Hamilton Square 

600 Fourteenth Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20005-2004 

202.220.1200 

Fax 202.220.1665 

 Boston Washington, D.C. Detroit New York Pittsburgh 

Berwyn Harrisburg Orange County Princeton Wilmington 

www.pepperlaw.com 

December 21, 2007 

Water Docket 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW– 

2006–0771

Environmental Protection Agency 

Mailcode: 4203M 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW. 

Washington, DC 20460 

Re: The American Dental Association’s Comments on EPA’s Study Of 

A Pretreatment Requirement For Dental Offices (Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OW–2006–0771) 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

The American Dental Association (“ADA”) greatly appreciates the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) willingness to meet with representatives of the 

ADA and give the ADA the opportunity to review and comment on EPA’s Proposals: To Study 

A Pretreatment Requirement For Dental Offices. 

The ADA is the largest dental professional association, representing over 155,000 

dentists in the United States (“U.S.”), including 71.8% of the active dentists. The vast majority 

of dentists utilize the services of their local publicly owned treatment works (“POTW”). The 

issuance of a pretreatment rule governing the discharge from dental offices would directly and 

significantly impact dentists and their patients. Additionally, dentists are concerned about the 

impact of environmental pollutants on their communities. As you know, the ADA included 

amalgam separators as part of the ADA Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) in October 2007. 

In accordance with its BMPs, the ADA believes professional dentists should operate his or her 

dental office in a manner that maximizes the amount of amalgam that is captured for recycling. 

The ADA opposes mandatory separators, but strongly supports the use of 

voluntary separators to achieve the mutual goals of EPA and the ADA. The ADA will exert its 

best efforts to educate dentists about its new BMPs in general, and separators in particular. The 

ADA would be willing to form a partnership with EPA to implement a nationwide voluntary 
Water Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 

December 21, 2007 

Page -2- 

separator program. This partnership could include EPA issuing guidance to treatment plant 

operators on the options that are available to address dental office wastewater. In fact, the ADA 

has long urged and continues to urge EPA to issue national guidance. We want to emphasize 

that we are not asking EPA to issue a mandate to local treatment plants. Rather, we suggest a 

guidance from EPA explaining that, in EPA’s view, a voluntary separator program is an 

appropriate option to pursue. 

A voluntary program is preferable for the following reasons. 

First, the long-term goals of both EPA and the ADA are the same use of amalgam 

separators. Even in the short- and medium-term, there is little incremental difference in the 

amount of amalgam collected and recycled using a voluntary separator program compared to a 

mandatory plan (see attached Comments and particularly Attachment 1). Thus, a voluntary 

program would be just as effective as a mandatory approach. 

Second, a voluntary program is more cost-effective and would avoid wasteful 

administrative costs involved in enforcing regulations. 

Third, history demonstrates that a voluntary program (in conjunction with current 

mandatory and recommended separator programs already promulgated) should result in more 

than 65% of the dentists in the US installing separators. 

Fourth, a voluntary program would be more appropriate to attain mercury 

reduction from a professional group such as dentists than a “command-and-control” approach. 

Nearly all US dentists are small business owners, and EPA policy strongly favors a voluntary 

program when small businesses are involved. 

Fifth, a mandatory separator requirement would have little or no effect on the 

concentration of mercury in the treatment plant’s effluent entering surface water or deposition of 

mercury into surface water from land applied or landfilled amalgam. There is no debate that the 

vast majority of mercury that is causing methylmercury concentrations in fish to exceed the 

water quality standard of 0.3 ppm is from air deposition or unique local sources, not amalgam. 

Sixth, because of the dental community’s disproportionately low contribution to 

methylmercury in fish, and given that the concern about mercury in the US is based almost 

exclusively on levels of methylmercury in fish, a voluntary separator program would be more 

consistent with the Clean Water Act’s statutory scheme and overall EPA policy. 

Seventh, EPA has little to lose by working with the ADA on a voluntary approach 

first. If a voluntary effort turns out to be ineffective, then nothing would preclude EPA from 

promulgating additional, even mandatory, requirements. Similarly, nothing in this proposal 
Water Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771 

December 21, 2007 

Page -3- 

precludes states or municipalities from enacting state or local amalgam separator statutes or 

regulations. Thus, mandatory requirements should not be the initial approach. 

Eighth, dentistry is a learned profession. This means that dentists have a higher 

calling to self regulate. We believe it is important to respect the nature of dentistry as a 

profession before imposing regulatory mandates. The ADA’s new policy supporting the use of 

separators demonstrates the profession’s existing commitment to take action on its own. 

The ADA remains committed to implementing its 2007 Best Management 

Practices for amalgam waste including the use of separators and looks forward to working with 

EPA to promote mercury reductions in the environment, but we urge EPA to use a voluntary 

separator program to do so. 

Since others may comment on this study and new information may become 

available, we request that EPA agree to accept new information submitted after the December 

31, 2007 public comment period deadline. 

If you have any questions, please call or e-mail me. 

Yours truly, 

William J. Walsh 

WJW/ 

cc: Tamra S. Kempf, Chief Counsel of ADA 

 C. Michael Kendall, Associate General Counsel of ADA 

 Jerome Bowman, Public Affairs Counsel, Government Affairs, American Dental Association