MERC Vermont | Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution Meeting Minutes

Sixteenth Meeting: Thursday, April 13, 2000
Time: 8:30 a.m. -11:00 a.m.
Location: Vermont State House, Ethan Allen Room
115 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont

Members Present:
Hollie Shaner, Fletcher Allen Health Care
Michael Bender, Abenaki Self-Help Association, Inc.
William Bress, Vermont Department of Health
Richard Phillips, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources
Ric Erdheim, National Electrical Manufacturers Association

Guests Present:
Theresa Feeley, National Electrical Manufacturers Association
Jennifer Holliday, Chittenden Solid Waste District
Mike Loner, North West Vermont Solid Waste District
Sami Izzo, Greater Upper Valley Solid Waste District
Peter Taylor, Vermont State Dental Society
Gary Gulka, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Environmental Assistance
Tom Benoit, 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 Board Room of the Fanny Allen Campus of Fletcher Allen Health Care on Rt. 15 in Colchester, Vermont and the meeting was called to order by Tim Scherbatskoy.

Agenda Item 1-
Accept Minutes of the March 16^th and April 13^th meetings and changes to today’s agenda.

The minutes of the Fifteenth meeting on March 16, 2000 were reviewed and accepted with no changes.
The minutes of the Sixteenth meeting on April 13, 2000 were reviewed and accepted with no changes.

Agenda Item 2-
Update on School Science Lab Clean-Out Project.

Tom Benoit briefly updated the Committee on the current progress of the School Science Lab Clean-Out Project as follows:

Fifty-six schools have already participated in the program.
Eight schools have signed up for the third round of schools.
The first 25 schools have completed their inventories and disposals.
The second round of schools are currently completing their inventories.
Of the mercury collected to date:
1. 230 pounds of elemental mercury and mercury compounds.
2. 4,000 pounds of hazardous materials.
3. 2,000 pounds of non-hazardous materials.
Out of approximately 100 possible middle and high schools, 64 have responded.
The Agency has sent a mailing to approximately 275 addressees including remaining schools, superintendents, principals and science teachers to attempt to bring the remaining schools into the program.
The Agency in its attempts to include the remaining schools in the clean-out project will:
1. Contact the schools by telephone.
2. Possibly obtain assistance from legislators in remaining schools districts to promote program this summer.
3. The Committee suggested the Agency consider promoting the project through press releases, attending school meetings and through the Parent Teacher Associations (PTA).
It was asked if any additional funding or support from the Committee was needed.
1. The project cost was originally estimated at approximately $200,000.
2. The program is well below budget. The actual costs are anticipated to be about $100,000 to$130,000.
Bill Bress advised the Committee that the Health Department was also working on an air quality program in the schools and suggested the possible coordination of this project with the existing school clean-out project.
Hollie Shaner advised that a grant proposal had been awarded to Fletcher Allen for a person to educate doctors and nurses on indoor air quality. A possible collaboration of efforts with the Health Department program will be discussed.

Agenda Item 3-
Update on M.E.R.C. Committee Progress

The Mercury Education and Reduction Campaign (M.E.R.C.) Committee met on April 13, 2000. Several possible ideas and programs were discussed.

The M.E.R.C. Committee is scheduled to meet again on June *** to discuss specific plans for various thermometer exchange programs. Karen Knaebel to e-mail Advisory Committee as to exact date and location.
Karen Knaebel expressed a desire to see consistency between the programs with the use of the existing M.E.R.C. logo.
The M.E.R.C. Committee is concentrating its first efforts on mercury thermometer exchange programs. These programs are intended to promote public awareness of the health issues of mercury.
The Agency is concentrating its efforts in coordination with this project on pharmacies. It will be following up on its letters to pharmacy chains this week. (Newsletter to pharmacy board in next agenda) Plans are being made to establish a pledge program for the local pharmacies to eliminate the sale of mercury thermometers. The Committee will be updated as to the progress of this initiative.
Many members of the M.E.R.C. Committee have and are individually pursuing possible leads and funding for thermometer exchange programs.
Bill Bress advised that the fish advisories were being processed and suggested a piece be added to the advisory to link the ___?____ Committee’s work.
A concern for the toxicity of the non-mercury thermometers by the brand name of "Geristan" was expressed to the Committee. Conversations with various people had raised a concern as the compound used in the thermometer was considered to have similar properties to mercury. The M.E.R.C. Committee felt it was appropriate to be aware of any potential drawbacks in using this particular non-mercury thermometer as a substitute for mercury thermometers in an exchange program.
1. Tom Benoit advised he had MSDS information on the thermometers and statistical data provided by the company.
2. The information is to be faxed to Bill Bress and Tim Scherbatskoy who will research the data with the resources available to them.
3. Hollie Shaner advised she would check with Lab Safety Supply for any information.
4. Rich Phillips is going to check with appropriate Agency staff to check their possible sources.
5. The Committee agreed that all information collected would be discussed at the Advisory Committee’s June meeting.
Karen Knaebel expressed an interest in obtaining support from the Governor in a specific thermometer exchange project focused towards a state employee thermometer exchange with the Governor’s support in a possible kick-off of the program. She would hope that the Governor’s position as a doctor would influence others in the healthcare professions, hospitals and pharmacies to follow his lead.
1. It was decided that the M.E.R.C. Committee should secure funding, establish definite plans for the project and the Advisory Committee would write a letter to the Governor’s office to endorse the project and encourage his support.
2. Rich Phillips will contact the appropriate parties through the Governor’s advisors to determine if the Governor’s participation is possible.
3. The Committee decided that a letter should go to the Governor’s office to update the Advisory Committee’s progress since the Committee’s January 2000 Report. This letter should go to the Governor at mid-year every year as an update to progress. The letter this year should:
  1. Highlight accomplishments to date from the January Report.
  2. What are current "hot" projects.
  3. What can the Governor do to help us on these projects?
  4. How we would like to see him involved.
4. Letter to be drafted by the Agency and Hollie Shaner to be presented for review at June meeting.
  The second proposed project of the M.E.R.C. Committee is training for removal of mercury-added devices from appliances.
  1. The Solid Waste Districts have training scheduled on June 7, 2000. The location is to be determined.
  2. The Agency will assist by putting together training manuals and promoting the program.
  3. Training for auto salvage yards is being researched by the Agency for a project at a later date.
The Advisory Committee will be updated at its June meeting on what projects are being scheduled by the M.E.R.C. Committee as soon as plans are finalized.

Agenda Item 4-
Status on possible letter to EPA from Regional Task Force regarding universal waste provisions.

Michael Bender was not present at this meeting to report on this topic.

Karen Knaebel is to contact Michael for an update on his efforts.
If the project remains active, Michael is to send a draft letter to Ric Erdheim for his review and later presentation to the Committee for final review.

Agenda Item 5-
Review and update Committee’s Work Plan for 2000

The Committee decided to defer this item to the Committee’s August meeting when possible new members would be added. The Work Plan would be reviewed and updated at that time.

Agenda Item 6-
Continue review of model legislation

Rich Phillips addressed the questions presented at the last meeting concerning the model legislation pointing out to the committee revisions in the model since the last meeting of the Advisory Committee:

Definition section – question was presented as to where cosmetics containing mercury would be addressed in the model. Page 5 of April 25^th revision adds "formulated mercury-added products" which would include cosmetics.
A question was posed as to where "homeopathic" medicines containing mercury would fall in the model’s context. This is a chemical product, which would also be included in "formulated mercury-added products definition."
In the "Notification" section, Ric Erdheim had concerns regarding the amount and purpose of notification for each unit total contained in individual products. This item is still not addressed in the model. Mr. Erdheim also pointed out that "manufactured" would be effective to include in the definition section. Mr. Phillips felt it was a valid concern, but was still not included in the current definitions.
Mr. Erdheim added from the discussions of the last Advisory meeting that he had found an example of a use where notification would be preempted by Federal regulation. Mr. Erdheim advised that there were mercury products used in panels in airplanes that were regulated by the FAA.
Mr. Phillips noted that a section had been added on Page 7, Item "d" which described the process regarding the information received under the Notification section. It addresses issues of confidentiality of information supplied by manufacturers and guidelines for states obtaining the information.
A concern was raised at the last Advisory meeting by Ric Erdheim regarding notification by category versus individual product. Mr. Phillips believes that the model approaches this issue in such a way that all states will have the opportunity to approve such notification.

Mr. Phillips stated that NEWMOA considers the model legislation as it now stands to be a final product. Mr. Phillips advised the Committee that he would report their comments back into the process, but it would be up to individual states to adopt into legislation on what they determined to most fulfil the needs of their particular state. Mr. Phillips stated that a determination should be made as to whether a particular section of the model is recommended, but that he suggested adhering as closely as possible to the model and only making changes where it would specifically impact Vermont.

The Committee determined that the preliminary review of the model would be brief to determine what items of the legislation should be considered, and to flag areas of concern. After the initial review, a more extensive review of the considered sections would be made. Therefore the review question, "Should this section be adopted or modified, if used in Vermont?" would be dropped during this review.

The review of the NEWMOA model legislation was continued from the last meeting. Rich Phillips distributed the most current updates on the model and advised that sections __________ were still under process and would be distributed possibly at the June meeting.

The review process was determined at the April meeting as follows: (May, June and July 2000)

Section by section analysis: (Answering the following questions)

How does this section contribute to the goal?
Among the options available to reduce emissions from products, how does this section compare for effectiveness?
Is the section independent of other sections?
What are the Vermont resources needed to implement this section?
What resources are needed at the Clearinghouse to implement this section?
How important is this section from a Vermont standpoint?
Is cost/benefit of this section favorable?
Is this section dependent on other states adopting for effectiveness?

A continuation of the process using the review questions was resumed beginning with the third review question in the Notification section. Ric Erdheim expressed concerns, from his perspective, concerning the notification section in the fact that there were no time or geographic limitations mentioned in the model. His hopes are that this will be more specifically considered in the final review of the Committee.

Section 5 – Notification

What are the Vermont resources needed to implement this section?

What resources are needed at the Clearinghouse to implement this section?

How important is this section from a Vermont standpoint?

Is cost/benefit of this section favorable?

Is this section dependent on other states adopting for effectiveness?

Section 6 -

How does this section contribute to the goal?

Among the options available to reduce emissions from products, how does this section compare for effectiveness?

Is the section independent of other sections?

What are the Vermont resources needed to implement this section?

What resources are needed at the Clearinghouse to implement this section?

How important is this section from a Vermont standpoint?

Is cost/benefit of this section favorable?

Is this section dependent on other states adopting for effectiveness?

Sections 7 & 8 -
*These sections have been deferred for review at a later date.

Section 9 -

How does this section contribute to the goal?

Among the options available to reduce emissions from products, how does this section compare for effectiveness?

Is the section independent of other sections?

What are the Vermont resources needed to implement this section?

What resources are needed at the Clearinghouse to implement this section?

How important is this section from a Vermont standpoint?

Is cost/benefit of this section favorable?

Is this section dependent on other states adopting for effectiveness?

Section 10- Labeling
*This section has been deferred for review at a later date.

Section 11 -

How does this section contribute to the goal?

Among the options available to reduce emissions from products, how does this section compare for effectiveness?

Is the section independent of other sections?

What are the Vermont resources needed to implement this section?

What resources are needed at the Clearinghouse to implement this section?

How important is this section from a Vermont standpoint?

Is cost/benefit of this section favorable?

Is this section dependent on other states adopting for effectiveness?

Section 12-

How does this section contribute to the goal?

Among the options available to reduce emissions from products, how does this section compare for effectiveness?

Is the section independent of other sections?

What are the Vermont resources needed to implement this section?

What resources are needed at the Clearinghouse to implement this section?

How important is this section from a Vermont standpoint?

Is cost/benefit of this section favorable?

Is this section dependent on other states adopting for effectiveness?

Agenda Item 7-
Other topics not on agenda

Hollie Shaner advised that Fletcher Allen was sponsoring two projects to be held at Expos games and would like to possibly include something with mercury. The dates of the games are July 14^th and July 29^th. She expressed an interest in talking to "mercury man" who is Jamie Harvie from Healthcare Without Harm as a potential. She advised that these events were to be targeted at children. Fletcher Allen was obtaining backpacks and gathering products to put in them. She would like the Committee to advise her of any possible suggestions.
The Committee noted that appointments for some members were coming up soon. The Committee decided to write a letter to the Governor suggesting possible candidates for the Committee and their recommendations. Karen Knaebel is to obtain the expiration dates for member appointments and e-mail the information to the members. The members are to identify potential candidates to serve on the Committee and the topic is to be re addressed at the next meeting.
Karen Knaebel updated the Committee on the following items:
1. The mercury web site now has an abbreviated address: www.mercvt.org
2. Mike Loner with ???? advised that the Lake Champlain ???? Grant had been approved for the dairy manometer project in the amount of $20,????
3. A date had been reserved for the card room in the State House for release of the Committee’s January 2001 report for January 9^th, all day. Another attempt would be made to reach Michela ____ with the Lake ________ . The Committee had shared a space with that Committee in January of 2000 and had proposed to do so again. Karen Knaebel is to report back to the Committee as to the status of the card room reservations in relationship to the Lake Chaplain ??:?’s participation with the Advisory Committee.
Ric Erdheim advised he would be unable to attend the next scheduled Advisory meeting and would like to submit his comments via e-mail prior to the meeting. The Committee determined that a projection of what sections might be covered would be included in the next agenda so that Mr. Erdheim could submit comments in advance.

Agenda Item 8-
Set date and agenda for next meeting.

The next meeting of the Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution is to be held on Wednesday, June 14, 2000 from 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. in the Conference Room at the Burlington Municipal Waste Water Treatment Plant in Burlington, Vermont.


		Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution