|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 Advisory Committee on Mercury PollutionThird Meeting: Monday, January 18, 1999 MINUTES Present: (*committee members) The Committee members and interested parties gathered at the Burlington Waste Water Treatment Plant administrative building at 2:00 p.m. only to find the building locked and no staff present at the facility to open the door. After waiting an appropriate interval, those present elected to move the meeting location to a conference room offered by committee member Shaner. at the Fletcher Allen Health Care, UHC Campus, Prospect Street, Burlington, Vermont, in the Sixth Floor Conference Room. Reconvening, the Committee members present selected member Phillips to serve as acting chair for its meeting. The meeting was opened with a request for comments or corrections to the minutes of the November 5, 1998 committee meeting. John Miller noted that he had been advised that in Agenda Item two the word ‘Project’ should be used instead of ‘District’ when referring to the NH/VT Solid Waste Project and its member towns. Also, in that same item, Bill Gallagher, not ‘Phil’ addressed the Committee. Those items noted, the minutes were accepted. Agenda Item 1 Brian Fitzgerald distributed a summary of Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) performance standards for Municipal Waste Combusters (MWC) and Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators (HMIWI) noting that Vermont has no specific regulations for MWCs or HMIWIs. Instead, Vermont has general operating permit requirements and issues approvals for facility construction. The state has EPA approval to use these permits to impose performance standards equivalent to or more stringent than those required under the CAA. He noted that the state does not expect to adopt regulations since there is currently only one facility in Vermont. Mr. Fitzgerald also pointed out some federal exemptions to its MWC definition, such as the tire exemption and the less than 30% MSW co-firing exemption, which run counter to legislative concerns in the last session over the use of waste tires as a fuel in industrial boilers. Hollie Shaner pointed out also that some treatments of medical waste turn them into a solid waste which then may be burned in an MWC. With respect to emission standards it was pointed out that these are performance standards, not the requirement for the use of a specific technology. The so-called maximum achievable control technology (MACT) is designed to represent a control level which is considered to be continuously achievable. For example, in selective noncatalytic systems, ammonia is injected to control oxides of nitrogen, spray dryers control particulates and carbon is injected to capture mercury. With respect to HMIWIs it was noted that the recent EPA rule had a lot of discussion in its preamble about mercury reduction, but this was not carried forward into the rule. The (new for EPA) requirement for a siting analysis may be problematic because Vermont air regulations do not contain siting authority. Of greater concern is EPA’s rural areas exemption allowing higher emission rates for facilities sited 50 miles outside a Metropolitan Statistical Area. Vermont has only one such area: Chittenden County. The group observed that rural areas are precisely where foods (a pathway for human exposure) that will be subject to higher deposition rates from these facilities are more likely to be grown. Brian Fitzgerald noted that the Agency has a draft permit for the Adirondak facility in New York. Currently, that permit contains only the 0.08 mg/dscm federal standard for mercury. He noted that for standing in later appeals, parties must comment on the draft permit. In response to urging from Michael Bender that the state comment on that draft permit, he indicated that Vermont’s letter will be consistent with the recommendations of the Northeastern Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers mercury action plan. Mr. Bender noted that he understands that Governor Petaki has recently written to the New England Governors’ Conference on this issue. Mr. Fitzgerald’s presentation concluded with a series of questions and answers about tires, pollution control equipment ash, autoclaves, the US EPA mercury action plan, and timetables for specific facility permits. Agenda Item 2 Bill Bress opened his discussion of health effects from mercury exposure by distributing handouts summarizing various aspects of these effects and the fish standards and consumption guidelines which have evolved from them. He noted that currently there is confusion about different the different regulatory and advisory levels used for mercury. The federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has set a 1 ppm limit for the purposes of regulating interstate commerce, while the EPA uses a reference dose calculation based on exposures by the most sensitive populations, i.e. women of childbearing age and children. The Vermont Department of Health has chosen to use the more stringent EPA exposure limits in developing the fish meals approach in its advisories. It was noted also that research continues in various parts of the world, seeking population exposure information for dietary mercury intake. However, confounding factors have limited the broader applicability of findings from any particular study. In a related matter, Michael Bender noted that a summary report on various states’ mercury advisories is expected to be released this Spring by a number of public interest research groups (PIRGs). He also noted that some states already have salt water fish advisories and (despite FDA concerns) have put out pamphlets to publicize them. Although the FDA has been less active in getting out the word on mercury in fish, its web site does contain this information. With respect to the Abenaki study, Bill Bress reported that he has submitted the study questionnaire to Health Department epidemiologists for evaluation. He noted that the self reported symptoms questions identify only effects of extreme mercury exposure rather than long term, low level intakes. Nevertheless the questions on number, type and frequency of fish eaten could help identify groups that are at risk. He suggested that the Lake Champlain Basin Committee might be interested in this type of project for a grant. In discussing what to do next, Michael Bender pointed out the importance of bringing this study to a conclusion as a way to build confidence among the Abenaki for cooperating with further research efforts. He expressed hope that the Committee would be able to support completion of the study and recommend the use of state seed money for this and related projects with the Abenaki. Bill Bress indicated that he should have word from the epidemiologists on what can be done with the earlier study before the committee meets next.. Agenda Item 3 On January 11, 1999 the Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association held a Mercury Containing Products Summit to explore prospects for model regional programs and legislation for dealing with mercury containing products and waste streams . Invitees to the summit included government officials, industries that produce mercury-containing products, recyclers, waste managers, trade associations and environmental interests. The summit was essentially a facilitated brain-storming session to find recommendations that might be advanced to the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers for consideration under the region’s Mercury Action Plan. After morning plenary sessions summit attendees divided into subgroups dealing with specific product categories. Four persons present at the meeting had attended the summit: Committee members Bender and Phillips and Agency staff members Hackbarth and Miller. Rich Phillips reported that the switch products group included few manufacturers and focused primarily on approaches to manufacturer extended product responsibility. There was little discussion of product bans in this group. John Miller noted that the lighting subgroup spent much of its time discussing lighting technology issues before indicating its support for management of waste lighting products under the federal universal wastes rule. Of course, this approach would be rendered moot for those products which do not meet federal RCRA criteria for being considered hazardous wastes. Julie Hackbarth reported that chemicals and pharmaceutical subgroup was most interested in product labeling for mercury content. These concerns were related to the specifics of meeting facility wastewater discharge limitations and long term contamination problems in building plumbing systems. Michael Bender stated that he had checked in on all the groups and observed that the tenor of discussion had gone beyond whether something should be done to what should be done and how to go about it. He noted also that discussions in one of the switch groups about essential and non-essential uses were linked to criteria for justification of a particular mercury use or establishing notification systems if that use. In light of these discussions, Rich Phillips noted that projects like retrofitting thermostats in all state offices or the regulation of lighting installers would not be that hard to implement. Agenda Item 4 Rich Phillips advised the group that the rule had become effective on January 15, 1999. To date, the Agency has received one formal inquiry for approval of specific label language and has met with one industry (foreign auto makers) group to discuss how its products could be labeled to comply with the rule. The Environmental Assistance Division will be hiring an Administrative Assistant to handle many of the program details. He offered to keep the Advisory Committee informed of requests for alternative labeling and to provide opportunities for its comment. These comments would have to be received outside the meeting schedule for the committee, either through e-mail or conference telephone calls, in order that the Agency provide timely responses to all petitioners. Specifically, it is anticipated that the committee would be advised of a request for alternative labeling, the Agency’s preliminary decision and the date on which the decision would be issued. Committee members would have the opportunity to comment on the proposed decision before it is issued or modified in response to their concerns. Nevertheless, the Committee’s role still would be advisory only. With respect to the public information and education requirements of Act 151, Rich Phillips stated that preliminary discussions within the Agency are leaning toward a primarily print campaign. The first event would be something like a joint press conference with the Governor featuring the Secretary of the Agency and the Commissioners of Health, Education and Agriculture each announcing the things their programs are doing to reduce mercury uses and releases to the environment. The group discussed whether PSAs for television might also be produced and what resources might be available to help reduce their costs. Bill Bress noted that media campaigns doe work. Since the Health Department started its lead program in 1991, there has been a reduction in the number of lead poisonings in the Vermont. Hollie Shaner suggested that it might be useful to look over that program’s media education plan for approaches to consider. Noting that public education efforts are proceeding in other states, copies of New Hampshire’s October 1998 Mercury Reduction Strategy and Maine’s January 1999 Report to the Joint Standing Committee on Natural Resources concerning Labeling and Collection of Mercury-Added Products were distributed to the Committee. The meeting concluded shortly after 4:45 p.m. with the members selecting their next meeting site as Montpelier in the mid to late afternoon on Tuesday, February 16, 1999. Two agenda items were agreed upon for consideration: 1) Develop recommendations for next steps on the Abenaki anglers study and survey. 2) Committee input, reactions and recommendations to mercury public education proposals from the Agency of Natural Resources and the Department of Health. The Advisory Committee Report to the General Assembly will be finalized outside the meeting process to get the remaining signatures and compile any qualifications signers may have. Rich Phillips agreed to confer with members, Erdheim, Deen and Ready about finalizing the committee report and about their availability to attend the next meeting. Also, additional agenda items are welcome from any Committee member.
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |