MERC Vermont | Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution Meeting Minutes

Eighth Meeting: Friday November 5, 1999
Time: 9:00 a.m. - 11:40 a.m.
Location: Board Room in Fanny Allen Campus of Fletcher Allen Health Care,
Rt. 15, Colchester, Vermont

Members Present:
Tim Scherbatskoy, University of Vermont
Hollie Shaner, Fletcher Allen Health Care
Richard Phillips, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources
Mary Sullivan, Chair of House - House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
Elizabeth Ready, Chair of Senate - House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
Michael Bender, Abenaki Self-Help Association, Inc

Guests Present:
Gary Gulka, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Environmental Assistance
Tom Benoit, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Environmental Assistance
Theresa Feeley, National Electrical Manufacturers Association
Karen Knaebel,Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Environmental Assistance
Julie Hackbarth, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Waste Management Division
Razelle Hoffman-Contois, Health Dept. Risk Assessment Specialist
Jane Rowe, Vermonters for Dental Choice and Disclosure
Donna Barlow Casey, Central Vermont Solid Waste Management District
Jennifer Holliday, Chittenden Solid Waste District
Laura Routh, Addison County Solid Waste Management District

The Committee members and interested parties gathered in the Board Room in Fanny Allen Campus of Fletcher Allen Health Care, Colchester, Vermont and the meeting was called to order by Richard Phillips. Introductions were made for the members and guests present.

Rich Phillips reminded the Committee that a request had been made at the last meeting for a member of the Committee to volunteer as Chair of the Committee. The result of the discussion was that Mr. Phillips would remain as the acting chair until such time when more members were present to vote or a member would come forward to assume the position. Hollie Shaner and Tim Scherbatskoy came forward with an interest in co-chairing the Committee.

Hollie Shaner explained that her involvement with mercury was in health improvement through Fletcher Allen Healthcare. She felt disconnected with legislation but was pleased to have an opportunity to help support and provide a service to the Committee. Tim Scherbatskoy told the Committee that his knowledge of mercury included how mercury behaves in the ecosystem, but that he too was not knowledgeable about the legislature. He would like to see the Committee become more active and his intent was to assist as a facilitator.

Rich Phillips and Mary Sullivan moved to nominate Hollie Shaner and Tim Scherbatskoy as co-chair of the Advisory Committee. Members present voted unanimously in favor of the motion and the new chairs were asked by the Committee to continue by facilitating the current meeting.

The Committee welcomed the three representatives who were present from the solid waste districts. Tim Scherbatskoy asked the group if they were all planning on attending each meeting. Donna Barlow Casey told the Committee that the three would rotate their attendance of the meetings. Ms. Casey explained that Laura Routh and Jen Holliday are more technical with hands-on activities and very active in field work whereas she was the executive director with a different perspective. Her involvement would allow her to bring in both perspectives on behalf of her colleagues. She expressed her appreciation on behalf of the solid waste districts and herself for inviting them to become involved in the Committee’s meetings.

Ms. Casey asked the Committee to clarify the purpose of the solid waste district’s participation in the Advisory Committee meetings. Rich Phillips told those present that he had initiated consideration of including a representative from the solid waste districts. If the Committee was going to reduce mercury in the environment in dealing with the waste streams and effectively evaluate the model legislation presented by the New England states, the Committee would need to explore a lot of areas. As we begin to determine what is needed in Vermont, it will be necessary to gain an understanding at the solid waste district level.

Jen Holliday from the Chittenden Solid Waste District addressed the Committee regarding cost concerns for disposal of fluorescent bulbs. Ms. Holliday distributed a graph itemizing the costs associated with lamp disposal in comparison to other types of mercury-added products destined for disposal. She explained the burden which has been placed on the solid waste districts in association with the cost of lamp disposal in comparison with the amount of mercury collected. Ms. Holliday pointed out that since 1995, two pounds of mercury had been collected from 161,000 feet of fluorescent bulbs at a disposal cost of $17,659. This calculated to a cost of $8,636. per pound which only addressed the disposal costs. In comparison, mercury batteries generated nine pounds of mercury at a cost of $8.33 per pound and 290 pounds of elemental mercury was collected at a cost of $6.25 per pound. She believed these figures allowed for a better perspective of the actual collection issues for mercury. Donna Barlow Casey added that the figures being presented covered a nine-year history that predated the awareness of mercury which would cause the unit costs to change. When people become more aware of alternative products, it changes what happens in the marketplace. Tim Scherbatskoy asked if the document which was distributed reflected the same results in other solid waste districts. Ms. Casey informed the Committee that additional data from Central Vermont Solid Waste Management District will be available to reflect a full-cost accounting. She advised the Committee that she would research the figures and advise her findings. It was suggested that the topic be discussed in greater detail at a later meeting when the information is available.

The extent of mercury contamination in the soil, waters and air of Vermont
The extent of any health risk from mercury contamination in Vermont, especially to pregnant women, children, the Abenaki Self-Help Association, Inc. and other communities that use fish as a major source of food.
Methods available for minimizing risk of further contamination or increased health risk to the Vermont public.
Potential costs of minimizing further risk and recommendations of how to raise the funds necessary to reduce contamination and minimize risk of mercury-related health problems in Vermont.
The effectiveness of the established programs, including manufacturer-based reverse distribution systems for in-state collection, subsequent transportation and subsequent recycling of mercury from waste mercury-added products and recommendations for altering the programs to make them more effective.
Coordination needed with other states to effectively address mercury issues.
Ways to reduce the extent to which solid waste produced within the state is incinerated at incinerators, regardless of location, that fail to use the best available technology in scrubbing and filtering emissions from the incinerator stack.

The Committee began discussing the mandates in light of the upcoming legislative report.

Rich Phillips told the Committee that the Department of Environmental Conservation formed an internal task force to identify and document all available mercury data. Mr. Scherbatskoy suggested that the Committee summarize available data as an overview. Mr. Phillips added that the charge of the Committee called for information specific to Vermont. Regionally, information was collected for a regional study where risks were evaluated. He asked the Committee if anything is required in the charge of the Committee that is not already covered in the regional report. Mr. Phillips stated that it was his understanding that other states were not conducting more studies. He felt the Committee should use its efforts to implement programs. Gary Gulka suggested that for this mandate and others the focus should be on updating the report with new data available if any. Tim Scherbatskoy asked Mary Sullivan what type of information she believed the legislature would need. Mary Sullivan told the Committee that the legislature took enough testimony to understand the consequences of mercury. She believed it would be more effective to concentrate on one or two mandates of the Committee and how it was achieving its goals. She added that an update on what other states were doing would also be beneficial.

Tim Scherbatskoy questioned the Committee regarding item number six of the mandates relating to coordination with other states, as to how Vermont was coordinating its efforts. Hollie Shaner stated that the Committee’s perspective on regional coordination had expanded with the introduction of model mercury legislation. Mr. Scherbatskoy suggested that the Committee should not lose the intent of the mandate to coordinate with other states in various ways, and this should include being more inclusive of broader, regional health concerns.

Rich Phillips stated that he believed the model legislation primarily focused on the issue which was included in the third mandate. Michael Bender stated that he viewed this mandate as including two parts: one which minimizes the risk of further contamination and the other to reduce the exposure to that risk. This should not be limited to whether the source is within or outside the state of Vermont. The question is how to minimize the risk. The Committee agreed that the second and third items on the mandate were equally important in the area of mercury risk.

Tim Scherbatskoy asked Rich Phillips if the model legislation addressed the "potential costs" which were included in the fourth mandate of the Committee. Mr. Phillips stated that issues such as funding and enforcement provisions are not addressed in the model. He added that each individual state would need to determine the specifics of these issues. Mary Sullivan stressed the importance of funding considerations before introducing items to the legislature. Tim Scherbatskoy asked Mr. Phillips how the funds were obtained for the school clean-out project. Mr. Phillips told the Committee that the project was funded through solid waste management assistance funds. This funding was specifically earmarked in the Department of Environmental Conservation budget for the school clean-out project. Michael Bender noted that the agriculture department did not have this type of money allocated in their budget and therefore, even though they had the support of the legislature, there were no funds available to implement the program. A hand-out was distributed to the Committee which was provided by Annie MacMillan of the Vermont Department of Agriculture. The document included findings from a statewide survey regarding the number of mercury manometers in Vermont and the estimated costs involving removal and replacement of mercury manometers in dairies. The Committee favored presenting a recommendation to the appropriations committee regarding funding for the dairy manometer project. Michael Bender was asked by the Committee to coordinate with the chairs of the Agriculture committee to determine if they were supportive of this type of measure. Mr. Bender indicated he would talk with Commissioner Leon Graves to determine the current status of possible funding for the manometer program and inform the Advisory Committee.

The Committee addressed the fifth item on the charge which considered the effectiveness of established programs. Rich Phillips told the Committee that in context of the model legislation, the Committee could review what systems would be most effective if implemented.

Hollie Shaner reminded the Committee that its report for the year would be due on January 15, 2000. She asked Mary Sullivan for suggestions on the format of the report. Ms. Sullivan suggested bulleted or highlighted text in contrast to last year’s report which included mostly text. Michael Bender suggested that the Committee meet after the model legislation was released to reinforce the items which were on the current report. He suggested that an outline with which to compare the model legislation to the Committee’s charge be drafted to determine where the model legislation would fit into the categories included in the mandate. The Committee agreed that Tim Scherbatskoy and Hollie Shaner would prepare an outline to be distributed to the members prior to the next meeting. The outline would be used as a guideline for preparing the draft report. Michael Bender suggested that the Committee consider having copies of proposed legislation from last year and incorporate them as recommendations from the Committee. Because of the time restrictions, Mr. Phillips feels that the Committee’s recommendations using last year’s proposals would be much more comprehensive if they were proposed in the 2001 legislature. Mr. Phillips told the Committee that the proposed model legislation was complex including many categories designed to reduce the risk of mercury pollution. The model legislation is being put together for public review, and the process will be lengthy before a final document is available. Mary Sullivan asked Mr. Phillips if he was aware of what actions were being taken by other states. Mr. Phillips expects both New Hampshire and New York to present the model legislation for consideration this year. Mr. Phillips believes this to be risky without the participation of other states in proposing the legislation at the same point in time. Mr. Bender suggested that, at the very least, recommendations from the Committee should be in position as a placeholder if the legislature decides to go forward rather than wait for other states. Tim Scherbatskoy suggested that development of legislation become part of the work plan. Mr. Phillips pointed out that it would require more time than is available between now and the submission of the report to make specific recommendations without the benefit of experience in the implementation of the particular programs. The Committee concluded that a series of general recommendations would be included as part of the Committee’s January, 2000 report.

The Committee addressed the final charge of the Committee which deals with incineration. Elizabeth Ready advised the committee of the monetary responsibilities of the Vermont towns in reference to the mandatory upgrade required of the Claremont, New Hampshire incinerator as a result of New Hampshire legislation. The Committee considered including a recommendation in their report requesting funding to assist Vermont towns. The Committee decided to contact Gary Schultz with the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation to request he attend the December 8, 1999 meeting to brief the Committee on the implications of the Claremont, New Hampshire incinerator upgrade. The Committee decided that more information was needed before a determination could be made to add a recommendation for additional funding. Other parties may also be requested to attend the meeting for additional clarification. This will be considered further at the working meeting of December 2, 1999.

The Committee determined that the January report should include the history of the Committee, new developments and updates on the seven mandated tasks, recommendations, information on model legislation, mercury reduction progress, risk reduction/health and funding programs. It was suggested that the report include 50% local and 50% regional information.

The Committee decided to set a specific date for Advisory Committee meetings, which would be the second Wednesday of each month from 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. The Committee preferred the large conference room in the Burlington Municipal Waste Water Treatment Plant on Lavalley Lane as the location of their meetings. All meetings would be scheduled for that location depending upon availability.

The Committee determined that additional meeting dates would be necessary in order to complete the Committee’s report prior to the January 15, 2000 date. A working meeting of Committee members to be drafting the report is scheduled for December 2, 1999 from 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. to be held at the Waste Water Treatment Plant if the facility is available. The next regular Committee meeting was scheduled for December 8, 1999 from 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. at the Burlington Waste Water Treatment plant if available. The Committee determined that speakers would be invited to the meeting of December 8, 1999 to obtain information which would assist the Committee in formulating the January 2000 report. Another meeting would be scheduled for around December 15, 1999 as a working meeting to finalize the report. This date would be confirmed at a later meeting. The next regular monthly meeting for January would be scheduled on January 12, 2000 and so forth. An additional meeting was suggested for January 14, 2000 to hold a press conference announcing the release of the report.

Review letter to Chairs of House and Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee.

The letter to the members of both the House and Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee, which was drafted by Rich Phillips, was presented to the Committee for review. The Committee agreed that the letter should be revised as the circumstances surrounding the intent of the letter had drastically changed since it was originally drafted. The Committee agreed that a new draft letter would be developed by Hollie Shaner and Tim Scherbatskoy using information from the draft. This letter would be used as an introduction for the January, 2000 report and would be signed by the Co- Chairs of the Advisory Committee.

Presentation by: Razelle Hoffman-Contois, Health Dept. Risk Assessment Specialist

A presentation was made by Razelle Hoffman-Contois with the Vermont Health Department. A current pamphlet released on October 3, 1999 by the Health Department was distributed to the Committee. The pamphlet addressed fish consumption issues as they pertain to children, pregnant women, and women of childbearing age. Twenty-five hundred copies were printed in the first release and future releases will be available in five different languages. The pamphlet targeted not only the risks involving consumption of fish according to Vermont’s advisories, but brought to light the risks in consumption of canned tuna fish. In the pamphlet, the Health Department made suggestions on limiting consumption of canned tuna fish. The pamphlet is currently being distributed at all district offices, the WIC program, parent child centers and upon request.

Ms. Hoffman-Contois acknowledged that there had been some criticism of the Health Department for releasing information on canned tuna consumption. She reiterated that this is not a fish advisory but only a suggestion made by the Health Department based on the EPA data on fetal toxicity.

Ms. Hoffman-Contois explained the sampling method used to make determinations of the toxicity levels of mercury in fish. The mercury interacts on a chemical level with the muscular tissue in the fish and is absorbed into that tissue. The Health Department encourages the consumption of fish as a good source of protein. They plan to do more research in determining the quantities of fish that pregnant women are consuming. Twenty percent of fish that is consumed nationally is canned tuna. Consequently, other states are also warning populations about tuna.

Tim Scherbatskoy asked if the Committee felt there should be some involvement by the Committee in this issue. Michael Bender suggested that the Committee recommend that a state agency conduct a survey to determine the quantities of ocean fish consumed by specific sensitive groups.

Michael Bender told the Committee that its charge is to address populations that eat large quantities of fish. Most of the fish that Vermonters eat is ocean fish. Michael Bender explained to the Committee that the FDA is not providing adequate information to the public and he believes that it is up to each state to make their own determinations for advising consumers in limiting consumption of fish. Forty states are warning the public about fresh water fish but seventy-five percent of the fish are not being addressed. Mr. Bender distributed a press release and a letter addressed to the FDA from Senators Patrick Leahy and Thomas Harkin. The letter requested a comprehensive review and assessment of existing measures to protect consumers from mercury with regard to fish consumption. The letter proposes a response from the FDA no later than November 5, 1999. Mr. Bender advised the Committee that he would keep them informed of any response to the letter. The Committee agreed to include any information made available in the Committee’s January, 2000 report.

Rich Phillips advised the Committee that the model legislation which was being developed through NEWMOA (Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association) will be released in a press release on November 8, 1999. The model legislation should be available for the next Committee meeting. He added that hearings would be tentatively scheduled by NEWMOA on December 14 and 16 or December 14 and 21. Mr. Phillips believed the meetings are to be held in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. .

Hollie Shaner reminded the Committee of their consideration of organizing an appearance in the card room at the Statehouse. Mary Sullivan will check on the availability. The Committee agreed that the presentation should include some of the environmental, mercury data compiled by Tim Scherbatskoy.

The Committee suggested that the next meeting be held in the Conference Room at the Burlington Municipal Waste Water Treatment Plant in Burlington, Vermont. The date was set for December 2, 1999 between 9:00 a.m. and 11:30 a.m.


		Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution