|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 Advisory Committee on Mercury PollutionFifth Meeting: Wednesday, March 31, 1999 MINUTES Present: The Committee members and interested parties gathered in the Ethan Allen Room at the Vermont State House in Montpelier, Vermont and the meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Richard Phillips. Agenda Item 1- Accept minutes of the January 18 and February 16 meeting and changes to agenda. The first order of business was to accept the minutes of the January 18 and February 16 meeting. The minutes of the January 18 meeting were not available and the Committee determined that this item would be addressed again at the next meeting. The February 16 minutes were reviewed and accepted with one minor change requested by Bill Bress regarding a statement he had made on page two, paragraph five of the minutes whereas he was quoted as saying that the advisory was "way" off. Mr. Bress asked that the word "way" be stricken from the minutes. Agenda Item 2- Department of Fish & Wildlife invited to discuss aquiculture. Tom Wiggins, Fish Culture Operations Section Chief and Tim Hess, Director of Fisheries both from the Department of Fish and Wildlife were welcomed as guest speakers for the Advisory Committee. Rich Phillips advised the guests that it was the Committee’s intent to determine the possibilities of aquiculture solutions to the problems of safety standards for fish consumption by the Abenaki anglers and other groups. Tom Wiggins began by explaining cultured fish are a very safe product in that the food source for the fish was commercial feed. The testing that had been done, indicated that there were no detectable levels of mercury in the fish. Mr. Wiggins noted that there were several aspects of rearing fish that were very difficult. The first problem would be finding an adequate water source. He pointed out that Vermont has few adequate water sources, and the best sources come from ground water or springs. Mr. Wiggins commented that a group of sportsmen had requested he inspect eighteen available water sources in which to rear fish. Mr. Wiggins noted that out of these eighteen water sources only one was adequate. Mr. Wiggins explained to the Committee that there are two varied types of mechanical systems used in rearing fish. The first system was a re circulation system which included such items as underwater biological filters to take out the waste products, oxygen injection systems, pumps and other items, all of which are fairly expensive. It has been used more and more because the system uses fewer resources and uses less water. He also noted that re circulation systems allow rearing of fish species that are not native, and in greater density than in the wild. Mr. Wiggins went on to say that the type of fish most preferred in Vermont is trout. The re circulating system, however, is not particularly effective with trout, is not cost efficient, and therefore, is probably not the system which would be most desirable in Vermont. According to Mr. Wiggins, a flow-through type of system is more preferable for trout. This system operates by bringing water into the hatchery and letting it pass through. This method requires minimal waste water removal facilities and most of the water is being pumped for oxygen. Bill Bress asked Mr. Wiggins whether a mechanical type of culture would eliminate the mercury contamination problem in fish. Mr. Wiggins agreed that a fish culture would work well in this respect. However, Tim Hess commented that it would actually be less expensive to buy channel catfish already processed from a farm in Mississippi and provide it to the Abenaki people than it would be to establish a culture system on land or purchased land that has an adequate water source. The program would be expensive and require expertise in rearing the fish. Mr. Hess added that even with the education and the proficiency of his staff in rearing fish, there are still problems that they find difficult to solve. He felt that many people do not realize all that is involved in fish cultures. The Committee commented that they also did not realize the intensity of the program. Hollie Shaner asked if the Fish and Wildlife Department tested the water for mercury content. Mr. Wiggins advised the Committee that the water was not tested, as the mercury was linked to the food chain and bio-accumulates over time more so than into the water. Tim Hess added that some of their hatcheries have ground water or springs that originate on that particular piece of property and, of course, they would have over land accumulations, but, the fish that are reared eat artificial feed that comes from a processed facility where everything is tested so they are not accumulating mercury through the food chain. Rich Phillips asked if there would there be a way to have a fish culture where the people could still be able to sport fish for their food. Mr. Phillips asked if the density of fish in that sort of environment would change the amount of water that would be required. Tom Wiggins suggested that two types of fish could be involved in that type of situation. A lower density of fish would make it simpler; however, the water temperature would be the biggest factor. Trout is the only fish that could be stocked legally, without special permission. The advantage to trout, according to Mr. Wiggins, is that the numbers can be controlled as they rarely reproduce in this type of environment. Mr. Wiggins felt this would work adequately well provided the temperature did not exceed 68 for any long periods of time. Bass and pan fish could be stocked by permission only and would grow naturally in the ponds Fish other than trout reproduce and live in a variety of habitat. In a large water source, the problem would be that they would tend to overpopulate and the fish would not grow to their full capacity. Tim Hess suggested that the question that he believed the Committee should be considering was how much fish would the population in question require to meet the needs of a particular family. He believed that another alternative would be to go to an existing fee-fishing operation in the state of which there were about eight. These fee-fishing operations have the same situation as a hatchery where as they rear the fish with an artificial feed, except with a lower concentration of fish, though higher than in the wild. He felt the Committee should also think in terms of seasonality. Where fresh fish could not be provided, would they provide a frozen product? Mr. Hess suggested that the Committee could consider existing operations that could be tapped which would be less expensive than starting a new project. Ultimately, Mr. Hess felt that the most important early questions would be how many people need to be fed and how many pounds of fish would it take to do that. Hollie Shaner brought up a point about distribution and asked how that would be accomplished. Rich Phillips noted there could conceivably be a pond in an area near that population of people and that trout sounded like the most logical choice for the type of fish. He suggested that perhaps the people could be convinced that as an alternative to their natural fishing area that they might consider going to one of these ponds which were nearby. This would be a situation that may or may not work depending on how great the numbers. Hollie Shaner added that the distribution problem may render the program ineffective. Mr. Phillips believed that one way to solve the distribution problem would be to do more outreach so that the people would know of the risks of mercury. It doesn’t mean people would follow the consumption standards that have been set, but it may make them seek out alternative methods. Mr. Phillips added that it would all end up being a matter of cost. Hollie Shaner questioned the Committee as to how culturally receptive the groups might be to this sort of program. Mr. Wiggins told the group that he was unaware of the responses of other cultures, but he had experience with oriental groups which were quite receptive to the program. Tim Hess felt it would all be an education process. He wondered if the Committee would be working against any kinds of cultural traditions. He believed the Committee would need to know how to evaluate risks within certain groups of people. Mr. Hess went on to say that there were some large tribal fish culture operations out west which had their own hatcheries and their own stocking programs on tribal lands. It was determined that most of these operations are designed to bring money into their tribe from tourists and wouldn’t resolve the problem of mercury accumulation. Agenda Item 3- Develop 1999 Committee Work Plan Rich Philips noted that because of the low attendance, he felt it would be unadvisable to fully complete agenda item three which was to develop the Committee work plan. Mr. Phillis suggested to the Committee that they briefly discuss the work plan and further discuss it in detail at the next meeting. Mr. Phillips stated that the charge of the Committee is to define the existing risks on mercury in the environment and secondly to determine ways of reducing the risk. He felt the group had already begun to determine ways to reduce the risk. His question to the group was if they wished to pursue further defining the risk. Mr. Phillips stated that DEC has identified all of the mercury-related environmental data maintained by DEC. He felt the Committee might be able to use this in starting to define the risk. It should be determined if defining the risk should become a part of the Committee's work plan as its first plan of action. He continued in saying that as far as reducing the risk, he felt the Committee had gone forward with recommendations to the legislature and he felt that the Committee should discuss that progress. There were all kinds of items which could be dealt with such as a thermometer take-back program, dentistry, vehicle salvage yards in taking switches out of old cars and many other aspects. Mr. Phillips suggested that the Committee focus on the activities of other states in the region. The regional mercury task force whose work is done through NEWMOA had met to come up with model mercury legislation. As an example, if a state wants to do a labeling legislation piece, a product phase out or a salvage yard program; it would be defined to a reasonable extent in the model as a guide for state legislation. The draft model legislation, Mr. Phillips noted, was to be written, he believed, some time in June prior to the region's October meeting. He informed the Committee that as soon as he received this draft that he will forward a copy to the Committee members. Mr. Phillips felt as though this would be an effective tool for helping the Committee in determining their work plan. Mr. Phillips felt the reasonable approach to a work plan would be to react to the proposals or suggestions made in a regional pursuit together with anything more that the Committee may decide to add. Note: Subsequent to our March 31, 1999 meeting, it was determined that the NEWMOA effort is treated as confidential; therefore, the minutes and draft model legislation product cannot be shared by the committee. Mr. Phillips will provide summaries. Bill Bress had a suggestion to add to the work plan. He told the Committee that when the various departments within the state set standards, he felt that they are set in isolation, each with separate standards. With accumulative toxins, like mercury, should the Committee recommend looking at total mercury exposure when setting standards. Mr. Phillips agreed that it was certainly a good concept and fell within the scope of the Committee. Hollie Shaner asked Mr. Bress if all the standards were based on adult exposure or fetal development. Mr. Bress explained that they were based on fetal development and added that the Committee would only be making recommendations, not policy. Mr. Phillips agreed saying that what the Committee is bringing up is addressing essentially cumulative risks which may not be adequately addressed by the current standards. Mr. Bress pointed out that there weren’t many toxins like mercury, most of the chemicals that standards are set for or deal with are theoretical cancer risks. Lead and mercury are known to cause adverse effects at a certain level. Mr. Bress noted that he would have no problem adjusting the way he looked at mercury risks by taking into account reasonable other exposures in Vermont. Rich Phillips suggested that he would like to see the Committee develop a list of items they would like to address and a schedule on the items to be examined. He would like to see the schedule be consistent with the regional schedule which he hoped would map out the Committee’s meeting for at least the rest of the year. For the short term, Mr. Phillips thought the Committee should develop a work plan that takes them through to the next legislative session, and have this schedule completed by January 1, 2000. Agenda Item 4- Continue discussion regarding public service announcements and media coverage. Rich Phillips advised the Committee that a meeting had been held prior to this meeting which was attended by Hollie Shaner, Gary Gulka and himself. In this meeting they discussed in more detail the information campaign which is being implemented by the Environmental Assistance Division. Mr. Phillips added that the agency is planning a Governor’s press conference in May. He envisioned the Governor opening the conference with involvement from the four commissioners from Agriculture, Health, Education and Environmental Conservation. He went on to say that the agency was still moving toward having radio PSAs and regional newspaper ads on topics such as the significance of mercury along with source separation in the solid waste districts. Gary Gulka gave the Committee an overview of the items discussed at the meeting. Mr. Gulka noted that the agency was working on information pieces for both businesses and the general public on mercury. He pointed out that, at this point, they were looking at brochures that were already existing in other states. Mr. Gulka presented a brochure from Minnesota which he felt was one of the better pieces he had seen. He pointed out to the group that the brochure was designed for the general public and covered most aspects of mercury from what it is to the impacts in the environment, health, wildlife, bio-accumulation, products containing mercury, and alternatives. He also noted that the brochure made reference to dental amalgam and suggested that perhaps we could get some input since there was some representation from the dental field attending the meeting. The agency was in the process of modifying the brochure to be Vermont specific. Mr. Gulka also showed the group a brochure which was a group effort of Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin which was funded in part by the EPA. The agency had been anticipating this type of brochure for businesses which explains in more detail about particular products that contain mercury. The agency is hoping to have those two items available for a mass distribution in a June time frame to tie in with the media campaign. Mr. Gulka told the group that according to Hollie Shaner, Fletcher Allen may be able to work with the agency on a television public service announcement which would be a 30-second spot and would be essentially no cost to the agency. The secretary may do some OP ED pieces on mercury besides newspaper ads that we may be able to pay for. Radio and TV feature spots such as the Switchboard program on Vermont Public Radio or TV feature stories on mercury in the environment were discussed. Mercury booth displays at various functions whether related to business, schools, or general public were planned. Mr. Gulka felt more programs directed at school age children is an area that needs to be pursued. Hollie Shaner showed the group a poster from Kansas geared toward school age children showing a "heavy metal monster" which she thought was most eye-catching. Mr. Gulka added that those were the types of promotions that the agency hopes to address. Other special initiatives will be considered for the future such as hospital programs, thermometer take-back programs, and thermostat programs, all of which are a little more detailed and cost more to actually implement; however, it is also good way to reach the public. Mr. Gulka also told the Committee that the agency was still searching for a logo that might be used for general brochures or information. They have explored what is being used by other states, but the agency had hoped for some sort of unique identifier for mercury. Rich Phillips told the group that he felt an urgency to educate the public between now and July 1, 1999 so that there would be an understanding that as of that date, mercury added products would need to be separated prior to disposal. He felt that the information campaign should not stop in July, but he hadn’t really been thinking beyond that point yet. Gary Gulka added that the agency was in the process of putting together a mercury web site that would assist the manufacturer in his labeling requirements as well as provide information for the general public and businesses. Michael Bender suggested that links to other sites would be a good source of information. Mr. Phillips added that the agency was placing a web address on the correspondence to the manufacturer for the labeling requirements. This web site would provide labeling information, updates on the label issues, and questions and answers on labeling requirements. Hollie Shaner added that the group had also discussed having flyers for the pediatrician offices, and developing a thermometer take-back program which would be implemented through the pharmacists. Bill Bress informed the Committee that he and Michael Bender had met with the Health Commissioner and the outcome of that meeting, they believed, was going to be used in the Minnesota model law regarding consumption of commercial fish products. This information would be included in a pamphlet that could be used for Vermont if modified. He explained that the pamphlet would be designed for pregnant women and children and was now being used in a few other states. Mr. Bender added that part of their discussion was whether or not this information could be tied in with the state press conference. Agenda Item 5- Other Agenda Items Bill Bress told the Committee that he had located another possible source of mercury. He told the group that he discovered a building that he believed used mercury in their steam heating system. He thought that the mercury had been added to reduce knocking in the steam radiators. Rich Phillips informed the Committee that the agency was still working on the implementation of the labeling aspects which included a process to identify manufacturers of mercury-containing products. Information was being sent out to approximately twenty-two hundred manufacturers with a request to notify whether or not they manufacture mercury-containing products and if these products were sold for use in the state of Vermont. With this notification form, a more accurate list of manufacturers of mercury-containing products will be developed. Mr. Phillips told the group that the agency had a major alternatives request from NEMA fluorescent lamp manufacturers who believe that they cannot reasonably label their products. Mr. Phillips also added that he had personally taken a trip to Kentucky to view the production of the lamps first hand to aid in determination on the alternative labeling request. Mr. Phillips advised that no other alternative requests had been received. The agency is waiting to see what other responses are received from the mailing. Mr. Phillips anticipated that much time would be involved responding to manufacturers’ inquiries. The Agency has supported an amendment to the legislation which would postpone the implementation of the labeling requirement to January 1, 2000 because of the anticipated work load. A request was also made to add a notification requirement to the law with a deadline of September 1, 1999, after which time the manufacturer would not be allowed to sell their product in the state of Vermont. Michael Bender advised the Committee on recent developments in legislative activity. He told the group that there was a committee on schools and diary which included both a pilot project which was being discussed for dairy manometers and a school laboratory ban of mercury in the elementary and secondary schools. Hollie Shaner expressed a desire to see "colleges" included in the list of schools for the ban of mercury in the laboratories. The Committee felt it was important that the words "colleges and universities" be added to the language of the proposed bill and that the institutions should report their inventories of mercury by a specific date. Michael Bender suggested that the language be corrected to include, "By Jan 1st of each year all universities and colleges in this state shall have inventoried all quantities purchased and in stock." Topics also being discussed by the House Natural Resources Committee included removal of the word "labeled" from the statute. The reason this is so important is because only "labeled" mercury added products are banned from landfills. If the word "labeled" was replaced by "listed," the mercury-added products which now exist would be under the requirement for source separation. Solid Waste Districts are going to encourage it anyway, but we feel it would work much more effectively. He added that he had requested language be added to delay penalties from homeowners for two and a half years to allow time for education of the public. Rich Phillips told the group that there were several bills regarding mercury and the House Ways and Means Committee decided not to move on any of the bills but to create a committee bill to address each of the subjects. The bill, however, does not include the incineration law. Michael Bender stated his approval that a member of the solid waste district is added to the Committee per the suggestion from Rich Phillips. Mr. Phillips stated that he had made the recommendation, but that it did not get picked up on. Hollie Shaner informed the Committee that there are two meetings which might be of interest to the group. One is to be held May 24-25 regarding brain development and behavior related to heavy metals. The second meeting is to be held May 23-25 on Science and Practice of Environmental Health. She also felt that mercury would also be a big part of these discussions Michael Bender advised the Committee that there was a federal health agency which was to release a minimum reference level which is three times less stringent than is currently being used and should be released in the next week and a half. Mr. Bender stated that this was a toxicological survey and a press release was to be distributed on April 1, 1999. Agenda Item 6- Set date and agenda for next meeting Rich Phillips noted that the Advisory Committee meeting was not being attended by any legislators, and the Committee’s meeting at the state house was to no benefit in that respect. He suggested that the next meeting be held at the Burlington Municipal Waste Water Treatment Plant. The group determined that they should meet again before the press conference and suggested two dates of either May 5, 1999 or May 7, 1999 which would be confirmed by E-mail.
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |