Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
address mercury pollution and demonstrate what can be
accomplished technologically, economically, and politically.
Taking a lead-by-example approach, the New England states,
the Great Lake states, New Jersey, and other states have col-
laborated through regional and national state organizations
on the mercury issue. As discussed in this chapter, examples
of such efforts include the adoption in 1998 of the NEG-ECP
MAP and the formation of the QSC in 2001.
Many states have adopted more aggressive mercury-
control regulations on the EGU sector, trash and medical-
waste incinerators, and other sources than the EPA initially
required. The states have also led efforts to reduce the unnec-
essary uses of mercury through the adoption of compre-
hensive mercury products legislation phasing out the sale
of many mercury-added products, requiring the labeling
of mercury-added products still being sold, and mandating
extended producer responsibility regarding mercury product
recycling. State regulations and legislation to reduce mercury
pollution attributable to the dental sector have also far out-
paced federal programs. Finally, the states have also been
advocates for stronger national and international efforts to
reduce mercury pollution and have helped to build mercury-
reduction capacity by sharing their expertise nationally and
globally. Most recently, the EPA, the State Department and
other federal agencies under the Obama administration have
made renewed efforts to more aggressively address sources
of mercury pollution both within the United States and
globally, often building on successful state initiatives.
Mercury research and monitoring, often supported by
state agencies, has motivated and informed many actions
on mercury. Ongoing research and monitoring will be
critical to the adaptive management and evaluation of
these efforts. Because of increasingly tight state budgets,
enhanced federal support for these efforts will be needed
to ensure that policy efforts are most effectively targeted
and implemented.
References
Agedembo, A., Watson, P., and Lugowski, S. 2002. The weight of
wastes generated by removal of dental amalgam restorations
and the concentration of mercury in dental wastewater.
Journal of the Canadian Dental Association
68(9): 553-558.
Agency for Toxic Substances and disease Registry. 1999.
Toxicolog ical profi le for mercury.
U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, Atlanta, GA. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofi les/
tp.asp?id=115&tid=24 (accessed November 15, 2010).
Agency for Toxic Substances and disease Registry. 2003.
National alert: a warning about continuing patterns of metallic
mercury exposure.
U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,
Atlanta, GA. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/alerts/970626.html
(accessed November 15, 2010).
American Dental Association. 2004.
Best management practices
for amalgam waste
. American Dental Association, Chicago, IL.
http://www.ada.org/sections/publicResources/pdfs/topics_
amalgamwaste.pdf (accessed November 15, 2010).
Anderson, C.T. 2001. Community-wide dental mercury
study.
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES)
and the Minnesota Dental Association Report Number 01-507
.
Metropolitan Council, St. Paul, MN.
Arenholt-Bindslev, D., and Larsen, A.H. 1996. Mercury levels
and discharge in waste water from dental clinics.
Water, Air
and Soil Pollution
86(1-4): 93-96.
Aucott, M., McLinden, M., and Winka, M. 2003. Release of
mercury from broken fl uorescent bulbs.
Journal of the Air
and Waste Management Association
53: 143-151.
Cain, A., Krauel, R., Diroff, N., and Thomas, A. 2004.
Options
for dental mercury reduction programs: information for state/
provincial and local governments a report of the Binational
Toxics Strategy Mercury Workgroup co-chairs
. Battelle,
Columbus, OH. http://www.epa.gov/region5/air/mercury/
dentaloptions3.pdf (accessed November 15, 2010).
Carpi, A., and Chen, Y.-F. 2001. Gaseous elemental mercury
as an indoor air pollutant.
Environmental Science and
Technolog y
35(21): 4170-4173.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 2000.
Canada wide standards for mercury emissions
. http://www
.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/mercury_emis_std_e1.pdf (accessed
November 15, 2010).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1995. Mercury
exposure in a residential community—Florida, 1994.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
44(23): 436-437.
Christen, K. 2004. Mercury trading scheme raises concerns
Environmental Science and Technology Science News
. March 4.
Connecticut General Assembly. 2003.
Public Act 03-72: an
act concerning mercury emissions from coal-fi red electricity generators
.
Adopted June 3, 2003. http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/
cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB06048&which_
year=2003 (accessed November 15, 2010).
Conference of New England Governors-Eastern Canadian
Premiers.
1998. New England Governors and Eastern Canadian
Premiers Mercury Action Plan
. New England Governors'
Conference, Boston, MA. http://www.mass.gov/dep/toxics/
priorities/negecp.pdf (accessed November 15, 2010).
Conference of New England Governors-Eastern Canadian
Premiers. 2001.
Resolution 26-3
. Adopted at the 26th
annual conference, Westbrook, CT. New England
Governors' Conference, Boston, MA. http://www.negc
.org/documents/NEG-ECP_Overview07_03.pdf (accessed
November 15, 2010).
Defense National Stockpile Center, Defense Logistics Agency.
2004.
Final mercury management environmental impact
statement
. Defense National Stockpile Center, Defense
Logistics Agency, Washington, DC.
Environmental Council of States. 2005.
Compendium of states'
mercury activities
. The Environmental Council of the States,
Washington, DC. http://www.ecos.org/section/2005_
mercury_compendium (accessed November 15, 2010).
Environmental Council of States. 2010. Implementing
a national vision for mercury, ECOS Resolution 07-1,
Revised March 24, 2010. http://www.ecos.org/section/
committees/cross_media/quick_silver (accessed
November 15, 2010).
