1. Michael Darcy Owner M.A.R.S. Bio-Med Processes Inc.

2. Special Guest Bill Purves, the author of many of the statistics in this presentation is in attendance today and will be joining me to answer your questions after this PowerPoint. Bill deals directly with POTWs in over 15 states and knows first hand how much interest the POTWs have in soluble mercury.

3. A Little History POTW Industrial Limits In 1990 the limit was 2,000 ng/l. In 2001 it had dropped to 200 ng/l. The present National limit is 12 ng/l. The Great Lakes discharge limit is 1.3ng/l.

4. POTW Historic Limits

5. Terminology (Milligrams) mg/l are ppm (parts per million) (Micrograms) ug/l are ppb (parts per billion) (Nanograms) ng/l are ppt (parts per trillion) 1 milligram = 1,000 micrograms 1 milligram = 1,000,000 nanograms

6. POTW Legal Requirement If a facility is categorized as an industrial discharger/user the, Local Authority (POTW) is required to regulate that facility if it is determined that the discharge affects the permitted limit of the treatment facility. The average mercury limit set by most authorities is 150 ng/l (parts per trillion).

7. Current Accumulated Data The following data compares existing Industrial and Dental discharges in ng/l. IndustrialDental Current average: 89 15,000 Average limit set: 150 N/A Proposed limit: 150 4,000 – 7,000

8. The Regulation Now here is what the EPA has to say in its proposed regulation. The information presented is taken from the Federal Register dated October 22, 2014 Vol 79. Part lll, EPA, 40 CFR Parts 403 and 441

9. Part 1 – EPA Summary “Dental offices are the main source of mercury discharges to POTWs.” “Mercury is a persistent and bio-accumulative pollutant in the environment with well documented neurotoxic effects on humans.”

10. Proposed Regulation “The proposal would require dental practices to comply with requirements for controlling the discharge of mercury and other metals in dental amalgam into POTWs based on best available technology or best available demonstrated control technology.” “EPA is also proposing to amend selected parts of the General Pre-treatment Regulations to streamline oversight requirements for the dental sector.”

11. Key Points This regulation is NOT written in stone, yet. In part 7 of the summary the EPA requests data and comments on 18 points of interest that may be included in the final draft. Some of these points are: the effectiveness of polishing units and their costs, ways to demonstrate compliance, separator inspection and service, other technologies, information on technologies that exceed ISO standards and information on inspection and reporting.

12. Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR Part 403 Three very important letters in your future. D I U Dental Industrial Users

13. The clean water act of 1972 regulates sources that discharge effluent directly into the nation’s waters. Basically they are larger companies, government facilities and POTWs. This proposed regulation addresses the sectors that discharge effluent into the sewers that flow to the POTWs. And, “POTWs are required to implement local treatment limits applicable to their industrial indirect discharges to satisfy any local requirements.”

14. “The legislative history of CWA (Clean Water Act) section 304B, describes the need to achieve progressively higher levels of control through research and development of new processes, modifications, replacement of obsolete plans and processes, and other improvements in technology, taking into account the costs of controls.”

15. Part 2 BAT “In general, Best Available Technology (BAT) effluent limitations guidelines represent the best economically achievable performance of facilities in the industrial subcategory or category.”

16. General Pre-Treatment Regulations Program 40 CFR Part 403 All IUs (Industrial Users) are subject to general pre- treatment standards, including the prohibition on discharges causing “pass through” or “interference” (ie.: Cause the POTW to violate its permit, or interfere with the operation of the POTW.”) “All POTWs with approved Pre-treatment Programs must develop local limits to implement the general pre-treatment standards.”

17. Description of the “Dental Industry” “ The industry category that would be affected by this proposed rule is offices of dentists (NAICS 621210), which comprises establishments of health practitioners primarily engaged in the independent practice of general or specialized dentistry or dental surgery”

18. Manufacturers Amalgam separator manufacturers are interested is selling separators and end up seeing many different things in the proposed regulation. Grandfathering is mentioned in the proposed regulation, however the final say will be in the hands of the POTW. No mater what separator is purchased the POTW will require you to meet or prove that you meet their numerical standard. And just for the record, I don’t think they will really care when you bought your new separator, just that it meets the standard

19. Amalgam Separator in the Proposed Regulation There are many misconceptions floating around the industry; The 1 year myth, which is the favorite of short life units and cartridge systems. The grandfather rule. Always a good button to push Even the only neutral pH line cleaner will be allowed.

20. The Proposed Regulation States... 1) “When the filtration cartridge or the separator itself reaches the designed solids retention capacity, it must be replaced.” 2) “The manufacturer can include replacement schedules and capacity levels for amalgam separators.” 3) “EPA is proposing to include certain operation, maintenance, and inspection activities that have the greatest impact on the ability of an amalgam separator to achieve its performance as certified.”

21. 4) “Amalgam separator manufacturer instructions should be followed for servicing amalgam separators and for handling separator waste.” 5) “EPA proposes to require line cleaners that do not contain bleach, and are of neutral pH.” The Proposed Regulation States... (Cont’d.)

22. Existing Separators “The EPA is proposing that, as long as the existing separators continue to operate properly, comply with Best Management Practices (BMPs) and with recordkeeping, these facilities would be considered in compliance with the numeric standard until ten years from the effective date of the final rule.” ( since we are in Vegas I would say that ten years is 100 to 1 bet) BUT the final say is from the local POTW. So ten years is highly unlikely.

23. Dissolved Mercury The EPA has been very careful on this issue. On one hand the EPA states that they are not proposing standards for the removal of dissolved mercury and on the other hand they say that POTWs are to set local effluent discharge limits. We have spoken to many POTWs and they are very concerned with dissolved mercury and already have limits in place that address it.

24. How Do POTWs Meet Their Limits They can apply for a variance from the EPA that increases their acceptable discharge limit. They can dilute the discharge with fresh water. They can simply accept the fines that they would get from the EPA. They can require that the identified pollution categories reduce their discharges.

25. Industrial Sector Methods Used History shows us that when the POTWs needed to reduce the discharge limits from the industrial sector, they implemented a three step approach. 1) Require that the sector find better and more efficient technology. 2) Sell permits to allow higher discharges. 3) Fine the facilities that exceed their limits. These steps are still being used in the industrial sector today.

26. When searching the Ohio EPA site for disciplinary actions for water pollution offences, I found that fines can range from $500.00 to over $3000.00. It seemed to depend heavily of the toxicity of the discharge and any previous warnings.

27. Thank you for your attention. We will now take questions