Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance

committees of the NM Legislature. The LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports

if they are used for other purposes.

Current FIRs (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are a vailable on the NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us).

Adobe PDF versions include all attachments, whereas HTML versions may not. Previously issued FIRs and

attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T

SPONSOR HBIC

ORIGINAL DATE

LAST UPDATED

3-02-07

HB CS/481/HBICS

SHORT TITLE Dental Amalgam Waste Reduction Act

SB

ANALYST Aubel

ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (dollars in thousands)

FY07

FY08

FY09 3 Year

Total Cost

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

Total

$80.0

$80.0

$160.0 Recurring

See

narrative

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

Relates to HB 16 and HB 318

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Responses Received From

New Mexico Environment Department (NMED)

Department of Health (DOH)

Regulation and Licensing Department (RLD) - Boards and Commissions Division (BCD)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

The House Business and Industry Committee Substitute for House Health and Government

Affairs Committee Substitute for House Bill 481 aims at reducing mercury in the environment by

enacting the Dental Amalgam Waste Reduction Act, which would require dental offices to install

and use an amalgam separator system to remove dental amalgam before it is discharged to a

wastewater stream by December 31, 2008. The bill also requires the NM Board of Dental Health

Care to promulgate rules by June 30, 2008 that set forth a process for dental offices for

maintaining records relating to the amalgam separator and could deny a license to practice

dentistry or a renewal of such license for violations of the rules adopted by the board after the

deadline for separator installation. The Act provides for various exemptions.

This bill provides a definition of “dental office" and requires reports to be submitted to the New

Mexico Board of Dental Health Care in addition to the local wastewater treatment plant. This

bill also clarifies that penalties and discipline for noncompliance with the Dental Amalgam

Waste Reduction Act shall be pursuant to the Uniform Licensing Act and the Dental Health Care

Act.

CS/House Bill 481/HBICS – Page

2

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

BCD maintains that the New Mexico Board of Dental Health Care (board) would need an

additional 2 FTE for the supplementary services being conducted at an estimated cost of $80

thousand for personal services and benefits. Because the board is sustained through other state

funds, BCD estimates an increase in the dental fees of approximately $60.00 would be required

to cover the cost of the added personnel.

Section 61-5A-20 NMSA 1978 places a $600.00 limit on dental license renewal. Currently, the

cost of renewal is $480.00.

SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

Mercury is a persistent, bio-accumulative (which means it undergoes chemical magnification up

the food chain) neurotoxin. DOH notes that mercury exposure is a potential health issue for New

Mexicans and that even very low levels can pose a concern, particularly for pregnant women,

infants, and children. The toxicity manifests in a variety of conditions including learning

disabilities, tremors, muscle in-coordination, loss of memory, personality changes, deafness, and

loss of vision and is also toxic to the kidneys. Many of the adverse effects of mercury are

reversible, therefore minimizing or eliminating certain exposures can have a beneficial effect on

the exposed individual.

Dental amalgam fillings are comprised of about 50% mercury and are a known source of

mercury exposure (ATSDR Toxicological Profile for Mercury, 1999).

While the mercury content of new amalgams has generally decreased in recent years (silver is

the primary metal used in dental amalgam now), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) has nevertheless determined that old and removed dental amalgam can be a significant

source of mercury exposure to the public.

Mercury amalgam traps can reduce mercury released to the environment from approximately 800

grams per dentist per year to approximately 10 grams or less. According to the New Mexico

Dental Association, dental facilities that install an amalgam separator will acquire dental

amalgam capture and recovery services from their respective dental equipment supplier to ensure

proper installation and disposal or recycling. Systems are available for under $1,000, with filter

cartridges running under $300.

Exemption language is provided for dental offices that can demonstrate that they are not engaged

in amalgam placement, removal, or modification; for a nonprofit organization where dental care

is provided on a voluntary basis; for a portable dental office without a fixed connection.

PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS

The bill will minimally impact the workload of NMED, which may be involved in approving the

method or technology for mercury amalgam separation pursuant to Section 8. BCD notes that

without adequate funding to provide initial implementation and enforcement of the Act, the

board may be impacted by delayed licensing, compliance investigations, and disciplinary

enforcement.

CS/House Bill 481/HBICS – Page

3

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

HB 481/HHGACS would require coordination of records with RLD and local publicly owned

water treatment facilities, creating new rules, and processing board-initiated compliance actions

under the Uniform Licensing Act.

CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP

Relates to HB 16, which proposes a mercury reduction group of organizations to implement the

findings from the Mercury Reduction Task Force formed pursuant to the 2006 House Memorial

5.

Relates to House Bill 318, which is aimed at reducing mercury emissions from power plants.

TECHNICAL ISSUES

NMED notes that discharges of concern can flow to a local public wastewater system, a private

septic system or a private system other than a septic system. Private systems should therefore be

described as private on-site liquid waste systems

, which is a more encompassing term.

NMED also points out that the reporting requirements in Section 5 could be clarified to specify

the frequency

of reporting compliance, maintenance, recycling or disposal records and to whom

the reports will be sent

.

Suggested amendments to incorporate these suggestions are provided below.

OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

The Act requires that the amalgam separator meets the latest international office of

standardization (ISO) of efficiency, ISO 11143, which is 99 percent efficient. Separator models

are sized according to the size of the dental facility.

This bill is the culmination of the workgroup established by HM 13 in 2006, which included

representatives from DOH, Albuquerque’s wastewater facility, NMED, and the New Mexico

Dental Association.

WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL

Dental offices may not remove mercury amalgam prior to discharging its wastewater.

AMENDMENTS

Section 2, page 2, lines 1 and 2, amend the definition of "amalgam separator" as follows:

Delete the words “septic system" and replace with “on-site liquid waste system

".

Section 5, page 3, line 12, amend as follows:

Insert after “facility", “or if a publicly owned water treatment facility is not available, reporting

shall be directly to the New Mexico Board of Dental Health Care

".

CS/House Bill 481/HBICS – Page

4

Section 5, page 3, line 12, amend as follows:

Insert after “shall", the word “annually

".

Section 5, page 3, line 15, amend as follows:

Insert after “years", the words “to its local publicly owned water treatment facility or if a

publicly owned water treatment facility is not available, reporting shall be directly to the New

Mexico Board of Dental Health Care

".

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS

1.

What process is required to raise the dental licensing fees. Would the timing to complete

the process fit the timelines established in the bill.

2.

Has legal counsel at RLD responded to the question of whether the language in the

Dental Practice Act is sufficient to cover the authority specified by this Act.

MA/nt