MERC Vermont | Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution Meeting Minutes


		Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution

Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution

Meeting #70: Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Time: 9:00 am to 12:00 pm

Location: Conference Room, Laundry Building, Waterbury State Complex,

Waterbury, Vermont

MINUTES

Members Present:

Michael Bender, Abenaki Self-Help Association, Inc.

Bill Bress, Vermont Department of Health

Representative Carol Reed Hosford

John Berino, VAHHS

Ruma Kohli, IBM

Mary Jean Rajda, Porter Medical

Jennifer Holliday, Chittenden Solid Waste Management District

Gary Gulka, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Environmental Assistance

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

Guests Present:

Jakki Flanagan, VPIRG

Peter Taylor, Vermont State Dental Society

Anthony Otis, Northeast Delta Dental

Karen Knaebel, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Environmental Assistance

Alison McKay, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Environmental Assistance

Via telephone:

Scott Cassel, Product Stewardship Institute

The Committee members and interested parties gathered at the Waterbury State Complex Laundry Building Conference room and by phone. Michael Bender called the meeting to order.

Agenda Item 1

Accept minutes from November 2, 2006 meeting and possible changes to today’s agenda.

John Berino requested his affiliation be changed from Fletcher Allen to Vermont Association of Hospital and Healthcare Systems, VAHHS.
The Committee approved the minutes from the November 2, 2006 meeting with the requested change.

Agenda Item 2

Discussion on surplus mercury.

Michael Bender and Jennifer Holliday have both researched the topic of mercury stockpiling. A Chicago Tribune Article was circulated for the Committee members to read.
Department of Energy is considering keeping its options open on potentially selling more than 1,300 tons of stockpiled mercury.
Vermont and other states have established mercury collection and recycling programs. Despite the efforts being made, recycled mercury is being put back into commerce. There is a huge surplus of mercury.
The price of mercury has quadrupled, fueled by a gold rush. The increased price may force people (i.e. gold miners, others) to use mercury more efficiently or find alternatives (if possible). It is thought that as much as 1,000 tons of mercury is used per year in gold mining with about 1/3 of that being released into the atmosphere.
The Committee discussed legislation that was introduced by Senator Barack Obama from Illinois that would prohibit American exports of mercury. If the legislation passes, it could serve as a model for other states.
There are several resolutions addressing mercury stockpiling. In March 2006 there was an ECOS (Environmental Counsil of the States) resolution but new governors and environmental commissioners need to be brought up to speed on the issues to bring them on board. The Committee suggests it would be appropriate to make reference to the ECOS resolution.
Suggestion for Committee to read the joint resolution distributed at the meeting and perhaps be ready to make a recommendation after further discussion.

Agenda Item 3

Continue discussion on reducing mercury in vaccines.

Ms. Hosford introduced a draft bill to the Committee which is a revised version of last year’s bill. This new bill removes the grocery store postings and amalgam issues and addresses vaccines alone. The bill would prohibit the use of mercury-containing vaccines for children and pregnant women. The bill also provides for a preference for thimerosal-free vaccines be given to the youngest of children first. Ms. Hosford pointed out that this bill was more of a precautionary measure to ensure Vermont does not become a dumping ground for vaccines containing Thimerosal. Ms. Hosford is proposing that the Committee consider including this bill in its recommendations in the Committee’s Annual Report to the legislature.
Suggestion that the bill include a definitions section that identifies the difference between mercury as a “preservative” and for vaccines containing a “trace quantity” of mercury.
Suggestion to add a sentence to the recommendations in last year’s Annual Report regarding thimerasol that would specify “in children’s vaccines and those administered to pregnant women”.
Committee agreed to discuss this further before making specific recommendations.

Agenda Item 4

Continue discussion on reducing mercury in dental offices.

A draft document was circulated to the Committee to be considered as a potential legislative proposal which would prohibit the placement of dental amalgam in pregnant women and children except in an emergency.
Peter Taylor shared with the Committee a prepared memo written as a follow up to his presentation at the November 2, 2006 meeting.
Question posed whether VDS put out statements to members regarding ADA recommendations. Mr. Taylor stated VSDS provides information from the ADA to its members for many things such as the fluoride issue.
Question posed whether VSDS would be willing to support an amalgam reporting requirement for Vermont dentists. Mr. Taylor stated that legislation has been passed requiring a survey on amalgam usage which will be sent out shortly. Mr. Taylor believes that the data from that survey will identify amalgam use.
A question was presented to Mr. Taylor regarding dental amalgam placement vs composite placement. He told the Committee that he was not a dentist and therefore offered to bring a dental composites expert into the meeting to address the Committee.
Point was raised that the dental insurance component needs to be addressed in legislation since cost is, to a great extent, involved in people’s healthcare decisions.
Anthony Otis who represents Northeast Delta Dental pointed out that NE Delta Dental is focused on dental health. He agreed with the point raised regarding finances and healthcare decisions. Mr. Otis raised a concern regarding proposed legislation to prohibit the placement of dental amalgam in pregnant women and how would the doctor obtain that information from the patient.
The Committee agreed to discuss the topic further at a future meeting.

Agenda Item 5

Thermostat collection development – Scott Cassel, Product Stewardship Institute (PSI).

Mr. Cassel gave a summary of PSI’s efforts in regards to thermostats.

Collection bins set up at wholesale locations. Postage is pre-paid and thermostats are first sent back to Honeywell. At Honeywell, the mercury vials removed from the thermostats are then placed in 55 gallon containers and shipped to Bethlehem Apparatus.
Developed background summary report. Interviewed over 25 key stakeholders, including thermostat manufacturers and state/local government to develop an action plan. Held two stakeholder meetings that resulted in a number of agreements to increase the collection of thermostats from households and contractor/wholesaler locations, and also consider a possible ban on mercury thermostats.
Several projects have been attempted to increase collection. The first of which expanded collection among wholesale that had locations in multiple states. PSI worked with 31 states where wholesalers were located. Ultimately the states did not pursue this because they felt there may be too much of a demand on resources.
A second project expanded the industry thermostat collection program to contractor locations in rural areas and where there were seven or more technicians. Again, states felt there was too much of a demand on staff resources.
A third project provided a financial incentive to HVAC contractors to encourage the return of mercury thermostats. EPA provided additional funding for these pilot projects in Indiana and Oregon. A rebate coupon was offered and available for redemption at wholesaler locations when the contractor purchased Energy Star non-mercury thermostats. This began in January 2006 and will finish in December 2006. Oregon has tripled the number of recycled thermostats. Indiana is still reviewing data but appears to have similar results that Oregon achieved.
PSI has also been working with the state of Maine who already has a thermostat ban and wholesale collection programs in place. Despite their efforts, their collection rate remains low. The legislature sought to increase the collection rate requiring thermostat manufacturers to provide a financial incentive valued at $5. for homeowners and those in the contractor/wholesaler market. The Maine DEP held four stakeholder meetings to implement the contractor incentive, and the group has chosen to provide a cash coupon to technicians upon return of mercury thermostats. The homeowner’s incentive will also be developed through a DEP-run stakeholder process. Pennsylvania has legislation pending that used Maine’s law as a template.
Mr. Cassel’s recommendation for Vermont is use the Maine law and Pennsylvania legislation, along with PSI’s recently developed model state program components, to develop its own comprehensive thermostat recycling program. The two current financial incentives being considered are the wholesaler/contractor rebate program similar to the pilot project in Oregon and Indiana, and the cash coupon program similar to Maine’s. Pennsylvania’s legislation requires its DEP to lead a stakeholder process to develop the financial incentive program, as did Maine’s law.
When asked to elaborate on Honeywell’s involvement in the thermostat collection programs, Mr. Cassel indicated that Honeywell fully supports legislation with financial incentive. The Thermostat Recycling Corporation has also participated in conference calls in Maine and Pennsylvania and has not opposed the legislation.
Mr. Gulka believes that it is going to take more than a financial incentive to make a collection program work. Vermont has a law that bans the disposal of thermostats and the law must be enforced.
Ms. Knaebel also pointed out that if the state took on such a program, it would increase an already burdened workload. She suggested that in order to implement a program created by additional legislation, there would be a need for additional resources along with the legislation. She asked the Committee to consider this when making this recommendation to the legislature. Some members felt that the recommendation to the legislature could still go forward and the legislative committees could address the need for resources.
The Committee agreed to circulate information and discuss this topic further at the next meeting.

Agenda Item 6

Update on mercury monitoring – Neil Kamman.

Neil Kamman provided the following information to the Committee:

Forthcoming important synthesis studies by Hubbard Brook Research Foundation

The Hubbard Brook Research Foundation’s Science Links team has completed two important journal articles that stand as statements on the overall footprint of the mercury problem in the northeast. The first study describes the mechanisms by which mercury moves from emissions source to northeastern biota. The second study identifies the locations and causes of biological mercury hotspots on the landscape. There are two hotspots identified in Vermont. The second study also identifies changes in biota mercury levels that resulted from recent reductions in regional air mercury emissions. These studies had originally been planned for release in 2006, but extensive peer-review revisions were necessary, delaying the release until the present time. The release date for the publications and an accompanying interpretive report entitled Mercury Matters is January 9, 2007.

National Mercury Monitoring Program

Both of the Hubbard Brook journal articles speak to the need for a National Mercury Monitoring Program, to consistently track changes in mercury contamination over time, across a suite of selected locations. A bill has been drafted by US Senators Snowe and Collins (both of Maine) that would establish the program. In the past two years, northeastern Senators have been approached to dedicate funds to establish pilot National Monitoring Program studies in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. At present, an earmark has been dedicated to the Hubbard Brook research Foundation to pilot the program at the Hubbard Brook Research Forest in New Hampshire.

New measurements of dry deposition at the Underhill mercury monitoring station

Using new monitoring techniques, Dr. Eric Miller (Ecosystems Research Group, Norwich, VT) has been making wet and dry mercury deposition measurements at the Underhill monitoring station. He has developed stronger evidence than ever before that certain mercury deposition events measured at Underhill are directly attributable to mercury emissions from Midwestern sectors. He has further compared measured mercury deposition to USEPA’s modeling studies. USEPA has used its modeling studies to conclude that the impact of the Clean Air Mercury Rule on deposition will be modest at best upon the northeastern landscape. Dr. Miller’s measurements contradict the USEPA conclusions, and suggest that meaningful reductions in mercury emissions from coal fired power plants will result in an important reduction in mercury deposition to Vermont.

Continuation of the Lake Champlain Modeling Project

This long-standing project has been funded for another 1-3 year cycle, and is now being led by Dr. Miller. The project will be substantially augmented during 2007. The project has been redesigned to link measurements of reactive gaseous mercury deposition (measured dry deposition) to aqueous mercury, then to aqueous methylmercury, and in-turn to the biota that accumulate methylmercury. In this way, the project team will be able to track deposition events of mercury from known sources into the aquatic food web in Lake Champlain.

Continuation of mercury monitoring by USGS

During 2006, mercury sampling in Lake Champlain tributaries was curtailed in favor of an investigation of so-called “new generation” contaminants. Monitoring continued at a baseline level in the Sleepers River watershed in eastern Vermont. During 2007, USGS plans to monitor mercury loss from urbanized areas of Chittenden County, in an effort to quantify mercury losses from a stormwater-impaired urban watershed. During 2007, USGS will continue to participate in the Lake Champlain Modeling Project as well.

Loon Recovery Project

Abandoned loon eggs and feathers from Vermont lakes continue to be analyzed for mercury in conjunction with the Loon Recovery Project, in partnership with the Biodiversity Research Institute in Maine.

Vermont Fish Contaminant Monitoring Committee

This committee oversees collection and analysis of fish contaminants throughout Vermont. In 2006, the Committee delivered a report to the General Assembly, in response to 10VSA§7114, outlining elements of a desirable indicator-based mercury monitoring initiative for Vermont. The plan has seen no action as of this writing. Fish samples collected during 2003-2004 have now been completely analyzed and are available for risk assessment.

Question was raised about the fish monitoring results which have come out off Massachusetts. Mr. Kamman said that their data seem to indicate a reduction in mercury in fish levels which seems to follow the reduction in mercury incineration. The design of the Mass. Study is such that it is very early on to determine trends with absolute confidence. In fact, moreover, mercury levels in some water bodies have also increased in Massachusetts. Nonetheless, the findings provide initial local evidence that reductions in emissions will result in reductions in fish mercury in proximal waters.
Mr. Kamman indicated that no action has been taken in regards to the 2006 special report to the legislature on a plan for a fish mercury monitoring program. Mr. Kamman suggested that the Committee may wish to enter a recommendation in the annual ACMP report regarding implementation of the plan.

Agenda Item 7

Discussion of committee annual report and recommendations.

Due to time constraints, the Committee will need to take up this discussion at the next meeting. Gary Gulka will start a draft for the Committee to review and discuss at that time.

Agenda Item 8