Most Recent Comments
1) Re: City of Wyoming - Superintendent [by Judy N. Visscher on November 26, 2008]The City of Holland agrees with the City of Wyoming's last two comments on this bill:
The City of
We believe the Bill as amended continues to put the City of
Area dental offices remain the users to most frequently exceed the numeric limit for mercury in their wastewater. The original proposed bill and this amended bill will place a constraint on the City in that we can only require dentists to install amalgam separators without regard for numeric limits. What happens in the case where a dentist installs a separator but still remains above the numeric limit? If this proposal becomes law, we would be prohibited from requiring any additional steps and hence, would not have the legal authority to control the levels of mercury being discharged by a dental facility as required by Federal law.
The proposed amendment also allows a local government to require dentists to install amalgam separators between now and
We support Tom Kent's suggestion that following language be included in the bill such as:
“Not withstanding subsection (5), this section shall not affect any ordinance, regulation or resolution enacted, adopted, maintained or enforced by a local unit of government that complies with the following:
(a) Federal law (40 CFR Part 403)”
Reply
The City of Wyoming's main objection to the proposed legislation, even as amended, continues to be that it would put the City of Wyoming in conflict with the Federal law (40 CFR Part 403.8). That Federal law requires the City to have the legal authority to control the discharge of wastewater from users of the sewer system. The City currently complies with the Federal requirement by having a local ordinance that authorizes us to issue permits with a not to exceed concentration of a pollutant listed in the permit. If the dental facility, or any facility for that matter, cannot comply with the numeric mercury limit listed in their permit then additional steps must be taken.
The original proposal and this amended proposal continue to place a constraint on the City in that we can only require dentists to install amalgam separators without regard for numeric limits. What happens in the case where a dentist installs a separator but still remains above the numeric limit? If this proposal becomes law, we would be prohibited from requiring any additional steps and hence, would not have the legal authority to control the levels of mercury being discharged by a dental facility as required by Federal law.
The proposed amendment also allows a local government to require dentists to install amalgam separators between now and December 31, 2013. Again, as stated above, we place numeric limits that may require dentists to install traps, separators and isolation tanks in order to comply with the limit. It is up to the dentist to decide what is needed and how to comply. We already have a few dentists that have gone beyond the amalgam separator stage and have opted for isolation tanks. Will these dentists be in compliance with this proposed law or will they be required to decommission the technology they have opted to install to achieve compliance?
One part of the problem with this legislation can be corrected by including language such as:
Nothwithstanding subsection (5), this section shall not affect any ordinance, regulation or resolution enacted, adopted, maintained or enforced by a local unit of government that complies with the following:
(a). Federal law (40 CFR Part 403)
Please consider this important issue. The City of Wyoming does not wish to be dragged into the middle of a conflict between State law and Federal law.
Reply
The City of Wyoming (City) owns and operates a 24 MGD state-of-the-art wastewater treatment facility that is permitted to discharge into the Grand River through an NPDES permit. The City supports the concepts contained within House Bill 6307 that are intended to control mercury discharges from dental offices through the use of mercury amalgam separators and best management practices. In fact, the City has had a very similar program in place since January of 2008. However, some provisions of the Bill create significant conflicts with existing Federal and State laws that regulate the City’s Industrial Pretreatment Program (IPP). We believe the Bill can be amended to better achieve its intended goals and it is very critical to provide these necessary amendments prior to final adoption.
Some general background information may be useful:
? Non-attainment – The City’s current NPDES permit contains a water quality based limit for mercury of 1.3 ng/L. The limitation applies to all dischargers within the Great Lakes basin and is based upon wildlife protection criteria. This extremely low effluent limit for mercury is not met by many of the permitted dischargers including the City of Wyoming.
? Level Currently Achievable – Because so few Great Lakes NPDES dischargers meet the water quality based effluent limit of 1.3 ng/L, the MDEQ has developed a multiple discharger variance and applies a 10 ng/L limit as the level currently achievable. This level is subject to change and the MDEQ is required to move toward the limit of 1.3 ng/L as soon as possible in order to meet the goals stated in the Clean Water Act.
? Dental Facilities – Many studies, including one performed by the American Dental Association, indicate that dental facilities contribute anywhere between 8 to 40% of the influent mass of mercury to a POTW. Data are well defined for dental facilities within the City of Wyoming as we have been collecting mercury data since 2001. In fact, City of Wyoming data indicate approximately 40% of the mercury entering the POTW can be allocated to dental facilities.
? MDEQ Required Pollutant Minimization Plan – The MDEQ has required the City to amend its PMP as recently as 2007 to include provisions to actively control dental facility discharges by requiring mercury amalgam separators, implementing best management practices and acquiring ongoing discharge data. As with all non-domestic users of the City’s system, the legal authority for this program is contained in a discharge permit issued to each dental facility.
? The City of Wyoming is required by Federal and State law to operate an IPP the City must have the legal authority to enforce technically based limits for specific pollutants contained within the local sewer use ordinance. Both the Clean Water Act and the General Pretreatment Requirements contained in 40 CFR Part 403 detail this requirement.
While some provisions of HB 6307 are consistent with the City’s goal of controlling significant sources of mercury entering the collection system of the POTW, there are some significant problems with the Bill. Among the most glaring is the provision to “preempt and supersede any local ordinance, regulation, or resolution that imposes conflicting, different, or additional standards or requirements”. This provision attempts to remove the City’s legal authority required by Federal law in the general pretreatment requirements. The Bill provision goes on further to tie the City’s hand by stating “A local unit on government shall not enact, adopt, maintain, or enforce an ordinance, regulation, or resolution that imposes different, or additional standards or requirements on dentists than those contained in this section or rules promulgated the Board under this section, of mercury into wastewater with a limitation greater than that capable of being achieved by full compliance with this section”. Again, we believe this provision is in conflict with Federal and State law and needs to be removed from the Bill. Any limit placed upon dentists and included in a permit to discharge issued by the City of Wyoming is directly related to the City’s requirement to comply with its own NPDES permit. While 9 other states have passed similar legislation, no other state has included any language pre-empting or superseding a local ordinance.
We also have concerns related to the provisions of the Bill that include the requirement for the development of best management practices by the Michigan Board of Dentistry. We believe some oversight and collaboration of best management practices with the MDEQ will result in validated best management practices and a more complete and technically correct product.
If these suggested amendments are made to the Bill, the conflict with Federal and State law will be removed and validated best management practices will be developed to support the provisions of the Bill. These refinements enhance the ability of the Bill to create successful partnerships between dentists and the local units of government as each is required to diligently work to comply with limitations designed to reduce the amount of mercury discharged into the environment.
Reply
View Full Conversation
