MERC Vermont | Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution Meeting Minutes

Meeting #22: Wednesday, October 23, 2000
Time: 9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
Location: Training Room, Department of Environmental Conservation
Waterbury State Complex, Waterbury, Vermont

Members Present:
Chris Recchia, Deputy Commissioner, VTDEC (substituting for Rich Phillips in his absence)
Ric Erdheim, National Electrical Manufacturers Association
Henrietta Jordan, House Natural Resources and Energy Committee
Neil Kamman, Agency of Natural Resources, Water Quality Division

Guests Present:
Allison Crowley-Demag, New England Public Affairs Group
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 Gary Gulka who facilitated the meeting in Rich Phillips’ absence.

Agenda Item 1-
Accept minutes of the October 11th meeting and changes to today’s agenda.

The minutes of the meeting of October 11, 2000 were reviewed and changes were made as follows:

Agenda Item 2-
Continue preliminary determinations on model legislation.

The Committee determined that it would review the remaining sections in the following order:

Section 9, Section 10, Section 12, Section 16, Section 15, Section 6, Section 8, Section 7, Section 5 and Section 3.

Julie Hackbarth explained the suggested draft for this section to the Committee. She suggested that the existing language that is currently in the law be modified to reflect the current model legislation and to more accurately coincide with existing legislation. Ms. Hackbarth summarized this section as follows:

Pertains to management, date, products to be managed, clarified the disposal ban, and source separation. Eliminated "labeling" statement from current legislation.

Collection and Hauling - already in statute. Section included to make certain haulers have a role in insuring that provisions are met.

Already in previous draft to make it clear that section includes to landfills.

This section is added to provide information as to locations for mercury recycling.

Does not seem inconsistent with original language.
Question as to why backlighting on vehicles is exempted in subsection (c). Exemption added because of difficulty in removal.
Concerns were expressed that 9(a)(i) would allow mercury to be discharged in wastewaters through a permit or other approval while other means of disposal are banned. This would lead to some mercury in municipal sludges and in discharges to waters of the state.
Original language had "no person may dispose" which may have been a more stringent approach.
Suggestion to change last sentence in (c) from "handled in accordance with Hazardous Waste Rules" to "recycled or disposed as hazardous waste" to avoid loophole that would suggest to throw in the garbage.
(c) Suggestion to change wording to "handle as universal waste."
(c) Suggestion to change wording to "in accordance with universal waste or hazardous waste rules as applicable"
(c) Determination to change wording to read "shall be recycled or disposed as hazardous waste."
Suggestion that section does not address high costs to obtain small amounts of mercury. Ric Erdheim does not support this change.
Concern for not providing any guidance about older mercury-added products that do not bear a label. How will someone know whether or not a product contains mercury? Suggestion to provide a list of mercury-added products for information to the general public. Suggestion that this guidance would be better stated in Section 15.
There are many facilities that do not have state discharge permits (pretreatment) and do not monitor for contaminents in discharges (hospitals as an example). This may make compliance with 9(a)(i) problematic.

The Committee voted upon approval of this section with above changes.
Chris Recchia, Henrietta Jordan and Neil Kamman approved.
Ric Erdheim opposed.

Environmental Assistance Division and Waste Management Division staff met internally to discuss sections 9 & 10. A suggestion was made to delay implementation of this section. Significant revisions would be necessary as well as coordination with other states.
Suggestion to monitor how systems are presently working, how financially secure they are and what the needs are.
Suggestion that section as written would be impossible at this time to implement. Although the districts would invite assistance to sponsor programs.
Suggestion to delay proposal of this section.

Stephanie D'Agostino with New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services was contacted regarding their experience with this section as originally drafted in model legislation. She reported that she was told that the FDA developed a list of these products. Their work group discussed this. The manufacturers argued: It would be too expensive to test for each batch - The Distributor doesn't know where the product ends up - Who were they supposed to notify? New Hampshire is not going forward with this section at this time.

Suggestion that this section as written in the original drafted model legislation is replaced by the "Reduction Plan."
Intent of "Plan" would impact 17 hospitals in the state, about 5 long term health care facilities and physician offices affiliated with hospitals.
Should doctor offices and dental offices be included?
Suggestion that doctor and dental offices are subject to other sections.
Suggestion to change title of section back to "Hospital Mercury Reduction Plan"
Question as to where clinics would fall into this section. Only affiliates of hospitals would be included.
Suggestion to get comment from healthcare associations.
Question if there would be a plan approval. What if the plan is inadequate?
Beneficial to work with healthcare industry on feasible reduction.
Suggestion to remove original model language and replace with language requiring plans.
Original intent was to deal with components. Suggestion to add back "mercury compounds or mercury containing" rather than just "mercury-added" products.
Suggestion to delete "mercury-added chemicals and equipment" after purchase and use of in 5^th line of last paragraph and replace with "chemicals containing mercury and equipment."
Suggestion to include wording from original (1) in this section to clarify chemicals as follows: "(Chemicals containing mercury include, but are not limited to: acids; alkalies; bleach (sodium hypochlorite); materials used for cleaning in maintenance or for disinfecting; pharmaceutical products; stains; reagents; preservatives; fixatives; buggers; and dyes.)

The Committee voted upon approval of this section with above changes.
Approved unanimously.

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

Information in this section was presented to the state Purchasing Division, Department of Buildings and General Services. The Purchasing Department is generally supportive. They are looking to establish a contract to get low-mercury lamps and are seeking take-back as part of the contract.

Suggestion to add "5%" to (b)(i) and leave everything else as proposed.
Suggestion to eliminate last subsection (c) regarding dental insurance contracts. The understanding is that this already exists under state contract.
Suggestion that all dentists may not handle charges in the same manner.
Suggestion to change the wording in (c) to read "shall maintain" in lieu of "shall provide."
Suggestion to leave the subsection (c) regarding state dental insurance contracts.
Employee service contracts are put out for bid. If they are negotiated contracts, and are not negotiable, then there cannot be a change.
Suggestion if subsection (c) language were expanded it would be an insurance bill rather than a mercury bill.

The Committee voted upon approval of this section with above changes.
Approved unanimously.

Suggestion to stay with existing legislation regarding public education and outreach.
Suggestion that this Section in the model reflects a more comprehensive program.
Suggestion to go with the model to be consistent with other states.
Suggestion to add after "Agency" in (a) the words " and the Department of Health"
Suggestion to maintain model and make the different roles clear.

The Committee voted to approve this section with above changes.
Approved unanimously.

Suggestion to add the words "science program" in first sentence of (c) rather than "classroom" to address the concerns of dental training programs in secondary classrooms. This was approved by the Committee.
Suggestion to add subsections (e) and (f) regarding vehicles, chest freezers and clothes washers.
Suggestion that HID headlamps are not essential use.
Suggestion to meet with product manufacturers prior to making determinations to ban products.
Ric Erdheim suggests that auto industries do not oppose HID headlamp labeling provisions. HID headlamps were developed for safety purposes and he would suggest the Agency meet with the auto industry before making any such changes in the restriction of HID headlamps in vehicles.
Concern that more and more auto manufacturers are beginning to use HID headlamps where they may have had no mercury product prior.
Ric Erdheim opposes any kind of restriction of sale of motor vehicles because of their mercury content.
Suggestion by Allison Crowley-Demag that some uses of mercury-added switches in vehicles may be due to engineering as well - perhaps the ability of the hood to lift at certain angles, etc.
Suggestion that addition of two subsections may be inconsistent with the approach of the model.
Suggestion that everything is subject to phase-out and exemptions in Section 7.
Suggestion to remove subsections (e) and (f). The Committee determined to not include these proposed sections.

The Committee voted to approve this section with above changes as noted above.
Approved unanimously.

The Committee voted upon approval of this section with above changes.
Chris Recchia, Henrietta Jordan and Neil Kamman approved.
Ric Erdheim opposed.

Previous discussion from suggestion by Peter Taylor to exclude dental amalgams from this section was resumed.
Concern that this exclusion would be inconsistent with the model.
Concern that dental amalgams are clearly a public health issue and not an economical issue.
Suggestion not to exclude dental amalgam from this section as there is an alternate opportunity for exemptions.

The Committee voted upon approval of this section as drafted.
Chris Recchia, Henrietta Jordan and Neil Kamman approved.
Ric Erdheim opposed.

For the purposes of addressing double counting on products, changes were made only to that subsection that requires totals on the amount of mercury sold in the United States for the previous calendar year. In order to assure that notification is received from all mercury-added product manufacturers, to have knowledge of who these manufacturers are and also to assure the accuracy of the amount of mercury in the products, all manufacturers of both component parts and products containing mercury components should be included. The information on the amounts of mercury in products will not be considered as totals and therefore there would be no duplication.

Suggestion to change ranges in (a)(ii) to read "greater than" to more adequately cover potential mercury ranges.
Suggestion to add Subsection (c) for an update on information whenever there is a significant increase or decrease in the mercury amount.
Suggestion that any changes that are reported could be reported all at one time.
Suggestion in (a)(iii) to change (0-5mg) category to read "more than zero to 5 mg" as zero mg would require reporting of products containing no mercury.
Suggestion to add to this section "for the purposes of this section, manufacturer means" and keep definition of manufacturer the same.
Suggestion that cannot have notification without a requirement for the manufacturer to update the information.
Suggestion to update information every three years.
Concern as to what is important for notification of a "change" for notification purposes.
Suggestion that what is important is decrease or increase of mercury.
Suggestion that manufacturer may not be able to advise such changes where the manufacturing process may vary the amounts of mercury due to the machinery involved in their manufacturer.
Suggestion that increase or decrease in amount of mercury be an "intended" increase or decrease.
Suggestion to keep definition of manufacturer the same and add in "For the purpose of Section 5, "manufacturer" shall mean the mercury-added component manufacturer and the manufacturer of a product which contains one or more mercury-added products as components."
Ric Erdheim still opposes section (1)(i) in reporting by manufacturer, by product and questions the feasibility of section (1)(ii) regarding ranges.

Agency will draft language regarding the update of notification and the reporting time to where there is a significant increase or decrease in the mercury and will E-mail to members for review.

There was a consensus by the Committee that the above section would be approved with the changes indicated.

Ric Erdheim suggested that Section 2(f) was incorrect in the amount of mercury deposition in the Northeast, and from outside the Northeast.
Information for draft was obtained from studies of Tim Scherbatskoy conducted through the School of Natural Resources in the University of Vermont
Suggestion that data is outdated.
Suggestion that appropriate data would be several pages long and this is an attempt to consolidate date for a brief overview statement.

Neil Kamman is to look at the figures provided by Tim Scherbatskoy and research available data. Neil will provide information to the Agency which will be E-mailed to the members for review.

Suggestion that entire bill will require significant resources.
Suggestion that Committee explore staffing and appropriations.

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

A packet will be mailed to stakeholders prior to the meeting for review.
A time will be allotted for brief comment on sections.
A brief overview document will be provided to stakeholders and no overview will be given at the stakeholder meeting.
All comments, both oral and written will be reviewed equally.
A time for questions will be allowed
The stakeholders meeting will be on November 15, 2000 from 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
A request will be made that written comments accompany verbal comments.

Agenda Item 4-
Other topics not on agenda

The Committee welcomed Neil Kamman as an official member of the Advisory Committee replacing Tim Scherbatskoy for the remainder of his term.

Agenda Item 5-
Set date and agenda for next meeting

The Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution will hold a stakeholder meeting to receive comments on the model legislation. The location of the stakeholder meeting will be in the Pavilion Auditorium in Montpelier from 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 15, 2000. The next regular meeting of the Advisory Committee will be determined at a later date.


		Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution