  a  highly  developed  group  of  countries,  the  EU  must  provide  leadership  for  the  rest  of  the 
world including developing countries in demonstrating that mercury can be eliminated from use. 

Individual  respondents  clearly  support  by  their  comments  a  strict  approach  regarding  the  use  of 
mercury in facilities located in the EU. Nevertheless, it has to be noted that 48% of the participating 
individuals did not answer this question. 

Distribution of responses to question 5 by organisation types 

Private Sector

9 

5 

NGOs

5 

Others

0

8 

5

31 

11 

a)

b)

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Figure 16: Distribution of the public consultation responses to question 5 by organisation types  

(number of responses for private sector, NGOs and all other organisations, total 84, N/A 15) 

Focussing on the responses by organisation types / sector (see chart above) it can be recognized that 
the private sector rejects a strict approach and favours a restriction as foreseen in the MC meanwhile 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 70 of 186 

 
 
 
 
 
 
NGOs clearly support the stricter approach and other organisations have a similar share in pros and 
cons. The following comments express some points of view provided by organisations. 

  The use of mercury for processes in Annex B, Part I and II should be banned as alternatives exist. 

Such a ban will facilitate the promotion and transfer of mercury-free technologies globally. 

  The EU law is very strict and there is a possibility to affect the productivity of certain industrial 

plants  

Despite  the  significant  differences  between  the  private  sector,  NGOs  and  other  organisations 
concerning this question it has to be stated that still the majority of organisations is in favour of a 
stricter approach regarding the use of mercury in facilities located in the EU. 

Question 6. Dental amalgam 

There is an ongoing debate in the EU concerning dental amalgam as it is one of the main remaining 
uses of mercury in products. Dental amalgam features among the products targeted by the MC and 
the parties are supposed to take measures in order to phase down the use of mercury as for example 
setting  national  objectives  for  minimising  the  use  of  mercury,  promoting  the  use  of  mercury-free 
alternatives,  insurance  policies  that  favour  the  use  of  these  alternatives  and  training  of  dental 
professionals.  

The participants of the survey were asked to give their opinion concerning the dental amalgam and if 
they  would  be  in  favour  of  a  phase  down  in  line  with  the  MC  or  prefer  a  phase  out  maybe  with 
certain justified exemptions. As can be seen in the chart below an overwhelming majority (86%) of 
the individual respondents want dental amalgam to be phased out. Among organisations, 61% agree 
with this stricter approach and 23% prefer a phase down according to the MC. 

Q6: In your opinion, the use of dental amalgam should be: 

Organisations

23% 

Individuals

11% 

Total responses

12% 

61% 

86% 

85% 

16% 

3% 

3% 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

a) .. phased down in line with the relevant Minamata provisions

b) .. subject to a phase out (maybe with certain justified exemptions)

c)    N/A

Figure 17: Distribution of the public consultation responses to question 6 by categories of respondents 

(% of total) 

Furthermore  the  participants  of  this  survey  were  asked  to  give  comments  concerning  the  dental 
amalgam  issue  and  a  very  large  number  (2.150)  of  respondents  to  this  question  expressed  their 
concerns and provided explanation. Especially the individual respondents were highly motivated to 
express  their  views  regarding  dental  amalgam  and  submitted  2.117  comments,  the  highest 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 71 of 186 

 
 
 
 
participation  ratio  concerning  comments  in  this  survey.  An  extract  of  the  variety  of  opinions  and 
perspectives given by individuals is reflected in the following comments. 

  I do not want amalgam in my teeth or my children’s teeth. Amalgam is a toxic, polluting mercury 
product with no place in modern dentistry. Alternatives are available, affordable and effective. 

  The health risks and costs and the environmental costs are already too high. We don't have time 

for a phase down. A phase out is long overdue. 

  As  a  dentist,  I  do  not  need  amalgam.  Mercury-free  filling  materials  are  superior  because  they 
make teeth stronger and preserve more tooth structure – which saves patients money in the long-
run. 

  Dental amalgam is toxic to dentists and to patients. Alternative materials are available. 

It  has  to  be  pointed  out  that  in  this  public  consultation  an  overwhelming  majority  (86%)  of 
individuals supported the  phase out  of the use  of dental  amalgam, 11% were  in  favour  of a phase 
down in line with the MC and only 3% did not answer the question. 

Distribution of responses to question 6 by organisation types 

Private Sector

4 

5 

NGOs

Others

8 

7 

0

5

10

16 

15

31 

a)

b)

20

25

30

35

40

45

Figure 19: Distribution of the public consultation responses to question 6 by organisation types  

(number of responses for private sector, NGOs and all other organisations, total 84, N/A 13) 

Regarding the results of the chart above showing the distribution of responses by organisation types 
it  can  be  noted  that  all  sectors  private,  NGOs  and  others  support  a  stricter  approach.  The  private 
sector is slightly in favour of a phase out of the use of dental amalgam and NGOs as well as all other 
organisations  show  a  clear  support  for  this  stricter  approach.  Some  arguments  provided  by 
organisations in the comments area (in total 33) are listed below. 

  Phase-out.  Period.  No exceptions. 

  Mercury-free  dental  restorations  are  available,  affordable,  effective  and  preferred  by  most  EU 

citizens. Phase out is the most cost-effective way to prevent dental mercury pollution. 

  EU  is  the  largest  user  of  dental  mercury  in  the  world,  consuming  90  tons  in  2010.  This  is  an 
international  embarrassment.  Phasing  out  amalgam  is  the  only  way  to  stop  dental  mercury 
pollution. 

  As far as there is a difference on costs between mercury fillings and mercury-free fillings, it is not 

fair to play on insurance policy because it will mainly impact the poorest population 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 72 of 186 

 
 
 
 
Respondents to question 6 were additionally asked to provide their opinion regarding the proposed 
measures for a phase down of dental amalgam as mentioned in the MC and to give a ranking from 1 
to 5 in terms of priority for each of the nine options. 

Q6: Please give a ranking from 1 to 5 (1=lowest, 5=highest) in 
terms of priority for each of the options below: 

1) Setting national objectives for preventing tooth
decay

7% 

%
5

16% 

13% 

59% 

2) Setting national objectives for minimising the
use of mercury

8% 

%
3

%
4

6% 

3) Promoting the use of mercury-free alternatives

8% 

%
3

%
3

%
4

4) Promoting research on mercury-free fillings

%
5

%
2

6% 

10% 

5) Education and training of dental professionals

%
5

%
3

6% 

13% 

6) Insurance policies that do not favour dental
amalgam use

12% 

%
4

11% 

10% 

7) Insurance policies that favour the use of
alternatives

11% 

%
2

9% 

9% 

79% 

82% 

77% 

73% 

63% 

69% 

8) Restricting amalgam use only to its
encapsulated form

28% 

6% 

13% 

6% 

47% 

9) Best environmental practices in dental facilities

7% 

%
2

9% 

13% 

69% 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

lowest

low-middle

middle

middle-high

highest

Figure 18: Distribution of the public consultation responses to the options 1 to 9 referring to question 6  

(1=lowest, 5=highest; % of total responses per question, total number respondents 394) 

Figure  18  shows  the  results  of  this  more  detailed  request  concerning  the  implementation  of  the 
Convention with regard to dental amalgam. All nine options received high scores (47% to 82%) in 
the highest priority level. The option with the highest acceptance was number 3 "promoting the use 
of  mercury-free  alternatives",  while  option  number  8  "restricting  amalgam  use  only  to  its 
encapsulated form" received the lowest consent. 

5.  Additional comments, provided by the respondents 

Question 7. Feedback on current legal framework 

The  Commission  is  committed  to  make  EU  legislation  simpler  and  to  reduce  regulatory  costs.  An 
evaluation and review of the Mercury Strategy already took place and a complementary assessment 
of  the  Mercury  Export  Ban  Regulation  is  currently  carried  out.  As  the  forthcoming  "Minamata 
ratification  package"  will  substantially  amend  the  Mercury  Export  Ban  Regulation  and  the 
Commission would like to take the opportunity to introduce improvements,  the participants of this 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 73 of 186 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
public consultation were asked in question 7 to contribute with their suggestions. The distribution of 
responses can be seen in the chart below and an extract of the provided comments further below. 

Q7: Would you like to propose amendments to the existing 
EU legal framework on mercury and in particular to the 
Mercury Export Ban Regulation with a view to simplifying it 
and/or improving its effectiveness? 

Organisations

28% 

40% 

32% 

Individuals

13% 

Total responses

13% 

29% 

29% 

58% 

58% 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes

No

N/A

Figure 20: Distribution of the public consultation responses to question 7 by categories of respondents 

(% of total) 

A total of 224 comments were received to this question, 201 by individuals and 23 by organisations. 
Some selected contributions by individual respondents are listed below. 

  It is important in light of the findings and recommendations of the Minamata package to review 
and  make  the  necessary  changes  to  the  legal  framework  to  simplify  and  improve  it  so  that 
objectives are met without unnecessary legal issues. 

  The simpler a regulation the better understood by all, and easier to apply. It is better to produce a 

list of all products that use mercury now and that should look for alternative substitutes. 

  MC related issues should come under one legal instrument. A legislative package should include 

the following in line with the convention: 

1. Immediate ban on new mercury mining  
2. Export ban all mercury compounds, and mixtures 
3.  Ban  on  mercury  trade  except  for  ESM  (Environmentally  Sound  Management)  of  mercury 
waste 
4. Mercury recycling for existing uses 
5. Banning mercury use in Artisanal Small Scale Gold Mining  
6. ESM (Environmentally Sound Management) and storage for mercury waste  
7. Emissions standards for coal fired power stations 
8. Request separate collection for non-electronic products/waste e.g. thermometers  
9. Contaminated sites to be addressed 

  Make sure "opt out's" are very tight and very heavily policed. 

  The  thrust  of  the  EU  legal  framework  should  be  removal  of  mercury  discharges  to  the 
environment  and  a  progressive  decline  in  background  levels  e.g.  in  tuna  fish  and  other  marine 
organisms.  Amendments  should  have  this  as  their  ultimate  goal  rather  than  appeasement  of 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 74 of 186 

 
 
 
 
different  political  positions.  The  environment  does  not  respond  positively  to  political  and  or 
bottom line driven directives. 

The  following  extracts  of  comments  received  by  organisations  provide  a  brief  overview  regarding 
the proposed amendments to the existing EU legal framework on mercury. 

All  issues  relevant  to  the  MC  could  come  under  one  legal  instrument.  References  to  emissions 
and releases could also be included in this instrument to avoid delays from need for revision of 
separate laws. Beyond the issues raised above, a legislative package should include the following:  

1.  Explicitly ban existing and new mercury mining. 
2.  Extend export ban to other mercury compounds, mixtures with a lower mercury content. 
3.  Set up a trade tracking system to record information from exports and imports of elemental 
and compound mercury between MS and between EU and external countries and also within 
the industry sector. 

4.  Ensure mercury used in porosimetry - pycnometry is recycled and eventually phased out. 
5.  Banning mercury use in Artisanal Small Scale Gold Mining. 
6.  Conditions  for  environmentally  safe  disposal  of  metallic  mercury  should  be  adopted  with 

preference for solidified/stabilized mercury disposal in underground facilities. 

7.  Ensure products containing mercury are collected separately (thermostats, thermometers, etc.) 

with better labelling of products to facilitate separate collection. 

8.  Request separate collection for non-electronic products/waste e.g. thermometers. 
9.  Contaminated  sites  (former  mining  sites  and  others)  should  be  classified  according  to 
contamination  and  urgency  of  remediation  to  be  restored  to  a  reasonable  condition. 
10.  The  revised  National  Emissions  Ceiling  directive  should  also  include  mercury. 
11.  The  Medium  Combustion  Plants  (MCP)  directive  should  also  include  specific  mercury 
requirements ... 

  We  propose  amendments  to  the  Mercury  Export  ban  on  the  following  issues:  1.  permanent 
storage of metallic mercury, 2. extension of the export ban and 3. enforcement of traceability 

1.  Metallic mercury considered as waste regarding art 2 of regulation 1102/2008 should not be allowed 
to be stored permanently. This mercury can’t be re-used for allowed uses. Nevertheless, by keeping 
the mercury in metallic form, illegal traffic is eased. Consequently, by imposing transformation 
(solidification/stabilisation) of metallic mercury into more stable and less dangerous components, any 
illegal use is also more difficult or even impossible. 
That is why we propose the deletion of all references to “permanent storage” in the 
regulation (see art 3.1.a, art 4.3, art 5.1, art 6.1.c and art 6.2.b). 

2.  We consider that extension of the export ban to other mercury containing waste will not be efficient 
but  that  appropriate  and  stringent  regulation  concerning  needs  and  uses  (regulated  market,  for 
instance) and also reinforcement of traceability requirements will have a much higher efficiency. 
3.  Traceability  is  one  of  the  key  issues  in  order  to  ensure  environmentally  sound  management  of 
mercury.  For  that  purpose,  we  suggest  to  add  2  items  in  article  6.  The  first  item  will  refer  to  the 
extension  of  the  traceability  requirement  to  the  installations  receiving  mercury  as  waste  and  the 
second item will define an EU record/registration system which will allow tracing mercury from the 
producer to the final destination. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 75 of 186 

 
 
 
Question 8. Other issues 

By  implementing  the  MC  the  EU  will  have  to  amend  its  legislation  and  so  the  questions  of  this 
survey  were  focused  on  the  needed  amendments.  Nevertheless  in  question  8  "other  issues"  the 
participants  of  this  survey  were  asked  to  contribute  with  any  other  suggestion  concerning  the  MC 
they would like to be considered by the EU in future. A total of 159 comments were received, 128 
from individual respondents and 31 from organisations. The results to this question can be seen in 
the chart below and balanced extracts of the corresponding comments are presented further down. 

Q8: Would you like to raise any other issues in relation to the 
implementation of the Minamata Convention? 

Organisations

39% 

37% 

24% 

Individuals

5% 

Total responses

6% 

40% 

40% 

55% 

54% 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes

No

N/A

Figure 21: Distribution of the public consultation responses to question 8 by categories of respondents 

(% of total) 

The  following  contributions  concerning  "other  issues  in  relation  to  the  implementation  of  the  MC 
were provided by individual respondents. 

  Please  enforce  a  ban  on  ALL  mercury  use,  and  make  sure  there  can  be  NO  opt  outs  by  any 

member country 

  Do  not  forget  medicines,  which  contain  mercury  as  excipient  named  "Thiomersal",  or 

"Thimerosal". 

  Remove mercury from all vaccinations 
  Sickness  because  of  mercury  should  be  acknowledged  by  health  and  other  insurances. 
Universities  should  educate  doctors  about  mercury  diseases.  Information  about  the  danger  of 
amalgam and mercury in certain products should be broadcasted more widely to everybody. 

  Mercury should  be banned  in  mascara (used close  to  the brain); even extremely small  doses  of 
mercury should be declared at the ingredient/composition list of any product containing mercury.  
  What  about  crematoria  -  what  is  the  current  situation  with  this  -  especially  for  residents  living 
close to such establishments - is this covered - are the risks available to be quantified. (Mercury in 
amalgams would presumably be vaporised during actual cremation.) 

Furthermore organisations contributed with lots of suggestions and substantial input regarding "other 
issues". A selection of these contributions is listed below. 

  We would like to raise 5 other issues we consider essential for the success of the implementation 

of the Minamata Convention at the EU level: 

1. Action plans 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 76 of 186 

 
 
 
 
The EU set of legislations should promote drawing up action plans at Member State level as proposed in 
the Minamata Convention particularly for the control of emissions of mercury and the development of 
strategy for the identification of contaminated sites. 

2. Emissions to air 
The  EU  should  strengthen  the  control  of  mercury  air  emission,  particularly  for  relevant  sources  using 

BREFs and NEC Directive as tools to decrease the emissions of the main industrial contributors. 

3. Threshold of mercury in waste 
EU should launch studies in order to define threshold above which it is necessary to consider that a waste 
is  a  mercury  containing  waste  and  needs  to  be  treated  under  the  specific  requirements  of  the 
Minamata Convention (as for POPs (Persistant Organic Pollutants)). 

4. In relationship with the above remark, it is very important to ensure that mercury containing waste are 
permanently  stored  in  specific  dedicated  areas  either  in  aboveground  storage  or  in  underground 
storage. To avoid any risk of contamination, the total separation of the storage of mercury containing 
waste from other type of (hazardous) waste is essential. 

5. EU  should  ensure  that  the  mercury  used  (for  remaining  allowed  uses)  only  comes  from  recycling 
facilities with the most stringent traceability procedures ensuring that there is no possibility of illegal 
traffic. 

   

1. Restrict further the mercury use in light sources for certain categories. 
2. All Best Available Technique (BAT) Reference Documents (BREFs) for relevant industries should include 
measures  to  prevent  mercury  emissions  and  specific  BAT  Associated  Emissions  Limits  (AELs)  for 
mercury.  

3. Member  States,  European  Parliament  and  the  EC  should  ensure  that  consumers  receive  information 
about the presence of toxic mercury, and in particular concerning labelling of the mercury content of … 
  In general, we note that there are some important and life-saving technologies which continue to 
require  the  use  of  mercury  such  as  use  in  reference  standards,  voltage  reference  sensors  and 
sensor  electrodes.  The  EU  regulatory  framework  provides  for  exemptions  under  e.g.  ‘RoHS’ 
Directive  2011/65/EU  and  such  exemptions  should  be  maintained.  Use  of  mercury  for  the 
purpose  of  research  and  development  should  continue  to  be  permitted.  Manufacturing  of 
permitted uses of mercury should likewise continue to be supported in the EU. … 

  The current provision of Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council  of  22  October  2008  (Mercury  ban)  excluding  medicinal  products  from  the  export 
prohibition (Art. 1.2) shall be kept also in future. 

Reason: Medicinal products containing mercury or mercury compounds in diluted form present a 
proven and essential part of the treasure of homeopathic and anthroposophic medicinal products. 
Due  to  the  high  dilution  these  products  are  safe  which  is  evaluated  during  the  official 
authorisation process by official authorities. 
The  core  of  worldwide  homeopathic  and  anthroposophic  pharmaceutical  industry  is  EU-based. 
Therefore,  in  order  to  support  worldwide  availability  of  these  products,  exports  of  these 
medicines have to be possible also in future. 

   

1. Regarding dental amalgam: EU policy works best when it sets the challenge and allows Member States 

to decide how best to meet it. 

2. Regarding  the  Export  Ban  Regulation:  the  de-minimis  threshold  must  be  maintained  to  prevent 

disproportionate application of the ban in line with the Minamata Convention. 

3. Regarding  ASGM:  The  EU  has  no  competence  to  govern  artisanal  gold  mining  in  the  territory  of 
individual  Member  States  (e.g.  France)  -  this  aspect  must  therefore  not  be  included  in  any  EU 
instrument  to  ratify  the  Convention.  All  Member  States  must  individually  ratify  the  Minamata 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 77 of 186 

 
 
Convention to cover compliance with its provisions related to ASGM and any other matters related to 
Member State competence … 

  To protect human health and ecosystems, the treaty and EU legal framework (where appropriate) 

should: 

  Recognize  particularly  vulnerable  populations  such  as  children,  women  of  child  bearing  age, 
indigenous peoples, Arctic communities, island and coastal dwellers, fisherfolk, small-scale gold 
miners, the poor, workers, and others 

  Have a broad scope and address the entire mercury life-cycle 

  Aim to control all anthropogenic mercury sources and all human activities that release significant 

quantities of mercury to the environment 

  Establish  an  adequately  funded  and  predictable  financial  mechanism  with  new  and  additional 
resources sufficient to enable developing countries and countries with economies in transition to 
fulfil their treaty obligations without compromising their poverty reduction goals 

  Use  elimination-based  control  measures  subject  to  possible  limited,  time-bound  exemptions  to 
phase-out  all  products  and  processes  that  contain  or  use  mercury,  and  in  the  interim,  establish 
standards and controls for those products and processes that remain 

  Reduce and minimize global commercial demand for mercury 

  Reduce  global  mercury  supply  by  banning  primary  mercury  mining;  mandating  permanent, 
secure, monitored storage for existing mercury stockpiles and all mercury that is recovered from 
chlor-alkali plants 

  Establish effective controls on international trade in mercury and mercury-containing products 

  Mandate  environmentally  sound  solutions  for  the  management  of  mercury  wastes  including 

measures to prevent mercury from entering municipal, medical and industrial waste streams; 

  Expedite the phase-out of mercury use in the health sector 

  Prohibit new uses of mercury 

  Promote  research  and  development  on  sustainable,  non-toxic,  alternatives  to  products  and 

processes  

  Promote the use of renewable, alternative energy sources as a substitute for coal-fire power plants 

(release Hg) 

6.  Conclusions 

This public consultation on the Ratification by the EU of the MC received responses from all over 
the  world  and  showed  a  quite  high  participation  rate.  A  total  of  3 702  responses  from  individual 
persons  and  organisations  were  received  and  representatives  of  very  different  interest  groups 
participated  in  the  survey  and  contributed  with  an  impressive  number  of  comments.  Thus  the 
obtained  results  can  be  considered  as  representative  in  terms  of  numbers  of  responses,  EU-wide 
contribution as well as concerning the variety of opinions expressed in this survey.  

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 78 of 186 

 
 
 
Taking  into  account  the  responses  to  the  questions  of  this  public  consultation  and  the  received 
answers and comments it can be concluded that a vast majority of the public, individual respondents 
as well as organisations, support a strict approach concerning the implementation of  the Minamata 
Convention and all mercury related issues. 

Nevertheless  representatives  of  the  private  sector  request  to  maintain  exemptions  for  specific 
mercury-added products but at the same time are in favour of an improved monitoring on products 
containing  mercury.  Individuals  and  organisations  hold  the  opinion  that  the  EU  legal  framework 
should  be  in  general  as  simple  as  possible,  avoid  overlap  of  regulations  and  be  time-  and  cost-
effective concerning the controls. Needed legal adjustments and improvements should be integrated 
in existing regulations as for example the IED and the corresponding BREFs before regulating under 
new  legislation.  With  regard  to  the  implementation  of  the  Minamata  Convention  and  needed 
amendments  to  the  EU  legal  framework  a  consistent  and  well-prepared  approach  is  requested 
especially by the organisations. Additionally it is criticised that the EU legal framework focuses on 
emissions of mercury and trade control but does not consider critical values for the environment and 
promotion of its continuous decline. 

Participants  expressed  a  strong  support  that  mercury  mining  has  to  be  stopped  though  there  are 
different arguments supporting this position. Parts of the private sector argue that at present there is 
enough mercury in the market to satisfy the EU internal demand for years. It only has to be recycled. 
Most of the participants would also agree in extending the export and import ban on mercury, but 
some of them would even like to see a stricter approach and a total import and export ban, though 
others are concerned about the effects such a ban could have on the global mercury market and the 
illegal mercury traffic. Regarding the use of mercury in new products and processes not yet placed 
in the market most of the respondents to this survey consider that this should not be allowed.  

Furthermore  people  agree  that  due  to  the  high  toxicity  of  mercury  and  environmental  and  health 
risks a strict monitoring of every mercury-added product or process is required, has to be improved 
and  the  implementation  of  a  trade  tracking  system  contributing  to  an  enforced  traceability  of 
mercury is suggested. Respondents to this survey additionally recommended to the EC to revise the 
handling  of  mercury-added  waste,  to  ensure  separate  collection  and  to  adjust  the  regulations  for 
permanent  storage.  Concerning  transparency  for  consumers,  some  participants  of  this  survey 
proposed  an  adequate  labelling  for  all  products  containing  mercury  including  those  with  very  low 
concentrations of mercury. 

It has to be pointed out that the majority of respondents to this survey had a clear focus on mercury 
related  health  issues  and  especially  on  the  dental  amalgam.  There  has  been  an  extremely  high 
motivation  to  respond  to  question  6  concerning  the  dental  amalgam  and  to  contribute  additionally 
with  comments.  The  majority  of  individual  respondents  including  patients  as  well  as  dentists 
consider that the use  of dental  amalgam should  be phased out  on a short-term and that  health and 
insurance  politics  should  promote  safe  alternatives  and  acknowledgement  of  mercury  related 
diseases.  Furthermore  they  believe  that  adequate  education  and  training  for  dentist  is  needed 
especially concerning the removal of amalgam fillings.  

Experts  from  the  health  sector  indicated  that  exemptions  for  the  medical  sector  should  continue 
whereas individuals tend to reject any exemption for mercury-added products. Some manufacturers 
of mercury based scientific instruments gave arguments to support the still existing exemptions for 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 79 of 186 

 
 
their products and other participants remarked that the use and handling of mercury-added devices 
generating light should be revised. 

In  this  public  consultation  regarding  the  Ratification  by  the  EU  of  the  Minamata  Convention  on 
Mercury  a  total  of  3.621  individuals  and  81  organisations  representing  very  different  stakeholder 
groups  participated,  responded  to  the  questions  and  expressed  their  opinion  in  more  than  6.000 
comments,  which  were  revised,  analysed  and  grouped  according  to  topics  and  presented  in  this 
conclusions in brief. 

As the comments represent a wide range of interests and stakeholder groups and additionally provide 
specific and expert recommendations and ideas for improvement concerning the implementation of 
the  Minamata  Convention  by  the  EU  these  contributions  by  the  European  public  are  an  excellent 
input  basis  for  the  EC  regarding  the  implementation  process  of  the  Convention  and  the  needed 
amendments to EU legal framework.  

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 80 of 186 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 3 – WHO IS AFFECTED BY THE INITIATIVE AND HOW   

Import restrictions on mercury   

Art. 3(8) of the MC provides that each Party is not allowed to import mercury from a non-Party to 
whom  it  will  provide  its  written  consent  unless  the  non-Party  has  provided  certification  that  the 
mercury  is  neither  from  primary  mining  nor  from  excess  mercury  from  the  decommissioning  of 
chlor-alkali facilities.  

As specified  in  Section  4.1 of  this Report, the preferred option  P1O1 consists in  imposing import 
restrictions from non-Parties under the same conditions as those laid down in above-mentioned Art. 
3(8).  The  implementation  of  this  option  would  require  making  use  of  a  prior  informed  procedure 
whereby the exporting country will have to provide the importing EU Member State with a relevant 
certification demonstrating the lawfulness of the export.         

The practical implementation of this import restriction would rely upon existing EU rules on imports 
of chemicals, as laid down in Regulation (EU) No 649/2012, which regulates, inter alia, the export 
of certain mercury compounds. The applicability of Regulation (EU) No 649/2012 would imply that 
the national authorities designated by each Member State will ensure that imported mercury meets 
the applicable conditions. As to the relevant enterprises themselves, they would have to check that 
the  imported  mercury  is  accompanied  by  information  certifying  that  it  is  neither  from  primary 
mining nor from excess mercury from the decommissioning of chlor-alkali facilities.   

However,  in  practice,  the  probability  that  such  imports  take  place  is  highly  limited  due  to  the 
combination of several factors, including the low number of countries that will not in fine be Parties 
to the MC, the decreasing of mercury use in the EU and the existence of sufficient stocks of mercury 
within the EU or available in countries that intend to ratify the MC.  

The implementation of this import restriction would have to be ensured as from the date where the 
new EU legal instrument transposing and implementing the MC will become legally-binding upon 
MS.  

The economic impact of implementing option P1O1 is minimal (0-0,4 EUR of foregone imports but 
may be compensated by imports from allowed sources and for allowed uses). Equally low, if any, 
would be the associated social impact (e.g. job losses), given the limited trade concerned. A positive 
environmental impact is expected thanks to reduced releases from primary mercury mining globally. 
Low administrative burden is expected in view of the use of existing structures.  

Export prohibition of certain mercury-added products   

Under Art. 4(1) of the MC, Parties are not allowed to manufacture, import and export the mercury-
added products listed in its Annex A (Part I) as from 1st January 2021.   

As specified in Section 4.2 of this Report, the preferred option P2O1 consists in imposing an export 
prohibition  for  all  mercury-added  products  not  meeting  the  technical  specifications  laid  down  in 
above-cited Annex A (Part I).   

The  practical  implementation  of  this  export  restriction  would  be  handled  by  the  competent 
authorities  of  the  MS  that  will  have  to  ensure  that  mercury-added  products  not  meeting  the 
requirements of the MC are not exported outside the EU. However, the need for such authorities to 
undertake specific additional implementing measures is extremely limited due to the mere fact that 
the mercury-added products listed in Annex A (Part I) of the MC that are manufactured in the EU 
and exported from the EU are already in compliance with the requirements set out in that Annex. In 
any  case,  MS  will  be  able  to  rely  upon  the  control  and  enforcement  mechanisms  they  have 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 81 of 186 

 
 
established  to  implement  above-mentioned  Regulation  (EU)  No  649/2012,  which  already  sets  an 
export ban on cosmetic soaps containing mercury. As a matter of fact, in practice the risk of imports 
into the EU of products not allowed on the EU market is far bigger than the risk of export from the 
EU of products not complying with the MC standards, which implies that market surveillance will 
continue prioritising controls on imports.       

The implementation of this export restriction will have to be ensured as from 1 January 2021.  

Option P2O1 would have minor economic, environmental or social impacts, as the MC provisions 
are greatly covered by existing EU legislation on mercury-added products. Administrative burden is 
also minimal, as MS can rely on existing control and enforcement mechanisms. 

Mercury use in new products and processes 

Art. 4(6) and 5(7) of the MC provide that Parties shall discourage the manufacture and marketing of 
mercury-added  products  not  listed  in  its  Annex  A  (Part  I)  and  the  development  of  any 
facility/installation  using  a  mercury-based  process  not  listed  in  its  Annex  B,  unless  it  is 
demonstrated  that  the  concerned  product  or  process  will  result  in  (significant)  environmental  or 
human health benefits. 

As  specified  in  Section  4.3  of  this  Report,  the  preferred  option  P3O2  consists  in  imposing  an  a 
priori prohibition of mercury in new products and processes while leaving the possibility for such a 
product  or  process  to  benefit  from  derogation  in  case  where  an  assessment  demonstrates 
environmental and/or human health benefits.        

The practical implementation of this conditional prohibition would primarily be assured both by the 
concerned  economic  operators  (e.g.  importers/manufacturers  of  new  mercury-added  products, 
operators  of  new  mercury-based  manufacturing  processes)  who  would  have  to  decide  on  the 
opportunity of developing new products or processes using mercury. If they engaged successfully in 
such  development,  they  would  have  to  undertake  and  provide  to  their  competent  authorities  an 
assessment  of  the  environmental  and  health  risks.  MS  would  provide  the  information  it  will  have 
received  to  the  Commission  who  would  then  exchange  information  with  experts  of  MS  and 
stakeholders with a view to evaluating the information so submitted and to deciding whether the new 
product  or  process  has  significant  environmental  and/or  health  benefits.  Should  this  be  the case,  a 
notification  may  be  addressed  to  the  Secretariat  of  the  MC  and  the  Commission  may  prepare  a 
proposal to allow the product or process. 

However,  in  practice,  the  probability  that  such  products  and  processes  will  be  developed  is 
considered  low,  but  it  cannot  be  ruled  out  completely.  Overall  it  is  likely  the  above  process  may 
never take place.         

The implementation of this import restriction would have to be ensured as from the date where the 
new EU legal instrument transposing and implementing the MC will become legally-binding upon 
MS. 

There is a limited economic impact associated with P3O2 (due to authorisation costs and fees) but 
the  probability  of  developing  new  uses  of  mercury  in  products  and  processes  is  minimal.  Option 
P3O2  has  a  strong  signal  value  and  will  result  in  a  virtually  full  elimination  of  mercury  input  to 
society via novel mercury uses. 

Restrictions on certain processes using mercury 

In  accordance  with  Art.  5(2)  and  (3)  and  Annex  B  of  the  MC,  Parties  shall  take  measures  that 
ensure,  inter  alia,  that  no  acetaldehyde  production  in  which  mercury  or  mercury  compounds  are 
used as catalyst takes place after 2018 (no production in the EU in 2015) and that the production of 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 82 of 186 

 
 
vinyl chloride monomer (VCM only one installation in the EU (Slovakia) in 2015) and sodium or 
potassium methylate or ethylate - also known as alcoholates production - (only two installations in 
the EU (Germany) in 2015) complies with the operational requirements set out in its Annex B (Part 
II).   

As specified in Section 4.4 of this Report, the preferred option P4O1 consists firstly in prohibiting 
above-mentioned acetaldehyde and VCM production by 2018. In terms of practical implementation, 
this would imply that the Slovak installation using mercury in the production of VCM converts its 
mercury-based production line/unit to a mercury-free production line/unit and that this is verified by 
the concerned Slovakian authority. In this respect, the implementation of such an obligation should 
not  raise  particular  difficulties  nor  should  it  result  in  significant  costs.  Indeed,  as  this  is  an 
installation covered by Directive 2010/75/EU, the control of its operating conditions will take place 
as part of the routine work performed by licencing and inspection authorities in the light, inter alia, 
of  the  monitoring  data  and  information  that  must  be  provided  on  a  regular  basis  by  operators  of 
installations covered by that Directive.          

This preferred option consists secondly in prohibiting the use of mercury from primary mining and 
in requiring a reduction of mercury emissions per unit production of alcoholates by 50% by 2020 as 
compared  to  2010.  In  terms  of  practical  implementation,  as  primary  mining  is  not  used  for  such 
processes,  this  would  imply  only  that  the  two  German  installations  producing  alcoholates  reduce 
mercury  emissions  and  releases  to  a  sufficient  degree  and  that  this  is  verified  by  the  concerned 
German  authority. Alike the case of the above-mentioned Slovak  installation producing VCM, the 
control of the correct implementation of those emission restrictions will be performed as part of the 
routine  work  carried  out  by  the  competent  authorities  in  charge  of  regulating  and  monitoring 
installations  falling  under  the  scope  of  application  of  Directive  2010/75/EU.  Furthermore,  the 
Commission  services  would  encourage  Germany  and  the  concerned  companies  to  take  further 
measures leading to the phase out of the mercury-based process in those two installations.  

The preferred option P4O1 was associated with an economic impact of 3-77 million EUR depending 
on  whether  an  alternative  process  (technically  and  economically  feasible)  for  the  last  of  the  four 
alcoholates is identified and implemented. A positive environmental impact is expected due to the 
expected  reductions  in  mercury  emissions  and  use.    Negative  social  impacts  are  mainly  due  to 
potential job losses (estimated at 0-200).       

Artisanal and small-scale gold mining  

Under  Art.  7  of  the  MC,  Parties  that  host  more  than  insignificant  artisanal  and  small-scale  gold 
mining and processing (ASGM) shall for that purpose develop and implement a national action plan 
in accordance with Annex C of the MC so as to reduce and, if feasible, eliminate the use of mercury 
and mercury compounds in and mercury emissions and releases from such an activity. Such a plan 
must be submitted to the Secretariat of the MC while reviews of the progress achieved in this field 
must  be  included  in  the  implementation  reports  each  Party  must  submit  to  the  Conference  of  the 
Parties of the MC.  

As specified in Section 4.5 of this Report, the preferred option P5O1 consists simply in transposing 
the relevant requirements set out in the MC. This will only concern France. As France has already 
taken  strict  measures  regarding  ASGM  and  is  committed  to  ratifying  the  Convention,  France  is 
expected to be in full compliance with the Convention at the time of entry into force of the new EU 
instrument.  Hence,  practical  implementation  would  be  limited  to  France  communicating  to  the 
Commission information on the measures taken, which the Commission will include in its report to 
the Secretariat of the Convention.    

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 83 of 186 

 
 
The implementation of these restrictions will have to be ensured as from the date where the new EU 
legal instrument transposing and implementing the MC will become legally-binding upon MS.  

No  impacts  associated  to  the  implementation  of  option  P5O1,  as  ASGM  is  hardly  encountered 
within the EU. 

Dental amalgam  

Art. 4(3) and Annex A (Part II) of the MC provide that Parties shall take at least two measures listed 
in that Annex to phase down the use of dental amalgam.  

As  specified  in  Section  4.6  of  this  Report,  the  preferred  options  P6O1a  and  P6O1b  consist  in 
requiring  the  use  of  dental  amalgam  only  in  its  encapsulated  form  and  the  use  of  amalgam 
separators. In terms of practical implementation (1) dentists not yet equipped with amalgamators and 
amalgam  separators  will  have  to  acquire  such  devices.  Dentists  would  have  to  ensure  appropriate 
maintenance of the separators and deliver the waste amalgam to authorised collectors, (2) suppliers 
of bulk mercury would stop providing such mercury to dentists and would increase mercury supply 
to producers of encapsulated dental amalgam. As the use of mercury from several sources is already 
limited in the EU as a consequence of Regulation (EC) N° 1907/2006, the competent authorities of 
the MS in charge of surveillance of this market, would also be tasked with the surveillance of the 
obligations regarding marketing of mercury for the purpose of dentistry.  

Implementation  of  the  preferred  options  P6O1a  and  P6O1b  entails  an  additional  cost  of  10-58 
million  EUR/y,  mainly  due  to  the  installation  and  maintenance  of  amalgam  separators  by  dental 
clinics. This will be counterbalanced to some extent by the expected positive economic impact to be 
enjoyed by the waste management and recycling sector.  A positive environmental is expected due to 
the  expected  reduction  of  mercury  pollution  currently  identified  especially  in  urban  wastewater 
treatment plants and associated to dental clinics. A positive social impact is expected mainly due to 
job creation in the waste treatment sector and the improved health and safety conditions for dental 
workers.  

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 84 of 186 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4A – MERCURY AS A GLOBAL ISSUE 

This section aims at presenting a fairly brief overview of the mercury problem. Throughout the text 
the  references  will  be  made  to  the  more  detailed  sources  for  the  reader  seeking  a  deeper 
understanding  of  the  issues  involved.  A  recent  and  comprehensive  analysis  of  the  problem  can  be 
found in the UNEP Global Mercury Assessment 2013. 
Mercury  is  a  natural  element,  represented  chemically  by  the  symbol  Hg73.  Pure  mercury  is  rarely 
found  in  nature.  Mercury  is  extracted  mainly  from  cinnabar,  a  sulphide  ore  containing  86%  of 
mercury that has been used since prehistoric times to produce a bright orange pigment. Extraction of 
mercury  from  cinnabar  has  been  described,  as  early  as  4th  century  BC,  by  the  Greek  philosopher 
Theophrastus in his treatise "On stones". Before the industrial revolution, mercury's main use was in 
gold  extraction,  while  in  the  last  two  centuries  it  has  been  used  extensively  in  the  chlor-alkali 
industry,  but  also  in  the  manufacture  of  electrical  instruments,  in  agricultural  fungicides,  in  the 
production of plastics, as well as in pharmaceuticals among others.  Annual production of mercury 
has dropped significantly from 5000-7000 t in the 1990s to around 1900t in recent years (2013 and 
2014).  China  is  currently  its  major  producer  with  around  1200 t  in  2012,  while  Kyrgyzstan  is 
practically the only other country producing mercury from cinnabar ore nowadays with an estimated 
production of 150t in 2012. China holds 21000t of the world's estimated 94000t of cinnabar reserves. 
Within  the  EU,  Spain,  once  a  leading  producer  of  mercury  from  its  centuries-old  Almaden  mine, 
stopped mercury extraction in 2003. 

Due  to  its  unique  properties  (heavy,  shiny  metal  that  is  liquid  at  room  temperature),  mercury  has 
been  used  in  a  variety  of  applications.  It  has  been  used  in  a  number  of  industrial  processes  (e.g. 
chlorine/sodium  hydroxide  production,  plastics  industry,  etc.)  and  in  a  variety  of  products  (e.g. 
thermometers,  dental  fillings,  energy-saving  fluorescent  lamps,  batteries,  etc.).  It  is  also  released 
unintentionally  through  the  burning  of  fossil  fuels  (particularly  in  coal-fired  power  plants),  during 
cement production, or as a by-product during the production of other metals (such as copper, zinc 
and lead). Due to its presence in several products, waste (especially medical waste) incineration is 
another  important  pathway  of  mercury  to  the  environment.  Perhaps  the  most  widespread  use  of 
mercury nowadays is in Artisanal and Small-scale Gold Miming (ASGM), where mercury is used to 
extract gold from ore by forming an amalgam (a mixture of mercury and gold), which is then heated 
to evaporate mercury (usually in the open air) and recover gold. Due to its simplicity and low cost, 
this  method  of  gold  extraction  is  still  used  widely  worldwide,  particularly  in  Asia,  sub-Saharan 
Africa and South-America. 

Mercury  is  a  ubiquitous  environmental  toxin,  encountered  in  three  chemical  forms  (elemental, 
inorganic and organic), each with its own profile of toxicity. Elemental mercury in the atmosphere 
can undergo transformation into inorganic mercury forms soluble in water74, providing an important 
pathway  for  deposition  through  the  rain.  Elemental  mercury  released  in  the  atmosphere  can  thus 
eventually  be  deposited  in  aquatic  environments,  where  it  can  be  converted  through  bacteria  to 
methylmercury,  its  most  toxic  form.  Global  mercury  emissions  from  human  activity  have  been 
estimated at 1960t in 2010. This represents about 30% of annual mercury emissions to air. Another 
10% comes from natural sources (e.g. volcanoes) and the rest 60% is from re-emissions, which again 
is  largely  due  to  mercury  accumulated  in  the  environment  due  to  human  activity  over  several 
centuries. 
Depending on its form75, mercury can stay in the air up to a year and can be transported throughout 
the hemisphere before it is deposited; therefore the mercury issue is a global problem and cannot be 

73  From its former name Hydrargyrum (stemming from Greek Hydr=water and Argyros=silver) 
74  e.g. ionic mercury (Hgii) 
75  Ionic mercury is reactive and will therefore be readily deposited, while elemental mercury, which constitutes 95% of 

the total atmospheric mercury, has the longest residence time of up to one year. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 85 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
addressed only at the national level. While mercury is mainly transported through the atmosphere, its 
environmental  impact  is  not  directly  related  to  its  atmospheric  burden  as  it  would  be  the  case  for 
several  other  major  atmospheric  pollutants.  As  mentioned,  depending  on  its  oxidation,  deposition 
and  conversion  to  methylmercury,  mercury’s  primary  environmental  and  health  impacts  may  be 
identified  thousands  of  kilometres  away  from  its  original  source.  Mercury  released  in  the 
environment due to human activity, particularly over the last couple of centuries, presents a major 
challenge as a threat to human health and the environment already now and in the future. Over the 
last  fifty  years,  mercury  toxicity76  has  been  well  documented  and  high  mercury  levels  in  fish 
worldwide  are  the  most  important  issue  of  concern.  Methylmercury  bioaccumulates  in  fish  and 
enters  the  food  chain.  As  larger  fish  eat  smaller  ones,  methylmercury  is  concentrated  up  the  food 
chain, a process known as biomagnification. As a result, predators in aquatic systems can have levels 
of methylmercury that are 100 000 times higher than methylmercury levels in the waters where they 
live. 

As mercury is globally distributed, due to its long residence time in the atmosphere, fish in remote 
regions  may  be  impacted  by  regional  and  global  sources.  Fish  in  and  downstream  of  mercury 
hotspots  (small  scale  gold  mining  operations,  mercury  cell  chlor-alkali  plants,  coal-fired  power 
plants, etc.) can contain high mercury concentrations77, but fish in other regions (even in the Arctic 
where there is little or no local mercury pollution) are affected as well. Elevated mercury levels have 
been measured in many freshwater and marine species throughout the world. Factors that influence 
mercury levels in the fish include age, size, weight and length of the fish, as well the characteristics 
of the body of water (e.g. local contamination, pH, etc.). Mercury  concentrations in  fish generally 
range  from  about  0,005  to  1,4milligram  of  mercury  per  kilogram  of  tissue  (mg/kg)  depending  on 
certain  factors  (e.g.  type  of  fish,  its  age,  origin,  etc.).  Smaller,  younger  or  non-predatory  fish  will 
tend  to  have  lower  mercury  levels  than  large,  older,  predatory  fish.  Large  predatory  fish  are  often 
migratory  and  thus  fish  from  particular  waters  with  high  mercury  contamination  can  be  found 
anywhere.  In  fact,  methylmercury  concentration  in  fish  can  differ  greatly  even  in  adjacent  water 
bodies  (receiving  practically  the  same  deposition)  due  to  ecosystem-specific  factors  affecting  the 
bioavailability  of  inorganic  mercury  to  methylating  microbes  (e.g.  sulphide,  dissolved  organic 
carbon) or the activity of the microbes themselves (e.g. temperature, organic carbon, redox status). 

Ingesting  fish  or  aquatic/marine  mammals  that  have  built  up  high  levels  of  methylmercury  passes 
their  toxic  burden  to  those  who  consume  them,  including  humans.  More  than  90%  of  the 
mercury/methylmercury 
the 
gastrointestinal tract. 

is  readily  absorbed 

the  body 

ingested 

through 

in  fish 

into 

As methylmercury in fish is bound to tissue proteins rather than fatty deposits, there is little one can 
do to reduce exposure when eating fish (trimming/skinning of the fish does not reduce the mercury 
content of the fillet portion and no cleaning or cooking methods can reduce the amounts of mercury 
intake  either).  Fish  remains  an  important  source  of  protein,  vitamins  and  micronutrients  and  is  an 
important constituent of a balanced diet. Mercury intake depends obviously not only on the level of 
mercury and the type of fish, but also on the amount consumed and the frequency of consumption. 
People on a high-fish diet, pregnant and breast-feeding women and young children are at a higher 
risk. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin and once in the human body it targets mainly the brain and the 
nervous system, however the kidneys and the cardiovascular system are also affected. Fetuses and 
children, with still developing brain and rapidly absorbing nutrients, can be particularly vulnerable. 
Even  at  low  doses,  mercury  may  hinder  development,  delaying  walking  and  talking,  impairing 
attention  and  causing  learning  disability.  High  prenatal  or  infant  exposure  may  cause  mental 
retardation, cerebral palsy, deafness and blindness. The best known incident of acute high exposure 
to  methylmercury  took  place  in  Minamata,  Japan,  in  the  1960s  due  to  direct  contamination  of  the 

76  mainly in the form of methylmercury which is orders of magnitude more toxic than the inorganic forms  
77  even beyond the current EU legal limit of 1,00 mg/kg wet weight 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 86 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
Minamata bay by wastewaters from a local chemical factory. The up-to-then unknown ailment was 
named by the scientists Minamata disease and affected more than fifty thousand people in the area, 
some  of  them  still  suffering  today  from  neurological  symptoms,  including  tremors,  dizziness, 
headaches, memory, vision and hearing loss, while most severe cases involve cognitive and motor 
dysfunction and physical abnormalities. 

While  acute  exposure  in  Minamata  and  its  devastating  impacts  drew  the  world's  attention  to  the 
mercury  problem,  less  severe  mercury  exposure  is  also  problematic  in  the  long  term.  The  main 
source of mercury exposure for most people in developed countries is inhalation of mercury vapour 
due  to  the  continuous  release  of  elemental  mercury  from  dental  amalgam.  Exposure  to 
methylmercury mostly occurs via the diet.  

Through  their  International  Programme  on  Chemical  Safety  (IPCS),  UNEP  and  WHO  have 
classified mercury as one of ten chemicals of major public health concern.  

The reference intake levels for methylmercury exposures range from 0,7 to 2 μg methylmercury per 
kilogram body weight (μg/kg body weight) per week.  The EFSA Panel on contaminants in the food 
chain  (CONTAM)  has  established  tolerable  weekly  intakes  (TWIs)78  for  inorganic  mercury  at 
4 μg/kg body weight and for methylmercury at 1.3 μg/kg body weight.  
EU legislation setting maximum levels for mercury in fishery products is already in place79. Limits 
are set at 0,50 or 1,00 mg/kg wet weight depending on the type of fish. In view of the actual levels of 
mercury  detected  in  fish,  there  is  very  limited  scope  to  reasonably  reduce  the  limits.  Alternative 
solutions for protecting vulnerable groups (e.g. targeted consumer advice) are necessary. 
An information note80 on methylmercury in fish and fishery products issued by the Commission in 
2008 suggests that women who might become pregnant, women who are pregnant or breast-feeding 
and young children should not eat more than one small portion (<100g) per week of large predatory 
fish, such as swordfish, shark, marlin or pike. Also they should not eat tuna more than twice a week. 

Detailed guidance on identifying populations at risk from mercury exposure has also been issued, in 
2008, by UNEP Chemicals in cooperation with WHO81 and by many national authorities. 

While  an  accurate  analysis  of  potential  risks  from  fish  consumption  would  require  detailed 
information on fish species consumption patterns as well as methylmercury levels in the consumed 
fish,  data  on  eating  habits  by  the  Food  Agricultural  Organisation  (FAO)  indicate  that  people  in 
certain regions (e.g. islands) in Europe may be at particularly high risk of mercury exposure through 
fish consumption. 

In  its  scientific  opinion  on  the  risk  for  public  health  related  to  the  presence  of  mercury  and 
methylmercury in food82, the EFSA Panel on contaminants in the food chain (CONTAM) concluded 
that  high  fish  consumers,  which  might  include  pregnant  women,  may  exceed  the tolerable  weekly 
intake (TWI) by up to approximately six-fold. Unborn children constitute the most vulnerable group. 
While dietary inorganic mercury exposure in Europe does not exceed the TWI in most cases, parallel 
inhalation  exposure  of  elemental  mercury  from  dental  amalgam  is  likely  to  increase  the  internal 
inorganic mercury exposure; thus the TWI might be exceeded. However, the contribution of dental 
amalgam to the total body burden, when compared to methylmercury from food, is limited. In fact, 
elemental mercury is a major component (ca. 50%) of dental amalgam in the form of an alloy that is 

78  The TWI is the amount of a substance that can be consumed weekly over an entire lifetime without an appreciable 

risk to health. 

79  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 of 19 December 2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants 

in foodstuffs 

80  Information Note on Methylmercury in fish and fishery products, CEC/DG SANCO, 21 April 2008 
81  Guidance for Identifying Populations at Risk from Mercury Exposure, UNEP Chemicals/WHO, August 2008 
82  EFSA Journal 2012;10(12):2985 [241 pp.], http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/2985.pdf 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 87 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
solid at room temperature. Elemental mercury released into the mouth can be oxidised to inorganic 
mercury which may be transformed by bacteria to methylmercury after it is released into saliva.  On 
the contrary, after oral intake, methylmercury83 is much more extensively and rapidly absorbed than 
elemental or ionic mercury and accumulated in hair, the fetus and the brain. While the benefits of 
fish  in  human  nutrition  should  be  kept  in  mind,  eating  mercury-contaminated  fish  can  have 
significant negative health impacts in the long-run. 
Recent research84 quantified the monetary benefits from control of methylmercury (MeHg) toxicity 
in  the  EU  at  between  €8  000  and  €9  000  million  per  year.  This  estimate  results  from  research 
findings, on the basis of population biomarker data, that 1,5 to 2,0 million EU children are born each 
year  exceeding  exposure  limits  associated  with  long  term  IQ  deficits.  Unfortunately,  due  to  the 
complexity  of  the  issue,  there  are  currently  no  models  available  to  quantify  the  link  between 
anthropogenic  mercury  releases  with  human  exposure.  However,  the  long  timescales  of  mercury 
cycling  in the  environment suggest  that  any anthropogenic  mercury releases persist and  can affect 
biological exposures for centuries to millennia.  

Mercury  can  enter  our  environment  (and  subsequently  the  food  chain)  in  many  different  ways. 
Emissions  of  mercury  can  travel  through  air  and  water  and  end  up  thousands  of  kilometers  away. 
Unless it is properly disposed of, mercury produced, used or discarded adds up to the global mercury 
pool,  persists  in  the  environment.  The  origin  of  atmospheric  mercury  deposition  can  differ 
substantially  in  different  areas  in  the  EU.  Emission  models  predict  atmospheric  deposition 
originating  from  Europe  to  up  to  60%  of  the  total  European  depositions  in  certain  industrialised 
areas, while in other areas, such as the Mediterranean, European emissions contribute only 20% or 
less.  It  is  thus  obvious,  that  the  transboundary  component  of  mercury  pollution  is  very  significant 
and can only be addressed by a global action. 
Global  emissions  of  mercury  to  air  from  human  activities  in  2010  were  estimated  at  1 960t85, 
relatively  stable  since  1990.  However,  while  emissions  have  been  declining  in  Europe  (and  North 
America)  thanks  to  legislation  enacted,  this  is  not  the  case  in  the  rest  of  the  world,  as  economic 
growth has resulted in increases of mercury emissions (e.g. through the burning of fossil fuels and 
biomass).  On  the  basis  of  recent  estimates,  Europe  contributed  in  2010  around  5%  to  the  global 
atmospheric mercury emissions, while Southern and Eastern Asia accounted for about half (50%) of 
the global mercury emissions to air. Given the ability of elemental mercury to travel long distances 
from the emission source, it is obvious that EU legislation alone cannot protect adequately the EU 
population and that a speedy and successful implementation of the MC is of paramount importance. 
Early ratification by the EU and its MS will contribute to an early entry into force of the Convention, 
complementing the effectiveness of EU legislation in tackling the mercury problem.  

While EU legislation covers satisfactorily most aspects of the mercury issue, it cannot address the 
global dimension of the mercury problem. In fact, while mercury emissions declined in Europe, this 
has  been  counterbalanced  by  increase  in  emissions  in  other  countries  (particularly  Southern  and 
Eastern  Asia)  and  as  a  result,  global  mercury  emissions  have  remained  stable  during  the  last  two 
decades.  The  international  dimension  is  thus  a  key  element  of  efforts  to  decrease  exposure  of 
humans and the environment to mercury. 

83  e.g. from contaminated fish or seafood 
84  Bellanger M, Pichery C, Aerts D, Berglund M, Castano A, Cejchanova M, Crettaz P, Davidson F, Esteban M, Exley 
K,  et  al:  Economic  benefits  of  methylmercury  exposure  control  in  Europe:  Monetary  value  of  neurotoxicity 
prevention. Environ Health 2013, 12:3. 
85  UNEP Global Mercury Assessment 2013 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 88 of 186 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 4B – MAJOR MERCURY PATHWAYS 

Mercury  is  released  to  the  environment  from  many  different  sources  including:  mining  activities 
(whether  dedicated  to  mercury  or  other  metals);  mercury-containing  products  (either  during  their 
production, use  or  disposal); industrial  processes using  mercury intentionally (e.g. in  acetaldehyde 
production where mercury is used as a catalyst or in the chlor-alkali industry, where mercury is used 
as  a  cathode)  or  where  mercury  is  emitted  unintentionally  (e.g.  metal  refining,  cement  kilns,  coal 
combustion,  etc.);  waste  dumps;  contaminated  sites;  incinerators;  crematoria  and  many  others. 
Streets86 has recently estimated historical mercury emission over all time to 350 000t, assessing that 
61% of the emissions occurred after 1850.  

It  is  thus  obvious  that  in  addressing  the  mercury  problem,  there  are  various  possibilities  in 
intervening at various points of the "mercury cycle". 

For the intentional uses of mercury (e.g. in products and processes), measures should seek to reduce 
or even eliminate mercury use, by encouraging substitution with mercury-free alternatives. Products 
containing  mercury  (thermometers,  barometers,  batteries,  electrical  switches  and  many  types  of 
electronic  equipment)  are  still  widely  produced  and  traded  globally,  although  substitutes  and 
alternatives  are  currently  available  for  most  of  them.    Mercury-use  in  products  has  declined 
dramatically in  the last decade in  most developed countries, including Europe.  However, this may 
not  be the case in  the rest of the world and particularly in  developing  countries, as  substitutes are 
often more expensive. 

The main intentional industrial use of mercury in Europe is in the chlor-alkali industry, which uses 
an electrolysis cell with mercury serving as the cathode, a process that dates back to the 19th century. 
While alternative, cost effective mercury-free processes have been developed in the meantime, given 
the significant investment costs for converting, there are still more than 30 plants in the EU using the 
mercury process and employing around 7 000t of metallic mercury. 
Global  elemental  mercury  consumption  in  2005  had  been  estimated  by  UNEP87  at  ca.  3800t 
annually, while the reported figure for EU25 was ca. 490t. In Europe, the chlor-alkali industry is the 
main consumer with 175t annually, with dental amalgam coming second with 95t/y on average88. 

Measures to restrict production, supply and trade of mercury can help minimise the intentional use 
of mercury in products and processes. Within the EU, MAYASA (Miñas de Almadén y Arrayanes 
S.A.) that had reached a production of 2800t in the 1950s stopped production in 2003. The EU and 
the USA, two major exporters of mercury have banned exports since 2011 and 2013 respectively. As 
a  result,  international  supply  of  mercury  has  been  restricted,  which  is  of  particular  importance  in 
addressing the ASGM problem, an activity not easy to regulate due to its diffuse character. 

The main source of unintentional emissions of mercury to air is the burning of coal. Despite the low 
concentrations of mercury in coal (usually less than 2mg/kg) given the significant quantities of coal 
used,  in  particular  for  energy  production,  this  source  contributes  around  25%  of  the  global 
anthropogenic  mercury  emissions  to  air87.  Depending  on  the  plant  and  the  type  of  coal  used, 
substantial reductions of mercury emissions can be achieved with conventional air pollution control 
devices (primarily intended for other pollutants), while is some cases mercury-specific technologies 
may prove necessary. 

Cement production is another important source of mercury pollution (around 10% of global mercury 
emissions  to  air)87  due to  mercury  content  in  the  fuel  and  the  raw  materials  used.  While  there  are 

86 Streets et al 2011 
87 UNEP (2013), Mercury: Time to Act 
88  COWI,  Concorde  East/West  (2008).  Options  for  reducing  mercury  use  in  products  and  applications  and  the  fate  of 

mercury already circulating in society (Dec 2008) 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 89 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
only traces of mercury in the raw materials, research has shown that in most cases they contribute 
more to emissions than the fuel.  

Mercury is also emitted by almost all metallurgical processes (e.g. during the extraction of copper, 
zinc or lead), as mercury present both in the coal (fuel source) and in the ore is released during the 
smelting process. 

Other mercury emission sources include chemical industries, contaminated sites, waste incineration 
facilities and crematoria. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 90 of 186 

 
 
 
ANNEX 5 – THE MINAMATA CONVENTION ON MERCURY 

Due to the long range transport properties of mercury, the exposure of people living in the EU, as 
well  as  the  exposure  of  the  EU's  environment,  cannot  be  reduced  to  an  acceptable  level  through 
domestic policies alone. Co-ordinated international action is therefore needed to address the mercury 
problem in a globally effective manner. The EU Mercury Strategy had this in mind when focusing 
seven of its actions (actions 14 to 20) on supporting and promoting international activities. The EU 
repeatedly requested the UNEP Governing Council to take a decision on the opening of negotiations 
on  a  global  legally  binding  instrument  on  mercury.  The  Governing  Council  of  UNEP  decided  in 
February 200989 to establish an intergovernmental negotiating committee (INC) with the mandate to 
prepare  a  global  legally  binding  instrument  on  mercury.  The  INC  started  its  work  in  2010  and 
completed it, as planned, in January 2013.  

The  Convention’s  main  objective,  as  stated  in  Art.  1,  is  “to  protect  human  health  and  the 
environment from anthropogenic emissions and releases of mercury and mercury compounds”. The 
MC  includes  provisions  to  cover  all  major  uses  and  releases  of  mercury  at  a  global  level,  in 
particular: 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

to reduce the supply of mercury and enhance the capacity for its environmentally sound storage; 
to reduce the demand for mercury in products and processes; 
to address artisanal and small-scale gold mining; 
to reduce international trade in mercury; 
to reduce atmospheric emissions of mercury; 
to address mercury-containing waste and the remediation of contaminated sites; 
to increase knowledge through awareness-raising and scientific information exchange; 
to specify arrangements for capacity-building and technical and financial assistance; 
to address compliance. 

The  EU  intended  to  become  a  Party  to  the  MC  along  with  its  MS  and  signed  the  Convention  in 
October 2013 in Japan. In view of its subsequent ratification by the EU, the Commission needs to 
propose an amendment to EU legislation accordingly. 
The  reader  is  referred  to  the  Convention  text90  for  a  thorough  understanding  of  its  implications, 
however its key provisions are presented in this Annex. 

Article 3 – Mercury supply sources and trade 

  Prohibition of primary mercury mining with a grace period of fifteen years after the date of entry 
into force of the Convention, for already existing mines, while imposing restrictions on mercury 
use for this source. 

  Excess  mercury  from  the  decommissioning  of  chlor-alkali  facilities  should  be  disposed  of  as 

waste. 

  Exports  are  only  allowed  subject  to  the  prior  informed  consent  of  the  receiver  country,  while 
non-Parties  would  additionally  need  to  guarantee  compliance  with  certain  Convention’s 
provisions. 

 

Imports  from  non-Parties  are  only  allowed  subject  to  guarantees  that  the  mercury  did  not 
originate from primary mercury mining of from the decommissioning of chlor-alkali facilities. 

89 UNEP Governing Council Decision 25/5 
90 Minamata Convention on Mercury 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 91 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
Article 4 – Mercury-added products 

  Prohibition  of  the  manufacture,  import  and  export  of  certain  categories  of  mercury-added 
products  to  be  implemented  by  2020  (possibility  for  an  individual  Party  to  postpone  by  5  or 
exceptionally 10 years).  

  Measures to phase down the use of dental amalgam (flexibility to select at least two among a list 

of nine measure proposed). 

  Measures to discourage the manufacture and distribution of in new mercury-added products. 

Article 5 – Manufacturing processes in which mercury or mercury compounds are used 

  Phase-out  of  mercury  use  in  chlor-alkali  production  by  2025  and  acetaldehyde  production  by 

2018 (possibility for an individual party to postpone by 5 or exceptionally 10 years). 

  Restrictions on the use of mercury in vinyl-chloride monomer production. 
  Restrictions on the use of mercury in sodium/potassium methylate/ethylate production aiming at 
the phase out as fast as possible and within 10 years of the entry into force of the Convention. 

  Measures to discourage the development of new facilities using a mercury-based process. 

Article 7 – Artisanal and small-scale gold mining 

  Measures  to  reduce  and  where  feasible  eliminate  the  use  of  mercury  in/and  the  emissions  of 

mercury from artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM). 

  Obligation for Parties with more than insignificant ASGM activities on their territory to develop 
and  implement  a  national  action  plan  with  specific  measures  to  minimise  the  impact  of  this 
activity to mercury pollution and human health. 

Article 8 – Emissions 

  Within  five  years  of  entry  into  force  of  the  treaty,  the  obligation  to  apply  best  available 
techniques (BAT) and best environmental practices (BEP) to control and, where feasible, reduce 
emissions, to new point sources in the following categories: 

  coal-fired power plants;  

  coal-fired industrial boilers; 

  smelting and roasting processes used in the production of non-ferrous metals; 

  waste incineration facilities; 

   cement clinker production facilities. 

  Within  ten  years  of  entry  into  force  of  the  treaty,  the  obligation  to  control  emissions  from 
existing  sources  (within  the  categories  indicated  above)  by  employing  one  or  more  of  the 
following measures: 

  a quantified reduction target; 

   emission limit values; 

  BAT and BEP; 

  a multi-pollutant control strategy delivering co-benefits; 

   or other alternatives. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 92 of 186 

 
 
  Within five years of entry into force of the Convention, the obligation to establish an inventory 

of emissions from all sources (within the categories indicated above). 

Article 9 – Releases 

  Obligation  to  control  releases  to  water  and  land  by  employing  one  or  more  of  the  following 

measures: 

  release limit values; 

  BAT and BEP; 

  a multi-pollutant control strategy delivering co-benefits; 

   or other alternatives. 

  Within five years of entry into force of the Convention, the obligation to establish an inventory 

of releases from all significant anthropogenic sources.  

Article 10 – Environmentally sound interim storage of mercury, other than waste mercury 

  Obligation to take measures to ensure the environmentally sound interim storage in accordance 

with guidelines to be adopted by the Conference of the Parties. 

Article 11 – Mercury wastes 

  Measures  to  ensure  that  mercury  waste  is  managed  in  an  environmentally  sound  manner,  in 
accordance  with  requirements  to  be  adopted  by  the  Conference  of  the  Parties  and  the  relevant 
guidelines developed under the Basel Convention. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 93 of 186 

 
 
ANNEX 6 – CURRENT EU LAW ON MERCURY AND MERCURY COMPOUNDS 

Current EU law addresses already the use of mercury (hereinafter "mercury" or "Hg") and mercury 
compounds (hereinafter "mercury compounds" or "Hg compounds") in a comprehensive manner. In 
particular, besides Regulation (EC) No 1102/200891, several EU instruments contain provisions that 
regulate the Hg whole life cycle from supply to final disposal as waste. With a view to identifying 
the regulatory gaps affecting existing EU law vis-à-vis the MC (see Annex 7), this Annex provides a 
description of the provisions of the EU acquis that are relevant vis-à-vis the scope of application and 
the  issues  addressed  in  this  Convention,  i.e.  mercury  supply  and  trade,  the  interim  storage  of 
mercury and mercury compounds, the use of Hg and Hg compounds in mercury-added products and 
manufacturing  processes  and  related  mercury  emissions  and  releases  and  the  management  of 
mercury waste.                

Mercury supply and trade   

Whereas the MC prohibits the establishment  of new primary mining activities in the territories of 
the Parties and calls for existing ones to cease within 15 years after the date of entry into force of the 
Convention  for  the  Party  concerned,  Regulation  (EC)  No  1102/2008  (Art.  2(d))  requires,  since  15 
March 2011, that metallic mercury extracted from cinnabar ore in the EU be disposed of as waste. 
Such mining activity in the EU is therefore considered as being deprived of any "raison d'être".         

Regarding  the  export  from  the  EU  and  the  import  into  the  EU  of  Hg,  Hg  compounds  and  of 
products containing Hg and/or Hg compounds (hereinafter "mercury-added products"), several EU 
instruments can be referred to. More specifically, whilst the MC sets restrictions on the international 
trade of mercury and of mixtures of mercury with other substances, the EU acquis, including notably 
Regulations  (EC)  No  1907/200692,  1102/2008  and  649/201293,  regulates  already  the  export  and 
import of Hg, of certain Hg compounds and of specific mercury-added products.94  

-  Concerning  exports,  Regulations  (EC)  No  1102/2008  (Art.  1)  and  649/2012  (Art.  15(2)  and 
Annex  V  (Part  2))  ban  the  export  of  cosmetic  soaps  containing  mercury,  of  mercury  and  of 
mixtures of mercury with other substances as well as the export of three Hg compounds (cinnabar 
ore,  mercury  chloride  and  mercury  oxide),  saved  when  they  are  exported  for  research  and 
development, medical or analysis purposes. As to the exports of other Hg compounds, Regulation 
(EC) No 649/2012 (Art. 7, 8, 14 and Annex I (Parts 1 and 3)) makes them subject to an export 
notification procedure or, in case when used in pesticides, to a prior informed consent procedure. 

-  As  to  imports,  Entries  18,  30  and  62  of  Annex  XVII  to  Regulation  (EC)  No  1907/2006  set, 
respectively, restrictions on the import: (i) of all Hg compounds when intended for some specified 
uses  e.g.  for  the  preservation  of  wood,  (ii)  of  Hg  as  constituents  of  other  substances  or  in 
mixtures, when destined for supply to the general public and when a given concentration limit is 
exceeded  and  (iii)  of  phenylmercury  acetate,  propionate,  2-ethyllexanoate,  octanoate  and 
neodecanoate  with  a  mercury  concentration  equal  or  exceeding  0,01%  by  weight  (as  from  10 
October 2017).  
Entry 18a of Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 establishes also a restriction on the 
import,  with  some  exemptions,  of  certain  mercury-containing  measuring  devices  for  industrial, 

91  Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008, OJ  L 304, 14.11.2008, p. 75. 
92  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1. 
93  Regulation (EC) 649/2012, OJ L 201, 27.7.2012, p. 60. 
94  Note  that  "mercury"  is  classified  under  Regulation  (EC)  No  1272/2008  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council  of  16  December  2008  on  classification,  labelling  and  packaging  of  substances  and  mixtures  as  a 
"substance  of  very  high  concern"  with  the  following  characteristics:  Reproductive  toxicity  (Cat.  1B),  Acute 
toxicity  (Acute  Tox.  2),  Specific  target  organ  toxicity  –  repeated  exposure  (STOT  RE1),  Hazardous  to  the 
aquatic  environment  (Aquatic  Acute  1  and  Aquatic  Chronic  1).  Mercury  compounds  are  also  classified  as 
hazardous substances under Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008.   

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 94 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
professional  and  non-professional  uses,  including  inter  alia  fever  thermometers,  barometers, 
manometers and hygrometers.  

Interim storage of mercury and mercury compounds    

The MC requires that the interim storage of individual stocks exceeding 50t of mercury, of mixtures 
of mercury with other substances and of six mercury compounds (mercury chloride, oxide, nitrate, 
sulphate, sulphide and cinnabar) is undertaken in an environmentally-sound manner.  

Directive 2012/18/EU95 on the prevention of major accidents involving, for instance, the storage of 
dangerous  substances  such  as  mercury  and  on  the  limitation  of  their  consequences  sets  relevant 
requirements. In particular, with a view to ensuring a high level of human health and environmental 
protection, the paramount objective of Directive 2012/18/EU (Art. 1), operators who store over 50t 
of Hg and/or  Hg compounds must  draw up a major-accident  prevention policy to  be implemented 
notably  by  a  safety  management  system  that  must  prescribe  the  adoption  and  implementation  of 
procedures and instructions for safe operation (Art. 8(5) and Annex III). In case where an operator 
stores over 200t of Hg and/or Hg compounds, it must also establish a safety report and emergency 
plans (Art. 10 and 12).  

In addition, operators of industrial installations covered by IED96 who store mercury and/or mercury 
compounds  have  to  make  sure  that  storage  takes  place  on  the  basis  of  appropriate  preventive 
measures  taken  against  pollution  (Art.  11(a))  and  without  causing  "significant  pollution"  (Art. 
11(c)). In this regard, Art. 14(1) and (2) requires that permit conditions be set in such a way as to 
ensure  compliance  with  the  requirements  set  out  in  Art  11(a)  and  (c),  including  in  terms  of 
prevention of emissions to soil and groundwater.  

Placing on the (EU) market and use of mercury and mercury compounds as substances  

The  MC  provides  that  mercury  from  primary  mining  can  only  be  used  in  manufacturing  of 
mercury-added products listed in its Annex A, in accordance with the conditions set out in Art. 4 and 
in that Annex (e.g. to cease the manufacture, import and export of products listed in Part I of Annex 
A by 2020, to discourage the distribution in commerce of mercury-added products not covered by 
any known use prior to the entry into force of the Convention).  

Moreover, as stated before, Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 provides that metallic mercury extracted 
from cinnabar ore in the EU must be disposed of as waste.  

In  addition  to  imports,  Entries  18,  30  and  62  of  Annex  XVII  to  Regulation  (EC)  No  1907/2006 
restrict  also  the  placing  on  the  (EU)  market  and  the  use  of:  (i)  all  mercury  compounds  when 
intended  for  some  specified  uses,  e.g.  use  to  preserve  wood  or  to  prevent  the  fouling  by  micro-
organisms, plants and animals of the hulls of boat, of the equipment and appliances used for fish and 
shellfish  farming  and  of  any  totally  or  partly  submerged  appliances  or  equipment,  (ii)  mercury  as 
substances,  as  constituents  of  other  substances  or  in  mixtures,  when  intended  for  supply  to  the 
general  public and  when a given concentration limit is  exceeded, and (iii)  phenylmercury acetate, 
propionate,  2-ethyllexanoate,  octanoate  and  neodecanoate  with  a  mercury  concentration  equal  or 
exceeding 0,01% by weight (as from 10 October 2017).97    

Placing on the (EU) market and use of mercury-added products      

The  MC  provides  that  the  manufacture,  import  and  export  of  mercury-added  products  listed  in  its 
Annex A (Part I), including batteries, switches and relays, compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), linear 

95  Directive 2012/18/EU, OJ L 197 of 24.7.2012, p. 1.      
96  Directive 2010/75/EU, OJ L 334 of 17.12.2010, p. 17.  
97  Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No  848/2012  prohibits  also  the  manufacture  itself  of  phenylmercury  acetate, 

propionate, 2-ethyllexanoate, octanoate and neodecanoate. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 95 of 186 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
fluorescent  lamps  (LFLs),  high  pressure mercury vapour lamps (HPMV), cold cathode fluorescent 
and  external  electrode  fluorescent  lamps  (CCFLs  and  EEFLs),  cosmetics,  pesticides,  biocides, 
topical  antiseptics  and  certain  non-electronic  measuring  devices,  must  cease  as  from  2020.  All 
relevant mercury-added products are already addressed in the EU acquis.  

Directive  2011/65/EU  (Art.  4(1)  and  (2)  and  Annexes  II,  III  and  IV)98  sets  maximum  mercury 
concentrations in compliance with those established in above-mentioned Annex A (Part I) and which 
must not to be exceeded notably in relevant switches and relays, CFLs, LFLs, CCFLs and EEFLs. 
Those  restrictions  do  not  only  apply  to  the  first  placing  on  the  (EU)  market,  but  also  to  their 
manufacture (when placed on the EU market) and import into the EU market (Art. 7(a) and 9(a)).  

Directive 2006/66/EC (Art. 4)99 prohibits the placing on the (EU) market and the import of batteries, 
button cells and accumulators containing more than 0,0005% of mercury by weight.  

Alongside  above-mentioned  export  ban  on  cosmetic  soaps  containing  mercury  as  set  out  in 
Regulation (EC) No 649/2012, Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 (Art. 14(a) and (d)) and Annexes II 
and  V)100  bans  the  placing  on  the  (EU)  market  of  cosmetic  products  containing  mercury  and/or 
mercury compounds, save in respect of two eye products that can be used provided that they contain 
a mercury and mercury compounds concentration not exceeding 0,007%.  

Concerning pesticides, Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 (Art. 18(a) and Annex II)101 provides that fruits 
and nuts can only be placed on the (EU) market if they contain a maximum residue level of mercury 
compounds not exceeding 0,01 mg/kg. In addition, it results from Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009102 
read  in  combination  with  Regulation  (EU)  No  540/2011103  that  Hg  and  its  compounds,  as  non-
approved active substances to date for plant protection products ("PPPs"), cannot be placed in the 
EU market. Regarding biocides,104 alike PPPs, it derives from Regulation (EC) No 528/2012/EC that 
the  placing  on  the  EU  market  and  the  use  of  biocidal  products  containing  Hg  and  Hg  compounds 
have  not  been  approved  to  date.  Concerning  topical  antiseptics,  similarly  to  PPPs and  biocides,  it 
results  from  the  implementation  of  Directive  2001/83/EC  (Art.  6(1))105  read  in  combination  with 
Regulation  (EC)  No  726/2004  (Art.  3)106  that  no  mercury-  and  mercury  compounds-containing 
antiseptics have so far been authorised to be placed on the EU market.  

Entries 18a and 62 of Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 establish also a restriction on 
the  placing  on  the  EU  market,  with  some  exemptions,  of  certain  mercury-containing  measuring 
devices  for  industrial,  professional  and  non-professional  uses,  including  inter  alia  fever 
thermometers, barometers, manometers and hygrometers and, as from 10 October 2017, of articles 
or  any  parts  thereof  containing  one  or  more  of  the  five  defined  phenylmercury  compounds  if  the 
mercury concentration is equal or greater than 0,01% by weight.       

The MC provides also that Parties must phase down the use of dental amalgam and, for doing so, 
take at least two of the measures listed in its Annex A (Part II). One can argue that several of these 
measures lie primarily within the competence of the MS, including to set national objectives on the 
prevention of dental carries, to  encourage professional organisations and dental schools to educate 
and train dental professionals and students to use mercury-free dental restoration alternatives and to 
discourage  insurance  policies  and  programmes  that  favour  the  dental  amalgam.  Other  measures, 

Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009, OJ L 342, 22.12.2009, p. 59. 
Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, OJ L 70, 16.3.2005, p. 1. 

98  Directive 2011/65/EU, OJ L 174 of 1.7.2011, p. 88. 
99  Directive 2006/66/EC, OJ L 266 of 26.9.2006, p. 1. 
100  
101  
102 Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1. 
103  
104 Regulation (EC) No 528/2012, OJ L 167, 27.06.2012, p. 1. 
105  
Directive 2001/83/EC, OJ L 311 of 28.11.2001, p. 67. 
106 Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, OJ L 136, 30.04.2004, p. 1. 

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, OJ L 153, 11.6.2011, p. 1 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 96 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
including  the  promotion  of  the  use  of  best  environmental  practices  in  dental  facilities  to  reduce 
emissions  of  mercury  and  mercury  compounds  to  water  and  land  may  be  considered  as  measures 
whereby EU action would have an added-value particularly in terms of establishing a level-playing 
field among dentists.     

The  EU  acquis  contains  several  provisions  that  address  indirectly  the  use  of  dental  amalgam  in 
dental facilities and the potential adverse environmental impacts caused by the emissions of mercury 
residues. As explained in further details below, since mercury qualifies under WFD107 as a "priority 
hazardous substance", MS must ensure that mercury emissions generated by dental facilities using 
dental  amalgam  do  not  lead  to  mercury  concentrations  in  surface  water  bodies  exceeding  the 
environmental  quality  standard  –  between  0,05  and  0,07  µg/l  –  as  set  out  in  Directive 
2008/105/EC108.  Regarding EU waste legislation, Art. 13 of Directive 2008/98/EC109 requires MS to 
ensure  that  waste,  including  mercury  waste  from  dental  facilities,  be  handled  without  impacting 
human health and the environment.      

Use of mercury and mercury compounds in manufacturing processes  

The MC provides that the use of Hg or Hg compounds in the production of acetaldehyde in which 
mercury or mercury compounds are used as catalyst and of chlor-alkali must cease respectively in 
2018  and  2025  and  that  measures  must  be  undertaken  to  address  emissions  of  mercury  to  air  and 
water.  

The case of the production of chlor-alkali is addressed in EU law under the IED read in combination 
with  Commission  Implementation  Decision  2013/732110,  which  bans  Hg  use  for  producing  chlor-
alkali  in  new  installations  while  allowing  it  in  existing  ones  until  December  2017.  Regarding 
mercury emissions  generated by  existing  chlor-alkali installations, the IED (Art. 11 and 14(1) and 
(2)) requests the national competent authorities to set out in relevant permits or via general binding 
rules mercury control measures, including emission limit values (ELVs) or equivalent parameters or 
technical measures ensuring an equivalent level of environmental protection with a view notably to 
preventing any significant pollution and risks of non-compliance with mercury concentrations limits 
established in particular in  Directives 2004/107/EC111 (mercury target  value for air  quality set at 5 
mg/m3)  and 2008/105/EC  (mercury environmental quality standard  for surface water quality set at 
0,05-0,07 µg/l).  

The MC establishes also mercury and mercury compounds-related production conditions applicable 
to  three  other  manufacturing  processes,  including  the  production  (i)  of  vinyl  chloride  monomer 
(hereinafter, "VCM"), (ii) of sodium or potassium methylate or ethylate and (iii) of polyurethane 
using mercury containing catalysts (hereinafter "polyurethane"). These conditions relate in particular 
to the duty to reduce the use of Hg, including mercury from primary mining and Hg emissions into 
air and water.  

As  an  activity  covered  by  the  IED,  operators  of  VCM  production  installations  and  national 
competent authorities must ensure that such installations operate on the basis of pollution prevention 
measures, including e.g. ELVs with a view to avoiding significant pollution (Art. 11 and 14(1) and 
(2)). Regarding polyurethane production, as highlighted above, Entry 62 of Annex XVII to REACH 
restricts, as from 10 October 2017, the placing on the EU market and use of the most common Hg 
compounds used for this type of production – phenylmercury acetate, propionate, 2-ethyllexanoate, 
octanoate and neodecanoate – with a mercury concentration equal or exceeding 0,01% by weight. 

Directive 2000/60/EC, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1.   
Directive 2008/105/EC, OL L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 84. 
Directive 2008/98/EC, OJ L 213, 22.11.2008, p. 3.   

107  
108  
109  
110 Commission Implementation Decision 2013/732/EU, OJ L 332, 11.12.2013, p. 34.   
111 Directive 2004/107/EC, OJ L 23, 26.1.2005, p. 3. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 97 of 186 

 
 
 
                                                 
Emissions of mercury and mercury compounds to air, water and land  

Art. 8 of the MC requests Parties to control and, where feasible, to reduce emissions into the air of 
Hg  and  of  Hg  compounds  from  the  point  sources  falling  within  one  of  the  five  source  categories 
listed  in  its  Annex  D  (coal-fired  power  plants,  industrial  boilers,  smelting  and  roasting  processes 
used  in  the  production  of  lead,  zinc,  copper  and  industrial  gold,  waste  incineration  and  cement 
clinker  production  facilities).  For  doing  so,  the  MC  requires  new  installations  to  operate  with  the 
BAT  and  best  environmental  practice  and  existing  installations  to  operate  on  the  basis  of  ELVs 
and/or the BAT and/or other measures aimed at reducing emissions. The MC specifies that a Party 
may  choose  to  apply  these  obligations  only  on  a  given  set  of  installations  within  each  source 
category, provided that the installations concerned account altogether for at least 75% of Hg and Hg 
compounds  emissions  generated  by  the  relevant  source  category.  Regarding  emissions  of  mercury 
and mercury compounds to water and land, Art. 9 of the MC requires that those emitted from point 
sources that are not addressed in other provisions of the Convention be controlled and, if feasible, 
reduced via ELVs and/or the use of the BAT and/or alternative measures. At last, the MC calls for 
Parties  to  establish  an  inventory  of  Hg  emissions  to  air,  water  and  land  from  all  concerned  point 
sources. 

EU law addresses already Hg and Hg compounds air emissions from the relevant installations as all 
source categories listed in Annex D of the MC fall within the scope of application of the IED. In this 
respect,  whilst  this  Directive  covers  installations  that  reach  a  given  threshold  (e.g.  combustion  of 
fuels in installations with a total rated thermal input of 50 MW or more), it still applies to over 55 
000  industrial  installations,  which  account  for  the  most  polluting  in  the  EU.  Hence,  the  above-
mentioned  75%  level  is  met  with  regard  to  each  concerned  source  category.  Regarding  operating 
conditions,  the  IED,  read  together  with  Commission  Implementing  Decision  2013/163/EU112  and 
Directive 2004/107/EC, sets requirements that meet those set out in Art. 8 of the MC:  

-  As a fundamental principle of action, all new and existing IED installations must make use of the 
BAT  and  operate  according  to  BAT-based  permit  conditions,  which  must  ensure  that  all 
appropriate preventive measures are taken against pollution and that "significant (air) pollution" is 
avoided (Art. 11(a), (b) and (c) and 14(1)(chapeau)).  

-  To this effect, the competent authorities must include in the permits or via general binding rules 
ELVs  applicable  to  mercury  emissions  into  the  air  and/or  equivalent  parameters  or  technical 
measures  ensuring  an  equivalent  level  of  environmental  protection  (Art.  14(1)(a)  and  (2)  and 
Annex II (AIR (5) IED).  

Within  this  context,  regarding  waste  incinerators  and  co-incinerators,  the  competent  authorities 
must  make  sure  that  the  ELVs  that  are  set  for  Hg  and  Hg  compounds  comply  with  those 
established  in  Annex  VI  of  the  IED,  i.e.  0,05  mg/m3.  In  the  same  vein,  those  authorities  must 
ensure, as far as installations producing cement clinker are concerned, that ELVs they set comply 
with  the  BAT-associated  emission  level  established  in  Commission  Implementing  Decision 
2013/163/EU,  i.e.  emissions  of  mercury  from  the  flue-gases  of  kiln  firing  processes  must  not 
exceed 0,05 mg/Nm3. 

-  Such  ELVs  and/or  equivalent  parameters  or  technical  measures  ensuring  an  equivalent  level  of 
environmental protection may even have to be made stricter when competent authorities are of the 
opinion  that  this  is  necessary  to  ensure  compliance  or  contribute  to  compliance  with  above-
mentioned  5  mg/m3  mercury  target  value  for  ambient  air  established  in  Directive  2004/107/EC 
(Art. 18 IED). 

112 Commission Implementing Decision 2013/163/EU, OJ L 100, 9.4.2013, p. 1.   

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 98 of 186 

 
 
 
    
                                                 
 
As  to  the  control  and  reduction  of  Hg  and  Hg  compounds  emissions  to  water  and  land,  the  IED, 
read in combination with the WFD and 2008/105/EC, is also the key applicable EU instrument that 
transposes  Art.  9  of  the  MC,  owning  to  its  wide  scope  of  application.  In  particular,  requirements 
similar  to  those  that  are  concerned  with  air  emissions  apply,  including  the  duty  to  operate 
installations with BAT and according to BAT-based permit conditions or general binding rules with 
a  view  to  avoiding  "significant  (water  and  soil)  pollution"  (Art.  11(a),  (b)  and  (c)  and 
14(1)(chapeau)). Hence, the competent authorities must request from operators the implementation 
of appropriate requirements ensuring the  protection of the soil (Art. 14(1)(b) and (e) IED) and set 
ELVs  applicable  to  Hg  and  Hg  compounds  emissions  into  water  and/or  equivalent  parameters  or 
technical measures ensuring an equivalent level of environmental protection (Art. 14(1)(a) and (2) 
and Annex II (AIR (5) IED).  

In  establishing  such  ELVs,  those  authorities  must  take  full  account  of  the  mercury-related 
requirements established in the WFD and in Directive 2008/105/EC on water protection and quality. 
More  particularly,  as  "priority  hazardous  substances"  (Annex  X  (21)  WFD),  MS  must  take 
appropriate measures that ensure the ceasing or phasing out of emissions, discharges and losses of 
Hg and Hg compounds into surface waters within 20 years at the latest (Art. 4(1)(a)(iv), 10, 11(3)(g) 
and (k), 16(6), (7) and (8) WFD and Art. 13 Directive 2008/105/EC). In the meantime, MS have to 
make  sure  that  the concentration  of Hg and Hg compounds  in  surface water does  not  exceed 0,07 
µg/l (0,05 µ/l on annual average) or 20 µg/kg for Hg and Hg compound concentrations in sediment 
and/or biota (Art. 3(1) and (2)(a) and Annex I Directive 2008/105/EC).  

EU  law  addresses  also  the  obligation  to  establish  and  maintain  an  inventory  of  Hg  and  Hg 
compound  emissions  to  air,  water  and  land  from  all  concerned  point  sources.  In  accordance  with 
Regulation (EC) No 166/2006, operators of installations covered by the source categories listed in 
Annex  D  of  the  Minamata  and  that  met  a  certain  capacity  threshold  must  report  annually  to  their 
competent authorities emissions of Hg and Hg compounds to air (as from emissions exceeding 10 
kg/year),  water  and  land  (as  from  emissions  exceeding  1  kg/year).  In  addition,  Directive 
2008/105/EC requires MS to establish and regularly update an inventory of all emissions of Hg and 
Hg compounds to surface waters (Art. 5).         

Management of mercury and mercury compounds as waste      

The  MC  requires  that  mercury  waste,  i.e.  substances  or  objects  consisting  of  or  containing  or 
contaminated with Hg and Hg compounds in a quantity above relevant thresholds (to be defined by 
the Conference of the Parties) be  managed in an environmental sound manner and, if this is the 
case, be recovered, recycled, reclaimed or re-used but only for a used allowed under the Convention. 
It  calls  also  for  mercury  waste  not  to  be  transported  from  one  country  to  another,  save  for 
environmentally  sound  disposal.  The  MC  specifies  that  the  definitions  set  out  in  the  Basel 
Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal 
apply to mercury wastes.         

EU law addresses already the management of mercury waste in accordance with the requirements set 
out  in  Art.  11  of  the  MC.  Regarding  the  definition  of  mercury  waste,  it  results  from  Decision 
2000/532/EC113 that substances or objects consisting of or containing or contaminated with Hg and 
Hg compounds qualify as "hazardous waste" under EU waste law. In addition, as Party to the above-
mentioned  Basel  Convention,  the  EU  has  transposed  the  relevant  definitions  in  the  EU  acquis, 
including  via  Directive  2008/98/EC114  and  Regulation  (EC)  No  1013/2006115.  Concerning  the 
management  of  mercury  waste,  Art.  13  of  Directive  2008/98/EC  sets  the  general  principle  and 
obligation  according  to  which  waste  must  be  handled  without  endangering  human  health  and 

113 Commission Decision 2000/532/EC, OJ L 226, 6.9.2000, p.3.  
114 Directive 2008/98/EC, OJ L 213, 22.11.2008, p. 3.   
115 Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, OJ L 190, 12.7.2006, p. 1. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 99 of 186 

 
 
 
                                                 
without  harming  the  environment,  i.e.  without  risk  to  water,  soil,  plants  or  animals.  Within  this 
context, Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 (Art. 2) specifies that metallic mercury originating from the 
four main mercury waste sources, i.e. metallic mercury that is no longer used in the EU chlor-alkali 
industry, that is gained from the cleaning of natural gas and from non-ferrous mining and smelting 
operations  and  that  is  extracted  from  cinnabar  ore  cannot  be  recovered,  recycled,  reclaimed  or  re-
used, but must be disposed of. It adds (Art. 3) that MS are allowed to temporarily store for more than 
one year metallic mercury  waste in underground (adapted salt mines, deep underground hard rock 
formations)  and  above-ground  (dedicated  and  equipped)  facilities.  In  this  respect,  Directive 
1999/31/EC (Annexes I, II and III), as amended by Directive 2011/97/EU, sets specific requirements 
for the temporary storage for more than one year of metallic mercury with a view to ensuring that 
they are landfilled without causing any harm to human health nor to the environment (e.g. duty to 
store  metallic  mercury  in  corrosion,  shock-resistant  and  liquid  tight  containers,  to  make  use  of 
storage  sites  that  are  provided  with  engineered  or  natural  barriers  that  are  adequate  to  protect  the 
environment against  mercury emissions). Concerning the international transport  of mercury waste, 
the  EU,  as  Party  to  the  Basel  Convention,  complies  with  the  obligation  not  to  transport 
internationally  such  waste  unless  this  is  done  for  final  disposal  according  to  the  above-mentioned 
general principle of no harm to be caused to human health and to the environment.       

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 100 of 186 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 7 – REGULATORY GAP ANALYSIS OF EU LAW 

The  Commission's  Proposal  for  an  European  Parliament  and  Council  Regulation  on  restrictions 
concerning  trade  and  certain  uses  of  mercury,  and  repealing  Regulation  (EC)  No  1102/2008116 
(hereinafter,  “Commission’s  Proposal”)  aims  at  the  full  alignment  of  EU  law  with  the  MC  and  
enabling the EU, once adopted, to ratify it.  

The  Commission  has  taken  full  account  of  the  mercury  provisions  already  set  out  in  EU  law, 
including  in  Regulations  (EC)  No  1907/2006117  and  649/2012118  and  in  Directives  2010/75/EC119 
and  2012/18/EU120.  The  objective  is  to  prevent  double  regulation  and  inconsistencies  across  the 
acquis  and  to  complement  existing  EU  law  requirements  in  a  manner  that  ensures  clarity,  legal 
certainty and the achievement of all legally-binding requirements set out in the MC. For doing so, 
the Commission has carried out a regulatory gap analysis of EU law, which has identified two main 
types of MC provisions. The first category addressed in Section 7.1 consists of MC provisions that 
do  not  require  transposition  as  they  are  concerned  e.g.  with  the  work  to  be  carried  out  by  the 
Conference  of  the  Parties  to  the  Convention  and  those  that  do  not  set  legally  binding  obligations 
upon  Parties  and  which  have  not  been  considered  by  the  Commission  as  needed  to  meet  the 
objectives  of  the  Convention.  The  second  category  addressed  in  Section  7.2  is  concerned  with 
provisions  of  the  MC  that  require  transposition  and  which  have  already  been  transposed  fully  or 
partially into EU law or which have not yet been subject to transposition into the EU acquis.        

7.1 

The provisions of the MC that do not require transposition  

7.1.1  MC provisions that do not have to be transposed by Parties 
Art. 1121 to the MC does not have to be transposed as it simply sets out the general objective being 
pursued. In addition, Art. 3(12), 8(8, 9, 10), 11(4), 15, 22, 23 and 24 to the MC do not need neither 
to be transposed as they are concerned with the tasks of the Convention's Conference of the Parties, 
of its Secretariat and of the Implementation and Compliance Committee in terms of evaluation of the 
effectiveness of Minamata, of the adoption of guidance and guidelines and of the cooperation with 
international organisations. The same conclusion has been drawn regarding Art. 13 to 19 and 25 to 
35  and  Annex  E  to  the  MC,  which  do  not  require  transposition  since  they  concern  financial 
resources  and  mechanism,  capacity-building,  technical  assistance  and  technology  transfer,  health 
aspects,  information  exchange,  public  awareness  and  education  research,  development  and 
monitoring,  the  settlement  of  disputes,  the  adoption  and  entry  into  force  of  amendments  to  the 
Convention  and  its  annexes  and  notably  on  the  signature,  ratification,  acceptance,  approval, 
accession and entry into force of Minamata.        

116 COM(2015) XXX 
117  Regulation  (EC)  No  1907/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  18  December  2006 
concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a 
European  Chemicals  Agency,  amending  Directive  1999/45/EC  and  repealing  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No 
793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission 
Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1. 

118 Regulation (EC) 649/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 concerning the export and 

import of hazardous chemicals, OJ L 201, 27.7.2012, p. 60. 

119 Directive  2010/75/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  Industrial  Emissions,  OJ  L  334  of 

17.12.2010, p. 17.  

120 Directive 2012/18/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on the control of major-accident 
hazards involving dangerous substances, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directive 96/82/EC, OJ L 197 
of 24.7.2012, p. 1.      

121 References  to  Articles  and  Annexes  in  Section 7  are  references  to  Articles  and  to  Annexes  of  the  Minamata 

Convention, unless otherwise specified. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 101 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
7.1.2  MC  non-legally  binding  provisions  whose  transposition  is  not  needed  to  meet  its 

objectives and requirements 

The  regulatory  gap  analysis  of  EU  law  has  also  identified  the  Minamata  provisions  that  do  not 
contain  legally-binding  obligations,  but  voluntary  options  ("may",  "are  encouraged",  "endeavour") 
and whose transposition has not been considered as necessary to ensure compliance of EU law with 
the Convention.122  

The provisions concerned include Art. 3(7, 9, 10), 4(2, 7), 5(9), 6, 7(4), 8(3), 11(5), 12 and 20 to the 
MC  on  the ability  to  rely  upon  a  general  notification  by  a mercury  importing  Party,  to  implement 
strategies to address mercury-added products others than the one set out in Art. 4(1), to submit to the 
Minamata Secretariat proposals for listing new mercury-added products and/or new manufacturing 
processes  to  Annexes  A  and/or  B,  to  apply  Annexes  A  and  B  at  a  later  stage,  to  cooperate  on 
artisanal and small-scale gold mining and mercury waste management, to set a plan on the measures 
to  be  taken to  control  air  emissions  of  mercury  and  mercury  compounds,  to  address  contaminated 
sites and to draw up a Minamata implementation plan.     

7.2.  The provisions of the MC that require transposition  

The  second  phase  of  the  regulatory  gap  analysis  has  focused  on  the  MC  provisions  whose 
transposition into EU law is needed to ensure the meeting of the objectives and of requirements of 
the Convention.  

7.2.1  MC provisions already transposed into EU law  

As specified in Annex 6 of this document and in the table in Section 7.2.3, a significant range of the 
MC  provisions  are  already  fully  covered  by  the  EU  acquis,  including  Regulations  (EC)  No 
1102/2008123,  396/2005124  and  1223/2009125  and  Directives  2006/66/EC126  and  2011/65/EU127.  It 
concerns  Art.  3(3),  (4)(1st  sentence),  (5)(a,  b)  and  (6),  4(5),  5(5)(a,  b),  8,  9,  10  and  11,  as  well  as 
Annex D of the Convention regarding notably the production of mercury from primary mining, the 
identification  of  significant  individual  stocks  of  mercury  and  mercury  compounds,  the  disposal  of 
excess mercury from the chlor-alkali sector, the export of mercury from the EU, the prevention of 
the incorporation of mercury-added products into assembled products, the control and reduction of 
emissions and releases of mercury and mercury compounds into the air, water and land, the interim 
storage of mercury and mercury compounds, the handling of mercury waste and the provision to the 
public of relevant information.  

122 However, the Commission considers appropriate to transpose Art. 4(6) and 5(7) of the Minamata Convention into EU 
law on the duty to "discourage" the manufacture and distribution of mercury-added products not listed in Annex A 
and the development of any facility using a new manufacturing process that is not listed in Annex B and in which 
mercury and/or mercury compounds are intended to be used.     

123 Regulation (EC° No 1102/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the banning of 
exports of metallic mercury and certain mercury compounds and mixtures and the safe storage of metallic mercury, 
OJ L 304 of 14.11.2008, p. 75.    

124 Regulation  (EC)  No  396/2005  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  February  2005  on  maximum 
residue  levels  of  pesticides  in  or  on  food  and  feed  of  plant  and  animal  origin  and  amending  Council  Directive 
91/414/EEC, OJ L 70, 16.3.2005, p. 1. 

125 Regulation  (EC)  No  1223/2009  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  30  November  2009  on 

cosmetic products, OJ L 342, 22.12.2009, p. 59. 

126 Directive  2006/66/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  6  September  2006  on  batteries  and 
accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC, OJ L 266 of 26.9.2006, p. 1.    
127 Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on the restriction of the use of 

certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment, OJ L 174 of 1.7.2011, p. 88.   

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 102 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
7.2.2  MC provisions not or partially transposed into EU law  

The  regulatory  gap  analysis  has  concluded  that  the  remaining  Minamata  provisions  are  either  not 
transposed  into  EU  law  or  only  partially,  which  therefore  requires  regulatory  action  by  the  EU  to 
ensure  full  compliance  with  the  Convention.  In  addition  to  Art.  4(6)  and  5(7),  the  concerned 
Minamata  provisions  are  Art.  3(4)(2nd  sentence)  and  (8),  4(1  and  3)  (read  in  combination  with 
Annex A) and (6), 5(2, 3, 6, 7)  (read in  combination  with Annex B) and 7 on the use  of  mercury 
from primary mining, the import of mercury into the EU, the 2020 ban on the manufacture, import 
and export of mercury-added products listed in Annex A (Part I), the 2025 ban on the use of mercury 
and mercury compounds in the acetaldehyde production sector, the operating conditions relating to 
mercury  use  and  emissions  of  the  three  manufacturing  processes  listed  in  Annex  B  (Part  II),  the 
obligation not to allow the use of mercury and mercury compounds by new facilities operating one 
the  manufacturing  processes  listed  in  Annex  B  (Part  II)  and  on  artisanal  and  small-scale  gold 
mining.                 

In addition, the Commission considers it appropriate to provide for its ability to adopt Implementing 
and  Delegated  Acts  to  transpose  and  implement  the  Decisions  that  may  be  adopted  by  the 
Conference of the Parties in accordance with Art. 3(13), 4(8-9), 5(10-11), 10(3), 11(2)(c) and (3)(a) 
of  the  Convention  and  which  concern  the  possible  amendment  of  Annexes  A  and  B,  the 
establishment of requirements on the interim storage of mercury and mercury compounds and on the 
management  of  mercury  waste,  the  setting  up  of  thresholds  defining  whether  contaminated  waste 
with mercury or mercury compounds are covered by Minamata.  

7.2.3  Conclusions of the regulatory gap analysis of EU law vis-à-vis Minamata    

Six regulatory gaps have been identified, which require EU transposing provisions. Those gaps are 
concerned with the following issues:  

Import restrictions for metallic mercury from non-Parties  
Export ban of certain mercury-added products 

–  Gap 1: 
–  Gap 2: 
–  Gap 3:  Mercury use in new products and processes  
–  Gap 4:  Mercury use in certain manufacturing processes  
–  Gap 5:  Mercury use in Artisanal and Small-Scale Gold Mining (ASGM) 
–  Gap 6:   Restrictions on the use of dental amalgam 

Each  time  one  of  those  regulatory  gaps  is  addressed  in  the  below  table,  a  reference  to  the  gap 
concerned is included. The below table provides a description of the gaps, including when they are 
concerned with several items.       

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 103 of 186 

 
 
 
  
 
RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE MC 

COVERAGE BY EU LAW / EU REGULATORY GAPS TO BE ADDRESSED  

Art. 3(3) and (4)(1st sentence) MC 

FULL COVERAGE   

ARTICLE 3: MERCURY SUPPLY AND TRADE  

PRODUCTION OF MERCURY FROM PRIMARY MINING 

  Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 provides that mercury extracted from cinnabar ore in the (EU) must be disposed of as 

waste.  

  Accordingly,  the  EU  acquis  makes  primary  mercury  mining  in  the  EU  an  activity  that  has  no  “raison  d’être”,  hence 

meeting the effet utile sought by the MC in respect of the production of mercury from primary mining. 

Art. 3(4)(2nd sentence) MC 

PARTIAL COVERAGE – ADDRESSED UNDER GAP 1.  

USE OF MERCURY FROM PRIMARY MINING 

  The  EU  acquis  requires  that  mercury  from  primary  mining  generated  in  the  EU  be  disposed  of  as  waste  (see  above, 
transposition of Art.3(3) and (4)(1st sentence) of the MC) and prohibits the export of mercury to non-EU countries (see 
below, transposition of Art.3(6) of the MC). 

  Accordingly,  the  issues  that  still  need  to  be  addressed  in  EU  law  relate  to  the  import  into  the  EU  of  mercury  from 
primary mining and to the use in the EU of such imported mercury, including by manufacturing processes and by those 
who undertake artisanal and small-scale gold mining (see below, transposition of Art.3(8) MC). 

Art. 3(5)(a) MC 

FULL COVERAGE   

IDENTIFICATION OF INDIVIDUAL STOCKS 
EXCEEDING 50 TONS AND OF SOURCES OF MERCURY 
SUPPLY GENERATING ANNUAL STOCKS EXCEEDING 
10 TONS. 

  Art. 3(5)(a) of the MC sets  out only a “soft” obligation (“endeavour”) upon Parties in respect of the identification of 

relevant individual stocks and supply sources of mercury.  

  The  identification of  the  most significant  sources of  individual  stocks of mercury  and mercury  compounds  is  already 
provided for in the EU acquis, including in Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 and in Directive 2012/18/EU (SEVESO III). 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 104 of 186 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Art. 3(5)(b) MC 

FULL COVERAGE   

EXCESS MERCURY FROM CHLOR-ALKALI 
PRODUCTION 

  The obligation to ensure that excess mercury from the decommissioning of chlor-alkali facilities, i.e. mercury no longer 
used in the chlor-alkali industry in the EU is disposed of as waste, is already set out in Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008. 

  This  obligation  must also  be  read  in  the  light of  Commission Implementing Decision  2013/732/EU128  combined with 
Directive  2010/75/EC,  which  prohibits  the  use  of  mercury  in  the  chlor-alkali  sector  in  the  EU  as  from  11  December 
2013 for "new" installations or from 11 December 2017 for "existing" installations.     

Art. 3(6) MC 

FULL COVERAGE  

RESTRICTIONS ON EXPORTS OF MERCURY 

  The obligation not to allow export of mercury is transposed in Regulations (EC) No 1102/2008 and 649/2012, which set 

a ban irrespectively of the uses intended for exported mercury.  

Art. 3(8) MC 

NO COVERAGE  – ADDRESSED UNDER GAP 1. 

RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTS OF MERCURY   

  The EU acquis does not cover the import of mercury into the EU.  

  Accordingly,  restrictions on  the  import  of mercury  into  the  EU  are  to be  addressed  in  EU  law.  By doing so,  EU  law 
needs  to  distinguish  imports  from  Parties  to  the  MC  from  imports  from  imports  from  non-Parties  to  the  MC  and  to 
restrict imports of mercury from primary mining, in accordance with the MC. 

ARTICLE 4 AND ANNEX A : MERCURY-ADDED PRODUCTS 

Art. 4(1) and Annex A (Part I) 

PARTIAL COVERAGE – ADDRESSED UNDER GAP 2. 

NOT ALLOWING THE MANUFACTURE, IMPORT AND 
EXPORT OF PRODUCTS LISTED IN ANNEX A (PART I) 
AFTER 2020 

  The  EU  acquis,  including  Directives  2006/66/EC  and  2011/65/EU  and  Regulations  (EC)  No  396/2005,  1907/2006, 
1223/2009 and 649/2012, addresses already the placing on the (EU) market of all the mercury-added products listed in 
Annex A (Part I) MC and sets limits on the maximum mercury content in line with those established in that Annex. 

  Accordingly, the issue that still needs to be addressed in EU law relates to the establishment of a post-2020 ban on the 
manufacturing,  import  into  the  EU  and  export  to  non-EU  countries  of  the  concerned  mercury-added  products,  in 
accordance with Art. 4(1) of the MC.  

128 Commission Implementing Decision 2013/732/EU of 9 December 2013 establishing the best available techniques (BAT) conclusions, under Directive 2010/75/EU of the 

European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions, for the production of chlor-alkali, OJ L 332 of 11.12.2013, p. 34. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 105 of 186 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Art. 4(3) and Annex A (Part II) 

PARTIAL COVERAGE  – ADDRESSED UNDER GAP 6.  

TO TAKE AT LEAST TWO OF THE MEASURES LISTED 
IN ANNEX A (PART II) TO PHASE DOWN THE USE OF 
DENTAL AMALGAM 

  Annex  A  (Part  II)  MC  provides  a  list  of  nine  measures  as  means  aiming  at  the  phasing  down  of  the  use  of  dental 
amalgam and at the reduction of emissions of mercury into the environment. While the phasing down objective is not 
specified  under  the  MC  (no  quantitative  targets  nor  timetables),  Parties  have  the  duty  to  take  at  least  two  of  those 
measures.   

  These measures mostly relate to matters falling under the primary competence of the MS (e.g. to set national strategies 
aiming at dental caries prevention, to encourage dental schools to educate and train students on the use of mercury-free 
dental restoration alternatives).  

  However, EU law transposes partially Annex A (Part II) of the MC as it provides directly and indirectly for measures 
and initiatives falling under item (iv) of that Annex on the promotion of research and development of quality mercury-
free alternatives for dental restoration (the new EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation Horizon 2020 
(2014-2020) provides room for research programme on mercury-free alternatives for dental restoration.  

  Furthermore, under EU law on the protection of water quality and on the  management  of waste, including hazardous 
waste,  national  competent  authorities  must  control  and  reduce  emissions  of  mercury  into  surface  water  bodies  and 
ensure that such emissions will cease by 2030 and must make sure that waste are handled in such a way as to prevent 
environmental and health adverse impacts. This does not exclude that dental amalgam could be released into the sewer 
for  subsequent  treatment  in  water  treatment  plants.  Hence,  this  does  not  provide  a  clear  incentive  in  favour  of  best 
environmental  practices by dental practitioners using dental amalgam, i.e. the use and good maintenance of amalgam 
separators.   

  The  above  measures  appear  not  to  be  sufficient  to  fully  comply  with  the  minimum  requirements  of  the  MC. 
Furthermore, the MC suggests that all measures should be taken into consideration when a Party to the Convention is 
designing the measures it will take. 

Art. 4(5) 

FULL COVERAGE   

TO  PREVENT  INCORPORATION  INTO  ASSEMBLED 
PRODUCTS  OF  MERCURY-ADDED  PRODUCTS  LISTED 
IN  ANNEX  A  (PART  I)  THE  MANUFACTURE,  IMPORT 
AND  EXPORT  OF  WHICH  IS  PROHIBITED  UNDER  THE 
MC 

  By restricting the placing on the EU market of the mercury-added products listed in Annex A (Part I) of the MC in line 
with  the  conditions  and  restrictions  set  out  therein,  the  EU  acquis  (see  above,  transposition  of  Art.  4(1)  and  (3)) 
transposes Art. 4(5) of the MC.  

  The transposition into EU law of Art. 4(1) and Annex A (Part I) in respect of the manufacture, import and export of 
mercury-added  products  (see  above,  transposition  of  Art.  4(1))  will  provide  additional  legal  certainty  on  the  duty  to 
prevent the incorporation of mercury-added products into assembled products, in accordance with Art. 4(5) of the MC.   

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 106 of 186 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Art. 4(6) 

NO COVERAGE – ADDRESSED UNDER GAP 3 

TO DISCOURAGE MANUFACTURE AND DISTRIBUTION 
INTO COMMERCE OF "NEW" MERCURY-ADDED 
PRODUCTS 

  The  EU  acquis  does  not  cover  the  duty  to  discourage  the  manufacture  and  distribution  into  commerce  in  the  EU  of 

"new" mercury-added products not listed in Annex A.  

ARTICLE 5 AND ANNEX B : MANUFACTURING PROCESSES  

Art. 5(2) and Annex B (Part I) 

PARTIAL COVERAGE – ADDRESSED UNDER GAP 4 

NOT ALLOWING THE USE OF MERCURY AND 
MERCURY COMPOUNDS IN ACETALDEHYDE AND 
CHLOR-ALKALI PRODUCTIONS AFTER 2018 AND 
2025 RESPECTIVELY. 

  The EU acquis, including Commission Implementing Decision 2013/732/EU read together with Directive 2010/75/EC, 
transposes  fully  Art.  5(2)  and  Annex  B  (Part  I)  MC  as  far  as  chlor-alkali  production  is  concerned  (see  above, 
transposition of Art. 3(5)(b) of the MC).  

  Accordingly, the issue that still needs to be addressed in EU law relates to the use of mercury and mercury compounds 

in the production of acetaldehyde where such substances are used as catalysts.  

Art. 5(3) and Annex B (Part II) 

TO RESTRICT THE USE OF MERCURY OR MERCURY 
COMPOUNDS, INCLUDING MERCURY FROM PRIMARY 
MINING IN THREE MANUFACTURING PROCESSES 

PARTIAL COVERAGE – ADDRESSED UNDER GAP 4 

The EU acquis transposes partly Art. 5(3) and Annex B (Part II) of the MC.   

  Regarding vinyl chloride monomer production, the EU acquis does not provide for a reduction of the use of mercury per 

production unit by 50% by 2020 against 2010 use and of mercury from primary mining.     

  Concerning the production of sodium or potassium  methylate or ethylate, the EU  acquis needs to address the duty to 
reduce the use of mercury with the aim of phasing it out within 10 years and emissions of mercury to air, water and land 
per production unit by 50% by 2020 against 2010 use and the obligation to prohibit the use of mercury from primary 
mining by concerned installations.    

  As to the production of polyurethane using mercury containing catalysts, the EU acquis covers partially the conditions 
set out in Annex B (Part II) of the MC. Indeed, Entry 62 of Annex XVII to REACH129 restricts, as from 10 October 
2017,  the  manufacture,  placing  on  the  market  and  use  of  five  phenylmercury  compounds  as  substances  or  in 
mixtures, known to be used as catalysts in polyurethane systems, if the concentration of mercury in the mixture 
is at least 0,01% by weight, as well as the placing on the market of articles or any parts thereof containing one or 

129  Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No  848/2012  of  19  September  2012  amending  Annex  XVII  to  Regulation  (EC)  No  1907/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 

Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards phenylmercury compounds, OJ L 253, 20.9.2012, p. 5. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 107 of 186 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       
 
                                                 
more of those compounds if the concentration of mercury is at least 0,01% by weight. Accordingly, EU law still 
needs to provide for a prohibition on the use of other mercury compounds by concerned installations.  

Art. 5(5)(a) and Annex B 

PARTIAL COVERAGE – ADDRESSED UNDER GAP 4. 

TO TAKE MEASURES TO ADDRESS EMISSIONS AND 
RELEASES OF MERCURY OR MERCURY COMPOUNDS 
FROM THE FACILITIES OPERATING A 
MANUFACTURING PROCESS LISTED IN ANNEX B  

 

In respect of the two manufacturing processes listed in Annex B (Part I) MC: 

–  Chlor-alkali  installations:  Commission  Implementing  Decision  2013/732/EU  (see  above,  transposition  of  Art. 
3(5)(b)) and 5(2) of the MC) prohibits the use of mercury and mercury compounds as from 11 December 2013 or 
2017, which will therefore lead to zero emissions of mercury and mercury compounds to air, water and land as of 
those dates.  

– 

Installations  producing  acetaldehyde  where  mercury  and  mercury  compounds  are  used  as  catalysts:  the 
transposition of Art. 5(2) MC (see above) shall also lead to zero emissions of mercury and mercury compounds to 
air, water and land as from 2018.  

  With regards to the three manufacturing processes listed in Annex B (Part II) MC:  

– 

– 

– 

Installations  producing  vinyl  chloride  monomer:  Whilst  Directive  2010/75/EU  requires  operators  to  prevent  any 
significant pollution, the EU acquis still needs to address the duty to reduce emissions of mercury to air, water and 
land,  while  taking  into  account  that  Annex  B  (Part  II)  does  not  set  any  reduction  quantitative  targets  nor  any 
timeline. 

Installations  producing  sodium  or  potassium  methylate  or  ethylate:  The  EU  acquis  needs  to  address  the  duty  to 
reduce emissions of mercury to air, water and land per production unit by 50% by 2020 against 2010 use.  

Installations  producing  polyurethane  using  mercury  containing  catalysts:  the  EU  acquis  needs  to  address  the 
obligation to reduce mercury emissions to air, water and land generated by the use of mercury compounds other 
than those restricted by entry 62 of Annex XVII to REACH (see above, transposition of Art. 5(3) and Annex B 
(Part II) of the MC).  

Art. 5(6) 

PARTIAL COVERAGE – ADDRESSED UNDER GAP 3. 

TO NOT ALLOW THE USE OF MERCURY OR MERCURY 
COMPOUNDS BY NEW FACILITIES OPERATING A 
MANUFACTURING PROCESS LISTED IN ANNEX B 

  The  prohibition  to  use  mercury  and  mercury  compounds  by  "new"  installations  producing  chlor-alkali  is  already 
prohibited by Commission Implementing Decision 2013/732/EU (see above, transposition of Art. 3(5)(b) MC), 5(2) and 
5(5)(a)  of  the  MC).  Such  a  prohibition  shall  also  apply  to  installations  producing  acetaldehyde  where  mercury  and 
mercury compounds are used as catalysts throughout the transposition of Art. 5(2) and Annex B (Part I) of the MC (see 
above). 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 108 of 186 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Accordingly, the issue that still needs to be addressed in EU law relates to the use of mercury and mercury compounds 
by "new" installations producing vinyl chloride monomer, sodium or potassium methylate or ethylate or polyurethane 
using mercury containing catalysts. 

Art. 5(7) 

NO COVERAGE– ADDRESSED UNDER GAP 3. 

TO DISCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANY 
FACILITY USING A NEW MANUFACTURING PROCESS 
NOT LISTED IN ANNEX B IN WHICH MERCURY OR 
MERCURY COMPOUNDS ARE USED 

  The  EU  acquis  does  not  cover  the  duty  to  discourage  the  development  of  new  facilities  that  will  intend  to  operate  a 

manufacturing process not referred to in Annex B MC in which mercury or mercury compounds will be used.  

ARTICLE 7 AND ANNEX C : ARTISANAL AND SMALL-SCALE GOLD MINING 

Art. 7 and Annex C  

NO COVERAGE  – ADDRESSED UNDER GAP 5. 

TO TAKE STEPS TO REDUCE AND, WHERE FEASIBLE, 
ELIMINATE, THE USE OF MERCURY AND MERCURY 
COMPOUNDS AND EMISSIONS AND RELEASES OF 
MERCURY AND TO DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN A 
NATIONAL ACTION PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH 
ANNEX C IN CASE WHERE MORE THAN 
INSIGNIFICANT ARTISANAL AND SMALL-SCALE 
GOLD MINING OCCURS 

  The EU acquis does not cover the reduction and elimination of the use of mercury and mercury compounds in artisanal 

and small-scale gold mining activities nor the reduction and elimination of mercury emissions and releases.  

  Whereas the EU acquis does not cover Art. 7(3) and Annex C of the MC, the transposition of the Convention into EU 
law will not address, in the light of the subsidiarity principle, this regulatory gap, provided that the only Member State 
concerned by such an activity, France, is the best placed to define whether artisanal and small-scale gold mining that 
occurs  in  French  Guyana  is  more  than  insignificant  and,  if  so,  to  develop  and  maintain  a  national  action  plan  on  the 
basis of Annex C of the MC. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 109 of 186 

 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Art. 8(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) and Annex D 

FULL  COVERAGE   

ARTICLE 8 AND ANNEX D: AIR EMISSIONS 

  The EU acquis fully covers Art. 8(1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) and Annex D of the MC. In particular, Directive 2010/75/EU, which 
applies to more than 75% of the point sources falling under one of the categories listed in Annex D, requires that the 
BAT and BEPs are used to operate the concerned industrial installations, irrespectively of whether they qualify as "new" 
or "existing" point sources.    

TO TAKE MEASURES TO CONTROL AND, WHERE 
FEASIBLE, REDUCE AIR EMISSIONS OF MERCURY 
AND MERCURY COMPOUNDS FROM THE POINT 
SOURCES FALLING WITHIN THE SOURCE 
CATEGORIES LISTED IN ANNEX D AND TO MAKE 
SURE, IN THAT RESPECT, THAT "NEW" SOURCES 
MAKE USE OF THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNIQUES 
("BAT") AND THE BEST ENVIRONMENTAL 
PRACTICES ("BEPS") WITHIN 5 YEARS AND THAT 
"EXISTING" SOURCES E.G. MAKE USE OF THE BAT 
AND BEPS OR ARE IMPOSED EMISSION LIMIT 
VALUES WITHIN 10 YEARS. PARTIES CAN DECIDE TO 
APPLY THIS PROVISION TO A RANGE OF POINT 
SOURCES, PROVIDED THAT THEY ACCOUNT FOR AT 
LEAST 75% OF THE EMISSIONS FROM THAT 
CATEGORY 

Art. 8(7) 

FULL  COVERAGE   

TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN AN INVENTORY OF 
EMISSIONS FROM RELEVANT SOURCES 

  The  EU  acquis  fully  covers  Art.  8(7)  of  the  MC.  In  particular,  Regulation  (EC)  No  166/2006130  and  Directive 
2010/75/EU  ensure  that  emissions  of  mercury  and  mercury  compounds  from  the  point  sources  falling  under  the 
categories listed in Annex D MC are reported via emission inventories.   

ARTICLE 9 : WATER AND LAND RELEASES 

Art. 9(1), (2), (4) and (5) 

FULL  COVERAGE   

TO TAKE MEASURES TO CONTROL AND, WHERE 

  Art.  9(2)(b)  of  the  MC  specifies  that  the  Parties  identify  themselves  the  significant  anthropogenic  point  sources  of 

130 Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 January 2006 concerning the establishment of  a European Pollutant Release and 

Transfer Register and amending Council Directives 91/689/EEC and 96/61/EC, OJ L 33, 4.2.2006, p. 1. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 110 of 186 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
releases of mercury and mercury compounds to water and land.  

  The Commission considers that all those point sources located in the EU are covered by Directive 2010/75/EU, which 
applies to at least 55 000 industrial installations, including all the largest ones. In accordance with that Directive, these 
point sources must operate on the basis of the BAT and the BEPs.  

FEASIBLE, REDUCE RELEASES OF MERCURY AND 
MERCURY COMPOUNDS TO LAND AND WATER FROM 
SIGNIFICANT ANTHROPOGENIC POINT SOURCES 
IDENTIFIED BY THE PARTIES AND NOT REFERRED TO 
ELSEWHERE IN THE MC AND TO MAKE SURE, IN 
THAT RESPECT, THAT CONCERNED SOURCES E.G. 
MAKE USE OF THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNIQUES 
("BAT") AND THE BEST ENVIRONMENTAL 
PRACTICES ("BEPS") WITHIN 5 YEARS AND THAT 
"EXISTING" SOURCES E.G. MAKE USE OF THE BAT 
AND BEPS OR ARE IMPOSED EMISSION LIMIT 
VALUES OR OTHER MEASURES 

Art. 9(6) 

FULL  COVERAGE   

TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN AN INVENTORY OF 
RELEASES FROM RELEVANT SOURCES 

  The EU acquis fully covers Art. 9(6) of the MC. In particular, Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 and Directive 2010/75/EU 
ensure  that  releases  of  mercury  and  mercury  compounds  from  the  relevant  point  sources  are  reported  via  emission 
inventories. 

ARTICLE 10 : ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND INTERIM STORAGE OF MERCURY, OTHER THAN MERCURY WASTE 

Art. 10(1, 2) 

FULL  COVERAGE   

TO TAKE MEASURES TO ENSURE THAT THE INTERIM 
STORAGE OF MERCURY AND OF THE MERCURY 
COMPOUNDS LISTED IN ART. 3(1)(B) MC AND THAT 
ARE INTENDED FOR A USE ALLOWED IS 
UNDERTAKEN IN AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND 
MANNER 

  Art.  10  of  the  MC  read  together  with  Art.  3(5)(a)  applies  to  individual  stocks  of  mercury  and  of  certain  mercury 
compounds (those listed in Art. 3(1)(b)) exceeding 50 t and to mercury supply sources generating stocks exceeding 10 t 
per year .  

  The  EU  acquis  fully  covers  Art.  10(1,  2)  of  the  MC,  as  it  ensures  that  the  interim  storage  of  mercury  or  mercury 
compounds  of  at  least  50  tonnes  takes  place  in  an  environmental  sound  manner.  In  particular,  Directive  2012/18/EU 
requires  operators  of  establishments  that  store  at  least  50  t  of  mercury  and  mercury  compounds  to  draw  up  a  major-
accident prevention policy and, in case of a storage of at least 200 t, a safety report. Those documents aim at ensuring a 
high level of environmental and human health protection within the meaning of Art. 10(1, 2) of the MC. In addition, 
Directive 2010/75/EU requires operators of installations hosting individual stocks of mercury and mercury compounds 
to ensure that such a storage is undertaken on the basis of preventive measures against pollution and does not cause any 
significant environmental pollution.      

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 111 of 186 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ARTICLE 11 : MERCURY WASTES 

Art. 11(1) 

FULL  COVERAGE   

TO USE THE RELEVANT DEFINITIONS SET OUT IN THE 
BASEL CONVENTION  ON THE CONTROL OF 
TRANSBOUNDARY MOVEMENTS OF HAZARDOUS 
WASTES AND THEIR DISPOSAL 

  The  EU,  as  a  Party  to  the  Basel  Convention,  is  concerned  with  the  obligation  to  make  use  of  the  definitions  set  out 
therein.  In  this  respect,  the  EU  acquis  fully  covers  Art.  11(1)  of  the  MC  as  the  concerned  definitions  have  been 
transposed notably into Directive 2008/98/EC131 and Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006132.   

Art. 11(2) 

FULL  COVERAGE   

DEFINITION OF MERCURY WASTE 

  The  EU  acquis,  including  Directive  2008/98/EC  (generic  definition  of  "waste")  and  Commission  Decision 

2000/532/EC133  fully covers Art. 11(2) MC.  

Art. 11(3)(a) 

FULL  COVERAGE   

TO TAKE MEASURES TO ENSURE THAT MERCURY 
WASTE IS MANAGED IN AN ENVIRONMENTALLY 
SOUND MANNER  

  The EU acquis fully covers Art. 11(3)(a) of the MC. EU waste law is indeed governed by the overreaching obligation, 
set out notably in Directive 2008/98/EC, according to which MS must take the necessary measures to ensure that waste 
management is carried out without endangering human health, without harming the environment.  

Art. 11(3)(b) 

FULL  COVERAGE   

TO TAKE MEASURES TO ENSURE THAT MERCURY 
WASTE IS ONLY RECOVERED, RECYCLED, 
RECLAIMED OR DIRECTLY RE-USED FOR A USE 
ALLOWED UNDER THE MC  OR FOR 
ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND DISPOSAL 

  The EU acquis, including notably Regulation (EC) No 1108/2008 which requires that the mercury waste generated by 
the  four  most  important  sources  of  mercury  waste  (chlor-alkali  production,  the  cleaning  of  natural  gas,  non-ferrous 
mining and smelting operations and mercury extracted from cinnabar ore) be disposed of, fully covers Art. 11(3)(b) of 
the MC.  

131 Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p. 3. 
132 Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste, OJ L 190, 12.7.2006, p. 1. 
133 Commission Decision 2000/532/EC of 3 May 2000 replacing Decision 94/3/EC establishing a list of wastes pursuant to Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and 

Council Decision 94/904/EC establishing a list of hazardous waste pursuant to Article 1(4) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste, OJ L 226, 6.9.2000, p. 3. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 112 of 186 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Art. 11(3)(c) 

FULL  COVERAGE   

TO TAKE MEASURES TO ENSURE THAT MERCURY 
WASTE IS NOT TRANSPORTED ACROSS 
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES, SAVE FOR 
ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND DISPOSAL 

  The  EU  acquis,  including  Regulation  (EC)  No  1013/2006  which  transposes  the  Basel  Convention  on  the  Control  of 

Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, fully covers Art. 11(3)(c) of the MC. 

ARTICLE 18 : PUBLIC INFORMATION, AWARENESS AND EDUCATION 

Art. 18(1) 

FULL  COVERAGE   

TO PROMOTE AND FACILITATE THE PROVISION TO 
THE PUBLIC OF RELEVANT AVAILABLE 
INFORMATION AS WELL AS EDUCATION, TRAINING 
AND PUBLIC AWARENESS RELATED TO THE EFFECTS 
OF EXPOSURE TO MERCURY AND MERCURY 
COMPOUNDS. 

  The promotion and facilitation of the provision to the public of education, training and public awareness related to the 
effects  of  exposure  to  mercury  and  mercury  compounds  does  not  require  the  enacting  of  legislative  measures  and  is 
primary a matter for which MS are best placed.  

  The  EU  acquis,  including  Regulations  (EC)  No  1049/2001134  and  1367/2006135  on  access  to  EU  institution 
documents and to environmental information held by the EU institutions and bodies and Directive 2003/4/EC136 
on public access to environmental information held in MS, fully covers the obligation to promote and facilitate 
the provision to the public of the information items listed in letter (a) of Art. 18(1) of the MC.    

Art. 18(2) 

FULL  COVERAGE   

TO USE EXISTING MECHANISMS OR TO GIVE 
CONSIDERATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF 
MECHANISMS FOR THE COLLECTION AND 
DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION ON ESTIMATES OF 
ANNUAL QUANTITIES OF MERCURY AND MERCURY 
COMPOUNDS EMITTED, RELEASED OR DISPOSED OF. 

  The EU acquis fully covers Art. 18(2) of the MC. In particular, Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 establishes an integrated 
pollutant  release  and  transfer  register  at  EU  level  in  the  form  of  a  publicly  accessible  electronic  database,  which 
compiles information reported by operators of significant industrial installations, on quantities on pollutants, including 
mercury and mercury compounds emitted, released or sent off to waste treatment facilities.  

134 Regulation  (EC)  No  1049/2001  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  30  May  2001  regarding  public  access  to  European  Parliament,  Council  and 

Commission documents, OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43. 

135 Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on 
Access  to  Information,  Public  Participation  in  Decision-making  and  Access  to  Justice  in  Environmental  Matters  to  Community  institutions  and  bodies,  OJ  L  264, 
25.9.2006, p. 13. 

136 Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 

90/313/EEC, OJ L 41, 14.2.2003, p. 26. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 113 of 186 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 8 – ASSESSMENT OF THE MERCURY EXPORT BAN REGULATION 

The Mercury Export Ban Regulation has been adopted in 2010 and in 2015 a limited assessment has 
been undertaken on its achievements and functioning so far. The assessment was limited due to the 
fact  that  the  Regulation  had  a  relatively  short  time  period  for  implementation  (2011-2015)  and 
therefore not all impacts of the ban could have materialised so far. Moreover, the resulting evidence 
base  is  also  limited.  As  a  consequence  a  full-fledged  evaluation  wasn't  feasible  at  this  moment  in 
time and the assessment concentrated on the aspects of effectiveness, efficiency and coherence and 
has  not  assessed  the  evaluation  criteria  relevance  and  EU  added  value  in  detail.  Below  the  key 
findings are summarised. Detailed information is available in the final study report137. 

Study methodology 

For  the  assessment  of  the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  the  Mercury  Export  Ban  Regulation, 
information  from  MS  and  relevant  industry  was  collected  using  two  questionnaires  .  Furthermore, 
Member  State  replies  to  the  questionnaire  undertaken  as  part  of  an  assessment  of  the  EU 
implementation of the MC have been included. The information collected by the questionnaires was 
combined  with  data  from  industry  reporting  under  the  Mercury  Export  Ban  Regulation  and 
international trade statistics from Eurostat and UN Comtrade, as well as export statistics reported as 
part of the implementation of the EU Waste Shipment Regulation and the EU PIC Regulation.  

Effectiveness in reducing the global mercury supply 

The  Mercury  Export  Ban  Regulation  significantly  reduces  the  global  mercury  supply.  The  total 
amount of mercury prevented from reaching the global market is estimated at approximately 650 t/y 
for at least the  next  ten years, corresponding to approximately 20%  of  the global mercury supply. 
The total prevented export of surplus mercury accumulated in the chlor-alkali sector is estimated at 
approximately 8000 t, as well as any prevented recovery of mercury from gas purification and non-
ferrous mining and smelting operations (in total 33 t were reported as sent to storage during 2011-
2013). Available data indicates that the decrease in supply may not have been replaced by increased 
mine  production  outside  the  EU,  but  the  export  of  mercury  from  Switzerland  has  increased  by  an 
average  of  100  t/y.  The  global  prices  of  mercury  have  increased  threefold  over  a  few  years, 
demonstrating the consequences  of the decrease in  the supply  from the EU and later  the USA (an 
export ban of mercury from the USA has been in effect since January 1, 2013).  

The  objective  of  preventing  by-product  mercury  from  gas  purification  and  nonferrous  mining  and 
smelting to enter the global market has not been fully met, as the Mercury Export Ban Regulation 
does not prevent waste products from being exported for recovery of the mercury outside the EU. 
Waste statistics indicate that this takes place to some extent. Introduction of a ban on export of the 
waste  products  concerned  could  potentially  improve  the  effectiveness  of  the  Mercury  Export  Ban 
Regulation. 

Only one incident of illegal export of mercury was reported in the stakeholder responses and there is 
an investigation related to infringement ongoing. Furthermore, the analysis of export data compared 
to import data of receiving countries indicate a few discrepancies.  

137  COWI,  BiPRO  (2015).  Ratification  of  the  Minamata  Convention  by  the  EU  -  Complementary  Assessment  of  the 

Mercury Export Ban (June 2015). 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 114 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
Effectiveness in ensuring safe storage of surplus mercury within the EU 

The  responses  to  the  study  questionnaires  indicate  that  the  objective  of  the  Mercury  Export  Ban 
Regulation to ensure safe storage of surplus mercury within the EU has still not been fully met. In 
2013, the quantity reported as sent to off-site storage from the chlor-alkali industry was 655 t (about 
the same magnitude as the average prevented export), but it is not known whether the mercury was 
sent for temporary or permanent storage.  

In general, representatives of the chlor-alkali industry consider storage capacities in the EU, both for 
temporary  and  permanent  storage  of  mercury  considered  waste,  as  insufficient.  Council  Directive 
2011/97/EU138 foresees only temporary storage criteria139 for metallic mercury considered as waste. 
In 2016 there may be stocks of metallic mercury considered as waste that will have reached the 5 
years  temporary  storage  limit.  According  to  the  stakeholders,  specific  conditions  and  criteria  for 
environmentally safe permanent storage of metallic mercury have not been defined yet, even if this 
is  required  under  the  Mercury  Export  Ban  Regulation.  Due  to  the  lack  of  clear  definition  of 
conditions for permanent storage no market has been created so far for solidifying and permanently 
storing excess mercury, which also negatively affected the mercury recycling companies.  

Efficiency 

The main cost elements for the implementation of the Mercury Export Ban Regulation are the costs 
of  storage  of  mercury  from  the  chlor-alkali  sector  and  the  lost  revenues  from  sale  and  export  of 
mercury  from  the  sector.  These  had  been  analysed  in  the  relevant  impact  assessment140  when  the 
Mercury  Export  Ban  legislation  was  proposed.  This  study  could  not  identify  any  ways  for  further 
reducing the costs caused by the restrictions on export.  

The costs to the chlor-alkali industry of storage of surplus mercury is estimated at an average of 0,6-
2,0 million EUR/y, while the lost revenue from sale of mercury is estimated at 3-5 million EUR/y. 
The  industry  stakeholders'  responses  indicate  that  they  consider  the  costs  of  disposal  ranking  first 
and  the  lost  revenue  second.  Some  stakeholders  pointed  at  the  lack  of  common  criteria  for 
environmentally safe permanent storage of metallic mercury as a cause of disproportionate costs.  

As per the requirements of Art. 3(3) of the Mercury Export Ban Regulation, criteria should be laid 
down in the Landfill Directive for the storage of metallic (liquid) mercury. Such criteria were agreed 
for  temporary  storage  only  as  there  was  no  majority  of  MS  in  favour  of  criteria  for  final  storage. 
Until now mercury was disposed after solidification and no additional cost were incurred due to the 
lack of criteria for permanent storage. However, if mercury would need to be stored in liquid form, 
temporary  storage  would  be  more  expensive  than  permanent  storage  in  the  long  run.  Therefore, 
introduction of clear criteria for permanent storage would be expected to improve the effectiveness 
(reducing costs for temporary storage) and efficiency of the Mercury Export Ban Regulation.  

Following technological developments in two solidification processes of metallic mercury a solution 
now exists in Germany  for its disposal and a further solution is expected in Spain. Furthermore, a 
review  of  recent  studies  has  shown  that  permanent  storage  of  metallic  mercury  in  deep  soft  rock 
formations, such as salt mines, is also be environmentally sound subject to specific technical criteria 
that should now be adopted. 

The  most  affected  industry  group  is  that  of  recyclers  and  exporters  of  mercury.  The  total  lost 
revenues are estimated at an average of 5-7 million EUR/y i.e. of the same size as the lost revenue to 
the chlor-alkali sector from sale of mercury to the recyclers and exporters.   

138 Council Directive 2011/97/EU, OJ L328, 10.12.2011, p.49 
139 considered as appropriate for a time span for up to five years 
140 SEC(2006)1369, 26.10.2006 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 115 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
Compared to the direct costs, the administrative costs and costs for implementation and enforcement 
are  estimated  to  be  relatively  small.  MS  estimated  the  time  needed  for  the  implementation  of  the 
Mercury Export Ban Regulation at, on average, one man-week per year per MS. It should be noted 
that much of the administration and enforcement is already done as part of the general procedures 
for  export  of  hazardous  substances  and  hazardous  waste.  Most  stakeholders  in  the  chlor-alkali 
industry stated that the administrative burden from the implementation of the Mercury Export Ban 
Regulation was small compared to the total administrative burden of the industry and estimated the 
time needed at, on average, of approximately one man-week per year per company. The responding 
recyclers  indicated  that  the  administrative  burden  from  the  implementation  of  the  Mercury  Export 
Ban Regulation was significant and estimated that, on average, more than two man-weeks per year 
per company was needed for administration.  

The  total  benefits  of  preventing  the  650  t/y  in  reaching  the  global  mercury  market  cannot  be 
estimated. In order to have a rough idea of the possible benefits an illustrative example can be given: 
assuming  that the reduced export  of  mercury from the EU  would result in  a 10 %  decrease in  the 
expected  impacts  from  lost  IQ  due  to  ingestion  and  inhalation  of  mercury  (just  one  of  the 
environmental and health impacts of mercury), and using available estimates of the costs of mercury 
impacts,  the  total  benefits  can  be  estimated  to  be  at  least  400  million  EUR/y  and  more  likely 
significantly  higher.  This  indicates  strongly  that  the  mercury  export  reductions  achieved  with  the 
Mercury Export Ban Regulation have been efficient. 

Coherence 

The Waste Shipment Regulation, the PIC Regulation and Council Directive 2011/97/EU amending 
the Landfill Directive (Directive 1999/31/EC) are all important instruments for the implementation 
and  enforcement  of  the  Mercury  Export  Ban  Regulation.  According  to  the  MS'  and  stakeholders' 
feedback, overlaps or interfaces of the Mercury Export Ban Regulation exist with these instruments. 
The  responses  did,  however,  not  specify  any  overlaps  or  contradictions  with  other  EU  legislation, 
and possible overlaps, e.g. in the reporting requirements, have not been identified.  

The REACH Regulation restricts the manufacture, placing on the market and use of mercury and/or 
mercury compounds, as substance or in mixtures, or in articles containing them (Entries 18, 18a, 30 
and  62  of  Annex  XVII  to  the  REACH  Regulation).  Entry  62  restricts  the  manufacture,  use  and 
placing on the market of five phenylmercury compounds after 10 October 2017. As manufacture in 
the  EU  is  restricted,  in  practice  export  will  be  restricted  as  well  (apart  from  re-export).  Entry  18 
(restricting the placing on the market and use of mercury compounds) and entry 18a (restricting the 
placing  on  the  market  of  various  measuring  devices  containing  mercury)  do  not  restrict  the 
manufacture  and  export  of  those  compounds  and  articles.  The  objective  of  the  restrictions  is  the 
protection of humans and the environment against mercury, and it seems to be incoherent with the 
objectives  of  the  REACH  Regulation  and  the  Mercury  Export  Ban  Regulation  that  these  mercury 
compounds  and  articles can  be exported and result in  exposure of humans  outside the EU and the 
global  environment.  In  the  context  of  the  Mercury  Export  Ban  Regulation,  it  is  of  particular 
significance that measuring devices with metallic mercury, both new and as waste, can be exported 
from the EU and thereby contribute to the global mercury supply. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 116 of 186 

 
 
 
 
APPENDIX 8.1 – MEMBER STATE RESPONSES  

A questionnaire focusing on the impacts of the Mercury Export Ban Regulation and elaborated for 
the sole purpose of this study was sent to all MS in order to draw conclusions on its effectiveness 
and  efficiency,  and  to  get  a  more  complete  picture  on  any  exports  of  mercury.  This  appendix 
provides a summary of the responses.  

1.  Which countries responded to the survey? 

Member States  

Yes  

17 (AT, BE, BG, DE, DK, ES, FI, HU, IE, LT, LU, MT, NL, PT, SE, SK, UK)  

17 MS have responded to the survey. 

2.  Statistical data on exports of mercury and mercury compounds 

2.1 Data on exports of mercury and mercury compounds addressed under Regulation (EU) No 

649/2012 (former: Regulation 689/2008) 

We extracted the data related to exports of mercury compounds for the period 2011 to 2013 from the 
reports your country sent to the Commission pursuant to Art. 10 of Regulation (EU) No 649/2012. In 
case  you  have  any  additional  data  or  information  regarding  exports  of  mercury  or  mercury 
compounds could you please provide them (you can also provide additional data as attachment)? 

No. of Member States  

5 (AT, BG, IE, NL, UK) 

12 (BE, DE, DK, ES, FI, HU, LT, LU, MT, PT, SE, SK) 

Yes  

No 

The majority of the responding countries did not provide any further information regarding exports 
of mercury or mercury compounds. Five countries included additional information, however mostly 
of rather general nature and referring to information already submitted. Bulgaria accentuated that no 
mercury has been exported from the country since 2011, and that there are no facilities or activities 
which might result in the generation of mercury as a product or by-product. Two countries (IE, NL) 
referred to the information already submitted in the context of their reporting obligations, whereas 
Austria pointed out that there are regular notifications by exporters concerning Art. 2 paragraph 3* 
of  Regulation  (EU)  No.  649/2012.  The  United  Kingdom  stated  that  2014  tonnages  are  not  yet 
available.  

2.2   Data on exports of metallic mercury considered as waste 

According  to  Article  5  of  Regulation  1102/2008  exporters  with  activities  referred  to  in  Article  2 
(concerning specified mercury wastes) have to report volumes, originating country and destination 
country of metallic mercury considered as waste that is traded cross-border within the Community 
(an issue that was covered in the previous mercury questionnaire). Do you, in addition, have data on 
exports of metallic mercury considered as waste, which is exported outside the EU? 

No. Member States  

Yes  

1 (UK) 

No 

16 (AT, BE, BG, DE, DK, ES, FI, HU, IE, LT, LU, MT, NL, PT, SE, SK) 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 117 of 186 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Only  the  United  Kingdom  provided  further  information  on  metallic  mercury  classified  as  waste 
being exported out of the EU. It indicated that in 2012, 135.1 tonnes and in 2011, 210.5 tonnes of 
waste containing metallic mercury were shipped to the United States. It was emphasized that these 
tonnages were for the total waste and did not necessarily equate to the tonnage of mercury. 

2.3   Data on exports of waste containing mercury as required in the Basel Convention 

We  extracted  the  data  related  to  exports  of  waste  containing  mercury  reported  by  your  country 
pursuant to Article 51(2) and Annex IX of Regulation 1013/2006 from the CIRCA webpage for the 
time  period  2010  to  2012.  In  case  you  have  any  additional/newer  data  or  information  regarding 
exports  of  mercury  or  mercury  compounds  could  you  please  provide  them  (you  can  also  provide 
additional/newer data as attachment)? 

No. Member States  

Yes  

6 (BE, BG, DE, FI, HU, IE) 

No 

11 (AT, DK, ES, LT, LU, MT, NL, PT, SE, SK, UK) 

About  one  third  of  MS  responses  to  the  questionnaire  contained  additional  information  regarding 
exports of mercury compounds under the Basel Convention. 

Belgium  indicated  that  exports  of  mercury  containing  waste  from  chlor-alkali  installations  in  the 
Flemish region to other chlor-alkali plants and to DE for disposal took place and in the latter case 
will  continue  to  take  place  in  the  future.  Both  Bulgaria  and  Hungary  included  data  on  mercury 
containing  fluorescent  tubes  shipped  to  Germany  and  Romania.  Moreover  Finland,  Germany  and 
Ireland added information on other mercury-containing waste categories shipped from the respective 
country. All additional information provided refers to waste exported to other EU MS. 

3.  Complementary  questions  regarding  the  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  Regulation 

1102/2008 

3.1 Has any illegal export of mercury and mercury compounds been observed? 

Yes  

No 

No. Member States  

2 (AT, DE) 

14 (BE, BG, DK, ES, FI, HU, IE, LT, LU, MT, NL, SE, SK, UK) 

Not answered 

1 (PT) 

The vast majority of the respondents have not observed any illegal exports of mercury or mercury 
compounds.  The  two  MS  reporting  such  cases  (AT,  DE)  both  referred  to  illegal  shipments  of 
mercury  from  Dela  GmbH  in  Germany  to  companies  in  Switzerland,  the  Netherlands  and  Greece 
between 2011 and 2014.  

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 118 of 186 

 
 
 
 
3.2   Have  you  experienced  that  the  exemptions  for  research  and  development,  medical  and 
analytical purposes have acted as a loophole for actual exports of regulated mercury and 
mercury compounds?  

Yes  

No 

No. Member States  

0 

15 (AT, BG, DE, DK, ES, FI, HU, IE, LT, LU, MT, NL, SE, SK, UK) 

Not answered  2 (BE, PT) 

So far, none of the MS have experienced that exemptions for research and development, medical and 
analytical  purposes  granted  by  the  Mercury  Export  Ban  Regulation  served  as  loopholes  for  any 
actual  exports  of  regulated  mercury  and  mercury  compounds.  However,  the  Belgian  response 
included recommendations on a supplementary obligation in case of an application for export for the 
uses  exempted  by  the  export  ban  for  quantities  below  10 kg  per  year  and  exporter,  namely  a 
these 
‘declaration  of  end-use’  required  from 
recommendations please refer to question 10 of this appendix. 

importer.  For  further 

information  on 

the 

3.3 Have  you  experienced  that  the  allowed  export  of  mercury  and  compounds  (other  than 
cinnabar  ore,  mercury  (I)  chloride,  mercury  (II)  oxide  and  mixtures  with  at  least  95  % 
mercury)  has  acted  as  loophole  for  actual  exports  of  regulated  mercury  and  mercury 
compounds? 

Yes  

No 

No. Member States  

0 

15 (AT, BG, DE, DK, ES, FI, HU, IE, LT, LU, MT, NL, SE, SK, UK) 

Not answered 

2 (BE, PT) 

So far, none of the MS have witnessed that the allowed export of mercury compounds has served as 
a  loophole  for  the  export  of  restricted  mercury  compounds.  Again,  Belgium  included  a  comment 
indicating that no data on this issue is available and that there are no actual effective means to prove 
an  intention  to  circumvent  the  export  obligations  (i.e.  via  transformation  or  mixture).  Nonetheless 
the exclusion of  mixtures  containing less than 95 %  mercury is regarded not  proportionate and an 
exemption  for  mixtures  with  contents  up  to  5%  of  mercury  is  proposed  instead.  Moreover  it  is 
highlighted  that  there  was  no  PIC  specific  entry  for  ‘mixtures  with  at  least  95  %  mercury’  until 
2014, meaning that it is not clear, which code was used by industry before that time. 

3.4  Have you experienced other loopholes regarding the exports of mercury and mercury 

compounds? 

Yes  

No 

Not answered/ 
No information 
available 

No. Member States  

1 (FI) 

13 (AT, BG, DK, ES, HU, IE, LT, LU, MT, NL, SE, SK, UK) 

3 (BE, DE, PT) 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 119 of 186 

 
 
 
 
 
 
None of the responding MS has actually experienced any other loopholes for exports of mercury and 
mercury compounds in  practice.  However,  Finland ticked ‘Yes’ in  the questionnaire  and indicated 
that for them a potential loophole in theory could be the export of mercury containing sludge. It was 
pointed  out  that  operators  could  simply  not  purify  the  residues  from  non-ferrous  mining  and 
smelting operations to gain metallic mercury for disposal but to receive mercury containing sludge 
instead  which  might  be  exported  as  waste  and  could  possibly  end  up  on  the  market.  Belgium 
justified its abstention with a lack of information on this point. 

3.5.  In  case  of  illegal  export  activities,  are  any  penalties  foreseen  in  your  national  legislation 

(relating to the Mercury Export Ban Regulation's Article 7)? 

If yes, please specify the kind (and extent) of penalties foreseen. 

Yes  

No 

No. Member States  

10 (AT, BE, BG, DK, FI, IE, LT, LU, SE, UK) 

3 (HU, MT, SK) 

Not answered 

4 (DE, PT, NL, ES) 

More than half of the respondents indicated that penalties were foreseen in their national legislation 
for  illegal  export  activities,  including  fines  and  imprisonment  of  different  extents.  Two  countries 
(HU,  MT)  have  no  penalties  foreseen,  whereas  Slovakia  indicated  that  there  were  no  penalties  in 
direct  relation  with  Art.  7  of  the  Regulation,  but  that  other  legislation  covered  the  prosecution  of 
threats  or  damages  to  human  health  and  the  environment.  The  Spanish  response  contained  a 
reference to the Spanish Organic Law 12/1995 applying to the substances for which export has been 
banned  by  Regulations  (EC)  No  1102/2008  and  No  649/2012.  The  penalties,  if  described,  include 
fines from 1,500 up to 50,000 Euros or imprisonment from one month up to two years. 

3.5.1 What kind of monitoring arrangements are established to ensure that illegal exports and 

storages are detected? 

No. Member States  

Arrangements included 

12 (AT, BE, DK, ES, FI, HU, IE, LT, MT, SE, SK, UK) 

No arrangements included 

5 (BG, DE, LU, NL, PT) 

The  majority  of  the  respondents  provided  information  on  monitoring  arrangements  in  place  in  the 
respective  MS.  In  all  of  these  MS,  customs  and  different  national  and  municipal  authorities  are 
responsible for monitoring and ensuring compliance with the Mercury Export Ban Regulation. The 
arrangements include the implementation of national legislation (namely mentioned by SE, FI, ES), 
regular transport/company inspections (AT, BE), harbour and border controls (DK, HU), checks on 
documentation relating to exports (UK, IE) and in general close cooperation of customs, authorities 
and  police  in  order  to  detect  breaches  with  the  Regulation  (DK,  HU,  SK).  Lithuania’s  response 
included information on monitoring requirements set for temporary storage sites containing metallic 
mercury.  In  addition,  Belgium  provided  information  referring  to  its  custom  declaration  database 
(PLDA  database)  which  includes  a  control  mechanism  that  identifies  the  PIC  Regulation,  also 
applying to metallic mercury and compounds and mixtures.  

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 120 of 186 

 
 
 
 
 
3.5.2  Do  you  have  any  recommendations  for  an  improved/effective  penalty  regime  or 

monitoring arrangement? 

No. Member States  

1 (BE) 

12 (BG, DK, ES, FI, HU, IE, LT, LU, MT, SE, SK, UK) 

Yes  

No 

Not answered 

4 (AT, DE, NL, PT) 

Most of the respondents had no recommendations on this point. Suggestions for improved penalty 
regimes  were  not  made  at  all.  Two  MS  (BE,  IE)  provided  additional  input  on  monitoring 
arrangements. Belgium suggested to manage PIC and custom export data at EU level and to link the 
databases  in  order  to  identify  illegal  movements  and  to  improve  monitoring.  Moreover,  custom 
declaration  forms  were  criticised,  as  no  CAS  number  is  given  in  order  to  identify  the  substances, 
meaning  that  the  restricted  compounds  listed  in  the  Mercury  Export  Ban  Regulation  cannot  be 
distinguished  comparatively  to  other  compounds.  Emphasis  was  also  put  on  the  difficulties  in 
identifying companies that do not declare goods as substances targeted by PIC because customs do 
not  perform  physical  controls  on  dangerous  chemicals  for  safety  reasons  and  due  to  a  lack  of 
appropriate  expertise.  Ireland  ticked  ‘No’  in  the  questionnaire,  however  stated  that  the  lack  of 
specific  CN  codes  for  each  individual  compound  required  investigations  to  identify  the  actual 
compounds  being  exported.  The  additional  resource  needs  resulting  from  this  enforcement  of  the 
Regulation were highlighted. 

3.6.  What  is  your  estimate  of  the  direct  budgetary  consequences  your  national  competent 

authorities had regarding the implementation of the Regulation (one-time input)? 

No costs/input 

No. Member States 

2 (BG, LT) 

Marginal (less than 1 man-week of work) 

6 (BE, DK, LU, MT, SE, UK) 

Moderate (1-2 man-weeks) 

4 (AT, ES, FI, IE) 

Substantial (2-4 man-weeks) 

1 (SK) 

Significant (more than 1 man-month) 

0 

Don’t know 

Not answered 

2 (HU, NL) 

2 (DE, PT) 

The  majority  of  the  respondents  (ten  MS)  classified  the  direct  budgetary  consequences  resulting 
from the implementation of the Regulation as marginal or moderate. Only one country (SK) reported 
substantial  budgetary  consequences  whereas  significant  consequences were  indicated  by  no  MS  at 
all. 

No MS could provide information on specific costs from separate budget lines. 

Belgium added as a comment that the implementation of the export ban under the Mercury Export 
Ban  Regulation  is  organized  on  basis  of  the  PIC  regulation  general  process  considering  a  few 
specific  arrangements  (substance  banned  similarly  as  it  is  the  case  for  the  POPs  regulation  and 
specific exemption). It is a major asset for BE to keep on the same basis for ensuring the fulfilment 
of the export ban as already established for the treatment of the overall PIC provisions.  

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 121 of 186 

 
 
 
 
3.7. What is your estimate of the incremental budgetary consequences your national competent 

authorities have annually (on average) in relation to the Regulation? 

No costs/input 

No. Member States 

3 (BG, LT, SE) 

Marginal (less than 1 man-week of work) 

6 (AT, BE, DK, IE, LU, MT, UK) 

Moderate (1-2 man-weeks) 

Substantial (2-4 man-weeks) 

2 (ES, FI) 

1 (SK) 

Significant (more than 1 man-month) 

0 

Don’t know 

Not answered 

2 (HU, NL) 

3 (DE, PT) 

Estimations of the incremental costs in relation with the Regulation were diverse with  the majority 
of  the  MS  estimating  no  (three  MS)  or  marginal  costs  (seven  MS).  Two  MS  indicated  moderate 
costs  and  only  one  respondent  (SK)  assessed  significant  costs.  The  remaining  respondents  either 
couldn’t estimate the financial consequences or didn’t provide any answer at all. Both Belgium and 
Denmark  referred  to  answer  six  for  additional  information.  Again,  no  country  provided  specific 
information on costs. This lack of precise information was justified by Denmark with uncertainties 
and case-by-case influences, making it impossible to estimate annual costs. 

3.8.  Have  you  experienced  that  any  provision  of  the  Regulation  has  been  inefficient  or  a 

disproportionate source of costs (relatively)? 

Yes  

No 

No. Member States  

1 (BE) 

13 (AT, BG, DK, ES, FI, HU, IE, LT, LU, MT, SE, SK, UK) 

Not answered 

3 (DE, NL, PT) 

Apart from Belgium, no other MS stated, that it considers provisions of the Regulation resulting in 
inefficiency  or  disproportionate  costs.  The  Belgian  response  emphasized  once  again  the  reduced 
effectiveness  due  to  potential  loopholes  such  as  the  above  mentioned  mixtures  of  mercury  with 
mercury concentrations of at least 95 % and suggested the improvement of data coherence in order 
to  enhance  the  effectiveness  of  the  Regulation.  For  further  proposals  and  recommendations, 
reference to the previous questions is made. 

3.9. Have you experienced any overlaps, discrepancies, contradictions or similar issues of the 

Regulation with other EU legislation? 

Yes  

No 

No. Member States  

5 (AT, DK, IE, LT, MT) 

8 (BE, BG, FI, HU, LU, SE, SK, UK) 

Not answered 

4 (DE, ES, NL, PT)  

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 122 of 186 

 
 
 
 
 
 
About one third of the respondents included information on this question. Two countries (DK and 
MT) pointed to overlaps of the mercury export ban with REACH. Austria addressed  overlaps with 
Regulation  (EC)  No.  1013/2006  on  shipments  of  waste.  The  Irish  response  made  reference  to 
question 5.2, stressing again the fact that in all substance/compound trade controls across different 
pieces of EU legislation, the lack of specific CN  codes creates problems and additional efforts for 
investigations.  Lithuania  emphasised  the  fact  that  with  the  requirements  for  the  export  of  mercury 
and mercury compounds and for the storage of metallic mercury considered as waste being scattered 
in several legal acts (namely Regulation No. 1102/2008, Council Directive 2011/97/EU on specific 
criteria  for  the  storage  of  metallic  mercury  considered  as  waste,  Regulation  No.  649/2012),  the 
implementation  was  troublesome.  It  was  suggested  to  merge  and  streamline  the  existing  EU 
legislation and forthcoming requirements on mercury. 

3.10.  If  you  have  any  additional  comments  regarding  the  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  the 

Regulation, please comment here. 

No. Member States  

Comments included 

3 (BE, ES, SE) 

No comments included 

14 (AT, BG, DE, DK, FI, HU, IE, LT, LU, MT, NL, PT, SK, UK) 

Three of the contacted MS made use of the opportunity to include further comments regarding the 
Regulation  and  its  implementation.  Throughout  the  whole  questionnaire,  Belgium  suggested 
additional  provisions going  beyond the current EU legislation, especially concerning end uses and 
specific  identification  of  exported  mercury  compounds.  Belgian  PIC  competent  authority  has 
introduced  simplified  procedures  for  quantities  below  10  kg  per  year,  exporter,  and  importing 
country, obligating importers to declare the end use a mercury compound is directed to. Moreover it 
is  criticised  that  customs  use  CN  codes  which  allow  no  distinction  between  individual  mercury 
compounds, meaning that banned compounds cannot be clearly identified. Obligatory declaration of 
the  substances’  CAS  number  would  allow  identification  of  illegal  movements  and  facilitate 
monitoring. Moreover, an additional provision on the EU import of mercury is suggested, including 
an obligation of explicit consent (as required for chemicals included in parts two and three of Annex 
I  to  the  PIC  Regulation)  also  for  the  import  of  mercury  and  mercury  compounds  and  clear 
identification  of  the  intended  use  by  the  industry  sector  or  other  activity.  This  recommendation 
provided by Belgium was explained to be motivated by the needs related to the implementation of 
the  MC.  The  suggestion  aims  at  the  identification  of  remaining  uses  in  EU  and  the  respective 
consumption,  in  order  to  achieve  further  reduction  of  emissions  of  mercury,  and  at  simplified 
identification of potential uncompliant uses. 

Spain  remarked  that  EU  legislation  should  resort  to  the  wording  of  the  MC  on  Mercury  and  thus 
require ‘operations that do not lead to recovery, recycling, reclamation, direct re-use or alternative 
uses’  for  the  disposal  of  metallic  mercury  considered  as  waste.  Otherwise  re-export  of  mercury 
wastes could result in mercury wastes re-entering the market. This observation was also included in 
one of the comments contained in the Belgian response.  

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 123 of 186 

 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX 8.2 – OTHER STAKEHOLDER RESPONSES 

A  separate  questionnaire  was  sent  to  specific  stakeholders  who  may  have  been  affected  by  the 
implementation  of  the  EU  mercury  export  ban.  Companies  involved  in  mercury  commodity  trade 
(36  companies  identified  earlier  as  mercury  traders),  recovery/recycling  of  mercury  (the  5  key 
companies involved in this activity in the EU) and chlor-alkali production (23 companies) have been 
contacted141.  This  appendix  provides  a  summary  of  the  responses  received  as  well  as  a  list  of 
companies contacted (see at the end of this appendix).  

1.  Which companies responded to the survey? 

No. Chlor-alkali industry 

No. Mercury waste 
management  
and trade 

No. Other 

Yes 

13 

4 

1 

18 companies responded to the survey by returning answered questionnaires. 13 of the respondents 
are  active  in  chlor-alkali  production,  four  either  in  mercury  waste  management  or  trade  with 
mercury  commodities  or  both,  and  one  company  does  research  on  mercury  treatment  as  waste  as 
well  as  storage  (hereinafter  allocated  to  category  ‘other’).  In  addition,  eight  companies  did  not 
submit a questionnaire response, but replied by e-mail that they did not trade or otherwise deal with 
mercury. 

2.  Questions regarding the efficiency and effectiveness of Regulation 1102/2008 

2.1   Before  receiving  this  questionnaire,  were  you  aware  of  the  existence  of  the  Mercury 

Export Ban Regulation? 

No. Chlor-alkali industry 

No. Mercury waste 
management  
and trade 

Yes 

No 

13 

0 

4 

0 

No. Other 

1 

0 

Without  exemption,  all  responding  stakeholders  of  all  sectors  had  already  been  aware  of  the 
existence  of  the  Regulation.  Nevertheless,  one  mercury  trade  and  waste  treatment  company  stated 
that a lot of inquiries for mercury deliveries are still received both from European and international 
side, which indicates that the company’s clients are not yet fully aware of the Regulation.  

141 Potential mercury trading companies were identified with the help from Peter Maxson of Concorde East/West, who 
have  made  surveys  on  this  issue  in  earlier  studies.  The  key  mercury  recyclers  were  identified  in  earlier  studies 
performed  by  COWI  and  BiPRO.  The  chlor-alkali  companies  were  contacted  initially  via  Euro  Chlor.  Follow-up 
contacts were made by COWI/BiPRO. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 124 of 186 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.2  In  case  your  company  is  affected  by  the  Regulation,  how  do  you  estimate  the  (one-time) 
effort  you  made  regarding  the  implementation  of  the  Regulation  in  your  company 
procedures? 

No. Chlor-alkali 
industry 

No. Mercury waste 
management  
and trade 

No. Other 

Not affected 

Marginal (less than 2 
man-days of work input) 

Moderate (2-5 man-days) 

Substantial (1-2 man-
weeks) 

Significant (more than 2 
man-weeks) 

Don’t know 

2 

4 

3 

2 

2 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

2 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

Among the companies  active in  chlor-alkali industry, responses to this question were  quite evenly 
distributed  with  a  slight  peak  for  marginal  (four  companies)  and  moderate  (three  companies) 
estimated one-time effort. Two respondents each indicated substantial, significant and no effects at 
all.  Only  one  company  added  a  further  comment,  indicating  that  the  implementation  of  the 
Regulation had caused no one-off costs (0 EUR). 

Waste  management  and  trade  companies  seem  to  have  made  greater  efforts  in  relation  to  the 
implementation of the Regulation, as two out of four companies reported significant one-time effort. 
This could possibly be connected with the market potential for final disposal required in the Mercury 
Export Ban Regulation or the additional requirements regarding mercury trade. One company active 
in waste treatment estimated only marginal efforts. None of the companies provided information on 
specific costs. 

Also,  the  company  responding  in  the  category  ‘other’  activities  stated  that  they  have  made 
significant efforts due to the implementation of the Regulation. No specific values for these one-off 
costs were provided. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 125 of 186 

 
 
 
2.3 In case your company is affected by the Regulation, to what extent do you agree that your 
company's  annual  administrative  burden  related  to  complying  with  the  Regulation  is 
minimal compared to the other administrative work in your company? 

No. Chlor-alkali industry 

No. Mercury waste 
management  
and trade 

No. Other 

Not affected 

Agree 

Agree partly 

Don’t know 

Disagree partly 

Disagree 

Not answered 

3 

6 

2 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

0 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

More  than  half  of  the  stakeholders  involved  in  chlor-alkali  production  agreed  (six  companies)  or 
agreed partly (two companies) with the statement that the company's annual administrative burden 
related to complying with the Regulation was minimal compared to the other required administrative 
work.  Only  one  company  disagreed,  whereas  the  remaining  ones  did  not  answer  the  question  or 
stated not to be affected. 

The  four  waste  management  and  mercury  trade  companies  responding  to  the  questionnaire  all 
replied differently, ranging from agreement to disagreement. Therefore no general tendency can be 
determined.  

The  company  operating  in  research  agreed  on  the  statement  that,  in  comparison  to  other 
administrative  work, the annual administrative burden related to  complying with the Regulation is 
minimal. 

2.4  In  case  your  company  is  affected  by  the  Regulation,  what  is  your  estimate  of  the  annual 

administrative burden your company has because of the Regulation? 

No. Chlor-alkali 
industry 

No. Mercury waste 
management  
and trade 

No. Other 

Not affected 

Marginal (less than 2 man-
days of work input/y) 

Moderate (2-5 man-days/y) 

Substantial (1-2 man-weeks/y) 

Significant (more than 2 man-
weeks/y) 

Don’t know 

2 

5 

4 

0 

2 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

2 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 126 of 186 

 
 
 
 
 
Among the companies belonging to the chlor-alkali sector, a majority of nine respondents reported 
marginal (five companies) or moderate (four companies) annual administrative consequences from 
the Regulation. Two companies each stated that they were not affected at all or that, on the contrary, 
significant  administrative  burden  had  to  be  dealt  with  because  of  the  Regulation.  Again,  one 
company  included  a  value  of  zero  EUR  for  the  resulting  annual  cost.  The  response  of  another 
company pointed out that arrangements were still being set up meaning that time requirements were 
still uncertain. 

As  to  the  waste  management  and  mercury  trade  business,  two  out  of  four  companies  reported 
significant  annual  administrative  burden.  Response  patterns  suggest  that  increased  administrative 
efforts  apply  especially  for  trade  companies  dealing  with  mercury  and  mercury  compounds  rather 
than for waste treatment companies recycling/recovering mercury. None of the respondents included 
information on specific costs.  

The remaining company stated to have experienced marginal additional administrative burdens due 
to the Regulation. Specific values were not provided. 

2.5 In case your company is affected by the Regulation, have you experienced other relevant 

costs related to the implementation of the Regulation? 

No. Chlor-alkali 
industry 

No. Mercury waste 
management  
and trade 

No. Other 

Yes  

No 

Not answered 

5 

7 

1 

3 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

Five of the thirteen respondents from the chlor-alkali industry stated that they had experienced other 
relevant costs resulting from the implementation of the Regulation; see details below. 

Three out of four companies active in waste treatment and mercury trade indicated to have dealt with 
other costs due to the implementation of the Regulation. 

The company belonging to the category ‘other’ indicated not to have experienced further costs. 

Cost types: 

No. Chlor-alkali 
industry 

No. Mercury waste 
management  
and trade 

No. Other 

Cost for storage of mercury 
and compounds (…) 

Lost profits from sales of 
mercury or compounds 

Other costs 

4 

3 

2 

1 

3 

2 

0 

0 

0 

Regarding the types of costs, costs for storage of mercury and compounds considered as waste in the 
Regulation played the most important role for the representatives of the chlor-alkali sector (indicated 
by  four  companies).  In  this  context,  one  company  stated  that  corresponding  costs  resulted  from 
material and man-hours for packaging of the mercury waste, whereas another company ascribed the 
additional  costs to  the upgrading  of temporary  storage  sites. Lost  profits from sales  of  mercury or 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 127 of 186 

 
 
 
 
compounds  ranked  second  (three  companies),  whereas two  companies  stated that  these  costs  were 
difficult to determine. In addition, two companies indicated other costs related to the implementation 
of  the  Regulation,  however  only  one  of  them  specified  these  costs,  namely  as  treatment/disposal 
costs for metallic mercury which can no longer be sold as commodity.  

Among  the  representatives  from  waste  management  and  mercury  trade,  lost  profits  from  sales  of 
mercury or mercury compounds were reported most frequently. They were specified to amount to at 
least  500,000 EUR/y  by  one  company  previously  mostly  exporting  to  African  countries,  whereas 
another  company  indicated  lost  profits  of  approximately  200,000 EUR/y.  Moreover,  one  company 
stated to have made storage investments of approximately 500,000 EUR for the construction of an 
appropriate  warehouse  offering  capacity  for  500 tonnes  of  metallic  mercury.  In  addition,  different 
other  types  of  costs  were  experienced  by  the  responding  companies  of  these  sectors,  such  as  lost 
investments made earlier for special machines in relation with the production of capsules for dental 
amalgam  (stated  by  two  companies).  One  respondent  specified  such  lost  investments  at  a  cost  of 
approximately  260,000 EUR.  Moreover,  one  company  had  to  deal  with  unpaid  invoices  from 
customers after further mercury deliveries had to be stopped (creating a loss of 92,046 EUR). They 
had with attorney costs arising from issues with the competent authorities concerning Art. 2 of the 
Regulation, regarding  the issue whether mercury gained from sludge, scraps,  dust and other waste 
products from chlor-alkali industry or natural gas cleaning recovered by recycling companies has to 
be considered as waste or commodity. 

2.6  In  case  your  company  is  affected,  have  you  experienced  that  any  provisions  of  the 
Regulation have been unclear, inefficient, or sources of disproportionate costs (relatively) 
from your point of view? 

No. Chlor-alkali 
industry 

No. Mercury waste 
management  
and trade 

No. Other 

Yes  

No 

Not answered 

2 

9 

2 

3 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

Only two of the contacted chlor-alkali producers provided further information on provisions of the 
Regulation which have been unclear, inefficient, or sources of disproportionate costs. One company 
highlighted final storage of mercury, lacking decisions concerning the handling of mercury and costs 
for  temporary  storage  and  stabilization  as  problematic  provisions  of  the  Regulation;  however, 
specific  proposals  for simplification were  not given. The response  provided by the other company 
indicated that UK companies suffer from competitive disadvantages due to the national authorities’ 
decision to classify mercury recovered from the treatment of waste streams that originate from the 
chlor-alkali industry as waste. They stated that according to their information, competent authorities 
of other MS regard this type of mercury as  a commodity which is not covered by Art. 2(a) of the 
Regulation.  It  is  therefore  recommended  in  the  company’s  response  to  clearly  define  whether 
Art. 2(a)  applies  to  metallic  mercury  in  use  or  stored  in  plants  only,  or  also  to  mercury  recovered 
from waste treatment activities. 

Two representatives of the waste management and mercury trade sector again criticized Art. 2 of the 
Regulation, stating that it is not clear which substances are covered by this provision. They state that 
it  is  required  to  clarify  whether  mercury  still  contained  in  sludge,  scraps,  dust  or  other  waste 
products is to be considered as waste. Disparate interpretation of this provision in the different MS is 
criticized as well. Two other companies emphasized the fact that from their point of view, mercury 
for dental use in amalgams should be excluded from the ban. One respondent questioned the entire 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 128 of 186 

 
 
 
export ban, arguing the fact that mercury is still used in many applications within and outside the EU 
and  whether  foreign  authorities  are  not  regarded  able  to  enforce  reasonable  use  of  mercury.  The 
same  respondent  also  added  that  many  inquiries  from  international  and  European  clients  for  the 
delivery  of mercury  are  still  received,  showing the  so-far  insufficient  awareness  of  the  Regulation 
both globally and in Europe. 

2.7 Have you experienced any overlaps, discrepancies, contradictions or similar issues between 

the Regulation and other EU legislation? 

No. Chlor-alkali 
industry 

No. Mercury waste 
management  
and trade 

No. Other 

Yes  

No 

Not answered 

1 

11 

1 

3 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

Only  one  stakeholder  of  the  chlor-alkali  industry  provided  information  regarding  this  question.  It 
reported  the  Industrial  Emissions  Directive  and  the  Best  Available  Techniques  (BAT)  Reference 
Document  for  the  Production  of  Chlor-alkali  as  potential  sources  of  overlaps,  discrepancies  or 
contradictions without mentioning further explanations.  

Three of the four representatives from waste management and mercury trade companies stated that 
the Regulation interfered with other EU legislation. However, the corresponding legislation was not 
specified.  

The remaining company did not share any experiences on this point. 

2.8  Have  you  experienced  changes  in  the  possibilities  of  selling  mercury  and  mercury 
compounds (apart from the specifically banned substances/materials) since the Regulation 
entered into force (for example changes in the trade patterns, in the demand, in the type 
of mercury compounds sold, etc.)? 

No. Chlor-alkali 
industry 

No. Mercury waste 
management  
and trade 

No. Other 

Yes  

No 

Not answered 

2 

10 

1 

3 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

Among the chlor-alkali producing stakeholders, only two companies have witnessed changes in the 
possibilities of selling mercury and mercury compounds since the Regulation entered into force, see 
details below.  

Three  out  of  four  respondents  operating  in  waste  management  recycling/recovering  mercury  or  in 
trade of mercury and its compounds stated to have experienced such changes. 

The company allocated to the category ‘other’ reported not to have noticed changes. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 129 of 186 

 
 
 
 
No. Chlor-alkali 
industry 

No. Mercury waste 
management  
and trade 

No. Other 

Change in prices 

Change in demand 

Change in trade patterns 

Change in types of 
mercury compounds sold 

Other changes 

2 

2 

1 

0 

0 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Regarding  the  types  of  changes,  changes  in  prices  (reported  by  two  companies),  in  demand  (two 
companies)  and  in  trade  patterns  (one  company)  have  been  experienced  by  two  chlor-alkali 
producing  firms.  One  company  attributed  changes  in  prices  to  limited  use  of  mercury,  changes  in 
demands to decreasing application of mercury electrolysis and changes in trade patterns to the export 
ban  in  general  and  the  transition  of  mercury  from  product  to  waste.  Change  in  types  of  mercury 
compounds sold or other changes were not reported from the chlor-alkali sector in the scope of this 
survey.  

Among  waste  management  and  mercury  trade  companies,  increasing  price  of  mercury  due  to 
reduced availability of mercury on the world market has been noticed as a consequence of the export 
ban. As far as changes in demand are concerned, two companies stated that the demand for mercury 
is decreasing in Europe, but that it is still considerable outside the EU (one company). In particular 
the demand for dental amalgam capsules seems to have increased in non-EU countries according to 
one representative of the sector, resulting in an increased demand for so-called mercury pillows (a 
semi-manufacture) used for the production of dental amalgam capsules. The reason for the increased 
demand is the decreased production of dental amalgam capsules by European manufacturers due to 
the mercury export ban. The same respondent stated that the ban might restrict the access of socially 
weak citizens to dental treatment and that studies do not prove harmful effects of dental amalgam on 
human health. Moreover, one respondent indicated other changes due to the Regulation. A change 
he specified is the production of Hg outside the EU and the fact that products of non-EU origin are 
still sold to non-EU countries in the same quantities as before the mercury export ban.  

2.9 In case you experienced changes as mentioned above, have you experienced other factors 

than the Regulation that may have caused these changes? 

No. Chlor-alkali industry 

No. Mercury waste 
management  
and trade 

No. Other 

Yes  

No 

Not answered 

2 

7 

4 

0 

4 

0 

0 

1 

0 

The two respondents of the chlor-alkali sector which had experienced changes in the possibilities of 
selling  mercury  and its compounds  both  attributed  those  changes  also  to  factors  going  beyond the 
Regulation.  Whereas  one  company  referred  to  the  Best  Available  Techniques  (BAT)  Reference 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 130 of 186 

 
 
 
 
Document for the Production of Chlor-alkali, another company identified a general decrease in the 
application of mercury electrolysis as well as the upcoming phase-out date for mercury in the chlor-
alkali  production  (closure  or  conversion  of  mercury  cell  plants  no  later  than  2017)  as  potential 
causes.  

None of the other industry representatives identified further causes for the experienced changes.  

2.10 In case you have needed to store mercury or mercury compounds considered as waste in 
the  Regulation  after  its  entry  into  force,  is  it  your  experience  that  there  is  sufficient 
storage capacity in the EU? 

No. Chlor-alkali 
industry 

No. Mercury waste 
management  
and trade 

No. Other 

For temporary 
storage 

For final 
storage 

Not answered 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

2 

6 

2 

6 

5 

1 

0 

0 

1 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

The  majority  of  the  chlor-alkali  producers  answering  the  question  on  storage  capacity  in  the  EU 
believe that there is neither enough temporary (six companies answered with ‘No’) nor final storage 
capacity  (again  six  companies  ticked  ‘No’).  Also  in  the  comment  section  related  to  this  question, 
several companies emphasized the fact that, from their point of view, available storage and treatment 
facilities were insufficient. 

Three  out  of  four  companies  involved  in  mercury  trade  and  waste  management  activities  did  not 
answer this question. However, two of them justified their abstention with a lack of experience on 
these issues. One respondent highlighted the fact that there seems to be insufficient capacity for the 
transformation of mercury into a disposable compound such as mercury sulphide, as many inquiries 
concerning  this  measure  were  received.  According  to  the  one  company  answering  the  question, 
capacity  for  temporary  storage  is  sufficient,  but  final  storage  of  mercury  waste  is  a  huge  problem 
and needs to be solved. It was added that local authorities set up all sorts of formal hurdles, and that 
they should ‘combine forces’ in order to get things organised swiftly. 

2.11  Does  your  company  export  out  of  the  EU  mercury  compounds  mentioned  in  the 
Regulation as exempted uses (R&D, medical uses, analysis), or other mercury compounds 
or mixtures of metallic mercury not banned according to the Regulation? 

No. Chlor-alkali 
industry 

No. Mercury waste 
management  
and trade 

No. Other 

Yes  

No 

Not answered 

1 

12 

0 

0 

4 

0 

0 

1 

0 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 131 of 186 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Among  the  companies  active  in  the  chlor-alkali  sector,  only  one  company  stated  to  export  other 
mercury compounds or mixtures of metallic mercury not banned according to the Regulation out of 
the  EU.  Again,  the  response  emphasized  the  fact  that  the  company  would  like  to  export  mercury 
containing waste to treatment facilities outside the EU, as already explained in question 3.6. 

None of the companies belonging to the other sectors indicated corresponding export activities.  

2.12  Has  any  export  of  mercury  and  mercury  compounds  been  observed,  which  is  illegal 

according to the Regulation? 

No. Chlor-alkali 
industry 

No. Mercury waste 
management  
and trade 

No. Other 

Yes  

No 

Not answered 

1 

11 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

0 

0 

Only  one  chlor-alkali  producing  company  provided  information  on  illegal  exporting  activities  of 
mercury or mercury compounds, referring to the well-known case of Dela in Germany. 

Also  one  representative  of  the  waste  management  and  mercury  trading  companies  cited  this 
example, stating that some 500 tonnes of liquid mercury have been shipped from Dela in Germany 
to Batrec in Switzerland. 

2.13 If you have any further comments to the Regulation or to this questionnaire, please insert 

them here. 

No. Chlor-alkali 
industry 

No. Mercury waste 
management  
and trade 

Comments included 

No comments included 

4 

9 

4 

0 

No. Other 

0 

1 

Four of the respondents belonging to the chlor-alkali industry added further comments regarding the 
Regulation and its implementation. One company once again made reference to the uncertainties in 
relation with the interpretation of Art. 2(a) of the Regulation. Also another company addressed legal 
uncertainties  in  Switzerland  concerning  the  import  and  export  of  mercury  between  Swiss  and  EU 
chlor-alkali plants. Two other companies commented on the fact that with Dela GmbH in Germany, 
the  only  company  authorized  to  treat  mercury  was  shut  down,  resulting  in  a  lack  of  adequate 
treatment  facilities.  The  offer  of  appropriate  alternatives  for  chlor-alkali  producers  wishing  to 
dispose of or treat mercury is requested. 

Comments added by companies operating in mercury waste management or trade include criticism 
concerning the Regulation in general, which is even regarded partially illegal by one representative, 
and concerning the ban of mercury exports for the use in dental amalgam outside EU in particular. In 
addition,  one  comment  included  the  recommendation  that  Switzerland  should  commit  itself  to 
complying  with  EU  legislation  concerning  mercury,  in  order  to  prevent  further  illegal  exports  of 
mercury, as those observed in the case of Dela GmbH in Germany. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 132 of 186 

 
 
 
 
Contacted companies 

Company 

Country 

Trade 

Recyclin
g/Re-
covery 

Chlor-
alkali 

Other 

Quest-
ionnaire 
returned 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

A&M Minerals & Metals 

A.H.Knight 

Acros Organics BVBA 

AkzoNobel 

Alex Stewart  International 

Ampere Alloys 

Arkema France 

BASF SA 

Bayer MaterialScience AG 

BMT Begemann Milieutechniek 
BV - Dordrecht 

BOME, s.r.o. 

BorsodChem RT 

BRGM  

BSI Inspectorate 

CABB AG 

Cfm Oskar Tropitzsch GmbH 

Chemos GmbH 

Dragten Metaux 

Ercros SA 

Euro-Rijn 

Evonik Industries AG 

Floridienne SA 

Fox Chemicals 

Gimat S.A.S 

GMR Gesellschaft für 
Metallrecycling mbH 

Gomensoro Instrumentación 
Científica 

Hellenic Petroleum SA 

Hollands Veem BV  

HydroChem Italia Srl 

INEOS ChlorVinyls Ltd 

INEOS ChlorVinyls Ltd 

INEOSCHLOR 

UK 

UK 

BE 

NL 

UK 

FR 

FR 

DE 

DE 

NL 

CZ 

HU 

FR 

- 

CH 

DE 

DE 

FR 

ES 

NL 

DE 

BE 

DE 

IT 

DE 

ES 

EL 

NL 

IT 

BE 

UK 

DE 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Not/no 
longer 
involved 
in 
activities 
related to 
mercury 

x 

x 

x 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 133 of 186 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Company 

Country 

Trade 

Recyclin
g/Re-
covery 

Chlor-
alkali 

Other 

Quest-
ionnaire 
returned 

INEOSCHLOR 

Johnson Matthey Ltd. 

Kem One 

Lambert Metals International 
Ltd. 

Lippmann Walton 

M&R Claushuis 

METALLUM Metal Trading 
AG 

MINAS DE ALMADÉN Y 
ARRAYANES, S.A.  – 
COMMERCIAL AREA 
MAYASA 

OltChim SA 

Panreac Quimica 

Remondis NQR  

RJH Trading 

Rokita SA 

Sanab Ltd 

Schartab SL 

SFP Metals (UK) Ltd 

Sigma-Aldrich Chemie Gmbh 

Solvay SA 

Spolana as 

Spolchemie AS 

Syndicat Halogènes & Dérivés 
Chimie Minérale 

Tessenderlo 

Tessenderlo 

THOR GROUP LIMITED 

Trademet UK  (Trademet SA) 

Vertellus Chemicals SA 

Wogen Resources 

SE 

UK 

FR 

UK 

UK 

NL 

UK 

ES 

RO 

ES 

DE 

UK 

PL 

UK 

ES 

UK 

DE 

BE 

CZ 

CZ 

FR 

BE 

IT 

UK 

UK 

BE 

UK 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Not/no 
longer 
involved 
in 
activities 
related to 
mercury 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 134 of 186 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 9A – DETAILED IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF P2 (PRODUCTS) 

This annex summarises the impacts for the following mercury-added product categories: 

  Switches and relays 
  Batteries 
  Non-electronic measuring devices 
  Cosmetics 
  Pesticides, biocides and topical antiseptics 

As the EU has legislation regulating all of the above product categories, the implementation of the 
MC will not require any additional measures.  

Switches and relays 
For mercury-added switches and relays (whose use has been declining for decades in the EU), the 
MC  requirements  are  similar  to  existing  EU  law.  Thus,  the  impacts  of  the  two  options  would  be 
similar. 

Under the baseline scenario (EU does not ratify the MC), EU exports might be negatively affected 
by import restrictions imposed by Parties to the Convention. 

COWI and Concorde East/West (2008) estimated a total mercury consumption for switches, relays 
and similar products in the EU at 0,3 – 0,8 t/y, and exports of about 0,3 t/y. It is not known whether 
this  export  trade  still  exists  and  if  it  would  be  affected  by  either  option,  but  any  potential  impact 
would by minimal. 

Batteries 
Mercury  containing  batteries  are  regulated  within  the  EU  by  the  Batteries  Directive142  that  has 
prohibited their placing on the EU market, with certain exemptions for mercury-containing143 button 
cells. Thanks to a recent amendment144 such exemptions expire on 1 October 2015. 

The relevant mercury-added battery types are mercury oxide batteries (banned in the EU since 2006) 
and  silver  oxide,  air-zinc  and  alkaline  button  cells  (allowed  with  mercury  concentration  up  to  2% 
until October 2015), as mentioned above. 

Eurostat  data  on  battery  production  were  checked,  but  were  not  sufficiently  detailed  to  provide 
information  on  production  of  these  specific  batteries  (all  primary  cells  are  aggregated  under  one 
industry  code).  A  check  of  Eurostat  data  for  the  extra-EU28  trade  in  t/y  of  the  relevant  battery 
showed  a  net  import  into  the  EU28  of  the  following  three  types  for  all  years  in  the  period  2011-
2013: mercury oxide (average 248 t/y), silver oxide (average 110 t/y) and zinc-air batteries (average 
1 326 t/y)145. No trade data were available for alkaline button cells. For mercury oxide batteries the 
reported  data  showed  an  average  export  in  2011-2013  of  0,55  million  EUR/y,  whereas  for  silver 
oxide  batteries  it  was  30  million  EUR/y,  and  for  zinc-air  batteries  it  was  50  million  EUR/y. 
According  to  EPBA146,  of  these  battery  types  only  zinc-air  batteries  are  produced  in  significant 
amounts within the EU today. EPBA explained that the same production lines can produce batteries 

142 Directive 2006/66/EC, OJ L266, 26.9.2006, p.1 
143 Mercury content up to 2% by weight 
144 Directive 2013/56/EU, OJ L329, 10.12.2013, p.5  
145 For silver oxide and zinc-air batteries, a net export in EUR/y was reported. As the physical characteristics of the trade 
(in tonnes/y) is deemed a more precise indicator of actual trade (than value in EUR), it is assumed that an actual net 
import of silver oxide batteries is taking place. 

146 The EPBA (2015) states that a transition period of at least 12 months will be needed in case legal changes for the 

battery production are introduced. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 135 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
with or without mercury. Only the material composition differs and can be adjusted according to the 
customer order.  

The standard EU mercury concentration in zinc-air batteries has been stable for many years at well 
below  2%  (before  mercury-free  types  were  introduced;  see  also  UNEP,  2013).  We  can  therefore 
assume that the current EU based production of batteries is in conformity with the MC requirements; 
option P2O1 is expected to have no negative impacts for EU-based battery production.  

Regarding option P2O2, it is possible that some small scale manufacturing of mercury-added zinc-
air batteries could continue for customers outside the EU after October 2015, when the exemption 
for button cell batteries with mercury concentration below 2% ceases, and such production may thus 
be affected by option P2O2, with possible losses of export revenues of 0–50 million EUR/y.  

However,  the  European  Portable  Battery  Association  (EPBA)  has  supported  option  P2O2  and 
alignment  of  a  restriction  on  export  and  production  of  mercury  containing  button  cells  with  the 
existing deadline in the Batteries Directive (EPBA, 2014). The EPBA was asked for data on exports 
of  EU  produced  mercury-added  batteries  that  would  be  affected  under  options  P2O1  and  P2O2 
respectively, but was not in a position to supply such data. However, its support for option P2O2 for 
production and export indicates that negative impacts on EU battery producers may be small. 

COWI and Concorde East/West (2008) estimated the mercury exported from the EU within batteries 
in 2007 at 12-14 t/y. Other data reported by that study indicate that much of this was likely to have 
been  in  mercury  oxide  batteries.  Taking  into  account  the  above  information  from  EPBA,  the 
potential for reducing mercury exported from the EU within batteries is estimated at zero (0) for the 
option P2O1 and 0-5 t/y for option P2O2. Mercury releases from EU based battery production are 
not known, but are expected to be minimal in this context. 

Non-electronic measuring devices 
Measuring  devices  containing  mercury  for  use  by  the  general  public  have  been  banned  within  the 
EU since 2006147, while since 10 April 2014148 the ban has been extended to devices intended for 
industrial and professional uses. 

Barometers,  hygrometers,  manometers,  thermometers  and  sphygmomanometers  are  targeted  in  the 
MC  with  a  phase-out  date  of  2020.  As  this  group  of  products  is  severely  restricted  in  the  EU, 
mercury  consumption  associated  with  these  products  has  been  declining  steadily  over  the  last 
decade. COWI and Concorde East/West (2008) estimated a total mercury consumption for the whole 
product  group  of  approximately  7-16  t/y,  and  an  export  of  about  8 t/y.  Current  consumption  is 
expected  to  be  substantially  lower,  and  probably  below  3  t/y.  The  current  export  tonnage  is  not 
known. Nor is it known whether this export will be affected by either option P2O1 or P2O2.  

Three  thermometer  manufacturers,  which  have  experienced  impacts  from  the  introduction  of  EU 
regulation  in  this  field,  made  submissions  in  the  context  of  the  stakeholders’  consultation149.  Two 
(Ludwig  Schneider  and  Berman)  focused  on  mercury-filled  precision  thermometers  (used  for 
calibration,  etc.)  and  would  thus  not  suffer  incremental  impacts  from  option  P2O1,  but  could 
potentially be affected under option P2O2 (depending on the specific uses of the thermometers). The 
third (Russel Scientific) advised that even under the current EU law their production would need to 
be terminated (in accordance with entry 18a of Annex XVII to REACH). Ludwig Schneider stated 
that  about  400  jobs  are  at  stake  in  Germany  alone  if  mercury  use  in  thermometers  was  fully 
prohibited (a strategy not considered in this study). According to Ludwig Schneider about 50-60% 

147 Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the 
Registration,  Evaluation,  Authorisation  and  Restriction  of  Chemicals  (REACH),  as  amended  by  Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 552/2009 

148 Commission Regulation (EU) No 847/2012 
149 Stakeholder contribution from Ludwig Schneider, Berman and Russel Scientific (available at 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/ratification_en.htm) 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 136 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
of the EU production of thermometers is exported, meaning that about 40-50% is marketed within 
the EU, and thus presumably complies with EU regulation. This indicates that neither option P2O1 
nor option P2O2 would affect this production significantly. Ludwig Schneider150 estimates that the 
European  thermometer  manufacturers  in  total  use  less  than  1  t  of  mercury  per  year.  But,  as 
mentioned above, this consumption would not be affected at all under option P2O1 and any impact 
under option P2O2 is likely to be minimal. 

COWI  and  Concorde  (2008)  reported  that,  at  that  time,  25-45  persons  were  employed  in  the 
manufacture  of  mercury  sphygmomanometers  that  were  exported  out  of  the  EU.  The  report  also 
indicated  that  a  ban  of  the  export  of  mercury  sphygmomanometers  would  significantly  impact the 
manufacturers  because 
to  non-EU  mercury 
sphygmomanometers. However, mercury sphygmomanometers were at that time manufactured by at 
least four SME manufacturers in the EU. These all produced mercury-free sphygmomanometers as 
well, and consequently industry costs for substitution were expected to be negligible. 

some  overseas  customers  would 

switch 

Since  then  significant  efforts  have  been  made  globally  to  develop  substitutes  for  mercury 
instruments  in  hospitals.  The  World  Health  Organisation  (WHO,  2011)  has  issued  guidance 
recommending  the  general  use  of  mercury-free  thermometers  and  sphygmomanometers.    There  is 
therefore  a  global  move  away  from  use  of  these  mercury-added  products  even  before  the 
introduction  of  the  MC.  With  the  exemption  for  precision  instruments  in  the  MC,  (some  of)  the 
export from the EU may continue after implementation of the MC. 

Cosmetics 
Both marketing and export of mercury-added cosmetics have long been banned in the EU, and an 
exemption for a low-concentration mercury compound preservative in eye drops is expected to also 
be exempted under the MC. Therefore no impacts are expected under option P2O1 or P2O2. 

Pesticides, biocides and topical antiseptics 
Mercury  and  mercury  compounds  are  not  approved  as  active  substances  for  plant  protection 
products or biocides under EU legislation. No uses of mercury-added pesticides were identified by 
COWI  and  Concorde  East/West  (2008),  but  a mercury  consumption  of  4-10  t/y  was  estimated  for 
biocide/preservative  in  water-based  paints.  The  report  did  not  specify  how  much  of  this  was 
exported. 

150 Stakeholder contribution from Ludwig Schneider (available at 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/ratification_en.htm)  

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 137 of 186 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 9B – DETAILED IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF P4O2 (PROCESSES) 

Baseline conditions 

Two  companies  in  the  world  produce  the  alcoholates  in  question  with  mercury-dependent 
technology. Both production sites are in Germany. The same companies - which are reported to be 
significant players in the global market - produce sodium methylate (the one of the four alcoholates 
with  largest  volumes)  with  mercury-free  technology  in  other  parts  of  the  world151,  as  do  all  other 
known global producers. The mercury process is reported to have about 20% lower production costs 
than  existing  alternatives,  but  is  dependent  on  the  presence  of  an  existing  local  demand  for  co-
produced chlorine. In the existing production, the facilities are situated on the same sites as mercury 
cell  chlor-alkali  plants.  Industry  has  stated  that  the  production  is  not  covered  by  the  voluntary 
industry commitment to abandoning the mercury cell chlor-alkali process by 2020, nor covered by 
the IED deadline for cessation of the chlor-alkali process.  

The  registration  status  of  the  four  substances  as  of  April  2014  in  ECHA’s  registration  of  joint 
submissions, and the registrants, are shown in Table 9B-a.  The registration bands give an indication 
of the scale of production of each substance. 

Table 9B-0-a   Registered volumes (production + imports) of the four alcoholates in the EU targeted 
by the Minamata Convention, and the companies which have submitted the registrations 
(ECHA, 2014a). 

Substance  name 

CAS No 

Registered volume, t/y 
(volume band) 

Registrants 

Sodium methanolate 
(Sodium methylate) 

124-41-4 

100 000 – 1 000 000 

Sodium ethanolate 
(Sodium ethylate) 

Potassium methanolate 
(Potassium methylate) 

141-52-6 

1 000 – 10 000 

865-33-8  

1 000 – 10 000 

Potassium ethanolate 
(Potassium ethylate) 

917-58-8 

Currently not registered,  
i.e. the volume is <100  

BASF SE (DE) 
Evonik Degussa GmbH (DE) 
Desatec GmbH (DE) 
DSM Nutritional Products (UK) Ltd (UK) 
DSM Nutritional Products GmbH (DE) 
DuPont Nutrition Biosciences ApS (DK) 
EnviroCat (FR) 
BASF SE (DE) 
Evonik Degussa GmbH (DE) 

BASF SE (DE) 
Evonik Degussa GmbH (DE) 
Suomen  Muurahaishappo Oy (FI) 
The substance is pre-registered (ECHA, 2014b) 

Sodium/potassium methylates (also called methoxides) are compounds used primarily for “cracking” 
of  plant/animal  oils  for  biodiesel.  The  methyl  alcoholate  induces  a  transesterification  (partial 
“decomposition”)  of  the  fatty  acid  glycerides,  forming  linear  mono-alkyl  esters,  which  is  the 
biodiesel, and the alcohol glycerol. Sodium/potassium methylates are the major substances used for 
this  purpose  (Biodiesel Magazine,  2012).  Sodium  methylate  is  primarily  used  for  plant  oils,  while 
potassium  methylate  is  primarily  used  for  animal  fat  and  used  cooking  oils.  Animal  fat  and  used 
cooking oils are used in much lower amounts than fresh plant oils in biodiesel production.  

According to BASF (stakeholder consultation input), the trends in the methylates market are mixed, 
with  an  overall  stagnant  tendency  for  bio-diesel  production,  but  growth  in  some  regions  and  for 
some uses.  High growth is observed in production of Omega-3 fatty acids - a large consumer of 
sodium ethylate – and in agrochemicals. 

The trade press identifies BASF, Dupont, SMOTEC Plus and Evonik as suppliers of alcoholates for 
biodiesel  production  (Biodiesel  Magazine,  2012).  SMOTEC  Plus  is  a  Germany-based  catalyst 

151 Because according to Evonik (2014), there is no local demand for the co-produced chlorine in these production sites. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 138 of 186 

 
 
 
                                                 
manufacturer which produces sodium methylate with a mercury-free process in its production plant 
in  Saudi  Arabia.  The  mercury-free  process  was,  according  to  Biodiesel  Magazine  (2012),  chosen 
because  the  product  is  then  suited  for  the  food,  pharmaceutical  and  nutraceutical  markets,  and 
because, as SMOTEC Plus is cited: “Unless you’re in the chlorine [supply] chain, you can’t get the 
feedstock” for the mercury-based alcoholate production process. Depending on feedstock type and 
quality,  also  acid  catalysts  like  sulphuric  acid  and  methanesulfonic  acid  are  used  in  biodiesel 
production. 

Sodium methylate is also used for pharmaceuticals, food ingredients and pigments (Envirocat, 2014 
and  Jackson,  2006).  A  broader  range  of  alcoholates,  including  sodium/potassium  ethylate  and 
sodium/potassium  methylate,  are  used  for  a  number  of  different  purposes  in  synthesis  of  organic 
chemicals (BASF, 2013). 

Sodium ethylate is mainly used for pharmaceutical applications, which is a small market in the EU 
according  to  registrations  and  Envirocat  (2014).  According  to  BASF/Evonik  (2012)  and  Evonik 
(2014),  potassium  ethylate  and  sodium  ethylate  are  used  as  catalysts  in  the  synthesis  of 
pharmaceuticals,  pesticides,  aroma  substances,  coatings,  edible  fats  and  fine  chemicals,  partly  in 
internal production, partly externally. 

The submission from Evonik (2014) advised that  sodium ethylate is an ingredient for syntheses of 
high-value products such as pharmaceuticals, crop protection products, aroma substances, coatings, 
edible  fats  and  fine  chemicals.  Evonik  suggests  that  there  would  be  impacts  on  these  markets  if 
sodium ethylate was no longer available, e.g pharmaceutical companies would have to develop (and 
obtain approval for) new formulations, leading to additional costs. 

Evonik also advised that potassium ethylate is essential in providing ethylate functionality alongside 
the alkaline strength of potassium in a ready to use, non-aqueous form. This is an advantage in the 
manufacture  of  nutritional  supplements  (analogous  to  Omega  3)  and  pharmaceuticals,  as  well  as 
novel automotive lubricants. 

The market 

Based  on  information  from  Evonik (2014)  and  Envirocat (2014)  the  total  annual  production  of 
sodium methylate in the EU is estimated at 250 000-300 000 t of 30% sodium methylate solution (in 
methanol), of which about 160 000-200 000 t/y are consumed in the EU, while the rest is exported. 
The export production is currently based solely on the mercury process. 

Evonik (2014) assesses the global market at around 480 000 t/y of 30% sodium methylate solution. 

According  to  BASF  (2014),  the  general  market  price  range  for  undiluted  sodium  methylate  is 
between  2 100  and  2 800  EUR/t  100  %  sodium  methylate.      Envirocat  (2014)  states  that  the  bulk 
supply price for sodium methylate for biodiesel production in Europe in 2013 was around 700 EUR/t 
of a 30% solution in methanol (ready for use) and slightly higher for high quality sodium methylate 
from  the  non-mercury  process.  Some  five  years  ago,  the  price  was  around  600  EUR/tonne  30% 
solution.  The  price  is  very  dependent  on  the  methanol  price.  Evonik  (2014)  mentions  an  average 
sales price of 850 EUR/t of solution. 

Envirocat  (2014)  states  that  it  does  not  see  any  market  preference  for  sodium  methylate  produced 
with a mercury vs. non-mercury process. Price differentiation is instead an effect of the grade of the 
product;  fine  chemicals  and  pharmaceutical  production  requires  a  purer  sodium  methylate  quality, 
which is supplied from both technologies. 

Based on information from biodiesel producers who produce crude potassium methylate themselves, 
Envirocat (2014) quotes an internal production price of around 600 EUR/t 30% methanol solution. 
The resulting potassium methylate is not marketed, but used by the companies themselves. 

Envirocat (2014) advised that, “in the fine chemistry,  potassium methylate “mercury process” was 
sold at 1.60 EUR/kg” (1 600 EUR/t). 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 139 of 186 

 
 
The  total  value  of  the  EU  production  of  sodium  methylate  in  2013  is  estimated  at  some  180–260 
million EUR, of which around 90% was from the mercury-based process. 

Sodium  methylate  exports  are  currently  100%  mercury  process  based,  yet  the  same  EU-based 
companies are already engaged in non-mercury process production of sodium methylate outside the 
EU (North and South America). Such activity contributes to the global income of these companies 
that are headquartered in the EU. 

Table 9B-0-b Estimated market volume and value of sodium methylate, 2013 

Amounts; t/y 30% sodium methylate solution (in methanol): 

Global market 

EU production 

- Hereof mercury based 

EU market 

Extra-EU export 

Unit price 

Average market price, EUR/t 30% solution 

Value, Million EUR/y (rounded): 

Global market 

EU production 

-Mercury based only 

EU market 

Extra-EU export 

Sodium dithionite production 

Low 

480 000 

250 000 

225 000 

160 000 

90 000 

700 

340 

180 

160 

110 

63 

High 

480 000 

300 000 

275 000 

200 000 

100 000 

850 

410 

260 

230 

170 

85 

Besides the four alcoholates, BASF also produces sodium dithionite with the mercury-based process. 
This compound is also produced with several other methods (by BASF and others), but the product 
produced with the mercury-based process has a higher quality and therefore longer shelf life. If the 
mercury-based  production  of  alcoholates  was  terminated,  the  sodium  dithionite  production  would 
also have to be substituted for. This would require investments in the order of 50 million EUR plus 
variable  costs  of  7  million  EUR/y  for  BASF  according  to  the  firm’s  own  figures152.  This  is  a 
distributional effect and is therefore not dealt with further in this study. 

Economic impacts 

Option P4O2 
With  the  regulation  of  mercury-based  sodium  methylate  production  required  under  the  MC, 
mercury-based  production  may  initially  become  more  expensive  due  to  investments  in  emission 
abatement techniques triggered by the requirement for a 50% emission reduction (unless substitution 
is  preferred  from  the  start),  and  later  may  be  eliminated  within  the  deadlines  prescribed  by  the 
Convention (i.e. 2020, or up to 2030 if exempted). 

Higher production prices could have the consequence that the physical export of sodium methylate 
would be reduced following the EU’s (and Germany’s) ratification of the Convention.  On the other 
hand,  the  relevant  EU  companies  are  major  global  players  on  the  sodium  methylate  market,  and 
elimination of the low-cost mercury process might not necessarily reduce the market share for these 
firms.  It  has  the  potential  to  reduce  their  profit,  especially  if  a  total  phase-out  occurs  before  the 
investment in existing mercury-based production is fully depreciated. 

152 See the stakeholder consultation contribution from BASF (available at 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/) 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 140 of 186 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Envirocat (2014), has quoted an establishment price of 6 million EUR for a non-mercury production 
capacity of 25 000 t/y sodium methylate solution (plus off-site storage and pipeline infrastructure of 
another 8 million EUR in total). According to Process Worldwide (2012), BASF invested an amount 
“in  the  low  double-digit  million  euro  range”  for  the  establishment  of  a  60 000  t/y  production 
capacity plant in Brazil using the reactive distillation process for sodium methylate production (non-
mercury), which started operation in 2011. This is in the same range as the Envirocat investments. 

Evonik  (2014)  states  that  it  considers  the  production  of  the  four  alcoholates  (in the  same  process) 
inter-dependent,  and  that  if  production  of  sodium  methylate,  sodium  ethylate  and  potassium 
methylate  with  the  mercury  process  had  to  stop,  then  it  would  probably  end  the  mercury  process 
production of all four alcoholates. BASF (2014) makes a similar statement: “Since we currently do 
not have a process for the production of all four alcoholates, the phase out would lead to a cessation 
of supply of 3 of the four alcoholates […]. We could only supply sodium methylate from the above 
mentioned alternative source. This would severely hit customers who need these alcoholates e.g. as 
intermediates and catalysts”. 

If a technically and economically feasible alternative production process for the fourth and least used 
substance,  potassium  ethylate,  is  not  developed,  it  would  perhaps  no  longer  be  available  on  the 
market. The same could happen for potassium methylate. The potential to substitute these substances 
with other chemicals in their possible uses has not been investigated here. 

Substitution  costs  were  assessed,  and  a  submission  on  the  topic  was  received  from  BASF.  To 
provide  the  background  for  the  final  estimates,  the  derivation  of  both  estimates  is  presented  here: 
Substituting the remaining mercury-based sodium methylate production of some 255 000 – 275 000 
t  solution/y  would  require  investments  of  around  60–140  million  EUR  depending  on  the 
infrastructure  available  (based  on  Envirocat  (2014)  numbers).  These  numbers  do  not  include  any 
additional need for sodium metal production capacity. The current market situation for sodium metal 
has  not  been  investigated.  Additionally,  the  production  costs  (annual  operational  costs)  with  the 
alternative  production  process  are  estimated  to  be  20%  higher  than  those  for  the  mercury-based 
process, equalling perhaps some 10-30 million EUR per year (estimated at about 20% of half of the 
sales  revenues)  at  the  current  production  rates.  Annualising  the  investment  costs  over  a  10  year 
period gives 10 to 23 million EUR per year and combined with the increased operational costs the 
total additional annual costs can be estimated at 17 – 47 million EUR153.  

Similar  quantitative  assessment  for  the  substitution  of  the  production  process  for  the  other  three 
alcoholates  in  question  is  not  possible  with  available  data,  though  the  current  production  rates 
indicate  expenses  a  factor  10-100  lower  than  for  sodium  methylate.  Taking  the  lower  annual 
production volumes for the other three alcoholates into consideration, total costs of substitution for 
all  four  substances  could  be  assumed  to  not  exceed  160  million  EUR  for  investments  plus  a 
maximum of 40 million EUR/y for increased production costs. Annualising these investments over 
10 years using the same assumption as above, the annualised investment costs amount to about 20 
million  EUR  and  hence,  the  total  additional  annual  costs  for  substitution  are  not  expected  to  be 
above 60 million EUR154 in this cost scenario.  

In its stakeholder submission to the Commission for this study BASF states that it finds the above 
estimates too low. The firm has presented alternative estimates for its own production (Table 9B-c).  
Evonik has rejected the above estimate (<60 million EUR) as speculative. 

153 The investment costs have been annualised using a discount rate of 4% over 10 years.  
154 Using 4% as discount rate over 10 years. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 141 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
Table  9B-0-c  BASF's  estimate  of  investments  and  variable  costs  for  substitution  of  their  own 

mercury-based alcoholates production process 

Substitution of mercury in production of 

Investment, Million EUR 

Min. variable cost (e.g. 
energy), Million EUR/a 

Sodium methylate155  

Sodium ethylate and potassium alcoholates156 

Na-dithionate (non-alcoholate157) 

Total 

110 

10 to 20 

50 

180 

14 

4-8 

7 

25 

The  distribution  of  the  market  for  the  four  alcoholates  produced  with  the  mercury-based  process 
between  BASF  and  Evonik  is  not  known.  Therefore  the  BASF  substitution  estimates  cannot  be 
transferred directly to an estimate of total substitution costs for the two companies. However, in the 
hypothetical case that a 50/50 distribution of the production between the two companies prevailed, 
the resulting substitution costs - for the four alcoholates only36 - would be 240-260 million EUR in 
investments  (or  30  to  32  million  per  year  over  10  years158)  plus  36-44  million  EUR/y  in  variable 
production costs, equalling total annual costs of between 66 and 76 million EUR. 

As more detailed data on substitution costs are not available, the range of the presented estimates for 
substitution, 60 – 76 million EUR/y, is used in the further assessment of impacts. There is significant 
uncertainty attached to this estimate. 

As  regards  the  possible  costs  of  reducing  the  mercury  emissions  and  releases  by  50%  by  2020 
compared to 2010, Evonik (2014) has chosen to interpret the MC requirement for 50% emission and 
release  reductions  as  applying  to  the  whole  production  site,  meaning  that  it  considers  this  goal  at 
least partially fulfilled when the expected 2017 closure/conversion of the mercury-cell chlor-alkali 
plant  on  the  site  is  implemented.  BASF  (2014)  addresses  emissions  from  alcoholates  production 
only  and  states  that  it  finds  the  50%  reduction  goal  challenging,  but  it  will  “take  every  effort  to 
achieve the target concerning emission reduction to air, water and products.” 

The costs for emission/releases reductions are difficult to assess quantitatively. Based on experience 
from well operated mercury cell chlor-alkali production, such reductions are most likely to be met 
with further improved operational mercury management practices. This was confirmed by BASF; it 
also  found  the  associated  costs  difficult  to  estimate.  According  to  Evonik159,  such  further 
improvements would be possible but challenging, and would be expected to cost between 300 000 
and 500 000 EUR/y for their facility. 

Assuming  that  these  costs  would  secure  a  50%  mercury  emission  reduction  from  the  alcoholates 
production  alone,  and  assuming  that  the  costs  for  BASF  would  be  similar,  a  total  cost  of  0.6  –  1 
million  EUR/y  could  be  anticipated  for  reducing  mercury  emissions  by  50%  as  required  in  the 
Convention. 

155 BASF's note: Incl. expansion of the existing membrane process for caustic (alkali hydroxides) 
156 BASF's note: Educated guess: process under development, estimation based on projected capacity.  
157  A  fifth  non-alcoholate  chemical  produced  by  BASF  with  the  amalgamation  process;  not  treated  further;  see  text 

above. 

158 The annualising of the investment costs is done assuming a lifetime of 10 years and a discount rates of 4%.  
159 See the stakeholder consultation contribution from Evonik (available at 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/) 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 142 of 186 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 10A – DENTAL AMALGAM SUMMARY 

This  Annex  presents  in  summary  the  findings  of  the  study  on  ‘Potential  for  reducing  mercury 
pollution  from  dental  amalgam  and  batteries’  carried  out  for  the  Commission  (DG  Environment) 
which  was  concluded  in  year.  It  consists  of  the  assessment  of  policy  options  to  reduce  the 
environmental impacts from dental amalgam. 

The health and environmental risks associated with mercury (Hg) are well known and have led the 
Commission to adopt an EU Mercury Strategy in 2005160, with the aim to ‘reduce mercury levels in 
the  environment  and  human  exposure,  especially  from  methylmercury  in  fish’.  The  review  of  the 
Strategy’s implementation161, in 2010, acknowledged the progress made with regard to a number of 
actions proposed in 2005 such as the adoption of the Mercury Export Ban Regulation162, the phase-
out of mercury use in certain measuring devices under the REACH Regulation163, the submission of 
additional  mercury  use  restriction  proposals  under  REACH,  and  the  EU’s  contribution  to  the 
progress  of  international  negotiations  on  the  global  mercury  treaty.  The  review  also  highlighted 
areas for further improvement, among which the remaining uses of mercury in several applications 
where  Hg-free  alternatives  exist  and  are  already  used  to  some  extent;  this  concerns  in  particular 
dental amalgam. 

Assessment of policy options to reduce environmental impacts from dental amalgam use 
Dental amalgam is a combination of metals, containing about 50% of mercury in the elemental form, 
the other metals being silver (about 35%), tin, copper, and other trace metals. Dental amalgam has 
been used for over 150 years for the treatment of dental cavities and is still used due to its specific 
mechanical properties and the long-term familiarity of many dental practitioners with this material. 
Dental amalgam has been controversial ever since it was introduced, early in the nineteenth century, 
because of potential risks due to its mercury content.  

Mercury  releases  from  the  use  of  dental  amalgam  occur  at  different  stages  of  its  life  cycle,  in 
particular during the placement of new fillings or the removal of old ones at dental practices, at the 
end  of  life  of  persons  with  amalgam  fillings  (via  cremation  or  burial),  and  during  the  progressive 
deterioration of amalgam fillings in people’s mouths due to chewing, ingestion of hot beverages and 
corrosion (mercury excreted by humans). 

Problem definition 
Dental amalgam is one of the main remaining uses of mercury in the EU. In 2007, dental amalgam 
was  the  second  largest  mercury  use  in  the  EU  after  chlor-alkali  production  and  it  is  expected  to 
become the largest mercury use once mercury cell-based chlor-alkali production is phased out in the 
EU. In the present study, the EU mercury demand for dentistry was estimated to range between 55 
and 95 t Hg/year in 2010 (75 t Hg/year on average). 

160 Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  –  Community  Strategy 

Concerning Mercury – COM (2005) 20 final  

161 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the review of the Community 
Strategy Concerning Mercury, COM(2010)723final. The EC’s Communication was informed by a report by BIO 
Intelligence Service prepared for DG ENV in 2010 
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/pdf/review_mercury_strategy2010.pdf) 

162 Regulation  (EC)  No  1102/2008  of  22  October  2008  on  the  banning  of  exports  of  metallic  mercury  and  certain 

mercury compounds and mixtures and the safe storage of metallic mercury 

163 Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  552/2009  of  22  June  2009  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No  1907/2006  on  the 

Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards Annex XVII 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 143 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
Although  dental  use  of  mercury  seems  to  have  been  declining  over  the  last  few  years,  it  remains  a 
significant contributor to overall environmental mercury releases in the EU.  

It is roughly estimated that 45 t Hg/year from EU dental practices end up in chairside effluents, with 
only  a  part  of  which  being  captured  and  treated  as  hazardous  waste  in  compliance  with  EU 
legislation. Mercury in dental waste represents about 50 t Hg/year. Estimates developed in this study 
suggest  that  dental  amalgam  is  a  significant  contributor to  overall  EU  environmental  emissions  of 
mercury  from  human  activities.  Mercury  emitted  to  the  air  can  be  partly  deposited  into  other 
environmental compartments (soil, surface water, vegetation). Emissions to soil and groundwater are 
also  significant,  although  their  contribution  to  overall  mercury  releases  to  this  environmental 
compartment  is  more  difficult  to  quantify.  It  is  estimated  that  about  half  of  the  mercury  released 
from current and historical dental amalgam use remains potentially bioavailable, with the  potential 
to  contaminate  fish  in  particular,  the  other  half  being  either  sequestered  for  long-term  (stored  in 
hazardous waste landfills) or recycled for new purposes. 

All  individuals  are  exposed  to  mercury  pollution  to  some  degree;  however,  some  groups  are 
particularly exposed and/or vulnerable to the health effects of mercury pollution (principally in the 
form of methylmercury through diet), such as high-level fish consumers, women of childbearing age 
and children. This presents a risk of negative impacts on health, in particular affecting the nervous 
system  and  diminishing  intellectual  capacity.  There  are  also  environmental  risks,  for  example  the 
disturbance of microbiological activity in soils and harm to wildlife populations. More than 70% of 
the European ecosystem area is estimated to be at risk today due to mercury, with critical loads for 
mercury exceeded in large parts of western, central and southern Europe 164,165. 

The  problem  of  mercury  pollution  from  dental  amalgam  is  twofold:  in  the  first  place,  pollution  is 
caused by the historical use of dental amalgam, while the current use of dental amalgam adds up to 
mercury releases from historical practice. The drivers of the problems identified can be described as 
a combination of market and regulatory failures.  

Pollution due to historical use of dental amalgam mainly results from non-compliance of dental facilities 
with EU waste legislation and a lack of anticipation with regard to EU legislation on water quality. 

Some  of  the  emissions  associated  with  the  historical  use  of  dental  amalgam,  e.g.  emissions  from 
burial  and  emissions  from  amalgam  deterioration  in  mouths,  are  difficult  to  tackle  due  to  their 
diffuse  nature.  However,  a  significant  part  of  these  emissions  can  be  minimised  through  proper 
waste  and  wastewater  management  in  dental  facilities  and  the  use  of  efficient  mercury  abatement 
devices in crematoria.  

The  handling  of  dental  amalgam  waste  as  hazardous  waste  (which  usually  involves  the  use  of 
efficient  amalgam  separators,  the  segregation  of  amalgam  waste  from  other  waste  types  and  its 
treatment  as  hazardous  waste)  is  a  matter  of  enforcing  EU  legislation  on  waste166.  Adequate 
handling  of  dental  amalgam  waste  is  also  necessary  to  achieve  certain  goals  of  EU  legislation  on 

164 This  concept  is  mainly  based  on  ecotoxicological  effects  and  human  health  effects  via  ecosystems.  It  is  generally 
defined as a quantitative estimate of an exposure to one or more pollutants below which significant harmful effects on 
specified sensitive elements of the environment do not occur. 

165 Hettelingh, J.P., J. Sliggers (eds.), M. van het Bolcher, H. Denier van der Gon, B.J.Groenenberg, I. Ilyin,  G.J. Reinds, 
J. Slootweg,  O. Travnikov,  A. Visschedijk, and  W. de Vries (2006). Heavy Metal Emissions, Depositions, Critical 
Loads and Exceedances in Europe. VROM-DGM report, www.mnp.nl/cce, 93 pp.; CEE Status Reports 2008 (Chapter 
7, http://www.rivm.nl/thema/images/CCE08_Chapter_7_tcm61-41910.pdf) and 2010 (Chapter 8, 
http://www.rivm.nl/thema/images/SR2010_Ch8_tcm61-49679.pdf) 

166 Waste  Framework  Directive  (2008/98/EC).  The  Directive  does  not  prescribe  specifically  dental  clinics  to  install 

dental amalgam separators, however this is a means to comply with the ban on mixing hazardous waste. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 144 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
water  quality167:  mercury  is  considered  as  a  priority  hazardous  substance,  requiring  a  cessation  of 
emissions,  discharges  and  losses  within  20  years  after  adoption  of  measures.  The  present  study 
estimated  that  around  25%  of  EU  dental  facilities  are  still  not  equipped  with  amalgam  separators. 
Besides,  a  significant  proportion  of  separators  are  not  adequately  maintained,  which  reduces 
significantly  their  mercury  capture  efficiency.  Although  it  is  much  easier  to  capture  mercury  at 
dental  facilities  than  once  it  is  mixed  with  other  urban  effluents  or  municipal  solid  waste,  the 
installation  and  maintenance  costs  of  an  amalgam  separator  are  borne  by  dentists,  while  local 
authorities  (i.e.  EU  citizens  through  local  taxes)  bear  the  cost  of  removing  mercury  from  urban 
sewage sludge and municipal waste. 

In the absence of further EU policy action, environmental impacts due to the historical use of dental 
amalgam will continue to occur for several decades since they are due to the removal of old fillings, 
the  loss  of  teeth,  the  progressive  deterioration  of  existing  fillings  and  the  end  of  life  of  amalgams 
when people decease. Mercury releases from dental practices may decrease progressively along with 
the modernisation of dental practices, as new dental practices are generally equipped with amalgam 
separators. It is, however, highly unlikely that 100% of dental practices become compliant with the 
relevant  requirements  of  EU  waste  legislation  in  the  short  term  without  any  further  enforcement 
actions from public authorities. With regard to the end of life of amalgams, future mercury releases 
from  burial  are  likely  to  remain  stable  and  will  occur  for  several  decades.  Concerning  mercury 
emissions from cremation, a stabilisation seems to have occurred since 2005, but future trends are 
difficult to predict. 

With  regard  to  the  current  use  of  dental  amalgam,  solutions  are  available  to  phase  out  mercury  use  in 
most medical conditions. 

Although  Hg-free  alternatives  to  dental  amalgam  exist  and  can  be  used  in  most  medical 
conditions168, they are still not widely used in a number of MS (e.g. FR, PL, UK, CZ, RO, ES, and 
GR). The main reasons behind this situation are as follows: 

  Hg-free  dental  restorations  are  more  expensive  for  patients,  as  compared  with  dental 
amalgam restorations, in many MS. This is both due to the higher actual cost of most 
Hg-free  restorations  (the  Atraumatic  Restorative  Treatment  or  ‘ART’  being  an 
exception) and the fact that the reimbursement of Hg-free restorations by the existing 
national health insurance schemes is not always as advantageous for patients as in the 
case of dental amalgam.  

  Not all EU dentists are properly trained and skilled in conducting Hg-free restorations 
and  insufficiently  trained  dentists  may  be  more  reluctant  to  propose  Hg-free 
restorations to patients. 

  Many  dentists  are  not  aware  of  the  benefits  of  ART  (Atraumatic  Restorative 
restoration 
Treatment),  a  cost-effective  and  environmentally-friendly  Hg-free 
technique  using  hand  tools  and  glass  ionomers,  already  widely  used  in  developing 
countries  but  also  increasingly  used  in  developed  countries  (for  restorations  not 
requiring a high longevity). 

167 In  particular:  Water  Framework  Directive  (2000/60/EC),  Decision  2001/2455/EC  and  Directive  2006/11/EC  on 

dangerous substances and Directive 2008/105/EC on priority substances. 

168 Currently  the  most  commonly  used  alternatives  to  dental  amalgam  are  composite  resins,  glass  ionomer  cement, 

compomers, giomers, sealants, and dental porcelain. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 145 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
  While  glass  ionomers  have  a  shorter  durability,  some  dentists  consider  that  Hg-free 
fillings using composite materials also have a lower durability than amalgam fillings, 
in spite of recent technical improvements.  

  Some  dentists  are  reluctant  to  change  their  current  practice  and  to  invest  in  new 
equipment required to handle Hg-free fillings. In parallel, they may not be fully aware 
of the seriousness of the environmental impacts caused by dental amalgam and of the 
extent of societal benefits of reducing mercury emissions. 

  Not all patients are fully aware of the pros and cons associated with the different types 
of  filling  materials.  In  particular,  many  patients  are  not  aware  of  the  presence  of 
mercury in dental amalgam and the extent of the associated environmental impacts. 

  Some  dentists  consider  that,  although  Hg-free  materials  have  been  used  in  some 
countries for many years, the absence of long-term environmental and health effects of 
these materials has not been fully demonstrated. 

The fact that Hg-free dental restorations are more expensive than dental amalgam restorations can be 
seen  as  a  market  failure  in  the  sense  that  negative  externalities  associated  with  the  use  of  dental 
amalgam  (e.g.  management  of  dental  waste  and  effluents)  are  not  factored  in  the  market  price  of 
dental  amalgam  restorations.  If  these  externalities  were  included,  it  has  been  shown  –  for  the  US 
market – that the market price of an average amalgam restoration would be equal to or up to about 
15% higher than the price of a composite restoration169. 

If no further EU policy action is taken, the current use of dental amalgam will continue to generate 
environmental impacts that will occur over the whole lifetime of the amalgam fillings; a large part of 
the  associated  environmental  emissions  would  occur  during  a  period  of  10  to  15  years  after  the 
placement  of  amalgam  (this  is  the  average  lifetime  of  an  amalgam  filling)170  but  the  actual 
environmental  impacts  (adverse  effects  to  ecosystems)  and  possible  indirect  human  health  effects 
will occur for several decades.  

In  the  absence  of  further  EU  policy  action,  dental  amalgam  may  continue  to  be  progressively 
substituted with Hg-free materials, mainly as a result of growing aesthetic concerns, although it is 
difficult to predict the speed of this decline. Dental amalgam may well continue to be used for many 
years in some of the less wealthy MS. In the present study, it is estimated that EU demand for dental 
mercury  will  decrease  and  will  stabilise  around  27  to  43  t  Hg/year  in  2025  (2010-2025  being  the 
time horizon for the  present assessment). This represents an annual decrease of approximately 5% 
over a 15-year time horizon.  

In  the  absence  of  any  changes  to  national  health  insurance  schemes,  it  is  expected  that  Hg-free 
dental restorations will continue to be more expensive for patients than amalgam restorations in the 
future,  however  the  cost  difference  will  tend  to  decrease  due  to  innovation  and  increased 
competition  concerning  the  production  of  Hg-free  filling  materials  as  well  as  improved  dentists’ 
skills in the handling of Hg-free materials. 

Possible direct human health impacts of dental amalgam are still a subject of scientific controversy.  

While  there  is  a  common  viewpoint  among  stakeholders that  the  adverse  environmental  effects  of 
dental  amalgam  use  need  to  be  addressed,  there  is  currently  no  scientific  consensus  on  the  direct 

169 Concorde (2012) The real cost of dental mercury – Report prepared for the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), 

the Mercury Policy Project and Consumers for Dental Choice 
(http://www.zeromercury.org/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=file&id=158:the-real-cost-of-dental-
mercury&Itemid=70) 

170 Some amalgam restorations will last shorter (many of them last less than 2 years) while others have been reported to 

last up to 40 to 50 years (WHO (2010) Future use of materials for dental restoration). 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 146 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
health  effects  of  dental  amalgam  (except  with  regard  to  possible  allergies  caused  by  dental 
amalgam). For this reason, future policy actions concerning dental amalgam addressed in this study 
focus on the environmental side of the problem and indirect health effects. However, because direct 
health  impacts  are  relevant  to  the  overall  assessment,  a  short  review  of  the  scientific  literature  on 
such aspects has also been included. 

Policy objectives and options 

The  general  objective  of  any  future  policies  in  relation  to  mercury  in  dental  amalgam  will  be  to 
reduce  the  environmental  impacts  from  the  use  of  mercury  in  dentistry  and  to  reduce  the 
contribution  of  dental  amalgam  to  the  overall  mercury  problem.  In  the  long-term,  this  should 
contribute  to  achieving  reduced  mercury  levels  in  the  environment,  at  EU  and  global  level, 
especially levels of methylmercury in fish. This long-term policy objective can be achieved through 
specific policy actions aiming to 1) minimise mercury emissions from current and historical use of 
mercury  in  dentistry  and  2)  minimise  and,  where  feasible,  eliminate  the  source  of  pollution,  i.e. 
phase out dental amalgam use. 

Four policy options have been selected for analysis: 

  ‘No policy change’ option (baseline scenario) 

  Option  1:  Improve  enforcement  of  EU  waste  legislation  regarding  dental  amalgam  – 
The  Commission  would  ask  MS  to  report  on  measures  taken  to  manage  dental  amalgam 
waste  in  compliance  with  EU  waste  legislation  (i.e.  as  hazardous  waste)  and  to  provide 
evidence  of  the  effectiveness  of  the  measures  in  place.  Usual  steps  taken  to  comply  with 
these requirements are the presence of amalgam separators in dental practices, an adequate 
maintenance of these  separators in order to ensure a minimum 95%  efficiency and to  have 
the  amalgam  waste  collected  and  treated  by  companies  with  the  adequate  authorisation  to 
handle this type of hazardous waste.  

  Option  2:  Encourage  Member  States  to  take  national  measures  to  reduce  the  use  of 
dental amalgam while promoting the use of Hg-free filling materials – The Commission 
would encourage MS to take national measures aiming to reduce the use of dental amalgam 
(for  example  via  a  Communication  to  be  adopted  in  2013)  and  MS  would  have  to  report 
annually  to  the  Commission  on  the  measures  taken  and  their  effect.  Such  measures  would 
include, in particular, measures aiming to: improve dentists’ awareness of the environmental 
impacts of mercury and the need to reduce its use; review dental teaching practices so that 
Hg-free  restorations  techniques  are  given  preference  over  dental  amalgam  techniques; 
improve  dentists’  awareness  and  skills  with  regard  to  the  Hg-free  and  cost-efficient 
Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) approach so that it is used in all cases where it is 
adequate (such as in children and elder people); and improve public dental health to reduce 
the occurrence of cavities.  

  Option 3: Ban the use of mercury in dentistry – One possibility171 would be to add the use 
of mercury in dentistry to Annex XVII of the REACH Regulation172, with the possibility to 
define  limited  exemptions  to  take  into  account  specific  medical  conditions  where  dental 
amalgam  cannot  be  substituted  at  present173.  In  the  present  study,  it  was  assumed  that  a 
decision to submit a REACH Restriction Dossier could have been made in 2013, on the basis 
of which a legal ban could be adopted and become applicable 5 years later, i.e. in 2018.     

171 In case an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment could be established (REACH, Article 68(1)) 
172 Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 on Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals – Annex XVII of the REACH Regulation contains the list of all restricted 

substances, specifying which uses are restricted. 

173  Another possibility to implement Option 3 could be to amend the Medical Devices Directive (93/42/EEC). At the time of writing this report, the feasibility  of using the REACH 

Regulation or the Medical Devices Directive as legal instruments to implement Option 3 is still being studied by the Commission.  

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 147 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
Analysis of impacts 

Information  sources  include  previous  studies,  recent  mercury  emission  data  and  information  from 
stakeholders. 

The  evidence  base  for  the  analysis  of  impacts  first  includes  findings  from  previous  studies  on  the 
dental  amalgam  issue174.  In  order  to  fill  the  information  gaps  highlighted  in  previous  studies  and 
obtain up-to-date data, recent publications and recently published emission data were reviewed in a 
second  stage175.  Tailored  questionnaires  were  then  sent  to  about  300  stakeholders  including 
environmental  and  health  authorities  within  MS,  industry  stakeholders  (dental  associations,  dental 
fillings suppliers, waste treatment industry, crematoria businesses and water treatment industry) as 
well  as  NGOs  and  academic  experts.  About  40  questionnaire  replies  were  received,  with  varying 
levels  of  detail,  including  responses  from  20  MS176.  Finally,  follow-up  telephone  interviews  were 
conducted  with  several  dental  fillings  manufacturers,  national  dental  associations  and  researchers. 
Additional  information  was  provided  by  some  stakeholders,  following  the  consultation  workshop 
held in March 2012.  

One major challenge is a lack of reliable and up-to-date data in many MS on dental amalgam use, 
related mercury emissions, and dental restoration costs, which required a number of assumptions and 
extrapolations.  

Environmental  and  socio-economic  impacts  of  the  policy  options  are  closely  related  to  the  projected 
trends for dental amalgam use in the EU, over the next 15 years. 

A comparison of the different mercury demand projections developed in this study, for the different 
policy  options,  is  presented  in  Figure  10A-a  below.  The  assumptions  used  to  develop  these 
projections are based on the limited information currently available concerning the expected decline 
of dental amalgam demand in the EU and they carry a large part of uncertainty.   

174  In  particular:  SCHER  (2008)  Opinion  on  the  environmental  risks  and  indirect  health  effects  of  mercury  in  dental 
amalgam;  Summary  of  Member  States  responses  to  2005  EC  survey  on  management  of  dental  amalgam  waste; 
COWI/Concorde  (2008)  Options  for  reducing  mercury  use  in  products  and  applications,  and  the  fate  of  mercury 
already circulating in society; EEB/Concorde (2007) Mercury in dental use: environmental implications for the EU 
175 In particular: Emission data from the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register; OSPAR (2011) Overview 
assessment  of  implementation  reports  on  OSPAR Recommendation 2003/4 on  controlling  the dispersal  of  mercury 
from crematoria 

176 AT, BE, BG, CZ, CY, DE, DK, EE, FI, HU, IE, LT, LV, MT, PL, SE, SI, SK, UK. In addition, LU and RO advised 

that they were not able to provide any valuable information in relation to the study. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 148 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 10A-a: Projected annual demand for dental mercury in the EU (t Hg) 

While the baseline scenario assumes a gradual decrease in dental amalgam demand over the next 15 
years (approximately –5% demand per year) until a threshold of about 35 t Hg/year to be reached in 
2025, Option 3 would result in a sharp decrease (approximately 20% annually) of dental amalgam 
demand from 2013 (i.e. the year when a decision to prepare a REACH restriction proposal could be 
made) to reach zero demand in 2018 once the ban becomes applicable (in fact, very small amounts 
could still be used after 2018, in accordance with the allowed exemptions, but these are considered 
to be negligible). Option 2, as an intermediate option between the ‘no policy change’ and Option 3, 
would  result  in  a  more  rapid  decline  in  dental  amalgam  demand  than  in  the  baseline  scenario 
(approximately –9% demand per year) until a threshold of about 19 t Hg/year to be reached in 2025.  

  Environmental impacts 

While the quantities of dental amalgam waste produced are expected to decrease in all options, with 
a  much  stronger  positive  effect  under  Options  2  and  3,  only  Option  1  could  influence  the 
management  of  amalgam  waste  and  allow  a  reduction  of  mercury  releases  to  air/water/soil 
associated  with  this  waste  stream  in  the  short  term.  More  specifically,  Option  1  would  avoid  the 
release  of  approximately  7  t  Hg/year  to  urban  wastewater  treatment  plants  (WWTPs)  in  the  EU 
(30% reduction of the mercury load with regard to the baseline situation for 2015). 

Mercury  releases  to  air/water/soil  due  to  dental  amalgam  use  are  also  expected  to  decrease  in  all 
options, due to the progressive substitution of dental amalgam with Hg-free materials; however only 
Option 2 and – to a greater extent – Option 3 would allow a significant decrease of these emissions 
in the long term, with an almost complete cessation of mercury releases in the case of Option 3.  

Under Option 2, the expected decrease in dental amalgam use would lead to a reduction of mercury 
releases  to  the  environment  (air/water/soil)  by  at  least  3%  with  regard  to  the  baseline  scenario  for 
year 2025. 

Under  Option  3,  when  the  ban  starts  to  apply  in  2018,  the  avoided  mercury  use  is  estimated  at 
approximately  50  t  Hg/year  with  regard  to  the  baseline  scenario.  This  option,  once  implemented, 
will lead to an immediate decrease in environmental mercury releases. However, because there will 
still be mercury releases due to old amalgam fillings, it is estimated that, at the time the ban becomes 
applicable,  mercury  releases  to  the  environment  (air/water/soil)  would  only  be  reduced  by 
approximately  15%  with  regard  to  the  baseline  scenario.  Mercury  releases  will  progressively 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 149 of 186 

-10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 2010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025Baseline scenario and Option 1Option 2Option 3Policy Option 2:A Recommendation is issued to the Member States by the ECPolicy Option  3:The dental amalgam ban becomes applicablePolicy Option  3:Adoption ofthe dental amalgam ban Policy Option  3:Decision to prepare a REACH restriction proposal 
 
 
decrease over the years in line with the decrease of mercury stocks in people’s mouths. Given that 
the  average  lifetime  of  amalgam  fillings  ranges  from  10  to  15  years,  it  is  expected  that  mercury 
releases from historical amalgam use would have significantly decreased 15 years after the ban takes 
effect177.  The  actual  environmental  impacts  (e.g.  adverse  effects  to  ecosystems)  would  however 
continue  to  be  observed  for  several  decades,  given  the  potential  for  elemental  mercury  to  be 
transformed into methylmercury and to accumulate in biota. 

  Economic impacts 

The cost of dental amalgam substitution by Hg-free materials (composite resins or glass ionomers) 
for  EU  dental  patients  is  an  important  aspect  of  the  analysis,  for  Options  2  and  3.  The  projected 
evolution of such costs is shown in Figure 10A-b below (costs of Option 1 would be similar to the 
baseline scenario). Projections shown below take into account a progressive decrease in the cost of 
Hg-free restorations, which was considered as the most realistic scenario. The graph shows that, in 
all policy options, the annual costs would increase (due to higher numbers of Hg-free restorations); 
however, this increase would progressively slow down in the baseline scenario and Option 2 (due to 
the decreasing price difference between amalgam and Hg-free restorations). The annual costs tend to 
converge towards the end of the time period considered (2025).   

While the costs for dental patients are likely to increase under Options 2 and 3, the costs borne by 
local  taxpayers  for  the  management  of  mercury  pollution  (tax  contribution  to  mercury  abatement 
costs in urban WWTPs and waste management facilities) would be reduced, especially under Option 
3, due to reduced mercury releases from dental facilities. For example, a lower mercury content of 
dental  effluents  may  reduce  the  need  for  municipalities  to  invest  in  expensive  mercury  abatement 
devices in sewage sludge incineration plants178. In certain cases, it may also increase the possibilities 
of using sewage sludge for agricultural purposes, a cheaper management option for sewage sludge. 

177 Residual mercury releases would be mainly due to amalgam fillings borne by immigrants to the EU and possibly also 
some specific cremation practices such as the ones reported in Italy (according to the Italian crematoria association  
Federutility, in Italy approximately 20% of cremations are carried out on human remains and can take place 10 to 20 
years after a burial). 

178 As an illustration, one large wastewater treatment plant in Bilbao, Spain, reported that the presence of high mercury 
levels in sludge required significant investment in 2010-2011 in order to comply with legislation, in the order of 4.5 
million EUR. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 150 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 10A-b: Annual costs borne by EU dental patients due to the substitution of dental amalgam 
according to different policy options (million EUR)  

Key assumptions – Figure 10A-b: 

These costs correspond to the average costs actually borne by the patients going to dental practitioners having an agreement with the public 
sector,  i.e.  taking  into  account  the  amounts  possibly  reimbursed  by  national  health  insurance  schemes.  They  correspond  to  average 
restoration costs, considering the different types of restorations which may be performed (front teeth/rear teeth; 1, 2 or 3 surfaces; etc.).  

Baseline scenario and Option 1: Assumes a slow substitution of dental amalgam restorations with Hg-free methods and a 1% annual decrease 
in the price difference between amalgam and composite restorations. 

Policy option 2: Assumes a progressive substitution of dental amalgam restorations with Hg-free methods, and a 2% annual decrease in the 
price difference between amalgam and composite restorations. 

Policy option 3: Assumes a quick substitution of dental amalgam restorations with Hg-free methods, leading to almost zero dental amalgam 
restorations from 2018, and a 3% annual decrease in the price difference between amalgam and composite restorations. 

With regard to economic impacts on crematoria, Option 2 would only have a minimal impact while 
Option 3 would have a positive economic effect in the long term, by avoiding the need for installing 
mercury  abatement  devices  in  new  EU  crematoria  or  for  operating  the  systems  that  are  already  in 
place.  

An increase in the revenues of the EU dental fillings industry is likely to occur in all options, due to 
the progressive substitution of dental amalgam with the more sophisticated Hg-free filling materials. 
This  positive  effect  would  be  more  significant  in  the  case  of  Options  2  and  3  as  the  rate  of 
substitution would be increased. Besides, Option 2 and – to greater extent – Option 3 are expected to 
promote competitiveness and innovation of the EU dental fillings industry.  

The  administrative  burden  associated  with  Options  1  and  3  is  expected  to  remain  limited  as  a 
legislative  framework  is  already  in  place  in  both  cases179.  Option  2  could  generate  higher 
administrative  burden  due  to  significant  communication  and  awareness  raising  efforts  required  to 
achieve a shift in dental restorations practices. 

179 EU waste legislation for Option 1 ; REACH Regulation for Option 3 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 151 of 186 

0200400600800100012001400201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025Baseline scenario and Option 1Option 2Option 3Policy Option  3:Adoption ofthe dental amalgam ban Policy Option  3:The dental amalgam ban becomes applicablePolicy Option 2:A Recommendation is issued to the Member States by the ECPolicy Option  3:Decision to prepare a REACH restriction proposal 
 
 
                                                 
  Social impacts 

Options 1, 2 and – to a greater extent – Option 3 would bring significant health-related benefits by 
reducing  occupational  exposure  of  dental  personnel  and  exposure  of  the  general  public  to 
environmental mercury emissions resulting from dental amalgam use.  

With  regard  to  possible  direct  health  risks  due  to  dental  amalgam,  it  is  not  possible  to  draw  any 
conclusions  given  the  diverging  scientific  results  obtained  to  date.  If  more  expensive  restoration 
techniques are used, there is a risk of deteriorating dental health in disadvantaged communities due 
to higher treatment costs of cavities, if appropriate dental decay prevention programmes are not in 
place and if dental care is not subsidised for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged categories of the 
population, which depends largely on the public health policy of the Member State. However, this 
issue goes somewhat beyond the debate on dental amalgam. Public spending to ensure affordability 
of dental care also needs to be put in perspective with the currently high environmental and indirect 
health  impacts  and  costs  of  mercury  pollution  caused  by  dental  amalgam  use,  and  the  benefits 
associated with a reduction of these impacts for the society at large, as mentioned above.  

With  regard  to  EU  employment,  the  impact  of  the  policy  options  is  expected  to  be  negligible.  In 
particular,  as  the  vast  majority  of  EU  dental  fillings  manufacturers  already  produce  Hg-free 
materials180,  a  greater  substitution  of  dental  amalgam  with  Hg-free  filling  materials  would  not 
significantly affect employment in this sector.  

Conclusions 

The  most  effective  way  to  reach  the  policy  objective,  i.e.  reducing  the  environmental  impacts  of 
dental  amalgam  use,  would  be  a  combination  of  Options  1  and  3.  While  Option  1  tackles 
environmental impacts from both historical and current dental amalgam use, it focuses on releases 
from dental practices and is  not  sufficient in  itself to  address the whole range of mercury releases 
from  the  dental  amalgam  life  cycle  (it  does  not  address  mercury  releases  from  the  natural 
deterioration  of  amalgam  fillings  in  people’s  mouths,  from  cremation  and  burial,  and  residual 
emissions  to  urban  WWTPs).  Option  3  would  allow  a  significant  reduction  of  dental  mercury 
releases within the next 15 years and would virtually eliminate the environmental impacts of dental 
mercury  in  the  longer  term.  However,  because  the  cessation  of  mercury  releases,  under  Option  3, 
would only be significant after about 15 years, Option 3 needs to be coupled with Option 1 in order 
to reduce mercury releases from historical use of amalgam in the short term. 

Option  2  leaves  more  flexibility  to  MS  to  implement  national  measures  aimed  at  reducing  dental 
amalgam use, which would allow them to take into account national specificities (e.g. current level 
of  oral  health,  cost  aspects,  specificities  of  national  health  insurance  schemes);  however,  the 
effectiveness of this option is subject to high uncertainty since there would be no binding targets to 
achieve.  In  order  for  this  option  to  be  effective  in  reducing  environmental  impacts,  the 
administrative  costs  incurred  by  public  authorities  may  be  higher  than  in  the  case  of  Option  3 
(significant awareness raising required in some MS in order to induce a change in dental restoration 
practices). 

The  ‘no  policy  change’  option  cannot  achieve  a  significant  reduction  of  mercury  pollution  from 
dental  amalgam.  Even  if  the  progressive  substitution  of  dental  amalgam  with  Hg-free  materials  is 
expected  to  continue  in  the  future,  a  complete  phase-out  of  dental  amalgam  is  very  unlikely  to 
happen.  In  this  regard,  it  is  interesting  to  note  that,  in  Sweden,  dentists’  organisations  and  the 
National Board of Health and Welfare initially claimed that no legislative measures were needed to 
reduce amalgam use because it would vanish by itself; however, this did not happen after more than 
a decade, hence the decision of the authorities to introduce a ban. Following implementation of the 
ban, the use of dental amalgam was rapidly phased out without any problems. 

180 Out of the 61 EU main companies identified, only three companies (in CZ, in NL and  in IT) produce solely mercury 

for dental amalgam preparation 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 152 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
The preferred combination of options is therefore Option 1 + Option 3. It would achieve the highest 
effectiveness, while the associated costs are considered to be reasonable for the various stakeholders, 
especially  as  they  are  considered  to  be  outweighed  by  the  associated  environmental  and  health 
benefits. The cost efficiency of Option 3 improves with: the improvement of dentists’ skills in Hg-
free  restoration  techniques  (resulting  in  reduced  placement  durations  and  therefore  reduced  labour 
costs); a gradual decrease in the price of Hg-free filling materials thanks to continuous innovation 
and increased competitiveness within this industry sector; good awareness of EU citizens on the fact 
that amalgam fillings in good condition do not require substitution (national health authorities will 
have to implement clear communication on this point); and the active promotion of cheaper Hg-free 
restoration techniques such as ART, where adequate (especially in children). Implementing Option 1 
should  be  relatively  feasible  from  a  political  point  of  view  as  it  is  about  enforcing  existing  legal 
requirements (rather than creating new requirements) and it is the logical follow-up of Action 4 of 
the EU Mercury Strategy181. The implementation of Option 3 may be more challenging, not because 
of the actual costs of the changes required, but mainly due to the changes in professional habits that 
need to occur among dentists, especially in some MS, and the time required for all EU dentists to be 
well  skilled  at  performing  Hg-free  restorations.  The  implementation  of  Option  3  can  also  be 
considered as a logical follow-up of Action 8 of the EU Mercury Strategy182 and seems necessary to 
achieve mercury-related requirements of EU legislation on water quality. 

181 ‘The Commission will review in 2005 Member States’ implementation of Community requirements on the treatment of 

dental amalgam waste, and will take appropriate steps thereafter to ensure correct application’ 

182 ‘The Commission will further study in the short term the few remaining products and applications in the EU that use 
small amounts of mercury. In  the  medium to  longer  term,  any remaining uses may be  subject  to authorisation and 
consideration of substitution under the proposed REACH Regulation, once adopted’ 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 153 of 186 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 10B – EMISSIONS FROM DENTAL AMALGAM 

The objective of this Annex is to provide a good evidence base in order to assess the extent to which 
dental amalgam use contributes to the overall mercury problem in the EU. In particular, this Annex 
presents information and data necessary to assess current situation. 

Following a description of the methodology employed, this section provides an overview of mercury 
releases from dental amalgam use and end of life phases and discusses the main aspects of the life 
cycle for which data was lacking or needed to be updated in order to provide a full and up-to-date 
EU  picture  of  the  problem.  The  additional  data  collected  is  then  presented  and  analysed.  Existing 
data from previous studies and newly collected data are compiled to estimate mercury releases to the 
various environmental compartments. A comparison with contributions from other sources is finally 
carried out in order to estimate the scale of pollution caused by dental amalgam. 

10B.1 – Methodology 
The objective of this part was to identify and assess the potential environmental impacts associated 
with the use of dental amalgam, focusing on key stages of its life cycle. 

A thorough review of existing literature and data was first carried out. Some key information sources 
are listed below: 

  Summary of MS responses to 2005 EC survey on management of dental amalgam waste  

  SCHER  (2008)  Opinion  on  the  environmental  risks  and  indirect  health  effects  of  mercury  in 

dental amalgam 

  COWI/Concorde (2008) Options for reducing mercury use in products and applications, and the 

fate of mercury already circulating in society 

  Concorde/European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (2007) Mercury in dental use: environmental 

implications for the EU183 

  Report from the conference ‘Dental sector as a source of mercury contamination’ organised by 

NGOs (2007)184 

  DEFRA consultation documents on mercury emissions from crematoria (2003, 2004) 
  Latest mercury emission data from E-PRTR (2007, 2008, 2009)185 

  Some  waste  data  covering  amalgam  waste:  data  reported  under  the  Basel  Convention  (2004-

2005-2006)186 

  OSPAR (2011) Overview assessment of implementation reports on OSPAR Recommendation 

2003/4 on controlling the dispersal of mercury from crematoria187.  

Other data sources reviewed are mentioned in the following sections of this Annex. 

Following a comprehensive review of existing literature on the topic, opportunities for updating and 
complementing estimates developed in previous studies were identified. Hence, the data collection 

183 Concorde/EEB  (2007)  Mercury  in  dental  use:  environmental 

implications  for  the  EU.  Available  from: 

http://www.zeromercury.org/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=file&id=17%3Amercury-in-dental-use-
environmental-implications-for-the-european-union-&Itemid=70  

184 Dental sector as a source of mercury contamination, Conference report, Brussels, 2007  
185 European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (http://prtr.ec.europa.eu/PollutantReleases.aspx). 
186 http://www.basel.int/natreporting/2005/compII/index.html 
187 http://www.ospar.org/documents/dbase/publications/p00532_Rec_2003-4_Overview_report.pdf 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 154 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
and analysis tasks focused on data necessary to update and complement findings of previous studies, 
taking into account the gaps mentioned in the 2008 SCHER opinion. 

Following the review of publicly available information, tailored questionnaires were sent to various 
types of stakeholders in order to fill the information gaps: 

  Environmental and health authorities within MS 

Industry  stakeholders:  dental  associations,  dental  fillings  suppliers,  waste  treatment  industry, 
crematoria businesses and water treatment industry 

  NGOs and academic experts. 

In total, about 300 organisations/institutions were sent questionnaires and some follow-up telephone 
calls were also made. To date, we have received: 

  Responses from environmental and/or health authorities from 20 MS188, with varying levels of 

detail 

  5 responses from national dental associations 

  2 responses from dental fillings suppliers 

  4 responses from cremation organisations 

  5 responses from water treatment organisations 

  4 responses from NGOs and academic experts. 

In addition, several dental fillings manufacturers, national dental associations and researchers were 
contacted by telephone to obtain additional information and a telephone interview was also held with 
CED. Relevant findings extracted from previous studies have been summarised and references are 
provided in order for readers to have access to further details, the focus being placed on presenting 
updated and new information to inform future policy decisions. 

Further information and comments were provided by stakeholders during and after a workshop held 
in Brussels in March 2012. 

One  major  challenge  encountered  is  the  general  lack  of  reliable  and  up-to-date  data  on  dental 
amalgam use in many MS. Stakeholders active at the EU level (CED, FIDE189, ADDE190) advised 
that  they  do  not  hold  data  on  dental  amalgam  use  in  the  EU  or  on  the  size  of  the  EU  market  for 
dental amalgam. 

10B.2 – Overview of mercury flows associated with dental amalgam 

The main mercury flows investigated as part of this study are illustrated in Figure 7B-d at the end of 
this Annex. As shown below, this study mostly focuses on mercury releases associated with current 
and historical mercury use in dentistry and the fate of mercury released by dental practices or by old 
fillings.  Upstream  releases  associated  with  the  supply  of  mercury  for  dental  amalgam  preparation 
have not been investigated in detail, considering that environmental issues related to these upstream 
steps (mercury supply and trade, production of mercury for dental applications) are less critical and 
better managed 

188 AT, BE, BG, CZ, CY, DE, DK, EE, FI, FR, HU, IE, LT, LU, LV, MT, PL, SE, SI, SK, UK. In addition, RO and CY 

advised that they were not able to provide any valuable information in relation to the study. 

189 Federation of the European Dental Industry 
190 Association of Dental Dealers in Europe 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 155 of 186 

 
 
 
                                                 
Mercury  is  consumed  by  dental  practices  in  the  form  of  pre-dosed  capsules  (containing 
approximately  50%  elemental  mercury)  or  in  the  form  of  elemental  mercury  sachets  that  are  then 
mixed with alloy powder in a 1:1 ratio.  

Mercury releases mainly occur during the following steps: 

  Use of new amalgam: carved surplus of triturated amalgam is generated during the preparation 
of  the  amalgam  while  carved  surplus  of  amalgam  is  generated  during  the  placement  of  the 
filling 

  Removal of old amalgam filling  

  Loss or extraction of teeth with amalgam fillings  

  Cremation/burial of people with amalgam fillings  

  Deterioration of amalgam fillings due to chewing, consumption of hot beverages and corrosion 

(mercury ending up in human waste). 

Most  dental  mercury  waste  results  from  the  removal  of  previous  fillings  from  patients’  teeth. 
Together with waste from new fillings, removed teeth, etc., these dental wastes, in the form of solid 
dental amalgam particles, typically follow several main paths. They may be captured by the saliva 
pump (vacuum pump system)  that leads to the general  municipal wastewater system, they may be 
collected for subsequent recycling or disposal, they may be placed in special containers as medical 
waste, or they may be discarded in the waste bin as municipal waste183.  

As  shown  in  the  above  diagram,  next  to  each  dental  chair  most  dental  facilities  have  a  basic 
chairside filter (or trap) in the wastewater system to capture the larger amalgam particles, and some 
have secondary vacuum filters just upstream of the vacuum pump. An increasing number of clinics 
are also equipped with amalgam separators to capture dental amalgam particles. 

Additional  mercury  releases  to  the  wastewater  occur  as  a  result  of  amalgam  deterioration  due  to 
chewing,  ingestion  of  hot  beverages  and  corrosion  (mercury  excreted  by  humans),  although 
quantities  of  mercury  released  from  these  deterioration  processes  are  supposed  to  be  smaller  than 
those emitted by dental practices.  

The main atmospheric emissions associated with the life cycle of dental amalgam occur during the 
cremation of deceased persons with mercury fillings. Some air emissions may also occur at dental 
practices during the handling and placement of amalgam and as a result of mercury discharged to the 
wastewater. 

Finally,  direct  mercury  releases  to  soil  and  groundwater  may  occur  due  to  the  burial  of  deceased 
persons with mercury fillings. 

Further details on the main mercury flows are presented in the sections below. 

10B.3 – Main data gaps to be addressed 

The SCHER (2008) report used a number of previous studies on dental amalgam as a basis for their 
estimates. A number of data gaps were identified, which prevented the SCHER from conducting a 
comprehensive assessment of the environmental risks associated with dental amalgam. The purpose 
of the present study is therefore to fill the data gaps related to the estimation of mercury use, releases 
and  fate.  Additionally,  because  there  are  some  expected  changes  in  the  use  and  releases  of  dental 
mercury  across  MS  due  to  changing  behaviours,  improved  legal  compliance  or  new  policy 
initiatives, it was necessary to obtain up-to-date information on some of these aspects. 

Consequently,  the  main  aspects  which  needed  to  be  investigated  in  further  detail  in  this  study,  at 
Member State and EU level, are as follows: 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 156 of 186 

 
 
  Latest data and trends on dental mercury use 

  Latest data and trends on the percentage of dental practices equipped with amalgam separators 

  Actual efficiency of amalgam separators 

  Treatment options for solid dental amalgam waste 

  Options  for  managing  sewage  sludge  from  urban  wastewater  treatment  plants  (WWTPs),  in 

particular agricultural spreading practices 

  Latest data and trends on mercury air emissions from crematoria. 

Concerning the other aspects of the dental amalgam life cycle, estimates from previous studies have 
been used, as long as they were considered to be based on reliable data and reasonable assumptions. 

10B.4 – The human inventory of dental amalgam 

The quantity of mercury contained in people’s mouths in the EU-27 was estimated to be over 1,000 
tonnes in previous studies. This is based on the assumption that three-quarters of the EU population 
(500  million  citizens)  have  an  average  of  3  g  of  mercury  in  their  mouths,  or  that  the  entire  EU 
population  has  an  average  of  2.0-2.5  g  of  mercury  in  their  mouths.  Amounts  of  mercury  per 
citizen have been derived from figures previously estimated by several countries (BE, DK, DE, FR, 
NL, NO, SE, CH, UK, USA). 

10B.5 – Mercury use in dental practices 

There  are  two  main  ways  to  prepare  dental  amalgam:  by  using  pre-dosed  capsules  or  by  mixing 
dental alloy and mercury purchased as separate products. 

Plastic  capsules  contain  two  compartments,  one  with  the  alloy  in  the  form  of  powder  (alloy 
containing silver, tin, copper and other trace metals) and one with pure elemental mercury (400-800 
mg in general, contained in a small plastic sachet called a ‘mercury spill’). The membrane between 
the two compartments is broken during the process of mixing in a mechanical amalgamator used by 
the  dentist.  By  mixing  the  capsule,  the  sachet  breaks  and  metallic  mercury  reacts  with  the  dental 
alloy  to  form  dental  amalgam,  which  can  be  used  to  treat  a  patient  within  10-12  minutes.  This 
system ensures the exact mixing ratio between mercury and the dental alloy (1:1 in weight). Mercury 
spills  present  in  the  capsules  are  produced  by  specialised  manufacturers  and  are  supplied  to  the 
producers of dental amalgam capsules. 

Alternatively,  dentists  can  buy  dental  alloy  in  powder  (standard  packing  50-1,000  g)  and  dental 
metallic  mercury  (standard  packing  100-1,000  g)  as  separate  products.  Metallic  mercury  is 
purchased  in  the  form  of  a  ‘mercury  spill’  (plastic  sachet)  and  produced  by  specialised 
manufacturers. A special mixer is then used by the dentist where both components are placed into 
separate  compartments  with  the  exact  alloy/mercury  ratio.  The  reason  why  some  dentists  still  use 
this system is that buying alloy powder and mercury separately is cheaper than buying the easy-to-
use capsules.  

Mercury use for dental amalgam preparation in the EU-27 is estimated to range between 55 and 95 
t/year, based on the most recent data collected as part of this study (further details are provided in 
the market review in Annex E). There is however significant uncertainty on this range of values. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 157 of 186 

 
 
10B.6 – Mercury releases from dental practices 

10B.6.1 – Mercury releases to water 

The removal of old amalgam fillings is the main source of dental amalgam released to wastewater 
via the clinic vacuum pump or similar systems. During the placement of new amalgam fillings, there 
is also some surplus of amalgam that is discharged to wastewater. 

The  technical  development  of  dental  equipment  with  high-speed  drills  replacing  more  slowly 
rotating drills in the last decades in technically advanced nations has increased mercury emitted to 
air  or  released  to  water  when  removing  or  replacing  amalgam  fillings.  This  is  caused  by  smaller 
particles  created  by  the  high-speed  drills.  In  addition,  the  higher  speed  results  in  higher 
temperatures,  increasing  the  emission  rate.  The  temperature  may  to  some  extent  be  controlled  by 
cooling with e.g. water. However, this results in larger amounts of mercury in the water leaving the 
clinic. 

Mercury  discharged  in  dental  wastewater  is  present  in  many  forms,  including  elemental  mercury 
bound to amalgam particulate, inorganic (ionic) mercury, elemental mercury, and organic mercury 
(monomethyl  mercury  (MeHg));  the  vast  majority  (>99.6%)  of  dental  mercury  discharges  are  in 
solid form (elemental mercury bound to amalgam particulate)191. 

Out of the total amount of mercury used by dentists in EU-27 (~ 75 t/year on average), it is generally 
assumed that approximately 56 t/year (i.e. 75%) end up in patients’ teeth while 19 t/year (i.e. 25%) 
is wasted.  

From  the  amount  of  amalgam  ending  up  in  patients’  teeth,  it  has  been  previously  estimated  that 
about 70% is used to replace previous amalgam fillings (i.e. ~ 39 t Hg/year) while 30% is used to 
make new fillings (i.e. ~ 17 t Hg/year).  

From  the  19  t/year  of  wasted  mercury,  it  can  be  estimated  that  approximately  11  t/year  end  up  as 
solid  waste  (surplus  of  mixed  amalgam)  while  8  t/year  are  discharged  to  the  wastewater  (carved 
surplus of amalgam during placement) and 0.5 t/year is emitted to the air 192. 

Since approximately 39 t/year of ‘new’ mercury are used to replace old fillings, it can be estimated 
that the removal of old fillings releases almost the same amount of mercury (estimated here at 38 t) 
which  goes  into  the  waste  stream193.  In  total  the  mercury  content  discharged  to  the  wastewater 
comprises some 8 t of carved surplus amalgam plus some 38 t of removed amalgam, totalling about 
46 t/year of mercury. 

In  addition  to  releases  from  current  dental  restoration  works,  the  past  accumulation  of  mercury  in 
piping  systems  of  the  dental  clinics  over  many  years  may  constitute  another  source  of  continuous 
releases to wastewater. The slow dissolution and re-release of this mercury may be sufficient, even 
after dental clinic emissions have been greatly reduced, to exceed wastewater discharge standards, 
and may serve as a long-term source of mercury to urban WWTPs183. For example, large amounts of 
mercury were recovered (average 1.2 kg per clinic) during the remediation of 37 abandoned dental 

191 USEPA (2008) Health Services Industry Detailed Study – Dental amalgam 

(http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/304m/upload/2008_09_08_guide_304m_2008_hsi-dental-
200809.pdf) 

192 Assumptions taken from the Concorde/EEB report (2007) 
193 It  is  assumed  that  previous  fillings  contained  slightly  less  mercury  at  the  time  of  removal,  assuming  some  of  the 

mercury has vaporised and the previous fillings were slightly smaller 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 158 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
clinics  in  Stockholm  in  1993–2003194.  Similar  accumulations  were  observed  during  more  recent 
work in several Swedish dental clinics195. 

  Treatment devices in dental facilities 

Most dental practices are equipped with chairside traps and vacuum filters able to capture a fraction 
of the larger amalgam particles. 

An  increasing  number  of  dental  practices  are  also  equipped  with  amalgam  separators,  the  use  of 
which is necessary in order to segregate dental amalgam waste (considered as hazardous waste) from 
other types of waste, collect it separately for appropriate treatment and avoid its discharge into from 
aqueous effluents, in accordance with EU waste legislation196.  

According  to  a  survey  carried  out  by  the  Commission  in  2005  and  the  COWI/Concorde  study 
(2008),  no  more  than  30-40%  of  EU  dental  practices  were  equipped  with  amalgam  separators  in 
2005 and the proportion of dental practices equipped with amalgam separators was much higher in 
northern  MS  than  in  southern  and  eastern  MS.  According  to  the  latest  survey  by  the  Council  of 
European Dentists (CED, 2010), 14 out of the 28 European countries surveyed had 99% of dental 
practices equipped with amalgam separators, while in a further 5 countries 80 to 99% of practices 
were equipped. The survey did not however specify which countries these values referred to, since it 
was anonymous (it was based on questionnaires sent to national dental associations). 

As  part  of  the  present  study,  information  on  possible  legal  requirements  concerning  amalgam 
separators  was  obtained  for  23  MS  (responses  to  the  study  questionnaires  or  data  obtained  from 
other  sources,  see  Annex  H).  Among  these  23 MS,  amalgam  separators  are  required  by law  in  14 
MS (Figure 10B-a). Usually, this requirement applies to both new and existing practices and a 95% 
minimum  efficiency  is  required.  Some  MS  also  impose  Hg  limit  values  in  the  effluent  (usually 
between  0.005  and  0.03  mg  Hg/l),  documented  evidence  of  proper  maintenance  and/or  periodic 
inspections  by  local  authorities.  In  some  other  MS,  amalgam  separators  are  installed  voluntarily 
under  guidance  provided  by  the  national  authorities  (e.g.  IE,  DK).  All  MS  that  responded  to  the 
study  questionnaire  reported  that  recently  installed  dental  facilities  are  generally  equipped  with 
amalgam separators regardless of whether there are legal requirements in place. 

194 Engman (2004) Kvicksilverförorening i avloppsrör i Lunds kommun. (Mercury contamination in wastewater pipes of 

Lund municipality). MSc thesis. Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden 

195 Hylander  LD,  Lindvall  A  and  Gahnberg  L  (2006)  High  mercury  emissions  from  dental  clinics  despite  amalgam 

separators. Sci. Total Environ. 362:74-84 

196 The Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) does not prescribe specifically dental clinics to install dental amalgam 

separators, however this is a means to comply with the ban on mixing hazardous waste. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 159 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 10B-a: Requirements concerning installation of amalgam separators 

An  estimate  of  the  share  of  dental  facilities  equipped  with  amalgam  separators  is  available  for 
16 MS (see Table 10B-a below). 

Table 10B-0-a: Share of dental facilities equipped with dental amalgam separators 

Share of dental facilities equipped with 
amalgam separators 

Member States 

~100% 

90-100% 

Unknown 

10 MS: AT, CZ, DK, FI, DE, LV, MT, PT, SE, UK 

5 MS: BE, CY, FR, IT, NL, SI 

11 MS: BG, EE, ES, GR, HU, IE, LT, LU, PL, RO, SK 

It  is  difficult  to  provide  a  reliable  estimate  of  the  average  share  of  dental  facilities  equipped  with 
amalgam separators at EU27 level as information is still missing for MS with large population (e.g. 
Poland, Spain). However, if one assumes that, in the 11 MS where no data is available, only 20% of 
dental facilities are equipped with amalgam separators, the EU27 average would be in the order of 
75% dental facilities equipped197. This result suggests that there has been a significant increase in 
the  proportion  of  dental  facilities  equipped  with  amalgam  separators  since  the  2005  EC  survey. 
Apart  from  the  new  legislation  adopted  is  some  MS,  this  could  also  be  explained  by  the  fact  that 
most new chairs on the market are equipped with separators. 

In  terms  of  the  level  of  maintenance  of  the  existing  separators,  several  MS  reported  that  periodic 
inspections of the efficiency of equipment are undertaken by public authorities (CY, DE (every 3-5 
years), DK, IE, MT (every year), SE, SI). Reportedly, an inspection programme is also being put in 
place in the UK. 

197 This  average  has  been  weighted  by  the  number  of  dentists  per  MS  (assumed  to  be  proportional  to  the  number  of 

dental practices) 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 160 of 186 

145440246810121416Legal requirement to install amalgam separatorsAmalgam separators recommended by national authoritiesNo  requirement to install amalgam separatorsNo information available Number of MSLegal requirement to install amalgam separatorsAmalgam separators recommended by national authoritiesNo  requirement to install amalgam separators 
 
 
 
                                                 
Based on available information, the following assumptions have been made for the purposes of this 
assessment: 

  95% of the mercury discharged to the vacuum pump system goes to chairside filters (and 
vacuum  pump  filters,  if  present),  while  5%  goes  directly  to  the  sewer  (as  most  dental 
practices are equipped with chairside filters) 

  Chairside  filters  and  vacuum  pump  filters  together  have  an  average  mercury  removal 
efficiency of 45%198 

  From  the  mercury  present  in  the  outflow  of  chairside  filters,  70%  goes  to  an  amalgam 
separator  while  25%  goes  directly  to  the  sewer  (assuming  that,  on  average,  75%  dental 
practices are equipped with amalgam separators in the EU) 

  Amalgam  separators  have  an  average  mercury  removal  efficiency  of  70%  (standard 
efficiency is usually higher, i.e. 95%, but actual efficiency is assumed to be lower due to a 
lack of proper maintenance observed in many cases199) 

  Approximately 3 t Hg/year are released from filters/separators to the atmosphere200. 

With the above assumptions, it can be roughly estimated that 30 t Hg/year are captured in filters and 
separators  and  potentially  collected  as  solid  waste,  while  13  t  Hg/year  remain  in  the  wastewater 
stream and enter urban WWTPs. 

With regard to  mercury concentration in  the effluents,  the SCHER report (2008)  used  information 
from Swedish studies (Hylander 2006)201,202 and a US study (Stone 2003)203 to estimate releases of 
mercury  to  the  wastewater  system,  in  ‘best  case’  conditions  (properly  operating  separators)  and 
‘worst-case’ conditions (inefficiently working  separators or no separator  use): Hg concentration in 
the WWTP inflow due to dental practices was estimated to be in the range of 3.5 to 918 µg Hg/l with 
an average value of 159 µg/l. 

10B.6.2 – Mercury in solid waste 

Solid mercury-containing waste generated by dental practices includes: 

  Surplus  amalgam  from  the  preparation  phase,  which  is  directly  discarded  as  waste  (estimated 
above at approximately 11 t/year) 

198 Assumption  based  on  Concorde/EEB  study  (2007)  and  on  a  research  article  sent  by  the  CED:  Adegbembo  et  al. 
(2002) The weight of wastes generated by removal of dental amalgam restorations and the concentration of mercury 
in dental wastewater. J Can Dent Assoc; 68(9):553-8. 

199 See  e.g.  Hylander  LD,  Lindvall  A  and  Gahnberg  L  (2006)  High  mercury  emissions  from  dental  clinics  despite 

amalgam separators. Sci. Total Environ. 362:74-84  

200 4  t/year  were  estimated  by  Concorde/EEB  in  2007,  but  this  was  in  relation  to  a  higher  dental  amalgam  use  (125  t 

Hg/y) 

201 Hylander  LD,  Lindvall  A  and  Gahnberg  L  (2006)  High  mercury  emissions  from  dental  clinics  despite  amalgam 

separators. Sci. Total Environ. 362:74-84 

202 Hylander,  L.  D.,  Lindvall,  A.,  Uhrberg,  R.,  Gahnberg,  L.,  &  Lindh,  U.  (2006).  Mercury  recovery  in  situ  of  four 

different dental amalgam separators. Sci. Total Environ. 366:320– 336 

203 ME  Stone,  ME  Cohen,  L  Liang  and  P  Pang  (2003)  Determination  of  methyl  mercury  in  dental-unit  wastewater, 

Dental Materials 19, 675–679, Elsevier Ltd 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 161 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
  Dental  amalgam  sludge  recovered  from  the  cleaning  of  chairside  traps,  vacuum  filters  and 
possible amalgam separators (estimated above at approximately 30 t/year), as well as from the 
cleaning of wastewater piping, during any maintenance activities 

  Lost  and  extracted teeth, which are directly discarded as  waste (estimated at approximately 11 
t/year by a previous study183). 

This represents a total of approximately 52 t Hg/year present in solid waste streams from dental 
facilities. 

10B.6.3 – Mercury releases to air 

  Air emissions from amalgam handling 

Some air emissions may occur at dental practices during the handling of amalgam. This may include 
releases  from  accidental  mercury  spills,  malfunctioning  amalgamators,  leaky  amalgam  capsules  or 
malfunctioning  bulk  mercury  dispensers,  trituration,  placement  and  condensation  of  amalgam, 
polishing or removal of amalgam, vaporisation of mercury from contaminated instruments, and open 
storage of amalgam scrap or used capsules204. 

However,  the  increasing  use  of  pre-dosed  capsules  contributes  to  reducing  emissions  occurring 
during  amalgam  storage  and  preparation,  and  the  exposure  of  dental  personnel  to  these  mercury 
vapours. 

The Concorde/EEB study (2007) estimated up to 1 t/year of dental mercury emissions to the air for 
all  of  the  EU-27,  based  on  the  assumption  that  occupational  air  concentrations  of  mercury  inside 
dental clinics average about 15-20 μg/m3 (derived from Echeverria et al. 1998)205. Given the lower 
dental amalgam use estimated in the present study and the increasing use of capsules in recent years, 
such air emissions have been estimated at approximately 0.5 t Hg/year. 

  Air emissions from the wastewater system 

Mercury vapours may be emitted from the dental clinic effluents passing through the vacuum pump 
system. This system must be vented to the air, therefore mercury contained in the effluents has the 
potential to vaporise and be released into the atmosphere outside the dental clinic or into the sewer 
system,  depending  on  the  type  of  equipment  used.  Research  carried  out  in  the  US  in  1996206 
measured mercury releases from the wastewater system per dentist at about 60 mg/day. This value 
was extrapolated to EU27 by Concorde/EEB (2007), suggesting air releases in the order of 4 t/year. 
Given the lower dental amalgam use estimated in the present study, such air emission releases have 
been estimated at approximately 3 t/year. 

10B.7 – Mercury releases associated with solid waste from dental practices 

In  accordance  with  the  EU  waste  legislation207,  mercury-containing  solid  waste  and  sludge  from 
dental clinics are considered as hazardous waste (EU waste code 18 01 10208). Such waste is to be 

204  JADA  (2003)  ‘Dental  mercury  hygiene  recommendations,’  ADA  Council  on  Scientific  Affairs,  American  Dental 
Association, Journal of the American Dental Association Vol. 134, November 2003 (as cited by Concorde/EEB) 
205 D Echeverria, HV Aposhian, JS Woods, NJ Heyer, MM Aposhian, AC Bittner, Jr., RK Mahurin, and M Cianciola 
(1998) Neurobehavioral effects from exposure to dental amalgam Hgo: new distinctions between recent exposure and 
Hg body burden. The FASEB Journal Vol. 12 pp971-980 

206 PG Rubin and M-H Yu (1196) Mercury Vapor in Amalgam Waste Discharged from Dental Office Vacuum Units, 

Archives of Environmental Health Vol51 No.4, pp335-337 

207 Directive 2008/98/EC of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives 
208 Commission Decision of 3 May 2000 establishing a list of wastes, as amended 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 162 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
collected  separately  from  non-hazardous  waste  and  treated  in  specific  facilities  dedicated  to 
hazardous waste. 

In practice, even if the situation is improving, previous surveys have shown that not all dental clinics 
manage the waste in compliance with the legislation, i.e. it is sometimes mixed with municipal waste 
and/or  with  medical  waste.  For  example,  a  study  in  Greece  reported  that  dental  wastes  were  not 
managed  properly  by  80%  of  dentists  in  the  Thessaloniki  municipality  in  2006209.  While  mercury 
emissions  from  hazardous  waste  treatment  operations  can  be  considered  as  negligible  (since  such 
treatment operations are designed for hazardous compounds like mercury), inadequate treatment of 
mercury-containing waste with non-hazardous waste or with medical waste may generate significant 
mercury emissions to air, water and soil/groundwater, as explained below. 
A  French  study210  estimated  that,  in  2005,  a  dental  chair  in  France  generated  in  the  order  of: 
1 kg/year  of  wet  sludge  from  amalgam  separators  with  an  average  Hg  content  of  6%;  0.1  to 
0.2 kg/year of dry solid waste (surplus mixed amalgam from preparation phase, assumed to contain 
50%  Hg);  and  some  packaging  waste  that  is  mostly  empty  (1  to  1.5  kg/year  of  empty  pre-dosed 
capsules). 

There  are  no  publicly  available  statistics  on  EU  waste  production  for  the  waste  code  18.01.10 
(‘dental amalgam waste’). Latest data available on dental amalgam waste production and treatment 
is provided in Annex I. Quantities of mercury contained in dental amalgam waste produced by the 
17  MS  for  which  data  is  available  amount  to  approximately  38  to  48 t  Hg/year,  with  a  high 
uncertainty  on  this  range  of  values  given  the  different  information  sources  and  the  different 
methodologies  used  to  estimate the mercury content of amalgam waste. This  sample of MS is  not 
representative  enough  of  the  EU  situation  to  allow  an  extrapolation  for  EU27.  The  estimate 
developed  through  the  mass  balance  (i.e.  52  t  Hg/year)  is  considered  to  be  more  reliable  than  an 
extrapolation of reported waste data; it is therefore used in the rest of this study. 

The following assumptions are made in this study with regard to the destinations of dental amalgam 
waste: 

  Surplus  amalgam  from  the  preparation  phase:  70%  managed  as  hazardous  waste  and  30%  as 
non-hazardous waste (i.e. collected in mixture with general municipal waste); 

  Dental  amalgam  sludge  recovered  from  the  cleaning  of  chairside  traps,  vacuum  filters  and 
possible  amalgam  separators:  80%  managed  as  hazardous  waste  and  20%  as  non-hazardous 
waste; 

  Lost and extracted teeth: 40% managed as hazardous waste, 30% as biomedical waste and 30% 
as non-hazardous waste211. 

With the above assumptions, it can be estimated that, out of the 52 t Hg/y of waste produced, around 
36 t/y (i.e. 69%) are managed as hazardous waste, 3 t/y (i.e. 7%) as biomedical waste and 13 t/y (i.e. 
24%) as non-hazardous waste (i.e. mixed with municipal waste). 

209 Kontogianni S, Xirogiannopoulou A and Karagiannidis A(2008). Investigating solid waste production and associated 

management practices in private dental units. Waste Management 28: 1441-1448 

210 ASTEE (2005) Vers une meilleure gestion des déchets mercuriels d’amalgames dentaires 

(http://www.astee.org/conferences/2005_paris/diaporamas/40.pdf) 

211 Assumption taken from Concorde/EEB study (2007) 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 163 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
  Waste managed as hazardous waste 

Treatment  options  for  mercury-containing  waste  mainly  include  recycling  or  landfilling  in  storage 
facilities for hazardous waste, and possibly also incineration.  

In the case of mercury recycling (to recover elemental mercury), typical mercury recovery efficiency 
is around 99% according to the Waste Treatment Industries BREF document212. The remaining 1% 
mercury  is  mostly  released  to  the  air,  while  smaller  amounts  may  be  found  in  treatment  residues, 
filters from flue gas cleaning, etc. 

In  the  case  of  landfilling  as  hazardous  waste  (above  or  underground  storage),  environmental 
emissions of mercury are considered to be negligible as storage facilities are designed to be sealed 
and to minimise releases to the environment. 

In  the  case  of  incineration  as  hazardous  waste,  environmental  emissions  of  mercury  can  also  be 
considered  as  negligible.  According  to  the  Waste  Incineration  BREF  document213,  in  a  typical 
hazardous waste incinerator, 99.88 % of Hg present in hazardous waste is captured in solid residues 
for disposal. 

  Waste managed as municipal waste (non-hazardous waste) 

At EU level, treatment methods for municipal waste include landfilling (for 38% of municipal waste 
produced  in  2009),  incineration  (20%),  recycling  (24%)  and  other  methods  including  composting 
(18%)214. 

In  the  case  of  dental  waste,  these  may  be  either  landfilled  or  incinerated.  Considering  the  above 
statistics,  one  can  roughly  assume  that  70%  of  dental  wastes  ending  up  in  the  municipal  waste 
stream are landfilled and 30% incinerated. 
A French study215 estimated that, in a typical municipal waste incinerator, 7 to 10% of the mercury 
contained in waste is emitted to the atmosphere. A large part of the mercury (around 90%) remains 
in  the  slag  or  is  captured  by  the  flue  gas  cleaning  systems  (e.g.  electrostatic  filter,  scrubber).  The 
study  estimated  that  the  fraction  discharged  to  water  was  very  small  (0.5-1%).  Flue  gas  cleaning 
residues  are  usually  stabilised  and  sent  to  hazardous  waste  landfills;  short-term  emissions  from 
stabilised  residues  in  such  landfills  are  avoided,  however  there  is  limited  knowledge  on  the 
behaviour of these residues over a long timeframe (several hundreds or thousands of years)216. Slag 
may  be  sent  to  landfills  for  hazardous  or  non-hazardous  waste,  and  possibly  also  used  for  road 
backfilling works, leading to further possible emissions to water and soil. Values derived from this 
French study are given here as  an example, which  may not  be representative of the whole EU (in 
some MS, the proportion of mercury emitted to air from non-hazardous waste incinerators may be 
higher).  

With  regard  to  dental  mercury-containing  waste  sent  to  municipal  waste  landfills,  its  behaviour  is 
difficult to predict as it is very much dependent on the storage conditions. Mercury emissions to air, 
surface water, soil and groundwater may occur, as these landfills are not designed for the storage of 
such hazardous waste. 

212 EC(2006) Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for the Waste Treatment Industries, Chap. 4.3.3.3 
213 EC(2006)  IPPC  -  Reference  Document  on  the  Best  Available  Techniques  for  Waste  incineration.  Table  3.2 

(http://eippcb.jrc.es/reference/) 

214 Sources: Eurostat, 2009 data ; EC (2010) Environmental statistics and accounts in Europe – 2010 edition (p. 121) 
215 AGHTM (2000) Rapport de synthèse des travaux du groupe de travail « Déchets mercuriels en France » 
216 COWI/Concorde (2002) Heavy metals in waste – Report for the European Commission (DG ENV) 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 164 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
According  to  Concorde/EEB183,  a  rough  estimate  of  mercury  emissions  to  the  different 
environmental  compartments  arising  from  the  presence  of  dental  mercury  in  the  municipal  waste 
stream can be given as follows: 30% of mercury in waste emitted to the atmosphere; 10% emitted to 
surface water and 60% emitted to soil and groundwater. The same allocation rule has been used in 
the present study, in the absence of more accurate and up-to-date information. 

   Waste managed as medical waste 

A survey in the USA in 2000 discovered that 25-30% of dentists disposed of much of their dental 
amalgam waste as medical waste due to the potential presence of pathogens217. Typically, medical 
waste is disposed of by incineration, or sometimes by a sterilisation process known as ‘autoclaving’ 
(common  in  Ireland,  for  example).  Medical  waste  incinerators  are  now  supposed  to  operate 
according  to  EU  regulations  limiting  emissions  of  mercury,  although  autoclaving  remains  less 
regulated  and  could  result  in  mercury  vapour  releases,  discharge  of  effluents  to  the  wastewater 
system  and/or  eventual  landfilling  of  autoclaved  waste218.  The  Concorde/EEB  study  roughly 
estimated mercury emissions to the different environmental compartments arising from the presence 
of dental mercury in the biomedical waste stream, as follows183: 25% of mercury in waste emitted to 
the  atmosphere;  5%  emitted  to  surface  water  and  20%  emitted  to  soil  and  groundwater;  the 
remaining  50%  are  considered  to  be  sequestered  and  no  longer  bioavailable  (because  handled  as 
hazardous  waste).  The  same  allocation  rule  has  been  used  in  the  present  study,  in  the  absence  of 
more accurate and up-to-date information. 

10B.8 – Mercury emissions from urban wastewater treatment plants 

Most dental practices are connected to the municipal wastewater system, therefore mercury present 
in  the  dental  effluents  ends  up  in  urban  WWTPs.  The  quantity  of  mercury  entering  urban 
WWTPs was estimated above at approximately 13 t Hg/year.   

In  addition  to  mercury  discharges  from  dental  practices,  the  deterioration  of  mercury  fillings  in 
people’s  mouths  –  due  to  chewing  and  consumption  of  hot  beverages  –  also  contributes  to  the 
mercury  load  received  by  WWTPs.  This  contribution  was  estimated  at  2-3  t  Hg/year  by 
Concorde/EEB183, which is also the value used in the present study. As an example, for the city of 
Stockholm only, this mercury load was estimated in 2008 at 13-14 kg per year, which is about 40% 
of  the  total  load  entering  the  WWTP219.  A  previous  study  conducted  on  a  sample  of  Swedish 
individuals in 1994 showed that the amounts of mercury excreted by each individual were comprised 
between 1.4 and as much as 209 µg Hg/day (median value of 62 µg Hg/day) and were correlated to 
the number of amalgam surfaces in the mouths220; extrapolating these values to the EU27 population 
gives a range of 0.3 to 38 t Hg/year (median of 11 t Hg/year) excreted by individuals and released to 
sewers, however it is unknown which exact proportion of this mercury is due to dental amalgam (the 
other main factor being the consumption of contaminated fish). 

217 KCDNR  (2000)  –  ‘Management  of  Hazardous  Dental  Wastes  in  King  County,  1991  –  2000,’  King  County 
Department  of  Natural  Resources,  Hazardous  Waste  Management  Program,  Water  and  Land  Resources  Division, 
Washington State, USA 

218 HCWH  (2002)  –  ‘Stericycle:  Living  Up  To  Its  Mission?  An  Environmental  Health  Assessment  of  the  Nation’s 

Largest Medical Waste Company’ Health Care Without Harm 

219 Response  from  the  Swedish  Chemicals  Agency  to  the    Consultation  on  SCHER  preliminary  report  on  ‘The 
amalgam’ 

environmental 
of 
(http://europaem.eu/politics/Response_Swedish_Chemical_Agency.pdf) 

mercury 

indirect 

effects 

health 

dental 

risk 

and 

in 

220 Skare I et al. (1994) Human Exposure to Mercury and Silver Released from Dental Amalgam Restorations. Archives 

of environmental health, 49: 384–394  

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 165 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
10B.8.1 – Efficiency of treatment  

Urban WWTPs are not specifically designed to capture mercury or other heavy metals. If mercury 
solids enter a treatment plant, they eventually wind up in the grit (the initial coarse screen/filter on 
incoming  wastewater)  and/or  the  sludge/biosolids.  Treatment  plant  grit  is  typically  landfilled, 
leading  to  possible  problems  with  leaching  and/or  volatilization.  Sludge  is  often  incinerated, 
landfilled or applied to land as fertilizer or compost.  

Mercury  removal  efficiencies  of  municipal  WWTPs  are  usually  higher  than  95%  (i.e.  more  than 
95% of Hg is captured in the sewage sludge while less than 5% remains in the water)221. Applying 
this 95% efficiency ratio to the estimated mercury inflow (i.e. 16 t Hg/y), it can be roughly estimated 
that  15  t  Hg/year  are  captured  by  the  sewage  sludge  and  1  t  Hg/year  is  found  in  the  WWTP 
effluent discharged to surface water. 

According  to  the  latest  data  from  the  European  Pollutant  Release  and  Transfer  Register  (E-
PRTR)222,  urban  WWTPs  released  2.5  t  Hg  to  surface  water,  0.21  t  Hg  to  the  soil  (via 
agricultural  spreading  of  sewage  sludge)  and  0.04  t  Hg  to  the  air  in  2009.  These  should  be 
considered as minimum values, as not all urban WWTPs may have been reporting data and data are 
only reported if above certain thresholds223. As a comparison, another information source estimated 
at 6 t the amount of mercury released to surface water from EU urban WWTPs in 2005224.  

Not all the mercury released by urban WWTPs comes from dental amalgam use: a study from 1996 
estimated the contribution of dental clinics to total Hg load entering WWTPs at 13 to 78%225; more 
recent studies in the USA estimated the contribution of dental clinics to be around 50% 226,227. 

In 2008, the SCHER estimated the concentration of mercury in sludge as a consequence of releases 
from dental clinics ranged between 0.001 and 2.4 mg Hg/kg in dry weight with an average value of 
0.42 mg/kg in dry weight228. Considering an average Hg concentration in sludge of 1.5 mg Hg/kg in 
the EU229, the SCHER suggested that the contribution of dental clinics represented about one third of 
the Hg total releases to the terrestrial compartment. However, in certain MS such as Sweden, the use 
of mercury in dental amalgam has been identified as the single largest source of mercury in sewage 
sludge. 

The  sludge  can  be  managed  in  several  different  ways,  as  described  below.  In  most  cases,  sludge 
management operations will only result in mercury being moved from one environmental medium to 
another and will not enable mercury to be sequestered for long-term. 

221 Balogh S and Nollet Y (2008). Mercury mass balance at a wastewater treatment plant employing sludge incineration 

with offgas mercury control. Science of the total environment  389: 125-131. 

222 European  Pollutant  Release  and  Transfer  Register  (http://prtr.ec.europa.eu/PollutantReleases.aspx).Data  reported 
under  the  E-PRTR  covers  industrial  facilities  (including  urban  WWTPs)  with  individual  Hg  water  releases  above 
certain thresholds:  10kg/year for Hg releases to air; 1 kg/year for Hg releases to water and 1 Hg kg/year for releases 
to soil. 

223 Available data comes from 221 facilities across the EU and the reporting thresholds for Hg are 10 kg/year for releases 

to the air, 1 kg/year for releases to water and 1 kg/year for releases to the soil. 

224 Sundseth K, Pacyna JM, Pacyna EG, Panasiuk D (2011) Substance flow analysis of mercury affecting water quality 

in the EU. Water Air Soil Pollut. 223: 429-442 

225 Arenholt-Bindslev D and Larsen AH (1996). Hg levels and discharge in waste water from dental clinics. Water, Air 

Soil Pollut. 86: 93–99 (as cited by Concorde/EEB) 

226 ADA  (2003)  –  Draft  ADA  Assessment  of  Mercury  in  the  Form  of  Amalgam  in  Dental  Wastewater  in  the  United 

States, Environ report to the American Dental Association (as cited by Concorde/EEB) 

227 CCCSD  (2006)  –  Dental  Offices  and  Mercury  Pollution,  Central  Contra  Costa  Sanitary  District,  Contra  Costa, 

California, USA (as cited by Concorde/EEB) 

228 Taking a default average production of 0.071 kg of sludge per person per day at the WWTP 
229 EC 2004 web site: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/summary of_legislation.pdf 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 166 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
10B.8.2 – Releases from sewage sludge management 

Different options exist for the management of urban sewage sludge, in particular agricultural use as 
fertilizer,  incineration  (either  in  dedicated  facilities  within  WWTPs  or  in  large  coal  combustion 
plants), digestion (to produce biogas) or landfilling. 
According to a study by Pancon (2009)230, EU sewage sludge is managed as follows: 45% is used 
for  agriculture,  23%  is  incinerated,  18%  is  disposed  of  in  the  sea,  7%  is  landfilled  and  7%  is 
disposed of in other ways. However, sludge management options vary widely across MS (see Annex 
J).  Another  recent  study  by  Milieu231  projected  the  following  management  options  for  2010  and 
2020 under a business as usual scenario: 

Table  10B-0-b:  Projections  on  sewage  sludge  management  options  in  EU27  (in  %  of  total  sludge 
produced) 

Year 

Agricultural use 

Incineration 

Landfill 

Other 

2010 

2020 

42% 

44% 

27% 

32% 

14% 

7% 

16% 

16% 

According to the above projections, in a business as usual scenario the overall proportion of treated 
sludge recycled to agriculture across the EU will remain more or less the same up to 2020 while the 
share sent to incineration will rise slightly and the share going to landfills will be halved (due to EU 
legislation restricting organic waste going to landfill as well as public disapproval). 

  Agricultural use of sludge 

In some MS, a significant proportion of sewage sludge appears to be used for agricultural purposes, 
e.g.  Bulgaria  (56%  of  total  sludge  produced  in  2009),  Czech  Republic  (47%  in  2008),  Denmark 
(59% in 2007), Ireland (69% in 2007), Spain (83% in 2009), France (47% in 2008), Cyprus (50% in 
2007), Lithuania (61% in 2009), Luxembourg (56% in 2008), Hungary (57% in 2007) or Portugal 
(87% in 2007) (for further details, please see Annex J). 

The  presence  of  mercury  in  sewage  sludge  can  make  it  more  difficult  to  use  it  as  agricultural 
fertilizer. This option has been less and less favoured by operators of WWTPs, due to the presence 
of  various  potential  contaminants  –  mercury  among  others.  However,  the  wastewater  treatment 
organisations consulted during this study did not report that mercury was a significant limiting factor 
in itself for the agricultural use of sewage sludge.  
According  to  a  recent  report  for  the  EC  (Milieu  2010)232,  the  mercury  content  of  sewage  sludge 
recycled to agriculture ranges from 0.2 to 4.6 mg/kg dry matter; the highest concentrations being 
observed in Poland (4.6 mg/kg), Latvia (4.2 mg/kg), Cyprus (3.1 mg/kg) and Slovakia (2.7 mg/kg) 
(see further data in Annex K). Another report mentions average mercury contents between 0.3 and 3 
mg/kg dry matter across the MS (Pancon 2009)233. 

230 Pancon (2009) The EU sludge management (http://140.115.123.119/980626/sppt/2.pdf) 
231 Milieu, WRC, RPA (2010) Environmental, economic and social impacts of the use of sewage sludge on land – Report 

for the EC, Part 1 

232 Milieu, WRC, RPA (2010) Environmental, economic and social impacts of the use of sewage sludge on land – Report 

for the EC, Part 2 (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/sludge/pdf/part_ii_report.pdf) 
233 EC (2001) Disposal and recycling routes for sewage sludge – Scientific and technical report 

(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/sludge/sludge_disposal.htm) 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 167 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
In Sweden, the phase-out of mercury use, the installation of amalgam separators in all dental clinics 
and  the  cleansing  projects  of  mercury  contaminated  sewer  pipes  from  dental  clinics  had  led  to  a 
significant decrease in the mercury content of sewage sludge from approximately 1.1 mg/kg in 1995 
to 0.6 mg/kg in 2008234. 

In 1999, the average mercury content of sludge spread on EU agriculture soils was estimated at 1.5 
mg/kg  of  dry  matter,  implying  the  introduction  of  4.3  t  Hg  to  EU  agricultural  land  annually 
(European  Commission  2004)235.  A  new  calculation  based  on  more  recent  data  shows  that  this 
mercury amount has remained stable (approximately 4.4 t Hg/year as estimated in Annex K). 

Once the sludge is spread onto the soil, mercury present in the sludge may partly volatilise (some 30 
to  60%  of  the  mercury  added  to  the  soil,  occurring  in  open  field  conditions)236.  It  may  also  be 
captured by the vegetation grown on the soil, immobilised in the soil or drained by surface runoff.  

Sludge is regulated by Directive 86/278/EEC of June 1986, which dictates that MS must prohibit the 
application  of  sewage  sludge  to  soil  where  the  concentration  of  one  or  more  metals  in  the  soil 
exceeds certain limit values. For mercury, the limit value in soil is 1 to 1.5 mg/kg of dry matter for 
spreading on soils with a pH higher than 6 and lower than 7. MS must also regulate the use of sludge 
such that the accumulation of heavy metals in soil does not exceed the limit values; they can do this 
in one of two ways: a) by laying down the maximum quantities of sludge which may be applied per 
unit  of  area  per  year  while  observing  limit  values  for  heavy  metal  concentration  in  sludge  –  for 
mercury this limit value is 16 to 25 mg/kg of dry matter; or b) by observing the limit values for the 
quantities of metals introduced into the soil per unit of area and unit of time – for mercury this limit 
value is 0.1 kg/ha/yr. 

Directive 86/278/EEC is currently under review and a study was carried out to analyse the impacts 
of  several  policy  options  to  modify  legislation  on  sewage  sludge  (Milieu  2010)237.  Some  of  the 
options investigated by the study involve lowering the limit value for heavy metals in sludge used 
for agricultural purposes; for mercury, the proposed new limit values would be 10 or even 5 mg/kg 
of dry matter. In practice, several MS have already implemented stricter limit values for mercury in 
sludge, for precautionary reasons. For the other MS, considering the respective mercury contents of 
sludge  currently  used  for  agricultural  purposes  (0.2-4.6  mg/kg  in  dry  weight,  as  presented  above), 
the implementation of a lower limit value would not be a problem in most cases.  

  Sludge incineration 

The  incineration  of  sewage  sludge  is  becoming  more  widespread  in  the  EU.  Mercury  present  in 
sludge is partly captured by flue gas cleaning devices (depending on the abatement devices in place), 
the  remainder  being  discharged  to  the  atmosphere.  Part  of  the  mercury  may  be  captured  by 
conventional  multi-pollutant  abatement  devices  (e.g.  dust  filters,  scrubbers),  with  varying 
efficiencies with  regard  to  mercury removal.  In  order  to improve  the capture of mercury  – among 
other micro-pollutants – some WWTPs have invested in activated carbon filters. For example, one 
large  WWTP  in  Bilbao,  Spain,  reported  that  they  recently  invested  in  two  activated  carbon  filters 
(4.3 million EUR investment) and two mercury emissions analysers (140 kEUR investment)238; it is 

234 Information provided by Sweden via the study questionnaire 
235 EC (2004) EU Legislation and Policy Relating to Mercury and its Compounds. Working Document of the European 

Commission, DG Environment. Prepared to inform the development of an EU strategy on mercury. 

236 EC (2001) Disposal and recycling routes for sewage sludge – Scientific and technical report 

(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/sludge/sludge_disposal.htm) 

237 Milieu, WRC, RPA (2010) Environmental, economic and social impacts of the use of sewage sludge on land – Report 

for the EC (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/sludge/pdf/part_ii_report.pdf) 

238 Information provided by the Bilbao wastewater treatment company via the study questionnaire 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 168 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
however not clear whether the Bilbao example should be regarded as best practice or as a common 
feature of many WWTPs in the EU. 
As an example, a mercury mass balance was performed in 2007 by Balogh and Nollet239 at a large 
metropolitan WWTP employing sludge incineration, which had been recently upgraded to provide 
for greater mercury control. The upgrade included a new fluidized bed sludge incineration facility 
equipped  with  activated  carbon  addition  and  baghouse  carbon  capture  for  the  removal  of  mercury 
from  the  incinerator  offgas.  The  results  showed  that  mercury  discharges  to  air  from  the  plant 
represented  less  than  5%  of  the  mass  of  mercury  entering  the  plant,  while  the  remaining  mercury 
was  captured  in  the  ash/carbon  residual  stream  exiting  the  new  incineration  process.  It  should  be 
noted that such an example represents best practice rather than the average EU situation. 

Solid residues from WWTP incinerators generally follow the same disposal routes as residues from 
non-hazardous waste incinerators (see Section C.7). 

  Sludge landfilling 

Landfill disposal of sludge has been the most widely used and lowest cost method of sludge disposal 
in  Europe,  but  it  is  now  widely  recognised  as  being  an  unsustainable  outlet  due  to  concerns  over 
pollution, loss of recyclable materials and loss of void for those wastes which cannot be recycled. 
The  EC  Landfill  Directive  (1999/31/EC)  requires  all  MS  to  develop  national  strategies  to  reduce 
biodegradable  wastes  going  to  landfill.  In  fact,  a  number  of  MS  have  already  introduced  such 
measures, which when fully implemented in the next few years will effectively ban the disposal of 
sludge in landfill, unless it is as ash. 

The  behaviour  of  mercury  contained  in  sludge  going  to  landfill  is  difficult  to  predict  as  it  is  very 
much  dependent  on  the  storage  conditions.  Mercury  emissions  to  air,  surface  water,  soil  and 
groundwater  may  occur,  as  these  landfills  are  not  designed  for  the  storage  of  mercury-containing 
waste. 

10B.8.3  –  Overall  environmental  releases  from  wastewater  treatment  and  sludge 
management 

According  to  Concorde/EEB183,  a  rough  estimate  of  mercury  emissions  to  the  different 
environmental compartments arising from the presence of dental mercury in the inflow of WWTP 
can be given as follows: 10% of mercury entering urban WWTPs is finally released to the air, 40% 
to surface water and 50% to soil and groundwater; none of this mercury can be considered as being 
sequestered  for  long-term.  The  same  allocation  rule  has  been  used  in  the  present  study,  in  the 
absence of more accurate and up-to-date information. 

10B.9 – Mercury emissions from crematoria 

10B.9.1 – Estimates of atmospheric mercury releases 

According  to  previous  studies,  cremation  represents  a  significant  contribution  to  mercury  air 
emissions associated with the life cycle of dental amalgam. 

The Extended Impact Assessment (ExIA) of the EU Mercury Strategy provided an estimate of EU 
mercury emissions cremation in the order of 2 to 2.3 t Hg/year in 2002. The ExIA commented that 
‘although cremation is not an especially large source of emissions in relative terms, it is significant 
in some countries, and unlike the main industrial emissions it is not subject to any EU legislation’; it 

239  Balogh,  S.  J.,  &  Nollet,  Y.  H.  (2008)  Mercury  mass  balance  at  a  wastewater  treatment  plant  employing  sludge 

incineration with off gas mercury control. Science of the Total Environment, 389, 125–131 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 169 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
was furthermore stated that ‘mercury fillings are the larger reservoir of mercury in society behind 
the chlor-alkali industry, highlighting the possibility of significant total emissions over a period of 
many years’. The Concorde/EEB report provided an estimate of 4.5 t Hg/year in 2004 on the basis of 
information from the Cremation Society of Great Britain240. A report by AMAP/UNEP provided an 
estimate of 3.5 t in 2005, noting the high uncertainty associated with this figure241. 

Mercury emissions from this sector are not covered by current EU legislation but they are regulated 
in  several  MS  (Emission  Limit  Values  (ELVs)  for  mercury  and/or  requirement  for  mercury 
abatement devices). In addition, Parties to the OSPAR Convention, which include twelve MS, have 
proposed  using  Best  Available  Techniques 
to  reduce  mercury  air  emissions  (OSPAR 
Recommendation 2003/4, as amended). Parties to the HELCOM Convention have also proposed to 
apply ELVs for mercury emissions from crematoria (HELCOM Recommendation 29/1). A summary 
of existing legislation in MS is provided in Annex B.  

Policy  options  to  reduce  mercury  emissions  from  crematoria  were  investigated  in  the  ExIA  of  the 
Mercury Strategy in 2005. It was concluded that Community-level action was not appropriate at that 
stage,  mainly  because  such  emissions  were  covered  by  an  OSPAR  Recommendation  and  by 
legislation in some of the remaining MS that are not parties to the OSPAR Convention. The ExIA 
also noted that available data on the extent of emissions from cremation were limited and that future 
reporting required by the OSPAR Recommendation would provide an initial indication of the extent 
to which the Recommendation is being applied.  

As part of this study, the following new data has been reviewed: 

  Latest emission data reported under the OSPAR Recommendation 2003/4 (overview report 
issued in August 2011)242 

  Data provided by the stakeholders contacted for this study (replies to the questionnaires) 

  Latest cremation statistics243. 

According to international cremation statistics244, the use of cremation has increased in EU countries 
over  the  last  few  years:  in  2009  approximately  51%  of  deceased  persons  were  cremated245  vs. 
approximately  42%  in  2005246.  Countries  with  the  highest  rates  of  cremations  in  2009  were  the 
Czech Republic (80%), Sweden (77%), Slovenia (75%) and the UK (73%). The use of cremation has 
increased in  all  EU  countries  for  which  data  is available,  with  significant  increases  noted  in  some 
MS  such  as  Portugal  (+13%  between  2005  and  2009)  or  Slovenia  (+7.5%).  In  Poland,  the  rate  of 
cremation  is  expected  to  double  between  2006  (5%)  and  2020  (10%)247.  In  Greece,  Lithuania  and 
Cyprus, there are no crematoria. 

240 Cremation Society of Great Britain, 2004 statistics 
241 AMAP/UNEP (2008) Technical background report to the global atmosphere mercury assessment 
242 OSPAR (2011) Overview assessment of implementation reports on OSPAR Recommendation 2003/4 on controlling 
the dispersal of mercury from crematoria (http://www.ospar.org/documents/dbase/publications/p00532_Rec_2003-
4_Overview_report.pdf) 

243 Cremation Society of Great Britain (http://www.srgw.demon.co.uk/CremSoc4/Stats/index.html) 
244 Cremation Society of Great Britain (http://www.srgw.demon.co.uk/CremSoc4/Stats/index.html) 
245 Based on data from 14 MS 
246 Based on data from 18 MS 
247  NILU  Polska  (2010)  Cost-benefit  analysis  of  impact  on  human  health  and  environment  of  mercury  emission 

reduction in Poland – Stage 1 (http://www.gios.gov.pl/zalaczniki/artykuly/etap1_20101022.pdf)  

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 170 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
Recent  estimates  of  mercury  air  emissions  from  crematoria  in  MS  are  presented  in  Annex L, 
covering  25  MS248.  Some  of  these  estimates  correspond  to  data  reported  under  the  OSPAR 
Convention while others were obtained through the study questionnaires or were estimated by BIO 
using the most recent cremation statistics. In these 25 MS, there are about 2,700 crematoria. Based 
on  data  for  16  MS,  it  can  be  estimated  that  approximately  40%  crematoria  are  equipped  with 
mercury abatement devices, but this proportion varies greatly across MS as shown in Figure 10B-b 
below.  

Figure 10B-b: Share of crematoria equipped with mercury abatement devices in 16 MS249 

It is difficult to know how EU emissions have evolved over the last few years, due to a lack of data 
in  a  number  of  MS.  However,  the  following  national  trends  can  be  noted  based  on  information 
reviewed to date: 

  UK:  Reported  emissions  have  more  than  doubled  between  2002  (~400  kg)  and  2010  (~940 
kg)250.  In  2004,  the  UK  Department  for  Environment,  Food  and  Rural  Affairs  (DEFRA) 
estimated that the amount of mercury from cremations would increase in the UK by two-thirds 
between 2000 and 2020, accounting for over 25% of the national mercury emissions to the air in 
2020, in the absence of further abatement measures251. 

  France: Reported data shows an increase in emissions between 2002 (200 kg) and 2009 (307-
407 kg)252. 

  Sweden:  Although  the  number  of  crematoria  applying  mercury  removal  techniques  has 
increased between 2004 and 2009253, overall mercury emissions from crematoria have increased 

248 MS not included are BG, MT 
249 CY, GR, LT: no crematoria. For other MS, no information is available on the share of crematoria equipped with Hg 

abatement devices. 

250 Sources: 2002 value from OSPAR overview report published in 2003; 2010 value provided by CAMEO (Crematoria 
Abatement of Emissions Organisation) for this study. In addition, the value reported for 2009 was 730 kg (according 
to OSPAR overview report published in 2011) 

251  DEFRA  (2004)  Mercury  emissions  from  crematoria.  Second  consultation  on  an  assessment  by  the  Environment 

Agency’s Local Authority Unit 

252 Source: OSPAR overview reports published in 2003 and 2011, respectively 
253 2004 data for Sweden available here: 

http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/resultsdataflow?dataflow_uris=http%3A%2F%2Frod.eionet.eu.int%2Fobligations%2F492

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 171 of 186 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%FIHUIEPTESFRPLATUKITSENLDEBEDKLU 
 
 
                                                 
during this time period (from 58 kg in 2004 to 114 kg in 2010), partly due to a higher number of 
cremations occurring in crematoria not equipped with abatement devices. 
  Netherlands: A significant decrease can be observed between 2002 (80 kg) and 2010 (33 kg)254, 
with an increasing share of crematoria equipped with mercury abatement devices. 
  Germany:  A  decreasing  trend  is  observed  between  2002  (42-168  kg)  and  2008  (39 kg)255, 
although there was significant uncertainty on the 2002 estimate. 
  Denmark: Emissions were estimated at 60 kg in 2002 and 70-104 kg in 2008256 but are expected 
to have significantly decreased in 2011, as all crematoria are now fitted with mercury abatement 
devices to comply with national legislation (compliance deadline was January 2011). 

  Belgium: Between 2006 and 2009, mercury emissions have remained stable (while the number 
of cremations has slightly increased both in crematoria with and without mercury abatement). 

For the 25 MS for which  data is available or could be  estimated,  it is roughly estimated that total 
mercury air emissions are in the order of 2.8 t Hg/year257 (for the OSPAR Convention area alone, 
the 2011 OSPAR overview report provided a rough and provisional estimate of between 1 and 2 t 
Hg/year). This should be considered only as a rough estimate, as there is significant uncertainty on 
national  mercury  emission  estimates.  As  mentioned  by  the  OSPAR  overview  report,  several 
measurement/estimation  methodologies  are  currently  used  and  the  reliability  of  some  these 
methodologies  is  questionable.  In  spite  of  some  upwards  trends  observed  in  some  MS,  this  result 
suggests that overall EU mercury emissions have not increased since 2005. Estimated emissions per 
Member State are presented in Figure 10B-c below: 

Figure 10B-c: Estimated annual Hg emissions from crematoria in 25 MS 

The  three MS  with  the  greatest  emissions  and  showing  significant  increases  in  emissions  over  the 
last few years are the UK, Spain and France. For the UK and France, more stringent legislation has 
been implemented recently: 

&years%3Aint%3Aignore_empty=&partofyear=&country=&sort_on=reportingdate&sort_order=reverse; 2010 data 
provided by KEMI as part of this study 

254 Source: OSPAR overview reports published in 2003 and recent data provided by the Ministry of Environment for this 

study 

255 Source: OSPAR overview reports published in 2003 and 2011, respectively 
256 Source: OSPAR overview reports published in 2003 and 2011, respectively 
257 MS for which no estimates could be made, due to a lack of data, are: BG, MT 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 172 of 186 

01002003004005006007008009001,000CYGRLTLUROLVIEEESISKPTBENLDEATFIPLDKHUSEITCZFRESUKkg Hg/year 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                   
  UK: Requirement for abatement to be fitted covering 50% of cremations by end 2012, plus all 
new crematoria to have abatement from 2005258.  

  France:  A  Ministerial Order from  January  2010 introduced an emission  limit value of 0.2  mg 
Hg/Nm3 applicable as of 2010 for new crematoriums and as of 2018 for existing ones259.  

No  information  is  available  on  the  actual  or  projected  environmental  impacts  of  the  above 
regulations, however  it can  be assumed that  the more stringent  legal requirements implemented in 
these  two  countries  would  greatly  contribute  to  stabilising  emissions  (or  at  least  slowing  down 
emissions increase) within the OSPAR Convention Area, after 2020.  
In spite of the decreasing emission trends that can be expected from these measures, there are two 
main parameters that tend to counteract emission abatement efforts:  

  A growing trend towards the use of cremation (rather than burial), particularly in big cities, 
as  mentioned  in  the  OSPAR  report  of  2011260.  Crematoria  companies  who  responded  to 
the study questionnaire also reported upward trends261.  

  An increasing proportion of deceased people having amalgam fillings. 

10B.9.2 – Mercury deposition from crematoria 

Little data is currently available on the possible impacts resulting from mercury deposition around 
crematoria.  A  study  was  conducted  in  the  UK  in  2008,  on  behalf  of  the  UK  Food  Standards 
Agency262,  which  demonstrated that,  based  on  a  highly  conservative risk assessment,  the  potential 
exposure of members of the public to mercury arising from crematoria stack emissions via foodstuff 
consumption  is  almost  certainly  indistinguishable  from  the  existing  background  concentrations  of 
mercury existing in the UK population diet. The study concluded that there is no observed impact of 
mercury emissions from crematoria on human health via foodstuff consumption. 

10B.10 – Mercury emissions from other sources 

  Emissions from people’s mouths 

A rough estimate of around 2 t Hg/year exhaled by EU-27 citizens was given by a previous study183. 

258 Environment Permitting Regulations 2007 (January 2005) 
259 Ministerial Order of 28 January 2010 concerning emissions from crematoriums 
260 OSPAR (2011) Overview assessment of implementation reports on OSPAR Recommendation 2003/4 on controlling 

the dispersal of mercury from crematoria 

261 In Italy, the Federal Utility company estimated an increase by about 4,000 to 5,000 cremations per year in the next 5 
years. In Portugal, the national funerals association estimated an increase from 14 crematoria and 8,752 cremations in 
2010 to approximately 25 crematoria and 15,000 cremations/year in 2016. In the Netherlands, a slight increase in the 
number of cremations, in the order of 0.5% per year, is expected by the Facultatieve Technologies group. 

262 Michael D. Wood, Adrian Punt and Richard T. Leah (2008) Assessment of the mercury concentrations in soil and 

vegetation, including crops, around crematoria to determine the impact of mercury emissions on food safety. Report 
for the UK Food Standards Agency (http://foodbase.org.uk/admintools/reportdocuments/323-1-
574_C02070_27_april_09.pdf) 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 173 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
  Emissions from burial 

The burial of deceased persons with mercury fillings eventually leads to mercury releases to the soil 
and groundwater, however it is difficult to estimate the magnitude of such releases in the absence of 
any data.  

It  is  assumed  that  deceased  persons  have  an  average  of  1.5  g  Hg  in  the  mouth  (older  people  are 
supposed to have slightly less mercury in their mouth than the average EU population, due to fewer 
remaining  teeth).  Given  the  number  of  deceased  persons  in  EU27  (approximately  4.9  million  in 
2010)263  and  considering  that  about  half  are  buried264,  this  corresponds  to  approximately  3.7  t  of 
Hg/year.  

Considering  that  the  other  half  of  deceased  people  are  subject  to  cremation,  a  similar  amount  of 
mercury  would  be  emitted  from  crematoria  if  there  were  no  mercury  abatement  devices  (the  total 
amount  of  mercury  air  emissions  from  crematoria,  estimated  using  another  methodology  is 
approximately 2.8 t Hg/year). 

10B.11 – Contribution to overall mercury releases 

By summing up amounts of mercury released to air/water/soil as estimated in the previous sections, 
it can be concluded that the current and historical use of dental amalgam leads to265: 

  ~ 16 to 23 t Hg/year emitted to the air 

  ~ 2 to 4 t Hg/year emitted to surface water 

  ~ 16 to 24 t Hg/year emitted to the soil and groundwater 

  ~ 31 to 46 t Hg/year sequestered for long-term or recycled. 

The above estimates suggest that 34 to 50 t/year of mercury from current and historical use of 
dental  amalgam  are  emitted  to  the  environment  with  some  potential  for  becoming 
bioavailable,  while  31  to  46  t/year  can  be  considered as  being  either  sequestered for  long-term 
(i.e. no longer bioavailable) or recycled. 

Once  in  the  environment,  changes  in  pH,  oxygen  availability,  temperature,  presence  of  other  ions 
and  actions  of  abrasion  and  corrosion  can  allow  the  mercury  in  amalgam  to  be  used  by  bacteria, 
which  are  able  to  convert  it  to  the  more  toxic  organic  methyl-mercury266,267.  Organic  mercury  is 
readily  bioavailable  and  once  entering  the  food web,  it  tends  to  accumulate  in  the  organisms.  The 
organism concentrations of methyl mercury increases (biomagnifies) when passing the food web to 
reach  highest  concentrations  in  top  predators  such  as  certain  birds  and  piscivorous  fishes,  being 
popular  for  human  consumption268,269.  Methylation  to  methylmercury  already  starts  in  the 
wastewater before reaching its recipient270. 

263 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:Number_of_deaths,_EU-

27,_(1)_(million).png&filetimestamp=20111018093516) 

264 International cremation statistics 2009 (http://www.srgw.demon.co.uk/CremSoc5/Stats/Interntl/2009/StatsIF.html) 
265 The figures below take into account a +/-20% uncertainty range 
266  Kao  RT,  Dault  S  and  Pichay  T  (2004).  Understanding  the  mercury  reduction  issue:  the  impact  of  mercury  on  the 

environment and human health. J Calif Dent Assoc 32: 574–9. 

267 Jones DW (2004). Putting dental mercury pollution into perspective. Br Dent J 197: 175–7. 
268 UNEP (2002) Global mercury assessment report 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 174 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
Mercury  emission  estimates  from  dental  amalgam  use  can  then  be  compared  with  available 
estimates  of  overall  mercury  releases  to  air/water/soil  in  the  EU,  in  order  to  assess  the  relative 
contribution  of  dental  mercury  to  the  overall  mercury  problem  in  the  EU.  This  comparison  is 
presented in Table 10B-c below. It is important to note that available estimates of overall mercury 
releases to air/water/soil in the EU should be considered as low-end estimates, due to limitations in 
the  scope  of  Hg  emissions  covered  (given  the  wide  range  of  anthropogenic  mercury  emission 
sources, some of the reported data only covers certain emission sources). Consequently, estimates of 
dental amalgam use contribution to EU releases that are presented in the table below may be over-
estimated and should be considered as high-end estimates. 

Table 10B-0-c:  

Comparison between dental Hg release estimates and overall Hg releases in 

the EU 

Environmental 
media 

Hg releases 
from dental 
amalgam use 
(t/year) (1) 

Available data on overall anthropogenic Hg 
releases in the EU (t/year) (low-end 
estimates) 

Dental amalgam use 
contribution to EU 
releases (high-end 
estimates) 

Air 

16 - 23 

Surface water 

2 - 4 

EU report under UNECE Convention on LRTAP 
(2): 73 t in 2009 

E-PRTR (3): 31.3 t in 2009 (only industrial 
facilities). The main contribution is from coal 
combustion plants (16.1 t, i.e. 51%) 

Sunseth et al.(4): 105 t in 2005 

Based on LRTAP data: 

21 - 32% (5) 

E-PRTR (6): 6.33 t in 2009 from industrial 
facilities (including urban WWTPs contributing 
2.52 t, i.e. 40%) 

Sunseth et al. (4): 27 t in 2005 (urban WWTPs 
estimated to contribute 6 t, i.e. 22%) 

Based on Sunseth et al. 
data: 

9 - 13% (7) 

Soil and 
groundwater 

16 - 24 

E-PRTR (8): 0.26 t in 2009 from industrial 
facilities (including urban WWTPs contributing 
0.213 t, i.e. 82%), however this value only 
covers a very small proportion of overall Hg 
releases to soil 

Not quantifiable 

(1) Estimates developed in the present study include a +/- 20% uncertainty range. 

(2) EEA (2011) European Union emission inventory report 1990–2009 under the UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary 
Air Pollution (LRTAP), Table 2.13 (http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eu-emission-inventory-report-1990-2009). Covers a wide 
range of emission sources: energy production and distribution / energy use in industry / industrial processes / solvent and product use / 
commercial, institutional and households (energy use) / road transport / non-road transport / agriculture / waste management 

(3)  European  Pollutant  Release  and  Transfer  Register  (http://prtr.ec.europa.eu/PollutantReleases.aspx).  Covers  facilities  releasing 
more than 10 kg/year of Hg to the air 

269  Zhao  X,  Rockne  KJ,  Drummond  JL,  Hurley  RK,  Shade  CW  and  Hudson  RJM  (2008)  Characterization  of  Methyl 
Mercury  in  Dental  Wastewater  and  Correlation  with  Sulfate-Reducing  Bacterial  DNA.  Environmental  Science  & 
Technology 42: 2780 -2786 

270  Zhao  X,  Rockne  KJ,  Drummond  JL,  Hurley  RK,  Shade  CW  and  Hudson  RJM  (2008)  Characterization  of  Methyl 
Mercury  in  Dental  Wastewater  and  Correlation  with  Sulfate-Reducing  Bacterial  DNA.  Environmental  Science  & 
Technology 42: 2780 -2786 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 175 of 186 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                   
(4) Sundseth K, Pacyna JM, Pacyna EG, Panasiuk D (2011) Substance flow analysis of mercury affecting water quality in the EU. 
Water Air Soil Pollut. 223: 429-442. This study covers a much wider range of human activities in the EU than the EPRTR. 

(5) The LRTAP value is chosen to estimate this ratio, because it is the most recent value available for overall EU air emissions from 
anthropogenic activities. 

(6)  European  Pollutant  Release  and  Transfer  Register  (http://prtr.ec.europa.eu/PollutantReleases.aspx).  Covers  facilities  releasing 
more than 1 kg/year of Hg to water, hence the scope of the reported values is limited. 

 (7) The value from Sunseth et al. (2011) is chosen to estimate this ratio, because it covers a wider scope than the E-PRTR value for 
direct mercury discharges to the aquatic environment. 

(8)  European  Pollutant  Release  and  Transfer  Register  (http://prtr.ec.europa.eu/PollutantReleases.aspx).  Covers  facilities  releasing 
more than 1 kg/year of Hg to soil. 

The above comparison suggests that mercury emissions from the current and historical use of dental 
amalgam, expressed in terms of total Hg concentrations, still represent a significant contribution to 
overall  EU  mercury  releases  to  air  and  surface  water.  Part  of  the  mercury  emitted  to  the  air  may 
actually  be  deposited  after  some  time,  and  may  enter  other  environmental  compartments  (surface 
water, soil and groundwater, vegetation). Contribution of dental amalgam use to mercury releases to 
soil and groundwater is difficult to quantify in the absence of any relevant data concerning total EU 
releases to soil and groundwater. 
One  important  limitation  to  the  assessment  of  environmental  impacts  from  dental  mercury  is  that 
mercury  uses  and  releases  can  only  be  estimated  in  terms  of  total  elemental  Hg  loads,  while  the 
actual  environmental  impacts  depend  on  the  mercury  species  involved  and,  in  particular,  the 
quantities of bioavailable methylmercury released in the environment (methylmercury is one of the 
most toxic forms of mercury, which also accumulates and biomagnifies in the food chain). Because 
the mercury methylation and demethylation processes are not very well understood at present, it is 
not  possible  to  accurately  model  the  possible  biochemical  transformations  of  mercury  originating 
from  dental  amalgam  and  its  environmental  impacts.  However,  the  comparison  presented  above 
shows that dental amalgam is a significant contributor to overall anthropogenic mercury releases in 
the  EU.  According  to  calculations  based  on  the  critical  load  concept  (mainly  based  on 
ecotoxicological effects and human health effects via ecosystems), more than 70% of the European 
ecosystem area is estimated to be at risk today due to mercury levels, with critical loads for mercury 
exceeded  in  large  parts  of  western,  central  and  southern  Europe271.  As  a  significant  source  of 
mercury  in  the  environment,  the  current  and  historical  use  of  dental  amalgam  contributes  to  this 
environmental risk. 

271  Hettelingh,  J.P.,  J.  Sliggers  (eds.),  M.  van  het  Bolcher,  H.  Denier  van  der  Gon,  B.J.Groenenberg,  I.  Ilyin,    G.J. 
Reinds, J. Slootweg,  O. Travnikov,  A. Visschedijk, and  W. de Vries (2006). Heavy Metal Emissions, Depositions, 
Critical Loads and Exceedances in Europe. VROM-DGM report, www.mnp.nl/cce, 93 pp.; CEE Status Reports 2008 
(Chapter  7,  http://www.rivm.nl/thema/images/CCE08_Chapter_7_tcm61-41910.pdf)  and  2010 
(Chapter  8, 
http://www.rivm.nl/thema/images/SR2010_Ch8_tcm61-49679.pdf) 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 176 of 186 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 10B-d Main mercury flows associated with dental amalgam use (t Hg/year) 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 177 of 186 

Use of amalgam in dental practicesAmalgam fillings removalTooth extraction / lost teethAmalgam fillings  in deceased peopleAmalgam deterioration from chewing, contact with hot beverages and corrosionHg accumulated in people’s mouths for 10-15 years on averageSurplus of mixed amalgamCarved surplus amalgamCremationBurialUrban WWTP(Hg abatement device)SOLID WASTE AND SLUDGEChair side trap(Vacuum filter)(Amalgam separator)SEWAGE SLUDGETo air: 3 tTo air: 0.5 tTo soil & gw: 0.5 tSequestered: 2 tTo air: 4 tTo water: 1 tTo soil & gw: 8 tSequestered or recycled: 36 tTo air: 0.5 tTo air: 3 tTo water: 1 tTo air: 6 tTo water: 1 tTo soil & gw: 8 tTo soil & gw: 4 tTo air: 2 tSequestered: 1 t38 tTo wastewater: 46 t11 t75 t56 t8 t11 tQuantities indicated in this diagram correspond to rough estimates of average annual mercury flows at EU27 levelWWTP: wastewater treatment plantgw: groundwater30 t13 t36 t13 t3 t2-3 t4  t4  t15 tHAZARDOUS WASTENON-HAZARDOUS WASTEBIOMEDICAL WASTEHAZARDOUS WASTEHg losses during dental amalgam lifetime (~10 to 15 years on average) 
 
 
 
ANNEX 10C – USE OF SEPARATORS IN DENTAL PRACTICES 

Country 

Legal 
requirement to 
install 
amalgam 
separators 

Estimated % 
dental clinics 
equipped with 
amalgam 
separators 

Austria 

Yes 

100% 

Belgium 

Yes 

‘near 100%’ 

Bulgaria 

No 

Czech 
Republic 

Yes 

100% 

Cyprus 

No 

Most dental clinics 
have modern 
equipment and 
therefore amalgam 
separators 

Denmark 

No 

100% 

Maintenance 
requirements and 
actual efficiency 
levels 

Maintenance required 
by law, with 
documented evidence 
and periodic 
inspections of 
authorities concerning 
the management of 
waste.  

Information source 

Questionnaire 2011 
(Dental Chamber and 
Ministry of the 
Environment) 

In Brussels: 
Maintenance required 
by law.  

Questionnaire 2011 
(IGBE Brussels; 
DGARNE - DPEAI – 
DCC)  

Questionnaire 2011 
(Ministry of the 
Environment) 

Questionnaire 2011 
(Ministry of the 
Environment) and 
EC 2005 survey 

Questionnaire 2011 
(Ministry of the 
Environment) and 
EC 2005 survey 

Periodic inspections 
are carried out by 
public authorities.  

Periodic inspections 
are carried out by 
public authorities.  

Questionnaire 2011 
(Danish EPA) 

Additional 
requirements 

Required in new and 
existing dental offices; 
95% min efficiency; 
documented evidence 
of proper maintenance 
required; max 
concentration of Hg: 
0.01 mg/l 

Flanders: certification; 
max concentration of 
Hg: 0.01 mg/l 
Walloon Region: max 
concentration of Hg: 
0.3 mg/l 
Brussels: max 
concentration of Hg: 
0.03 mg/l 

 Amalgam separators 
are advised but are not 
yet mandatory. 
However, all modern 
dental chairs are 
equipped with amalgam 
separators. 

Required for new and 
existing practices.  
Min efficiency: 95% 
Hg limit value: 0.05 
mg/l 

No obligatory legal 
requirement; however 
in practice there are 
separators in every 
dental clinic due to a 
guidance document 
from the Ministry of 
The Environment. All 
municipalities follow 
this guidance, as they 
are in charge of the 
waste water treatment 
and surface water 
quality within their 
municipality. 

Estonia 

No 

Amalgam separators 
and filters installed 
only in a few 

EC 2005 survey 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 178 of 186 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Country 

Legal 
requirement to 
install 
amalgam 
separators 

Estimated % 
dental clinics 
equipped with 
amalgam 
separators 

facilities. 

Additional 
requirements 

Maintenance 
requirements and 
actual efficiency 
levels 

Information source 

France 

Yes 

‘near 100%’ 

95% min efficiency 

Finland 

Yes 

100% 

Required for new and 
existing dental 
practices. 
95% min efficiency 

French authorities 
(stakeholder 
consultation 2012) 

Questionnaire 2011 
(SYKE) and EC 
2005 survey 

Germany 

Yes 

100% 

95% min efficiency; 
ISO 11143; max 
concentration of Hg: 
0.005 mg/l 

Inspection by 
qualified technicians 
of national authorities 
is carried out every 3-
5 years.  

Questionnaire 2011 
(German Dental 
Association) 

Greece 

No 

Amalgam separators 
installed in most 
recent facilities 

A survey conducted in 
the Thessaloniki 
urban area in 2006, it 
was noted that none of 
the dental units used 
amalgam chairiside 
traps or amalgam 
separators. Some had 
the appropriate 
equipment, but used 
the traps only to avoid 
clogging in the pipes, 
and the contents were 
washed out in the 
washstands of the 
dental units. Hg-
bearing dental wastes 
were not managed 
properly by 80% of 
dentists and 
metalbearing waste 
was handled in 
accordance with 
internationally 
established best 
management practices 
by less than 50% of 
dentists272. 

EC 2005 survey; 
Kontogianni et al. 
2008 (Survey on 
dental waste 
management in the 
Thessaloniki urban 
area) 

Hungary 

No 

New and modern 
dental clinics tend to 
be equipped with 
amalgam separators. 

 The installation of 
amalgam separators is 
only recommended and 
therefore not uniformly 
applied. 

Questionnaire 2011 
(Ministry of the 
Environment) 

272 Dental waste mismanagement was found to be primarily due to the lack of  general awareness among dentists that 
their  waste  is  hazardous  and  should  be  managed  properly  and  a  lack  of  regulatory  control  and  support  by 
governmental agencies and dentistry associations. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 179 of 186 

 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
                                                 
Country 

Legal 
requirement to 
install 
amalgam 
separators 

Estimated % 
dental clinics 
equipped with 
amalgam 
separators 

Additional 
requirements 

Maintenance 
requirements and 
actual efficiency 
levels 

Information source 

Ireland 

no (but 
voluntary 
initiatives) 

Italy 

Yes 

90% 

 Required in existing 
and new dental 
practices 

Periodic inspections 
by public authorities 
are carried out. 

Questionnaire 2011 
(Ministry of the 
Environment)and EC 
2005 survey 

Yearly Inspections by 
ASL (local health 
authority) on the 
waste procedures is 
requried by law 

Questionnaire 2011 
(Italian Dental 
Assoc.) 

Latvia 

Yes 

100% 

Required in existing 
and new dental 
practices 

Maintenance required 
by law, with 
documented evidence. 

Questionnaire 2011 
(Ministry of the 
Environment) 

Lithuania 

No 

Luxembourg 

? 

? 

Malta 

Yes 

100% 

 Questionnaire 2011 
(Ministry of the 
Environment) 

Questionnaire 2011 
(Ministry of the 
Environment) 

Documented evidence 
of amalgam 
separators' 
maintenance required 
by law. Yearly 
inspections by 
authorities are carried 
out and the results 
obtained show a good 
level of compliance. If 
a clinic does not 
comply it is shut 
down until it complies 
with specifications. 

Netherlands 

Yes 

90% (in 2005) 

95% min efficiency 

 EC 2005 survey 

Poland 

No 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Yes 

? 

No 

90% (in 2005) 

? 

New facilities only 

Slovenia 

Yes 

95% 

Spain 

? 

? 

 Recommended by the 
national authorities. A 
regulatory proposal was 
drafted to make it 
obligatory but has not 
been adopted to date. 

Verbal information 
from the Polish 
Chamber of 
Physicians and 
Dentists   

EC 2005 survey 

EC 2005 survey 

Required for new and 
existing dental 
practices.  
85% min efficiency 
Hg limit value: ,01 
mg/L. 

Periodic inspections 
are carried out by the 
public authorities. 

Questionnaire 2011 
(Ministry of the 
Environment) 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 180 of 186 

 
 
 
  
 
  
   
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
Country 

Legal 
requirement to 
install 
amalgam 
separators 

Estimated % 
dental clinics 
equipped with 
amalgam 
separators 

Additional 
requirements 

Sweden 

Yes 

100% 

95% min efficiency 

United 
Kingdom 

Yes 

99% 

Required for new and 
existing dental 
practices 
95% min efficiency 
Separators should meet 
the requirements of 
British Standard 
‘Dental Equipment – 
Amalgam Separators’ 
(BS ISO EN 111:43 as 
amended by Cor. 
1:2000) 
Documented evidence 
of proper maintenance 
required. 

Information source 

Questionnaire 2011 
(KEMI) 

Questionnaire 2011 
(DEFRA) 

Maintenance 
requirements and 
actual efficiency 
levels 

The dentists in 
Sweden have an 
obligation to inspect 
their own equipment. 
Inspections are also 
made by the local 
authorities and by the 
suppliers of amalgam 
separators.  

Adequate 
maintenance is 
required by law, with 
documented evidence 
of it. 
Periodic inspection of 
waste management in 
separators is already 
in place across most 
of the UK and steps 
are being taken to 
bring this into scope 
where it is not yet part 
of current monitoring 
arrangements. 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 181 of 186 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 10D – ENVIRONMENTAL COST OF DENTAL AMALGAM USE 

This  annex  provides  a  compilation  of  data  on  costs  associated  with  the  environmental  impacts  of 
dental amalgam.  

Environmental costs incurred by dentists 
Environmental costs incurred by dentists mainly include costs for the installation and maintenance 
of  amalgam  separators  and  costs  for  the  collection  and  treatment  of  amalgam  waste  as  hazardous 
waste.  These  costs  result  from  the  need  for  dental  practices  to  comply  with  EU  waste  legislation, 
which considers dental amalgam waste as hazardous waste. It can be assumed that such costs are to 
some extent included in the dentists’ fees. 

   Cost of amalgam separators 

A  study  carried  out  by  the  US  Environment  Protection  Agency  (EPA)273  estimated  the  cost  of 
amalgam separators through their life-cycle, including purchase or lease, installation, maintenance, 
replacement, transportation and recycling costs. Table 10D-a below shows the estimated costs, per 
size  of  dental  office  and  per  life-cycle  stage.  The  distribution  of  costs  indicates  that  costs  of 
amalgam separators are very much  dependent on the size of dental  offices as  well as  the installed 
model. In addition, the amount of wastewater discharged determines the needs for maintenance and 
replacements (e.g. of traps and filters).   

Table 10D-0-a: Estimated annual costs for amalgam separators by size of dental office (2008) 

Type of cost 

Small (1-4 chairs) 

Medium (5-12 chairs) 

Large (+12 chairs) 

Purchase 

Installation 

Maintenance 

Replacement 

Estimated 
annual cost 

$228–$1,370  

$760–$2,510  

$2,850–$10,000  

(€159-€955) 

(€530-€1,749) 

(€1,986-€6,969) 

$114–$228  

$143–$297  

$228–$1,140  

(€79-€159) 

(€100-€207) 

(€159- €794) 

$0–$228  

(€0-€159) 

$57–$856  

(€34-€597) 

$0–$228 

(€0-€159) 

$86–$856  

(€60-€597) 

$0–$228 

(€0-€159) 

$571–$2,400  

(€398-€1,673) 

$211–$1,073  

$293–$1,110  

$1,990–$4,630  

(€147-€748) 

(€204-€767) 

(€1,387-€3,227) 

Source: US EPA (2008), Health Services Industry Detailed Study – Dental Amalgam 

273 US EPA (2008), Health Services Industry Detailed Study – Dental Amalgam 

(http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/304m/upload/2008_09_08_guide_304m_2008_hsi-dental-
200809.pdf) 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 182 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
A report for the Commission in 2008274, estimated the cost of amalgam separators at EUR 400-500 
per  year,  including  installation,  servicing,  in-situ  evaluation  of  filter  efficiency  and  accreditation, 
based on information from Denmark.  

  Costs of hazardous waste management 

The current and historical use of dental amalgam results in the need to separately collect and treat 
dental amalgam waste as hazardous waste. This mainly includes surplus amalgam waste from sludge 
accumulated in amalgam separators and chair-side traps and, to a lesser extent, solid waste from the 
preparation of new amalgam. Indicative annual waste management costs provided by some MS as 
part of this study are shown in Table 10D-0-b.  

Table 10D-0-b: Cost of dental amalgam waste management for dentists 

Country 

Average cost per year 

Austria 

Germany 

Ireland  

Malta 

Sweden 

UK 

100 EUR  

0-600 EUR  

500 EUR  

250 EUR  

100 EUR  

600EUR  

It is important to point out that these costs cannot be attributed solely to dental amalgam waste, since 
amalgam separators also trap waste from Hg-free materials.  

Average 

258 - 358 EUR  

274  COWI/Concorde  (2008)  Options  for  reducing  mercury  use  in  products  and  applications,  and  the  fate  of  mercury 

already circulating in society. Report for DG ENV 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 183 of 186 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Environmental costs incurred by crematoria 

Environmental  costs  incurred  by  crematoria  correspond  to  the  installation  and  maintenance  of 
technical  devices  to  capture  mercury  in  flue  gases  and  disposal  of  captured  mercury  as  hazardous 
waste. According to Defra275, such costs are partly or fully passed on to crematoria’s customers. 

Estimates of costs for different abatement measures are presented in the Table 10D-c. 

Table 10D-0-c: Cost of strategies to avoid Hg pollution related to cremation 

Option 

Geographical scope/ 
year 

Cost (EUR /kg Hg ) 

Reduction potential 

Reference 

Remove dental 
amalgam fillings at 
death 

Sweden, estimated 
2004 

400 

Large 

Hylander et al, 
2006276 

Flue gas cleaning 
with carbon at 
crematoria 

Flue gas cleaning 
with carbon at 
crematoria 

Remove mercury 
from crematoria 
gases (cold start 

furnace) 

Remove mercury 
from crematoria 
gases (warm start 
furnace) 

Sweden, estimated 
2004 

170,000–340,000 

Medium/Large 

Hylander et al, 2006 

UK, estimated 2004 

29,000 

Medium/Large 

Hylander et al, 2006 

OSPAR Convention 
Area, 2003 

25,000 to 37,000 

Medium/ Large 

Derived from 
OSPAR 2003277 

OSPAR Convention 
Area, 2003 

25,000 to 37,000 

Medium/ 

Large 

Derived from 

OSPAR 2003 

The report conducted by COWI/Concorde278 for the Commission provides estimates on the cost of 
bag filters with carbon injection in Denmark (considered as one of the most relevant technologies). 
The  cost  of  this  type  of  installation  is  more  expensive  in  comparison  to  similar  industrial 
installations  due  to  additional  costs  that  arise  from  works  that  are  carried  out  to  improve  the 
aesthetics. For crematoria that already have bag filters installed, COWI/Concorde estimated the cost 
of  adding  a  carbon  dispenser  at  approximately  EUR  8,000  per  kg  Hg  (EUR  22  per  cremation)  in 
Denmark and approximately EUR 17,000 per kg Hg in the UK (EUR 45 per cremation) for a 90% 
Hg removal efficiency. 

275 Public consultations organised by Defra in 2003 and 2004 concerning mercury abatement from crematoria in the UK 
276 Hylander LD  and Goodsite ME (2006) Environmental costs of mercury pollution. Science of the Total Environment, 

368: 352-370 (http://www.elsevier.com/authored_subject_sections/P09/misc/STOTENbestpaper.pdf) 

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

Commission, London 

278  COWI/Concorde  (2008)  Options  for  reducing  mercury  use  in  products  and  applications,  and  the  fate  of  mercury 

already circulating in society 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 184 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
A study carried out in 1999279 in the UK estimates the additional cost per cremation if gas-cleaning 
techniques  are  installed  in  crematoria  within  the  range  £47-67  (EUR  33-46)  per  cremation.  The 
exact value depends on the number of cremations carried out.  
According to Federutility-SEFIT280, in Italy a common technique for reducing mercury air emissions 
from crematoria is the injection of chemicals (normally sorbalite) before the filtration process. The 
additional average cost of such a system is estimated at EUR 80,000-100,000 (excl. VAT) whereas 
the total cost of a filtration system is estimated at EUR 250,000-300,000 (excl. VAT) per cremator. 
The  costs  of  maintenance  are  not  included.  The  cost  of  sorbalite  is  approximately  EUR  3  per 
cremation.  
The  Dutch  manufacturer  of  cremators  Facultatieve  Technologies281  estimates  the  costs  for  the 
installation of FGT (Flue Gas Treatment) at about EUR 350,000 per cremator (excl. VAT).  

The  use  of  activated  carbon  or  specific  chemicals  for  capturing  mercury  in  flue  gases  results  in  a 
significant increase in the volume of hazardous waste and thereby in the disposal cost, as compared 
to the same weight of mercury disposed of as mercury waste in dental clinics. 

Environmental costs related to sewage sludge 
management options 
Estimates on the cost of switching from agricultural use of sludge (landspreading) to other disposal 
routes are presented in Table 10D-0-d below.   

Table  10D-0-d:  Costs  to  switch  from  agricultural  use  of  sludge  (landspreading)  to  other  sludge 
management methods (EUR/t dry solids) 

Member State 

From land-spreading to landfill 

From land-spreading to 
co-incineration 

From land-spreading to 
mono-incineration 

Austria 

Belgium 

Denmark 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Ireland 

Italy 

Luxembourg 

Netherlands 

124 

130 

163 

146 

130 

122 

111 

148 

124 

136 

146 

152 

183 

167 

152 

145 

135 

169 

146 

157 

222 

233 

286 

258 

233 

220 

202 

261 

222 

242 

121 

144 

218 

279 FBCA (2000) The Federation of British Cremation Authorities Statistics 1999, Resugram 43. 27-30, cited in DEFRA 
(2003)  Mercury  Emissions  from  crematoria,  Consultation  an  assessment  by  the  Environment  Agency’s  Local 
Authority Unit  

280 Questionnaire sent in the context of this study.  
281 Questionnaire sent in the context of this study.  

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 185 of 186 

 
 
                                                 
Member State 

From land-spreading to landfill 

From land-spreading to 
co-incineration 

From land-spreading to 
mono-incineration 

Portugal 

Spain 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Estonia 

Hungary 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Malta 

Poland 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

104 

114 

133 

117 

64 

107 

87 

93 

85 

90 

81 

94 

84 

76 

85 

99 

EU average 

110 

128 

137 

155 

140 

91 

131 

113 

118 

111 

116 

107 

119 

110 

102 

111 

124 

134 

190 

206 

238 

211 

126 

195 

163 

172 

160 

168 

154 

174 

158 

145 

160 

183 

200 

Source:  Milieu  et  al  (2010),  Environmental,  economic  and  social  impacts  of  the  use  of  sewage  sludge  on  land,  Part  II,  Table  47. 
Report for DG ENV (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/sludge/pdf/part_ii_report.pdf) 

20151112MercuryPackageIA.docx, Last printed 02/02/2016 10:44 AM 

page 186 of 186