Vermont Agency of Natural Resources
Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution

Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution

Meeting #73: Monday, February 26, 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

              Bill Bress, Vermont Department of Health

              Gary Gulka, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Environmental Assistance

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

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

Guests Present:
             

              Matt Levin, Vermonters for Clean Environment

              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, 2007 meeting

Minutes were reviewed. An incomplete line from one section was dropped. Neil Kamman added language to clarify his statement regarding wastewater discharge figures. The minutes were approved with these changes

Agenda Item 2

Legislative/Regulatory Updates

• Resolution

The mercury stockpiling resolution passed through the legislature.  The resolution is not yet available on the legislative web site. The Secretary of State would be directed by this resolution to send a copy to the President and the congressional delegation.  The resolution suggested the prohibition of the export of elemental mercury and authorized the President to provide storage capacity for mercury stockpiles. Vermont is the first state in the country to pass such a resolution.

• H.121

H.121 introduces a financial incentive for collection of discarded mercury-containing thermostats and a ban on amalgam after July 2011, except in back molars. The House committee separated out the thermostat portion of the bill from the dental portion of the bill and created a committee bill for thermostats. The amalgam use ban in the bill was dropped and informed consent was added to the bill. In addition, the bill requires the VDH to develop a brochure similar to what is been developed in the state of Maine.  There is a component of the bill that requires amalgam manufacturers to report on annual quantities sold into Vermont.

• Thermostat committee bill

The thermostat committee bill should be voted on by February 27th.  The bill was amended to shift the resource burden for plan development from the agency to thermostat manufacturers.  The original bill required several stakeholder processes to define collection programs and financial incentives for contractors and homeowners. Most of the agency’s concerns were addressed in the bill as it was modified. There will be further discussion in the Senate regarding financial incentives.  Currently the bill includes a $5.00 cash incentive when thermostats are turned in by a contractor. There are concerns by manufacturers about the cost of the financial incentives. The agency streamlined the process to benefit from the work that has already been completed in Maine during their stakeholder process by which there was a determination to require a $5.00 cash incentive for contractor collection of thermostats.  It was determined that since Maine had already gone through the stakeholder process, there was no need to duplicate the same stakeholder process in Vermont. Vermont will be closely following the outcome of the Maine stakeholder process for the outcome of the homeowner incentive.

• S.81

S. 81 is primarily a thimerosal and dental mercury bill.  H.121 is an environmental bill whereas S.81 is related to human exposure. Because of that, this bill may end up in the Human Resources Committee of the House.  Matt Levin gave the committee an overview of his understanding of the bill. He believes that the bill mirrors the recommendation on banning thimerosal in infant vaccines and the amalgam portion of the bill is a ban on amalgam and includes informed consent.  Senator Snelling introduced the bill and it has findings similar to house bill but not identical. The first section of the bill talks about a brochure and poster to be developed by VDH to include environmental and health aspects of dental amalgam and alternatives outlining specific language indicated in the legislation. The bill includes a prohibition on amalgam placement in pregnant women or children effective January 1, 2008 and no placement or removal in any person after 2010. The thimerosal portion of the bill includes a definition of mercury-free vaccines and a ban in 2007 which includes the Vermont Department of Health’s exemption language regarding bio-terrorists and VDH to assure there is an adequate amount available to protect public health.

• Dental BMPs

By January 31st all dental offices are required to file with the agency regarding implementation of BMPs and installation of amalgam separators.  Following the filing approximately 200 dental offices installed separators and followed BMPs for amalgam management. There was a good response by dentists, not 100% but certainly very high.  Requirement to file and indicate that the dentist has installed a separator has probably helped on the compliance rate.  All dentists are required to file the brand of separator installed. Gary Gulka acknowledged the efforts of  the Vermont Dental Society for sending reminder notices to dentists.  The DEC completed an amalgam use survey with help from the Dental Society to ascertain which practices are using amalgam and number of amalgam fillings being placed.  Mr. Gulka anticipates about 250 or fewer practices should be providing information.

• Hospitals and mercury reduction planning.

Gary Gulka told the committee that DEC was finalizing the process for submission of hospital mercury reduction plans.  He stated that the hospitals are being given adequate opportunity to comment on the plan requirements.  Plans are due by July 1, 2007.

• Mercury auto switch program.

To date, there are 62 salvage yards participating in the auto switch program. The salvage yards have been provided with a collection container and the container is shipped back once full, and the salvage yard receives a $1.00 rebate per switch. DEC has a contractor that is conducting field visits to verify that the salvage yards are appropriately set up for collection. January 1, 2007 was the implementation date and all salvage yards should have collection buckets and instructions.  Mr. Gulka stated that he thought the program was off to a good start, but could not identify a percentage of participants until he receives field verification from the contractor.

• H.136

This legislation was introduced to change the effective date of the labeling requirement to a manufactured date from the 2005 legislation. Changing the effective date from a sold by date to a manufactured after date would make it more difficult for the Agency to implement any enforcement for unlabeled products. Electronics manufacturers are the only industry that is asking for this change because they have not yet come into compliance.  Karen talked about the 1998 legislation and how there was controversy in the law as to the requirements for electronics manufactures from their viewpoint. In 2005, there was a request for a declaratory ruling by the electronics manufacturers and that ruling ultimately stated that manufacturers of LCD products must label the product. The Agency allowed the electronic manufacturers to comply by following the specific requirements in the 2005 legislation rather than comply with current law and then change requirements in July 2007. The Agency was willing to move the date forward but was not in agreement with changing the date in the law to a manufactured after date.  There are ongoing discussions to try to resolve issues.

• Fish mercury monitoring program.

An overview of the fish monitoring financial needs was presented in previous ACMP reports to the legislature. This issue has not been addressed by the legislature.  Suggestion that Neil present at the House committee again regarding the monitoring needs.

Neil stated that the state ad-hoc Fish Contaminant Committee discussed implementation of fish mercury monitoring and what data was going to be used by VDH to set the advisory. Fundamental decisions were made regarding the fish advisory. Fish database goes back to 1980 and up untill now the advisory was based on the entire body of data. A decision was made to trim down the data and utilize the last ten years of data which was enough data specific to advisories by water body.  The advisory should be complete around the end of April.

There is still a need for technical support to implement the monitoring project and neither Fish and Wildlife nor DEC can fund the project.  There have been some steps taken to assess inland water bodies and this year there were a fairly good number of fish collected to be used for viral disease analysis by the Fish and Wildlife fish biologists, and these will be sacrificed to do a health and disease assessment on 100-200 analytical fish analysis from that committee.  Neil advised that there are not enough resources to implement a six-year or random sampling program. Fish health sampling can move us along to refreshing the data base. Neil advised the committee that there was really a deficit on the data available on river fish.

Question if there would be any value to have the Secretary and Commissioners strategize on how to facilitate the monitoring.  Question as to whether it would be helpful to have ACMP write a letter.  Eric Palmer stated that the Fish and Wildlife staff have been working to collect fish as a part of ongoing efforts, and it would be difficult to implement a new method to truly have it random. Eric feels that fish sampling over time really needs to target the age of the fish which takes a significant amount of time. He suggested that the most practical approach would be to hire outside staff and utilize the Fish and Wildlife equipment. Short of that, any other approaches would pull staff away from existing projects.

Question as to the funding needs for the monitoring project.  Neil Kamman stated that about $30,000 would allow for the hire of a couple of seasonal staff to collect samples. 

A suggestion was made to consider 15 Mile Fall funding to assist in the implementation of this study.

Agenda Item 3

Develop work plan for 2007

The Committee discussed a potential work plan for 2007. 

• The fish advisories will be modified around the end of April.
• The Committee wants to continue to focus on the human health risk reduction and include a discussion of cremation and air pollution control.
• Suggestion to include crematory as the discussion topic for April.  Suggestion to have John Reindl from Dane County to attend by telephone.
• Suggestion to lay out options for addressing the crematoria issue. Determine the number of crematoria in the state, the projected increase.
• Suggestion to start on crematoria in April and then move forward to the dental issues in June.
• Gary Gulka distributed a crematoria report developed by John Reindl and suggested that the Committee read the report prior to the next meeting.
• Suggestion by Matt Levin to talk to Lisa Carlson who is a local person who is part of the Funeral Ethic Organization. Matt added that she has been active in the funeral home program and has written several books.
• The Committee agreed to have a meeting in June, September, October and November. The June meeting would cover dental issues and a legislative update. September would address product issues; October would include issues related to sensitive populations and the report would be started in November.
• Suggestion as closure is obtained on each topic area and a subject is resolved that the determination of the recommendation for each issue be finalized before moving forward.
• Suggestion to look at 15 Mile Falls funding in September. Potential to fund a portion of a 3 year monitoring program – perhaps 50% of cost for three years.  Issue would be discussed in DEC.

Agenda Item 4

Discuss protocol for future meetings & chair rotation

• Neil requested this topic a couple of meetings back after annual discussion on recommendations and e-mail threads back and forth that he felt didn’t make the committee appear as professional as it should.
• The item of chair rotation has been one that should have been discussed at some frequency.
• The main issue is that the ACMP meeting needs to comply with the open meeting law. This law needs to be discussed as it relates to committee member discussions outside of a meeting;  dissemination of information that cannot be accessed by general public; more than two committee members talking about an issue outside a meeting; how to effectively communicate without violating these laws and operating as much as possible within the meeting structure.
• Neil Kamman stated that it was perfectly reasonable for two members to discuss an issue outside of a meeting, but no more than two. He added that a member cannot represent the Committee as a member unless asked by the legislature.
• A suggestion that a way to address some of these issues is to set up subcommittees – Michael uses those to great affect. In regard to the e-mail back and form it would be better to use electronic correspondence to get information back and for the members but not use it as a discussion forum.
• The committee agreed to send all e-mail through Karen. The committee agreed that the structure needed to be formalized and to bring this up again at the next meeting and let the minutes reflect a summary.  It was suggested that any electronic correspondence could be presented at the next meeting.
• Committee agreed to have a standing item on the agenda as “committee member concerns” whereby the members would have an opportunity during that agenda item to bring up concerns that they wish the committee to address.
• Suggestion by Neil Kamman that at the meeting the Committee decides on the general topics of the next meeting, then the staff puts together an agenda which the chair circulates to the committee. Neil suggested that by a date certain the committee members get back to the chair about the agenda; that agenda would be sent out electronically after finalized by the chair. This would allow for an open setting of the agenda. Gary Gulka doesn’t think there is a problem with open meeting law with setting the agenda in this manner. The committee agreed that setting the meeting agenda would be left up to the staff support going through the committee chairs who presents the agenda to the members and the chair finalizes the agenda.
• Suggestion if there are issues that need to be brought up to the committee that they be addressed at the first item on the agenda at the next meeting.
• Committee agreed that meeting protocol would be voted on at the April meeting.
• Suggestion that if anyone wants to be added to interested parties list that they e-mail Karen to be added to the list.
• Suggestion to have the public direct all comments to Karen. The challenge is when the public sends their comments to the members and how those comments are distributed. If a letter comes into the Committee, the letter will be distributed at the next meeting.
• The open meeting laws are guidance and state that the minutes must be available within five days of the meeting. The committee felt that the meeting minutes must be available five days after finalized.  It is clear that the open meeting laws state that not more than two members can discuss issues outside of a meeting.
• The committee agreed that e-mail distribution should be limited. All business needs to be conducted at the meeting and the members shouldn’t be encouraging people to send comments out to the committee. Suggestion to send any comments to chair or staff support for the committee.
• Suggestion that the minutes should go up on web site. Concern that minutes and draft agendas are being sent out to interested parties.
• Committee agreed that e-mails coming from Karen should blind copy members and interested parties names so that e-mail distribution lists cannot be copied or utilized for improper correspondence.
• Suggestion that when the committee gets correspondence from someone outside of the committee that the information be brought to the table at the member concerns portion of the agenda and the committee can decide if the issue should be added to a future agenda or whether the committee chooses to respond.
• Suggestion if information is submitted to the committee from the public that it should go to staff support first, a copy provided at the next meeting (not even transmitted to members).  Suggestion that information should be provided through a single person and the chair share the information with the committee at the next meeting.
• Suggestion to either bring outside information into the committee at the next meeting or have a standardized response that goes out to the public advising that the information will be addressed at the next meeting.
• Bill Bress stated that he is a committee member only when he is at an ACMP meeting and he only does things outside of the meeting whereby he’s been tasked by the committee.
• Question as to how to address member to member information sharing. Suggestion to send information to staff support who will distribute to members only.
• Concern that the committee does not want to close off input from the public to the committee. A suggestion that if any member receives information that the committee thank the submitter for their interest and to please refer this information to Karen Knaebel so it can be introduced at the next committee meeting.  Suggestion to come up with language that can be agreed upon by the committee members.
• The committee agreed to the following:
• Basic public meeting law guidelines such as limiting discussions outside of meeting to no more than two members and no e-mail discussions with general public outside of the meeting.
•  Agenda will be set at the prior meeting – it will be drafted circulated to chair who will then circulate it to the committee for the OK – chair makes final decision on agenda based on input from committee members.
• Information that comes in from the public needs to be routed through Karen Knaebel. Needs to go to Karen and then circulate that information to the committee at the next meeting.
• Agenda and minutes – PDF on web – continue to e-mail meeting notices.
• Defer chair rotation and meeting protocol to next meeting.

Agenda Item 4

Set date and agenda for next meeting

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.