Regulatory Policy: Options and Implementation

1. Regulatory Policy: Options and Implementation Regulating Dental Office Wastewater in King County Patricia Magnuson King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks

3. King County Wastewater Treatment Division Sewer Service Area • 1.4 million customers • Collect and treat municipal and industrial wastes (200 mgd) • 147 permitted industrial users discharge (3 mgd) • 1300 dentists

4. Mercury Limits • Biosolids “Exceptional Quality” limit 17 mg/kg • Local limit • 0.1 mg/L for > 5000 gpd • 0.2 mg/L for < 5000 gpd • Limits apply to all businesses in King County Sewer Service Area

5. Initial concern with mercury in dental office wastewater • 1989 NPDES violation issued for mercury violations at West Point Treatment Plant. DOE required King County to investigate • 1991 Metro (King County) identified dental office wastewater as “significant and identifiable” source of mercury • 1991 – 1994 Research and document development

6. Early policy choices • 1994 Industrial Waste Program drafted a rule for dentists that required the installation of amalgam separators • 1995 King County decided to postpone the rule and work with dental community to achieve voluntary compliance • 1995 – 2000 Intensive voluntary program

7. Path to compliance… “Tell me when it’s the law!” • 2000 Report published by LHWMP concluded that voluntary program did not achieve widespread compliance • 25 out of potential 900 dental offices had installed amalgam separators • Industrial Waste Pretreatment Program determined need to re-evaluate policy

8. Current concern with mercury in dental office wastewater • Maintain “marketability” of biosolids • Equity - need to meet our Local Limits (0.2 mg/L) for mercury 100% Recycled

9. Option for compliance # 1… Continue with voluntary program • Only 25 dentists had installed separators • Voluntary program did not motivate compliance

10. …option for compliance # 2… Promulgate a rule • Would require all dentists to install separators, whether needed or not • Redundant - appears that most dentists can be in compliance with local limits with pretreatment

11. …option for compliance # 3… Issue a General Permit • Requires more oversight at IW • Fee would need to be assessed to process paperwork • Additional paper work for dentists

12. …option for compliance # 4Implemented Enforce compliance with existing regulations • IW able to administer with current workforce • Dentists have option of demonstrating compliance and applying for permit under current rules and procedures or install a pretreatment unit • Local limits achievable with pretreatment

13. Developing the message • 2000 – 2001 Meetings with stakeholders • Industrial Waste Advisory Board • Dental Association Meetings • Washington State Department of Ecology

14. Requirements for compliance • All dental offices must use Best Management Practices (BMPs) for amalgam waste • All dental practices need to demonstrate compliance with our local limits (0.2 mg/L) for mercury through ONE of the following routes: • Install and maintain an approved amalgam separator unit • Apply for and receive a permit to discharge • Be an exempt specialty or practice • Orthodontist, Oral surgeon, radiologist… • Place or remove amalgams less than 3 days per year

15. Primary Message for Dentists that place or remove amalgam (Most general practice dentists) • Installation of “KC Approved” ASU = In Compliance • No sampling required • No permit required • Need to maintain equipment and keep waste disposal records for at least 3 years

16. King County Approved Separator List • KC notified known vendors requesting documentation for inclusion on list • Required ISO certification – 95% removal • King County checked paperwork only Photo Courtesy of DRNA

17. Getting the message out: July 2001 – July 2003 • Develop and distribute informational documents • Initial letter • Fact sheet • Approved separator list • ASU comparison chart • Permit application • Reminder postcards • Web page development • Articles in local and state dental society journal • Attend trade shows • Personal visits by Public Health Inspectors

18. Implementation • 2001 – 2002 Voucher incentive program • 2002 Workshops • 2002 – 2003 Informational site visits continued • Mid-term check (July 2002) • Approximately 200 separators installed

19. Program Maintenance • Web page • Documents • Database • Re-evaluate program annually • Compliance Inspections • Goal 20% first year

20. Program Costs • Public Health Visits – Already planned • Industrial Waste Program • ¾ FTE in 2001 and 2002 • ½ FTE in 2003 • Goal – Incorporate into existing program • Mailings and materials • Voucher Incentive program • $160,000 for 370 separators

21. ASU installation is required - 93% Compliance

22. ASU installation is voluntary - 43% Compliance

23. Results tracked from vendor sales Notification letter mailed Compliance Deadline Source: Sales data supplied by manufacturers of ASUs

24. What changed? • Problem Definition • Biosolids marketability • Voluntary program did not work • Equity issue • Policy Formation • Local limits are achievable with pretreatment • Technology available • Politics • Mercury in the “news” • Local dental association position changed

25. Lessons Learned • Dentists are not the only stakeholders • Other permitted industries • Local environmental groups • Biosolids’ customers • You can’t do it alone • Public Health Inspectors • EnviroStars Program • Local and State Dental Associations

26. Thank you Patricia Magnuson King County Industrial Waste Program130 Nickerson Street, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98109206-263-3021 FAX 206-263-3001 patricia.magnuson@metrokc.gov http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/indwaste