September 2002

NSF 02/01/EPAWQPC

- SWP



# Environmental Technology

Verification Report

Removal of Mercury from Dental

Office Wastewater

Dental Recycling North America (DRNA)

Mercury Recovery Unit (MRU)

Prepared by



## NSF International

Under a Cooperat ive Agreement with



## U.S. Environmental Protection Agency02/01/EPAWQPC

- SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2002

VS

- i 

## ETV Joint Verification Statement THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION

PROGRAM

TECHNOLOGY TYPE: SEDIMENTATION AND ADSORPTION OF MERCURY

AMALGAM AND MERCURY COMPOU NDS

APPLICATION: REMOVAL OF MERCURY AMALGAM PARTICULATE

AND SOLUBLE AND INSOLUBLE MERCURY FROM

DENTAL OFFICE WASTEWATER

TECHNOLOGY NAME: DENTAL RECYCLING NORTH AMERICA (DRNA)

MERCURY RECOVERY UNIT (MRU)

COMPANY: DENTAL RECYCLING NORTH AMERICA, INC.

ADDRE SS: 145 WEST 58 th STREET PHONE: (800) 360

- 1001

NEW YORK, NY 10019 FAX: (212) 247

- 4420

WEB SITE: http://www.drna.com

EMAIL: marcs@drna.com

NSF International (NSF), in cooperati on with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), operates

the Water Quality Protection Center under EPA’s Environmental Technology Verification (ETV)

Program. As part of the center’s activities in verifying the performance of source water protectio n (SWP)

technologies, NSF recently evaluated the performance of a mercury removal unit used in dental offices

for removal of mercury from wastewater. This verification statement provides a summary of the test

results for the Dental Recycling North America (DRNA) Mercury Recovery Unit (MRU). The NSF

laboratories, in conjunction with Scherger Associates, performed the verification testing.

The Environmental Technology Verification Program was created by EPA to facilitate the deployment of

innovative or imp roved environmental technologies through performance verification and dissemination

of information. The goal of the ETV program is to further environmental protection by accelerating the

acceptance and use of improved and more cost

- effective technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this goal by

providing high quality, peer reviewed data on technology performance to those involved in the design,

distribution, permitting, purchase, and use of environmental technologies.

ETV works in partnership with testing org anizations and stakeholder advisory groups consisting of

buyers, vendor organizations, permitters, and with the full participation of individual technology

developers. The program evaluates the performance of innovative technologies by developing test pla ns

that are responsive to the needs of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory tests (as appropriate),

collecting and analyzing data, and preparing peer reviewed reports. All evaluations are conducted in U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency NSF International02/01/EPAWQPC

- SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2002

VS

- ii accordance with rigorous quality assurance pro tocols to ensure that data of known and adequate quality

are generated and that the results are defensible.

ABSTRACT

Verification testing of the DRNA Mercury Recovery Unit (MRU) was conducted during a seven

- week

period, at a dental office in Michigan tha t had three operatory rooms and two hygiene rooms. The office

operated four days per week and averaged approximately eight (8) mercury amalgam surfaces

removed/placed per day. The MRU was installed in the vacuum system ahead of the air/water separator,

a nd operated continuously over the verification test period. During an eleven

- week period prior to the

verification test period, a baseline characterization test was conducted with the total volume of untreated

wastewater generated at the office being samp led and analyzed. The characterization data provided

representative influent data for comparison with the treated water effluent data collected during the

verification test. Mercury removal was calculated by two methods. One approach used the data colle cted

during the characterization test to represent the influent wastewater quality. The second approach used a

mass balance that measured all of the mercury captured and discharged by the MRU during the

verification test. The MRU achieved mercury removal , on a total mass

- loading basis, of 98.3 to 99.4

percent depending on the approach used. The removal of settleable mercury, which represented 77 to 81

percent of the mercury in the wastewater, averaged 99.6 to 99.9 percent. Mercury present in the liquid

fraction after settling (soluble and suspended particulate) was removed by the adsorption media in the

92.3 to 94.0 percent range. Both settleable mercury and mercury present in the liquid after settling

(soluble and suspended particulate) were effectivel y removed from the wastewater. The system operated

throughout the verification test with no maintenance or down time. There was evidence that the activated

carbon adsorption media was breaking down and exiting the unit during the verification test. DRNA

indicated this was due to excess bleach being fed to the unit. The concentration of the bleach solution

was subsequently decreased during the verification test, and reflects the recommended bleach

concentration in the Operations and Maintenance Manual cur rently being supplied with their units.

TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION

The DRNA Mercury Recovery Unit is designed to remove mercury from dental wastewater using a two

step process to address both the insoluble and soluble mercury present in wastewater. Soluble mercury is

defined as the mercury, whether in solution or fine particulate, that can pass through a 0.45 micron filter.

The verification testing was performed using a full scale, commercially available MRU. The test unit was

received as a self

- contained system that included all of the parts needed for installation. The equipment

included the B ullfroHgTM Air/Water/Amalgam Separator , an adsorbent column with particle filter, pump

timers, twin peristaltic pumps with waste sensor, and a 10

- liter bleach reservoir. The unit came with all

of the tubing and fittings to connect the unit to the dental of fice vacuum system.

The BullfroHg unit is designed to remove mercury amalgam particles from dental wastewater by gravity

settling. It is a combined solid and air/water separator that is installed on the suction side of a dental

vacuum pump. Three

- phase flow (air/water/solids) enters the BullfroHg, where the entrained solids and

liquids are retained within the unit and the air flows out to the system vacuum pump. Particles are

allowed to settle for several hours after the vacuum system is shut down at t he end of the operating day.

At the conclusion of settling, a timer

- activated pump transfers wastewater from the settling chamber to

the adsorbent column, where it passes through adsorbents and a fine particle filter. Amalgam particles

remain trapped wit hin the gravity separator unit, while soluble mercury and mercury associated with

suspended fine particles are adsorbed onto the column media. A particle filter is located at the end of the

column to capture fine particulate not adsorbed by the column med ia. The treated wastewater is

discharged to the sewer system. Approximately 200 mL of bleach solution is pumped into the adsorbent

column each day to control biological growth within the column. Mercury captured within the MRU is02/01/EPAWQPC

- SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2002

VS

- iii typically returned to D

RNA for recycle. DRNA has arrangements with mercury recovery companies to

recycle the mercury trapped or adsorbed by the MRU, as well as from the chair side traps that are part of a

typical vacuum system. The mercury recovery/recycling process used by DR NA was not part of this

verification process.

VERIFICATION TESTING DESCRIPTION

Test Site

The verification test was performed at a dental office in Southeast Michigan. This general dentistry

practice was representative of a small dental office with one or two dentists. The office had five chairs,

with two chairs being used for dental hygiene work and three chairs for general dentistry procedures, and

typically operated four days per week. During the initial characterization period, there was one denti st in

the office. During the verification test period, a second dentist was added on a part time basis. The office

uses a dry vacuum system.

Methods and Procedures

During both the wastewater characterization and verification test periods, the entire wa stewater flow from

the vacuum collection system was collected each day the dental office was open, and was sent to the NSF

laboratory by courier service in iced coolers. The samples were prepared in the laboratory and analyzed

for total mercury in the set tleable solids, total mercury in the decant liquid from the settling procedure and

soluble mercury in the decanted liquid. The daily wastewater volume, mass of settleable solids, and pH

were also determined. A special procedure was used to separate the s ettleable solids in the wastewater.

The entire sample was placed in a large settling chamber and solids were allowed to settle for at least

eight (8) hours. After settling, the liquid fraction containing suspended particles was removed from the

settling chamber. The settled solids were collected, filtered, weighed and analyzed for total mercury. The

liquid fraction was split into two samples. One sample was analyzed for total mercury, the other sample

was filtered through a 0.45 micron filter, and the filtrate analyzed to determine soluble mercury. At the

end of the verification test period, residue samples were obtained by removing the solids from the

BullfroHg separator, and by removing the adsorbents and particle filter from the adsorbent column.

These residues were analyzed for total mercury in order to complete a mass balance of mercury in the

MRU.

All samples were preserved and analyzed in accordance with EPA approved methods. Mercury was

determined using EPA Method 245.1 for liquids and 245. 5 for solids, and Method 150.1 was used for pH

determinations.

PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION

System Operation

The MRU was installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions received with the unit. The

total time to install the unit was less than th ree hours. The system was wet tested for leaks and to verify

the pumps were working properly. After this initial check, the unit operated with no mechanical changes

or maintenance for the duration of the seven

- week verification test period.

The bleach solution was initially made at the recommended concentration of one part bleach to one part

water. After approximately three weeks of operation, the effluent from the MRU was very black in color,

and the mercury levels in the effluent increased from less than 1 μ g/L to between 1 and10 μ g/L.

According to DRNA, it was likely that the bleach solution was too strong and was causing a breakdown

of the activated carbon, resulting in carbon fines passing through the particle filter and exiting in the

effluent. During the characterization phase of the technology verification, DRNA revised their O&M

Manual to recommend one part bleach to two parts water. However, this information was not provided02/01/EPAWQPC

- SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2002

VS

- iv until NSF contacted DRNA about the change in the MRU effluent qual ity. The bleach concentration was

subsequently changed to the revised recommended concentration of one part bleach to two parts water.

Carbon fines continued to be discharged from the MRU at reduced levels after the bleach concentration

was reduced. DRNA has since revised the recommended bleach concentration once again to one part

bleach to three parts water. However, no testing was performed using this concentration.

Wastewater Characterization Results

The wastewater characterization test was conduct ed from July 10 through September 21, 2001, with 44

complete sample sets being collected over the eleven

- week period. The dental office normally operated

four days per week, and samples were collected at the end of each normal business day. Three hundred

thirty four (334) mercury amalgam surfaces were removed and/or placed during the characterization test.

Each wastewater sample was allowed to settle in the laboratory to separate the settleable solids from the

wastewater, resulting in three samples for m ercury measurement

- total mercury in the settleable solids,

total mercury in the liquid fraction (decant after settling, including both suspended particulate matter and

soluble mercury), and soluble mercury in the liquid fraction. The wastewater flow (al l flow collected as

sample) averaged 2.2 liters per day, ranging from a high flow of 5.9 liters per day to a low of 0.13 liters

per day.

The average total mercury concentration in the wastewater (settleable solids plus mercury in the decant

liquid) was 65 7 μ

g/L, varying from a high of 1810 μ g/L to a low of 73 μ g/L. The average mass of

mercury was 1.60 mg/day, varying from 0.05 mg/day to 6.81 mg/day. The decanted liquid fraction (after

settling) averaged 192 μ

g/L. The soluble mercury fraction in the deca nted liquid averaged 127 μ g/L, and

typically represented 50

- 70 percent of the mercury in this fraction of the wastewater. The summary

statistics for the wastewater characterization are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Mercury Data Summary

– Wastewater Cha racterization Test

Hg Mass (mg/day) Total

Wastewater Decant Liquid

Concentration

(mg/L)

Total Soluble Total

Wastewater

Volume

(mL) Settleable

Solids Decant

Liquid Concentration

( μ g/L) Mass

(mg/day)

Average 0.192 0.127 2180 1.23 0.3 64 657 1.60

Maximum 0.676 0.632 5880 6.49 1.90 1810 6.82

Minimum 0.0446 0.0044 129 <0.01 0.0094 72.6 0.0537

Std. Dev 0.152 0.139 1410 1.81 0.369 581 1.94

Total

Mass/ vol. 100,000 54.2 (mg) 16.7 (mg)

Verification Test Results

The verification t

est was performed from September 24 through November 8, 2001, with 32 complete

sample sets of MRU treated effluent being collected and analyzed. During the seven

- week verification

period, the dental office added a dentist on a part time basis. The office operated on a four or five day per

week schedule with 243 mercury amalgam surfaces being removed/placed on 29 operating days. The

average amalgam surface removal/placement rate of 8.38 surfaces per operating day was similar to the

rate during the charact

erization test (7.73

– 7.95 surfaces per day).

MRU effluent wastewater samples were handled in the same manner as during the characterization test,

resulting in three samples for mercury measurement

- total mercury in the settleable solids, total mercu ry

in the liquid fraction (decant after settling, including both suspended particulate and soluble mercury), and02/01/EPAWQPC

- SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2002

VS

- v soluble mercury in the liquid fraction. The results of the analyses are presented in Table 2. The average

total mercury discharge concentrati on from the MRU was 10.3 μ g/L, with a maximum of 39.8 μ g/L and a

minimum of <0.2 μ g/L. The average mass of mercury discharged on a daily basis was 0.036 mg/day,

with the settleable solids portion representing an average of 0.007 mg/day and the liquid frac tion having

an average of 0.0284 mg/day. The mercury contribution from the settleable solids represented 19 percent

of the mercury present in the discharge after treatment versus 77 percent in the untreated wastewater.

Table 2. Summary Statistics Merc ury Results for DRNA MRU Effluent

Hg Mass (mg/day) Total Wastewater Decant Liquid

Concentration (mg/L)

Total Soluble Total

Wastewater

Volume

(mL) Settleable

Solids Decant

Liquid Concentration

( μ g/L) Mass

(mg/day)

Average 0.0079 0.002 7 2550 0.0073 0.0284 10.3 0.0357

Maximum 0.0337 0.0135 6060 0.043 0.177 39.8 0.217

Minimum <0.0002 <0.0002 177 0.00 <0.0002 <0.2 <0.0003

Std. Dev 0.0108 0.0037 1770 0.0103 0.0507 12.8 0.0601

Total

mass 81,700 0.234 (mg) 0.909 (mg)

Note: All Va lues below Detection Limit set equal to zero in calculation

The mercury concentration in the discharge was either below the detection limit (<0.2 μ g/L) or in the 0.2

to 3.5 μ g/L range for the first eighteen days of the verification test. During the first few days, the effluent

had no settleable solids and had very low suspended solids in the liquid fraction. The effluent then began

to darken in color and became very black, with noticeable suspended particulate present; however, only a

small portion of th

ese solids settled. The amount of solids being filtered from the liquid fraction began to

increase and the solids were very black and fine in appearance. The bleach solution was changed to the

new recommended strength about 31⁄2 weeks into the test, and ov er the next 11⁄2 weeks, the total mercury

concentration in the effluent, the mass of settleable solids found in the separation procedure, and the

amount of solids being filtered from the decant liquid reached peak levels. For the last two weeks, the

mass of dry solids and the mercury concentration in the MRU effluent stabilized and began to decrease.

On the last two days of the verification test, the mass of solids and the mercury concentration in the

effluent again increased. It was noted that the total flo w from the dental office was higher than average on

these final two days. The final day’s flow was impacted by the extra flushing of the vacuum system

performed to clear the lines at the end of the test. On the second to last day of the test, the number of

mercury amalgam surfaces removed and placed was higher than average. These factors may have

impacted the performance of the MRU.

DRNA MRU Performance

As described in the general protocol for test plan development, it was not possible to collect influe nt and

effluent samples simultaneously during the verification period due to the small volume of the influent

flow, the operation of the system under vacuum, and the difficulty of obtaining representative samples

(particularly of solids) from small pipes, with small intermittent flow under vacuum. The test plan was

designed to obtain data that could be used for two different approaches to determine the treatment

efficiency of the unit. The first approach used the characterization test data, collected for the eleven

weeks prior to the verification test period, to determine the average mercury concentration and average

mercury mass discharged from the dental office on a daily basis. The dental office operation was similar

during both the characterization pe riod and the verification period, which allowed the characterization

data to be used as a substitute for the actual influent characteristics during the verification test period. For02/01/EPAWQPC

- SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2002

VS

- vi the second approach, effluent quality was measured directly during the ver ification test period. At the end

of the test period, a mass balance for the MRU was completed using the effluent data collected during the

verification test period and the mass of mercury retained in the MRU.

Characterization Data vs. Verification Data

Comparing the characterization data to the treated effluent data shows that the DRNA MRU was effective

in removing the settleable solids and the mercury in these solids, achieving better than 99 percent removal

either on an average concentration basis or o n a total mass basis. As shown in Table 3, the overall

removal of mercury (solids and liquid combined) was 98.7 percent on a concentration basis and 98.3

percent on a total mass basis. Removal efficiency for the mercury associated with the settleable sol ids

was 99.6 percent. The MRU also was effective in removing the mercury associated with the decant liquid

fraction (soluble and suspended mercury) showing an efficiency of 92.8 percent.

Table 3. Removal Efficiency Based on Characterization Data

- Total Mass and

Average Concentration

Total Wastewater Settleable Solids

Mass (mg) Decant Liquid

Mass (mg) Concentration (μg/L) Mass (mg)

Characterization

(7/30

- 9/20/2002) 53.3 12.7 778 66.0

MRU Discharge

(9/25

- 11/9/2002) 0.234 0.909 10.3 1.14

% Removal 99.6 92.8 98.7 98.3

Mass Balance of Verification Data

The second approach to calculating removal efficiency is based on measuring all of the mercury retained

in the unit during the verification test and calculating the total load to the MRU (reta ined mercury +

discharged mercury = total influent mercury). Using this approach, the DRNA MRU removed over 99

percent of the mercury in the settleable solids and over 99 percent of the total mercury delivered to the

MRU. The MRU was also effective in re ducing the mercury in the liquid fraction by 94 percent. The

results for the verification test mass balance are shown in Table 4. The removal efficiencies calculated by

the mass balance are similar to the removal efficiencies found using the characterizat ion data. In general,

the mass balance approach does tend to show somewhat larger removal efficiencies because there was a

greater total mass of mercury, particularly in the settleable solids, during the verification test than during

the characterization test.

Under these conditions, verification testing demonstrated the DRNA MRU to be capable of removing

greater than 99 percent of the mercury associated with settleable solids, 92 to 94 percent of the mercury

associated with the liquid fraction (soluble p lus suspended particulate), and 98 to 99 percent of the total

mercury present in the wastewater.02/01/EPAWQPC

- SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2002

VS

- vii Table 4. Removal Efficiency based on Mass Balance of Retained and Discharged Mercury

Mass of Mercury

Settleable Solids

(mg) Decant Liquid

(mg) Total Was tewater

(mg)

Separator

- Retained 181

- 181

Filter

- Retained

- 0.049 0.049

Carbon

- Retained

- 4.98 4.98

Resin

- Retained

- 9.24 9.24

Discharge 0.234 0.909 1.14

Total Mass Load 182 15.2 197

% Removal 99.9 94.0 99.4

Operation and Maintenance Results

The M RU was easy to operate, requiring no operator intervention except for occasionally verifying pump

operation and weekly checks of the bleach solution level. Once the unit was installed and operational,

there were no maintenance requirements other than repl enishing the bleach solution, and the unit

performed without interruption for seven weeks. DRNA’s recommended maintenance interval is 6

- 12

months depending on the amount of material treated in the wastewater stream. Visual observations made

during the ve rification test, and a review of the type of pumps and materials of construction used in the

MRU, did not indicate otherwise. The only operational problem encountered during the verification test

was the increase in solids in the MRU effluent, apparently from the bleach solution causing the carbon to

breakdown and be discharged. The bleach solution to water ratio was adjusted to what DRNA

recommends for units currently being sold.

Two quantifiable O&M factors that apply to the DRNA MRU are electrical usage and chemical usage.

The electrical power requirement was 120VAC, 4 amps for each of the two pumps in the unit. Total

electrical use can be expected to average about 2,400 watts per day. At a mix ratio of 1 part bleach to 3

parts water, approximate ly 1.2 liters of bleach per month will be used.

The MRU did not require cleanout or maintenance during the verification test period. Observation during

the recovery of the settleable solids from the separator showed that less one percent of the solids s eparator

volume (<100 mL of solids in a 10 liter unit) was accumulated during the seven

- week test period. The

separator should therefore have sufficient capacity to hold six months to one year of solids at the

accumulation rate experienced during the verif ication test. DRNA provided proprietary information on

the mercury adsorbing capacity of the adsorbent material. Measurement of the weight of adsorbent in the

MRU combined with results of quality control samples that independently measured the adsorption of

mercury, indicated sufficient adsorption capacity to treat soluble mercury for six months to one year,

assuming no breakdown of the adsorbent material. The costs associated with cleanout of the MRU on the

regularly scheduled change out (6

– 12 months) are the cost to ship the unit to DRNA and the cost

associated with the recycling service. The MRU has been designed to facilitate the change out for return

to DRNA, with quick disconnects and an arrangement that will assure complete containment of the MR U

content during shipping.02/01/EPAWQPC

- SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2002

VS

- viii Original Signed by

E. Timothy Oppelt 09/27/02 Original Signed by

Gordon Bellen 10/04/02

E. Timothy Oppelt Date

Director

National Risk Management Research Laboratory

Office of Research and D

evelopment

United States Environmental Protection Agency Gordon E. Bellen Date

Vice President

Research

NSF International

NOTICE: Verifications are based on an evaluation of technology performance under specific,

predetermined crite ria and the appropriate quality assurance procedures. EPA and NSF make no

expressed or implied warranties as to the performance of the technology and do not certify that a

technology will always operate as verified. The end user is solely responsible for complying with

any and all applicable federal, state, and local requirements. Mention of corporate names, trade

names, or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use of

specific products. This report in no way constitut es an NSF Certification of the specific product

mentioned herein.

Availability of Supporting Documents

Copies of the ETV Protocol for Verification Testing for Mercury Amalgam Removal

Technologies dated April 2001, the Verification Statement, and the Ver ification Report

are available from the following sources:

Source Water Protection ETV Pilot Manager (order hard copy)

NSF International

P.O. Box 130140

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113

- 0140

NSF web site: http://www.nsf.org/etv (electronic copy)

EPA web site:

http://www.epa.gov/etv (electronic copy)

(NOTE: Appendices are not included in the Verification Report. Appendices are

available from NSF upon request.)September 2002



# Environmental Technology Verification Report

Removal of Mercury from Dental Offi ce Wastewater

Dental Recycling North America (DRNA)

Mercury Recovery Unit (MRU)

Prepared for:

NSF International

Ann Arbor, MI 48105

Prepared by

Scherger Associates

Under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

R aymond Frederick, Project Officer

ETV Source Water Protection Pilot

National Risk Management Research Laboratory

Water Supply and Water Resources Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Edison, New Jersey 08837ii 

### Notice

The U.S. Environmental Protecti on Agency (EPA) through its Office of Research and

Development has financially supported and collaborated with NSF International (NSF) under a

Cooperative Agreement. The Source Water Protection Pilot, now part of the Water Quality

Protection Center, opera ting under the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

supported this verification effort. This document has been peer reviewed and reviewed by NSF

and EPA and recommended for public release.iii 

### Foreword

The following is the final report on an Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) test

performed for NSF International (NSF) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) by a testing organization comprised of the NSF laboratory and Scherger Associates in

cooperation with Dental Recycling North America, Inc. The test was conducted from July

through November 2001 at a dental office in Michigan.

Throughout its history, the EPA has evaluated the effectiveness of innovative technologies to

protect human health and the environment. T he Environmental Technology Verification Program

was initiated in 1995 by EPA, to verify the performance of innovative technical solutions to

environmental pollution or human health threats. ETV was created to substantially accelerate the

entrance of new environmental technologies into the domestic and international marketplace.

Verifiable, high quality data on the performance of new technologies are made available to end

users regulators, developers, consulting engineers, and those in the public health a nd

environmental protection industries. This encourages rapid availability of new and innovative

approaches to environmental protection and reduction of human health risks.

The EPA has partnered with NSF, an independent, not

- for

- profit testing and certifi cation

organization, to verify the performance of commercial

- ready treatment systems designed to

remove pollutants and protect water quality. A goal of verification testing is to enhance and

facilitate the acceptance of small treatment systems and equipmen t by state regulatory officials

and consulting engineers while reducing the need for testing of equipment at each location where

the equipment’s use is contemplated. NSF will meet this goal by working with manufacturers

and NSF

- qualified Testing Organizat ions (TO) to conduct verification testing under the approved

protocols. NSF’s testing laboratory and Scherger Associates is one such TO.

NSF is conducting the Source Water Protection (SWP) Pilot, now part of the Water Quality

Protection Center, with part icipation of manufacturers, under the sponsorship of the EPA Office

of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Water Supply

and Water Resources Division, Edison, New Jersey. It is important to note that verification of

the equipment does not mean that the equipment is “certified” by NSF or “accepted” by EPA.

Rather, it recognizes that the performance of the equipment has been determined and verified by

these organizations for those conditions tested by the TO.iv 

### Table of Con

tents

Verification Statement

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. VS

- i

Notice

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. ii

Foreword

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... iii

Table of Contents

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... iv

List of Tables

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ vi

List of Figures

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... vi

Glossary of Terms

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... vii

Abbreviations and Acronyms

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... ix

Acknowledgments

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... x

Chapter 1

–Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 1

- 1

1.0 ETV Purpose and Program Operation

................................ ................................ ......... 1

- 1

1.1 Testing Participants and Responsi bilities

................................ ................................ 1

- 1

1.1.1 NSF International

–Verification Organization (VO)

................................ ...... 1

- 2

1.1.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

................................ ........................... 1

- 2

1.1.3 Testing Organization

................................ ................................ ........................ 1

- 3

1.1.4 Technology Vendor

................................ ................................ .......................... 1

- 5

1.1.5 ETV Test Site

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 1

- 6

1.1.6 Technology Panel

................................ ................................ ............................. 1

- 6

1.1.7 Stakeholder Advisory Group

................................ ................................ ........... 1

- 6

1.2 Sources and Fate of Mercury in the Environment

................................ ................... 1

- 6

1.3 Mercury Amalgam in Dental Offices

................................ ................................ ....... 1

- 9

Chapter 2

- Technology Description and Operating Processes

................................ ............ 2

- 1

2.0 Technology Description

................................ ................................ ............................... 2

- 1

2.1 DRNA Mercury Recovery Unit (MRU)

................................ ................................ .. 2

- 1

2. 2 Equipment Specifications

................................ ................................ ........................ 2

- 3

2.3 Operation and Maintenance

................................ ................................ ..................... 2

- 4

2.4 Vendor Claims

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 2

- 5

Chapter 3

- Methods and Test Procedures

................................ ................................ .............. 3

- 1

3.0 Test Plan and Procedures

................................ ................................ ............................. 3

- 1

3.1 Influent Characterization

- Procedures

................................ ................................ .... 3

- 1

3.1.1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 3

- 1

3.1.2 Objectives

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 3

- 1

3.1.3 Sampling Location, Container Type, and S ampling Frequency

...................... 3

- 2

3.1.4 Analytical Testing and Record Keeping

................................ .......................... 3

- 4

3.2 MRU Installation and Commissioning

- Procedures

................................ ............... 3

- 5

3.2.1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 3

- 5

3.2.2 Objectives

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 3

- 5

3.2.3 Installation and Startup P rocedures

................................ ................................ . 3

- 6

3.3 Verification Testing

- Procedures

................................ ................................ ............ 3

- 7

3.3.1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 3

- 7

3.3.2 Objectives

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 3

- 8

3.3.3 Sample Location, Sampling Approach, and Frequency

................................ ... 3

- 8

3.3.3.1 Treated Water Sample Collection

................................ ................................ 3

- 8

3.3.3.2 Residuals Sample Collection

................................ ................................ ....... 3

- 9v

3.3.4 Analytical Testing and Record Keeping

................................ ........................ 3

- 10

3.3.5 Operation and Maintenance Performance

................................ ...................... 3

- 12

Chapter 4

- Results and Discussion

................................ ................................ .......................... 4

- 1

4.0 Characterization Test

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 4

- 1

4.1 Mercury Amalgams Removed and Placed

................................ ............................... 4

- 1

4.2 Mercury Results

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 4

- 1

4.3 pH Results

–Charact erization Study

................................ ................................ ....... 4

- 9

4.4 Installation and Startup of DRNA MRU

................................ ................................ . 4

- 9

4.5 Verification Test

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 4

- 10

4.6 Mercury Amalgams Removed and Placed

................................ ............................. 4

- 11

4.7 Mercury Results

–Verification Test

................................ ................................ ...... 4

- 13

4.8 pH Results Verif

ication Study

................................ ................................ ............... 4

- 19

4.9 Residue Results for DRNA MRU

................................ ................................ .......... 4

- 20

4.10 Performance of the DRNA MRU

................................ ................................ .......... 4

- 22

4.10.1 Comparison Approach

................................ ................................ ................... 4

- 22

4.10.2 Removal Efficiency Based on Characterization Data

................................ .... 4

- 22

4.10.3 Remova l Efficiency Based on Verification Data Mass Balance

.................... 4

- 24

4.11 MRU Operational Characteristics

................................ ................................ .......... 4

- 25

4.11.1 Qualitative Factors

................................ ................................ ......................... 4

- 25

4.11.2 Quantitative Factors

................................ ................................ ....................... 4

- 26

4.12 Quality Control Results

................................ ................................ .......................... 4

- 2 7

Cha pter 5

–References

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 5

- 1vi 

### List of Tables

Table 2

- 1. Equipment List

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 2

- 4

Table 2

- 2. Recommended Maintenance Schedule

................................ ................................ 2

- 5

Table 3

- 1. Summary of Influent Analytical Requirements

................................ ................... 3

- 4

Table 3

- 2. Analytical Methods and Detection Limits

................................ ........................... 3

- 5

Table 3

- 3. Summary of Effluent and Residual Analytical Requirements

........................... 3

- 11

Table 4

- 1. Summary of Number of Surfaces Removed and Placed

- Characterization Test 4

- 2

Table 4

- 2. Settleable Solids Results

–Characterization Study

................................ ............. 4

- 5

Table 4

- 3. Mercury Results

–Characterization Study

................................ .......................... 4

- 6

Table 4

- 4. Summary Statistics for Mercury

–Characterization Study

................................ . 4

- 8

Table 4

- 5. Summary Statistics for Mercury in Settleable Solids

–Characteriz ation Study

. 4

- 8

Table 4

- 6. pH Results

–Characterization Study

................................ ................................ . 4

- 10

Table 4

- 7. Summary of Number of Surfaces Removed and Placed

–Ve rification Test

.... 4

- 11

Table 4

- 8. Mercury Results

- Verification Test

................................ ................................ ... 4

- 15

Table 4

- 9. DRNA MRU Settleable Solids Results

................................ .............................. 4

- 16

Table 4

- 10. Summary Statistics Mercury Results for DRNA MRU Effluent

....................... 4

- 18

Table 4

- 11. Summary Statistics Settleable Solids Results for DRNA MRU Effluent

.......... 4

- 19

Table 4

- 12. pH Results Verification Test

................................ ................................ .............. 4

- 19

Table 4

- 13. Solid Residue Results

–DRNA MRU

................................ ............................... 4

- 21

Table 4

- 14. Removal Efficiency Based on Characterization Data

- Daily Averages

........... 4

- 23

Table 4

- 15. Removal Efficiency Based on Characterization Data

- To tal Mass and Average

Concentration

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 4

- 23

Table 4

- 16. Removal Efficiency based on Mass Balance of Retained and Discharged Mercury

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 4

- 24



### List of Figures

Figure 2

- 1. DRNA Mercury Recovery Unit (MRU)

................................ .............................. 2

- 3

Figure 3

- 1. MRU Installation Schematic Diagram

................................ ................................ . 3

- 7

Figure 4

- 1. Mass of Mercury in Office Wastewater

–Characterization Test

......................... 4

- 7

Figure 4

- 2. Mass of Mercury Discharged from MRU

................................ .......................... 4

- 17vii 

### Glossary of Terms

Accuracy

- a measure of the closeness of an individual measurement or the average of a number

of measurements to the true value and includes random error and systematic error.

Bias

- the systematic or persistent distortion of a measurement process t hat causes errors in one

direction.

Commissioning

–the installation of the mercury amalgam removal technology (free of mercury

residuals) and start

- up of the technology using test site wastewater.

Comparability

–a qualitative term that expresses confiden ce that two data sets can contribute to

a common analysis and interpolation.

Completeness

–a qualitative term that expresses confidence that all necessary data have been

included.

Infrastructure and Watershed Protection Stakeholder Advisory Group

- a grou p of

individuals, established under the VO, consisting of any or all of the following: buyers and users

of mercury amalgam removal and other technologies, developers and vendors, consulting

engineers, the finance and export communities, and permit writers and regulators.

Mercury Free Water

–laboratory prepared water used in analysis and cleaning procedures that

is tested to ensure the mercury concentration in the water is <0.2 μg/L.

Mercury, Filterable

– mercury that can be removed from a wastewater sample by settling and

filtration through a 0.45 micron filter. Determined by subtracting the soluble mercury from the

total mercury in the liquid sample after settling and adding the settleable mercury concentration

or mass. Filterable mercury = (Total mercury

–soluble mercury) + settleable mercury.

Mercury, Settleable

–total mercury measured in the settled residue from the wastewater sample

after settling the wastewater for eight to sixteen hours in accordance with the SOP for sampling

handling and settling.

Mercury, Soluble

–mercury measured in the filtrate from a liquid sample that has been filtered

through a 0.45 micron filter.

Mercury, Total

–mercury measured in the liquid sample after removal of settleable solids. The

sample is allowed to settle for 8

- 16 hours and the liquid is decanted. The liquid sample is not

filtered. The entire sample, including liquid and any remaining particulate present, is used for the

analysis.

Owner

–the owner of a dental office used as a test site for verification testing.

Precision

- a measure of the agreement between replicate measurements of the same property

made under similar conditions.

Protocol

–a written document that clearly states the objectives, goals, scope and procedures for

the study. A protocol shall be used for reference during Vendor participation in the verification

testing program.

Quality Assurance Project Plan

–a written document that describes the implementation of

quality assurance and quality control activities during the life cycle of the proje ct.

Residuals

–the waste streams, excluding final effluent, which are retained by or discharged

from the technology.viii 

### Glossary of Terms (cont.)

Representativeness

- a measure of the degree to which data accurately and precisely represent a

characteristic of a population parameter at a sampling point, a process condition, or

environmental condition.

Standard Operating Procedure

–a written document containing specific procedures and

protocols to ensure that quality assurance requirements are maintained.

Su rfaces

- refers to the surface of a tooth. There are five possible surfaces per tooth, top and

four sides.

Technology Panel

- a group of individuals established by the VO with expertise and knowledge

in mercury amalgam removal technologies.

Testing Organi zation

–an independent organization qualified by the Verification Organization

to conduct studies and testing of mercury amalgam removal technologies in accordance with

protocols and test plans.

Vendor

–a business that assembles or sells mercury amalga m removal equipment.

Verification

– to establish evidence on the performance of mercury amalgam removal

technologies under specific conditions, following a predetermined study protocol(s) and test

plan(s).

Verification Organization

–an organization qualif ied by USEPA to verify environmental

technologies and to issue Verification Statements and Verification Reports.

Verification Report

– a written document containing all raw and analyzed data, all QA/QC data

sheets, descriptions of all collected data, a det ailed description of all procedures and methods

used in the verification testing, and all QA/QC results. The Verification Test Plan(s) shall be

included as part of this document.

Verification Statement

– a document that summarizes the Verification Report and is reviewed

and approved by USEPA.

Verification Test Plan

–A written document prepared to describe the procedures for conducting

a test or study according to the verification protocol requirements for the application of mercury

amalgam removal equipme nt at a particular test site. At a minimum, the Verification Test Plan

includes detailed instructions for sample and data collection, sample handling and preservation,

and quality assurance and quality control requirements relevant to the particular denta l office test

site.ix 

### Abbreviations and Acronyms

ANSI American National Standards Institute

ASQC American Society for Quality Control

DRNA Dental Recycling North America, Inc.

DQI data quality indicators

DQO data quality objectives

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

ETV Environmental Technology Verification

MSDS material safety data sheets

MRU Mercury Recovery Unit

NSF NSF International

NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory

O&M Operation and maintenance

O RD Office of Research and Development, USEPA

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

QA quality assurance

QAPP quality assurance project plan

QC quality control

QMP quality management plan

SAG Stakeholders Advisory Group

SOP stan

dard operating procedure

SWP Source Water Protection

SWPP Source Water Protection Pilot

TCLP toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

TO Testing Organization

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

VO Verification Organization

VTP Ve rification Test Planx 

### Acknowledgments

The Testing Organization (TO), a coalition comprised of the NSF International laboratory,

Scherger Associates, and Mr. Adam Markie, was responsible for all elements in the testing

sequence, including collection of samples, calibration and verification of instruments, data

collection and analysis, data management, data interpretation and the preparation of this report.

Scherger Associates

3017 Rumsey Drive

Ann Arbor, MI 48105

(734) 213 8150

Contact: Mr. Dale A. S cherger

Email: Daleres@aol.com

The laboratory that conducted the analytical work of this study was:

NSF International

789 N Dixboro Road

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105

(734) 769

- 5357

Contact: Mr. Steve Williams

Email: williams@nsf.org

Equipment Installation and Sample Collection was performed by:

Mr. Adam Markie

68661 Stoecker Lane

Richmond, MI 48062

(810) 727

- 7980

email: None

The Manufacturer of the Equipment was:

Dental Recycling North America, Inc.

145 West 58 th Street

New York, NY 10019

1

- 8 00

- 360

- 1001

Email: www.drna.com

Contact: Mr. Marc Sussman

(212) 956

- 5188

Email: mmsussman@aol.com

The TO wishes to thank NSF International, especially Mr. Thomas Stevens, Project Manager,

and Ms. Maren Roush, Project Coordinator, for providing guidan ce and program management.xi

Mr. Craig Turchi, Dental Recycling North America, provided treatment system information and

excellent technical and product expertise.

Mr. Michael Richards, Environmental Chemist at NSF, was invaluable in his coordination of al l

laboratory analyses, performing the special mercury analysis procedures, and processing of the

resulting data. Mr. Steve Williams at NSF handled the incoming sample and processing program

and provided hands

- on expertise in removing the solid residues fro m the MRU at the end of the

verification test.1

- 1 

### Chapter 1

– Introduction

1.0 ETV Purpose and Program Operation

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has created the Environmental Technology

Verification (ETV) Program to facilitate the deployment of innovative or improved

environmental technologies through performance verification and dissemination of information.

The goal of the ETV Program is to further environmental protection by substantially accelerating

the acceptance and use of innovative, improved and more cost

- effective technologies. ETV

seeks to achieve this goal by providing high quality, peer reviewed data on technology

performance to those involved in the design, distribution, permitting, purchase, and use of

environmental technologi es.

ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations; stakeholders

groups which consist of buyers, vendor organizations, consulting engineers, and regulators; and

with the full participation of individual technology developers. The program evaluates the

performance of innovative technologies by developing test plans that are responsive to the needs

of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory (as appropriate) testing, collecting and analyzing

data, and preparing peer reviewe d reports. All evaluations are conducted in accordance with

rigorous quality assurance protocols to ensure that data of known and adequate quality are

generated and that the results are defensible.

NSF International (NSF) in cooperation with the EPA oper ates the Source Water Protection Pilot

(Pilot), one of 12 technology areas under ETV. This Pilot evaluated the performance of the

Dental Recycling North America Mercury Recovery Unit (DRNA MRU), which is designed to

remove mercury amalgam from wastewater from dental offices. DRNA sells the MRU unit to

remove particulate and soluble mercury that is present in the discharge from dental office

vacuum systems. The MRU includes a mercury amalgam separator unit based on sedimentation

theory for removal of partic ulate and an adsorbent system that removes soluble mercury by

adsorption onto a solid media. This document provides the verification test results for the Dental

Recycling North America Mercury Recovery Unit. DRNA recycles the mercury trapped in the

MRU whe n the MRU is returned to them. The mercury recycling process was not part of this

verification.

1.1 Testing Participants and Responsibilities

The ETV testing of the DRNA MRU was a cooperative effort between the following

participants:

NSF International

Sch erger Associates

Mr. Adam Markie

DRNA

USEPA1

- 2

1.1.1 NSF International

– Verification Organization (VO)

The Source Water Protection ETV Pilot is administered through a cooperative agreement

between USEPA and NSF International (NSF). NSF is the verification partn er organization for

the Source Water Protection Technologies Pilot (SWPP). NSF administers the Pilot, and

organized the Testing Organization to develop and implement the Verification Test Plan (VTP).

NSF’s responsibilities as the Verification Organization include:

• Reviewing and commenting on the VTP;

• Coordinating with peer

- reviewers to review and comment on the VTP;

• Coordinating with the EPA Pilot Manager and the technology vendor to approve the VTP

prior to the initiation of verification testing;

• Reviewi

ng the quality systems of all parties involved with the Testing Organization and

subsequently, qualifying the companies making up the Testing Organization;

• Overseeing the technology evaluation and associated laboratory testing;

• Carrying out an on

- site audi t of test procedures;

• Overseeing the development of a verification report and verification statement;

• Coordinating with EPA to approve the verification report and verification statement; and

• Providing QA/QC review and support for the TO.

Key contacts at N SF for the Verification Organization are:

Mr. Thomas Stevens, Program Manager

(734) 769

- 5347 email: stevenst@nsf.org

Ms. Maren Roush, Project Coordinator

(734) 827

- 6821 email: mroush@nsf.org

NSF International

789 N. Dixboro Road

Ann Arbor, Michiga n 48105

(734) 769

- 8010

1.1.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The USEPA Office of Research and Development through the Urban Watershed Branch, Water

Supply and Water Resources Division, National Risk Management Research Laboratory

(NRMRL), provides admini strative, technical, and quality assurance guidance and oversight on

all ETV Source Water Protection pilot activities. The USEPA reviews and approves each phase1

- 3

of the verification project. The USEPA’s responsibilities with respect to verification testing

include:

• VTP review and approval;

• Verification Report review and approval; and

• Verification Statement review and approval

.

The key USEPA contact for this program is:

Mr. Ray Frederick, Project Officer, ETV Source Water Protection Pilot

(732)

- 321

- 66 27 email: frederick.ray@epa.gov

U.S. EPA, NRMRL

Water Supply and Water Resources Division

2890 Woodbridge Ave. (MS

- 104)

Edison, NJ 08837

- 3679

1.1.3 Testing Organization

The Testing Organization (TO) for the DRNA MRU verification testing was a con sortium of the

NSF International laboratory, Scherger Associates, and Mr. Adam Markie. This group was

organized by NSF to bring together resources that could complete a high quality verification test

program in a cost effective manner. Each participant in the consortium had a well

- defined role in

planning and executing the VTP.

Mr. Dale Scherger of Scherger Associates served as the Project Manager for the TO and was

responsible for coordination and development of the VTP, obtaining all of the information

needed to plan and execute the VTP, managing the data collected during the test period,

preparing the draft final report, and providing technical guidance in conjunction with the

Technology Panel. Mr. Adam Markie provided field support at the test site, i ncluding setup and

operation of the MRU, collection of the daily and weekly records from the dental office, and

collection and shipment of the samples on a daily basis. Mr. Markie provided any maintenance

support required during the verification test perio d in consultation with the vendor, DRNA.

NSF International provided the laboratory services for the testing program and provided

consultation on and implementation of any sampling and analytical issues addressed during the

verification test period. NSF wa s responsible for all quality assurance for the VTP through its

QA group. NSF provided administrative and technical support for review and production of the

VTP and the Final Report. NSF also handled project management and cost tracking support for

the pro ject. The NSF staff involved in the verification testing process as members of the TO

were separate from the NSF management and staff that provided the oversight for the ETV

program as members of the VO.1

- 4

The responsibilities of the TO consortium included :

• Preparation of the VTP;

• Conducting Verification Testing, according to the VTP;

• Installation, operation, and maintenance of the MRU in accordance with the Vendor’s

O&M manual(s);

• Controlling access to the area where verification testing was carried out;

• Maintaining safe conditions at the test site for the health and safety of all personnel

involved with verification testing;

• Scheduling and coordinating all the activities of the verification testing participants,

including establishing a communication netw ork and providing logistical and technical

support on an “as needed” basis;

• Resolving any quality concerns that were encountered and reporting all findings to the

Verification Organization;

• Managing, evaluating, interpreting and reporting on data generate d by verification

testing;

• Evaluation and reporting on the performance of the technology; and,

• Documenting changes in plans for testing and analysis, and notifying the Verification

Organization of any and all such changes before changes were executed.

Th e key personnel and contacts for the TO are:

Scherger Associates

Mr. Dale Scherger

(704)

- 947

- 7050 email: daleres@aol.com

Scherger Associates

3017 Rumsey Drive

Ann Arbor, MI 48105

Adam Markie

–Field Support

Mr. Adam Markie

(810) 727

- 7980 email: No ne

68661 Stoecker Lane

Richmond, MI 48062

NSF International

–Laboratory Support

Mr. Steve Williams,

(734) 769

- 5357 email: williams@nsf.org1

- 5

NSF International

–Quality Assurance Support

Bruce DeMaine, Manager, QA and Safety

(734) 769

- 5143 ema il: demaine@nsf.org

1.1.4 Technology Vendor

The mercury removal technology evaluated was the Mercury Recovery Unit (MRU)

manufactured and distributed by Dental Recycling North America, Inc. (DRNA). DRNA was

responsible for supplying all of the equipment need ed for the test program and supporting the TO

in ensuring that the equipment was properly installed and operated during the verification test

period. Specific responsibilities of the vendor included:

• Initiating application for ETV testing;

• Providing input regarding the verification testing objectives to be incorporated into the

VTP;

• Selecting the test site;

• Providing complete, field

- ready equipment and the operations and maintenance (O&M)

manual(s) typically provided with the technology (including instruct ions on installation,

start

- up, operation and maintenance) for verification testing;

• Providing any existing relevant performance data for the technology;

• Providing assistance to the Testing Organization on the operation and monitoring of the

technology du

ring the verification test period, and logistical and technical support as

required;

• Reviewing and approving the VTP;

• Reviewing and commenting on the Verification Report and Statement; and

• Providing funding for verification testing.

The key contact for DRNA is:

Mr. Marc Sussman

(212) 956

- 5188 email: mmsussman@aol.com

Dental Recycling North America, Inc.

145 West 58 th Street

New York, NY 10019

www.drna.com1

- 6

1.1.5 ETV Test Site

The verification test was performed at a general practice dental of fice in Michigan, which is

representative of a small dental office with one or two dentists. The dentist requested that his

name and address not be disclosed in the verification report. The dental office typically operated

four (4) days per week. The offi ce had five chairs, with two being used for dental hygiene work

and three for general dentistry procedures. During the characterization period, there was one

dentist in the office using two general dentistry chairs. During the verification test period, a

s econd dentist was added on a part time basis using the third general dentistry chair. The office

uses a dry vacuum system. The host test site was responsible for some record keeping and

providing information on activities that may have affected the charact erization and verification

test results. These responsibilities included:

• Providing logistical support and reasonable access to the equipment and facilities for

sample collection and equipment maintenance;

• Notifying the Testing Organization of any si gnificant changes in dental practices that

could affect the volume and composition of wastewater produced at the site; and,

• Recording the tooth number and number of amalgam surfaces placed and removed, the

flushing procedure used (chemicals used, volume an d frequency) and when chair side

traps or vacuum filters were changed (this system was a dry system so there were no

filters).

1.1.6 Technology Panel

Representatives from the Technology Panel assisted the Verification Organization in reviewing

and commenting on the VTP. The Panel also provided technical and professional support to the

TO during all phases of the verification test period. Panel members reviewed and commented on

the Verification Report.

1.1.7 Stakeholder Advisory Group

The Watershed Protection Sta keholder Advisory Group was instrumental in approving the

development of the Verification Protocol that served as the basis for the development of the ETV

Protocol for the Verification of Mercury Amalgam Removal Technologies

.

1.2 Sources and Fate of Mercury i n the Environment

The following discussion is taken as excerpts from the USEPA website maintained by the agency

to inform the public and scientific community on issues related to mercury in the environment.

The reader is referred to the EPA website (http: //www.epa.gov/mercury/index.html) and to

reports by the Science Advisory Board, the USEPA and others for more information. The EPA

website provides references on the topic of mercury contamination and discharge to the1

- 7

environment. The EPA produced a white paper regarding mercury in the environment, which can

be found at www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/memoranda/whtpaper.pdf.

Mercury is a naturally occurring element that is present throughout the environment. Human

activity can release some of that mercury into t he air, water and soil. In the U.S., coal

- fired

power plants are the biggest source of mercury emissions to the air. Mercury concentrations in

air are usually low and of little direct concern. However, when mercury enters water, biological

processes transf

orm it to a highly toxic form that builds up in fish and animals that eat fish.

People are exposed to mercury primarily by eating fish. The Environmental Protection Agency is

working to reduce the amount of mercury in the environment.

Most of the mercury entering the environment is the result of air emissions; however, mercury

also can directly contaminate land and water as a result of the release of industrial wastewater or

from the disposal of waste

- containing batteries and other sources of mercury. Once mercury

enters waters, either directly or through air deposition, it can bioaccumulate in fish and animal

tissue in its most toxic form, methylmercury. Bioaccumulation means that the concentration of

mercury in predators at the top of the food web (for ex ample, predatory fish and fish

- eating birds

and mammals) can be thousands or even millions of times greater than the concentrations of

mercury found in the water. More information on the sources, fate, and risks of mercury in the

environment can be found i n EPA’s 1997 Mercury Report to Congress and 1998 Utility Air

Toxics Report to Congress.

Health Effects and Exposure

For the general U.S. population, exposure to mercury occurs primarily through eating

contaminated fish. Women of childbearing age, and peo ple who regularly and frequently eat

highly contaminated fish (or large amounts of moderately contaminated fish), are the most likely

to be at risk from mercury exposure. Those groups include subsistence fishermen (people who

fish for their food) and some Native American populations. Freshwater fish (caught by

recreational or subsistence fishermen) from contaminated waters have been shown to have

particularly high levels of methylmercury. Mercury contamination is the most frequent basis for

fish advisories. Fish consumption advisories have been issued for thousands of water bodies

nationwide, including all of the Great Lakes and their connecting waters, which include more

than 52,000 lakes and more than 238,000 miles of rivers. As of July 2000, 40 states and one

territory (American Samoa) had issued fish consumption advisories for mercury. Thirteen of

those states issued advisories for all water bodies in their state; the remaining 27 states issued

advisories for more than 1,900 specific water bodies. High me rcury levels also have been found

in certain saltwater fish. In March 2000, for example, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and

South Carolina issued a joint fish consumption advisory because of high mercury levels in large

king mackerel. Certain species of commercially available saltwater fish, such as shark and

swordfish, also have high levels of mercury. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

issues consumption advice for commercial marine fish. The FDA plans to re

- evaluate its current

advice in light of a July 2000 report by the National Academy of Sciences that confirmed EPA’s

mercury reference dose. A reference dose is the level at which people could be exposed to a toxic

(in this case, mercury) without the risk of health problems.1

- 8

Neurotoxicity is the health effect of greatest concern with mercury exposure. Ingested

methylmercury is almost completely absorbed into the blood and distributed to all tissues

(including the brain); it also readily passes through the placenta to the fetus and fetal brain . The

developing fetus is considered the most sensitive to the effects of mercury; therefore, women of

childbearing age are the population of greatest concern. Children born of women exposed to

relatively high levels of methylmercury during pregnancy have exhibited a variety of

developmental neurological abnormalities, including delayed onset of walking and talking,

cerebral palsy, and reduced neurological test scores. Far lower exposures during pregnancy have

resulted in delays and deficits in learning abi lities in children.

In July 2000, the National Academy of Sciences completed a review of the latest scientific

evidence regarding the health effects of methylmercury. The Academy confirmed EPA’s

assessment of the health risks related to mercury exposure a nd noted that children exposed to

mercury in the womb as a result of their mothers’ diets during pregnancy may be at special risk

of neurological problems. In addition, children exposed after birth are also potentially more

sensitive to the toxic effects o f methylmercury than adults, because their nervous systems are

still developing. Mercury also poses risks to fish

- eating wildlife, including some birds and

mammals, such as the mink and otter.

Recent Actions to Reduce Mercury Pollution

EPA has taken a nu mber of actions to reduce mercury pollution, including issuing stringent

regulations for industries that significantly contribute to mercury pollution. Once fully

implemented, these actions will reduce U.S. mercury emissions caused by human activities by

n early 50 percent from 1990 levels. In addition, U.S. industrial demand for mercury dropped 75

percent from 1988 to 1997. The drop can be attributed to a number of actions, including:

• Federal bans on mercury additives in paint and pesticides;

• Industry eff

orts to reduce mercury in batteries;

• Increasing state regulation of mercury emissions and mercury in products;

• State

- mandated recycling programs; and

• Voluntary actions by industry.

EPA also provides technical assistance to state and local governments to develop mercury

pretreatment programs at wastewater treatment plants (WWTP). Some WWTP are now requiring

monitoring of mercury levels entering the public sewer system, and some systems have set limits

on the levels of mercury allowed to enter the sewer sy stem. The Agency has recently lowered the

threshold for reporting mercury emissions to the Toxic Release Inventory, which began in 2000.

The lower threshold will help ensure that citizens know about significant mercury emissions in

their communities.1

- 9

Pl anned Actions to Reduce Mercury Pollution

In addition to developing regulations to limit mercury emissions from utilities, EPA has

developed an action plan to address other sources of mercury pollution. Already there are a

number of planned activities und er way: EPA is developing a revised human health

- based

mercury standard for water quality and has identified the need to develop a standard that will

protect wildlife from mercury’s effects.

EPA is making meaningful progress in addressing the mercury pol lution problem in the United

States and is exploring the regional, intercontinental and global dimensions of this problem. EPA

is committed to increasing public awareness about the dangers associated with exposure to

mercury and will continue to take actio ns that will provide increased protection of public health.

1.3 Mercury Amalgam in Dental Offices

Mercury amalgam is a major material used in dental offices throughout the United States. The

amalgam can enter the wastewater at a dental office either during the removal process, when old

amalgams are removed or during the placement process when new amalgam is used. In a modern

dental office, a vacuum system is used to remove liquid and particulate, including mercury

amalgam, that accumulate in the mouth during dental procedures. The liquid contains particles of

mercury amalgam of varying size. A coarse chair side trap is used to remove very large particles

from the vacuumed liquid and to protect the vacuum lines from becoming plugged. The liquid

and small parti

cles are carried through the vacuum system to an air/water separator near the

central vacuum pump for dry systems or directly to the vacuum pump in a wet system. The

wastewater carrying the mercury material is then typically discharged to the sanitary sewe r or

septic tank system along with other wastewater from the office or building. Most of the mercury

present in the wastewater is in the particulate form (insoluble). The larger particles are settleable

and can be trapped in sedimentation chambers/devices that provide quiescent conditions. Smaller

particles (>0.45 micron) are also present, contain mercury, and will pass through settling devices

and contribute to the total mercury load in effluent from these devices. Some portion of these

smaller particles c

an be filtered by various filtration systems. Data collected over the past few

years has shown that a small amount of mercury will also be present in the soluble form (either

dissolved or in particles < 0.45 micron in size).2

- 1



### Chapter 2

- Technology Descri ption and Operating Processes

2.0 Technology Description

The package treatment unit evaluated during the verification test was the DRNA Mercury

Recovery Unit (MRU). This unit is sold by DRNA as a complete package that can be installed

upstream of the air/wa ter separator of dry vacuum systems or before the filters and vacuum

pump in a wet system commonly used at dental offices. The MRU is comprised of two main

treatment components

- a BullfroHg amalgam separator for particulate removal based on the

sedimentat ion process, and a mercury filter unit containing an adsorbent material for soluble

mercury removal and a fine particulate filter. Figure 2

- 1 shows a picture of the MRU unit. This

combination of technologies addresses both insoluble and soluble mercury typ ically present in

the wastewater from dental office vacuum systems.

2.1 DRNA Mercury Recovery Unit (MRU)

The BullfroHg is a combined solid and air/water separator designed for installation on the

vacuum side of a dental vacuum pump to remove mercury amalgam particles from dental

wastewater. Three

- phase flow (air/water/solids) enters the BullfroHg from the dental office

vacuum line. The entrained solids and liquids are retained within the BullfroHg while the air

flows out to the system vacuum pump. Particles a re allowed to settle for several hours after the

vacuum system is shutdown at the end of the operating day. At the conclusion of the settling

time, a timer activates a pump to transfer the wastewater from the settling chamber through two

adsorbents (carbon

and a proprietary resin) and through a fine particle filter. Solid amalgam

particles remain trapped within the separator unit.

Soluble mercury present in the wastewater is adsorbed onto two types of media. The wastewater

first passes through granular act ivated carbon and then through a proprietary resin designed to

specifically adsorb mercury. A fine particulate filter made of progressive density polypropylene,

nominally rated at 1 micron, is located after the resin to capture any particulate in the effl uent or

from the absorption zone of the adsorbent column. The treated wastewater exits the adsorbent

filter and discharges to the sewer system. A bleach solution is added to the filter unit to control

biological growth in the media.

Mercury retained in t

he BullfroHg sedimentation chamber and captured on the adsorbents and

filter can be returned to DRNA for recycling. DRNA has arrangements with mercury recovery

companies to recycle the mercury trapped or adsorbed by the MRU and captured by the chair

side t raps that are part of a typical vacuum system. The mercury recovery/recycling process was

not part of this verification process.

The MRU is designed to remove fine amalgam particles that can damage a vacuum pump in a

wet vacuum system. The MRU is designed so that flow will bypass the MRU and allow

continued operation of the dental suction system if any problem occurs with the unit. This

bypassed water will not have particulate removed and will be filtered either by the filter before a

wet vacuum pump or by the air/solids separator in the dry system, assuming the original2

- 2

separator remained inline after MRU installation. The MRU is a self

- priming system and holds a

vacuum when turned off. The MRU system pump can run dry without damaging the motor or

the dri ve unit.

The system timer controls both the bleach pump and the settled wastewater transfer pump. The

timer can be set to initiate the pumping of settled wastewater to the adsorbent column at a

predetermined time each day. The timer is set at the factory to start the pumping cycle at 3 a.m.,

which provides about 10 hours of settling time for an office that closes at 5 p.m.. The timer also

turns off the pump based on the programmed time and is normally set to shut down the pump

after two to three hours of o peration. The pump is also shut off by the low level sensor in the

BullfroHg, which detects the presence of liquid in the settling chamber. If liquid is not present,

the MRU pump will not activate or will shut down if operating.

The bleach system is desig ned to operate using normal household or commercial bleach. The

bleach solution is pumped into the wastewater as it is transferred from the BullfroHg separator to

the adsorbent column to control bacterial growth in the adsorbent system. Bleach can affect t he

solubility of mercury, causing particulate mercury to be dissolved or leached into solution. The

bleach may also oxidize some of the organics in the wastewater, which could have a negative

effect the adsorption of mercury on the proprietary resin. When the verification test began the

O&M manual recommended using one part bleach to one part water. This ratio was changed

during the test to one part bleach to two parts water. The current recommended method for

making the bleach solution is to mix one part b leach with three parts water.2

- 3 Figure 2

- 1

. DRNA Mercury Recovery Unit (MRU)

BullfroHg

Amalgam

Separator

Control Timer Bleach Reservoir

Sorbent

Column Discharge Line

Air/water

separator

Settling

chamber

2.2 Equipment Specifications

The equipment specifications for the MRU are given below. Table 2

- 1 lists the components and

parts that are included with an MRU as shipped to a dental location.

Physical Dimensions:

Height 24 inch (61 cm)

Width 24 inch (61 cm)

Depth 12 inch (31 cm)

Capacity 10 liters per day / up to six chairs (operatories)

Weight 90 lbs (41 kg)

Vacuum Rating 15 inch Hg

Pressure Rating not rated

Temperature Range: 40

- 104 o F / 4

- 40 o C

Electrical Requirements:

Input Voltage 4 amp, 120 VAC2

- 4 Table 2

- 1

. Equipment List

Description

MRU Enclosure containing:

• BullfroHgTM Air/Water/Amalgam Separator

• Twin peristaltic pumps with waste sensor

• 10

- liter bleach reservoir

• Adsorbent column

• Particle filter

Instruction Manual

Fittings & Hose:

• 1” hose barb x female cam

- lock fitting

• 1” hose barb x male cam

- lock fitting

• 1” x 1” hose barb coupling

• 1” hose clamps

• 1” ID x 6

- ft long vacuum hose

• 1⁄4” ID x 6

- ft long discharge hose

• 1” x 1” x 1⁄4” hose barb for discharge connection

• 1” x 3⁄4” hose barb coupling (to adapt to 3⁄4” ID hose)

Programmable Timer/Controller

Each standard MRU un it is designed to handle the flow for up to six (6) operatories (chairs).

DRNA must be consulted for larger clinics.

2.3 Operation and Maintenance

The MRU is designed for ease of operation and minimal maintenance once installed in the

vacuum system. The unit is plumbed into the vacuum system ahead of the vacuum pump and

upstream of the air/water separator if one is present. The system is self

- contained and operates

automatically based on a timer that activates the pump that removes water from the separator

un it and pumps it through the filter and adsorbent material. No daily operator intervention is

required other than to conduct periodic checks that the timer, tubing, and pumps are working

properly. The operator does need to check the bleach solution on a reg ular basis (requires

replenishing about once per month). The installation, operation and maintenance manual is

presented in Appendix A.

Maintenance activities are minimal for the MRU. The large surface area of the adsorbent

provides possible sites for bio logical growth. If biomass builds up on the adsorbent, it can reduce

the adsorbent’s effectiveness of the adsorbent for the removal of soluble mercury. The biomass

can also cause the column to plug, reducing the flow rate of treated wastewater through the unit.

A bleach solution is used to disinfect the adsorbent system and help reduce clogging. This

solution needs to be prepared periodically (about once per month in normal use) and placed in

the container that is supplied with the MRU. Replacement should o ccur whenever the volume in

the container becomes low. The original recommended formula for this solution was one part2

- 5

commercial bleach and one part water. DRNA has subsequently changed the recommended

solution to one part commercial bleach and three part s water. The bleach concentration was

changed during the verification test as discussed in section 4.7. The tubing that runs through the

pump needs periodic replacement (approximately once per year), as it will become worn over

time. The recommended mainte nance activities and schedule are shown in Table 2

- 2.

Table 2

- 2

. Recommended Maintenance Schedule

Item Required Maintenance Recommended

Interval*

Pump (s) Replace pump tubing with new section of

tubing. 12 months

Bleach Reservoir Add 1 part commercial bleach, 3 parts water. Check volume

weekly

BullfroHgTM Separator

Adsorbent Column Recycle

Recycle 6 to 12 months

6 to 12 months

Particle filter Replace 6 to 12 months

* Actual interval may vary depending on the type and amount of wastewater treated

The MRU system is designed so that operators are not exposed to any residues and do not have

to open any mercury contaminated equipment. DRNA ships a complete replacement adsorbent

column, filter and BullfroHg when it is time to recycle these devices. When the replacements

arrive, the operator exchanges the new BullfroHg, adsorbent column, and filter for those in the

MRU. Disinfectant is placed in the separator prior to recycling the unit. The amalgam separato r

is first sealed in a 4

- mil plastic bag containing an adsorbent. This bag and adsorbent provide

secondary containment in the event of a leak. The unit is then packed in a 275#, heavy

- wall box

with custom

- made foam padding to protect the separator from dam age during shipping. It is

labeled as amalgam for shipping. DRNA then arranges for the residues from the units to be

removed and recycled/reclaimed.

2.4 Vendor Claims

DRNA states in its literature that the mercury amalgam separator is effective at capturing 95

percent of all particles that are greater than 10 microns in size. DRNA states that these particles

(>10 micron) typically account for 95 percent of the total mercury sent to the unit. Further, the

mercury specific adsorbent column typically reduces the mercury concentration in the treated

wastewater to below detection limits (author’s statement

–MDL for mercury is typically less

than 0.2 μ g/L).

The verification testing process did not measure particle size distribution, but did measure the

total mercu

ry load (soluble and insoluble) in the wastewater during the characterization period.

The total mercury (filterable, settleable, and soluble) in the treated wastewater after treatment by

the MRU was measured during the verification test period. The results of the verification test2

- 6

determined the amount of mercury removed by the MRU during operation at the dental office

and the total mass balance for mercury during the verification period.

The vendor has stated that the DRNA BullFroHg (the solids separator) is ISO 11143 certified. A

statement from the annex to a report indicating the certification was provided to NSF. The ISO

certification report was not reviewed or confirmed. A copy of the information provided is given

in Appendix A with the O&M manual.3

- 1 

### Ch apter 3

- Methods and Test Procedures

3.0 Test Plan and Procedures

A VTP was prepared and approved for the verification of the DRNA MRU and is attached in

Appendix B. This VTP, “Verification Test Plan for The Dental Recycling North America

Mercury Removal Sy stem, June 2001” (1) detailed all of the procedures and analytical methods

that were to be used to perform the verification test. The VTP was prepared in accordance with

the SWP protocol, “Protocol for the Verification of Mercury Amalgam Removal Technologie s,

April 2001” (2) . The VTP included tasks designed to verify the mercury removal capability of the

MRU and to obtain information on the installation, operation, and maintenance requirements of

the MRU. There were three distinct phases of fieldwork that ne eded to be accomplished as part

of the VTP: initial characterization of the wastewater, installation and start

- up of the MRU, and

verification testing with the MRU operating and treating the wastewater.

Each of these testing elements, performed during th e technology verification, are described in

this section. In addition to a description of the sample collection methods, equipment installation,

and equipment operation, this section also describes the analytical protocols. Quality Assurance

and Quality Co ntrol procedures and data management approach are discussed in detail in the

VTP.

3.1 Influent Characterization

- Procedures

3.1.1 Introduction

The purpose of influent characterization testing was to obtain an understanding of the influent

wastewater volume and water quality characteristics before the verification test of the DRNA

MRU. There was no analytical data available for the wastewater from the test site prior to the

test. Therefore, a thorough characterization of the influent (untreated) wastewater was ne eded to

provide credible information for determining the mercury removal effectiveness of the MRU.

Influent characterization occurred during a 44

- day business period (eleven weeks) before the

MRU was installed for testing.

3.1.2 Objectives

The objectives of inf

luent characterization were to:

• Determine the daily flow of the wastewater stream to be used for verification testing;

• Evaluate the concentrations and daily mass loading of mercury in settleable, filterable

and soluble forms;

• Determine operational conditi ons for the MRU technology;

• Record and document all influent characterization conditions and results;

• Identify any required modifications to the VTP prior to beginning verification of the

MRU (adjustments in sampling, analysis, etc.); and,

• Provide a basis for evaluating the removal efficiency of the DRNA MRU.3

- 2

3.1.3 Sampling Location, Container Type, and Sampling Frequency

The dental office selected as the site for this verification test operated a dry vacuum system with

an air/water separator upstream of the va cuum pump. The vacuum collection system piping was

one inch diameter PVC pipe located in the office floor. Flexible one inch plastic pipe connected

the chair side trap unit to the main collection piping in the wall. The office is located on the first

floor and all piping and the vacuum system are located on the first floor. A 10

- liter vacuum

- rated

polypropylene container was used for the sample collection container. The container was

plumbed into the vacuum system just prior to the current air/water separat or collection vessel and

was set up to maintain the vacuum in the system. Therefore, if the bottle were to overfill, the

extra wastewater would be collected in the current system prior to reaching the vacuum pump.

The entire flow during a 24

- hour period of operation was collected to characterize the

wastewater. Collection of the entire flow eliminated concerns about obtaining non

- representative

samples that could contain large heterogeneous particles and eliminated the need to consider

flow weighted composi

te samples versus time composite samples. The use of the 10

- liter

container ensured that sufficient volume was available to contain all of the flow for a full day of

office activities. The typical flow in the system was 2

- 3 liters per day (1⁄2 to 3⁄4 gallons) with a

potential for an additional 2.5 liters of flushing solution on line cleaning days. Sample volume

did not exceed the container capacity during the test period.

The sample location for this verification test was located upstream of the air/water sep arator as

the DRNA MRU is designed to be installed before the air/water separator. Therefore, the

characterization sampling location was the same as the inlet location of the MRU during the

verification test. By placing the sample bottle at this location, the wastewater sampled during the

influent characterization was as similar as possible to the wastewater that entered the BullfroHg

separator in the MRU. The elevation of the sample container inlet (approximately three feet

above the floor) was located at a height similar to the inlet of the MRU air/water/solid separator

for this installation. The inlet to the original dry system air/water separator was approximately

four feet above the floor. The wastewater that was being collected in the sample container was

the same wastewater that is normally collected in the dental office air/water separator, and

discharged to the public the sewer system in the absence of a treatment system.

The dental office normally operated from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. The sample containe r was changed

daily at the end of the office

- operating day. The daily sample, representing all of the previous

24

- hour flow, was capped and prepared for shipment to the laboratory. A chain of custody form

was prepared daily and signed by the sampler and b y a witness. In addition, a custody seal was

placed over the cap of the container when the cap was placed on the bottle. Each sample bottle

was placed in a cooler with ice for shipment to the laboratory and was delivered to the NSF

laboratory within a few hours by a courier service.

After receipt at the laboratory, the contents of the 10

- liter sample collection container were

poured into a 7 gallon rectangular polypropylene settling tank and allowed to settle for 8 to 16

hours. The supernatant in the sett ling tank was decanted into a 2 L polypropylene graduated

cylinder using a variable speed peristaltic pump and food grade Tygon  tubing. The supernatant

was transferred from the graduated cylinder to a clean 10 L polypropylene container, which was

agitate d using a circular motion for 30 seconds, and three individual samples of the supernatant3

- 3

were po u red into 125 mL HDPE bottles containing 2.5 mL of 50 percent (by volume) nitric acid.

These samples were for total mercury analysis. Approximately 400 mL of th e supernatant was

passed through pre

- weighed glass fiber filters under vacuum as needed. The filtrate was poured

in to a polypropylene beaker, and three samples were created by agitating the beaker for 30

seconds and pouring the filtrate into 125 mL HDPE bottles containing 2.5 mL of 50 percent (by

volume) nitric acid. The filters were dried and weighed and the weight of the filtered solids was

recorded.

Solids remaining in the settling tank were transferred to a polypropylene beaker using mercury

free w ater to rinse the solids remaining in the tank into the beaker. The rinse bottle and beaker

were weighed prior to rinsing the settling tank and the initial tare weights were recorded. After

the contents of the settling tank had been transferred into the be aker, both the rinse bottle and

beaker were weighed again. The solids wet weight was calculated by subtracting the weight of

the rinse water used and the tare weight of the beaker from the final weight of the beaker. The

solids and rinse water were filte red through glass fiber prefilters and then through 0.45 micron

membrane filters. The filters and retained solids were oven dried for a minimum of 24 hours,

then weighed to the nearest 0.1 mg. The filters were placed in a plastic bag and delivered to the

laboratory for digestion and analysis.

The Laboratory weighed aliquots of the solids and filter samples. These samples were digested

and the mercury concentration was determined. In most cases, all of the collected solids were

included in the digested s ample. In a few cases, the sample size was too large for a single

digestion, and a representative cross section of the filtered solids was digested. The

representative sample was typically at least 50 percent of the total solids collected.

The complete sa mple settling and handling procedures are presented in Appendix C.

The sampling container(s) and any fittings were cleaned by the laboratory and returned to the

field for reuse. Cleaning involved scraping to remove any solids adhered to the surface of the

container or fittings and rinsing with mercury

- free water (<0.2 μ g/L). All solids collected during

cleaning, along with all the rinse water, were added to the sample being settled and included in

the analysis. The method used to clean the sampling contai ner(s) is described in Appendix C.

Rinse water volumes and weights were recorded so that dilution by the rinse water could be

accounted for and the data adjusted accordingly. Copies of the spreadsheets showing these

calculations are presented in Appendix D.

New chair side traps were installed just before the start of the influent characterization program.

These traps were changed approximately once per week, in accordance with normal office

procedures. The trap, with the amalgam and related materials, wa s placed in sealable plastic bags

and transported to the laboratory for weighing. A log was maintained by the dental office to

document the replacement of the chair side traps.3

- 4

3.1.4 Analytical Testing and Record Keeping

Forty

- four samples were collected duri ng an eleven

- week characterization period. Table 3

- 1

presents the influent parameters measured for the solids collected and the liquid sub

- samples.

Industry standard procedures (USEPA Methods (3,4,5) or Standard Methods (6) ) were used for

sample analysis. Table 3

- 2 shows the specific method numbers used for the mercury and pH

analyses. The procedures were checked using standard reference solids samples containing

known amounts of mercury and by testing a sample of the actual mercury amalgam from the

denta l office. All liquid samples were analyzed in triplicate for mercury.

Table 3

- 1

. Summary of Influent Analytical Requirements

Parameter Solid Fraction 1 Liquid Fraction 1

Volume (liters) 2 X

pH X

Approxim ate volume of solids

(particle(s)) (mL) 3 X

Wet weight of solids (grams) X

Solid (Particle) mercury (mg) 4 X

Total mercury (mg/L) 5 X

Soluble mercury (mg/L) 5 X

Chair side Trap Material

–weight

(grams) 6 X

Note:

(1) Minimum of 25 samples, each a complete sample of all the waste generated

over a 24 hour period.

(2) Total volume of wastewater and rinse water recorded separately.

(3) Volume estimated after as much as possible of the liquid fraction has been

removed.

(4) Digestion required before a nalysis.

(5) Analysis carried out on a representative sub

- sample of the liquid fraction after

settleable solids removed.

(6) Chair side trap material weighed

The dental office staff maintained a record of the number of amalgams and surfaces placed and

re moved each day. A copy of the log was obtained each day when the sample was collected.

Copies of the dental amalgam logs are presented in Appendix E.

The dental assistant was responsible for the flushing procedure, which was performed on a

regular basis in accordance with office procedures and observed by the TO field representative.

Using a “calibrated” bottle, the volume was standardized at 500 mL per chair. The cleaning3

- 5

solution used was the brand name PureVac. The material safety data sheet for PureVa c is

provided in Appendix F.

Table 3

- 2

. Analytical Methods and Detection Limits

Sample Matrix Analyses Standard Methods

USEPA Methods Detection Limit

LIQUID pH

Mercury (Total)

Mercur y (Soluble) 150.1

7470A/245.1

7470A/245.1 N/A (range 1

- 13 S.U.)

0.2 μ g/L

0.2 μ g/L

SOLID Mercury (Total)

TCLP 7471A/245.5

1311 0.25 mg/kg

N/A

3.2 MRU Installation and Commissioning

- Procedures

3.2.1 Introduction

DRNA provid ed an installation, operation, and maintenance manual for the MRU. This manual

is presented in Appendix A. A new MRU unit with all components was shipped to the site by

DRNA. The installation and startup were straightforward, as described in Section 3.2.3 and in the

installation manual. A representative from NSF was present at the site during installation to

confirm that the installation was in accordance with the VTP and the DRNA O&M manual.

3.2.2 Objectives

The objectives of the installation and start

- up phase of the VTP were to:

• Install the Mercury Recovery Unit (MRU) in accordance with the DRNA O&M manual;

• Start

- up and test the MRU to ensure all processes were operating properly, timers were

set for proper automatic operation, and any leaks that occurred du ring the installation

were eliminated;

• Make any modifications needed to achieve operation; and,

• Record and document all installation and start

- up conditions prior to beginning the

verification test.3

- 6

3.2.3 Installation and Startup Procedures

The installation a

nd start

- up of the MRU was performed by the Testing Organization’s field

support person and was observed by the NSF staff. No on site support was needed from DRNA.

The MRU, as shown previously in Figure 2

- 1, was shipped as a self

- contained unit that requir ed

connections to the vacuum system using standard tubing and fittings. Installation was at the same

location in the vacuum system as the sample container used for the characterization testing. The

sample container connections were removed and the proper c onnections for the MRU were

installed. The entire installation and system checks took less than three hours.

A new, clean MRU system was installed in the vacuum line upstream of the existing air/water

separator, as recommended by DRNA. The one

- inch vacuum line was connected to the inlet of

the MRU with a one

- inch quick

- connect connection, which is the standard inlet size for the

MRU. The outlet vacuum port on the MRU was connected to the one

- inch line running to the

current air/water separator. The air/wat er separator remained in

- line downstream of the MRU as

a protection for the vacuum pump in the case the settling unit should overflow. The schematic of

the DRNA system installation is shown in Figure 3

- 1.

The internal units and pumps in the MRU came ready for connection and operation. Tubing was

supplied with fittings to connect the outlet port of the BullfroHg separator to a small pump,

which pumps the wastewater through the adsorbent and filter unit. The pump and timer

components arrived ready for use wi th the timer preset for activating the pump to transfer the

settled wastewater to the adsorbent column. The treated effluent discharge line from the MRU

was directed into a 10

- liter polypropylene container that collected all of the effluent from each

twent y

- four period of dental office operation. The sample bottle was located at the utility sink so

that in the case of an overflow the treated water would discharge to the sink and the sewer

system. No overflows occurred during the testing period.

Once the in

stallation was complete, the timer was checked and set to activate the pump at 3 a.m..

The waste level sensor in the separator shuts the pump off when all wastewater is removed from

the separator. The sensor and timer were checked for proper operation in a ccordance with the

installation manual. The entire system was wet tested. Clean water was placed in the separator

unit and the vacuum lines were reconnected with the fast connect/disconnect fittings. The manual

operation button was pushed which activated t he pump and clean water was pumped through the

adsorbent filter, particle filter, and into the sample collection bottle. The MRU was inspected for

leaks and no leaks were found. Once the system checks were completed, the MRU was ready for

operation and the verification

- testing period started.3

- 7 Figure 3

- 1

. MRU Installation Schematic Diagram

Dental Chair Coarse Chairside Trap

Five Chairs connected

via a main header

Water to drain

(Dry during

Verification Test) Vacuum

Pump Air/water

Separator

DRNA MRU

BullFrog

Amalgam

Separator

and

Settling

Chamber

Liquid Pump (timed)

Mercury

Adsorber and

Particle Filter Sample

Bottle

3.3 Verification Testing

- Procedures

3.3.1 Introduction

The verification test period was desi gned to measure treatment performance of the DRNA MRU

under field conditions. The treated wastewater effluent discharged from the MRU was collected

and analyzed every day the dental office was operating. Residuals retained by the MRU in the

separator, par

ticle filter, and adsorbent filter (four separate samples, note that the adsorbent filter3

- 8

contained two materials) were collected and measured individually, and analyzed individually at

the end of the verification test. All samples of wastewater and residu e were analyzed to

determine the performance of the MRU for the removal of mercury from the dental office

wastewater vacuum systems.. Operation and maintenance conditions were monitored and

documented. Verification testing conditions, observations and re sults are presented in this

Verification Report in Chapter 4, Results and Discussion.

3.3.2 Objectives

The objectives of verification testing were to:

• Evaluate the treatment performance of the MRU for the removal of soluble and insoluble

mercury, operating und er standard conditions as specified by DRNA;

• Evaluate the MRU operation and maintenance requirements; and

• Record and document test conditions, observations and results

3.3.3 Sample Location, Sampling Approach, and Frequency

3.3.3.1 Treated Water Sample Collection

The i nstalled DRNA MRU collected the entire day’s flow of wastewater from the vacuum

system and retained the liquid and solids in the BullfroHg separator. After several hours of

settling, from approximately 5 p.m. until 3 a.m., the liquid in the separator was p umped through

the adsorbent filter and particle filter unit. The pumping time was typically 2

- 4 hours, resulting

in an empty BullFroHg Separator (except for retained settled solids) and filled sample container

by 7 a.m. The sampling location for the daily treated

- water discharge was from the end of the

discharge tube from the MRU unit. The treated effluent would normally discharge directly to the

sewer system, but for this test, the discharge tube was secured in a 10

- liter polypropylene sample

bottle that c

ollected the entire volume discharged from the system. Each sample represented a

24

- hour period comprised of one day of operation at the dental office, followed by overnight

treatment in the MRU. During the verification testing period, the sample was retri eved in the

morning after the treatment was completed, and the samples were sent to the laboratory by

courier service.

Collection of the entire flow for each 24

- hour period eliminated any concern about obtaining

”representative” subsamples and eliminated the need to consider flow weighted composite

samples or time composite samples. The use of the 10

- liter container provided sufficient volume

to contain all of the flow for a full day of office activities. The typical flow in the system was 2

– 3 liters p er day (1⁄2 to 3⁄4 gallons) with an additional 2.5 liters of flushing solution on line cleaning

days. At no time during the test did the sample container approach being completely full or

overflow.

Effluent samples were collected for 32 days to yield 32 samp les for analysis. At the end of each

24

- hour period of office and MRU operation, the filled sample bottle was replaced with a clean

sample bottle. The filled sample bottle was capped and prepared for shipment to the laboratory.

A chain of custody form was prepared and signed by the sampler and a witness, and a custody3

- 9

seal was placed over the cap of the container. The sample bottle was placed in a cooler with ice

and remained cool during shipment to the laboratory. The wastewater was delivered to the NSF

la boratory by a courier service and generally arrived within a few hours of sample collection.

After logging the sample in at the NSF laboratory, recording the temperature of the sample, and

noting the cooler condition, the entire sample was transferred to a plastic settling tank (12 inches

x 12 inches x 12 inches). The sample was settled and the sampling container was cleaned

following the same procedures used during the characterization period, as described in Section

3.1.3. Sample containers were checked f or residual mercury contamination by adding distilled

water to selected bottles after they were cleaned. The “blank” was then allowed to sit in the

bottle for several hours. The bottle blank(s) were then sent to the laboratory for analysis.

3.3.3.2 Residuals Sam

ple Collection

The DRNA MRU is designed to retain solid amalgam and other dental waste particles in the

BullfroHg separator and the particle filter. The system is sized to retain these residuals for a six

month to one

- year period. At that time, the separa tor, particle filter, and adsorbent filter units are

returned to DRNA for reclamation of mercury and silver in the amalgam and cleaning. Cleaned

units are provided to the dental office to replace the used units. The recycle/reclamation of

mercury and silve r was not part of this verification.

Based on this normal operating condition, the residuals from the separator, particle filter, and

adsorbent filter were scheduled to be collected one time at the end of the verification test. At the

end of the verificat ion test and after the final line flushing to remove any residues in the vacuum

lines, the MRU pump was manually activated to remove any wastewater present in the separator.

The pumped wastewater was collected in the sample bottle for the last day of the v erification

test. Once all of the water had been removed, the BullFroHg separator unit, the particle filter, and

the adsorbent unit were disconnected and removed from the MRU housing. Replacement units

and filters were provided by DRNA and were installed i n the MRU housing at the dental office.

The test units used during the verification test were then taken to the NSF laboratory for

residuals sampling and analysis. An NSF representative was present during the dismantling of

the equipment at the dental offi ce and drove the equipment containing the residuals to the NSF

laboratory under chain of custody.

The BullFroHg separator unit is designed for ease of cleaning and reuse with a removable lid that

allows ready access to the unit. At the laboratory, the sep arator unit was opened and the entire

residue from the separator was removed and collected as sample. The separator walls were

scraped and cleaned to remove the residue, which was added to the separator residue sample.

After scraping, the separator was rin sed and the rinsate added to the wet solids. The residue and

liquid were placed in containers and dried at low temperature until the moisture was removed.

The dried solids were then well mixed in preparation for sampling. Six subsamples of the residue

were collected over the surface and depth of the residue and sent to the laboratory for mercury

analysis. The original plan was to also perform TCLP analysis on the residue but there was

insufficient sample to perform the TCLP analysis. While information on th e leachable level of

mercury in the residue would have been of interest, all mercury retained by the MRU is typically3

- 10

recycled and is not disposed of in landfills. Therefore, the TCLP results do not have a direct

impact on the methods used for disposal of the residues.

The particle filter (nominally rated at 1 micron) contained a heavy load of small particles that did

not settle in the separator or were from the carbon and resin material in the adsorbent column.

The filter was removed from the unit (thread ed connection) and placed in a pan for drying. The

filter was dried at low temperature and a final dry weight obtained. The filter was then divided

into sections (six samples) and three samples were sent to the lab. The other three samples were

held to det ermine if they required analysis. The decision not to analyze additional samples was

based on the reasonable reproducibility of the three samples selected for analysis. The samples

were weighed and digested using the mercury solids procedure (EPA 245.5), i n order to

determine the mass of mercury present in the particle filter subsample. The average

concentration of mercury in the filter samples (on a filter weight basis, i.e. mg/kg) was then used

to determine the total mass of mercury present on the entire filter.

The adsorbent material (carbon and resin) adsorbed soluble mercury that may have been present

in the wastewater. The adsorbents were removed from the filter housing, keeping the carbon and

resin separate as much as possible. Each residue was plac ed in a dish, dried at low temperature,

and weighed in the laboratory. The material was thoroughly mixed and six subsamples of each

adsorbent (resin and carbon) were taken for analysis. The six samples were digested and

measured for mercury concentration. The average concentration of the six samples was used with

the total dry weight of adsorbent to calculate the mass of mercury collected by the adsorbents.

New chair side traps were installed just before the start of the verification test. These traps we re

changed a regular basis, approximately once per week from July 27 through September 19, 2001,

in accordance with normal office procedures. The trap, with the amalgam and related materials,

was placed in sealable plastic bags and transported to the labor atory for weighing. A log was

maintained by the dental office to document the replacement of the chair side traps.

3.3.4 Analytical Testing and Record Keeping

A total of 32 samples were collected over a seven

- week verification period. Table 3.3 presents

the ef fluent parameters that were measured for the solids collected and liquid sub

- samples.

Industry standard procedures (USEPA Methods (3,4,5) or Standard Methods (6) ) were used for

sample analysis. The method reference numbers are shown in Table 3.2. The proced ure for the

digestion of solids for mercury analysis was checked using standard reference solids samples

containing known amounts of mercury, and by testing a sample of the actual mercury amalgam

form the dental office. All liquid samples were analyzed in triplicate for mercury.3

- 11

Table 3

- 3

. Summary of Effluent and Residual Analytical Requirements

Effluent 1, 2 Residuals Parameter

Solid

Fraction Liquid

Fraction Solid

Fraction Liquid

Fraction

Volume (liters ) 3 X X

pH X X

Approximate volume of solids

(particle(s)) (mL) 4 X X

Wet weight solid particles (grams) X X

Solid (particle) mercury (mg) 5 X X

Total mercury (mg/L) 6 X X

Soluble mercury (mg/L) 6 X X

TCLP 7 X

Chair side Trap materia l weighed

(grams) 8 X

Note:

(1) Minimum of 25 samples, except for TCLP analysis.

(2) Collect all of the effluent over a 24

- hour period.

(3) Total volume of wastewater and rinse water recorded separately.

(4) Volume estimated after as much as possible of the liquid fraction has been removed.

(5) Digestion required before analysis.

(6) Analysis carried out on a representative sample of the liquid fraction.

(7) Toxicity characteristic leaching potential, as per USEPA method SW 846 1311.

Required for m

inimum of one sample (not completed due to insufficient sample weight).

(8) Chair side trap material were collected and weighed. Paper and non

- amalgam/tooth

debris were excluded from the sample.

The dental office staff maintained a record of the number of amalgams and the surfaces placed

and removed each day. A copy of the log was obtained each day when the sample was collected.

Copies of the dental amalgam logs are presented in Appendix E.

The dental assistant was responsible for performing the flushi ng procedure, which was

performed on a regular basis, as described in Section 3.1.4.3

- 12

3.3.5 Operation and Maintenance Performance

Both quantitative and qualitative performance of the MRU was evaluated during the verification

test. The MRU was self

- contained an

d designed to have minimal operator intervention once the

installation was complete. As stated earlier, a field log was maintained that included all

observations made during the installation, startup and operation of the MRU. Observations

regarding the con

dition of the MRU, any changes in the setup or operation (timer adjustments,

filter changes, etc.), or any problems that required resolution were recorded in the log by the

field personnel.

Qualitative operation and maintenance performance information in cluded:

• Observations regarding ease of operation;

• Observations regarding the effect of the MRU, if any, on the operation of the vacuum

system;

• Documentation of any operating problems encountered during testing;

• Quality of the O&M manual (e.g., actual exp erience in the field compared to that

indicated in the manual, clarity of instructions); and,

• Observations regarding labor requirements.

Several quantitative performance measures were evaluated for the operation of the MRU. The

information included:

• Dura tion (in hours) of any clean

- out operations (none were expected based on equipment

design, length of test, and vendor information);

• Frequency and duration (in hours) of any preventative or breakdown maintenance

activities;

• Electrical consumption for the tw o pumps was projected by estimating the operating time

of the pumps (timer controlled), and calculating kilowatt hours consumed by using the

electrical rating for the pumps and hours of operation;

• Chemical consumption of the bleach cleaning solution was mo nitored by logging the

quantity of solution made and the remaining material in the container at the end of the

verification test; and,

• Records of any other consumables used by the MRU over the test period (none were

expected).4

- 1 

### Chapter 4

- Results and Dis cussion

4.0 Characterization Test

The wastewater characterization test began on July 10, 2001 and continued through September

21, 2001. A total of 44 samples were collected during the eleven

- week period. The dental office

normally operated only 4 days per we ek and samples were collected at the end of each normal

business day. Two of the samples were collected on days when the dentist was not in the office

and only hygiene activities occurred. These two days, August 6 and 23, had two of the lowest

total flow s during the characterization.

4.1 Mercury Amalgams Removed and Placed

Two rooms out of the five rooms in the office were used as operatories during the

characterization study. Records of the number of surfaces placed or removed, and the tooth

number(s) fo r each procedure for each day were kept by the dental technician. Table 4

- 1 shows

the number of surfaces removed and placed during the characterization test. Three hundred

thirty

- four (334) surfaces over 42 operating days were removed/placed during the sam pling

period. This represents an average of 7.95 surfaces per day or approximately 40 surfaces per

week on a 5 operating days per week basis. There were three sampling days when no surfaces

were removed or placed. On two of these days (August 6 and 23), on ly hygiene activities

occurred at the office (no dentist in) and there was one day (August 7) of normal office operation

when no mercury amalgam surfaces were removed or placed.

4.2 Mercury Results

Each sample collected for wastewater characterization was d ivided into two phases for mercury

analysis, the settled solids fraction and the liquid fraction. Upon arrival at the laboratory, the

sample was placed in a settling chamber and the solids were allowed to settle for eight to sixteen

hours (See Procedure fo r Separation of Mercury Amalgam Samples in Appendix C). The liquid

fraction was then decanted and set aside for filtration and mercury analysis. Care was taken to

remove as much free liquid as possible, but some free liquid was allowed to remain in the set tled

solids to minimize disturbing the solids. The settled solids sample was then filtered using a 0.45

micron filter to remove the free liquid. The solids were dried and weighed prior to analysis for

total mercury.

The liquid fraction was divided into two samples. One sample was subsampled in triplicate and

sent to the laboratory for total mercury analysis. The other sample was filtered through a 0.45

micron filter and then subsampled in triplicate for soluble mercury analysis. Soluble mercury is

define d as mercury that is either dissolved in the wastewater or associated with particulate that is

less than 0.45 micron in size. Using a 0.45 micron filter is the standard USEPA approach for

preparing a soluble mercury sample. All sub sampling was performed b y thoroughly mixing

(shaking) the sample bottle and then quickly pouring the liquid sample into three bottles.4

- 2

Table 4

- 1

. Summary of Number of Surfaces Removed and Placed

- Characterization

Test

Operato ry Room 1 Operatory Room 2

Date

Surfaces

Removed Surfaces

Placed Notes Surfaces

Removed Surfaces

Placed Notes Total

Surfaces

7/10/01 0 2 0 0 2

7/11/01 6 3 4 3 16

7/12/01 4 0 0 0 4

7/13/01 2 5 6 7 20

7/16/01 3 5 0 3 11

7/17/01 2 0 2 7 11

7/ 18/01 7 0 4 5 16

7/20/01 0 0 6 0 6

7/23/01 2 0 0 4 6

7/24/01 2 0 0 0 2

7/25/01 0 0 6 0 6

7/27/01 0 0 0 2 2

7/30/01 3 0 7 6 16

7/31/01 1 0 7 0 8

8/1/01 0 0 0 4 4

8/3/01 3 0 (1) 4 0 (1) 7

8/6/01 0 0 (2) 0 0 (2) 0

8/7/01 0 0 0 0 0

8/8/01 0 0 0 2 2

8/9/01 0 0 6 4 10

8/10/01 0 0 3 0 3

8/13/01 3 2 1 0 6

8/14/01 1 5 0 0 6

8/15/01 2 2 2 7 134

- 3

Table 4

- 1. (continued) Summary of Number of Surfaces Removed and Placed

-

Characterization Test

Operatory Room 1 Operat ory Room 2

Date

Surfaces

Removed Surfaces

Placed Notes Surfaces

Removed Surfaces

Placed Notes Total

Surfaces

8/17/01 5 0 0 0 5

8/20/01 0 0 (1) 3 0 (1) 3

8/21/01 3 8 4 0 15

8/22/01 0 2 0 6 8

8/23/01 0 0 (2) 0 0 (2) 0

8/24/01 5 6 0 0 11

8/27/01 11 0 0 0 11

8/28/01 7 0 3 3 13

8/29/01 0 1 0 0 (3) 1

8/31/01 3 0 2 0 (3) 5

9/4/01 4 0 0 3 7

9/5/01 1 0 0 5 6

9/7/01 4 0 6 7 17

9/10/01 4 0 (1) 0 2 (1) 6

9/11/01 0 2 0 1 3

9/12/01 1 3 0 0 4

9/14/01 2 0 (3) 0 0 (3) 2

9/17/01 8 4 1 3 16

9/18/01 2 8 0 0 10

9/19/01 6 8 (1,4) 0 0 (1,4) 14

(1) Chair side traps were changed.

(2) No dentist was in office; it was not a normal operating day. However, a sample was collected. The normal procedure

was to accumulate sample volume over non oper ating days and collect it at the end of operating days.

(3) Line was flushed with 500 mL of PureVac flushing solution.

(4) Lines were flushed with 1000 mL of PureVac at the end of the characterization period, followed by a 1000 mL flush

with clean water.

Entire pe riod 7/10

- 9/20/02 Surfaces = 334 Operating Days = 42 Ave. surfaces / day = 7.95

Period 7/30

- 9/20/01 Surfaces = 232 Operating Days = 30 Ave. surfaces / day = 7.73

Data summaries do not include 8/6 and 8/23 as these were non

- dentist days

–i.e. no dentist was in the office. Under normal

procedures, samples were only collected on normal business days when the dentist was in the office working.4

- 4

Each wastewater sample resulted in three mercury concentration values, total mercury in the

settleable soli ds, total mercury in the liquid fraction, and soluble mercury in the liquid fraction.

All data tables report the settleable solids mercury concentration as “mercury from solids” and

the liquid fraction mercury concentration as “total mercury liquid” and “ soluble mercury liquid”.

It is important to remember the definition of these various fractions when comparing the results

to other studies and when performing the calculations for total mass of mercury discharged or

present in an untreated wastewater. A di rect discharge of this type of wastewater would contain

the mercury present in the settleable solids and the total mercury present in the liquid fraction.

The total mercury concentration in the untreated wastewater would be the sum of the mass of

mercury i n the settled solids added to the mass of mercury (from the total mercury analysis

sample) in the liquid volume divided by the total volume discharged.

Total mercury conc. = (conc. in solids x mass of solids) + (conc. in liquid x vol. of liquid ) (Eq. 1)

Total volume of sample

Table 4

- 2 shows the settleable solids data, including the concentration of mercury in the solids

and the total dry weight of the settled solids, which are the basis used for calculating the total

mass of mercury in the settled s olids. These results are from the collection and analysis of

settleable solids using the settling procedure described in Appendix C and Section 3.1.3. Table 4

- 3 shows the mercury results for the liquid fraction (after removal of the settleable solids

fract ion), including both the total mercury in the liquid and the soluble portion (after filtration

through a 0.45 micron filter). Table 4

- 3 also shows the volume of wastewater collected (total

daily flow through the vacuum system), the calculated mass of mercu ry in the liquid and settled

solids fraction, the calculated total mass of mercury in the discharge (settleable plus liquid

fraction) and calculated total mercury concentration. The total mercury concentration is

calculated by adding the mass of mercury in the solids and the liquid to calculate the total mass

of mercury in the sample, and then dividing by the total wastewater (sample) volume for that

day. The total mass of mercury in the office wastewater is shown graphically in Figure 4

- 1.

During the prep aration and handling of the wastewater samples, it was necessary to use rinse

water at several steps to ensure transfer of all of the solids and the mercury to the sample

containers. All rinse water volumes were measured by weighing the rinse water bottle before and

after each use. All of the rinse water dilutions were accounted for and the laboratory

- measured

concentrations were adjusted for these dilutions. The calculations and data used for these

adjustments are presented in Appendix D.

The average tota l mercury concentration (settleable solids plus liquid) was 657 μ g/L with the

concentration varying from a high of 1810 μ g/L to a low of 73 μ g/L. The average mass of

mercury in the wastewater was 1.60 mg/day varying from 0.05 mg/day to 6.81 mg/day. The

liq uid fraction (after settling) averaged 192 μ g/L. The soluble mercury portion in the decant

liquid averaged 127 μ g/L, and typically represented 50

- 70 percent of the mercury in the liquid

fraction of the wastewater. The summary statistics for the wastewater characterization are

presented in Tables 4

- 4 and 4

- 5.4

- 5 Table 4

- 2

. Settleable Solids Results

–Characterization Study

Settleable Solids Fraction Liquid Fraction

Date Hg Conc. Dry Wt. Mass of Dry Soli ds Mass of Hg in

Sample Mass of Solids after

Settling

mg/kg mg mg mg

(A) (B) (A*B)

7/10/01 220 274 0.0603 36.8

7/11/01 300 169 0.0507 129

7/12/01 310 151 0.0469 85.7

7/13/01 350 197 0.0688 50

7/16/01 74 1580 0.117 74.5

7/17/01 520 73.7 0.0383 5 2.8

7/18/01 140 71.7 0.0100 38.5

7/20/01 330 377 0.124 77.2

7/23/01 890 98.6 0.0878 90.1

7/24/01 (1) 2220 (1) 244

7/25/01 (1) 1350 (1) 142

7/27/01 2300 125 0.287 78.7

7/30/01 4800 421 2.02 61.4

7/31/01 3700 114 0.421 40.7

8/1/01 2000 1740 3.48 193

8/3/01 2000 267 0.535 68.7

8/6/01 5300 20.6 0.109 14.4

8/7/01 1300 900 1.16 110

8/8/01 6200 292 1.81 195

8/9/01 <0.6 16.4 <0.0002 13.2

8/10/01 4200 170 0.713 45.9

8/13/01 3800 715 2.72 103

8/14/01 410 65.2 0.0267 62.4

08/15/01 2700 1160 3.14 95.3

8/17/01 410 184 0.0754 43

8/20/01 860 120 0.103 38.7

8/21/01 1000 2040 2.04 40.8

8/22/01 4100 1330 5.44 156

8/23/01 390 30.2 0.0118 47.7

8/24/01 1800 525 0.944 47.2

8/27/01 1100 267 0.293 253

8/28/01 250 695 0.174 106

8/29/01 270 210 0.0567 324

8/31/01 160 725 0.116 235

9/4/01 1100 203 0.223 43.2

9/5/01 910 97.1 0.088 57.3

9/7/01 1100 939 1.03 20.2

9/10/01 2300 162 0.373 14.4

9/11/01 180 222 0.0400 45

9/12/01 740 259 0.192 89.2

9/14/01 2100 825 1.73 207.0

9/17/01 2100 862 1.81 25.7

9/21/ 01a(2) 7000 2280 15.9 184

9/21/01b(2) 4200 1550 6.49 0.4

(1) Lab sample was not analyzed.

(2) The “a” sample was collected after three days of office operation (9/18, 9/19, and 9/20) and included a flush with

PureVac solution. The “b” sample was collected from a fresh water flush of the system immediately after the “a”

sample was collected.4

- 6 Table 4

- 3

. Mercury Results

–Characterization Study

Liquid Fraction Data

Sample Decanted after Settling Procedure Settleable

S olids

Total Mass Hg Total Hg

Discharged

Date Final Conc.

Liquid

Total Hg Final Conc.

Liquid

Soluble Hg Soluble Hg Total

Discharge

Volume

Delivered Mass

of Hg

From Liquid Mass (1)

of Hg

From

Settleable

Solids Liquid Fraction

and Settleable

S olids Total Mass

divided by

Total

Volume

(mg/L) (mg/L) (% Of

Total) (mL) (mg) (mg) (mg/day) ( m g/L)

(ppb)

7/10/01 0.124 0.0080 6.5 874 0.111 0.0603 0.171 191

7/11/01 0.109 0.0994 91.4 2160 0.238 0.0507 0.289 132

7/12/01 0.113 0.0772 68.4 704 0.0840 0.0 469 0.131 176

7/13/01 0.220 0.183 83.4 1630 0.367 0.0688 0.436 261

7/16/01 0.0634 0.0414 65.3 3160 0.204 0.117 0.321 99.7

7/17/01 0.209 0.118 56.4 930 0.203 0.0383 0.241 249

7/18/01 0.175 0.137 78.2 1420 0.251 0.0100 0.261 182

7/20/01 0.190 0.121 63.5 1350 0.262 0.124 0.387 280

7/23/01 0.253 0.187 74.1 1640 0.425 0.0878 0.512 305

7/24/01 0.0947 0.0678 71.5 3290 0.318

7/25/01 0.231 0.114 49.4 5150 1.19

7/27/01 0.345 0.164 47.6 1390 0.479 0.287 0.766 550

7/30/01 0.514 0.632 123 1650 0.850 2.02 2.87 1740

7/31/01 0.435 0.343 79.0 585 0.254 0.421 0.676 1150

8/1/01 0.136 0.113 83.4 3430 0.466 3.48 3.95 1150

8/3/01 0.0546 0.0048 8.8 1220 0.0664 0.535 0.601 494

8/6/01 0.0446 0.0236 52.9 210 0.0094 0.109 0.119 565

8/7/01 0.0984 0.0504 51.2 2560 0 .252 1.16 1.42 553

8/8/01 0.149 0.0963 64.6 3600 0.536 1.81 2.34 651

8/9/01 0.416 0.385 92.5 129 0.0537 0.0000 0.0537 416

8/10/01 0.676 0.513 75.9 654 0.442 0.713 1.16 1770

8/13/01 0.526 0.394 75.0 2910 1.53 2.72 4.24 1460

8/14/01 0.510 0.364 71.2 700 0.366 0.0267 0.392 497

8/15/01 0.318 0.196 61.7 2100 0.667 3.14 3.80 1810

8/17/01 0.161 0.0771 47.8 634 0.102 0.0754 0.178 280

8/20/01 0.229 0.154 67.2 1120 0.255 0.103 0.358 321

8/21/01 0.083 0.0392 47.4 3960 0.328 2.04 2.37 599

8/22/01 0.139 0.0657 47.2 4690 0.653 5.44 6.09 1300

8/23/01 0.198 0.143 72.1 273 0.0544 0.0118 0.0662 241

8/24/01 0.213 0.164 77.1 1520 0.324 0.944 1.27 835

8/27/01 0.149 0.0703 47.1 2290 0.341 0.293 0.634 278

8/28/01 0.104 0.0159 15.3 2230 0.232 0.174 0.406 182

8/29/01 0.184 0.102 55.6 1270 0.379 0.0567 0.436 211

8/31/01 0.122 0.0251 20.5 2700 0.320 0.116 0.446 165

9/4/01 0.0574 0.0097 16.9 2030 0.126 0.223 0.349 160

9/5/01 0.0599 0.0235 39.2 1360 0.0812 0.0884 0.170 125

9/7/01 0.0578 0.0417 72.1 5880 0.340 1.03 1.37 234

9/10/01 0.0514 0.0408 79.4 1300 0.0829 0.373 0.456 283

9/11/01 0.0461 0.0044 9.5 1510 0.0784 0.0400 0.118 69.6

9/12/01 0.141 0.119 84.6 3040 0.428 0.192 0.619 204

9/14/01 0.378 0.0979 25.9 5040 1.90 1.73 3.64 722

9/17/01 0.215 0.140 65.0 2320 0.4 99 1.81 2.31 996

9/18/01 0.0547 0.0126 23.0 3090 0.169 5.31 5.48 1770

9/19/01 0.0547 0.0126 23.0 3090 0.169 5.31 5.48 1770

9/20/01 0.0547 0.0126 23.0 3090 0.169 5.31 5.48 1770

9/21/01b 0.0745 0.0393 52.8 4380 0.326 6.49 6.82 1560

9/18

- 9/20

–One samp le was taken over three

- day period.

9/21/01

–Cleaning solution included at the end of the third day

–system was flushed.

9/21/01

–Represents water flush at the end of the characterization period to clear the lines before the verification test.

See Table 4

- 4 for summary statistics of this data.

(1) Data in this column were taken from Table 4

- 2, second column from the right.4

- 7 Figure 4

- 1. Mass of Mercury in Office Wastewater

–Characterization Test



## Mass of Mercury by Fraction in Wastewater

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00

7/10/2001 7/12/2001 7/14/2001 7/16/2001 7/18/2001 7/20/2001 7/22/2001 7/24/2001 7/26/2001 7/28/2001 7/30/2001 8/1/2001 8/3/2001 8/5/2001 8/7/2001 8/9/2001 8/11/2001 8/13/2001 8/15/2001 8/17/2001 8/19/2001 8/21/2001 8/23/2001 8/25/2001 8/27/2001 8/29/2001 8/31/2001 9/2/2001 9/4/2001 9/6/2001 9/8/2001 9/10/2001 9/12/2001 9/14/2001 9/16/2001

DateMass of Mercury (mg)

Mass Mercury in Liquid Decant Fraction Mass Mercury in Settleable Solids Total Mercury Mass per day4

- 8 Table 4

- 4

. Summary Statistics for Mercury

–Characterization Study

Decant Liquid

Concentration

(mg/L) Hg Mass (mg/day) Total Wastewater

Total Soluble % of

Total Total

Wastewater

Volume

(mL) Settleable

Solids Decant

Liquid Concentrat

ion

(μg/L) Mass

(mg/day)

Number 46 46 46 46 32 32 32 32.0

Average 0.192 0.127 66.1 2180 1.23 0.364 657 1.60

Maximum 0.676 0.632 93.5 5880 6.49 1.90 1810 6.82

Minimum 0.0446 0.0044 9.9 129 <0.01 0.0094 72.6 0.0537

Std. Dev 0.152 0.139 91.4 1410 1.81 0. 369 581 1.94

Total

mass 100,000 54.2 (mg) 16.7 (mg)

Table 4

- 5

. Summary Statistics for Mercury in Settleable Solids

–Characterization

Study

Hg Conc.

Dry Wt Mass of

Dry Solids Mass of

Hg in

Sample

mg/kg mg mg

Daily Ave 1680 567 1.23

Maximum 7000 2280 6.49

Minimum 74 6.4 <0.01

Std Dev 1831 641 1.81

The Protocol calls for the collection of a minimum of 25 samples over a minimum five

- week

period, and requires that a minimum of 40 amalgam su rfaces per week be removed/placed. The

VTP was designed to meet these minimums by adjusting the sample duration to account for the

four

- day operating week for this dental office. The actual duration of the characterization testing

was eleven weeks. Samples were collected representing 44 days for two reasons. First, the

number of surfaces that were being removed/placed during the first weeks of testing was below

the 200 surfaces (five weeks x 40 surfaces per week = 200 surfaces), the targeted minimum. The

ad ditional samples provided data that met the minimum surface requirement for the protocol.

Second, during the first three weeks of sampling, some adjustments needed to be made to the

sample handling and settling procedures and the analyses to ensure that al l needed data were

being collected. In addition, two settled solids samples were not analyzed by the laboratory

because of miscommunication. In order to ensure a complete data set for the characterization, the

sampling was continued for the extended period . Once the data were complete, the subset of data

from the July 30

- Sept 20 period that met the basic minimum requirement and the entire dataset

for the period July 10

- Sept 20 were compared and found to be very similar in concentration and

total mass lo adings. Section 4.10.2 presents these comparisons and more information regarding

this data.4

- 9

The settleable solids fraction represented the largest portion of the mercury in the wastewater,

accounting for 77 percent of the total mercury mass. While removin g this fraction will reduce the

mercury loading, the liquid portion still contained an average of 192 μg/L of mercury, which is

well above the typical discharge limits allowed to lakes and rivers, and would be a source of

mercury in wastewater treatment fa cilities receiving this wastewater.

4.3 pH Results

–Characterization Study

Samples were monitored for pH as they arrived at the laboratory. The pH normally ranged from

7 to 9 over the characterization period, as shown in Table 4

- 6. The pH was lower when th e

vacuum lines were flushed with cleaning solution, but not all low values corresponded to the

days on which flushing occurred.

4.4 Installation and Startup of DRNA MRU

The characterization phase of the test was completed on September 21, 2001. After the lin es

were flushed and the last sample was collected, the DRNA MRU was installed in the vacuum

system in preparation for the start of the verification test. The MRU inlet line to the solids

separator was attached to the vacuum system at the location where th e characterization sample

bottle had been installed. The outlet air from the MRU was attached to the vacuum line that had

been attached to the exit air fitting of the sample bottle during the characterization phase and was

just upstream of the existing air /water separator. Installation of these lines was straightforward

and took only a few minutes. See Figure 3

- 1.

The water discharge line of the BullfroHg separator was connected to the tubing pump on the

MRU. The adsorption system inlet line was attached t o the outlet of the pump and the discharge

line from the MRU placed in a clean sample bottle. The entire hookup time was less than one

hour. Once the system was setup, it was wet tested by adding water to the separator. The manual

operation button was push ed and the pump moved clean water from the separator through the

adsorption column and into the sample container. All fittings were checked and there were no

leaks. The low level sensor in the BullFroHg separator shutdown the pump when the water in the

sep arator reached the low level shutoff point. The pump timer was set at the factory to turn on at

3 a.m., which allows sufficient time for all of the settled wastewater accumulated during the

normal business day to be pumped through the adsorbent filter befo re the start of the business at

7:30 a.m. in the morning.

The installation and setup went quickly (less than 3 hours with the wet test included) and only

required normal tools. Once the unit was setup, it was ready to operate on Monday morning,

September 24, 2001, when the dental office opened. The installation and startup procedures,

included in the operation and maintenance manual in Appendix A, were followed as written for

this test. The instructions were easy to read and follow.4

- 10 Table 4

- 6

. pH Results

–Characterization Study

Date pH Date pH

(SU) (SU)

7/9/01 3.72 8/14/01 8.91

7/10/01 8.39 08/15/01 8.9

7/11/01 8.93 8/17/01 7.96

7/12/01 9.04 8/20/01 7.53

7/13/01 8.96 8/21 /01 6.94

7/16/01 7.01 8/22/01 8.28

7/17/01 8.82 8/23/01 8.6

7/18/01 9.21 8/24/01 8.94

7/20/01 8.9 8/27/01 8.25

7/23/01 8.86 8/28/01 8.57

7/24/01 8.55 8/29/01 7.45

7/25/01 7.96 8/31/01 8.72

7/27/01 6.35 9/4/01 6.07

7/30/01 9.01 9/5/01 6.53

7/31/01 9.17 9/7/01 3.24

8/1/01 8.88 9/10/01 3.57

8/3/01 8.95 9/11/01 7.07

8/6/01 6.88 9/12/01 8.62

8/7/01 7.53 9/14/01 6.82

8/8/01 6.95 9/17/01 5.27

8/9/01 8.73 9/21/01(a) 6.5

8/10/01 8.87 9/21/01(b) 2.8 9

8/13/02 8.4

Note: The “9/21/01a” sample was after three days of office operation and included a flush with PureVac solution. The “9/21/01b”

sample was collected from a fresh water flush of the system immediately after the “a” sample was collected

.

4.5 Verification Test

The verification test started on September 24, 2001 and concluded on November 8, 2001. A total

of 32 samples of MRU treated effluent were collected and analyzed in accordance with the VTP

Procedures. During the seven

- week verification

period, the dental office added a dentist on a part

time basis, and the office operated on a four or five day per week schedule. On three of the

sampling days, the dentists were not in and only hygiene activities were performed.4

- 11

Sample collection time dur ing the verification test was in the morning whereas the

characterization test samples were collected at the end of each business day. The wastewater

generated during a normal day was treated in the MRU overnight (settling of solids and

subsequent pumping

of the decant liquid through the adsorbent). Therefore, each day’s sample

was not available until the next morning. Samples were collected each business day in the

morning and represent the previous day’s wastewater flow.

4.6 Mercury Amalgams Removed and Pla ced

Records of the number of mercury amalgam surfaces removed and placed, along with the

associated tooth number, were maintained during the verification test in the same manner as

described for the characterization test. During the verification test, 243 surfaces were removed or

placed on 29 operating days giving an average of 8.38 surfaces placed or removed per operating

day. This rate of removal and/or placement was similar to the rate during the characterization test

(7.73

–7.95 surfaces per day).

The number of surfaces placed or removed by day is shown in Table 4

- 7. The addition of a

second part time dentist resulted in three operatory rooms at the office being used for amalgam

procedures.

The dental technician logs also showed the days when flus hing of the lines occurred using the

PureVac cleaning solution. Table 4

- 7 shows the days when line flushing occurred and the

quantities of cleaning solution used during the verification test. Chair side traps were also

changed several times during the veri fication test period and are noted in Table 4

- 7.

Table 4

- 7

. Summary of Number of Surfaces Removed and Placed

–Verification Test

Room 1 Room 2 Room 3

Date Surfaces

Removed Surfaces

Placed No tes Surfaces

Removed Surfaces

Placed Notes Surfaces

Removed Surfaces

Placed Notes Total

Surfaces

9/25/01 0 0 4 1 0 0 5

9/26/01 4 5 3 1 0 0 13

9/27/01 0 0 (1,4) 3 3 (1,4) 0 0 (1,4) 6

9/28/01 0 0 (2) 0 0 (2) 0 0 (2) 0

10/1/01 6 0 0 0 0 0 6

10/2/01 4 0 4 10 0 0 18

10/3/01 2 2 0 0 0 0 4

10/4/01 3 0 (3) 3 0 4 4 14

10/5/01 7 7 (1,3) 2 0 (1,3) 0 0 (1,3) 16

10/8/01 0 0 (3) 3 2 0 0 54

- 12

Table 4

- 7. (continued) Summary of Number of Surfaces Removed and Placed

– Verification Test

Room 1 Room 2 Room 3

Date Surfaces

Removed Surfaces

Placed Notes Surfaces

Removed Surfaces

Placed Notes Surfaces

Removed Surfaces

Placed Notes Total

Surfaces

10/9/01 0 0 6 4 6 0 16

10/10/01 1 0 0 1 0 0 2

10/11/01 2 2 0 0 16 0 20

10/12/01 1 0 (1,3) 7 0 (1) 0 0 (1) 8

10/15/01 3 0 2 0 0 0 5

10/16/01 2 0 (3) 4 5 0 0 11

10/17/01 0 0 (2) 0 0 (2) 0 0 (2) 0

10/18/01 0 0 (1,3) 0 1 (1,3) 5 0 (1,3) 6

10/19/01 0 0 (2) 0 0 (2) 0 0 (2) 0

10/22/01 0 1 4 4 0 0 9

10/23/01 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

10/24/01 0 3 0 4 0 0 7

10/25/01 4 0 (1,3) 0 0 (1,3) 2 1 (1) 7

10/26/01 0 0 (2) 0 0 (2) 0 0 (2) 0

10/29/01 0 2 0 2 0 0 4

10/30/01 5 2 1 0 0 0 8

10/31/01 0 0 2 2 3 0 7

11/1/01 0 0 0 0 2 0 2

11/2/01 0 0 (1,3) 1 2 (1,3) 0 0 (1) 3

11/5/01 0 0 6 2 0 0 8

11/06/01 0 0 3 4 0 0 7

11/07/01 8 6 3 0 0 0 17

11/08/01 2 0 (5) 3 3 (5) 0 0 (5) 8

(1) Chair side traps were changed.

(2) No dentist was in office; it was not a normal operating day. However, a sample was collected. The normal procedure

was to accumul ate sample volume over non operating days and collect it at the end of operating days

(3) Line was flushed with 500 mL of Pure Vac flushing solution.

(4) Line was flushed with 1000 mL of Pure Vac flushing solution

(5) Lines were flushed with 1000 mL of Pure Vac at the end of the verification period, followed by a 1000 mL flush with

clean water.

Total surfaces = 243 Total Days = 33 Operating Days = 29 Ave. surfaces/day = 8.384

- 13

4.7 Mercury Results

–Verification Test

The entire wastewater flow was treated in the M RU, and the entire discharge from the MRU was

collected in the treated wastewater sample bottle in the same manner as for the characterization

test. The treated water sample did not contain the settleable solids trapped in the BullfroHg, as

these were reta ined in the separator until the end of the verification testing. The samples were

delivered to the laboratory and the settleable solids separation procedure was performed to

generate both a liquid decant fraction and a settleable solids fraction for analys is. All procedures

used in the characterization phase, as described in Sections 4.2 and 3.3.3.1, were followed for the

verification test samples.

The results for the mercury analyses of the treated water are shown in Table 4

- 8. As described in

Section 4.2 , these results are based on the laboratory analytical data with adjustments made for

the various volumes of rinse water used during the sample handling and preparation procedures.

The summary laboratory data and the various calculations are included in Ap pendix D. The

calculations described in Section 4.3 were used to combine the settleable solids data and the

liquid data to determine the final mass and concentration of total mercury in the treated water,

which would normally be discharged to the sewer sy stem. The mercury concentrations measured

in the settleable solids samples and the dry weights of the settled solids present in the discharge

are shown in Table 4

- 9, and graphically in Figure 4

- 2.

The mercury concentrations measured in the liquid fraction were below the detection limit (0.2

μg/L ) for several days and there were no settleable solids present in the sample on four (4) days.

These results require an approach be used to account for “less than values” when determining

average concentrations and developing other statistical data. Two approaches that have been

used by USEPA and others is to assume that values below the detection limit are equal to either

zero or one half (1/2) the detection limit. Both approaches have been used to analyze this data

. The summary statistics shown in Table 4

- 10 present the results using both approaches. The data

show that the differences between the two methods are very small for this data set, yielding an

average total mercury concentration in the effluent of 10.3 μg/ L as shown in Table 4

- 10 (a)

(using zero for “<” values) and 10.4 μg/L as shown in Table 4

- 10 (b) (using 1⁄2 the detection limit

for “<” values). Based on the similarity of the results, all discussions and comparisons presented

will be based on assuming valu es below the detection limit are equal to zero.

The average discharge concentration of total mercury was 10.3 μg/L with a maximum of 39.8

μg/L and a minimum of <0.2 μg/L . The average mass of mercury discharged on a daily basis was

0.036 mg/day, with the s ettleable solids portion representing an average of 0.007 mg/day and the

liquid fraction having an average of 0.0284 mg/day. The mercury contribution from the

settleable solids thus represented 19 percent of the mercury present in the discharge versus 77

p ercent in the untreated wastewater. Tables 4

- 10 and 4

- 11 show these summary statistics.

Clearly, the solids separator was retaining settleable solids and the mercury content of these

solids. The overall discharge level of mercury is significantly below the levels measured during

the untreated wastewater characterization test, indicating the DRNA MRU was removing a

significant amount of the mercury present in the wastewater. A detailed comparison of the results

and calculations of the removal percentages is discussed in Section 4.10.4

- 14

The mercury concentration in the discharge was either below the detection limit (<0.2 μg/L ) or in

the 0.2 to 3.5 μg/L range for the first eighteen days of the verification test. During the first few

days, the effluent had no se ttleable solids and had very low solids suspended in the liquid. As the

test progressed, the effluent began to darken in color and became very black with noticeable

suspended particulate present. Only a small portion of these solids settled during the sett ling

procedure in the laboratory. The amount of solids being filtered from the liquid fraction began to

increase and the solids were very black and fine in appearance. DRNA was contacted and their

technical department suspected that the bleach concentrati on being used to keep the adsorbent

clear of organic interference was causing the carbon in the column to breakdown and pass

through the final filter. DRNA had recently changed the recommended bleach concentration in

the feed solution from one part bleach to one part water to a new ratio of one part bleach to two

parts water. On October 17, the bleach solution was changed to the new recommended strength.

Between October 17 and October 25, the total mercury concentration in the effluent, the mass of

settlea ble solids found in the separation procedure, and the amount of solids being filtered from

the decant liquid reached peak values, as shown in Tables 4

- 8 and 4

- 9 and Figure 4

- 2. After

October 25, the mass of dry solids and the mercury concentration stabiliz ed and began to

decrease. Levels of mercury in the discharge continued to decrease until the last two days of the

verification test. On the last two days, the mass and concentration of mercury present in effluent

increased to levels similar to those measu red earlier in the verification period. Both days had

higher flows, which may have impacted the removal of mercury. The higher flow on the last day

was due to the extra flushing of the system that was performed in order to clear the vacuum lines.

The syste m was flushed with one quart of PureVac and one quart of water at each chair in order

to remove as much mercury as possible from the vacuum system. The previous day’s flow

(November 7) may have be due to the larger than average number of mercury amalgam su rface

removals and placements that were performed, although the overall dataset did not seem to

substantiate a correlation between amalgam surface removals and/or placements with total flow.

The results clearly indicate that the MRU performed well in the first half of the verification test

period. Mercury levels were significantly reduced in the second half of the test, however the

performance was impacted by the condition of the adsorbent column. According to DRNA, the

problem with the bleach attacking th e carbon has not been a widespread problem and they

changed their bleach solution concentration to resolve this type of problem. While the issue of

carbon breakdown and the presence of small particulate in the effluent stabilized in the later part

of the v erification test, the discharge levels remained significantly above the levels measured at

the beginning of the test. These data indicate that once the column is attacked the process cannot

be reversed in a short period.4

- 15 Table 4

- 8

. Mercury Results

- Verification Test

Liquid Fraction Data

Sample Decanted after Settling Procedure Settleable Solids

Date Final Conc.

Total Hg Final Conc.

Soluble Hg Soluble

Hg Total

Volume

Discharged Mass of

Hg from

Liquid Mass of Hg

From Solids Total Mass

Hg Total Hg

Discharged

mg/L mg/L % of Total mL mg mg mg/day μg/L (ppb)

9/25/01 <0.0002 <0.0002 1250 <0.0003 0 <0.0003 <0.2

9/26/01 0.0003 0.0004 133 2240 0.0007 0 0.0007 0.3

9/27/01 <0.000 2 <0.0002 327 <0.0001 0 <0.0001 <0.2

9/28/01 <0.0002 <0.0002 1350 <0.0003 0.0005 <0.0003 <0.4

10/1/01 0.0029 0.0025 86.2 623 0.0018 0.0004 0.0022 3.5

10/2/01 0.0005 <0.0002 2850 0.0014 0.0054 0.0040 1.4

10/3/01 <0.0002 <0.0002 1080 <0.0002 0.0009 < 0.0004 <0.8

10/4/01 0.0007 0.0004 69.1 2270 0.0068 0.0005 0.0073 3.2

10/5/01 <0.0002 <0.0002 177 <0.0001 0.0001 <0.0003 <0.6

10/8/01 0.0017 0.0006 35.3 5660 0.0096 0.0096 0.0192 3.4

10/9/01 0.0007 0.0002 28.6 4740 0.0033 0.0020 0.0053 1.1

10/10/01 0. 0003 <0.0002 2850 0.0011 0.0013 0.0024 0.8

10/11/01 0.0004 0.0003 75.0 1440 0.0006 0.0005 0.0011 0.8

10/12/01 0.0006 0.0007 117 1280 0.0008 0.0010 0.0018 1.4

10/15/01 0.0006 0.0004 66.7 3770 0.0023 0.0048 0.0071 1.9

10/16/01 0.0006 0.0006 100 1440 0.0 009 0.0013 0.0022 1.5

10/17/01 0.0011 0.0006 54.5 4280 0.0047 0.0074 0.0121 2.8

10/18/01 0.0023 0.0012 52.2 319 0.0007 0 0.0007 2.2

10/22/01 0.0057 0.0014 24.6 660 0.0038 0.0052 0.0090 13.6

10/23/01 0.0293 0.0051 17.4 5940 0.174 0.0429 0.217 36.5

10/2 4/01 0.0322 0.0085 26.4 4120 0.133 0.0148 0.148 35.8

10/25/01 0.0337 0.0115 34.1 1320 0.0445 0.0081 0.0526 39.8

10/26/01 0.0172 0.0049 28.5 2440 0.0420 0.0060 0.0480 19.7

10/29/01 0.0154 0.0038 24.7 3330 0.0513 0.0120 0.0633 19.0

10/30/01 0.0086 0.0023 26.7 4430 0.0381 0.0144 0.0525 11.9

10/31/01 0.0108 0.0029 26.9 1720 0.0186 0.0185 0.0371 21.5

11/1/01 0.0083 0.0026 31.3 1340 0.0111 0.0065 0.0176 13.2

11/2/01 0.0085 0.0008 9.4 1250 0.0106 0.0051 0.0157 12.5

11/5/01 0.0078 0.0038 48.7 3870 0.0302 0. 0056 0.0358 9.3

11/7/01 0.0089 0.0056 62.9 1940 0.0172 0.0004 0.0176 9.1

11/8/01 0.0212 0.0135 63.7 6060 0.129 0.0250 0.154 25.3

11/9/01 0.0331 0.0118 35.6 5340 0.177 0.0338 0.211 39.44

- 16 Table 4

- 9

. DRNA MR U Settleable Solids Results

Settleable Solids Fraction Liquid Fraction

Date

Hg Conc. Dry Wt. Mass of Dry Solids Mass of Hg in

Sample Mass of Solids after

Settling

(mg/kg) (mg) (mg) (mg)

(A) (B) (A*B)

9/25/01 <1 0 0 4.4

9/26/01 <1 0 0 5

9/ 27/01 <1 0 0 7.1

9/28/01 12 39.4 0.0005 30.8

10/1/01 24 15.8 0.0004 18.9

10/2/01 21 258 0.0054 38.7

10/3/01 21 43.1 0.0009 21.4

10/4/01 5 106 0.0005 35.4

10/5/01 7.5 8.2 0.0001 6.3

10/8/01 8 1210 0.0096 74.9

10/09/01 4 490 0.0020 40.5

10/10/01 9 1 49 0.0013 19.5

10/11/01 8 66 0.0005 46.1

10/12/01 9 111 0.0010 132

10/15/01 3 1610 0.0048 21.1

10/16/01 6 209 0.0013 18

10/17/01 3 2460 0.0074 78.7

10/18/01 <1 0 0 205

10/22/01 28 187 0.0052

10/23/01 76 564 0.0429 146

10/24/01 75 197 0.0148 114

10/25/01 36 224 0.0081 85.7

10/26/01 50 120 0.0060 67.9

10/29/01 48 249 0.0120 81.2

10/30/01 49 293 0.0144 104

10/31/01 37 501 0.0185 96.9

11/1/01 31 211 0.0065 78.6

11/2/01 26 198 0.0051 131

11/5/01 46 121 0.0056 62.7

11/7/01 17 22 0.0004 35.9

11 /8/01 160 156 0.0250 32.6

11/9/01 210 161 0.0338 46.7

Bleach concentration changed on October 17, 20014

- 17 Figure 4

- 2. Mass of Mercury Discharged from MRU



# Mass of Mercury in Discharge from MRU

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45

9/26/2001 9/28/2001 9/30/2001 10/2/2001 10/4/2001 10/6/2001 10/8/2001 10/10/2001 10/12/2001 10/14/2001 10/16/2001 10/18/2001 10/20/2001 10/22/2001 10/24/2001 10/26/2001 10/28/2001 10/30/2001 11/1/2001 11/3/2001 11/5/2001 11/7/2001 11/9/2001

DateMercury Mass (mg/day)

Mass Mercury Liquid Decant Fraction Mass Mercury in the Settleable Solids Fraction Total Mercury Mass in Discharge4

- 18

Table 4

- 10

. S ummary Statistics Mercury Results for DRNA MRU Effluent

(a) All Values Below Detection Limit set equal to zero in calculations

Decant Liquid

Concentration

(mg/L) Hg Mass (mg/day) Total Wastewater

Total Soluble % of

Total Total

Wastewater

Volume

(mL) Settleable

Solids Decant

Liquid Concentration

(μg/L) Mass

(mg/day)

Number 32 32 25 32 32 32 32 32.0

Average 0.0079 0.0027 66 2550 0.0073 0.0284 10.3 0.0357

Maximum 0.0337 0.0135 100 6060 0.043 0.177 39.8 0.217

Minimum <0.0002 <0.0002 9.4 177 0.00 <0.00 02 <0.2 <0.0003

Std. Dev 0.0108 0.0037 N/A 1770 0.0103 0.0507 12.8 0.0601

Total

mass 81,700 0.234 (mg) 0.909 (mg)

(b) All Values Below Detection Limit set equal to 1⁄2 the detection limit in calculations

Decant Liquid

Concentration

(mg/L) Hg Mass (mg/day) Total Wastewater

Total Soluble % of

Tot al Total

Wastewater

Volume

(mL) Settleable

Solids Decant

Liquid Concentration

(μg/L) Mass

(mg/day)

Number 32 32 25 32 32 32 32 32

Average 0.0079 0.0027 66 2550 0.0073 0.0284 10.4 0.0357

Maximum 0.0337 0.0135 100 6060 0.0429 0.177 39.8 0.217

Minimum 0.0001 0.0001 9.6 177 0.00 <0.0001 0.100 <0.0001

Stand

Dev 0.0108 0.0037 N/A 1770 0.0102 0.051 12.8 0.0599

Total

mass 81,700 0.234

(mg) 0.909

(mg)4

- 19

Table 4

- 11

. Summary Statistics Settleable Solids Results for DRNA MRU Effluent

Settleable Solids Fraction Liquid Fraction

Hg Conc.

Dry Wt Mass of

Dry Solids Mass of

Hg in

Sample Mass of Solids

after settling

mg/kg mg mg mg

Average 32 .2 312 0.007 58.9

Maximum 210 2460 0.043 205

Minimum 0.00 0.00 0.000 4.40

Std Dev 45.7 521 0.010 48.9

4.8 pH Results Verification Study

The pH was measured for each treated wastewater sample when it arrived at the laboratory.

Table 4

- 12 shows the pH res ults for the verification test period. As shown in the table, the pH

was very stable in the discharge from the MRU. The changes in pH noted in the characterization

test (Table 4

- 6) were dampened by the treatment process. The range of pH for the test period was

6.42 to 7.48.

Table 4

- 12

. pH Results Verification Test

Date pH Date pH

(SU) (SU)

9/25/01 6.87 10/18/01 7.27

9/26/01 6.71 10/19/01 7.18

9/27/01 6.69 10/22/01 7.26

9/28/01 6.75 10/23/01 7

10/1/01 6.75 10/24/01 7.21

10/2/01 7 10/25/01 7.38

10/3/01 6.96 10/26/01 7.35

10/4/01 7.05 10/29/01 7.56

10/5/01 7.11 10/30/01 7.27

10/8/01 6.84 10/31/01 7.24

10/9/01 6.7 11/1/01 7.33

10/10/01 6.5 1 1/2/01 7.24

10/11/01 6.42 11/5/01 7.32

10/12/01 n/a 11/7/01 7.24

10/15/01 6.68 11/8/01 7.48

10/16/01 7.08 11/9/01 7.38

10/17/01 7.09

n/a

–not analyzed4

- 20

4.9 Residue Results for DRNA MRU

At the end of the verification test, the MRU wa s taken to the laboratory to be disassembled and

the residues sampled for mercury content. Section 3.3.3.2 describes the residue sample collection

and processing procedure. Collection and analysis of the residues was critical to the verification

test as it provided data for determining the actual amount of mercury removed and retained

during the verification test.

The results of the residue analysis are presented in Table 4

- 13. The separator solids represent the

solids settled in the BullFroHg separator du ring the test. A total of 44.8 grams of solids was

collected over the verification test period. These solids showed an average total mercury

concentration of 4050 mg/kg. The six samples showed a range of concentration from 3800 to

4400 mg/kg, which indic ates that the solids sample was well mixed and consistent in

concentration among the subsamples taken for analysis. The total mass of mercury collected over

the 32

- day period was 181.4 mg.

The original VTP included analysis of the settleable solids from the separator for leachable

mercury using the USEPA TCLP. This analysis could not be performed, as the test requires a

minimum of 200 grams of sample and only 44.8 grams were collected for the entire verification

test period. TCLP is a test used to evaluat e solid materials for hazardous waste classification and

disposal. It is possible that the solids could leach mercury at levels that would classify this waste

as hazardous. The total concentration of mercury is above the 260 mg/kg level designated by the

U SEPA as requiring mercury recovery under the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR). Solids with

high mercury concentrations must be sent for mercury reclamation. One of the services DRNA

provides its customers is the return of the separator to them for mercury recycling. The other

residuals, filter, carbon and resin are also returned to DRNA for mercury recycling as part of the

DRNA services.

The particle filter weighed 83.2 grams after drying. The original weight of the filter is not known

so the actual amoun t of solids retained by the filter (solids, carbon, and resin) cannot be

determined. The filter did show that it was impregnated with a large amount of small black

particles, similar to the carbon material present in the adsorption column and similar to th e

particles that were present in the effluent in the second half of the test. The average mercury

concentration in the filter samples (filter media plus retained solids) was 0.587 mg/kg and the

calculated mass of mercury on the filter was 0.049 mg. While t he actual amount of retained

solids cannot be determined, the total mass of mercury present is known and is not significant in

the overall mass balance, representing less than 0.1 percent of the mercury in the residues.

The carbon remaining in the adsorpt ion column was 126 grams (the starting weight is not known

but DRNA indicated that 250

- 300 grams of carbon is typically charged to the column) with an

average concentration of total mercury of 39.5 mg/kg. The total mass of mercury was 4.98 mg.

The resin ma

terial weighed 1130 grams on a dry weight basis and showed an average

concentration of 8.2 mg/kg. The resin contained a mass of 9.24 mg of mercury. These results

show that mercury was being removed by both the carbon and the selective resin in the4

- 21

adsorpti on column and serves as a basis for calculating the mercury loading to the adsorption

column from the liquid fraction of the wastewater.

Table 4

- 13

. Solid Residue Results

–DRNA MRU

BullfroHg Collecte d Solids Particle Filter

Total Dry Solids =

44.8 grams Total Dry Solids =

83.2 grams

Sample Hg Concentration Sample Hg Concentration

mg/kg mg/kg

1 4300 1 0.93

2 3800 2 0.36

3 3800 3 0.47

4 4100

5 3900

6 4400

A ve 4050 Ave 0.587

Max 4400 Max 0.93

Min 3800 Min 0.36

Std Dev 259 Std Dev 0.3

Total Hg 181 mg Total Hg 0.049 mg

Carbon Solids Resin Solids

Total Dry Solids =

126 grams Total Dry Solids =

1132 grams

Sample Hg Concentration Sample Hg Concentration

mg/kg mg/kg

1 20 1 7.2

2 22 2 7.7

3 24 3 7.1

4 41 4 10

5 85 5 9

6 45 6 8

Ave 39.5 Ave 8.2

Max 85 Max 10

Min 20 Min 7.1

Std Dev 24.6 Std Dev 1.1

Total Hg 4.98 mg Total Hg 9.24 mg4

- 22

4.10 Performance of the DRNA MRU

4.10.1 Comparison Approach

The typical approach to measuring the performance of a wastewater treatment device is to

monitor the influent and effluent during the verification test period and calculate t he removal

efficiency of the unit. However in designing the VTP, it was not possible to collect influent

samples during the verification period due to the small size of the influent flow, the operation of

the system under vacuum, and the difficulty of obta ining representative samples (particularly of

solids) from small pipes, with small intermittent flow under vacuum. The VTP was designed to

obtain data that could be used to follow two different approaches to determine the treatment

efficiency of the unit.

In the first approach, the VTP included the characterization test to obtain data on the wastewater

concentrations and masses, which could be used to determine the average mercury concentration

and mass discharged from the dental office. If the dental off ice operation was similar during both

the characterization period and the verification period, the characterization data could be used for

comparison with the treated wastewater data.

The second approach was to collect and analyze all of the residuals fr om the treatment process so

that the total mass of mercury retained by the unit during the verification test could be

determined. The total mass measured in the discharge could then be compared to the total mass

entering the unit (retained mercury plus dis charged mercury) and the removal efficiency could be

calculated. The calculation of the total load to the treatment unit could also be compared to the

total mass of mercury measured in the characterization test to serve as a check that conditions

were simi

lar during both periods. The samples were also separated into the settleable solids

fraction and decant liquid fraction to provide an additional method for comparing the

characterization data with the treated water data. Both methods have been used in calc ulating the

removal percentages given in this section.

4.10.2 Removal Efficiency Based on Characterization Data

The data presented in Tables 4

- 1 through 4

- 6 show the concentrations of mercury determined

during the characterization test and the number of surfaces removed and placed during the test

period. The characterization test covered a period of 42 operating days with a total of 334

amalgam surface removals and placements. The verification test occurred over 29 operating days

during which 243 surfaces were re moved and placed. In order to more closely match the

characterization results with the verification test, a subset of the characterization data was also

used for determining the total mercury and solids load. During the period July 30 through

September 20, 2001, the last eight weeks of the characterization test, there were 30 operating

days and 232 surfaces were removed or placed. Further, the total flow during July 30 to

September 20 was 77 liters compared to 82 liters during the verification test. Thus, t his period

has very similar operating characteristics to the verification period. The Wilcoxon Signed Rank

Test, a non

- parametric statistic, was used to evaluate the two data sets and determine if they were

statistically similar. The results of the test sh ow that the two test periods (July 30

– September

20, and September 25

–November 9) were similar (not statistically different, Z=

- 0.518). A4

- 23

comparison of the full characterization period data set with the verification data set showed that

these data were also similar (not statistically different). Both tests were evaluated at the 95

percent confidence level. The results of the statistical evaluation are presented in Appendix D.

Table 4

- 14

. Removal Efficien cy Based on Characterization Data

- Daily Averages

Total Wastewater Settleable

Solids

Mass

(mg/day) Decant Liquid

Mass (mg/day) Concentration

(μg/L) Mass (mg/day)

Characterization

Data

–7/10

- 9/20/2002 1.23 0.36 657 1.60

Characterization

Dat a

–7/30

- 9/20/2002 1.57 0.37 778 1.94

MRU Discharge

(9/25

- 11/9/2002) 0.0073 0.0284 10.3 0.0357

% Removal

– Compared

to 7/10

- 9/20 Data 99.4 92.1 98.4 97.8

% Removal

–compared

to 7/30

- 9/20 Data 99.5 92.3 98.7 98.2

Table 4

- 15

. Removal Efficiency Based on Characterization Data

- Total Mass and

Average Concentration

Total Wastewater Settleable Solids

Mass (mg) Decant Liquid

Mass (mg) Concentration (μg/L) Mass (mg)

Characterization

(7/30

- 9/20/200 2) 53.3 12.7 778 66.0

MRU Discharge

(9/25

- 11/9/2002) 0.234 0.909 10.3 1.14

% Removal 99.6 92.8 98.7 98.3

Tables 4

- 14 and 4

- 15 show the summary of these data and the calculated removal efficiencies

attained by the DRNA MRU using the characterization da ta. The evaluation of removal

efficiency using the two different databases gives very similar results. The data also show that

the average mass loadings during the characterization test were very similar to the subset data

from July 30 through September 20 , 2001. While the load of mercury and solids varied

considerably on a day

- to

- day basis, the averages of the data for these two data sets were very

similar. The DRNA MRU was effective in removing the settleable solids and the mercury in

these solids, and ac hieved better than 99 percent removal either on an average concentration

basis or on a total mass basis. Overall removal of mercury (solids and liquid combined) was4

- 24

between 98.4 and 98.7 percent on a concentration basis and 97.7 to 98.6 percent on a total mass

basis. The MRU also was effective in removing the mercury associated with the liquid fraction

(soluble and non settleable mercury), showing efficiencies in the 92.3 to 92.8 percent range.

4.10.3 Removal Efficiency Based on Verification Data Mass Balance

T he data shown in Tables 4

- 8 through 4

- 11 and 4

- 13 show the mercury results, and the mass of

mercury discharged from and retained in the MRU during the verification test. These data allow

the calculation of the total mercury in the influent to the unit. All of the treated water effluent

was monitored during the verification test and the mercury retained in the unit was measured at

the end of the verification test. Table 4

- 16 shows the removal efficiency of the MRU based on

the mass balance approach.

Table 4

- 16

. Removal Efficiency based on Mass Balance of Retained and Discharged

Mercury

Mass of Mercury

Settleable Solids

(mg) Decant Liquid

(mg) Total Wastewater

(mg)

Separator

- Retained 181

- 181

Filter

- Retain ed

- 0.049 0.049

Carbon

- Retained

- 4.98 4.98

Resin

- Retained

- 9.24 9.24

Discharge 0.234 0.909 1.14

Total Mass Load 182 15.2 197

% Removal 99.9 94.0 99.4

%Removal = ((Total

–Discharge)/ Total) X 1004

- 25

Using the mass balance approach, the DRNA MRU r emoved more than 99 percent of the

mercury in the settleable solids and more than 99 percent of the total mercury in the wastewater

discharge. The MRU was also effective in reducing the mercury in the liquid fraction by 94

percent.

The removal efficienci

es calculated by mass balance are similar to the removal efficiencies

found using the characterization data. In general, the mass balance approach does tend to show

somewhat greater removal efficiencies. This is because the total mass of mercury found duri ng

the verification test, particularly in the settleable solids, was higher in the verification test than

during the characterization test. The mass of mercury in the liquid fraction during the

characterization test was 12.9 mg and the mass of mercury in t he liquid fraction during the

verification test showed 15.0 mg. These quantities of mercury are very similar. The mass of

mercury measured in the settleable solids fraction during the characterization test was 53.3 mg,

whereas the settleable solids retaine d in the separator during the verification test showed a mass

of mercury of 182 mg. The high efficiency shown by the MRU for retaining settleable solids and

the larger contribution of the settleable solids to the total mercury mass in the discharge during

the verification test, resulted in higher calculated removal efficiency for the MRU.

Overall, these comparisons show that the DRNA MRU can remove more than 99 percent of the

mercury associated with settleable solids, 98

- 99 percent of the total mercury pre sent in the

wastewater, and from 92

- 94 percent of the mercury associated with the liquid fraction (soluble

plus non

- settleable particulate) of the wastewater.

4.11 MRU Operational Characteristics

During the verification test, qualitative and quantitative fac tors were observed or measured to

help describe the operational characteristics of the DRNA MRU and the cost factors associated

with operating and maintaining the unit.

4.11.1 Qualitative Factors

The MRU was very easy to operate, requiring virtually no operator intervention except for an

occasional check that the pump was working, and replenishment of the bleach solution on a

monthly basis. Once the unit was setup, there were no maintenance requirements and the unit ran

without interruption for eight weeks. All i ndications are that the unit could easily operate several

months without experiencing a mechanical problem (recommended maintenance interval is 6

- 12

months, except weekly checks of the bleach reservoir). Labor to operate the unit is minimal. If

the unit is checked periodically (once per week) and bleach solution is added once per month, the

total time to operate and maintain the unit would be less than 2

- 4 hours per month ( 1⁄2

to 1 hour

per week).

The dental office vacuum system was not impacted by the MRU. The MRU easily attaches to the

vacuum line before the air/water separator, which helps to minimize potential impact on the

vacuum system. Once the system is installed, the only real impact the MRU could have on the

system would be if there were a leak in one of the vacuum lines or if the BullFroHg separator

lost the vacuum seal.4

- 26

The entire unit is self contained and designed to eliminate operator contact with the untreated

wastewater or the residuals. The treated effluent can be plumbed direct to the sewe r system. The

normal DRNA approach is for the dental office to return the used separator and adsorbent

column and replace them with clean units. DRNA arranges for removal of the mercury and waste

material from the MRU components at an appropriate facility. Based on the design, operational

approach, and use of DRNA to handle the residual, the unit is considered a very safe unit from a

health or waste contact perspective.

The Operations and Maintenance Manual is provided in Appendix A. Review of the manual and

using it to install the MRU show that it is easy to read and follow. The instructions for

installation are simple step

- by

- step instructions. Operational concepts explained in the technical

section are easy to understand. The maintenance section uses te xt and tables to help explain the

maintenance procedures required and the time interval for these activities.

The only operational problem encountered during the verification test was the increase in solids

in the discharge. The apparent attack of the car bon by the bleach solution, causing the carbon to

breakdown and be discharged, could be a major operational issue if it continued unnoticed or

unabated. The discharge of the carbon fines reduced the removal efficiency. Carbon breakdown

should have no impac t on the settleable solids removal, the major source of mercury, as these

solids are removed before the carbon unit and are completely separate from the adsorbent

column. The liquid discharge showed degradation in mercury removal as fine particulate

(appar ently the carbon adsorbent) began to escape from the adsorbent column. If this breakdown

of the carbon continued over a long period, it would be expected that the mercury removal from

the liquid fraction would continue to decease and ultimately all of the activated carbon in the

column would be gone. DRNA has stated that this problem is an isolated problem and that other

units have not shown this problem. The lower bleach concentration appeared to help slow the

breakdown over the short duration of this test . If DRNA has solved this problem by using the

lower bleach concentration, then removal of mercury can be expected to be even better than

shown in the verification test. However, until the issues are resolved, those using the MRU need

to occasionally monit or the effluent to determine if it has turned black or contains fine particles,

an indication the carbon may be exiting the unit.

4.11.2 Quantitative Factors

There are two basic O&M quantitative factors that apply to the DRNA MRU

- electrical usage

and chemical usage. The electrical power used was 120VAC, 4 amp for the pump in the unit.

The pumps run about 2

- 3 hours per day, depending on the daily volume in the separator. Total

electrical use can be expected to average 2400 watts per day.

The only consumable was the bleach (household bleach was used for the verification test, either

commercial or household bleach can be used according to DRNA) used to make the bleach

solution. Approximately ten liters of bleach solution were used over the eight

- week verification

test period. The mixing ratio for the bleach solution was 1 part bleach to 1 part water for the first

part of the verification test period and 1 part bleach to two parts water for the last three weeks of

the verification test period. Approximately 3.3 lite rs of bleach was used per two

- month period or4

- 27

1.6 liters per month. DRNA has subsequently changed the recommended bleach ratio to one part

bleach to three parts water, which will lower the bleach consumption.

There were no cleanouts or maintenance require d during the verification and it would appear that

no costs for cleanout would be expected. Based on observation during the recovery of the

residuals, the separator has sufficient capacity to hold six months to one year of solids. DRNA

provided proprietary

information on the mercury adsorbing capacity of the adsorbent material.

Based on the weight of adsorbent measured in the MRU, and results of quality control samples

that measured the adsorption of mercury on the material, there should be sufficient capac ity to

treat soluble mercury for six months to one year, assuming the material remains in the unit. The

only costs associated with cleanout of the MRU should be the costs to ship the unit to DRNA and

costs associated with the recycling service.

4.12 Quality Co ntrol Results

The VTP had a detailed QA/QC plan for this test. The VTP contained the QA/QC specifications

and overall requirements for this work. Laboratory QA/QC is included with the analytical results

in Appendix G. In addition to the normal QC that is run as part of the mercury test procedures,

some additional work was also performed on the solids matrix.

Special QC checks using two types of known solids were analyzed for mercury to confirm the

recovery in the digestion procedure. . A solid sample mat rix with known mercury content was

obtained commercially and analyzed during the testing. Recovery was better than 90 percent.

There was also concern that the amalgam material might not digest well in the procedure, so a

sample of the amalgam from the test site office was obtained. The sample was analyzed and

compared to the manufacturer’s stated mercury content. Recovery was over 85 percent. Thus, the

mercury digestion and analysis procedures were documented as being able to recover these types

of mercury materials in the solid matrix.

All of the chain of custody procedures for collecting and transporting samples were followed.

Copies of the chain of custody sheets and the various logs documenting the testing are presented

in Appendix H.

There were three numerical Data Quality Indicators (DQI) specified for this test program. The

precision specification for mercury was a RPD of <20 percent for water matrices and <35

percent for solids. All sample sets analyzed met the precision requirements and every set of

mercury analyses had the appropriate number of replicate samples to meet the target of one

duplicate per ten analyses. Accuracy, as measured by spiked samples, was specified to meet a

range of 80

- 120 percent recovery for water matrices and 75

- 125 percen t for solids. All water

matrices results for spiked samples were within the acceptable range. All but two matrix spikes

on the solid samples were within the target range. On two occasions, the recovery was just above

the upper target limit (126 percent and 129 percent). These data were reviewed by the NSF QA

officer. While the recovery was slightly high, the lab control sample (third party independent

standard) was well within range. The recoveries were outside the VTP target, but these values

are within th

e EPA method limits. Based on a review the entire analytical run, including the lab

control spikes and standards, the data were considered acceptable. Lab control samples were4

- 28

analyzed with each analytical batch and all lab control samples were within the ± 10 percent

range of true value as established for the mercury method. The QA review of the mercury data

showed that the data set did meet the DQI’s for precision and accuracy.

In addition to precision and accuracy numerical targets, the VTP had a target DQI for

completeness of 90 percent. The data sets were reviewed and all mercury analyses were

complete and met the calibration, blank, spike, spike duplicate, standard curve frequencies stated

in the QAPP. The only data that fell outside of recovery windo ws were the two recoveries

mentioned above. Two samples delivered to the lab were not analyzed for settleable solids as

requested. Based on 44 samples from the characterization test (three types of mercury analysis

on each sample) and 32 samples from the v erification test (three types of mercury analysis on

each sample) the total number of samples for mercury (not including duplicates, triplicates,

spikes, etc.) was 228 samples. The four errors or deviations found (2 high recoveries, 2 solid

analyses not pe rformed) in a set of 228 samples gives a completeness of over 98 percent.

Completeness was also measured for the amalgams surfaces removed or placed, and the total

number of samples collected for each part of the test. The VTP stipulated a minimum of 5 wee ks

(25 samples) of testing with 40 amalgam surfaces per week or 200 surfaces over 25 operating

days. Both the characterization period and the verification period exceeded 25 operating days (42

and 29 respectively) and exceed the minimum amalgam removal/pla cement of 200 (334 and 243

respectively). Therefore, completeness was 100 percent. Forty

- four (44) samples were collected

during the characterization period and thirty two samples during the verification period, which

exceeds the minimum sample requirement . Therefore, the completeness is shown to be 100

percent for sample collection minimum and amalgam surfaces.

All of the QA/QC data and supporting information in presented in the Appendices, including the

lab results, field logs, and other supporting docum entation.

### Chapter 5

– References

(1) NSF International, Verification Test Plan for the Dental Recycling North America Mercury

Removal System, May 2001

(2) NSF International, Protocol for the Verification of Mercury Amalgam Removal

Technologies , 2000, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

(3) United States Environmental Protection Agency: Methods and Guidance for Analysis of

Water , EPA 821

- C

- 99

- 008, 1999. Office of Water, Washington, DC.

(4) United States Environmental Protection Agency: Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water

and Wastes

, Revised March 1983, EPA 600/4

- 79

- 020

(5) United States Environmental Protection Agency: Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste:

Physical/Chemical Methods

, 3rd ed

- 4 vols., November 1986, Final Update IIB and

Proposed Update III, January 1995.

(6) APHA, AWWA, an d WEF: Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and

Wastewater , 20th Edition, 1998. Washington, DC.

Additional Reading and Reference Material Supporting the ETV Program

(7) United States Environmental Protection Agency: Environmental Technology Verific ation

Program

- Quality and Management Plan for the Pilot Period (1995

– 2000)

, USEPA/600/R

- 98/064, 1998. Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio.

(8) NSF International, Environmental Technology Verification

– Source Water Protection

Technologies Pilot Quality Management Plan , 2000. Ann Arbor, Michigan.

(9) United States Environmental Protection Agency: USEPA Guidance for Quality Assurance

Project Plans , USEPA QA/G

- 5, USEPA/600/R

- 98

- 018, 1998. Office of Research and

Development, Washington, DC

(10) United S tates Environmental Protection Agency, Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives

Process , USEPA QA/G

- 4, USEPA/600/R

- 96

- 055, 1996. Office of Research and

Development, Washington, DC.

(11) ANSI/ASQC: Specifications and Guidelines for Quality Systems for Environmen tal Data

Collection and Environmental Technology Programs (E4) , 1994.

(12) United States Environmental Protection Agency: Mercury White Paper, memorandum,

website www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/memoranda/whtpaper.pdf

(13) United States Environmental Protection Agency: Mer cury Study Report to Congress

, December 1997, website www.epa.gov/airprogm/oar/mercury.html

(14) United States Environmental Protection Agency: Mercury Emissions and Electric Utilities

, February 24, 1998, website www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t3/fact_sheets/hg17th.pdf

### Appendix A

- Operations and Maintenance Manual

### Appendix B

- Verification Test Plan

### Appendix C

- Field and Lab Special SOP’s

### Appendix D

- Spreadsheets with calculation and data summary

### Appendix E

- Amalgam Surfaces Dental Office Logs

### Appendix F

– Material Safety Data Sheets

### Appendix G

- Lab Data Reports and QA/QC

### Appendix H

- Chain of Custody Records and Field Log Sheets