MERC Vermont | Adviory Committee Meeting on Mercury Pollution Meeting Minutes


		Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution

Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution

Meeting #67: Friday, March 24, 2006

Time: 1:30 pm to 3:30 pm

Location: Ethan Allen Room,

Statehouse, Montpelier, Vermont

MINUTES

Members Present:

Michael Bender, Abenaki Self-Help Association, Inc.

Neil Kamman, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Water Quality Division

Eric Palmer, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife

Bill Bress, Vermont Department of Health

Representative Carol Reed Hosford

Ruma Kohli, IBM (via telephone)

Jennifer Holliday, Chittenden Solid Waste Management District

Gary Gulka, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Environmental Assistance

Guests Present:

Dan Ferraris D.D.S., Dentist - Burlington

Peter Taylor, Vermont State Dental Society

Jamie Feehan, Vermont State Dental Society

Alison McKay, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Environmental Assistance

The Committee members and interested parties gathered at the Ethan Allen Conference Room at the Statehouse and by phone. Michael Bender called the meeting to order.

Agenda Item 1

Accept minutes from January meetings and possible changes to today’s agenda.

Regarding minutes from meeting #65:

Michael Bender asked that a broader context be given to the opening paragraph of the minutes. As follows:

Last sentence of opening paragraph, to now read “Mr. Bender added that there were a significant number of items to be covered. He then stated that due to time constraints there would be very little time for non-committee members to speak. He asked that outside parties keep comments brief and to raise their hand before speaking.”

Michael Bender also asked that changes be made under Agenda Item 6. As follows:

First bullet, first line, spelling correction for the word “Senators”. Also add the sentence, “Mr. Bender stated that ACMP has sent a letter to the Vermont congressional delegation in the past.”

Third bullet, change last sentence to “Mr. Bender stated the letter was the result of sub-committee recommendations after it was brought to their attention that federal legislation has passed or was pending that could preempt state law in some of the areas the sub-committee was recommending.”

The Committee accepted the minutes with these changes.

Regarding minutes from meeting # 66:

The Committee accepted the minutes.

Agenda Item 2

Introduce new committee members.

Mr. Bender welcomed Mary Jean Rajda. Ms. Rajda gave a brief description of her background. The rest of the committee members then introduced themselves.

Agenda Item 3

Legislative Updates.

Representative Hosford gave an update on H.876. The bill has gone through the House and is currently in the Senate.
Michael Bender added that he spoke with Senator Lyons who stated she was hopeful that H.876 would be taken up next week in the Senate.
Ms. Hosford was asked if the House Committee on Fish, Wildlife & Water Resources has been discussing Mr. Kamman’s Mercury Planning Report. Ms. Hosford said that they were not at this time.
Michael Bender asked about the status of H.638, the bill on Mercury Exposure Reduction.
Ms. Hosford stated that the bill was not taken up by the House Human Services Committee. The House Committee on Fish, Wildlife & Water Resources considered taking up the portion of the bill dealing with fish, however there was not enough time. Ms. Hosford recommended that in the future, the bill be broken down because there are three major topics to consider and it may be too much for one bill.

Agenda Item 4

Update New England Zogby poll on dental mercury.

Michael Bender distributed materials pertaining to the Zogby poll. He noted that a press conference regarding this was held this morning at the statehouse. He also called attention to the editorial in the Burlington Free Press dated March 22, 2006.
Mr. Bender was asked who commissioned the Zogby poll. Mr. Bender stated that the Mercury Policy Project had commissioned this poll and also wrote the questions for the poll.

Agenda Item 5

Overview of draft Dental BMPs.

Gary Gulka gave a brief summary. The proposed process is a self-certification form indicating the extent dental practices are complying with environmental best management practices. It is envisioned that the State would be “checking up” on the forms submitted, to ensure compliance by random visits.
Mr. Gulka then gave a summary of the comments already received regarding the draft Dental BMPs. Comments included:

Patient notification
Yearly certification rather than every other year
One time cleaning of plumbing
Required training for dental office staff
Suggested log sheet

Comment as to why the BMP on use of alternative restorative materials where appropriate was omitted.
Mr. Gulka stated it was omitted for several reasons. The State felt that it was not an enforceable BMP. Also, there was the belief that this activity was already in practice. In addition, there had been comments by dentists who were uncomfortable with checking a box regarding their practice and the use of amalgam substitutes.
Michael Bender called attention to the letter written on behalf of the ACMP and also to page 9 of the ACMP report. Mr. Bender stated that Connecticut just added consumer notification to their BMPs and that the Vermont DEC needs to be considering this. Mr. Bender also stated he hoped for conversations with the Health Department about this.
Dan Ferraris stated that regarding the omitted BMP, he took great offense to this statement. Mr. Ferraris stated that his primary concern is to do what is best for the patient. To put that language in the BMPs is offensive. By not checking that box, does that mean that the dentist is not doing the right thing? There are times when amalgam is the best material to use, there are times when a composite is the most appropriate material. Mr. Ferraris went on to say that he has been involved from the beginning and is aware of the issues. He believes dentists are trying to be environmentally friendly.
Peter Taylor agreed with Mr. Ferraris. Mr. Taylor believes to include the omitted BMP goes too far, particularly because the BMPs are no longer going to be voluntary. Mr. Taylor also stated that several items have been discussed and were not ultimately included in the legislation, such as, patient notification.
Michael Bender stated that there was a desire to accurately document mercury reductions. He gave the example of IMERC (Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse) having a reporting requirement for amalgam manufacturers. Also, Maine requires dentist to report the amount of amalgam used each year. Mr. Bender then asked how we can “get our arms around that” at the state level?
Mr. Taylor recalled a survey of dentists that was done. The survey did not ask about amounts of amalgam but rather amount of use. Mr. Taylor said that he believed that when the survey is conducted again, it will show a decrease. He also believed that as more people come out of dental schools, there will be a decrease in amalgam use. Mr. Taylor did state that he wanted to make sure that amalgam is available to dentists if it is necessary to use, without having any undue pressure.
Mr. Ferraris suggested contacting two of the major amalgam distributors in Vermont to gain some idea of units or pounds of amalgam sold in Vermont. They may even be able to provide information about sales figures over time. Mr. Ferraris also pointed out that he believed as the demographics of age change in Vermont, less amalgam is going to be used. In addition, he noted a possible decrease in use due to aesthetics.
Ms. Hosford asked if the language could be changed to make it acceptable in the BMPs.
Mr. Ferraris stated that he does not like to be in a situation where he has to check a box that says he is doing the right thing. If changes were made to the language of the BMP, he would have to see it written in the text of the document before responding.
Suggestion to the Vermont DEC that a general statement be added to the draft Dental BMPs, stating:

When appropriate the use of an alternative to dental amalgam will reduce the need to recycle or capture waste amalgam and reduce its impact on the environment.

Neil Kamman stated that comment letters speak to patient notification. He believes this is a standard of care issue and should be left up to the Department of Health. In addition, Mr. Kamman pointed out that on page 3, number 5, last line, the phrase “must be” should be changed to “is”.

Agenda Item 6

Discuss work plan for remainder of 2006.

Mr. Gulka noted that Karen Knaebel had put together a template to aid the committee in scheduling agenda topics for meetings and focusing on issues throughout the year. Mr. Gulka noted that on page 13 of the Committee report outlined issues that the Committee wanted to cover in 2006 and asked if there were any specific areas the Committee would like to focus on?
Neil Kamman wanted to revisit the topic of posting mercury information at fish access areas.
The Committee agreed to the following:

Topics for June meeting:

Discuss 15 Mile Falls fund and how to use it.
Update on mercury reduction efforts.
Manometer program update from Annie Macmillan.
Hospital update.

Topics for September meeting:

Discussion on crematories with the Air Division.
National Conference discussion.
Auto switch and thermostat program updates.
Update on mothers of newborns survey.
Mercury in Schools.

Topics for December meeting:

Update on mercury monitoring.

In light of running out of time last year, there was a suggestion to move the December meeting to November while keeping a December date open in the event another meeting is necessary.

Agenda Item 7

Discuss card room display.

Gary Gulka gave a summary of the topics for the card room displays which will cover the dairy manometer project, information regarding Mission Mercury – educational video and interactive games, and auto switches.
There was a suggestion to make fish advisory cards and mercury connections report available at the displays.

Agenda Item 8