MERC Vermont | Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution Meeting Minutes

Second Meeting: Thursday, November 5, 1998
Time: 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.
Location: Burlington Municipal Waste Water Treatment Plant, Conference Room
Lavalley Lane, Burlington, Vermont

Present: (*committee members)
*Representative David Deen, Chair
*Senator Elizabeth Ready
*Richard Phillips, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources
*William Bress, Vermont Department of Health
*Ric Erdheim, National Electrical Manufacturers Association
*Hollie Shaner, Fletcher Allen Health Care
*Timothy Scherbatskoy, University of Vermont
*Michael Bender, Abenaki Self-Help Association, Inc.
Allison Crowley DeMag, American Auto Mfgrs./Wheelabrator Technologies
Gail Lynch, Wheelabrator, Claremont Facility
Frank Ferraro, Wheelabrator, Claremont Facility
Ray Soulard, Wheelabrator, Claremont Facility
Theresa Feeley, Downs Rachlin & Martin (NEMA)
Michael Veitch, Brooklyn, NY
Katie Lajoie, Working on Waste/Charlestown, NH
John Tuthill, Acworth, NH
Sara O’Brien, Vermont Public Interest Research Group
Bill Gallagher, Working on Waste/Town of Cornish NH
Mary Williams, NH/VT Solid Waste Project
Brian Gould, NH/VT Solid Waste Project
Jen Holliday, Chittenden Solid Waste District
Tom Moreau, Chittenden Solid Waste District
Annie Macmillan, Vermont Department of Agriculture
Julie Hackbarth, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Solid Waste Management
John Miller, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Environmental Assistance
Chris Recchia, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Deputy Commissioner, DEC

The Committee Chair Deen opened the meeting at 9:05 a.m. with a request for comments or corrections to the minutes of the October 2, 1998 committee meeting. None offered, the minutes were accepted.

In opening this topic for discussion, the Committee was presented with a briefing paper developed by Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) legal and technical staff. This document noted that while the Federal Clean Air Act does establish emission limitations for incinerators, it does not impose technology standards as envisioned in Section 5 of Act 151. Consequently, to implement the spirit of the statute, Vermont can only require that solid waste generators seek assurance that the incinerator complies with all applicable emission requirements of the federal Clean Air Act.

Speaking for the Agency of Natural Resources, DEC Deputy Commissioner Recchia responded to various comments and questions from the Committee.

Regarding future standards set by the state for waste incineration, he confirmed that the standards could be more stringent than the federal as long as they applied equally to both in-state and out-of-state wastes and were not designed to restrict the flow of trash.
Regarding the future of the 0.028 mg/dscm (milligrams per dry standard cubic meter) standard for mercury emissions, he noted that all the New England states have signed the Mercury Action Plan of the Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers. Although the plan is voluntary, Connecticut already has these standards, Massachusetts is proposing them and New Hampshire has indicated its desire to apply them to its incinerators, including Claremont. Additionally, through other regional organizations, New York and New Jersey have been invited to join the New England states in adopting these standards. New Jersey, in particular, has considerable experience in managing its mercury emissions from waste incineration.
With respect to whether an emission standard should be universally applied, he suggested that while there is clear sentiment for the 0.028 mercury standard for MSW and medical waste incineration, it may be more appropriate to have application based standards for other materials, such as tire-derived and waste oil-base industrial fuels. He also confirmed that the current statute and the Agency’s interpretation of it does not touch on the burning of waste tire fuels at the International Paper Company. Federal and New York state standards apply there.
When asked by Ric Erdheim whether the Agency could provide the committee with a feasibility study on emission controls for all types of waste incineration, he stated that the Agency did not have the resources to embark an such a project. However, he did indicate that it would be possible to provide the committee with a summary of existing emission standards and the general feasibility of some control technologies.

In course of the Committee’s discussions with Deputy Commissioner Recchia, it was noted by Holly Shaner that the Mercury Action Plan did not take a particularly strong a position on medical waste incineration when it set a proposed limit of 0.55 mg/dscm for mercury emissions. Not only are lower emission rates are achievable with source separation of mercury-containing materials, but not all medical wastes need to be burned, since the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) specifies only body parts and chemotherapeutic wastes as requiring incineration. Chris Recchia responded that it was the intention of the states to seek lower levels for medical wastes as well.

Representative Deen inquired whether the mercury emissions language proposed for S.181 by the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee would solve ANR problems with going beyond the federal emissions language. It would. In that regard, the Chair invited further discussion on this as a potential Committee recommendation. Tim Scherbatskoy indicated a preference for a recommendation for standards more restrictive than the federal for other types of incineration as well movement to virtual elimination of mercury emissions from as many sources as possible.

Also, Bill Bress suggested a recommendation opposing the use of alternative fuels with known mercury content. Senator Ready expressed concern that this year’s legislation could not be used to address Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee concerns over the use of waste tires as a fuel supplement at the International Paper Company plant in Ticonderoga, New York. Concerned that federal air pollution control standards are not sufficiently pro-active, she requested Agency assistance in creating statutory language which would meet concerns over both mercury emissions and the incineration of tires.

Moving to matters related to Vermont town’s participation in the NH/VT Solid Waste District and with the Claremont solid waste incinerator, the Committee first heard from Sara O’Brien of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG). She presented a series of recommendations for consideration:

Speaking next was Michael Veitch who supported the VPIRG positions and suggested further that committee recommendations might include:

Representing Wheelabrator, Frank Ferraro expressed his company’s opposition to an absolute emission standard like 0.028 mg/dscm because facilities cannot do it all or fully control the quality of its incoming waste stream. He suggested an 80% alternative approach like that of New Jersey where the municipalities would be responsible for getting 80% of the mercury out of the waste stream and the facilities would be responsible for preventing emission of 80% of the mercury remaining in the waste stream. Although carbon injection is new to the US, his company uses it at two NJ plants and can live with its permits’ 85% removal requirements. One of these plants meets 0.028 mg/dscm and the other does not. In both cases though, the recaptured mercury is tightly bound to the injected carbon and is not released under landfill conditions. He noted further that while every load of waste received gets some degree of inspection, his firm does routine full load checks for banned materials on a fixed percent of the loads received, and that some loads do get rejected. Additionally, Mr. Ferraro reported that his industry is putting together model legislation to propose to the various states which is based on comparable national legislation to amend the Clean Air Act which has been proposed by US Senator Leahy.

Responding to a question from Rich Phillips, Mr. Ferraro indicated that although Concord is scheduled for upgrade by 2000, there in no schedule yet to upgrade Wheelabrator’s Claremont facility. In reply to several questions about emissions testing at Wheelabrator plants, he noted that although emissions testing is infrequent at the NJ plants where carbon injection is installed, that state requires optimizing of the emissions control system and continuous carbon injection.

Phil Gallagher addressed the committee next pointing out that he considers incinerators such as Claremont to be obsolete technology. He noted that already the International Joint Commission has recommended against construction of new incinerators in the Great Lakes Basin. In the case of Claremont, he argued that carbon injection is not the solution because the facility’s lined ash landfill is located near a local water supply. He suggested also that since source separation is not a practical way to remove all potential contaminants, it would be best not to send Vermont waste to Claremont but rather to send it instead to the underutilized Brattleboro Materials Recovery Facility (MRF).

In the ensuing discussion the committee weighed whether it should recommend assistance to help Vermont communities subject to incinerator retrofit costs. Members Hollie Shaner and Tim Scherbatskoy supported recommending eliminating the non-essential incineration of waste. Scherbatskoy also noted that, eventually, mercury emissions are not going to be the big issue. Senator Ready indicated her support for both the VPIRG recommendations and eliminating non-essential incineration. Ric Erdheim, in questioning the logic of upgrading Claremont for 2003 if the Vermont towns may pull out in 2007, asked whether ANR has costed out closure of the facility. Mary Williams from the NH/VT district responded that there are no recent calculations. She noted that a complex mix of waste, power and emissions issues are involved. Michael Bender stressed the need for getting the word out for mercury emissions reductions and urged the Agency to press NH for an answer on its time line for mercury emissions reductions. In light of the preceding comments, Bill Bress cautioned that if the state wants to ban incineration, that ban may have to be linked to some easing of restrictions on landfill siting.

After a break, the Committee heard next from Rich Phillips, who described four scenarios the Agency has developed to estimate the cost of removing mercury and other hazardous chemicals from schools around the state. Details of each approach were contained in materials distributed to the committee prior to the meeting. Following this presentation, Annie Macmillan from the Vermont Department of Agriculture described for the Committee her department’s plans to seek legislative support for a program to replace mercury manometers on dairy farms throughout Vermont. Patterned after a project in Michigan, the total cost of replacing the manometer with a non-mercury vacuum gauge and disposing of the collected mercury is estimated at between $150 and $300 per farm. About a third of Vermont’s 1800 active dairy farms use mercury manometers.

In response to a question from Tim Scherbatskoy about how the word of this program would reach farmers, she pointed out that the department has both agricultural inspectors who visit farms and a periodical, the Ag Review, which is sent to every farm. Ric Erdheim noted how extremely cost effective the Department of Agriculture project would be when it collects about a pound of mercury per farm at a cost of $300, as compared to the collection and processing of 18,000 fluorescent lamps at a cost of about $9000 to reclaim a pound of mercury. Michael Bender asked if there was a way to marry the high school and farm projects, but was told by both Phillips and Macmillan that these projects serve two very different constituencies.

Representative Deen indicated that he was unsure whether the committee should be making specific appropriation recommendations to the General Assembly but suggested that the committee could recommend that collection programs such as those for manometers and school chemicals be given priority. Hollie Shaner suggested that a recommendation for a mercury-free schools campaign could also be a possibility. In that regard, Michael Bender proposed that the committee might support reintroduction of last session’s House Natural Resources and Energy language on the use of mercury in schools.

Introducing the topic of public education and outreach, Tom Moreau described the Chittenden Solid Waste District’s household hazardous waste (HHW) collection programs and how the district is dealing with mercury-added consumer products. Financed by the district’s trash surcharge, district HHW and conditionally exempt generator (CEG) hazardous waste services are offered free to homeowners and at the cost of disposal to businesses in district towns. In the past year alone, the district has shipped 40,000 linear feet of fluorescent lamps for recycling. More recently, the district has turned its attention to removing mercury switches from the white goods its collects, easily finding them in washing machines and gas stoves and water heaters. The district would like to get state support for training its workers and workers from other waste districts in how to find and remove mercury-containing components from waste appliances and electronics. He also reported that the district would like to use mailings and utility bill stuffers to get the word out about mercury-containing waste products.

Rich Phillips noted that the Agency of Natural Resources and Health Department are obligated by the Act to help the municipalities create materials to support public education programs. Bill Bress pointed out that his department puts out annual fish advisories and has recently released a four page brochure on mercury through its indoor air program and also is in the process of putting out poster-size fish advisories for its Women, Infants and Children (WIC) clinic program. He also suggested that the indoor air program could help with the push for mercury-free schools.

The Chair, responding to the Committee’s expressions of support for mercury product collection programs state-wide, like those offered in the Chittenden district, noted that not all the mercury-containing wastes are covered under Universal Waste rules and suggested that the committee might consider support for expansion of the rule to cover all mercury-added products. He also inquired about the Committee’s interest in asking the Health Department to build a future agenda around health risks from mercury and how the public can be educated about those risks.

Michael Bender opened the health risks discussion by briefly describing a study survey of Abenaki anglers which was done last year through River Watch Network with a US EPA Environmental Justice Award. The River Watch pilot was completed in March, but a spin-off project with Cynthia Lopez of Harvard University as the principle researcher still has some work projects to do to finish the study. Specifically, there needs to be some additional training done to help the Abenaki self-monitor their mercury exposures. He noted that about $20,000 is needed to take the project to completion and the researchers might be looking to the state for funding to complete the project and to the Committee to support that funding request.

In the ensuing discussion of this study and in response to questions whether hair sample testing has already been done, Mr. Bender explained that the pilot study was part of an effort to build community awareness and develop self-empowerment of the Abenaki. Members Shaner and Bress indicated that they would like to know more about the design of the study to make sure it was well designed before recommending additional funding. Bill Bress noted also that if this is a public health study being done in Vermont, the Health Department would like to be involved in the study design. He also pointed out that the Lake Champlain Basin Committee might be a possible grant source and that he knew of a physician in Milton who was interested in PCB and mercury testing of the Abenaki. Ric Erdheim suggested then that the members Bender and Bress work out a proposal where the Health Department and the Abenaki Self-Help Association can find out if there is a mercury exposure problem. The suggestion was agreed to and they will bring something to the Committee when it meets next, on January 18th.

Hollie Shaner distributed to the Committee copies of a Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) survey form and wondered if it might be useful to the Abenaki. Mr. Bender was uncertain because surveys from outsiders can sometime be problematic. Bill Bress then discussed briefly a recent study the Health Department had done with Vietnamese living in Vermont which showed that number of meals eaten rather than concentration of mercury in the fish may be the best way to evaluate mercury exposures. He noted however that populations who eat a lot of fish will ask which fish are the safest to eat rather than cut down on their consumption.

In wrapping up this discussion, representative Deen noted that on the other side of the state, a Federal Partners/New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission (NEIWPCC) five-state fish study has been proposed for the full reach of the Connecticut River to measure mercury, heavy metals, and PCB contamination. However, the federal approval to start it is still pending. When asked if this study is part of the national EPA Chemical Residues Study, he indicated that this is a New England only effort.

The meeting was then adjourned and the members reminded that their comments will be needed by December 15th on the draft Committee Report and the next meeting date is set for Monday, January 18, 1999, at the Burlington Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant Conference Room.


		Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution