• Electronics
• Best addressed through electronics recycling and manufacturer take-back programs, which represent toxic waste streams other than just mercury (such as lead). The current collection programs were determined to be sufficient. No recommendations for change.
• Manometers
• The current collection program is very effective in not only removing mercury manometers from farms but also in providing non-mercury replacements. It was felt that funding should be sought to continue the program. The estimated cost to complete the program is $15,000 to $20,000.
• Medical
• Larger hospitals are regulated medical waste generators and currently have systems in place to manage hazardous wastes. Smaller rural hospitals have some disposal challenges though. EAD has started a program to work with hospitals for mercury awareness, alternative product selection and potential disposal options. Recommendation is to continue the current EAD assistance program.
• Dental
• Dentists have had free mercury disposal for three years and it is believed that most of the elemental mercury has been removed from dental offices. EAD and the Vermont State Dental Society are working together to establish Best Management Practices "Procedures"(BMPs). The committee recommends continuing the current EAD program and developing BMP requirements for dental offices.
• Appliances
• Some Solid Waste Districts currently have an infrastructure in place that can facilitate removal of mercury devices from white goods. However, many districts do not remove them. The current system is not efficient but S.91 would be a good way to address any inadequacies. The wording in S.91 identifies "Solid waste management facilities and any business in Vermont who accepts . . . " as the responsible parties. The committee recommends that "Scrap metal facilities" be specifically added to the list of responsible parties in the proposed legislation.
• Lamps
• Determine the environmental benefit of lamp recycling prior to any further legislation.
• Issues of concern raised by various Committee members included:
• Large volume of lamps
• Relatively low mercury content
• High cost to recycle lamps
• Environmental impact of recycling lamps
• Concerns for lamp breakage and worker safety
• Look at ways to improve the convenience of collection for large and small users.
• Thermostats
• Potential pledge program – not to sell mercury thermostats.
• Infrastructure is in place through the hazardous waste collection program and the Thermostat Recycling Corporation (TRC).
• TRC program is available to contractors at various locations, and households are not restricted from using the collection sites. Thirty-three collection containers are in place around the state. Three wholesalers have collected the bulk of the 400 thermostats that have been collected in VT (as of September 2001). These wholesalers have been instrumental in promoting the program and serving as collection centers. The Committee believes that TRC and the State should provide more promotion for the program to contractors.
• Promoting the TRC program to homeowners through the M.E.R.C. web site and other promotions.
• Vehicles
• Support the EAD pilot program to collect auto switches at salvage yards at end of life.
• Suggestion that EAD set up a system for salvage yards to direct ship switches to recycler or central collection location.
• Maintain requirements in S.91 for labeling, phase-out and removal requirement prior to crushing (except back-lit instruments).
• Provide education to salvage yards on switch removal, collection and storage.
• Button Cell Battery
• Suggestion for manufacturer funding of principal point-of-purchase collection/recycling containers.
• Miscellaneous Categories
• All miscellaneous categories would fall into items already collected at Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) collection events. As the infrastructure is already in place for these items, no recommendation for change was made.

• Limited on-going mercury product collection sites.
• Access to mercury product disposal varies throughout the state.
• Suggestion to provide financial help to smaller rural districts and municipalities to establish permanent hazard waste collection programs.

• The Committee will make determinations as to which recommendations will be considered to be included in the Committee’s 2002 report when the draft report was written.
• Suggestion to concentrate additional efforts on notifying contractors regarding TRC locations and their requirements under the law. Ira Pike suggested contacting the licensing board for contractor’s mailing information. Representative Pike also suggested that information could be included in information forwarded to contractors when notified for continuing education requirements.
• Suggestion to set aside an Advisory meeting in next year’s work plan to invite health care representatives to discuss mercury reduction efforts in hospitals.
• Comments regarding lamp collection systems:
• Suggestion to form a sub-committee (utilizing some of the participants in the CPR committee) to evaluate cost and benefit of existing state policy to prohibit the disposal of residential lamps in landfills.
• Chittenden Solid Waste District submitted a letter in reference to their views on residential lamp disposal.
• The Committee was advised that Laura Routh from the Addison Solid Waste District was also planning to submit a letter with her concerns for worker safety in regard to the disposal of lamps in landfills.
• Suggestion to compile a cost benefit analysis regarding the benefit of residential lamp disposal examining the issue from every standpoint.
• The current conflict over a proposed landfill to be located in Barre has considered mercury as a significant concern regarding air emission control on the facility.
• Concern in the ability to analyze the cost/benefit of residential lamp disposal considering the lack of information to make a proper evaluation.
• The idea of virtual mercury elimination has been to not introduce anthropogenic mercury into the environment at any level – concern that allowing residential lamps to be disposed in the landfill is an inconsistency in the state’s current policies and laws.

Agenda Item 5-
Report by Bill Bress and discussion on Human Exposure and Sensitive Populations.

Bill Bress was unable to attend the meeting and this item will be included as an item on the next meeting agenda.

Agenda Item 6-
Update on fish advisory postings.

Neil Kamman and Michael Bender will be setting a time to meet with the Department of Fish and Wildlife to discuss details for posting fish advisories and will provide an update to the Committee.

Agenda Item 7-
Other topics not on agenda.

Agenda Item 7-
Set date and agenda for next meeting.

The next meeting will be held on Friday, November 30, 2001 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. in the Conference Room of the Environmental Assistance Division in the Waterbury State Complex in Waterbury, Vermont.