MERC Vermont | Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution Meeting Minutes

Meeting #31: Tuesday, October 9, 2001
Time: 1:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.
Location: Conference Room, Environmental Assistance Division
Waterbury State Complex, Waterbury, Vermont

Members Present:
Michael Bender, Abenaki Self-Help Association, Inc.
William Bress, Vermont Department of Health
Ric Erdheim, National Electrical Manufacturers Association
Neil Kamman, Agency of Natural Resources, Water Quality Division
Rich Phillips, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Environmental Assistance

Guests Present:
Milly Archer, Downs, Rachlin & Martin
P. Brendan Cosgrove, New England Public Affairs Group, Inc. (Alliance of Auto Mfg.)
Tony French, Mercury Policy Project consultant
Gary Gulka, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Environmental Assistance
Jen Holliday, Chittenden Solid Waste District
Jeff Merrell, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Air Pollution Control Division
Sarah O’Brien, National Wildlife Federation
Bart Sponseller, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Air Pollution Control Division
Peter Taylor, Vermont State Dental Society
Mike Winslow, Lake Champlain Committee
Karen Knaebel, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Environmental Assistance

The Committee members and interested parties gathered in the Conference Room of the Environmental Assistance Division in the Waterbury State Complex in Waterbury, Vermont and the meeting was called to order by Rich Phillips.

Agenda Item 1-
Accept minutes of the September 19th meeting and changes to today’s agenda.

Minutes for the September 19, 2001 meeting were not available for review. Minutes will be e-mailed to members for review prior to next meeting.

Agenda Item 2-
Review draft of letter to Jeffords regarding retirement of mercury prepared by Michael Bender.

Michael Bender stated that he initially suggested a resolution to the Committee; but after conversation with Rich Phillips had decided to draft a letter, which included a synopsis of recent significant events within the last year or so. National legislation has already been proposed to retire mercury. With the efforts of many states to remove mercury from the environment, it does not make sense to remove it and then put the mercury back out into the world market. Mr. Bender pointed out that many Federal Agencies have no power to require long-term mercury storage without Congressional authorization. The draft letter calls on Senator Jeffords to support legislation enabling and empowering agencies for purchase and long-term storage of mercury.

Committee agreed to enclose the Boston Globe newspaper article regarding the HoltraChem chlorine plant that closure in Maine with the letter to Senator Jeffords.
Suggestion to add wording "as defined in July 2000 report" in lieu of "according to a July 2000 report" in the first sentence of the second paragraph.

Agenda Item 3-
Review pending legislation.

Rich Phillips advised the Committee that the bill that was introduced in last year's legislation (S.91) was voted out of the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee with a 6-0 affirmative vote; however, it did not make it out of the Appropriations Committee. The Advisory Committee will be reviewing the previous legislation for any suggestions for modification of the bill for the 2002 session. The Agency desires to work toward consistency between legislation in the New England states. Appropriations will be the key element in moving the bill forward into the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee. According to Mr. Phillips, the existing legislation is being implemented by one full-time position and a small percentage of the time of three other positions. The IMERC Clearinghouse, which is being organized by the New England Waste Management Officials Association, will provide essential assistance in implementation of several sections of model legislation for the states such as notification, labeling and phase outs. This assistance will help to alleviate many of the responsibilities from each state in independently implementing legislation. A membership fee will be charged to each member state based on its size for NEWMOA’s services.

The Committee was asked to provide comment on the legislation and prioritize the different sections and e-mail their comments back to Karen Knaebel no later than October 15^th.
Comments supplied by members will be distributed back out to the Committee via e-mail.

Agenda Item 4-
Mercury switch removal from state fleet.

Rich Phillips advised the Committee regarding the Environmental Assistance Division’s (EAD) vehicle mercury switch removal efforts. EAD is currently developing a program to remove and replace the mercury light switches from under the hood and trunk in the vehicles from the Agency of Natural Resources’ fleet. Initially, the program will start this fall with switch replacement in two DEC divisions, followed by ANR vehicles housed in Waterbury. EAD will also seek support and approval to replace switches from the ANR fleet this spring (about 350 vehicles). If this effort proves successful, EAD will be exploring switch replacement in other agencies and departments of state government. EAD hopes to work with the Clean State Council and obtain the support of the Dean Administration. It will be a challenge to coordinate removal/replacement efforts for vehicles housed in remote locations of the state.

Question as to the cost of removal/replacement. Cost of switch is 40 cents each and the labor to remove and replace is part of ongoing efforts by EAD.
This campaign is part of an effort for state government to take the lead in acknowledging the need to remove mercury switches from vehicles to reduce mercury contamination in the environment.
Suggestion that this program could be the first step in moving towards other efforts such as car rental agencies and business vehicle fleets.
S.91 has a requirement to remove switches in vehicles prior to crushing.
Suggestion to contact purchasing to encourage the purchase of only vehicles that do not contain mercury switches. It was noted that Minnesota is taking steps to make this a requirement for the purchase of state vehicles.
Suggestion that the Committee should draft a letter to purchasing.

Mr. Phillips added that last week EAD visited two salvage yards to assist in the removal of mercury switches from salvage yard vehicles. At one salvage yard alone, 233 mercury switches were removed.

Agenda Item 5-
Review of draft of Dental Best Management Practices Procedure.

The Committee reviewed the proposed draft Environmental Best Management Practices Procedure for Dental Office Wastes and provided comment.

Gary Gulka reviewed the draft document with the Committee. The Committee provided the following comments and suggestions:

Question of whether a "procedure" is enforceable. A procedure is an interpretation of rules – a sub-rule – If a dental office follows the procedure, they will be in compliance. A practice is written or unwritten – a procedure is written. A procedure does not have to go through review as a rule does although it can be converted to a rule.
Question – if someone is not adhering to the procedure, how long would it take to do something and what would be the steps? Whether it is a procedure, rule or law, the Department would use the same resources to get compliance. The most effective is voluntary compliance.
Suggestion to draft a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between various groups including the Dental Society. The MOU would include the BMP procedures, standards, and mercury levels in sludge to go beyond just implementing a procedure to strengthen the approach.
Comment that the Division has been working well with the Dental Society and the Society is agreeing, without legislation, to adopt procedures that the Division feels goes beyond a MOU.
Suggestion that the BMP procedures be reviewed again at a later date to include other possible provisions.
Regulated medical waste was originally included in the draft BMP procedures, but was removed as it is more appropriately addressed in the Regulated Medical Waste Procedure being drafted by the Solid Waste Program.
Definitions were added to the draft BMP procedure for clarity.
There is already a guide for Conditionally Exempt Generators (CEG), an excerpt from these guidelines was included with the procedure so that a dentist would not need to read through the Vermont Hazardous Waste Management Regulations.
Question as to why there is only reference to "pollution prevention and use reduction" and not "virtual elimination" in the draft.

Dental Society said that they would like to see that stated in legislation.
Michael Bender said he believed the goal should continue to be virtual elimination.

Suggestion to change the third sentence in section II Purpose to read: "The best management practices of this procedure are (based on instead of consistent with) The Environmentally Responsible Dental Office: A Guide to Proper Waste Management in the Dental Offices . . ."
Suggestion to correct first term "Amalgam separator" means a process . . ." by correcting separator to separation.
Concern in III (5) in the last sentence – that is why amalgam separators are needed. Suggestion to use the word "maybe" rather than "It is recognized that." Suggestion to remove the entire sentence.
Concern in III (6) regarding amalgam storage in liquid or water. Suggestion that further review of the practice of storming mercury in liquid should be explored and potentially amend procedure when the correct method is determined.
Question as to how amalgam capsules, after the amalgam is removed, are disposed of. Comment that there is no visible amalgam in the capsule after the amalgam is removed. RCRA rules state that if there is less than 5% of content left in the capsule that it can be disposed of in the solid waste.
Comment that Rhode Island passed legislation requiring "amalgam substitutes be used where economically feasible."
Dental Society pointed out that a great deal of work went into the development of the BMP guide and in IV (A)(1) – they had included the word "ethical" along with "appropriate and economically feasible"
Division felt that the word ethical was not appropriate to write into a procedure, as it would be difficult to make a determination as to what is ethical. Concern that the word appropriate would also be difficult to determine without a definition.
Dental Society would support the deletion of the whole first sentence in IV(A)(1).
Suggestion to make a statement "Amalgam substitutes will minimize mercury use in offices."
Suggestion to place a reminder or announcement in the procedure to use mercury substitutes.
Question as to whether Division’s procedure would have to go through public comment - it would not.
Question in IV(B)(1) as to the difference between 100 mesh traps and 40 mesh traps. What is being lost with the larger mesh? Can some systems not use the smaller mesh? Suggestion that for new purchases, that the dentists be encouraged to buy smaller mesh. Peter Taylor will check into information on the size of the mesh and find out how it all links together related to amalgam separators.
Suggestion to add checklist to the procedure for use by the dentist. Gary Gulka stated that there was a biannual reporting requirement included in the procedure and perhaps a checklist could be a part of the reporting.
Suggestion to set a 95% removal rate as a goal. Concern that dentist would not know if they reached that goal without some preliminary testing. Suggestion to spell out goal of reduction in the next amendment to the procedure.
In IV(E) – suggestion to add a date by which sink traps are cleaned and/or a frequency of which they should be cleaned. Peter Taylor suggests that mercury shouldn’t be finding its way into traps anymore and he will further discuss this section with the Division.
Section IV(F) - suggestion that since mercury is in spill capsules, to exclude capsules from this section.
In section IV(H) add to the end of the second sentence, which starts "Dilute the spent solution . . ." the words "connected to a municipal septic system."
Suggestion to consult with the Department of Agriculture regarding section IV(H) as the Division does not have the authority to regulate this type of waste.
Suggestion that use of a checklist would assist dental office in compliance with BMP procedures. The Dental Society could collect the forms but should not complete them on behalf of the dentists. The Dental Society could assist the dental offices on the most efficient and effective way to complete and keep track of who has not completed their forms.
Suggestion by Peter Taylor that there be a March 31^st filing every two years as that is the date for the dentist’s solid waste filings and maybe they could be done as a package.

Agenda Item 6-
Other topics not on agenda.

No additional topics.

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

The next meeting will be held on Friday, November 9, 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.


		Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution