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 #34: Tuesday, December 11, 2001
Time: 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
Location: Conference Room, Environmental Assistance Division
Waterbury State Complex
Waterbury, Vermont

MINUTES

Members Present:
Michael Bender, Abenaki Self-Help Association, Inc.
Mary Canales, School of Nursing, University of Vermont
Ric Erdheim, National Electrical Manufacturers Association
Neil Kamman, Agency of Natural Resources, Water Quality Division
Rich Phillips, Agency of Natural Resources, Environmental Assistance Division

Guests Present:
Milly Archer, Downs, Rachlin & Martin
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 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 November 9th and 30th meetings and changes to today’s agenda.

  • November 9, 2001 minutes were approved as written.
  • November 30, 2001 minutes were corrected to add Michael Bender as in attendance of the meeting and the minutes were approved with the one change.

Agenda Item 2-
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 3-
Review draft of 2002 Legislative Report.

The Committee reviewed the draft items to be presented in the 2002 Legislative Report as follows: (Note: Items have been numbered to make distinction on comments and not to prioritize)

COMMITTEE WORK PLAN FOR 2002

  1. Continue to provide testimony and information to legislative committees on proposed mercury legislation.
  2. Continue to review environmental monitoring data, studies, and environmental research initiatives (state, regional and national) on all aspects of mercury contamination in air, soils, water, and biota to gain a better understanding of the ecological and human health risks in Vermont.
  3. Provide comment and review on revisions and enhancements to Vermont DEC’s Mercury Emissions inventory (prepared by the Air Division) and the regional emission inventory to be prepared by the NEG/ECP Task Force.
  4. Review, comment and advise on mercury education and reduction efforts by the Department of Health and Environmental Conservation, Solid Waste Districts and municipalities, and other private and non-profit organizations to reduce mercury release and exposure.
  5. Review, advise and comment on outreach and education efforts by the Department of Health and Agency of Natural Resources, on consumption of both recreational and commercial fish that are contaminated with mercury, particularly to sensitive populations and populations consuming large quantities of fish. Provide recommendations on ways to strengthen outreach and education.
  6. Oversee the efforts by the Agency of Natural Resources and its Departments and other organizations to post fish consumption advisories at all state-owned access points to waters of the state.
  7. Review status of DEC’s efforts and those of the Vermont State Dental Society to monitor and reduce mercury use in and release from dental offices through adoption of best management practices and other initiatives. Review status of ongoing dental amalgam separator research for its potential adoption as a wastewater treatment requirement for mercury reduction.
  8. Continue to review the status and effectiveness of certain manufacturer-sponsored mercury product collection and take-back programs for products such as thermostats, batteries, and medical products. Also review effectiveness of collection programs sponsored by the state and municipalities for products such as lamps, motor vehicles switches, appliance switches, electronic products and dairy manometers. Review revised regional mercury model legislation (Section 10. Collection of Mercury-Added Products) that would require manufacturer-sponsored collection systems for mercury-added products (currently not a part of S. 91).
  9. Review the environmental and economic cost /benefit analysis of existing state policy to prohibit the disposal of residential lamps in landfills.
  10. Work in concert with Department of Agriculture, Food and Markets in obtaining funding sources for completing replacement and removal of the remaining mercury dairy manometers at working and non-working farms throughout the state.
  11. Consider options and funding sources for enhancing statewide access to adequate ongoing collection programs for mercury-containing wastes from business and residential sources. Seek assistance from the Hazardous Waste Network of Vermont municipal solid waste programs in developing options.
  12. Evaluate status of mercury reduction efforts at hospitals and health care facilities in Vermont and advise on voluntary and regulatory strategies that can be used to reduce mercury use. Meet with the Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Care Systems and other health care representatives to identify mercury reduction strategies.
  13. Review the need for mercury emissions limitations from solid waste incinerators and review H. 283 provisions on incinerator emissions. Provide information and recommendations to legislative committees.

Comments and Changes to the Committee Work Plan for 2002:

  • Item 2 – Remove last four words "health risk to Vermonters" and replace with the wording "ecological and human heal risks in Vermont."
  • Item 4 - Committee believes that the work item should stay, as written and detailed focus areas would be determined at a later date.
  • Item 5 –
    • Suggestion to change the first word "Review" to "Oversee" – this is not an attempt to usurp authority but to oversee the project and make recommendations.
    • Be specific whose efforts in the "state" by replacing with specifically the Agency of Natural Resources and the Department of Health.
    • Include the "populations consuming large quantities of fish" along with "sensitive populations."
    • In the last sentence beginning "Identify and advise . . ." change to "identify and provide recommendations on ways to strengthen" prior to the words "enhancements to outreach and education."
  • Item 6 –
    • The first words "Keep abreast of" should be changes to "Oversee the efforts of" or "Coordinate efforts of."
    • Include "and other organizations" in with the list of who is to post fish consumption advisories.
  • Item 7 – Include "and other initiatives" at the end of the first sentence.
  • Item 8 –
    • Suggestion that the burden for collection of residential lamps should be on the manufacturer.
    • Concern that review of residential lamp disposal was necessary to evaluate economic and environment costs.
    • Concern that compromise to place lamps in landfills causes a mixed message to the legislature with the Governors’ support of virtual elimination in the region.
    • Concern that all issues within the spectrum would need to be evaluated (e.g. lamp breakage increased amount of mercury, cost involved in sectors, cost problem for municipalities). Concern that such a study would need sophisticated analysis that may not be able to be effectively completed with the available information and sources.
    • Suggestion that available studies be reviewed to determine if such an evaluation has already been made.
    • Concern that cost is an issue but Committee should consider environmental implications of collection systems.
    • Suggestion that a sub-committee evaluation of problem would provide conclusive evidence one way or the other as to the effectiveness of a requirement to ban residential lamps from the landfill. Concern that the available committee would not be qualified to make such a conclusive determination.
    • Concern as to where the mercury is ending up when it is disposed of in a landfill – the impact on residences of those areas.
    • Concern that this study could lose focus on the issue of the impact of mercury contaminated fish on the fetus – it is necessary to look at the health-based impacts as well.
    • Concern that some members who are in attendance at this meeting were not in attendance at the meeting in November which made the decision to form a sub-committee to examine cost/benefit of residential lamp disposal.
    • Concern that with the lamp-labeling requirement, such a change in direction would confuse the issue of the current requirement to label and the current ban on the disposal of commercial lamp users.
    • Chittenden Solid Waste District wants to focus on priority issues and identify the real problems by determining the environmental impact of disposing of residential lamps in the landfills.
    • Concern that all elements of impact would need to be assessed- not only the cost of recycling, but also the level of toxicity and impacts on human health.
    • Concern that the concept of allowing residential lamps in landfills counters the concept of virtual elimination, which is the goal of the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers.
    • The North East Waste Management Officials Association (NEWMOA) is making recommendations and coordinating revisions in the collection system language in the model. Committee will review what changes have been made in the model language.
    • Committee determined that the issue of residential lamp disposal should be revisited and the Committee would take a vote as to whether to go forward to establish a sub-committee to evaluate residential lamp disposal and as to what recommendations should be included in the 2002 Report. The Committee decided that every member should have an opportunity to vote.
    • An e-mail will be sent by Jan 3rd with responses required by Jan. 8th for direct feedback regarding the formation of a sub-committee to review residential lamp disposal.
    • Concern that what the Committee should be trying to maintain is virtual elimination and judgments should not be ruled solely by the cost to recycle, but also by impact on the environment and human health.
    • Last sentence in Item 8 should be removed and set aside until after the vote.
    • Suggestion to include information regarding model legislation to the end of Item 8.
    • Michael Bender believes that S.91 should include the collection system section of the model and focus on manufacturer responsibility and intends to write a minority opinion that he does not support the legislation without all sections of the model as a part of the legislation.
  • Item 9 –
    • Committee agreed that this item should be listed both as a work plan item and as a recommendation. This item has been a priority item for a number of years.
    • Suggestion that funding sources should be identified.
    • Committee agreed to include "working in conjunction with Department of Agriculture, Food and Markets to obtain funding sources" should be included in the language.
    • Committee agreed to invite Commissioner Graves to attend the next meeting to explore methods to accomplish the removal and/or replacement of the remaining dairy manometers that were not collected in the previous program. A letter will be mailed and this item will be added to the January agenda if the Commissioner is available to attend.
  • Item 10 –
    • Language should be changed to read "Support access of residents and small businesses for regional opportunities" in lieu of "Assist small rural municipalities and solid waste districts."
    • Eliminate the words "hazardous waste" before the words "collection programs."
    • Add the words "and other hazardous waste" or "and other products" to the end of the paragraph.
    • Suggestion to include the wording "regional collection programs that accept mercury" in lieu of "collection programs" in the second line.
    • Health Department has a concern that emergency disposal options are limited for residents within remote areas of the state.
    • Concern that individual towns cannot afford permanent facilities for mercury disposal.
    • Suggestion that Hazardous Waste Network could discuss options for regional approach to mercury collection. Suggestion to add an item to the Committee’s Work Plan regarding the organization of efforts to evaluate state-wide collection efforts to provide adequate ongoing mercury product collection systems. Suggestion that sub-committee would determine the funding necessary implement such programs.
    • Committee agreed that a sub-committee (potentially the Hazardous Waste Network) should be organized to consider options for collection systems to determine potential funding requirements and that the Advisory Committee would make recommendations regarding these findings.
  • Item 11 –
    • Suggestion to contact the Vermont Association of Hospital and Health Systems and other health care representatives to meet with the Advisory Committee to discuss healthcare issues regarding mercury.
    • Suggestion that words at the end of the paragraph "better understand issues . . . of mercury reduction" should be changed to "discuss initiatives for mercury reduction" or "identify mercury reduction strategies."
    • Gary Gulka advised that he had spoken with Porter Medical (who is participating in the EPA Partners for Change Mercury Challenge). Mr. Gulka advised that Porter and its 14 affiliated facilities had eliminated the majority of the mercury in their hospital by removing mercury thermometers, sphygmomanometers (blood pressure monitors) and bougie tubes (esophageal dilators).
    • Committee agreed that hospitals were an important area for which the Committee should focus regarding mercury.
  • Item 12 –
    • Concern that the Committee has not fully discussed the progress of emission standards to the extent necessary to include recommendations in the 2002 Report regarding this area. Suggestion that information from the pending New Jersey report and others should be evaluated to form a recommendation.
    • Suggestion that "Review the need" might be too broad and limitation might need to exist. Suggestion to include language from Title 10 to clarify the need for emission limitations.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

Legislative Recommendations:

  1. Prohibit sale of vehicles with mercury switches in future (DEC discussion item)
  2. Pledge program to discontinue sale of mercury thermostats (See CPR)
  3. Funding to complete dairy manometer program (See CPR)
  4. Mercury device removal in appliances in S.91 – add scrap metal facilities as responsible also in addition to solid waste management facilities and any business.
  5. Certified labeling plans should be required by statute in S.91 rather than as an option of rulemaking.

Other Recommendations:

  1. State purchasing and procurement policies should be amended to require no or minimal mercury content in purchase of all goods and services.
  2. The Committee supports the continued efforts to remove mercury switches from the state vehicle fleet.
  3. The Committee supports the continued funding of the Vermont Monitoring Cooperative in Underhill, VT (the longest continuous mercury air monitoring station worldwide).
  4. The Committee supports the state’s participation in the Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC).

Comments and Changes to the Committee Recommendations:

  • Item 1 –
    • Question as to what switches in vehicles are considered in this recommendation. Committee agreed that the recommendation should be limited to "convenience lighting switches" and this prohibition on the sale of vehicles with mercury switches should be effective for vehicles manufactured after January 1, 2003.
    • Suggestion that this should go hand in hand with manufacturer responsibility for removal of these same switches at end of life and for vehicles in use.
    • S.91 includes removal of switches prior to crushing – concern that salvage yards should not have to be solely responsible to remove convenience light switches.
    • Suggestion that requirement for removal remain with salvage yards and perhaps the salvage yard could send the vehicle identification number to the manufacturer and obtain funding from the manufacturer for the removal of the mercury product.
    • Suggestion that adding the funding responsibility back on to the manufacturer could potentially slow the movement of the bill.
    • Suggestion that financial responsibility for the removal of automobile switches could be equally shared by manufacturer and salvage yard. (shared physical or financial responsibility)
    • Ric Erdheim is opposed to any manufacturer involvement regarding financial or physical responsibility for removing automobile switches.
    • Mary Cannales, Rich Phillips and Michael Bender believe that responsibility for removing mercury switches from vehicles should be a shared physical or financial responsibility between the auto manufacturers and the salvage yards. Neil Kamman does not feel he has enough information to make a determination at this point.
  • Item 2 –
    • The Committee does not feel this item should be under the "legislative recommendations" title as it would not require legislation.
    • CPR Committee did not discuss in any detail
    • Concern that mercury thermostats might be an essential use item
    • Ric Erdheim will provide the Committee with a one-page chart showing thermostat comparison.
    • This item will be discussed at the next meeting after review of the document provided by Ric.
    • The comparison chart will be distributed electronically by Jan 3rd with responses required by Jan. 8th for direct feedback regarding the potential thermostat pledge recommendation.
  • Item 3 –
    • The Committee feels that this item is not a legislative item and should be considered under another topic category
  • Item 4 –
    • Further review of this item indicates the bill may need a comma to further clarify that scrap metal facilities would be included under the responsibility of this section.
  • Item 5 –
    • The Certified Labeling Plan requirement is in current law rather than being implemented by rule. Suggestion that S.91 is corrected to include the Certified Labeling Plan as part of the legislation.
  • Item 6 –
    • Executive order already exists through the Executive Order for the Clean State Council. Suggestion to eliminate procurement from S.91 in favor of an Executive Order and handle through state purchasing using a threshold lower than 5%.

Agenda Item 4-
Other topics not on agenda.

  • The Committee determined to include and update on Fish Advisory Postings in the February Agenda.

Agenda Item 5-
Set date and agenda for next meeting.

The next meeting will be held on Friday, January 11, 2002 from 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. in the Conference Room of the Environmental Assistance Division in the Waterbury State Complex in Waterbury, Vermont.

 

    
return to the hhw collection events page