1

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### Environmental Protection Agency 1

2

3

4

5


### Public Hearing on 6



### Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for 7



### the Dental Category 8

9

10

11


### 1:00 p.m. to 2:05 p.m. 12


### Monday, November 10, 2014 13

14


### EPA East Building 15



### Room A 16


### 1201 Constitution Avenue, N.W. 17


### Washington, D.C. 20210 18

19

20

21

222

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### EPA PANEL: 1



### ERIC STRASSLER , Chair; EPA 2



### ROBERT WOOD , EPA 3



### DAMON HIGHSMITH , EPA 4



### JAN MATUSZKO, EPA 5

6



### C O N T E N T S 7



### PAGE 8



### CARTER BROWN, ACADEMY OF GENERAL DENTISTRY 7 9



### ROSS FRAKER, R&D SERVICE AMALGAM SEPARATORS 13 10



### SYLVIA DOVE, CONSUMERS FOR DENTAL CHOICE 24 11



### AL DUBE, SOLMETEX 28 12



### SALLY CRAM , AMARICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION 43 13



### WILLIAM PURVES, PURVES ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. 47 14



### BERTA YURKOVSKY, MEDENTEX 54 15

16



### IN ATTENDANCE: 17



### ANDREW COATS, LIBERTY PARTNERS GROUP 18



### MARK FRAMPTON 19



### BRAD DOWNS, STERISIL 20



### TARANGA GUPTA, RIVIERA 21



### KELLY BEAUREGARD, SOLMETEX 223

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### IN ATTENDANCE (Continued): 1



### ROBERT RAIBLE, AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION 2



### ALLEN KLUMP, CONGRESSMAN JEFF DUNCAN 3



### KAREN MILAM , EPA 4



### RYAN MADDEN 5



### DEANNA B. FRAKER, R&D SERVICE AMALGAM SEPARATORS 6



### NATALIE PACINI 7



### JEFF TROUPE 8



### RO BERT J. BURNS 9



### LAUREN NAGEL 10



### HAROLD CHASE 11



### CYNTHIA FINLEY 12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

224

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### P R O C E E D I N G S 1


### [Whereupon the hearing commenced at 1:03 p.m.] 2



### MR. WOOD : Good afternoon everybody, 3


### thanks for coming. My name is Rob Wood and I'm 4


### the director of the engineering and analysis 5


### division at the Office of Science and Technology 6



### at the EPA’s Office of Water. We are the 7


### division that is responsible for the proposed 8


### rulemaking that we are he re to talk about and 9


### hear from you on today. 10


### There are a few people that I would like 11


### to introduce, Eric Strassler, to my far right, is 12


### going to make sure that we stay on track today 13


### and that I don’t forget to do anything in the 14


### hearing today. 15



### Damon Hi ghsmith to my right is a 16


### professional staff in the Engineering and 17


### Analysis Division and Damon is the lead project 18


### manager, if you will on the dental category of 19


### pretreatment standards proposal that we are here 20



### to talk about. 21


### And Jan Matuszko to my left i s the chief 225

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### of the Engineering and Analytical Support branch 1


### in my division and is the managing branch chief 2


### on this rule, and we have got a few other EPA 3


### folks in the room who, I will wave to you or 4


### something as we go. 5


### Again, thanks for your interest in the 6


### proposed rule. We are, what was the actual 7


### proposal date? 8



### MR. STRASSLER: October

-- 9



### MR. WOOD : October 22nd. Of course it 10



### would be there in front of me. 11


### So, I presume everybody here is familiar 12



### with the rule. We do not plan to do a 13


### presentatio n on it today, rather, this is an 14


### opportunity to hear from you. So, we are goin g 15



### to al lot five minutes of time to registered 16


### speakers. We are not that pressed for time, so 17


### if you really feel like you need more, just 18


### signal and we will manage the time as best we 19



### can. 20


### There will be a transcript of today’s hearing 21


### included in the rulemaking record. And, of 226

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### course, if you are here to listen and you don’t 1


### wish to speak and you have comments that you want 2


### to make on the proposed standards, we urge you to 3



### submi t those comments in writing, and we will 4


### handle those as we would any other public 5


### comments, which will all be available

-- the 6


### responses will be available as well in the docket 7


### for the rulemaking. 8


### The comment period is currently set at a 9


### 60 day public c omment period counting from 10


### October, 22nd and we have a request

-- several 11


### parties have requested an extension to that 12


### comment period which we are currently 13


### considering, and we will post on our website 14



### where all the current information in the dental 15



### catego ry, the Clean Water Act rulemaking is 16



### located

-- what we decide to do with that request 17



### for an extension. 18


### Okay, so, with that, I think I am going to turn 19


### it over to Eric to get things started, and before 20


### we kick off with the first speaker, if there are 21



### any questions about how we are going to proceed, 227

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### feel free to ask. 1


### Okay, Eric. 2



### MR. STRASSLER: Okay, thank you Rob. 3


### Good afternoon, a couple of administrative 4


### items, restrooms are outside in the lobby by the 5


### security desk. If you need to use those, please 6


### ask one of the staff to point you to the 7



### restrooms. And if you have any cell phones or 8


### any other gadgets that make noise, please put 9



### them on vibrate or turn them off. Thank you. 10


### Okay, we are going to go in the order in 11


### which we were notified that you w ant to testify. 12


### When you step up to the lectern please state 13


### your name and any organization you are affiliated 14


### with, if any. 15



### First is Carter Brown. 16



### MR. BROWN: Thank you so much, it’s great 17


### to have an opportunity to be here. I am Carter 18


### Brown, the pr esident of the Academy of General 19


### Dentistry, and also a practicing dentist in South 20



### Carolina. The Environmental Protection Agency, 21


### the EPA has proposed technology

- based 228

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### pretreatment standards under the Clean Water Act 1


### for discharges of pollutants in publi cly owned 2


### treatment works, or POTWs, from existing or new 3


### practices that discharge amalgam. 4


### And specifically, the proposed rule 5


### requires dentist to use amalgam separators and 6


### best management practices, and seeks to 7


### streamline oversight of the dental secto r by 8


### amendment to sections of the general pretreatment 9


### regulations. 10


### The AGD policies support the American 11


### Dental Association, the ADA, best management 12


### practices, including its recommendation for the 13


### use of amalgam separators. Moreover, the AGD 14



### supports t he grandfather clause and the three 15


### year allowance for compliance with the new rule, 16


### should it be implemented. And we are pleased 17


### that the rule does not require existing 18


### separators with a remaining useful life to be 19


### replaced or retrofitted. 20



### The rule’s proposal, that in order to be 21


### compliant, practices with existing separators 229

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### must continue to have proper operation and 1


### maintenance of their existing separators, as well 2


### as compliance with best management practices and 3


### recordkeeping requirements for ten yea rs after 4



### the rule takes effect, makes total sense to the 5


### AGD, and as a practitioner who voluntarily put a 6


### separator in 11 years ago, I think that is a 7


### great rule, and it is still working great, and a 8



### nice benefit. However, we are concerned that the 9



### real c ost of the proposed regulation have not 10


### been fully developed, and the mechanism for 11


### oversight may need review. 12


### And I will briefly present our concerns 13


### in general terms, a far more detailed explanation 14



### of our cost

- benefit analysis will be provided in 15



### wri ting and we will submit to the EPA before the 16



### December 22nd deadline. 17



### So I want to talk about the assumed 18



### benefits. It really is important to consider 19


### that the amount of mercury that pollutes our 20


### surface waters is significantly less than the 21


### mercury di scharged into the POTWs. By some 2210

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### estimates only around five percent of the 1


### discharge into POTWs from waste dental amalgam 2


### actually enters the surface waters in the U.S. as 3


### waste treatment plant effluent. 4


### The sedimentation and centrifugation 5



### processes use d by the POTWs to remove 6


### particulates are designed to remove the same 7


### types of amalgam particles as amalgam separators. 8


### So, while using an amalgam separator will 9


### certainly reduce the discharge into the POTWs, 10


### its use may not result in an overall reduction of 11


### mercury that pollutes our surface waters, since 12


### the POTWs will simply continue removing amalgam 13


### particles as they are designed to do regardless 14



### of that amount. 15


### Finally, the use of amalgam by dental 16


### practices is on the decline, as in popularity, 17



### and d ue to popularity and decreasing cost of non

18


### amalgam restorations. I will tell you as a 19


### restorative dentist, that train is heading 20


### quickly down toward the road where you will not 21


### see much amalgam in the future. 2211

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### At this time I would like to address the 1



### cos t. The EPA estimates the annual cost for the 2


### proposed rule will fall within the 45.5 million 3


### to 49.4 million dollar range. This figure is 4


### based on EPAs interpretation of a survey 5


### conducted by the ADA and the state of Colorado, 6



### and it includes a sum of th e compliance costs for 7


### dental practices as well as the cost of control 8



### authorities to administer the new rule. 9


### The Control authorities are primarily the 10



### various POTWs. Administration includes the 11


### burden on the POTWs to provide the inspections, 12


### and yet in further studies and interpretations of 13


### data, the ADA has come out with numbers that are 14


### far greater, in the range of 380 million to 15


### perhaps over a billion dollars to implement all 16


### that is provided here, and we would like further 17



### clarification on where t he numbers really lie. 18


### It is also our understanding that the 19


### National Association of Clean Water Agencies has 20


### already voiced its concern that the proposed rule 21


### may interfere with and burden already successful 2212

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### local and state programs. As it is, 12 states 1


### and 19 localities currently employ their own 2


### mandatory amalgam separator programs. Likewise, 3


### many POTWs have their own programs to reduce both 4


### influent and effluent discharge, and these POTWs 5


### may incur significant cost to replace their own 6


### systems with s ystem for inspection and 7


### enforcement that are compliant with the federal 8



### mandate. 9


### So in conclusion, the AGD the ADAs best 10


### management practices which include the use of 11


### amalgam separators. We are concerned, however, 12


### that the EPA may have overestimated the 13


### effectiveness of the new rule, and underestimated 14


### the cost for its proposed solution. We are also 15


### concerned that the solution may have greater 16


### actual benefit on paper than in reality, 99 17


### percent is a hard threshold to hit, especially 18


### with the technologie s we have now. The AGD will 19


### provide more detailed analysis of costs and 20



### benefits in its written comment to be submitted 21



### before the submission deadline. 2213

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### Thank you again for the opportunity to 1


### speak to you on this matter. 2



### MR. STRASSLER: Okay, thank you

. 3



### Our next is Ross Fraker. 4



### MR. FRAKER: I’d like to thank you for 5


### the opportunity to comment on this recently 6


### released set of guidelines and standards for the 7


### dental community. 8


### I, by way of introduction, am Dr. Ross M. 9


### Fraker a practicing dentist for ov er 30 years, 10


### and I have been having significant interface with 11


### the industry, both as a designer, installer, and 12


### maintaining equipment for the last 20 years with 13


### amalgam separation. I have an engineering 14


### background too, so that encumbers me somewhat. 15



### Ther e are basically two types of 16


### collection methods utilized with our amalgam 17



### separators. One is the catch and hold technique, 18


### the other one is, what we would call an immediate 19


### processor type of technique. Okay, within each 20


### of these categories, there are two subtypes, one 21


### in which the amalgam waste portion of the amalgam 2214

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### separator is opaque, and another one in which the 1


### amalgam separator portion is transparent. 2


### Okay, our major concerns are about the 3


### opaque containers because a major concern not 4



### addressed for all of these opaque models of 5


### either processing method, either the catch and 6


### hold or the rapid transit (sic). There is no 7


### obvious way in the field that the dental office 8


### can determine the percent of fullness of the 9


### amalgam waste container section, no mat ter how 10


### often it is inspected. I mean, it is a black 11



### box. You can inspect it every minute and you 12


### cannot tell what is happening. 13


### The dentist will want to comply with the 14


### inspection requirements and properly monitor 15


### their equipment. All the inspector ca n report at 16


### this time is that the unit is still in place. 17


### This means that there is no guarantee that these 18


### opaque units are performing at the required 19


### proficiency at all, especially when they are full 20


### and the owner cannot tell when they are full. 21



### This de ficiency common to all of the opaque 2215

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### models must be corrected so that in

- house 1


### inspections can have a shred of relevance. 2


### A failure by the EPA to recognize this 3


### problem and not require adequate fullness percent 4


### or indicators for inspections indicates a de 5


### facto willingness to allow untreated amalgam 6


### waste to pass out of these amalgam waste 7


### separator collection units. If you don’t 8


### recognize the problem, the problem is going to 9



### continue to occur. This means that all the hard 10


### work that you have done for t his document is 11


### wasted since it does not really address the real 12


### issue, all you have done is required them to 13


### possess an amalgam separator unit. 14



### The other concerns we have are with the 15



### flow rate limitations used for several of the 16



### units to achieve their I SO certification. All of 17


### the immediate processor units specified the 18


### particular flow rate that their units had to be 19


### held to in order to satisfy their proficiency and 20


### efficiency requirements. If this flow rate is 21


### exceeded, the usual consequence is that t he 2216

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### separator goes into a bypass mode, allowing some 1


### of the material to pass out of the separator 2



### untreated. This results in a drop in efficiency 3



### below that achieved in the certification when the 4


### flow rate was properly maintained during the 5


### testing. Note, the catch and hold style of 6


### amalgam separator does not depend on the flow 7


### rate, so there is no problem with that for their 8


### ISO testing. 9


### Also note, that the most common time that 10


### a relatively high flow rate occurs in a dental 11


### office is precisely at the ti me that the highest 12


### concentration of amalgam waste particles is 13


### moving into the separator. This is to say that 14


### is at the time the office is flushing their 15



### suction lines into the vacuum generator. All of 16


### the waste material collected during the day is 17



### flus hed out at the end of the day with several 18


### liters, and in some cases, gallons of water. 19


### That pushes everything right through and bypass 20



### occurs almost all the time. This drop in 21


### efficiency can be quite significant because much 2217

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### of the high amalgam waste pa rticle concentration 1


### passes right through. Now, again, a failure to 2


### recognize this really negates all of the hard 3


### work that you have done before in coming up with 4


### this regulation. 5


### Now, here is the solution, based on the 6


### two above major concerns, a logica l

-- it is 7


### logical to conclude that to avoid the whole 8


### fullness percent dilemma and the efficiency drop 9


### off problem, one needs to seek out a catch and 10


### hold type and it is transparent, because you 11


### avoid both of the visibility and the bypass mode. 12



### We have s everal other specific concerns 13


### and most of these will come to you again in 14



### written form. But first of all, I wanted to say 15


### that there is no recognition of the style of 16


### amalgam separator in which the amalgam waste 17


### container or the separator is emptied into an 18


### inexpensive recycled container and then 19


### repositioned for further use in the amalgam 20



### separator. Okay, this

-- rather than having to 21


### be completely replaced every time. Right now you 2218

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### require them to be replaced, it is the only word 1


### you use, okay? 2



### Secon dly, there is a few wordsmithing 3


### things, again, these will come to you in written 4


### form, much more easy to understand than this 5


### quick presentation. 6



### In section 441.40

- C

- 3, you use a word 7


### “incorporate,” in other words, the amalgam 8


### separator must incorporate all of the wastwater, 9


### well, in this particular meaning, the word 10


### “incorporate” has no meaning. What it should say 11


### is that they are required to process at the 12


### required 99 percent efficiency, all the waste 13



### that comes down. 14


### There is a couple other things to be 15


### added, but the final reading of the sentence 16


### should read, “it is sized to process at the 17


### required 99 percent efficiency, all of the 18


### wastwater that comes to it or passes through it 19


### in one day,” because, you know, you do not want 20


### to have just an open e nded, “all the water that 21


### comes through it.” 2219

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### The other part that I think that can be changed 1


### once you require that you have something that 2


### someone can actually monitor, either visually or 3


### using an analog to know how full their unit is, 4


### and also you have so me way of preventing bypass 5


### mode, is that we can strike out this word 6


### “annually” and follow the manufacturer’s 7



### recommendations. That is in section 441.40 and 8



### 441.50 section C

- 6. 9


### Okay, and again, because of these new 10


### ideas in place where you can actually monitor the 11


### equipment and you can monitor the flow rate, I 12


### think that the inspection time can be reduced 13


### from monthly to quarterly, because you are 14


### actually having something to report, and then you 15


### go ahead and file your reports as you have asked 16



### to be don e. 17


### Alright, that pretty much concludes what 18


### I can present here in this short time, but it 19


### gives you the idea that, basically the regulation 20


### is good, it is adequate, it works in the field 21


### for the dentists, it works in the field for the 2220

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### people who install i t ant maintain it. Most of 1



### the time it is the dentists , but there are other 2


### equipment people who do t hat, but I got to see 3



### all of it. 4


### I just emptied one of my patient’s

-- oh, 5


### my patients, yeah

-- one of my doctor’s last 6



### week. He had not been maintaining it. It was 7


### completely full so we corrected that. I cleaned 8


### it out by just emptying it into a recycling 9


### container with a little extra water, put it back 10


### in place and he is going to be able to use it 11


### now, and three years later, because now he kn ows 12


### what to inspect, he will be able to empty it 13


### again, this time with a proper amount of sludge 14


### and it will continue working. He has had this 15


### already for 13 years, so they can last a long 16


### time, but, you know, the ten year limit is 17



### reasonable a lot of tim es. 18


### Okay, I think that concludes what I have. 19


### I have just a real quick summary to go through, 20


### if you have a minute more. It kind of goes over 21



### all of these. 2221

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### In summary, again, I would like to thank 1


### you, first of all, for putting all the effort 2



### into th is, I mean, just reading through that 3


### shows that somebody did a lot of work. There may 4



### be some contentious areas in your work, but the 5



### work is there. I do hope that in the U.S. we can 6


### take advantage of this and it can serve as a 7


### model for other places, b ecause there are a lot 8


### of countries watching what we are doing here, 9


### because we have got inquiries already from 10



### several different countries. But to have any 11


### real impact, as I said again, you have to do more 12


### than just ask for the installation of the amalga m 13


### separator and let it go at that. 14


### You must recognize and correct the 15


### problem of fullness percentage, be able to really 16


### understand how they can do that easily, either by 17


### seeing it if it is transparent, or having some 18


### analog to tell you what percentage t his thing is. 19


### Secondly, the flow rate problem as I 20



### mentioned, has to be addressed because the flow 21


### rate that was prescribed by the media processors 2222

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### was carefully maintained when they did the 1


### amalgam efficiency testing. That does not happen 2



### in the field, principally because of the various 3



### kinds of staff. 4


### My own staff, I did not even know one of 5


### my hygienists puts a quart of water down after 6


### every patient. Yeah, all at once, and I tested 7


### my model

-- or, my units in my dental office the 8


### other day. I

-- first test was I tested a half a 9


### liter of liquid, it went down in four seconds. 10


### The second time I did it, I did not keep the tip 11



### under the water and it went down in six seconds. 12


### I did a whole liter, it took ten seconds. That 13



### translates to about a six li ter s per minute flow 14



### rate. It does not come linearly down to the 15


### amalgam separator because it kind of lays in the 16


### line and all of a sudden you get a splurge coming 17


### through, a big bolus of water will come through, 18


### you cannot even measure the flow rate, it is just 19


### very high. 20


### So, bypass mode is happening every day, 21


### and at the time, as I mentioned before, that the 2223

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### highest concentration of amalgam particles are 1


### moving down the line. So, something needs to be 2


### done to overcome this difficulty. 3


### And thirdly, I would like to ask you to 4


### recognize that the transparent catch and hold 5


### style of amalgam separators solve the problem, so 6


### there are some of those out there, and it is 7


### important to realize that reasonable amalgam 8



### waste collection containers make sense, beca use 9


### we do not want to put a lot of extra plastic out 10


### in the environment anyway, and it is, you know, 11


### less expensive and expenses is ce rtainly one of 12


### the big problems. I t is less expensive for the 13


### dentist not to have to buy a whole new unit every 14



### year or even every two years as some companies 15



### are. But these units, as I have already 16


### demonstrated, can last 15 to 20 years if you 17


### replace them properly and still be working 18


### properly also. 19



### The idea of self

- monitoring is a great 20


### way to alleviate the tremendous s ocial cost that 21


### we have of trying to have POTWs and the water 2224

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### districts monitor them, and the fact that they 1


### are not doing that. This fellow had been in 2


### practice 15 years, nobody had ever come out to 3


### inspect his unit ; the y just do not have the 4


### personnel t o do it. 5


### In Seattle, they use the public health 6


### people to go out and do it and they can do 20 7



### percent a year. Yeah, that is the best they can 8



### do. And they do not even know what they are 9


### doing, they just look at it and say, “yeah, he’s 10


### got one.” I asked them specifically, that is all 11


### they can say, “yes he has one in place.” 12


### Finally, there is a lot of

-- little bit 13


### of wordsmithing here and there, just to add 14


### things. That will come in written form. 15


### Alright, thank you very much. I 16


### appreciate your time

. 17



### MR. STRASSLER: Thank you. 18



### MR. FRAKER: You bet. 19



### MR. STRASSLER: The next speaker is 20


### Sylvia Dove 21



### MS. DOVE: I’m Sylvia Dove, representing 2225

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### Consumers for Dental Choice. Consumers for 1


### Dental Choice supports EPAs proposed rule. We 2



### believe that this r ule is important because 3


### amalgam is the largest source of mercury in 4



### wastewater. American taxpayers have to pay the 5


### price when dentists dump mercury into wastewater 6


### and the public wants this rule. Consumers for 7


### Dental Choice started a petition calling on EPA 8


### to propose this rule several months ago. 9


### Already, 13,000 people have signed on so far. 10



### While Consumers for Dental Choice does 11


### support the proposed rule, we urge EPA to 12


### acknowledge its limitations. First, it does not 13


### solve the problem of dental me rcury pollution. A 14


### separator cannot stop the whole range of mercury 15


### releases that occur over the amalgam life cycle. 16


### For example, separators do not address dental 17


### clinics emitting mercury into the air at high 18


### levels, dental mercury from human waste and 19



### d ental mercury that is cremated or buried along 20



### with human bodies. 21


### Second, dentists who do not understand 2226

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### the amalgam lifecycle might actually increase 1


### their use of amalgam because they incorrectly 2


### believe that separators are the solution to 3


### dental mercury pollution. An increase in mercury 4


### would, of course, be bad for the environment. 5


### And third, this proposed rule does not 6


### fulfill the requirements of the Minimata 7


### Convention on mercury. The convention requires 8


### each party to quote, phase down the use of d ental 9


### amalgam, not just install separators. 10


### So in conclusion, while Consumers for 11


### Dental Choice supports EPA’s proposed rule, we 12


### urge EPA to take further steps to phase down the 13


### use of dental amalgam as required by the Minimata 14


### Convention, especially, o ne, tell consumers that 15


### amalgam is a mercury product. When EPA 16


### administrator Gina McCarthy was in the 17


### Connecticut Department of Environmental 18


### Protection, they actually came out with a 19


### brochure telling dental consumers that amalgam is 20


### about 50 percent merc ury and mercury

- free 21



### materials are available and to ask for them. The 2227

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### US EPA needs to do at least as much as this state 1


### environmental agency to raise public awareness 2


### about this serious environmental problem. 3


### Two, EPA need to urge dentists to use 4



### mercury
- free materials. After all, the best 5


### environmental practice is not to use mercury in 6


### the first place. When former EPA administrator 7


### Lisa Jackson was in New Jersey, that is exactly 8


### what they wrote into their state separator law. 9


### At the very top it tells dentists quote, use 10



### mercury
- free material when appropriate, and with 11


### about 50 percent of US dentist already using 12



### mercury
- free materials exclusively, it is always 13


### appropriate to use mercury

- free materials. 14


### And finally, EPA needs to work with other 15


### agencie s to phase down the use of amalgam, 16


### especially in government programs like the Indian 17



### Health Service. The US government itself should 18


### not be promoting the use of a mercury product at 19



### all. 20



### Consumers for Dental Choice looks forward 21


### to working with you to address the ongoing 2228

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### problem of dental mercury pollution. 1


### Thank you. 2



### MR. STRASSLER: Thank you. Next speaker 3



### is Al Dube. 4



### MR. DUBE: How are we doing? It is good 5



### to see some familiar faces. 6


### My name is Al Dube, I am currently not 7


### affiliated with any co mpany or any, sorry
-- 8



### MR. STRASSLER: Move closer. Yes, thank 9



### you. 10



### MR. DUBE: Sorry, thank you. 11


### I am not currently affiliated with any 12


### company or any organization, this is me 13


### presenting myself as an individual, as a

-- 14



### someone from the United States. I just want to 15



### address a few different issues and somewhat 16


### specifically to have tailored to some of the way 17


### the document is written, and maybe give you a 18


### little of insight on some of the particular

-- 19


### the particularities of the situation. 20



### In demo nstrating compliance one of the 21


### questions is, to have the dentists do self

- 2229

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### compliance and self

- enroll. I would like to 1


### suggest that there be electronic filing, and the 2


### reason that I am suggesting this is to use it as 3


### an example of what happens in the stat e of 4



### Massachusetts. 5


### Massachusetts has electronic filing. 6


### They, on an annual basis

-- the dental practices 7



### have to self

- certify, which is what we have in 8



### the current rule. That self

- certification then 9


### is monitored and at the end of the year, someone 10



### fr om the state then reviews who has monitored and 11


### who has not certified, and then they write a 12


### letter, and then either do an inspection and or 13


### just write a letter of compliance requesting the 14


### dental practitioner get in compliance. 15



### It seems to be the most

-- simplest at the time

- 16



### - or at this point, the most simplest and easiest 17


### way that we have seen as far as how to keep 18


### somebody in compliance, rather than doing 19


### continual inspections. Ins pections can be taxing 20



### on a POTW , especially if you have to do a large 21


### proportion of them. I understand from the Napa 2230

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### situation, if you have a municipality, something 1


### like Denver, Denver has roughly five to 600 2


### dentists in it, it would be almost impossible for 3


### those to have a regular inspection. So if there 4


### was a way to sel f

- certify, that would actually 5


### simplify the whole process. 6


### The definition to suggest where an office 7


### or a dental office has placed or moved amalgam 8



### separators

-- there needs to be a little bit more 9


### of a clearer definition as to what that actually 10



### means. One of the reasons I am suggesting this 11


### is that there is a suggestion of emergency. 12


### Emergency leads to the opportunity for every 13


### amalgam procedure to be defined potentially as an 14



### emergency. Requiring an amalgam

-- if there was 15


### a specific number, let’s sa y on a monthly basis, 16


### that if you place a certain number of

-- or 17



### remove a certain number, whatever that number is 18


### defined as, would be more of a clarification, 19



### therefore there would be less room for 20


### interpretation, as opposed to having something 21



### that is m ore definitive. 2231

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### Amalgam separators have also been on the 1


### market since about 2000, okay? EPA, within this 2


### document stipulates and suggests that the life of 3


### an amalgam separator is about ten years. With 4


### that in mind, if you extend it, the life of an 5


### amalga m separator for another ten years, you 6


### could potentially have and install the amalgam 7


### separator in the field for more than 25 years, 8


### which would be more than twice the suggested 9


### timeframe for what EPA is suggesting the life of 10


### an amalgam separator to be. 11


### So, my suggestion or recommendation would 12


### be to look at, instead of saying just ten years 13


### from the effective date, potentially go five 14


### years from, say, 2010, and then anything after 15


### 2010 would be the ten year period. Therefore, 16


### you would be at least minim izing by at least five 17


### to ten years, the extent of how long an amalgam 18


### separator may be in place. 19


### EPA is also suggesting in this document that the 20


### potential of the dental office self

- certifying 21


### itself, inspecting on at least on a monthly 2232

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### basis, as a previo us speaker has suggested, 1


### amalgam separators have been known to clog, have 2



### been known to overflow, have been known to have 3


### potential issues with them that need to be 4


### monitored in somewhat of a regular basis. I do 5


### not find once a month too arbitrary or too 6



### invasive. It does not have to be inspected 7


### specifically by a dental professional, it could 8


### be inspected by anybody in the office, but it 9


### should be catalogued and that catalogue probably 10


### be submitted as a part of the annual report, as 11


### suggested or recomme nded by the current proposed 12



### rule. 13


### I am also recommending as

-- again as a 14


### previous speaker suggested, the opportunity for 15


### the amalgam separators to be clear and or 16



### transparent. There is an assumption based on the 17


### way that the current rule is written tha t there 18


### would be an opportunity for visual indication, or 19


### some way of digitally understanding whether the 20


### functionality of the system is actually operating 21


### or not in the field, and that is the most 2233

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### critical aspect of it. 1



### Even from the POT W’s standpoint, if there 2


### is a cause for an inspection, if a dental or the 3


### POTW does an inspection and then walks in, if the 4


### system is considered to be what we call a black 5


### box system, where you have no way of looking 6


### inside the system at all, there would be no way 7



### onsite to determine the functionality, whether it 8


### was working, whether it was in bypass, or 9



### otherwise. Most current systems right now, there 10


### is probably about half the systems that are 11


### currently on the market right now have either a 12


### clear or some transparency t o them, so it is not 13


### an unusual circumstance for these things to be 14



### made. So, I would also suggest that other 15


### companies would have the opportunity and 16


### availability to do so as well. 17


### Along with that, there is a, the ISO 18



### standard and the ISO

-- current rec ommendation 19



### for the ISO standard. The ISO standard is 20


### actually a two

- tiered standard, it is not only 21


### about efficiency. There are specific 2234

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### requirements that are required for amalgam 1



### separators. If

-- there are of different types, 2


### so they are a type one, two, three, and four 3


### types of amalgam separators. The first one is a 4



### sediment

-- sorry, a centrifuge, the second one 5


### is sedimentation, the third one is filtration, 6


### and then the fourth one is a combination of any 7



### of one, two, or three. 8


### There is an excepti on for type two 9


### amalgam separators if they have a clear visual 10


### indicator, in order for them to p roceed without 11


### an alarm system, h owever, type one, three, and 12


### four are required to have alarms. Currently, 13


### right now, and including testing facilities here 14



### in the United States and overseas, do not 15


### recognize the fact that there have to be 16


### electronic alarms on some of these systems, and 17


### they are passing certifications without alarm 18



### content. Okay? 19


### So, if you look at the way the regulation 20


### is currently written, there is no mention of any 21


### of the physical attributes that the ISO 2235

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### certification has, it is clearly only directed at 1


### efficiency. This is not an unusual circumstance. 2


### If you look at the regulations that have been 3


### passed in most of the states, they also ha ve 4


### ignored it from the way that the statute has been 5



### written. 6


### My suggestion or recommendation would be, 7


### either, if you want to use the ISO standard, use 8


### all of it, or at least acknowledge the fact that 9


### that does not have to be abided by. 10



### One small littl e comment, you have the 11


### state of Louisiana as one of your 12 states 12


### regarding the fact that they have a statewide 13


### mandate, they do not. Minnesota, however, does, 14


### and they are not mentioned, so you might want to 15


### just make a note of that. They do have a lo cal 16


### mandate in Louisiana, but it is not a statewide 17


### mandate currently. 18


### Another component to look at, when 19


### dealing with best management practices, and it is 20


### something that kind of slips by, the current 21


### regulation or rule discusses any material that 2236

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### would b e
-- come in contact with particulate 1


### amalgam to have to run through the amalgam 2



### separator. What is missing within this, is the 3


### cuspidors, or the spit sinks

-- what is defined 4


### as a spit sink by some folks. 5


### Cuspidors are typically gravity

- fed, 6



### which means they do not go into the vacuum 7


### system, which means they would not ever be 8


### processed by an amalgam separator, if that is the 9



### case. There are adaptors that are available 10


### through the local dental supply companies, so it 11


### is possible to do this

. 12



### T he requir ement was put into place in 13


### Montreal, it was also put into place in 14


### Providence, Rhode Island, or the Narragansett Bay 15


### Commission, when they did their program. So, it 16


### is something that is possible. It is something 17


### that is readily available to the dental c ommunity 18


### right now. 19


### In, 14, talking about the proposed 20


### regulations, there is a repeated number that 21


### suggests within the ISO standard, that we are 2237

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### talking about total mercury. We are not talking 1


### about total mercury when we talk about or have a 2



### discussio n about amalgam separators, we are 3


### talking about particulate. So just for 4


### clarification purposes, amalgam separators do not 5


### address any dissolved mercury or anything else, 6



### it is

-- they are only there to be designed for 7


### particulate. So I would make a str ong 8


### recommendation that that be changed to total 9


### amalgam particulate standard, or total amalgam 10


### particulate removal. 11


### I would also suggest in the general 12


### definition, and again, mostly for clarity 13


### purposes, when you

-- when I have had discussions 14



### with a lot of the POTWs and gone to a lot of the 15


### pretreatment programs, one of the clearest things 16



### that comes out from the POTWs themselves when 17


### discussing regulations and rules, is more 18


### specificity. Something that is more defined so 19


### there is less room for interpre tation. 20


### With regard to the general definition of 21


### an amalgam separator, if you just discuss it as 2238

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### an amalgam separator that collects particles, it 1


### again, and you refer to the ISO standard, it 2


### opens up for particulate parts of determination 3


### and potentially interpretation for certain 4


### things, specifically going towards this clearer, 5


### transparent type of scenario, if you would add 6


### that portion into the descriptive part of an 7


### amalgam separator, it then is more clearly 8


### defined and there is less room, again, for 9



### in terpretation for what you may or may not want. 10


### In section 441.40, the discussion of the 11


### requirement for a three year extension after the 12


### implementation, actual implementation of the 13


### dental rule in and of itself, amalgam separators 14



### have been known and been discussed in the dental 15


### industry at a minimum since 2007 when the 16



### American Dental Association added it to its best 17


### management practices. Prior to that, they have 18


### had at least two, if not three articles published 19



### in the American Dental Journal. So this, from a 20


### dental standpoint, an amalgam separation is not a 21


### new topic, it is not a new understanding or idea. 2239

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### I have been to multiple different 1


### pretreatment programs around the country. I have 2


### been to Napa, I have also been to region

-- much 3



### of the different regions. This is a program and 4


### this is something that has been discussed over 5


### and over and over again. As a matter of fact, it 6


### has been discussed to the point where people are 7



### almost frustrated with the fact that this rule 8



### has not come out. 9



### Th ere is a clear understanding of what 10


### needs to be done, or at least to get the program 11



### started, and that starts now, it should not start 12


### at the effective date of the rule, so they can

-- 13


### there is room and time right now for a proposed 14


### opportunity to start l ooking into what you need 15



### or don’t need to do. 16


### The recommendation I am suggesting is to 17


### take one year off of that to 24 months. The 18


### other reason for that, is based on sales data, 19


### previous sales data from a company I used to work 20


### for, it is clearly defin ed that the vast majority 21


### of the amalgam separators that get installed, get 2240

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### installed within the last six months of the 1


### impending rule. That has happened in state, 2



### after state, after state, after state. So, the 3


### extension of the time would not necessarily add 4


### value back into having separators put in place 5


### more often, as far as what we have seen in the 6



### past. 7


### Now, what I can also tell you, is that 8


### the dental community, at least from the 9


### distribution side, and the sales side of things, 10


### we will be talking abo ut this rule extensively. 11


### They have already heard that it is coming so 12


### there will be a lot of information that is going 13


### to be coming off to the dental community, not 14


### only from their ADA, not only from their state 15


### regulatory agencies, not only from the POT Ws, but 16


### also the people that visit their office on a 17


### regular basis to provide products and services 18



### for them. So, this will be something that will 19


### be coming up multiple times. There will be a lot 20


### of education on this process and its programming. 21


### I just want to see if there is anything 2241

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### else. Oh, I have already covered the rest of 1



### this. 2


### I will be submitting formal comments. I am not 3


### going to submit them now, I will be submitting 4



### formal comments with the rest of the additional 5


### things that I will also be adding into here. I 6


### would expect that you will be getting many, many, 7


### many, many comments to this rule. 8


### It has been a contentious issue for quite 9


### some time now, and EPA, I mean, I believe the 10


### first time we were supposed to have a rule, it 11


### was supposed to be November first of 2011, so we 12


### are already three years in arrears from when the 13


### original projection of this conversation should 14


### have been started, or at least the projected time 15


### of it being started. 16


### So, I would implore that as

-- not so 17


### much as quick ly as possible, but as efficiently 18


### as possible, you do your due diligence as you 19


### have been doing, and I look forward to seeing 20



### what the final rule is. 21


### Thank you. 2242

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### MR. STRASSLER: Okay, Sally Cram 1



### MR. WOOD: While you are coming up, just 2


### judging from the l ooks on a few people’s faces, 3


### if I was reading that correctly, were folks 4


### having a hard time hearing? 5


### Okay, I think step one might to just get 6


### that microphone as close to you as you can. The 7


### other one is not for amplification I do not think 8



### that is the s ound system. 9



### MR. STRASSLER: That is right. 10



### MR. WOOD: So, the small microphone on 11


### the podium, that is the one that is amplifying 12


### your voice, so let’s try this for a minute or so, 13


### and one option may be, I don’t know if we can put 14


### another microphone up th ere. 15



### MR. STRASSLER: We may be able to adjust 16



### the sound levels. 17



### MR. WOOD: Okay, so we are going to work 18



### on it. 19



### MR. STRASSLER: Let’s see how that goes. 20


### Okay, thank you. 21



### COURT REPORTER: If you speak up, that 2243

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### would help too. 1



### MS. CRAM: Good afternoon , my name is 2


### Doctor Sally Cram, and I am a practicing 3


### periodontist here in Washington, D.C. Today, I 4


### am speaking on behalf of the American Dental 5


### Association, the largest dental professional 6


### association in the United States, which 7


### represents over 157,000 dentists including over 8


### 65 percent of active U.S. dentists. 9


### The ADA greatly appreciates the 10


### opportunity to provide our preliminary oral 11


### comments on the EPA’s proposed rule for the 12


### dental category. Most dentists use services of 13


### their local sewage treatmen t systems or publicly 14



### owned treatment works, POTWs. The issuance of a 15


### pretreatment rule governing the discharge from 16


### dental offices would directly and significantly 17


### impact tens of thousands dentists and their 18


### patients. 19


### These comments I am making today are only 20


### preliminary, we are still studying this proposal 21



### in detail. The ADA supports the use of amalgam 2244

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### separators and includes them in its best 1


### management practice guidance for dental offices. 2


### Specifically, our BMPs include the use of 3


### separators that c omply with the international 4


### standards organization standard. 5


### In 2010, the ADA governing body, the 6


### house of delegates unanimously passed a 7


### resolution supporting the promulgation of a 8


### pretreatment rule governing applicable dental 9


### offices as long as the fin al rule complies with 10


### nine common sense principles, including the use 11


### of amalgam separators that comply with the ISO 12



### standard. 13


### The ADA reaffirms its support of a 14


### pretreatment rule that requires amalgam 15


### separators consistent with these nine principles. 16



### Th e proposed rule complies with most of these 17


### principles and we applaud the EPA’s efforts to 18


### incorporate them into this rule. 19


### Unfortunately, the proposed rule, in its current 20


### form, fails to meet some of these principles. 21


### Our final, more detailed comments wi ll explain 2245

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### these problems, and offer constructive solutions 1



### th at will allow the EPA to use a final rule that 2



### is effective and workable, and one that the ADA 3



### can support. 4


### The ADA’s review is ongoing, but our 5


### preliminary review had identified three major 6


### concerns which the agency must address before the 7


### ADA can support the EPA proposal. 8



### First, the ADA and National Association 9


### of Clean Water Agencies have stated that the rule 10


### should not impose undue and unnecessary burdens 11


### on either dentists or municipalit ies that operate 12


### sewage treatment plants. The ADA believes that 13


### some of the implementation requirements create 14


### unnecessary burdens with no discernable 15



### environmental benefit. 16


### For example, the rule requires inspection 17


### of separators on a schedule unrelated to their 18


### recommendations of the separator manufacturers. 19



### The ADA’s final comments will describe these 20


### burdens and offer alternative approaches that 21


### ensure that the regulators, whether the POTWs 2246

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### themselves, state governments, or the EPA have 1



### the assurance that amalgam separators are 2


### operated effectively. 3


### Second, in addition to requiring 4


### installation of amalgam separators that comply 5


### with the ISO standard, the proposal actually 6


### establishes a 99 percent removal efficiency 7


### requirement for total mercury. Thes e provisions 8



### are inconsistent. 9


### First, the ISO standard is validated at 95 10


### percent and is not a validated test for measuring 11


### a capture efficiency of 99 percent. 12


### Second, EPA’s proposed removal efficiency 13


### is based on removal of total mercury, not 14


### particula tes. This requirement deviates from 15


### international community requirements as 16


### incorporated into the ISO standard. By citing 17


### conflicting requirements, EPA’s proposed rule is 18



### not workable

. 19


### Third, EPA’s proposal is based on 20


### incorrect numbers and assumptions. For example, 21


### the EPA utilizes a 1982 POTW study of total 2247

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### mercury reductions in POTW effluent to justify 1


### its assumption of a 90 percent amalgam particle 2


### removal efficiency for the POTWs. This is not 3


### scientifically supportable and underestimates the 4



### amoun t of amalgam particulates that the POTWs 5


### collect. In our written comments, the ADA will 6


### document the changes needed to assure a 7


### scientifically sound rule. 8


### The ADA believes that the EPA’s proposed 9


### rule can be modified to comply with the ADA’s 10



### nine common s ense principles while still 11


### accomplishing the goal shared by us all, to 12


### protect our environment. 13


### Thank you again for allowing me to share with you 14


### our preliminary thoughts. 15



### MR. STRASSLER: Thank you. Next is 16



### William Purves. 17



### MR. PURVES: Thank you very much for 18


### allowing me to speak today. 19


### What I am going to be discussing though, 20


### is a little different in terms of the amalgam 21



### separators. My business is that I have been 2248

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### analyzing amalgam separators and their efficiency 1



### since 2000

-- or, I’m sorry

-- yeah, since 2003. 2


### I was contracted by a couple of PTOWs (sic) to 3


### examine their issues with regards to mercury 4


### entering their systems. So, as a result of that 5


### study, I then continued to do an additional 6


### study. The data that I have accumulated over 7


### this period of time is quite disturbing in that 8


### most of the amalgam separators are

-- even though 9


### they may have a 99 percent efficiency, the 10


### reality is, that additional one percent is a 11


### tremendous amount of mercury that enters the PTOW 12



### (sic). 13


### In terms of numbers, it would probably be 14


### difficult to discuss here, but we are talking 15


### billions of parts per trillion, because that is 16


### what we deal with in mercury at a PTOW (sic). 17



### The PTOWs (sic) in the United States have a 12 18


### part per trillion limit, unless they are in in 19



### th e Great Lakes, which is a 1.3 part per trillion 20



### limit. These numbers, based on the data that I 21


### have already sent to Mr. Highsmith would, in fact 2249

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### -- the separators are creating more of a problem 1


### when it comes to dissolved mercury, not 2


### particulate. 3



### One of the things that has never been 4


### examined, in terms of mercury separator

-- 5


### amalgam separators is the fact that dissolved 6


### mercury is created by the separator. It is 7


### because of the way mercury can, in fact, dissolve 8


### in water, and I have data that we have ge nerated 9


### over and over again that shows the rate at which 10


### mercury dissolves in water and then enters the 11



### water waste stream. 12


### The other thing is, is most of the PTOWs 13


### (sic) are not able to take a sample from the 14


### dental office separator itself. Where they t ake 15


### their samples at are usually in the street at a 16



### manhole. When they take the sample at that 17


### particular location, what happens is, is there is 18


### usually a significant amount of dilution. 19


### The other issue is, is that depending on 20


### the type of vacuum system the dental office uses, 21



### also has a dilution

-- can have a dilution 2250

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### effect. For example, if a dental office uses 1


### what is known as a wet vacuum, that water is 2


### mixed with the discharge from the amalgam 3


### separator and thus, dilutes the amount of mercury 4



### that i s potentially entering the system. 5



### However, we have done

-- we have accumulated 6


### data from many offices out at the manhole, at the 7



### -- and a couple of my PTOWs (sic) that we do work 8


### for are having significant issues with some of 9


### the discharges, in that when they have a high 10


### discharge from the dental office, they are not 11


### able to meet their discharge at the plant, 12


### because the dissolved mercury, unlike 13


### particulate, goes through the plant. It does not 14


### get captured at the plant. That is where the 15


### problem lies. 16


### So, in addressing this whole thing, we 17



### did a number of

-- we were lucky enough to have 18



### several dentist allow us to come into their 19


### office and actually examine their separators, 20


### take samples from their separators at the 21


### discharge point, and I generated a s ignificant 2251

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### amount of data regarding that. In addition to 1


### that, we have also done additional study on the 2


### amalgam itself, the rate at which mercury is 3


### released in water as dissolved mercury. 4


### So, when it comes to this particular

-- 5



### when it comes to this is sue, dissolved mercury is 6


### just as much an issue as the particulate, and 7


### that 95 percent efficiency

-- if 99 percent is 8


### not enough, 95 percent is not even close. 9


### The other issue is, is we have actually 10


### looked at several amalgam separators themselves 11



### and th e way they operate, and have noted that 12


### many of these separators are inefficient in terms 13


### of the release of mercury into the environment, 14


### especially dissolved mercury. There is, or there 15


### are currently one, and maybe two separator 16


### companies that are now lo oking at modifying their 17



### units to use what we would call treatment, in 18


### terms of removing the dissolved mercury as well 19


### as the total solid mercury. 20


### We have already done a preliminary test 21


### on one unit and just with a very simple 2252

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### modification that costa app roximately 45 dollars 1


### in total cost, we were able to reduce the amount 2


### of mercury discharge down to under 5,000 parts 3


### per trillion, which, if we were to put that in 4


### percentages, it is very, very, low. 5


### So, our issue here is, is that we are

-- 6



### the

-- we are not addressing dissolved mercury. 7


### Dissolved mercury is

-- in this case, is in some 8


### cases with some of our PTOWs (sic) is a major 9



### issue. We have a couple of PTOWs (sic) that have 10


### been able to identify the dental office literally 11


### that is causing their pro blem, and the separator 12



### is not

-- the other problem is, because of 13


### maintenance and separator design, they are not 14


### capable of completely resolving the issue. 15


### So, more has to be done in terms of 16


### examining what is actually discharging from the 17


### separator itse lf, and in terms of design of the 18


### separators, the separators themselves may work 19


### well in terms of removing solid particles, but 20


### they also generate a lot of dissolved mercury, 21


### and that is really the issue that occurs here 2253

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### more so than the particulate. The particulate 1



### can be removed down at the wastewater treatment 2


### plant, but the dissolved mercury does, in fact, 3


### go through there. 4



### And I have a second

-- another study that 5


### we did in terms of looking at the concentration 6


### of dissolved mercury entering the plant from 7



### various sources and what effect it had on the 8


### discharge of the plant itself. This particular 9


### plant we looked at has a six million gallon per 10


### day discharge on average, which is a lot of 11



### mercury
-- a lot of water, and in some cases the 12



### dental office c an contribute as much as ten parts 13


### per trillion in that discharge, even at six 14


### million gallons per day. So, it becomes a real 15


### issue in terms of the way the systems are built, 16


### the way the dentists are inspecting them, or even 17


### inspection itself. There are some companies that 18


### are, in fact, looking at making changes in design 19


### to handle this particular issue, but right now, 20



### it is an issue that needs to be addressed in the 21


### future on this whole process. 2254

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### Thank you. 1



### MR. STRASSLER: Could you state your name 2



### and organization? 3



### MR. PURVES: Oh, I’m sorry, Bill Purves 4



### and it is Purves Environmental. 5



### MR. STRASSLER: Very good. Thank you. 6



### MR. PURVES: Thanks. 7



### MR. STRASSLER: Next is Berta Yurkovsky. 8



### MS. YURKOVSKY: Hello. My name is Berta 9


### Yurkovsky, I represent M edentex. We are a 10



### manufacturer of

-- louder? 11



### Is that better? 12



### MR. STRASSLER: Get closer to the mic. 13



### MS. YURKOVSKY: Is that better? 14



### MR. STRASSLER: Okay, great. 15


### My name is Berta Yurkovsky, I work for 16



### Medentex. We are a manufacturer of amalgam 17



### separa tors

-- a particular amalgam separator, and 18


### we are also a recycler of amalgam

- containing 19



### wastes. We have actually been around for 30 20


### years in Europe as the largest

-- one of the 21


### largest companies in the industry. And, I 2255

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### appreciate the opportunity to come and talk to

-- 1


### about the proposed mandate. 2


### Is this okay now? 3



### MR. STRASSLER: Yean, stay close to the 4



### mic. 5



### MR. YURKOVSKY: Okay. 6


### So, a few things I wanted to address 7



### about the proposed mandated is in regards to the 8


### ISO 1143 certification for amalgam separators, 9


### which does state that either the amalgam 10


### separators need to be

-- need to have a full 11



### level indicator, or have a manufacturer

- scheduled 12


### replacement. 13


### Now, full level indicators do have the 14


### potential to not be exactly accurate because of 15


### splatte r and just, splatter building up on the 16



### outside of the walls. And, this also relies on 17


### the dental offices to make sure to go and check 18


### the amalgam separator frequently, which is not 19


### always going to happen, in

-- realistically. 20


### Another type of process bas ed on the ISO 21



### 1143 standard is that the manufacturer has a 2256

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### scheduled replacement in place where they contact 1


### the office and let them know when they need to be 2


### replaced. There is different units that are 3


### fitting for different sized offices and different 4



### co nfigurati ons in the office. So , I feel like 5


### that is a better system to go by. 6


### I also do not know that a bypass is 7


### necessarily the right way to go about it, to 8


### allow a bypass to be in place. The ISO 1143 9


### actually does not allow for a bypass, which is an 10



### international standard. So, that should not be 11


### included in the mandate, or in the proposed rule. 12


### I also feel that a completely closed 13


### system should be placed in the mandate that the 14



### dentist and his staff and the technicians that 15


### are dealing with the amal gam separator are not 16


### becoming exposed to the contents within it. So, 17



### I think that should be included somewhere in the 18



### mandate. 19


### One of the points in the proposed rule 20


### was that the EPA would have to keep track of 21


### which dentists are being compliant with th e 2257

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### proposed rule

-- or with the mandate once it is 1



### released. One of the ways that this

-- we could 2


### go about this is that the manufacturer keep the 3


### records, or the recycling company keep the 4


### records of which offices have a system in place 5



### and how often it i s being replaced, based on when 6


### it is being turned in, and if they have them on a 7


### schedule of replacement, they will be able to see 8


### those records and give that information to the 9


### EPA if required. 10



### There was also a

-- it was mentioned but 11



### I think it needs t o be more clear in the proposed 12


### rule, that a waste container somewhere in the 13


### office needs to be required with the rule for any 14


### chairside traps, solids collectors, cuspidors, 15


### that also do come into contact with amalgam but 16


### do not necessarily go into the am algam separator. 17



### Other areas of waste contamination that could 18


### occur, especially for waste management companies 19


### that handle other types of waste, like sharps and 20


### biohazardous wastes, they

-- a lot of times do 21


### come in contact with amalgam

- containing waste and 2258

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### then they have a spike in their mercury emissions 1


### and that could be avoided by having an amalgam 2



### waste container somewhere in the office. 3



### I think it should also be made clear in 4


### the proposed rule that the system needs to be 5


### replaced based on manufactu rer specifications, 6


### because there are different units in place and 7


### different sorts of technology. A lot of 8


### different amalgam separators have a maximum 9


### storage of one year to keep the lines clean, 10



### which I think should also be included in the 11



### mandate, for s afety purposes, so that there is no 12


### buildup of bacteria or anything of the sort. And 13



### if it is

-- a lot of states that have mandates 14


### for a state level do require that it be stored up 15


### to one full year. 16


### Another thing that should be made clear 17


### in the propose d rule is, line cleaner and 18



### disinfectants that contain bleach or non

- neutral 19


### pHs should not be allowed with the system because 20


### it could lead to the breakup

-- I think that 21


### should be made very clear that that is, kind of

- 2259

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### - nullifies the system and how it w orks. 1


### Finally, I think another point that 2



### should be made is that there are different 3


### configurations and setup for different size 4



### vacuum
-- I’m sorry, different vacuums, wet 5


### vacuum systems versus dry vacuum systems in 6


### different sized offices, based on dent al staff. 7


### So, they should accommodate their office based 8



### on that information

-- based on their size and 9


### their type of vacuum system. 10


### I appreciate the opportunity to present 11


### my views on the proposed rule, and I am eager to 12



### see it come to fruition. 13



### Thank you. 14



### MR. STRASSLER: Okay, thank you. 15


### Those are all of the speakers that have 16


### signed up to testify. 17


### Is there anybody else who wishes to 18


### testify? 19



### [NO RESPONSE] 20


### Okay. Well, thank you. All of the 21


### testimony will be in the record. The record will 2260

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### be ava ilable on the regulations.gov website. We 1


### will also have a transcript in the record at our 2


### website shortly, and the comment period for the 3


### proposed rule is open. Currently the comment 4


### deadline is December 22nd, but as Rob mentioned 5


### earlier, we are consid ering an extension to the 6



### deadline. You can submit comments in writing or 7


### electronically. The procedures for that are in 8


### the Federal Register notice. Please see that for 9



### instruction on how to comment. 10


### Someone has a question. 11



### Sir? 12



### MR. FRAKER: You have two types of 13



### comments

-- 14



### MR. STRASSLER: It mi ght be better if you 15


### stepped up

-- 16



### MR. FRAKER: Thank you. I do not have my 17


### copy of the Federal Register now, but there are 18


### two types of comments requested. One of them, 19


### you wanted to have received by the 22nd of 20



### November. I could not understand exactly what 21


### that category of comment was. We have the 2261

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### Federal Register here, I can look it up in a 1


### couple of minutes and get back to you. 2



### MR. STRASSLER: So, the question had to 3



### do with the two different dea dlines for the 4


### comment period

-- 5



### MR. FRAKER: Right. 6



### MR. STRASSLER: Associated with the rule. 7


### The first is a 30 day comment period and that is 8


### on the ICR, the information collection request 9


### that is submitted to OMB as part of the proposed 10



### rule. 11



### MR. FR AKER: I am sorry, I have a cold, I 12



### can
-- 13



### MR. HIGHSMITH: It is reporting 14


### requirements that are in the rule. 15



### MR. FRAKER: Yes. 16



### MR. STRASSLER: So these are the 17


### recording requirements that would be put in place 18


### by the proposed rule, and the comment period for 19


### that specific document is 30 days. 20



### MS. MATUSZKO: It is actually more 21


### specific than that. 2262

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### One of the things we have to do when we 1


### propose a rule is to estimate the burden 2


### associated with requiring

-- 3



### MR. FRAKER: Are you talking about

-- 4



### MS . MATUSZKO: The reporting requirement. 5


### So, it is the, you know, self

- certification, it 6



### is for the POTW to view the self

- certification, 7


### and so we came up with estimates for that. They 8


### are in the rule, they are in the ICR supporting 9



### statement. So, if you think we did them right, 10



### or we did them wrong, that is the comments that 11


### have the shorter comment period. Everything else 12


### has the later comment period. 13



### MR. FRAKER: Alright, thank you. 14



### MR. STRASSLER: And the later comment 15


### period may be extended. We a re considering that 16



### extension now. So, if we do extend the comment 17


### period, we will announce that with a federal 18


### register notice, and it will also be up on our 19



### website. So, basically any new information, you 20



### can look on the website for that. 21



### So, that c oncludes today’s hearing. 2263

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202

- 898

- 1108 • Baltimore: 410

- 752

- 3376

Toll Free: 888

- 445

- 3376 

### Thank you for coming. 1



### [ Whereupon the hearing concluded at 2:05 p.m. ] 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18