return to the MERC home page
return to the MERC home page

Vermont Agency of Natural Resources
Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution
return to the MERC home page

Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution

Meeting #20: Thursday, September 14, 2000
Time: 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.
Location: Training Room, Department of Environmental Conservation
Waterbury State Complex, Waterbury, Vermont.

MINUTES

Members Present:
Richard Phillips, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources
William Bress, Vermont Department of Health
Ric Erdheim, National Electrical Manufacturers Association
Michael Bender, Abenaki Self-Help Association, Inc.
Henrietta Jordan, House Natural Resources and Energy Committee

Guests Present:
Theresa Feeley, National Electrical Manufacturers Association
Julie Hackbarth, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Waste Management Division
Jen Holliday, Chittenden Solid Waste District
Gary Gulka, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Environmental Assistance
Karen Knaebel, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Environmental Assistance

The Committee members and interested parties gathered in the Training Room of the Department of Environmental Conservation in the Waterbury State Complex in Waterbury, Vermont and the meeting was called to order by Rich Phillips.

Agenda Item 1-
Accept minutes of the August 30th meeting and changes to today’s agenda.

The minutes of the eighteenth meeting of August 30, 2000 were reviewed and changes were made to Agenda Item 4, page 6 of the minutes to reflect Mr. Erdheim’s comments as an additional bullet item as follows: Ric Erdheim expressed support for the general concept of the clearinghouse, but does not necessarily support the specific provisions. The conclusion statement to the section was corrected to read: With the above changes and acknowledgement of Ric Erdheim’s comments, this section was agreed on and approved.

With the above correction, the minutes were agreed upon and approved.

Agenda Item 2-

Continue preliminary determinations on model legislation

Section 5 - Notification

Comments:

  • Suggestion to substitute wording in section (ii) of subsection (a) to read: "For each individual product, identify the range of its mercury content selecting from the following ranges: (0-5 mg), (6-10 mg), (11-50 mg), (51-100 mg), (101-1000 mg), (1000 mg & over)."
  • Suggestion to add section (iii) to read: "The purpose for the mercury in each product type: (products can be grouped by purpose of mercury use in each product)."
  • Section (iv) similar to New Hampshire's statutory wording with the addition of a time frame of 12 months.
  • Suggestion that section (iv) should include reporting by product category rather than one lump sum of mercury reported by manufacturer.
  • Suggestion to set language in law to alleviate additional administrative steps to allow for implementation.

Ric Erdheim is to talk with the Agency for further refinements to language in this section. Draft language will be presented to the Committee at the next meeting.

Section 6 - Restriction on the Sale of Certain Mercury-added Products

Comments:

  • Wording "by any means" included in subsections (a) and (b) to address internet sales.
  • Suggestion to consult an attorney for legality of the additional wording. This section will be finalized once the information from an attorney is reviewed
  • A question was presented as to the status of research on "Geratherm" for the purpose of subsection (b). John Berino of Fletcher Allen wrote a letter to the Agency expressing his concern. The letter was given to Janet Bowen of the EPA and Terri Goldberg of NEWMOA for consideration to further explore the environmental safety of the non-mercury thermometer.

This section has the general support of the Committee.

Section 7- Phase-out and Exemptions

Comments:

  • Question as to what products are sections (i), (ii), and (iii) of subsection (h) referring?
  • Solid waste districts do not break down the mercury products being disposed for reporting purposes and therefore do not know what they are capturing by specific product.
  • Agency to supply brief list according to product types and mercury amounts for Committee to evaluate.
  • Ric Erdheim commented that this section establishes arbitrary limits and arbitrary dates and would be more effective if evaluated by individual product.
  • Concern that Agency will be flooded with applications for exemptions and two-year renewals. Two-year renewals may be too frequent.
  • NEWMOA work group selected a process that goes together with the rest of the sections to make the idea of virtual elimination work.
  • Rationally based and manufacturer has the opportunity to prove their products.
  • Clearinghouse should be utilized to make the process easier and smoother. Clearinghouse will be directed by steering committee.
  • Suggestion to allow the sale of products until decision is reached by the Agency. The date might be triggered by response date of the Agency for cut-off date to sell.
  • Question as to whether penalties will be imposed for selling products after cut-off date. Violation is the same as in waste management; both administrative and civil actions may be taken.
  • Suggestion to add a section (iv) "or meets other criteria established by rule" to allow for a safety valve for unknown products and unknown characteristics.
  • Ric Erdheim does not support this section.

With the above concerns noted and acknowledgment of Ric Erdheim’s comment, this section has the general support of the Committee. This section will be redrafted and presented to the Committee for review at its next meeting.

Section 8 - Labeling of Mercury-Added Products

Comments:

  • Subsection (g) - section (iv) is introduced for the Committee's review which reads: "Labeling of lamps and products incorporating lamps shall meet all requirements of this section except that lamps and products incorporating lamps as the sole type of mercury-added component that contain 5 mg or less total mercury are not required to meet the requirements of this section."

Comments:

  • The reality about consumer electronics is that there is a small concentration of mercury in the lamps and there may be other elements that pose a greater concern in disposal within a computer or other electronics than just mercury.
  • This section may be better if it only addresses lamps within larger products rather than just lamps.
  • Question as to why button cell batteries would be any less appropriate to exclude.
  • This addition would not be consistent with the "virtual elimination" goals of the model legislation. How can giving exemptions challenge manufacturers to discontinue use for mercury products or lower mercury levels. Michael Bender strongly apposes considering this additional wording.
  • A di minimus may set a precedent for labeling in other products; however, a consideration should be made for what is practical.
  • Labeling may be a burden but it is important to still pay close attention to all products even if they don't contain much mercury.
  • There must be a critical mass of support to get a reasonable consensus on legislation and it may be better to leave this suggestion out of the model to obtain that support.
  • Suggestion that products that pass TCLP would not be required to be labeled.
  • Concern that TCLP testing is inaccurate. Michael Bender stated that he believed that NEMA has also agreed that it is not an adequate test
  • It is necessary that all pieces of the legislation remain intact for all sections to work as they were intended.

This section will be redrafted and presented to the Committee for review at its next meeting.

Section 9 - Disposal Ban and Proper Management of Mercury Scrap Metal Facilities

Comments:

  • Suggestion that if product passes TCLP testing that it could be allowed in landfills.
  • Concern that all lamps would end up in the landfills. The issue would be the disposal of broken lamps. We should be encouraging manufacturers to produce products with lower levels of mercury.
  • Suggestion that if di minimus to TCLP limits were to become a consideration for the Committee that they would be best served in this section
  • Because of the way haulers handle waste, what we think is going to the landfill may be disposed of elsewhere, such as incinerators. A lot of waste is incinerated out of state. Lamps and button cell batteries can be going to incinerators.
  • Concern that except for instances where waste goes to incinerators, the environmental impact on transporting may be worse than if the lower-mercury waste was placed in the landfill. Some mercury may be released when placed in the landfill, but none has been detected landfill leachate. The quantity of mercury collected versus the money spent in the collection of lamps, for instance, is not equitable.
  • Concern that the disposal of "lamps" may be the most difficult issue in this section.
  • Question as to whether subsection (a) "…no person"…" is intended to include anyone. If a person places trash in a container and "relinquishes control" and the hauler takes the waste, who is responsible? It may be difficult to make this work in Vermont.
  • Question as to who will be reviewing contractual agreements in subsection (c) (ii)? Would this also apply to the over 100 transfer stations in Vermont?
  • Question as to who will be approving "…state agency…" in subsection (c) (iii)? What about incoming wastes and what would be the next steps in the chain? There would need to be a procedure as to what each is required to do.
  • Subsection (c) was intended to define "good faith efforts." Suggestion to require facilities to educate their customers on alternative products and how to handle mercury-added products.
  • Concerns that if a mercury-added product is not labeled then how can the consumers know if it contains mercury.
  • Suggestion to add wording to subsection (d) as follows: "Any person who collects appliances and motor vehicles for scrap metal processing shall be responsible to remove mercury added components other than lamps prior to crushing or shredding. The collected mercury-added components shall be handled in accordance with Hazardous Waste Rules."

Comments:

  • Hazardous Waste Rules include "universal wastes."
  • Concern regarding salvage yard legislation to be prepared by the Agency has any conflict with this section. Suggestion to coordinate with Waste Management Division as to how this section matches with their initiatives. The Agency as a whole needs a plan.
  • Concern that the aspect of this section not be lost in that there needs to be a requirement for removal and how the language needs to be worded to assure that.
  • Concern as to why the burden is being placed on the salvage yard and not on the manufacturer. Suggestion that the burden is on anyone who collects.
  • Suggestion that any manufacturer of a vehicle could have an agreement to remove products all the way back to earlier models--removes and collect. New York has a pilot project to develop a guidance document on how to implement such a plan.
  • Concern that the wording may not be appropriate to convey the needs of this section that also addresses appliances.
  • This section will be redrafted and presented to the Committee for review at its next meeting.

The Agency will meet to coordinate its efforts and this section will be redrafted and presented to the Committee for review at its next meeting.

Section 10 - Collection of Mercury-Added Products

Comments:

  • Concern at the Agency level that this section may be more effective if deferred to a later date to consider as a part of the model legislation.
  • Current legislation already requires a collection system that is in place.
  • Suggestion to consider implementing a tax on manufacturers to assist in funding for collection process.
    • Suggestion for tax would provide an assumption that all mercury products are bad. As a nation there has been a push towards the purchase of fluorescent lamps as a source of energy efficient lighting.
    • If a tax is added and the price of the product went up, Vermont is a small enough state where the consumer would cross the boarder to purchase the products. The only point where there is jurisdiction is a the point of sale
    • Tax should be on the manufacturer and not passed on to the consumer, but ends up being consumer’s tax which, is the problem.
    • Not advisable to include a tax as it could kill the entire bill. Tax issues are an issue of perception.
    • Concern that a tax cannot be invoked on an out-of-state manufacturer.
    • Concern that a tax would not be worth the effort required of the tax department-- there is no incentive for the consumer.
    • A tax on manufactures does not have the support of the Committee.
  • Suggestion that manufacturer becomes involved in collection may become very involved especially in the case of historic waste.
  • Concern that in the collection of historic waste, it would be difficult to differentiate between product manufacturers.
  • Concern regarding historic waste whereas the manufacturer may no longer sell the product, no longer uses the mercury-added device within their product or is out of business--who is responsible?
  • Question if historic waste may be differentiated by means of product labeling? It was noted that some manufacturers have been labeling for years and some before there was a requirement by Vermont or Minnesota; therefore, labeling is not effective in this suggestion.
  • Suggestion that historic waste is defined in a manner along the idea that it doesn't go back twenty years. Define a time frame between two points in time in which the manufacturer is responsible.
  • Important to influence the consumer's behavior--rather than a tax, perhaps a refund whereby products can be redeemed at disposal.
  • Suggestion to delay the entire section of the model legislation to a later date.
  • Concern that a delay of presenting this section as part of the bill would allow for continuation of the existing programs, but the solid waste districts would also continue to bear the cost of disposal.
  • Uncertain how this section would work legislatively.
  • Concern that every product if evaluated the same and not evaluated for the benefit of disposal versus take back process.
  • Current charges for disposal of appliances through solid waste districts usually only cover a portion of the actual disposal costs. The most important need of those collecting products is assistance with identifying mercury-added products and educating the public.
  • Systems already exist in Vermont for the collection and disposal of mercury-added products.
  • Julie Hackbarth to organize meeting between the Agency of Natural Resources' Environmental Assistance Division, Waste Management Division and a few representatives of the Solid Waste Districts to discuss sections 9 & 10.

The Agency will meet to coordinate its efforts and this section will be redrafted and presented to the Committee for review at its next meeting.

Section 12- Disclosure for Mercury-Containing Formulated Products That Are Used in Health Care Facilities

Comments:

  • Michael Bender advised that he was not present during the discussion of this section at the previous meeting. Mr. Bender asked that the Agency provide documentation or confirmation of duplication of the information requested in this section by the FDA. The Agency is to research and confirm information at the next meeting.
  • This section may prove unnecessary. May be more necessary for health care facilities to have a plan.
  • Massachusetts is requiring the Dental Association to include mercury reduction plans. Suggestion to include dental industry requirement of mercury reduction plans (not individual dentist offices).
  • Concern that Dental Society cannot be imposed upon as a voluntary association to provide a mercury reduction plan.
  • Concern that there may be some instances where dental amalgam may not be substituted.
  • Suggestion that Peter Taylor should be contacted for his response to the above concerns regarding dental amalgam.

This section will be redrafted and presented to the Committee for review at its next meeting.

Section 13 - Limitations on the Use of Elemental Mercury

Comments:

  • Suggestion to add the words "elemental mercury" to subsection (b) after "No person may purchase…"

Discussion of this section will be continued at the next meeting for final review.

Section 16 - State Procurement Preferences for Low or Non-mercury-added Products

Comments:

  • Ric Erdheim commented that he felt it did not made sense for the state to purchase products that were non-mercury added products strictly because they did not contain mercury. The substitute product might not be better at all from an environmental standpoint, (such as a monitor with a cathode ray tube in lieu of a mercury-added lamp). Rich Phillips agreed that this concept would be impractical.

State purchasing was contacted for their input on this section to review and provide comments.

Agenda Item 3-
Discuss method and schedule for stakeholder and public review process.

This section was deferred to the next meeting due to time constraints.

Agenda Item 4-
Other topics not on agenda.

Current membership for the Advisory Committee was discussed. Tim Scherbatskoy is to send a letter to the Governor’s office to resign and recommend an appointment of a replacement to substitute for Mr. Scherbatskoy until his term comes up again for renewal on August 15, 2001. The two representatives who were recommended by Mr. Scherbatskoy are: Neil Kamman from the Water Quality Division in the Agency of Natural Resources and Mary Watzin of the UVM School of Natural Resources.

Agenda Item 5-
Set date and agenda for next meeting.

The next meeting of the Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution is to be held on Wednesday, October 11, 2000 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The meeting will be held in the Training Room of the Department of Environmental Conservation in the Waterbury State Complex in Waterbury, Vermont.

 

    
return to the hhw collection events page