| | STATUS REPORT: MERCURY CELL CHLOR-ALKALI PLANTS IN |
| | 0,66 | | MB | EUROPE |
| | 52 | | stron |
| | 5688 | | ID | European Environmental Bureau |
| | 2006 | | rok |
| | Table of contents |
| | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i |
| | 1 BACKGROUND1 |
| | 2 REVIEW OF PARCOM DECISION 90/3 2 |
| | 3 CHLOR-ALKALI INDUSTRY MERCURY RELEASES .6 |
| | 3.1 EURO CHLOR REPORTS TO OSPAR.6 |
| | 3.2 SOUTHWORTH ET AL. FINDINGS.10 |
| | 3.3 WISCONSIN DNR FINDINGS 13 |
| | 3.4 GRÖNLUND ET AL. AND EMECAP FINDINGS14 |
| | 3.5 IMPLICATIONS OF REVISED MCCAP EMISSIONS.17 |
| | 3.6 NRDC RESEARCH FINDINGS.18 |
| | 3.7 FRENCH INDUSTRY-SPONSORED RESEARCH19 |
| | 3.8 “UNACCOUNTED FOR” MERCURY LOSSES .20 |
| | 3.9 ON-SITE AND LOCAL CONTAMINATION .21 |
| | 4 EU HEALTH RISK FROM MCCAP MERCURY EMISSIONS23 |
| | 4.1 MERCURY STRATEGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT.23 |
| | 4.2 RECENT RESEARCH STUDIES .23 |
| | 4.3 OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING HEALTH BENEFITS OF REDUCED EMISSIONS 25 |
| | 4.4 SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF REDUCED EMISSIONS 27 |
| | 5 ECONOMICS OF MCCAP CONVERSION TO BAT .28 |
| | 5.1 KEY ISSUES.28 |
| | 5.2 CONVERSION AND CLEANUP COSTS.30 |
| | 5.3 DIRECT “INDUSTRY” BENEFITS OF CONVERSION.33 |
| | 5.4 COMBINED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF CONVERSION .36 |
| | 6 HEALTH OF THE INDUSTRY38 |
| | 7 CONCLUSIONS40 |
| | ANNEX 1 – MERCURY CELL CHLOR-ALKALI PLANTS IN EUROPE .43 |