Panel questions amalgam separator policy

Washington鈥擬embers of Congress July 8 sharply questioned Association policy and the ADA witness at an oversight hearing “assessing state and local regulations to reduce dental mercury emissions.”

The ADA offered oral and written testimony supporting “voluntary, cooperative partnerships” to reduce the environmental impact of dental mercury emissions. “The ADA has issued and continually updates as appropriate its 鈥榖est management practices’ for handling waste amalgam,” William J. Walsh, the ADA witness, testified. “These BMPs call for the use of standard control methods, recycling of collected amalgam, and, since last fall, the use of amalgam separators.”

State and local authorities ought to be free to choose voluntary separator programs over mandates, Mr. Walsh, ADA outside counsel on amalgam wastewater issues, told the domestic policy subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Other hearing witnesses, including state regulatory agency representatives, said voluntary efforts often fail despite the cooperation of state and local dental societies. These witnesses argued for regulations requiring use of amalgam separators to capture mercury before it leaves the dental office. There is currently no federal requirement mandating separators.

“The dental industry contributes substantially to the amount of mercury that ends up in wastewater and eventually in fresh water,” said Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who chairs the domestic policy subcommittee. “In places where the disposal of dental amalgam is not subject to regulation, amalgam is frequently discarded by simply washing it down the drain,” he said in a written opening statement.

During the hearing, Rep. Kucinich criticized the idea that state and local governments would have different needs and requirements. “Our entire structure of regulation is based on certain things you cannot do,” he said.

Reps. Kucinich, Dan Burton (R-Ind.) and Diane Watson (D-Calif.) were the only three subcommittee members present for the hearing. All three questioned ADA policy.

“I just have to say to the unbiased observers that it seems to me the ADA has a resistance to mandatory separators that is almost theological,” said Rep. Kucinich. “Are there product liability concerns or a fear of class action in the offing? Is there something deeper here?” he asked. Mr. Walsh replied that voluntary standards are “the better way” and that mandatory requirements “are difficult to enforce.”

Rep. Burton, who held hearings on dental amalgam in a previous session of Congress, assailed Association policy. “I don’t understand the ADA,” he said. “I just don’t understand it.” Rep. Watson sharply questioned Mr. Walsh and repeatedly interrupted his responses, directing that he “put a period there.” “How does the ADA encourage its members to cooperate?” she asked. When Mr. Walsh tried to respond, “That’s not the subject of my testimony,” Rep. Watson replied, her right fist clenched and pounding the dais, “That’s why I want a health professional here, not a legal counsel. I’m passionate about this.”

One report in the national media characterized the discourse of Reps. Burton and Watson as “deeply personal diatribes” and said the ADA witness “seemed taken aback” by the focus of the hearing.

Rep. Watson gave no details of “my proposed legislation” or her intent “to change national policy.” But she contended that “the dental sector is stuck in complacency and needs some sort of regulatory framework to move it.” Rep. Kucinich said the subcommittee would continue its inquiry.