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 #71: Tuesday, December 19, 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.

John Berino, Vermont Assn. of Hospitals and Healthcare Systems

Bill Bress, Vermont Department of Health

Gary Gulka, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Environmental Assistance

Jennifer Holliday, Chittenden Solid Waste Management District

Representative Carol Reed Hosford

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

Ruma Kohli, IBM

Eric Palmer, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife-via telephone

Mary Jean Rajda, Porter Medical

Guests Present:

Lisa Carlson, consumer

Philip Etter, Vermont citizen

Matt Levin, Vermonters for Clean Environment

Anthony Otis, NOD\Vermont Delta Dental Plan

Sue Primo, Vermont citizen

Peter Taylor, Vermont State Dental Society

Laurey Tedeschi, Autism Support Daily

Karen Knaebel, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Environmental Assistance

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.

Although review of minutes is not on the agenda, the Committee determined to review the minutes from the previous meeting. A motion was made by Neil Kamman to approve the minutes subject to discussion; the motion was seconded by Gary Gulka. The minutes were approved with the following modifications:

Neil Kamman pointed out on the last page second bullet down from the top that the word “no” be added to the sentence so it would read “action has been taken in regard to the 2006 special report to the legislature on a plan for a fish mercury monitoring program.”
Michael provided the committee with suggested additions from an e-mail from Scott Cassel who presented to the committee on agenda item #5. The amendments more completely described the program and the committee agreed to add his comments to the minutes as suggested.
First bullet on item #5 – the word “vials” was misspelled.
A motion was made by Mary Jean to accept the minutes with these corrections, the motion was seconded by Neil Kamman

Neil Kamman made a motion to the Committee to move the “other topics not on the agenda” item to the beginning of the meeting. Michael Bender stated that he was turning the meeting over to Ruma Kohli to Chair the meeting as she had just arrived. The Chair (Ruma Kohli) agreed to move the agenda item up to be addressed before the public comment period.

Mr. Kamman stated that he had increasing concerns about the communications of the Committee, not operating in professional manner and he would like to dedicate the next meeting to defining the structure of the Committee, how the Committee is to communicate, how the meetings are run and other such issues the he felt needed to be addressed.

Gary Gulka added that the Committee needs to comply with open meeting laws in regard to communication outside of meetings such as e-mail messages. Mr. Gulka stated that he concurred with Mr. Kamman and that the Committee needed to work out procedurally how it will comply; as members of a committee subject to law.

The Committee agreed that this should be placed on agenda for the next meeting.

Agenda Item 1

Public Comment Period

The Committee requested that each person who was attending that requested to make comment introduce themselves and to limit their comments to five minutes to allow for time for all to comment. Comments were presented to the Committee as follows:

Lisa Carlson – first as a consumer – but do plan to open a crematory - Ms. Carlson stated that anyone knows that mercury is a serious toxin. She recently discovered that dentists in Vermont for the first time in 2007 will be required to take continuing education. She felt that this probably means that any number of dentists are not up to date on alternatives to dental amalgam. She urged the Committee to go back to the issue that mercury is a serious neurotoxin. She added that the medical creed is “do no harm” and that she would hope that dentists also aspire to that creed. Ms. Carlson distributed a letter and stated that she was very committed to seeing legislation being introduced to ban thimerasol, topical and injected medication; to ban amalgam fillings for pregnant women and children under 18; to ban dental amalgam for all dental patients by 2010; during phase out years that dental patients get dental options, pros and cons, cost and that the choice be made by the patient; effective on passage; and to require dental insurance to cover, at a minimum, the least expensive material to dental amalgam. She concluded by saying that “bad things can happen when good people do nothing.”

Anthony Otis began his discussion by making one point in response to Ms Carlson. Mr. Otis felt it was a “leap of logic” to state that dentists don’t know or care about the toxcity of mercury. He added that her comments were not helpful to the discussion and that both his recently retired dentist and his middle-aged dentist were both completely up to date and he felt it was not fair to characterize all dentists as having a lack of knowledge of new alternatives. Secondly, Mr. Otis stated that in the letter from Mr. Valentinetti, the Director of the Air Pollution Control Division, that at the bottom of the letter he says “for this reason the Air Division encourages the committee to recommend that the use of dental amalgam in Vermont be banned or rapidly phased out.” Mr. Otis stated that although he has not represented the funeral industry he believes this statement avoids a more obvious conclusion. He believes if the public was aware of issue and that it would be more effective to develop an educational outreach program rather than ban all amalgam. He noted that the ban would affect the present population and will not have any immediate impact for the next 10-12 years since many of the older population already have amalgam fillings in place.

Phil Etter – a private citizen submitted a letter to the Committee and it was distributed prior to the meeting.

Mr. Etter advised that he had an appreciation for what the committee is doing. He stated that he felt the Committee had focused on indirect sources and at this point we are facing the most serious direct sources. But he felt that the impacts on the health of Vermont citizens from vaccines and amalgam are relevant to both health and the environment. He added that there is a lot of information in the past, including reports on wastewater mercury, which demonstrates that human waste is the source of the vast majority of mercury in wastewater. All of this goes back into environment in one way or another. Over 80 percent of the mercury in wastewater is from human waste. Although he agrees that the crematory issue would be a long term effort, Mr. Etter feels we should look to the future. He added that if amalgams are eliminated now, even perhaps when fillings are replaced, they can be replaced by something else and mercury releases from cremations will be lessened. Mr. Etter felt that the numbers of cremations are increasing. He felt that the Committee needs to look at the research objectively because he believes it becomes self evident that mercury in amalgams is harmful; thimerasol is harmful. Mr. Etter felt that you don’t see research from the dental community; they say amalgam is safe but they don’t present the research. The only exception to that was a paper that was released in April that was supportive that dental amalgam is safe. That paper was based on certain testing in children and he believed that the research was carefully devised. Mr. Etter added that there was a control test group that did not get amalgams but even the control group had significant levels of mercury. What was really being tested was the level of mercury not mercury from amalgam. This test was short term (about 5 years); but what about amalgam exposure over 50 years which is a low-dose, long-term exposure? Mr. Etter stated that if you place amalgams in children’s mouths their mercury level increases. Other than the paper in April, there has been no research from dental community that proves mercury is safe. Why aren’t we looking into research from universities? There is a lot of bonafide science out there; why don’t we look at the findings from 3-4 years of congressional hearings. Mr. Etter believed we should be challenging the dental community to present their side of the story with the science to back it up. Mr. Etter stated that he does not see how the dental community can say amalgam is safe nor is there any data that says that thimerasol is safe either. Mr. Etter stated that he would like to emphasize that voluntary measures don’t work; it hasn’t been effective in other states because he felt that brochures don’t get produced or handed out. Mr. Etter stated that he believed that legislation needs to be passed and enforced.

Peter Taylor stated that he has spoken to the Committee in the past and would be glad to answer any questions or offer any comments as the Committee goes through the meeting today.

Agenda Item 2

Dental Discussion

Carol Hosford distributed two hand outs to the committee – one was proposed legislation regarding dental amalgam and the other a joint resolution to request congress to ban exportation of elemental mercury

Ms. Hosford stated that at the last meeting she presented a draft proposal for a bill on dental amalgam. She felt that the older approach in the legislation that was introduced in the last biennium was perhaps not the best approach and she had been rethinking this issue in length.

She stated that she would like the Committee to look at this new proposal for legislation that looks at amalgam as an environmental hazard. The burning of sludge, excretion of mercury in daily lives, waste stream sludge and air release through crematoria created an entirely new view of a bill to ban the use of dental amalgam. The bill states that as of 2011 no person may place dental amalgam in any person. This bill was structured in the same way we currently deal with mercury in general. Ms. Hosford stated that there have been a variety of attempts to reduce mercury in environment and in this bill a dentist may apply for exemption from the ban for not more than 5 years. The exemption application would need to be submitted nine months prior to the date the dentist intended placement of amalgam. The application for exemption would be on a form and submitted to the Agency (Agency of Natural Resources) and the exemption can be granted if it has to do with public health, feasible alternatives are not available, and reasonable efforts have been made to find an alternative. In the exemption process, the Agency may consult with other states and may renew the exemption for an additional period of 5 years provided the dentist has complied with all conditions of the prior approval. This legislation deals with dental amalgam by the same process with which other mercury added products are dealt with in product legislation in Vermont and other states.

Neil Kamman questioned whether Ms. Hosford felt it would be more appropriate for the Vermont Department of Health to run this rather than the Agency of Natural Resources. Ms. Hosford felt this was more appropriate for the Agency of Natural Resources because it was an environmental bill. She added that the bill stated that the Agency shall consult with other Agencies which would include the Department of Health, but the lead agency is ANR.
Mr. Kamman stated that he felt the decision criteria is health-based criteria. Michael Bender stated that in looking at memorandum from Rich Valentinetti and his recommendation that the use of dental amalgam in Vermont is increasing and should be banned. Mr. Bender added that he did not disagree that the health department should have a role in this but that this is an environmental issue. Mr. Kamman reiterated that the Agency of Natural Resources is not in the business of determining health issues. Michael Bender stated that he would argue that the lead here is the environmental agency.
A question was presented to Bill Bress regarding his viewpoint of this issue. Mr. Bress stated that there is precedent for Agency to take charge in an instance where the Agency writes a permit but they do consult with the health department and having such a bill would not be unprecedented.
Mr. Kamman pointed out that if ultimately the Committee were to be successful in presenting the bill that he felt the Agency (ANR) would feel this is a health issue. Gary Gulka agreed that ANR would probably defer to the health department (VDH) and although neither of them could speak for the Secretary, they believed that the review of exemptions should be coming from the Department of Health (VDH).
Bill Bress stated that although his e-mail was not received by administrative support in time for the meeting, that he had forwarded a paper that just came out on research that identifies health issues associated with composite fillings.
Suggestion was made that if the legislation does not have the VDH as the lead then the findings should more closely identify the environmental concerns that are driving this legislation.
John Berino stated that although this is an emotional piece that we don’t let that emotion guide us. Mr. Berino stated that he would like to see good science dictate what the Committee decides. He added that the Committee needs to start hearing more from Bill Bress and the VDH. He added that if the Committee starts getting into human health issues that it needs to start calling in experts to consult with this Committee. Mr. Berino stated that the Committee has Bill Bress on the Committee as our toxicologist but if the Committee is getting into issues that are governing health issues that he feels this still goes beyond the realm of knowledge of the Committee. These are decisions that go to the entire state and need to be grounded into very solid science.
Jen Holliday added that she thinks that is why Carol took this approach. That you are going to hear different sides but that her view is that this is an environmental issue.
Mary Jean Rajda agreed with Mr. Berino that the Committee needs to get more background information and still needs to get that formal input into the Committee.
Mr. Bender advised that if you look back in the minutes the Committee brought in via telephone a health official from Norway and at previous committee meetings. There were FDA expert groups all looking at safety of dental amalgam and they could not accept it to be safe nor could they say amalgam was unsafe. Mr. Bender felt that this issue was addressed time and time again by the ACMP. Mr. Bender stated that although Neil brought up the point about staying away from the health issue and the Committee has strayed from the point of proposing something on consumer right to know pieces such as brochures to be distributed in dental offices because these brochures might interfere with the everyday working of the dental offices; but, what direction then can the Committee pursue? Mr. Bender added that the dentists do not want to put information in the dental offices yet the Committee does not hear suggestions as to what they believe will work. Mr. Bender suggested that the Committee has to fall back on New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers resolution in 1998 and treat dental mercury just like every other mercury product out there.
John Berino stated that although he cannot disagree that he would caution the Committee to be careful about banning amalgam and replacing it with something that can be potentially worse that what might already be out there.
Neil Kamman stated that if committee feels that dental amalgam should be banned that he has a strong feeling that ANR will oppose because we are not able to support this approach to exemptions.
Karen Knaebel stated that she had attended the last meeting of the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers and at that meeting the subject of crematoria was addressed. It was noted that many states were unable to effectively address this issue of crematoria and those present at the meeting for the NEGECP identified that the approach to this issue would be a voluntary approach related to getting people to agree to have dental amalgams removed prior to cremation. Ms. Knaebel also added that she or Gary Gulka would likely be the ones in the Agency who would be implementing such a bill and neither was qualified to determine exemptions for dental amalgam. Mr. Bender responded that this determination would be by interagency proposal but Ms. Knaebel did not feel this would be a logical solution.
Neil Kamman stated that if this Committee thinks dental amalgam should be banned then he suggested letting the legislature and the Dental Society work it out as he did not feel it was the Committee’s place to craft legislation.
A suggestion was made to make a recommendation in the report that the Committee feels amalgam should be phased out. There was concern that there would be a ban on amalgams and as an alternative a product that has potential to have worse health effects. Mr. Bender stated that there are alternatives that do not contain bisphenal and that in Sweden 95% of the fillings are alternatives to amalgam and there are no problems. It was added that most dentists prefer to go with natural colored filling materials anyway but that this should be a decision between the dentist and the patient.
Jen Holliday stated that she felt that when you are trying to go to zero mercury that the market will find alternatives and the legislature will make that a consideration.
Carol Hosford stated that she was not asking the Committee to say this is the Committee’s legislation but that the Committee is behind the legislation and that this legislation might be part of the general picture to reduce mercury in the environment.

Gary Gulka commented that he was not aware that the Committee was going to consider legislation that completely bans amalgams for all patients. Mr. Gulka thought that the proposal on the table for consideration was mandating notification to patients and banning use for pregnant women and children under 18. He felt that the issue of banning amalgam use was been brought to the Committee too late in the year for full consideration in this year’s report. Mr. Gulka added that dentists are using a lot less amalgam now than in the past and he felt it unfair to say that use has remained the same. The requirement for amalgam separators and other dental BMPs are also being addressed to reduce mercury releases. Mr. Gulka asked if any other state has banned or restricted amalgam use. Mr. Bender stated that Congresswoman Watson of California was considering legislation and there were other discussions that were starting with proposals in a number of states. Question as to if any other state has passed such legislation into law or even for limitations on placement for pregnant woman and children. Mr. Bender advised that there was no law passed anywhere.

Mr. Gulka stated that the former bill with notification had a better chance of passage and would not be so precedent setting. He stated that he had reviewed the California information and making some element of that mandatory as done in California and Maine seemed more logical. He added that in his opinion, the issue of banning amalgam placement in pregnant women and children already received testimony and appears to be less of an issue than a total outright amalgam ban.
Michael Bender pointed out that part of the charge of the Committee is to raise awareness. He stated that he recognizes that legislation is a compromise but he does think it is the responsibility of the Committee to advocate for the virtual elimination of mercury. He realizes that the dental issue is challenging in that working with dentists and doctors it is difficult to contradict what they are stating. Mr. Bender stated that he had hoped the Dental Society would have come back to the Committee with a compromise but that they are not supportive in going forward in legislation.
Jen Holliday stated that she liked the legislation in that she believes it gets completely away from the health issue.
Bill Bress stated that mercury is different from other things like lead in that it is not just eliminating mercury but the mercury enters the environment from all kinds of different avenues and that it bioaccumulates and makes the circle back into the waste stream.
Carol Hosford asked the Committee to look at the other bill that bans the placement of amalgam for pregnant women and children which is a separate bill and to supply comments.

Gary Gulka stated that he felt the bill was reasonable because it addresses the most serious health potential impacts on humans with the restriction being targeted at pregnant women and children. Mr. Gulka added that he had also looked at different patient brochures and liked the information provided in the brochure from California. He stated that he would like to see information in one form or another provided to the patient on amalgam or any kind of filing, the poster on the wall is fine but he favored generally the content and the methodology of the CA law.
Bill Bress stated that if the logic is that you don’t want mercury in pregnant woman and the mercury getting to the fetus, he did not see where limiting placement to that little time frame from a scientific standpoint would be of any benefit. Gary Gulka stated that he had read literature that suggested that hours and days after a new amalgam is placed the mercury levels are much higher and there was some increased risk by placing new amalgams or removing them.
Mary Jean added that she felt that most dentists do not place amalgams or provide any other dental services during the pregnancy of a woman unless it is absolutely necessary. She added, again you are talking about a ban rather than right to choice which once again becomes a health issue. She questioned if it is fair for the Committee to make health decisions.
It was noted that the Committee was not passing law but only making recommendations and the legislature would provide the forum for looking at all these issues
John Berino stated that he did not feel that there has been enough risk assessment data presented. He believes to adequately quantify risks this must be based on theoretical or actual data to quantify the overall risk so the legislature can see the numbers; why isn’t that something that has been done and shouldn’t it be included in the recommendation.

Michael Bender made a motion on the environmental bill including Bill Bress’ suggestion to add language in beginning explaining why this issue is being placed in the context of an environmental issue and would include issues such as wastewater through human excretion, cremation, etc. Also he proposed a suggested amendment on line 15 where it reads “no person may place……otherwise” – insert “no person except in the back molars in the month of a person” and include an exemption in back molars.

Neil Kamman made an alternative motion to move that the committee in concept support the long term ban of amalgam and recommend that this be evaluated in the legislative process -

A friendly amendment was suggested to add the words “phase out” rather than “long term ban” Amendment accepted by Mr. Kamman.

Language was further amended to read:

The committee in concept supports an eventual phase out of mercury amalgam and recommends that this be evaluated through the legislative process- in efforts to virtually eliminate the release of anthropogenic mercury in the environment in Vermont and recommends that the legislature takes this up

Motion was seconded with friendly amendments with Mr. Kamman’s concurrence.

An additional friendly amendment was suggested by Michael Bender to eliminate the words “in concept”
Gary Gulka noted that this is just a recommendation and doesn’t mean that legislation will be passed. He stated that the Committee had other issues such as patient notification and banning placement of amalgam in children and pregnant woman.

Language for recommendation was further amended to read:

In efforts to virtually eliminate the release of anthropogenic mercury in Vermont the committee supports an eventual phase out of mercury amalgam and recommends that the legislature consider this.

Mr. Gulka had concern that the Committee has not had an opportunity to do its homework and would prefer to address this in the coming year, but feels uncomfortable in making this recommendation at such a late date.

A vote was taken on this recommendation:

All in favor:

Bill Bress

Neil Kamman

Carol Hosford

Michael Bender

Jen Holliday

John Berino

Mary Jean Rajda

All opposed:

None

Abstained:

Gary Gulka

Eric Palmer

Gary Gulka made a motion that the Committee put forth a recommendation that restricts the use of amalgam in pregnant women and children under 18 and also requires patient notification of filling choices similar to last year’s recommendation.

Mary Jean Rajda seconded the motion.

Concern that this recommendation did not go anywhere last year but the Committee was willing to try this recommendation again.
Carol Hosford stated that she feels very strongly committed to pregnant woman and children piece and approves of the notification but she was unsure if it is better to make this recommendation or if it just makes things more difficult.
Jen Holliday stated that she thought about the women who at any point in their lives were at risk for future pregnancies and so she approved of the notification for any patient.
Ruma Kohli supports the ban on placement for pregnant women and children but it may be more difficult to pass but is still an important element.
Michael Bender supports the ban for pregnant women and children, and notification but uncertain about the informed consent.
Mary Jean advised the committee that if there was language regarding informed consent that it would make it much more difficult because by requiring informed consent, the doctor or dentist in this case would be admitting that there is a problem.

Gary Gulka suggested that the Committee use the same recommendation language as last year which leaves open as to how the information is provided. Last year’s recommendation read:

Dental clinics should provide information to patients about the advantages and disadvantages to human health and the environment from using fillings containing mercury and other materials to be developed by the Vermont Department of Health in consultation with the Vermont State Dental Society and the Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution. In addition, the Committee recommends that the Legislature consider whether or not amalgam should be placed in pregnant women or children.

In the last sentence of the recommendation where it states “In addition the committee recommends the legislature (consider whether or not)” The Committee agreed that the language would be corrected to read “consider legislation to not allow placement of dental amalgams in pregnant women and children under 18.”

The committee agreed that they are hoping that there can be some sort of agreement regarding notification.
Question was if Steve Arthur from VDH supports this recommendation. It was thought that he initially supported the notification recommendation but perhaps has changed that position.
Suggestion to strengthen the recommendation on pregnant women.
Michael Bender brought up the issue regarding pregnant dental assistants. The Committee agreed to not take up the topic of occupational exposure at this time.
Suggestion that if no progress is made with dental notification in the upcoming year that the ACMP develop a brochure on its own in conjunction with VDH to present to the legislature for acceptance.

Language for recommendation was further amended to read:

Dental clinics should provide information to patients about the advantages and disadvantages to human health and the environment from using fillings containing mercury and other materials to be developed by the Vermont Department of Health in consultation with the Vermont State Dental Society and the Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution. In addition, the Committee recommends that the Legislature consider legislation to not allow placement of dental amalgams in pregnant women and children under 18.

A vote was taken on this recommendation:

All in favor:

Jen Holliday

Michael Bender

Mary Jean Rajda

Gary Gulka

Bill Bress

John Berino

Neil Kamman

Carol Hosford

All opposed:

Eric Palmer

Eric Palmer opposes the recommendation. He is not comfortable with additional language but supports last year’s wording. He felt there is not enough information to support that amalgam is the greater of the evils out there to recommend an outright ban.

Agenda Item 3

Thimerosal

Carol Hosford stated that there were no changes in what she presented last time for draft legislation. She advised that Mr. Kamman had suggested that a definition be added for trace amounts of thimerasol and the legislative council stated it was not necessary.

John Berino advised the Committee that he had talked with the person involved with this issue at Fletcher Allen Healthcare and their response was that their only concern was that there would not be enough vaccines available. The Committee agreed that the bill dealt with that situation should it arise.

Carol made a motion to move that the Committee offer a recommendation in their report that the intent of the bill go forward.

Gary Gulka seconded the motion and suggested that in the draft of the legislative report that the text of the bill be paraphrased to capture its intent.

The Committee recapped the recommendations;

Bill proposes not administering mercury containing vaccines for anyone under the age of 18
Preference for younger children first
Caveat for shortage or emergency use can be waived.

A vote was taken on this recommendation:

All in favor: unanimous

Carol Hosford requested the Committee clarify which bills were being supported:

Taking forward the bill on thimerasol
Agreed on concept of dental patient notification – not in any bill – recommendations from last years report
Long term phase out of dental amalgam - again support concept of taking it up in the legislature

Agenda Item 4

Thermostats

Jen Holliday distributed a letter from The Solid Waste Districts’ Management Association. Ms. Holliday advised that she had talked to the managers about the model legislation that was developed by Product Stewardship Institute in hopes of getting states to adopt.

As background information Ms. Holliday stated that the manager’s association supported a mandate for manufacturers to take back thermostats and fund a program together with meeting a certain performance standard for the number collected. TRC (Thermostat Recycling Corporation) was formed several years ago by three major thermostat manufacturers (GE, Honeywell and White Rogers). TRC set up a system to take back thermostats through wholesale locations. Ms. Holliday stated that the TRC program had been in place for several years and in her estimation it was not working. Gary Gulka added that there were approximately 30 collection containers set up around the state of Vermont. District managers support this program because it takes the onus off the districts and puts it back on to the manufacturer. She added that industry also supports the model PSI legislation. The model legislation was not available for the Committee to view but Michael Bender outlined the 11 key elements of the legislation as follows:

Definitions
Sales ban for new mercury thermostats
Manufacturer collection requirement

Cash back – in Maine this is $5.
Rebate coupon system

Homeowner collection aspect
Wholesaler responsibility
Retailer responsibility
Disposal ban
Professional licensing for HVAC technicians
Education and outreach
Performance goals evaluation
Program reporting requirements

Mr. Bender stated that for some of these issues there are options; but, overall the framework is very similar to the law that has passed in Maine. Mr. Bender added that he spoke with Senator Lyons and she has asked Legislative Council to draft legislation which would also include an act related to button cell batteries to be phased out by 2011. The section in the model includes manufacturer responsibility in that the manufacturers must set up collection programs and have a percentage target for increased recycling rates. The Maine bill requires an increase of 70% collection rate within 2 years of the development of phase one of the plan. Mr. Bender acknowledged that as Karen Knaebel had pointed out at the last meeting that there were resource issues. However, he feels that the job with these different pieces we have in place now that the job of mercury reduction is almost done. He added that he is not saying that research does not need to continue but thermostats have about 7 times more mercury than auto mercury switches. The program to collect auto switches officially starts in January, 2007. Mr. Bender stated that from 1998 to June 2006 there has not been much in the way of collection reflected in Vermont for thermostats. He believes this effort should be strongly pursued, increasing the awareness to contractors in Vermont and providing an incentive. He added that he wants to do something that the manufacturers are on board with and that part of the rationale is that this legislation would include 14 brand owners that are selling as opposed to just three manufacturers. Mr. Bender stated that he felt the legislation should target the goals in detail, how the program would work. After the first of the year the household hazardous waste programs will be able to collect through the TRC program as well. In order to estimate increases in capture rates, there would be an estimate of the number of thermostats sold in comparison to the number that were collected. There are already a lot of legislative pieces in place but the key piece is getting contractors to collect the thermostats.

This program also addresses collections from households and helps to increase awareness.

The professional licensure section of the model for HVAC contractors mandates collection as a requirement of their license.

Mr. Gulka stated that if manufacturers really want to do this as Mr. Bender stated, it could be a self implementing plan. The Agency does not have the resources to implement another program with numerous requirements on the Agency. If manufacturers are so willing, they should be willing to do every bit of the program with a minimum role of the Agency; we should be on the side lines. Committee questioned if Ginny Lyons would be willing to cut certain things out of the bill.
There was concern for current legislation whereas there is supposed to be a pilot program being implemented and a report back to the legislature. If something like this would pass the new bill would need to supersede the old language in the previous bill.

Jen Holliday made a motion to request that the Committee support the model legislation that has been proposed by PSI – to require manufacturers to implement a collection system that will result in an increase in collection of the waste mercury containing thermostats in Vermont including a financial incentive and obtaining aggressive performance goals.

Neil Kamman seconded the motion.

Gary Gulka suggested that once the Committee is able to review the model that the language could be placed into the body of the ACMP report and the recommendations could be managed to describe the elements of the program and include that requirements already on the agency implementing prior law be removed. Mr. Gulka suggested that the emphasis be placed on the responsibility of the manufacturer and not on state and local government

The Committee agreed that the recommendation in the report state that the primary responsibility shall be on the manufacturer and not state and local government to implement the program.

A vote was taken on this recommendation:

All in favor: unanimous

Agenda Item 5

Annual Report Discussion

The Committee discussed the need to identify all recommendations and work plan items that should be included in the report.

Suggestion to add a recommendation regarding mercury stockpiling.

It was suggested at the last meeting to add an additional “whereas” regarding the Council of States to issue a directive for management and storage of mercury.
Mr. Bender believes that one aspect of the export ban is that it is critical to have a storage plan or there is no place for the mercury to go. He advised that he was waiting for that before we moved the resolution

There was a motion made that the Committee support recommendations to the legislature to request Congress to ban the exportation of elemental mercury. Neil Kamman seconded the motion.

A modification was suggested to include that the Committee recommends that the legislature consider passing a resolution to Congress on developing the long term mercury storage capacity and banning the exportation of mercury.
Suggestion to amend the “Whereas” in number three to correct the number referenced to “410,000” due to recent changes by Kate McCaffrey with the US EPA.
It was noted that Vermont would be the first state to introduce such a resolution.

A vote was taken on this recommendation:

All in favor: unanimous

Fish monitoring program

Recommendations and report to the legislature did not result in legislation.
Last year the Committee chooses to include a recommendation in the report. Suggestion that the recommendation perhaps needs to be a little firmer.
Question as to whether this would need to be mandated by legislation.
There are technicians out in the field and the resource situation has improved slightly but in order to do more aggressive fish sampling there would be a need for more resources.
Committee supports the content of mercury planning report and to include allocation of resources in that plan. It was suggested to add emphasis in the recommendation that nothing has happened and that the Committee believes this is a very important asset to all the work that is being done. Neil Kamman and Gary Gulka will draft the language for the Committee’s review

Thimerasol and Dental

Should be reiterated in this year’s report by using the same language plus the additional language generated by this meeting.
Last year’s report included a statement made by the health department regarding dental amalgam, subsequently Steve Arthur from the Vermont Department of Health has weighed in on this issue. Suggestion to include language from Steve Arthur’s testimony or at least consider this information in the introduction.
Suggestion to consider making notation to the FDA meeting information that was distributed at previous meeting.

The Committee discussed the work plan agenda – the following items were agreed to be included in next year’s plan:

General oversight of ongoing mercury education and reduction efforts
Testimony on legislation
Follow the status of implementation of law
Follow the status of outreach to sensitive populations
Follow the statues of the use of 15 mile falls funds
Monitor mercury emissions inventory data
Pursue other efforts to further reduce exposure
Update on monitoring
Follow up on dental issues/notification
More specific work items and objectives at a higher level of detail would be developed at the first meeting of the year after the annual report is distributed.

Time line on the report

Gary Gulka advised he would release the first draft for the Committee to review via e-mail. Comments on the report should go directly back to Mr. Gulka to include in the report in various sections. The draft document will then be circulated to the ACMP members and interested parties and will be discussed at the January meeting prior to finalizing releasing the report.

Agenda Item 6