Vermont Agency of Natural Resources
Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution

Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution

Meeting #74: Monday, April 9, 2007

Time: 9:00 am to 12:00 noon

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

Waterbury Vermont

MINUTES

Members Present:

              Michael Bender, Abenaki Self-Help Association, Inc., via telephone

              John Berino, Vermont Association of Hospitals and Healthcare Systems

              Gary Gulka, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Environmental Assistance

              Jennifer Holiday, Chittenden Solid Waste Management District, via telephone

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

              Senator Richard McCormack, Vermont State Senate

              Jeff Merrill, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Air Division

              Representative Carol Reed Hosford, Vermont House of Representatives

Guests Present:
             

              James A. Johnston, Vermont Funeral Director’s Association

              Matt Levin, Vermonters for Clean Environment

              John Reindl, Dane County, WI, via telephone

              Karen Knaebel, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Environmental Assistance

              Diana April, private citizen

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

Agenda Item 1

Review minutes from January 8 th meeting

An incomplete line from agenda item #2 was dropped. The minutes were approved with the change

Agenda Item 2

Overview of Crematoria and Mercury Emissions PowerPoint Presentation by John Reindl of Dane County, WI

John Reindl (via speakerphone) presented issues regarding crematoria and mercury emissions to the Committee. The Committee had the following concerns and questions:

• Question as to the typical fuel source of crematoria. Mr. Reindl responded that in the mid-west, the fuel source is mostly natural gas, while the Northeast mostly uses fuel oil.
• Question as to why the funeral industry left the Colorado Stakeholder process prematurely. The industry did not agree with the data on mercury emission levels from cremation, and found potential solutions unacceptable because of cultural barriers and financial costs.
• Question on point #2 within Appendix C of Colorado Report on Mercury Emissions, regarding Colorado’s emissions estimate vs. the EPA’s estimate. John Reindl responded that EPA provided the funding to Colorado to verify previous EPA estimates. Was EPA was looking to Colorado to obtain more accurate information regarding these estimates, or was EPA looking to conduct a separate study using mass balance analysis? Mr. Reindl responded that a mass balance analysis was conducted, and stated that a preliminary level estimate is about 2.2 metric tons of mercury from crematoria.
• Mr. Bender asked if it was reasonable to assume that mercury emissions from crematoria would double in the next 10 to 20 years. Mr. Reindl believes that the rate is expected to dramatically increase, possibly tripling, due to an increase in the number of cremations. In addition, older individuals keep their teeth longer which will increase the number of mercury restorations available during cremation.
• Question whether the UK has set a goal for reducing emissions by 50% by 2012, and how they would go about doing that. Reindl advised that the UK has established an emission-trade program, by controlling half of the crematoria emissions, while all crematoria cover the cost.
• Question if there was a range of technology and costs that the UK would need to look at (to which Reindl confirmed with several methods previously explained in his slide, as well as a cryogenic method as an alternative to cremation which utilizes a freeze-drying process.
• Concerns about statements regarding the metallic form of mercury leaving crematoria and becoming part of the global pool, and how much of a priority this was for scientists and chemists to study these numbers. Reindl noted that it is not a top priority, and comprehensive work has not yet been done.
• Inquiries as to whether the percentage of mercury emissions released into the air was accurate, as some of that amount may have been lost to the stack wall in the retort units. In the data noted within the presentation indicates that surface dust including mercury particles on the bricks is considerably high.
• Question as to whom, if anyone, is performing studies on the health risks to employees of crematoria. Reindl mentioned prior studies done in the UK, to which no follow up had occurred.
• Concerns regarding the selenium capsule control method, and if it would be an effective solution to emission control. Reindl explained his understanding of the process is that mercury combines with selenium when passed through a selenium impregnated filter. A selenium capsule would be placed on top or the container holding the corpse, and as selenium and mercury are released during cremation, an existing filter would capture these combined emissions. The inventing company reports that this is effective, but when compared with a 1991 Swedish report; there was no difference in mercury emission levels between these two tests.
• Concerns as to whether the possibility of better filtration within the stacks (i.e. more surface area, more mercury captured on the stack wall) was a possible solution for capturing emissions. Reindl advised that the stack wall mercury deposits, as it is reheated in subsequent cremations, continue to release mercury emissions.
• Question to clarify a presentation slide involving dental mercury flow; and numbers regarding environmental emissions and new use emissions. Reindl explained that the model is in regards to how much mercury is released into the air and water from dental sources.

Agenda Item 3
Update on Emissions Inventory – Discussion on Crematoria Mercury Emissions in Vermont – Jeff Merrill for Heidi Hales, Air Quality Division

• Mr. Merrill gave update on the inventory on mercury emissions. The Air Division will be updating their previous inventory for mercury emissions for 2005. The 2002 data shows that larger sources in Vermont are from the automobile industry (.5-56 lbs) and human cremation (5-16.5%).
• Suggestions regarding using universities’ chemists or graduates as a potential resource for collecting emissions data. Reindl informed that the School of Mortuary Review in Minnesota was looking at this, but was unsure of the level of involvement toward original research, and suggests this area remain open for discussion.
• Concerns regarding information gathering studies that the ACMP is suggesting which is not seen in the CO report. Reindl commented that Colorado is remaining focused on in-state human cremation, and suggested contacting Mark McMillan regarding the Colorado report; study is continuing although nearing completion.
• Suggestions that financial resources regarding such research could be used for education and outreach to the public at this point. Mr. Bender opposed implementing more public education and outreach due to the cost and time, including the sensitive public perceptions surrounding cremation.
• Regional Mercury Task Force of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers has a goal to reduce mercury in the environment 75% by 2010. Crematory emissions were not priority as compared to other sources with higher levels of emissions (although recent EPA findings are higher than originally presented emissions information).
• The Committee agreed that present research needs to reflect actual amounts in order to set in place any regulations regarding emissions; there is not enough evidence to support any regulation at this time.

Agenda Item 4
Overview of Crematoria Issues in Vermont by James A. Johnston, Lobbyist for Vermont Funeral Directors Association

• There are currently nine crematories with a total of 13 retorts (chamber where body the body is placed during cremation) in Vermont. Approximately 2,000 cremations take place in Vermont annually, which does not include cremations from bordering states. Johnston explained Vermont has become a “dumping ground” for cremations from Massachusetts because of our relaxed permitting process, where out-of-state funeral directors can avoid a $75.00 Medical Examiner fee and a 48 hour waiting period.
• Legislation is currently being introduced to require crematories in Vermont to honor crematory regulations of the state where the deceased resided.
• Johnston comments regarding the suggested possibility of using the stack walls as filtering for mercury emission during cremation, and that disposal of these stack wall bricks may be problematic to the environment with their high levels of mercury contained within.
• Clarification that the only thing currently required to be removed prior to cremation, are pacemakers due to explosion factor.
• Burlington does most of cremations in the state.
• Questions about educating crematory clients regarding the extraction of teeth and its applicability, to which Mr. Johnston agrees.
• Inquiries about the cost of extraction of teeth. Johnston notes its difficulty; certain tools are also required to which most crematoria do not have.

Agenda Item 5
Discussion Regarding Reducing Emission from Crematoria in the State of Vermont

• Mr. Johnston noted that main issue with public perception regarding removal of amalgam-containing teeth is proper education of the issue with mercury and may move the public to be more willing to agree with the process of teeth removal.
• 41% of deaths were cremated in this State, and within the next 5 years that number may rise to 70% due to rising death rates. In 2020 the U.S. expects a rise from 2 million deaths up to 4 million.
• Questions regarding the specifics of research needs, what sort of resources would be needed to address them, and who could perform the research. The Colorado research is an agenda item at upcoming meeting of the Environmental Council of States regarding mercury control policies throughout the states.
• The Committee agreed that these studies need to be conducted; the resources to carry them out are not currently available in Vermont. Emissions are very difficult and complex to measure. Dartmouth has people with skills, but Michigan, EPA, or Frontier Geosciences in Seattle would better be able to handle this type of research.
• Concerns as far as a time frame in which to initiate research need to be addressed to Mark McMillan of Colorado, who will be addressing these concerns at the upcoming ECOS conference.
• Data gaps are problematic. Suggestion to meet with funeral directors in order to discuss a potential voluntary program, such as donor card, or voluntary signup for tooth removal prior to cremation. Committee will re-address concerns on how to fund this education and research after ECOS meeting in order to identify viable options.
• Concerns regarding the Green Burial Movement and whether these burials promote removing the amalgam containing teeth. This mercury is bound in an amalgam and is therefore static and safe for long-term containment.
• Suggestion to meet with crematory operators and funeral directors, possibly at annual funeral organization conference, in order to educate them about mercury emission issues at crematoria and ask for their suggestions towards future steps.
• Suggestion to develop an educational pamphlet to raise awareness with crematory clients.
• Committee members will report back on the Madison, Wisconsin conference, and hear back from Jim Johnston on the Colorado study of reducing crematory emission of mercury at next ACMP meeting.
• Suggestion to include information in the funeral association’s newsletter to raise awareness on mercury emissions.
• Matt Levin remarked that from an environmental standpoint, it is important to pursue accurate perception on these issues.
• The cost of teeth removal needs to be established in order to present issue properly to crematories and funeral homes.
• Neil Kamman, Michael Bender and Jeff Merrill will compile questions for Mark McMillan in Colorado regarding the need to understand the forms of mercury that come out of the retorts, and the fate of that mercury in the environment.

Agenda Item 6
Committee member concerns as a standing committee item

• Neil Kamman advised the committee that he recently spoke with Agency Secretary Crombie to bring him up-to-date on the Mercury TMDL. Neil also suggested offering a briefing with the Secretary of the accomplishments of the ACMP at some point.
• Michael Bender is nearing completion of toolkit for creating mercury awareness in developing countries. He will be at several out-of-country meetings to have opportunity to help in redefining what frameworks of partnerships are necessary to make them consistent with the governing counsel.
• Suggestion to make the mercury resolution HR-1 available online. Committee commented that Vermont is the first state in the nation to pass a resolution requesting Congress to address the mercury stockpiling issue through federal storage of excess mercury and a ban on exporting mercury.
• EPA has officially started blue-ribbon stakeholder management of surplus mercury. First meeting is in Washington, D.C. on May 8th, and several other meetings around the country will be taking place in the next 3-4 months.

Agenda Item 7
Reviewing protocol for future meetings and chair rotation

Gary Gulka presented an overview of the discussions regarding Open Meeting Laws from the previous meeting as follows:

• The Open Meeting Law prohibits more than two members discussing matters regarding ACMP issues outside of the meeting. No email discussions with the general public outside of meetings.
• The ACMP agreed to set the agenda for next meeting at end of each meeting. A draft will be created and distributed so all members can have a chance to review, and the chair will finalize the agenda.
• It was agreed that, if information or opinions are forwarded to a committee member from outside of the committee, the member must direct the comments to Karen Knaebel, staff support, for her to distribute at the next meeting. Specific language was decided upon in order to reply and confirm receipt of information/opinions:
  “Thank you very much for you interest, I will be forwarding your comments to the committee for them to address during the next ACMP meeting.”
• Continue placing PDF documents of minutes on the Web
• Continue to email minutes to the committee members.

Chair Rotation Suggestions:

• Prior to the next ACMP meeting, requests of interest of any member to serve as committee chair shall be provided to Karen Knaebel. ACMP members shall email nomination suggestion prior to the meeting
• A new chair of ACMP shall be voted on at next ACMP meeting, and members unable to attend can vote electronically. Attending members can vote during the meeting.

Agenda Item 8
Set date and agenda for next meeting

• June meeting will review crematoria issues as well as updates on button cell battery collection, lamp recycling, mercury auto switch collection, implementation of mercury product law, and status of initiative under the 15 Mile Falls mercury reduction fund.
• Follow up and invite Jim Johnston, ask him to invite an official from the Funeral Director’s association.
• Agreements to proceed slowly on the crematoria issues.
• Dental survey on amalgam use will be reviewed at September meeting. Dental brochure discussion can occur at that time, including thimerasol discussion.
• Next meeting is tentatively set for Tuesday, June 19th, 2007 and will be confirmed via email.

Draft agenda will be e-mailed out for the next meeting. Chair rotation will be addressed at the next meeting.  Potential dates will be confirmed via e-mail with the rest of the members.