The Committee members and interested parties gathered in the Board Room of the Fanny Allen Campus of Fletcher Allen Health Care on
Rt. 15 in Colchester, Vermont and the meeting was called to order by Tim Scherbatskoy.
- The minutes of the Fifteenth meeting on March 16, 2000 were reviewed and accepted with no changes.
- The minutes of the Sixteenth meeting on April 13, 2000 were reviewed and accepted with no changes.
Agenda Item 2-
Update on School Science Lab Clean-Out Project.
Tom Benoit briefly updated the Committee on the current progress of the School Science Lab Clean-Out Project as follows:
- Fifty-six schools have already participated in the program.
- The first 25 schools have completed their inventories and disposals.
- The second round of schools are currently completing their inventories.
- Eight schools have signed up for the third round of schools.
- Out of approximately 100 possible middle and high schools, 64 have responded.
- The Agency has sent a mailing to approximately 275 addressees including remaining schools, superintendents, principals and science teachers
to attempt to bring the remaining schools into the program.
- The Agency in its attempts to include the remaining schools in the clean-out project will:
- Contact the schools by telephone.
- Possibly obtain assistance from legislators in remaining schools districts to promote program this summer.
- The Committee suggested the Agency consider promoting the project through press releases, attending school meetings and through the Parent
Teacher Associations (PTA).
- Of the mercury collected to date:
- 230 pounds of elemental mercury and mercury compounds.
- 4,000 pounds of hazardous materials.
- 2,000 pounds of non-hazardous materials.
- It was asked if any additional funding or support from the Committee was needed.
- The project cost was originally estimated at approximately $200,000.
- The program is well below budget. The actual costs are anticipated to be about $100,000 to$130,000.
- Bill Bress advised the Committee that the Health Department was also working on an air quality program in the schools and suggested possible
coordination of this project with the existing school clean-out project.
- Hollie Shaner advised that a grant proposal had been awarded to Fletcher Allen for a person to educate doctors and nurses on indoor air
quality. A possible collaboration of efforts with the Health Department program will be discussed.
Agenda Item 3-
Update on M.E.R.C. Committee Progress.
The Mercury Education and Reduction Campaign (M.E.R.C.) Committee met on April 13, 2000. Several possible ideas and programs were
discussed.
- The M.E.R.C. Committee is scheduled to meet again on June 20, 2000 to discuss specific plans for various thermometer exchange programs.
Karen Knaebel to e-mail Advisory Committee as to exact date and location.
- Karen Knaebel expressed a desire to see consistency between the programs with the use of the existing M.E.R.C. logo.
- The M.E.R.C. Committee is concentrating its first efforts on mercury thermometer exchange programs. These programs are intended to promote
public awareness of the health issues of mercury.
- The Agency is concentrating its efforts in coordination with this project on pharmacies. It will be following up on its letters to pharmacy
chains this week. Plans are being made to establish a pledge program for the local pharmacies to eliminate the sale of mercury thermometers.
The Committee will be updated as to the progress of this initiative.
- Many members of the M.E.R.C. Committee have and are individually pursuing possible leads and funding for thermometer exchange programs.
- Bill Bress advised that the fish advisories were being processed and suggested a piece be added to the fish advisory to link the work of
Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution.
- A concern for the toxicity of the non-mercury thermometers known as "Geratherm" was expressed to the Committee. Conversations
with various people raised concern regarding the compound used in the thermometer as it was considered to have similar properties to mercury.
The M.E.R.C. Committee felt it was appropriate to be aware of any potential drawbacks in using this particular non-mercury thermometer as
a substitute for mercury thermometers in an exchange program.
- Tom Benoit advised he had MSDS information on the thermometers and statistical data provided by the company.
- The MSDS information is to be faxed to Bill Bress and Tim Scherbatskoy who will research the data with the resources available to them.
- Hollie Shaner advised she would check with Lab Safety Supply for any information.
- Rich Phillips is going to check with appropriate Agency staff to check their possible sources.
- The Committee agreed that all information collected would be discussed at the Advisory Committee's June meeting.
- Karen Knaebel expressed an interest in obtaining support from the Governor in a specific thermometer exchange project focused possibly towards
a state employee thermometer exchange with the Governor's support in a possible kick-off of the program. She would hope that the Governor's
position as a doctor would influence others in the healthcare professions, hospitals and pharmacies to follow his lead.
- It was decided that the M.E.R.C. Committee should secure funding, establish definite plans for the kick-off thermometer exchange project
and the Advisory Committee would write a letter to the Governor's office to endorse the project and encourage his support.
- Rich Phillips will contact the appropriate parties through the Governor's advisors to determine if the Governor's participation is possible.
- The Committee decided that a letter should go to the Governor's office to update the Advisory Committee's progress since the Committee's
January 2000 Report. This letter should go to the Governor at mid-year every year as an update to the Committee's progress. The letter this
year should:
- Highlight accomplishments to date from the January Report.
- Describe the current mercury projects.
- Include recommendations for the Governor's potential participation in these projects?
- Letter to be drafted by the Agency and Hollie Shaner to be presented for review at June meeting.
- The second proposed project of the M.E.R.C. Committee is training for removal of mercury-added devices from appliances.
- The Solid Waste Districts have training scheduled on June 7, 2000. The location is to be determined.
- The Agency will assist by putting together training manuals and promoting the program.
- Training for auto salvage yards is being researched by the Agency for a project at a later date.
- The Advisory Committee will be updated at its June meeting on what projects are being scheduled by the M.E.R.C. Committee as soon as plans
are finalized.
Agenda Item 4-
Status on possible letter to EPA from Regional Task Force regarding universal waste provisions.
Michael Bender was not present at this meeting to report on this topic.
- Karen Knaebel is to contact Michael for an update on his efforts.
- If the project remains active, Michael is to send a draft letter to Ric Erdheim for his review and later presentation to the Committee for
final review.
Agenda Item 5-
Review and update Committee's Work Plan for 2000.
The Committee decided to defer this item to the Committee's August meeting when possible new members would be added. The Work Plan
would be reviewed and updated at that time.
Agenda Item 6-
Continue review of model legislation.
Rich Phillips addressed the questions presented at the last meeting concerning the model legislation pointing out to the Committee
those revisions in the model legislation since the last meeting of the Advisory Committee:
- Definition section
- A question was presented as to where cosmetics containing mercury would be addressed in the model. Page 5 of April 25th revision adds
"formulated mercury-added products" which would include cosmetics.
- A question was posed as to where "homeopathic" medicines containing mercury would fall in the model's context. This is a chemical
product, which would also be included in "formulated mercury-added products definition."
- In the "Notification" section, Ric Erdheim had concerns regarding the requirement to identify the amount and purpose of mercury
in each unit of product. This item is still not addressed in the model except that the effort to identify might be reduced if categories are
approved. Mr. Erdheim also pointed out that "manufactured" would be effective to include in the definition section.
- Mr. Erdheim added from the discussions of the last Advisory meeting that he had found an example of a use where notification would be preempted
by Federal regulation. Mr. Erdheim advised that there were mercury products used in control panels of airplanes that were regulated by the
FAA.
- Mr. Phillips noted that a section had been added on Page 7, Item "d" which described the process regarding the information received
under the Notification section. It addresses issues of confidentiality of information supplied by manufacturers and guidelines for states
obtaining the information and the Clearinghouse should provide some consistency to approval of categories.
- A concern was raised at the last Advisory meeting by Ric Erdheim regarding notification by category versus individual product. Mr. Phillips
believes that the model approaches this issue in such a way that all states will have the opportunity to approve such notification.
Mr. Phillips stated that NEWMOA considers the model legislation as it now stands to be a final product. Mr. Phillips advised the
Committee that he would report their comments back into the process, but it would be up to individual states to adopt into legislation on what
they determined to most fulfill the needs of their particular state. Mr. Phillips stated that a determination should be made as to whether a particular
section of the model is recommended, but that he suggested adhering as closely as possible to the model and only making changes where it would
specifically impact Vermont.
The Committee determined that the preliminary review of the model should be brief to determine what items of the legislation would
be considered, and to flag areas of concern. After the initial review, a more extensive review of the considered sections should be made. The
review of the NEWMOA model legislation was continued from the April 13, 2000 meeting. Rich Phillips distributed the most current updates on the
model and advised that Sections 7, 8 and 10 were still being revised and would be possibly distributed at the June meeting.
The review process was determined at the April meeting as follows:
- Review to be conducted by the Committee at its May, June and July meetings.
- The analysis question "Should this section be adopted or modified if used in Vermont" is to be excluded as a review question in
the preliminary review.
Section by section analysis (Answering the following questions):
- How does this section contribute to the goal?
- Among the options available to reduce emissions from products, how does this section compare for effectiveness?
- Is the section independent of other sections?
- What are the Vermont resources needed to implement this section?
- What resources are needed at the Clearinghouse to implement this section?
- How important is this section from a Vermont standpoint?
- Is cost/benefit of this section favorable?
- Is this section dependent on other states adopting for effectiveness?
A continuation of the process using the review questions above was resumed beginning with the third review question in the Notification
section. Ric Erdheim expressed concerns, from his perspective, concerning the notification section in the fact that there were no time or geographic
limitations mentioned in the model. His hopes are that this will be more specifically considered in the final review by the Committee.
Section 5 - Notification
What are the Vermont resources needed to implement this section?
- Some Administrative work associated with manufacturer notification.
- One-half of a Full Time Equivalent (FTE) for start up of program.
What resources are needed at the Clearinghouse to implement this section?
- Most of notification would more than likely go through the Clearinghouse and individual states would be required to make some determinations.
How important is this section from a Vermont standpoint?
- This section affects many other sections
Is cost/benefit of this section favorable?
- Benefit can be assessed as this is the method to determine what products are coming into your state.
- This section is critical in that without information to determine sources and products, the entire system would be ineffective and you would
have no ability to enforce.
- Cost/benefit will be particularly favorable if most of the work is done by the Clearinghouse for several states.
Is this section dependent on other states adopting for effectiveness?
- No, once the information is collected by one state and goes to the Clearinghouse, it can be used by all other states but there is no dependency.
There should be cooperation among the states.
Section 6 - Restrictions on the Sale of Certain Mercury-added Products
Has to do with restriction on sales of specific products:
- Novelty items
- Fever thermometers
- Bulk elemental or chemical mercury or mercury compounds for use in schools
- Dairy manometers
Religious use could not be considered in any of the above categories.
- Can North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) prevent this section from being enforced in any way?
- Rich Phillips to research and advise Committee.
Thermometers can only be obtained by Physician's prescription:
- Mercury is a hazardous material not a controlled substance, must the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) be notified?
- If pharmacies pledge to not sell mercury thermometers, how will a prescription be filled for a mercury thermometer?
- The Committee suggested that a medical supply store could be an appropriate alternative location to fill thermometer prescriptions and the
thermometer considered in the same manner as a prescription for a medical "device."
How does this section contribute to the goal?
- Removes mercury-added products from use.
Among the options available to reduce emissions from products, how does this section compare for effectiveness?
- Effective as there are suitable non-mercury substitutes.
- An outright ban is effective as no release will occur from these types of products.
Is the section independent of other sections?
- Yes, this section applies to four individual products and specifics for restrictions of sale.
What are the Vermont resources needed to implement this section?
- The issue would be enforcement of restrictions. Areas of enforcement would be straightforward as products are definite.
- Education and outreach would be necessary to successfully implement.
- Less resources would be needed in the areas of schools and manometers as these programs are currently being implemented and funded.
What resources are needed at the Clearinghouse to implement this section?
- Not a clearinghouse issue.
How important is this section from a Vermont standpoint?
- Already discussed in the legislature and considered important.
Is cost/benefit of this section favorable?
- Favorable, low cost, high benefit.
Is this section dependent on other states adopting for effectiveness?
- If adopted by Vermont and not by other states, a possibility exists that products will be purchased in other states and brought into Vermont.
- Vermont could only hope to address the bulk of the issues through public education.
- The success of restrictions on certain products could possibly be effected by what other surrounding states are doing.
Section 7 - Phase-out and Exemptions
Section 8 - Labeling of Mercury-added Products
*These sections have been deferred for review at a later date.
Section 9 - Disposal Ban and Proper Management of Mercury Scrap Metal Facilities
The Committee made comments on sections "a" through "e" as follows.
Section "a"
- Similar to current laws in Vermont.
- Hazardous waste versus household hazardous waste - terms vary across states.
- Section refers to "water" and does not address "air."
- How does the term "disposal" in this section affect Vermont? Term "disposal" in Vermont laws also applies to incineration.
Should be researched.
Section "b"
- Gives authority to recycling facility.
Section "c"
- Identifies what the manager of a solid waste facility can do to insure they are not disposing of mercury or mercury-added products.
- A suggestion was made to add an item "iv" for collection options.
- Section "ii" would require a proactive education program.
Section "d"
- Is not specifically addressed in current law, but necessary. Provisions should be made for mercury-added device removal from vehicles and
appliances prior to shredding.
Section "e"
- Title for entire section should be changed to reflect only scrap metal facilities or stated simply "Disposal Ban."
How does this section contribute to the goal?
- Attempts to prevent improper disposal where mercury can get back into the environment.
Among the options available to reduce emissions from products, how does this section compare for effectiveness?
- Another option could be a focus on hazardous waste products or industrial waste.
- A suggestion was made that specific products should be targeted containing the most mercury rather than focusing on all mercury products.
Perhaps establish a diminimus.
- Cost of disposal versus the amount of mercury collected should be considered.
- Another option presented would be to examine Vermont's waste stream to determine if residences are large sources for all products. Most
survey reveal that only 15-20% of the mercury products collected to be generated from household waste.
- With information from the Solid Waste Districts, the Committee agreed to further explore the subject.
- Real issue is should any mercury products be allowed into Vermont's landfills and if so what would they be and what limits would be placed
on them.
Is the section independent of other sections?
- No, this section ties in to many other sections.
What are the Vermont resources needed to implement this section?
- This would, more than likely, become a part of current inspection reports and overall evaluations of facilities.
- In Vermont there are approximately 80 transfer stations and 2 commercial landfills. Would this section only regulate these facilities?
What resources are needed at the Clearinghouse to implement this section?
- This would require no connection to the Clearinghouse.
How important is this section from a Vermont standpoint?
- The legislature had previously considered this item and adopted it with the labeling law.
Is cost/benefit of this section favorable?
- The Committee considered the benefit to be large in conjunction to the potential amounts of mercury which could be collected.
- The cost would be to the homeowner and the Solid Waste Districts. The cost factor would need further evaluation to determine the most effective
methods for implementation.
Is this section dependent on other states adopting for effectiveness?
- No connection; this applies to Vermont's facilities.
- Violation would be to place in the disposal stream within Vermont.
- Direct haul is not used with the majority of the waste. Materials could be direct hauled out of the state, and these haulers would not be
regulated under this section. Enforcement could be regulated for haulers by attaching requirements to the permit.
- Legislation would need to be specific to Vermont to avoid any loopholes in relationship to materials that are direct hauled out of state.
Section 10 - Labeling
*This section has been deferred for review at a later date.
Section 11 - Universal Waste Rule
The Universal Waste Rule section was designed to encourage participating states to adopt rules which would coincide with other states
in the region. Some members believe that the Universal Waste Rule would only be effective if it were a Federal Rule.
The Committee decided to defer discussion on this section to wait for the possible outcome of any communications with Michael Bender
and the Regional Task Force.
Section 12-Disclosure for Mercury-Containing Formulated Products That Are Used in Health Care Facilities
This Section was encouraged by Massachusetts to facilitate their hospitals in their efforts to become mercury free in their operations.
The requirement is placed on the manufacturer of formulated products or compounds to certify the level of mercury in their products down to one
part per billion and supply a "certificate of analysis."
- Why is this specific only to formulated products in Health Care Facilities?
- Why is the "1 Part Per Billion" used when other materials are measured in larger units?
- Item "c" refers to "appropriate action." Who is responsible and what is the "appropriate action"?
Continuation of this section by addressing the review questions will continue at the next meeting in June.
Agenda Item 7-
Other topics not on agenda.
- Hollie Shaner advised that Fletcher Allen was sponsoring two projects to be held at the Vermont Expos games and would like to possibly include
promotion of a mercury educational component. The dates of the games are July 14th and July 29th. She expressed an interest in including Jamie
Harvie from Healthcare Without Harm for a promotion as "Mercury Man" to distribute non-mercury thermometers at the game. She advised
that these events were to be targeted toward children. Fletcher Allen was obtaining backpacks and gathering products to put in them to give
away. She requested any possible suggestions from the Committee.
- The Committee noted that appointments for some members were coming up soon. The Committee decided to write a letter to the Governor suggesting
possible recommendations of candidates for the Committee. Karen Knaebel is to obtain the expiration dates for member appointments and e-mail
the information to the members. The members are to identify potential candidates to serve on the Committee and the topic is to be re addressed
at the next meeting.
- Karen Knaebel updated the Committee on the following items:
- The mercury web site now has an abbreviated address: www.mercvt.org.
- Mike Loner with Northwest Vermont Solid Waste Management District advised that the Lake Champlain Basin Program grant had been approved
for the dairy manometer project in the amount of $20,200.
- A date had been reserved for the card room in the State House for release of the Committee's January 2001 report for January 9th, all
day. Another attempt would be made to reach Michela Stickney with the Lake Champlain Basin Program. The Committee had shared a space with
the Basin Program in January of 2000 and had proposed to do so again. Karen Knaebel is to report back to the Committee as to the status
of the card room reservations in relationship to the Lake Chaplain Basin Program's participation with the Advisory Committee.
- Ric Erdheim advised he would be unable to attend the next scheduled Advisory meeting and would like to submit his comments via e-mail prior
to the meeting. The Committee determined that a projection of what sections might be covered in the review of the model legislation would
be included in the next agenda so that Mr. Erdheim could submit comments in advance.
Agenda Item 8-
Set date and agenda for next meeting.
The next meeting of the Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution is to be held on Wednesday, June 14, 2000 from 9:00 a.m. to 11:30
a.m. in the Conference Room at the Burlington Municipal Waste Water Treatment Plant in Burlington, Vermont.
