• Pharmacy Pledge Program
• M.E.R.C. Committee Progress
• School Clean-Out Program
• TRC Thermostat Recycling Program

• Suggestion to change section (g) to read "Several studies" in lieu of "At least one study."Committee questioned what other studies were conducted besides the Florida study. Suggestion to leave section (g) as it previously read. Rich Phillips would research to determine if there were other studies.
• Suggestion that this section was a good opportunity to mention other sources of mercury that are not mentioned in the model such as waste water sludge, area sources, home heating oil, demolition dumps, etc.
• Suggestion to broaden the "sources" list as to what is prevalent in Vermont.
• Suggestion to add another section stating "Vermont sends x% of its garbage to be incinerated out of state.
• Suggestion to add wording "landfilling or discharge" to section (h) after the words "prior to combustion."
• Suggestion regarding section (h) to not limit the facilities by changing the wording to "solid waste incineration/waste to energy facilities" but to leave it as "solid waste management facilities."
• Comment to section (f) that by indicating landfills are a "major source" of mercury, this section was incorrect in Vermont.
• Ric Erdheim reiterated his concern that it was important to do an analysis of current sources in Vermont. If landfills are not a major source, there is no data to support that claim.
• Chris Recchia advised that there was a lot of work that had been done since the 1995 report and that a new inventory needed to be done; however, there is data to support that products are still a significant source.
• Suggestion to add to section (h) a general statement on how much mercury is generated outside of Vermont both nationally and globally. Rich Phillips is to draft language for review at the next meeting.
• Suggestion to add the words "use and" to section (b) before the word "deposition."
• Suggestion to add the words "and saltwater" to section (c) after the word "freshwater."
• Suggestion to add "several states including Vermont have provided guidance for consumption of salt water fish" to the end of section (d).
• Suggestion to add wording "and recently adopted a resolution on mercury at their annual meeting in September 2000 to target goals for 2010" to section (i). The New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers have committed to significant issues and I believe the information for the recent resolution should be included in this section, stated Michael Bender. The Committee determined that wording should be added to reflect this and reviewed at the next meeting. Chris Recchia agreed that the Resolution specifically addresses the model and that it would be relevant and a specific provision worth citing.
• Suggestion to add information regarding the pharmacy pledge program and information regarding the 104 pharmacies that have pledged to discontinue the sale of mercury fever thermometers.
• Henrietta suggested that at the card room event on January 26, 2001 that she would recommend a house resolution to commend the pharmacies for taking a positive step toward mercury reduction. She offered to arrange for the resolution at the Committee's request.
• Ric Erdheim does not support section 2 based on the facts and also does not agree with labeling in section (k).

• Suggestion to remove the last sentence in the "manufacturer" definition.
• Definition for "elemental" mercury was added to this section. Suggestion to eliminate the last sentence referring to the 99.9% concentration by weight.

• Suggestion to change section (a)(i) to clarify that the Act refers to "each individual product" and categories are still addressed in section (c).
• Suggestion to change section (a)(ii) as modified to allow the manufacturer to place his product within a range. Suggestion to modify series of ranges as there may be products which fall within the ranges that would not be covered. Suggestion to condense categories into smaller divisions.
• Suggestion to change section (a)(iii) to reflect each individual product.
• Suggestions to split section (c) to place the first sentence as section (c) and the remainder of the section indicated as section (d). The Agency believed these to be two separate issues and therefore should be separated. Section (c) was related to categories whereas section (d) referred to submission of the notification report.
• Peter Taylor asked the Committee how dental amalgam fits into this category? The amalgam is sent in capsules, which are mixed by the dentist within the container. Who is responsible to notify? Rich Phillips advised Mr. Taylor that it was definitely a mercury product and is controlled as "elemental mercury" and still must comply with the notification section. When the mercury is mixed into an amalgam by the dentist, the dentist could then be interpreted as the manufacturer. Definitely the manufacturer who is selling the amalgam dispose-caps has the responsibility to notify.

• Suggestion to report on product categories.
• Suggestion to add a section to avoid duplication between component product manufacturers and multi-component mercury-added product manufacturers.
• Suggest to add a reporting requirement for every five years on annual totals by category.
• Ric Erdheim stated that he was in general support of the section but had problems with provisions in the model legislation. His comments were not an attempt to undercut the section but to state it in a way that was useful, not burdensome and still protects confidential information.
• Question as what would be accomplished in Mr. Erdheim's draft by paragraph number two. Mr. Erdheim explained that it serves to deal with duplication whereas the component manufacturer submits the notification. It is not helpful for the multi-component manufacturer to notify as information received from both manufacturers may not be accurate and would falsify data.
• Comment that the purpose of the section may be more intended to obtain information as to who are all of the manufacturers and therefore there may need for duplication of mercury amounts in order to obtain the list of all manufacturers.
• Question as to whether there was some significance to reporting every five years for the total annual amount of mercury? Ric Erdheim commented that changes in a manufacturer’s product are not that frequent and he felt that every five years would allow for any potential product changes.

• Suggestion to add verbiage in section (c) to include a provision to allow for dental amalgam use for dental training programs in technical schools.
• Michael Bender is not in support of adding the provision stated above.
• Question as to how the amalgam is managed after it is used for training purposes in the schools. Peter Taylor advised the Committee that copies of his "best management guide" had been distributed to these schools.
• Suggestion to add "essential professional training" as an allowance for mercury use in some schools.
• Suggestion that students receive education as to the safe use and disposal of mercury.

• Suggestion to add an item to section (a) that addresses the ability to continue to sell a product pending an exemption decision by the Agency.
• Suggestion to add an item to section (a) that addresses the time frames for the sale of a product if an application for exemption is not approved.
• Suggestion to add criteria in section (g) stating that the application must "be submitted no later than one year prior to the phase out dates established in subsection (a)(i,ii and iii) above."
• Ric Erdheim does not support the phase-out provision. The role of the legislature should be to determine what should be banned.
• Suggestion to add wording (h)(iv) "meets other criteria established by rule" and the word "or" at the end of section (iii). Suggestion to add section (iv) wording is to create flexibility for products that may be essential but would not be covered in the first three conglomerate sections of (h).
• Henrietta Jordan suggested that there was a lot of suspicions in the rule making process and to include a provision that suggests a "rule" automatically sends a "red flag" to the committees.
• Suggestion that the stakeholder meeting may be an opportunity for industry to educate the Committee to help determine what sorts of products would or would not fit into the established criteria for an exemption.
• Henrietta Jordan suggested that if the point is truly to protect public health, then the criteria in the three sections are realistic.
• The Committee did not approve the addition of section (h)(iv) and the consensus of the Committee was to eliminate section (iv) as suggested.
• Question as to how dental amalgam is affected by section 7. Rich Phillips advised that in order to be an amalgam that the product (dispose-caps) must be mixed. In Phase-outs it is offered for use by the dentist once the product is mixed, by the time it is used, it is a formulated product. A formulated product is subject to phase out. In the phase-out section, the word "use" is included as a qualifying factor and the amalgam is being "used" as a formulated product.
• Peter Taylor suggested the Committee exempt dental amalgams from the requirements of this section.
• Michael Bender strongly disagreed to any amalgam exemptions. He suggested that the Committee needed to be strong towards the Governors' and Premiers' goal of virtual elimination and the need should be justified for its use.
• Rich Phillips presented the Committee with Mr. Taylor's request to exempt dental amalgams from this section. The Committee did not support his request.

• The Committee continued its review of the suggestion to add a section addressing the issues of eliminating the requirement to label lamps below 5 mg and label multi-component products with less than a 5mg total (with only lamps as their mercury component). The real issue may be how to handle electronic products with mercury when these products may have other components that may have equal or more toxic environmental issues.
• Michael Bender stated, for the record, that he felt it was a mistake for this Committee to support some sort of di minimus amount for labeling. He is afraid it will take away from the bill and it is inconsistent with the Governor's and Premiere's commitment for virtual elimination; it sends the wrong message. Mr. Bender stated that he does not support this section, does not support 5mg di minimus and sees it as promoting additional uses of mercury.
• As to the suggestion of eliminating the requirement to label lamps under 5mg and multi-components products with a total lamp content of less than 5 mg the Committee commented:

• Michael Bender does not support.
• Ric Erdheim does not support
• Rich Phillips supports.
• Bill Bress supports.
• Henrietta reluctantly supports.

• Question as to whether mercury amalgam falls under the requirements of this section.

• Amalgam dispose-caps sold to dentists by manufacturers must be labeled.
• Once the amalgam is mixed by the dentist then it is a formulated product.
• Question as to whether the labeling section would require disclosure information that products placed in the patient's mouth contain mercury. Some states already have this requirement.
• Question to Peter Taylor if dentists would oppose notifying their patients that there is mercury in the amalgam. Mr. Taylor advised that he had a problem with the first section, first amalgam is being banned and then a dentist must justify using it. Once you start giving patients harmful information, you drive them to products that might not be the best product for them.
• Question to Peter Taylor if casual notifications are currently being given to patients. He stated that there were brochures available at some dentist offices. Mr. Taylor advised that amalgam has been approved by the FDA as a safe substance for dental use. Mr. Taylor stated that he would have a problem as to how such a requirement could be implemented.
• Question as to whether the elemental mercury coming into the dentist office is labeled. The dispose-caps are a mercury-added product and also falls under the requirements of Section 13-Limitations on the use of Elemental Mercury.
• Question if you are meeting the requirements of Section 13 and the dentist is to sign for the use of the product, then what are the benefits of a label? Suggestion to make mercury amalgam a mercury-added product to inform the public.
• Suggestion that there is a need for both (Section 13 and Section 8) as it refers to amalgam. One is to inform the public and the other is to insure proper disposal. It is important that people know so they have the opportunity to make choices.
• Henrietta Jordan questioned if a product has already been cleared by the FDA for a health-related use, it seems to contradict the need for labeling if it is currently regulated by the FDA.
• Suggestion that this notification relates to "disclosure before exposure." Exposure to dental amalgam is significant.
• Henrietta Jordan suggested that this is an issue of informed consent, which is not part of this bill. She suggested to not convolute the bill by over restricting dental amalgams.
• Peter Taylor advised that the use of dental amalgam is greatly diminishing.
• Suggestion that there would be some need for dentists to provide some sort of information to their patients. Peter Taylor would not agree with any sort of provision to provide this type of information.

• The draft changes to this section were modeled after 6621d(b) to make it similar to the current statute.
• The indicated changes were as a result of a meeting with the Environmental Assistance Division, Waste Management and Solid Waste District representatives.
• Some information that was to be included is not indicated on the current draft mark-up and will be forwarded as part of the new draft prior to the next meeting.

• Today, reach a majority agreement, not a detailed wording of the model.
• Agree on concepts and draft a position document.
• Develop a mailing list of trade and environmental groups, league of cities and towns, manufacturers, etc. Obtain other lists from members.
• Mail out a position document to those parties on the mailing list around the first of November. Rich Phillips noted that when the draft model legislation passes out of this Committee that the position document will need to meet the approval of the majority of the Committee as a complete document and cannot express the independent views of each member.
• Hold a stakeholders meeting that has been scheduled for November 15, 200 to be held in the Pavilion Auditorium at Vermont’s State House in Montpelier. The room is reserved for 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The Committee should determine the exact times for the meeting.
• Invite people to the stakeholders meeting specifically by letter and also post the meeting through the newspapers and other advertising.
• The Committee agreed that the stakeholders meeting would present an opportunity to educate the public on mercury issues to promote mercury awareness.
• Close comment period around December 1, 2000.
• Schedule a Committee meeting once all comments are in and convert to statutory language with the assistance of the legislative council.
• Henrietta Jordan will introduce the bill on behalf of the Committee.

Agenda Item 5-
Other topics not on agenda.

The second letter is a letter that the Committee reviewed some time ago. The Committee agreed to send a mid-term letter to the Governor each year to update the Governor on the progress of mercury initiatives and to encourage his involvement in these initiatives. Ric Erdheim questioned the Committee as to his request for additions to the letter. Karen Knaebel advised Mr. Erdheim that his recommendations were e-mailed to the Committee members. His suggestions regarding the addition of the Thermostat Recycling Corporation (TRC) information was added, but that the members did not agree with his other comments and therefore the comments were not made a part of the letter. Mr. Erdheim did not believe that his name should have been added to a letter for which he did not completely agree. Rich Phillips advised the Committee that measures would be taken to prevent something such as this from happening in the future.

Agenda Item 6-
Set date and agenda for next meeting

The next meeting of the Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution is to be held on Monday, October 23, 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.

Agenda Item 2- (Attachment)
Update on mercury projects.

MERCURY INITIATIVES UPDATE

PHARMACY PLEDGE PROGRAM

M.E.R.C. COMMITTEE PROGRESS

SCHOOL CLEAN-OUT PROGRAM

TRC THERMOSTAT RECYCLING PROGRAM