The Committee members and interested parties gathered in the Conference Room of the Water Quality Division in the Waterbury State
Complex in Waterbury, Vermont and the meeting was called to order by Rich Phillips.
The minutes of the eighteenth meeting of July 13, 2000 were reviewed and accepted with no changes
The status of the members of the Advisory Committee was reviewed as follows:
- Bill Bress and Ric Erdheim would be recommended for reappointment by the Governor
- Michael Bender is awaiting a letter from the Abenaki tribe to request his reappointment.
- Tim Sherbatskoy is to write a letter to the Governor so that Neil Kamman can fill his position until he returns.
- Henrietta Jordan was introduced to the Committee as a new member representing the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee replacing Mary
Sullivan.
- Elizabeth Ready remains as a member until her replacement is announced by the Honorable Peter Shumlin, President Pro-Tem of the Senate.
- Hollie Shaner will remain as a member on the Committee until a candidate is identified for her position as public health specialist.
Agenda Item 3-
Continue review of model legislation.
The Committee discussed the introduction of the model legislation as a bill in the next legislative session. Representatives from
the Agency of Natural Resources expressed their desire to come to agreement with the Committee as to the recommendations so that one bill could
be introduced on behalf of both the Advisory Committee and the Agency.
The Committee resumed its review of the model legislation as follows:
Section 10 – Collection of Mercury-Added Products
The comments from the Solid Waste Districts were not available and this section was deferred for discussion at the next meeting.
Section 12 – Disclosure for Mercury-Containing Formulated Products That are Used in Health Care Facilities
Discussion was raised as to the usefulness of this section as it would apply in Vermont. New Hampshire recently adopted legislation
to review this section of the model legislation. According to information received, the information requested in this section is already provided
elsewhere by requirements of the FDA.
The Agency proposed that this section be substituted with a recommendation for a "Hospital Mercury Reduction Plan." The
proposed wording is as follows: "By January 1, 2002, each hospital shall submit a proposed plan to the Agency for approval. The plan shall
outline the steps the hospital will take to reduce use of mercury-added products to the maximum extent feasible."
Comments:
- What criteria would be used for the plan?
- Other waste plans are already being used in other areas and could be duplicated for this plan.
- A procedure would need to be developed to address the details of the plan.
- Part of the rationale for this section originally was that these compounds were already used and necessary, however, what were they?
- In the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the American Hospital Association and the EPA, hospitals were to substantially reduce their
mercury use by 2005. Reference to the plan should be consistent with the MOU.
- Suggestion to ask hospitals to report on their accomplishments instead.
- Without a plan, hospitals cannot assess where they are in terms of mercury reduction.
- Hospitals are already required to do numerous plans, which may cause some resistance.
- The only way to accomplish awareness is to promote reduction.
- Stakeholders will be able to provide input on this recommendation when a final document is presented for review prior to the Committee's
final recommendation.
- Other waste reduction planning requirements already in statute for hazardous waste reduction and toxics use reduction plans. However, it
may be possible to use existing planning requirements.
- Is it possible to lower the planning requirement for a much lower threshold across the board to include mercury?
- The concern is that the current planning requirement is not specifically for hospitals.
- Suggestion that nursing homes and other medical facilities are included as well.
- Suggestion that dentists and doctors office should not be included in this planning
Section 13 – Limitations on the Use of Elemental Mercury
This section does not allow elemental mercury to be sold in the state without a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS). The purchaser
signs a statement as to how they are using the mercury. This allows for the purchaser to understand the toxicity of the substance being used.
Comments:
- Related areas concerning gauges are important.
- Does this section control the manufacturer's wastewater discharge?
- Suggestion to add "except as provided in Section 9."
- Does this section restrict sale of any elemental mercury?
- Dairy equipment dealers and schools can order from scientific catalogs that are out of state. Does this section address sales from out-of-state
dealers?
- Mercury recyclers are the main dealers who sell elemental mercury.
- What about mercury sold in chemistry kits?
- This section would restrict the sale to anyone in Vermont but not mercury, which was sold from outside of Vermont into the state.
- Suggestion to restrict the purchase to address the out-of-state sales into Vermont.
- There may be some conflict in use for research or some essential use. Suggestion to provide exemptions on a limited basis.
- Suggestion to add a definition for "elemental mercury" to Section 3. Neil Kamman to supply a definition for the Committee using
a chemical dictionary as his reference.
- What mercury or compound is used to calibrate equipment?
- Suggestion that there may be a way to set up a threshold in the definition.
- The chemical compound for the mercury that is the liquid that is commonly known is Hg203. Trying to examine all mercury
products to determine the chemical makeup of the mercury would be a great deal of work.
- Suggestion to change wording to read, "no person may sell, purchase or provide," in lieu of "sell or provide" elemental
mercury to another person in Vermont without providing a MSDS in paragraph one.
- Suggestion to change wording to read, "no one in the state of Vermont may use mercury" would place the burden on the person
who sells the product.
- It is important to have a record of who is dealing with the product.
- This section would require the original person who is selling the product to enforce the agreement.
- Suggestion to add wording in (i) to read "will use the mercury only for medical, dental amalgam dispose-caps, research, mercury
analysis, instrument calibration, or manufacturing purposes."
- This section does not allow for any direct responsibility to the purchaser.
- Suggestion to view this section as self-licensure for a use. Approach it as a reasonable licensing scheme that is not too burdensome.
- If the law is directly disallowed, the section is enforceable directly on person using the product, which means the seller cannot enforce
on the buyer.
- Suggestion to change wording to "no person in the state of Vermont shall" and then list each restriction independently.
- Rich Phillips is to work on wording for a final review by the Committee.
Section 14 – Existing Inventories
This section addresses the handling of existing inventories of mercury-added products as applied to Sections 6, 7, 8, 10 and 12
Comments:
- This section does not define waste as inventory.
- Does this exempt all historic appliances?
- Segregation of waste would only confuse the public.
- Suggestion that there should not be a blanket exemption for historic waste, this should be a negotiated decision with more discussion.
- For manufacturer take back, there is an issue with historic waste and how collection could work.
- It would be difficult to include products with a code or date of manufacture when the date might have been years earlier.
- Suggestion to assess each section of the model independently when addressing existing inventories.
Section 15 – Public Education and Outreach
Current statute already has section that addresses public education and outreach. This section does not go beyond what the Agency
is intending to do or what it has already accomplished.
Comments:
- Existing statute is adequate.
- Is this section creating a ban on dental offices as indicated in section "d"?
- Committee is to further examine specifics of section "d."
- Original intent was for states to adopt all sections as they are. Suggestion was made to examine Vermont’s current law to determine
where differences lie. Do not modify the existing law to a requirement in the model that might not be equivalent.
- It is not a good idea to include additional mandates without additional resources to properly implement them. It is more important to choose
what is valuable and what is not.
Section 16 – State Procurement Preferences for Low or Non-mercury-added Products
Intent of this section is to prompt state government to take the lead in the purchase of low or non-mercury options.
Comments:
- Section may not address what products are more environmentally preferable in the long run.
- Suggestion to speak with state purchasing for input and examine purchasing data.
Section 17 - Enforcement
Enforcement legislation already exists in Chapter 159 and is enforceable automatically under administrative and civil enforcement
in statute.
Section 18 – Public Notification and Review
Public Notification and Review is intended for the rulemaking process.
Section 19 – State Review
Intent of this section is for states to evaluate the effectiveness of the model four years after adopting.
Section 20 – Severability Clause
The Severability Clause is a standard clause that the state can add.
Section 21 – Effective Date
The effective date must be assessed to compare with existing statute effective dates. At some point current law must convert to
new legislation. The Committee determined that there would need to be more discussion to determine proper effective dates.
Section 22 – Administrative Fees and Regulations
Administrative Fees and Regulations section would provide an overall authority for regulation.
Comments:
- This section could provide the Agency with a blanket fee authority.
- Fees are included in the fee bill and must be corrected for Vermont.
- The Clearinghouse will need to be funded or there may be other provisions where funding can be supplied.
Section 23 - Appropriations
The appropriations section will be determined in accordance with what level is passed in the bill and what the Clearinghouse will
require.
Agenda Item 4-
Make preliminary determinations on model legislation.
Section 3 - Definitions
- A definition for elemental mercury should be added to this section.
With the above change this section was agreed on and approved.
Section 4 - Interstate Clearinghouse
- Add "any or all of" after "assist in carrying out" in the first sentence of the text.
- Add apostrophe in the word "manufacturers" in the last sentence of the paragraph.
- Eliminate the word "their" before collection systems in the last sentence of the paragraph.
- Eliminate the word "the" after the words "and a file of" in the last sentence of the paragraph and replace with "any
required."
- Ric Erdheim expressed support for the general concept of the clearinghouse, but does not necessarily support the specific provisions.
With the above changes and acknowledging Ric Erdheim’s comments, this section was agreed on and approved.
Section 5 - Notification
Comments:
- This section was adopted into legislation by New Hampshire. Their language was evaluated to determine if changes should be made in subsection
(ii) and (iii) to reflect similar changes.
- Suggested wording for subsection (iii) was proposed by the Agency to eliminate the wording "products manufactured by the manufacturer"
and to substitute the wording, "mercury-added products sold in the United States in the previous twelve months provided either by individual
manufacturer or aggregated by an industry for a trade group."
- Subsection (ii) was left as it existed in the model and the New Hampshire language was not included as the Agency's position. Leaving this
section as it reads would allow for information for mercury content in each unit of the product instead of ranges of mercury content and product
categories. The Agency believed it was adequate to address allowing notification in categories to be addressed in subsection "c"
of the Notification Section.
- Subsection (iv) was modified to add the wording "person for the manufacturer" at the end of the sentence.
- Suggestion that subsection (iii) would serve no practical purpose.
- Suggestion that subsection (iii) was important to determine if there is a problem and the extent of the problem.
- Suggestion that subsection (ii) does not provide for confidentiality for mercury content in products. This information is well protected
in the industry.
- Concern for duplication when a component manufacturer and manufacturers of a larger product that includes a mercury-added component are
both reporting, referencing mercury amounts in an identical component. Two different products, however, two different reasons for obtaining
information.
- Suggestion that a range of mercury is allowed to address the confidentiality issue.
- Suggestion that notification by range might cause concern if it is used as an indicator for the phase-out section of the legislation. It
would be more difficult to enforce.
- The amount of mercury may differ in the same product depending on where the product is manufactured.
- Information is now being obtained through Certified Labeling Plans and the state already allows for categories in certain instances. Current
information received by manufacturers indicates that there are no problems with obtaining this information and that amounts of mercury indicated
in the plans appear similar for similar products. Lamps and button batteries may be manufacturers who would be most affected by range and
category limitations.
- This is a one-time notification unless there are any significant changes in the amount of mercury in a product. Suggestion was made to change
the reporting period to every five years.
- The purpose of notification section is for a baseline as to what products exist and to prioritize efforts.
- How is information by range and category going to be provided to New Hampshire by the lamp and battery industry?
- Currently, industry is compiling information for Canada to report on an average level in all lamps in 1990 including the number of lamps
sold. The industry is committed to a certain percentage of reduction over a certain period of time. The figure is based on a percentage of
the United States total figures.
- Suggestion that subsection (iii) would establish a baseline in a particular category of products for a high and low that could be used to
make progress in reduction and also to provide guidance for consumer choice. This would clearly fill the void of federal programs.
- Concern for confidentiality addresses business concerns that must be weighed against the public health consequences.
Section will need more modification before the Committee comes to agreement. Ric Erdheim will submit suggested
language to the Agency for review and wording will be submitted at the next meeting for more discussion.
Section 6 - Restriction on the Sale of Certain Mercury-added Products
- Concern for novelty products that are powered by button cell batteries. Would they fall into this category?
- Non mercury button cell batteries (lithium) are manufactured outside of this country and do not fit into the products manufactured which
now contain mercury button cell batteries because of the size difference of the batteries. The lithium batteries are also more expensive.
- The wording "except by prescription" is eliminated from the first sentence of subsection "b."
- Suggested wording to be added, "This ban on sales and supply shall not apply to digital thermometers utilizing mercury-added button
cell batteries" to subsection "b."
- The term "mercury-added button cell batteries" will be reviewed by the Agency for accuracy.
- Identify ally in medical industry (perhaps the Governor) to promote removing "except by prescription" from the legislation.
- Remove last two sentences from subsection "b."
- Suggestion to eliminate "bulk elemental or chemical mercury or mercury compounds" from subsection "c" and to substitute
the wording "elemental mercury, mercury containing chemicals/mercury compounds."
- Ric Erdheim will fax wording used in Michigan legislation to Rich Phillips for review.
- Suggestion to add the words "statewide education" before "collection and replacement program" in the last sentence in
subsection "d."
No final determination was made for the approval of this section.
Agenda Item 5-
Discuss method and schedule for stakeholder and public review process.
This section was deferred to the next meeting due to time constraints.
Agenda Item 6-
Other topics not on agenda.
Karen Knaebel presented an update on the pharmacy pledge initiative to the Committee.
It was noted that 89 pharmacies had pledged to date to discontinue the sale of mercury fever thermometers once those in stock were
sold. Pharmacies are still continuing to send in pledge information and a final number will be provided at the next meeting.
Agenda Item 7-
Set date and agenda for next meeting.
The next meeting of the Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution is to be held Thursday September 14, 2000 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00
p.m. with a one hour break reconvening at 1:00 p.m. and concluding at 3:00 p.m. The meeting will be held in the Training Room of the Water Supply
Division in the Waterbury State Complex in Waterbury, Vermont.
The October meeting was tentatively set for Wednesday, October 11, 2000 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. in the Training Room of the
Water Supply Division in the Waterbury State Complex in Waterbury, Vermont.
