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 #18: Thursday, July 13, 2000
Time: 9:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
Location: Board Room, in Fannie Allen Campus of Fletcher Allen Health Care
Route 15 in Colchester, Vermont

MINUTES

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

Guests Present:
Allison Crowley-Demag, New England Public Affairs Group
Neil Kamman, Agency of Natural Resources, Water Quality Division
Margaret Dunn-Carver, Intern, Environmental Assistance Division
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 Hollie Shaner.

Agenda Item 1-
Accept minutes of the May 10th meeting and changes to today's agenda.

The minutes of the Seventeenth meeting on May 10, 2000 were reviewed and accepted with no changes

Agenda Item 2-
Review draft letter to Governor for update on Advisory Committee recommendations.

The Committee determined that all members were to review the draft letter which was previously forwarded to them via E-mail and final comments were to be E-mailed to Karen Knaebel by July 21, 2000.

Agenda Item 3-
Collect information researched on "Geratherm".

Information on Geratherm was collected by Tim Scherbatskoy and Bill Bress from the Committee. The Committee was informed that a summer intern, Sergey Babakov, was working with John Berino of Fletcher Allen to determine the toxicity of the elements in the non-mercury thermometers. All information would be added to this research and the Committee would request final comments from their research by August 15, 2000. This information would be forwarded by E-mail to the members by Karen Knaebel.

Agenda Item 4-
Discuss potential list of candidates for consideration as members.

The Committee noted that the status of many members of the Advisory Committee would need to be resolved as follows:

  • Tim Scherbatskoy will be out of state for the next year. He is to contact the Governor's office to determine if a substitute can be appointed with his recommendation.
  • Hollie Shaner will not be able to attend meetings on behalf of Fletcher Allen. She is not able at this point to remain as co-chair of the Committee.
  • Ric Erdheim's appointment would be coming up for renewal on August 15, 2000 and a request would need to be submitted to the Governor's office.
  • Bill Bress's appointment would be coming up for renewal on August 15, 2000 and a request would need to be submitted to the Governor's office.
  • Michael Bender's appointment would be coming up for renewal on August 15, 2000 and a request would need to be submitted to the Governor's office.
  • Mary Sullivan and Elizabeth Ready will not be running for the Natural Resources and Energy Committees this term. A letter would be written by Rich Phillips to the Speaker of the House, Michael John Obuchowski and the President Pro Tem of the Senate, Peter Shumlin to request appointments to the Committee.

Other candidates were proposed by members as follows:

  • Annie MacMillan, Department of Agriculture, Food & Markets
  • John Berino, Fletcher Allen Healthcare
  • Neil Kamman, Agency of Natural Resources, Water Quality Division

Since Hollie Shaner and Tim Scherbatskoy will not be available to serve as chairs, the Committee decided to elect a new chair. Rich Phillips was nominated by Michael Bender, the motion was seconded and the nomination was unanimously approved.

The Committee determined that the appointment of a member of a solid waste district is not provided for by statute. The Committee agreed, however, that the input from the members of the solid waste districts was important and they wished to encourage their attendance.

Agenda Item 5-
Continue review of model legislation.

The Committee determined that a general evaluation of each section of the model legislation would be more effective than the previous method of review. Review from this point on would involve key comments on each section and suggestions for major revision concerns. Rich Phillips gave an overview of each section for clarification.

Continue review of Section 12

This section was deferred to a later date due to time constraints.

Section 7 - Phase-out and Exemptions

The purpose of this section is to move directly toward virtual elimination of mercury. How much mercury is there? What is its purpose? Is there a substitute? Very stringent section, but allows products to continue to be sold. Limits number of renewals of exemptions.

a. For the first two years it deals with products with a gram or more of mercury. In four years that amount goes down to 100 mg. The sixth year the level goes down to 10 mg which is the de minimis for phase out.

b./c. These sections insure that amount is applicable in individual components not to the total product.

d. The value of fluorescent lamps is known. The industry itself knows where it is going. This gives them an eight-year window to see if the amount of mercury within the product can be lowered.

e. This section speaks to health and safety requirements that may already be in place by federal requirements.

f. If a product continues to have more than one gram the manufacturer can apply for an exemption. Applications for exemptions document the basis for the exemption and then there needs to be a collection system in place.

The basis for the exemption requires that all three of the following criteria be met:

  • Use of the product is beneficial to the environment, protective of public health or public safety.
  • no technically feasible alternative
  • no comparable alternative at reasonable cost

Comments:

  • Fluorescent lamps can be as high as 15-20 mg which would be above the de minimis amount.
  • Influx of requests for exemptions might be difficult to manage.
  • Toxics in packaging originally received an abundance of exemption requests but then the requests leveled off to three to six requests per year.
  • Suggestion to increase the request period to more than every two years.
  • Some products such as HID outdoor lighting is energy efficient yet has 100 mg of mercury.
  • Suggestion to add two sections to (f)(3) as follows:

    iv. If the only replacement alternative is worse than the mercury product.
    v. If the only replacement alternative is more harmful to the environment.

  • In section (f) (3) when adding the additional two sections include them on the list with "or" rather than "and" for the last two items.
  • If lowering the amounts of mercury in a fluorescent lamp causes the lamp life to be shortened, should the lower mercury lamp be considered. Point could be handled in the exemptions section.

Section 8 - Labeling of Mercury-added Products

The purpose of labeling is education both in product selection and end of life disposal. Within two years products must be labeled on the product and its packaging.

a. Also addresses retailers' liability concerning lack of knowledge that products contain mercury.

b. Addresses mercury-containing component products and larger products which contain these component products.

c. Addresses label visibility.

d. Addresses durability of the label.

e. Addresses point of sale notification.

f. Addresses who is responsible for labeling.

g. Addresses labeling for specific product categories.

h. Addresses alternative methods of prior to purchase "public" notification including requirements to apply for alternative labeling and specifics for two-year limit.

Comments:

  • Concern that labeling might discourage people from buying products.
  • Suggestion to eliminate criteria for alternative request in section (i) which states: "or the proposed alternative would be at least as effective in providing pre-sale notification of mercury content and in providing instructions on proper disposal," in which the determination of this criteria is provided by the manufacturer.
  • Suggestion to extend the time frame for alternatives beyond two years.
  • Suggestion to focus on product specific labeling and also on products with larger amounts of mercury. Cannot rely on "one size fits all" attitude. Should determine what makes sense to label and what are the results.

Section 10-Collection of Mercury-added Products

One year time frame for submission of collection plan by manufacturer. Manufacturer assumes some responsibility for having a collection plan in place. Manufacturers can develop or expand on existing collection systems. Within one year, entity submitting the plan shall insure recovery system is in full operation.

Comments:

Mention was made that the solid waste districts had presented a concern to include legislation to make removal of mercury components from appliances mandatory. This recommendation may be best addressed in another section.

  • Vermont has already worked on putting systems in place.
  • This section might not change anything that is already in place except for possibly the source of funding.

After review of this section, the Committee determined that they would provide this information to representatives from the solid waste districts for their review and comment. Karen Knaebel is to E-mail the three representatives of the solid waste districts with the request from the Committee and forward the comments on to the members of the Committee if obtained prior to the next Committee meeting.

Agenda Item 6-
Other topics not on agenda.

  • Update on pharmacy pledge:
    Mailing to 138 pharmacies went out on July 11, 2000 to encourage pharmacies to discontinue the sale of mercury fever thermometers.
  • A New York Times piece addresses the National Academy of Science's support for EPA's study regarding coal fired utilities raising questions about FDA's requirements. Web site at: www.nas.edu to be added as a link on the mercury web site.

    The press release is located at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9899.html
    And the report is located at: http://www.enn.com/pollution/article/21942

  • New Department of Health fish advisories will be available next week.

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

A suggestion was presented to the Committee that future Advisory Committee meetings be held in Waterbury as a central location for those members coming from Burlington and those coming from the Montpelier area. The Committee agreed that Waterbury would be a good central location for future meetings.

The next meeting of the Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution is to be held on Wednesday, August 30, 2000 from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. in the Training Room of Water Supply in the Waterbury State Complex in Waterbury, Vermont.

 

    
return to the hhw collection events page