Mercury Storage and Disposal LAC Two Countries/Binational Project
Project Results Workshop (25 to 26 April 2012, Buenos Aires, Argentina)
Draft report prepared by the international consultant
April 30, 2012
First day. April 25.
1.
Dr. Leila Devia from BCRC in Buenos Aires welcomed the participants to the workshop and introduced the speakers at the opening ceremony: Dr. Desiree M. Narvaez, Programme
Officer, UNEP; Ing. Daniel Lupi, Gerente General at INTI (General Manager); Lic Adriana Rosso,
Directora Ambiente at INTI (Director for Environment branch); and Lic. Pablo Issaly, Unidad de
Sustancias y Productos Químicos, Secretaría de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable (Unit for chemical substances and products, Secretariat for Environment and Sustainable
Developement).
2.
UNEP presented the project mandate, background, objectives, relevance to INC process, expected activities and outcomes.
3.
Uruguay presented its mercury waste storage project and results of its mercury inventory.
Most volume of waste comes from the Chor-alkali plant, which is expected to switch to non-
Hg technology sometime in between 2012-2013. The current situation in the country has established that hazardous waste management is now a national priority in Uruguay.
DINAMA is working on and supporting a project to initiate soon the operation of a retort to
distillate mercury from Hg added products in Uruguay.
4.
During Argentina’s first intervention, the BCRC mentioned that in the Project development process, the RC is not an authority and when they ask for information to the different sources in Argentina, it is difficult to get it. But they constitute a means of communication among the three government levels and also the Center brings them information on international issues, and also provides them with different kinds of support.
5.
Uruguay presented its regulatory framework revision. Being not a federal republic, Uruguay presents different conditions than those in Argentina, apart from being a much smaller country. The National law on environment is a reference for waste management, but there is
no legal instrument specifically addressed to hazardous waste management, although there is a Technical Waste Proposal, which is used as a reference but is not a formal instrument approved and passed by the national legislative. The new Waste Act (including HW) is
expected to be published in the second half of 2012. Other legal instruments were described, dealing with municipal and medical waste, international agreements (Basel,
Rotterdam).
1

6.
Uruguay presented its potential sites inventory, initially describing the process followed in this activity using the specific tool for this purpose and different-scale maps to show the location of all of the potential sites. A brief description for the most important sites was given.
It was highlighted the fact that Uruguay does not consume coal for energy production (it mostly comes from fuel oil and biomass burning, this last increasing due to wood burning at industrial plants); gold mining is neither a problem as mercury is not associated to this metal in Uruguay. As for medical waste treatment facilities, it was pointed out that as the correspondent legal instrument does not call for mercury waste separation at the source, it is
likely that there are Hg releases at these facilities (incinerator, autoclave). Also a brief description of the approved fluorescent lamps treatment technologies was given, including drawbacks and shortcomings given the operational conditions; unfortunately these facilities are located at a highly populated area together with other facilities (landfill and dumpsites).
Uruguay concluded that its best options for temporary Hg waste are the chlor-alkali plant
currently in operation, and a public-private security landfill currently under construction, each site having particular advantages and disadvantages.
7.
Argentina presented its legal framework revision. Even when there is a particular instrument for hazardous waste, there are no specific instruments for mercury waste; it is not likely that
Argentina will have in the short term a specific legal instrument (act) for mercury and mercury wastes control. A major issue comes from the fact of the autonomy of the provinces face to the federal government; an immediate consequence of this condition is that all but three
provinces in Argentina prohibit the incoming of HW into their territory (and often this is repeated within one province). Also, the Hazardous Waste Act is and “adhesion” act, which means that the provinces may adhere or not to this act. By law, the provinces are the owners of their natural resources and they often complain for the intromission of the federal government in this field. Main environmental issues in Argentina now are: Hg, GHS, pesticides and polluted sites. The country asks for adequate definition for elemental mercury, mercury waste.
8.
Argentina presented its Hg releases inventory elaborated now for specific source sectors
(energy consumption, chlor-alkali, health). As in Uruguay, Argentina practically does not consume coal for energy production, nor crude oil; equally, biomass is consumed for energy production at private facilities for self-consumption. Only one chlor-alkali plant (out of six) uses mercury cells in its process, having 28 tons of elemental mercury commodity grade
ready to be sold. For health sector inventory (thermometers and sphygmomanometers), real country input factors were used, not the default factors included in the Toolkit. Results for
dental amalgam are surprisingly high, especially when compared to energy sector d ata.
There is a legal instrument instructing hospitals not to buy Hg-containing devices, and another one prohibits the import of Hg sphygmomanometers. The thimerosal plant imports
HgCl
2
, as there is no national production. It was pointed out that UNEP toolkit does not include input factors for certain sectors, a situation that should be improved.
2

9.
INTI engineers presented a technical option for mercury waste disposal they have been studying recently. It was originally conceived for nuclear waste disposal, with previous references in Canada and Spain, and it consists of a three barrier confinement for Hg waste, using basically a primary container and steel and concrete structures, and a final earth cover on top. Good results have been obtained on structural behavior, durability and
penetrability. This option has been studied for stabilized waste but not for elemental mercury, although it could be possible. Costs are not available yet, but they are the conventional costs for steel reinforced concrete structures; duration of 300 years is estimated for this alternative. Presenters received encouraging comments from the audience to
continue research on this option.
10.
Argentina presented the approved version of the Basel Convention Technical Guidelines for
Mercury waste.
11.
Uruguay presented its technological options review. It was mentioned that the vapor pressure is not considered among the criteria for mercury waste disposal, as BIPRO suggests, and Uruguay considers that this proposal should be followed because of the mercury high volatility.
12.
The Asociación Argentina de Médicos por el Medio Ambiente presented the work done by this NGO related to communication and information on mercury issues. The contents of one booklet in Spanish were presented, although it was informed that contents corresponding to other eighteen booklets are already available; possibly the final number will be twenty. The booklets have not been printed, but the contents will be available at the project website and the intention is that the public will download and print and distribute the booklets.
13.
Argentina and Uruguay presented in a single session advances on their decision making process. In Uruguay to date the process has been somehow informal and although they have worked towards DINAMA’s related issues, there are several tasks still pending, including the
national action plan elaboration. It was informed that in April the chlor-alkali plant will present a proposal to manage their waste; also that DINAMA is evaluating and supporting a
distillation (retort) process for mercury waste in products. Argentina reported that the national working group is based on the same group that worked for the Minimization and
Sound Management of mercury containing waste (chlor-alkali sector) project; some of the participants are the same. Several issues have been discussed in the group, such as the information questionnaires, UNEP´s toolkit for mercury releases, INTI’s technical proposal for mercury waste storage, and difficulties encountered to find potential storage sites. Chloralkali plant representative informed that the company decided to participate openly in this process, given that they are a current Eurochlor member and therefore they have a strong interest in the project; they are the only plant operating with mercury cells in Argentina. Their mercury stock in the process cells reaches an amount of 160 metric tons.
3

Second day. April 26.
14.
Uruguay presented the preliminary guidelines for its national action plan, linked to the results obtained from its mercury releases inventory. Dental amalgam sector was highlighted as a
priority for Uruguay, where it is necessary to go deeper as this is a very complex sector. On hazardous waste storage, DINAMA is approving this activity at the source on a temporary basis while better options are offered in Uruguay; this is the case for the chlor-alkali plant.
Other sources for mercury waste are a couple of lighthouses on the coast, keeping each one a bucket of mercury plus a certain stock for replacement. Public information, awareness raising and capacity building are important issues which will be considered in the action
plan. It was suggested that the action plan should describe how the lamps and the new retort issues will be addressed; also, considering that Uruguay lacks of enough legal instruments, it should be described in the action plan the way in which the chlor-alkali plant or the security landfill will be used as alternate options for mercury waste storage.
15.
Before presenting its national action plan guidelines, Argentina gave a short introduction mentioning the convenience to integrate a permanent group and the need to inform the public. It was also mentioned that Argentina has a very limited knowledge of its mercury release sources, as the inventory is not complete, and mercury hotspots in the country are
yet to be located. Once this information becomes at hand, available technologies will be evaluated and regulatory problems will be detected. It was mentioned that it is a positive attitude from Argentina to recognize the lack of knowledge. As for the national action plan, a proposal for its contents was presented including five general elements. The need to take clear steps regarding the regulatory framework was pointed out when there are now results from an inventory. It was also suggested to use the Toolkit Level 2 in order to get better information. The need to incorporate the mining sector was stressed as it is an important stakeholder, and also it is necessary to involve the Ministry of Mining in this
process. The already initiated contact among institutions in the working group will be kept through periodical meetings; the group might work for other agendas as well. Argentina mentioned that following a request made by the mining sector, it was clarified that when government officials in this workshop mention the lack of information from that sector, they refer to the Ministry of Mining and not to the mining companies. UNEP offered to provide the participants with a framework which both countries could use for their national action plans elaboration.
16.
After listening to the presentations and discussions on mercury issues, UNEP suggested watching a short video available at UNEP’s website, in Spanish, dealing with mercury waste handling at hospitals (Cleanup and Temporary Storage of Mercury Waste for Health Care
Facilities).
4

17.
Argentina continued with a description of the potential sites for the temporary storage of waste mercury in the country, mainly the facilities authorized for the hazardous waste treatment/final disposal currently in operation. An interesting discussion followed the presentation, initially related to the different methodologies authorized to treat the mercury waste (from products and chlor-alkali) previous to its disposal; several shortcomings were
mentioned. Later, important issues were raised such as the limitations coming from the regulatory framework and the difficulties for the interprovincial transportation; the need to
use the right terminology was stressed during the discussion. Finally, after a participant’s request, the chlor-alkali representative gave an ample description of the treatment process currently applied to their mercury containing waste before final disposal.
18.
UNEP presented the synthesis and analysis of the two countries’ project reports, including recommendations.
19.
During the afternoon session, participants from each country worked in separated groups in developing the national action plans.
5