MERC Vermont | Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution Meeting Minutes


		Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution

Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution

Meeting #58: Thursday, December 16, 2004
Time: 9:00 am to 11:30 am
Location: Conference Room, Environmental Assistance Office
Laundry Building, Waterbury State Complex, Waterbury, Vermont

MINUTES

Members Present:
Michael Bender, Abenaki Self-Help Association, Inc.
Neil Kamman, Agency of Natural Resources, Water Quality Division
Senator Virginia Lyons, Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee
Rich Phillips, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Environmental Assistance

Guests Present:
Allison Crowley-DeMag, New England Public Affairs Group
Jennifer Holliday, Chittenden Solid Waste Management District
Rebecca McCarty, New England Public Affairs Group
Peter Taylor, Vermont State Dental Society
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 Office, Waterbury State Complex. Rich Phillips called the meeting to order.

Agenda Item 1-
Accept minutes of the November 18th meeting and possible changes to today's agenda.

The November minutes were approved as written.

Agenda Item 2-
Discuss recommendations (including legislative recommendations) and review draft annual report.

The Committee reviewed draft legislative language to determine their recommendations to the legislature for the upcoming report. A draft report will be reviewed at the next committee meeting. Each section was reviewed as follows:

AN ACT RELATING TO COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT OF HUMAN EXPOSURE TO MERCURY

Suggestion to remove the work "Human" from the title of the legislation.
Findings -
1. The language from the previous S.111 legislation was updated to reflect current relevant mercury related information.
2. Information as to legislative activities in other states was included.
3. The findings still reflect the activities of the New England Governor's and Eastern Canadian Premiers action plan and goals.
4. The University of Massachusetts Lowell Study that was developed for Maine is included as a significant accomplishment in providing mercury product related information and potential alternatives that are available.
5. Suggestion to include information from the recent Lowell study on batteries.
6. Request by Allison Crowley-DeMag to correct the finding regarding auto switches to include language that identifies that mercury switches are no longer being included in new vehicles.
7. The committee determined that any additional suggestions to be included in the findings section should be provided via e-mail prior to the next meeting.
Definitions -
1. Wording was added to "Formulated mercury-added product" to include specifics shown in Connecticut's legislation as it applied to pharmaceutical and biological exemptions.
2. "Manufacturer" definition was changed slightly to clarify the definition.
3. "Mercury-added product" now includes in the definition the words "one or more" to identify components and also "a product that cannot function without the use of said component" to further clarify products included under the legislation.
4. "Mercury Fever Thermometer" identifies that this definition does not include a fever thermometer with a mercury-added button cell battery.
5. The definition for "White Goods" was changed to "Large Appliance" and additional items were added to the category as modeled after Connecticut's legislation.
6. The definition for "Motor Vehicle" was added to clarify and expand the category for the labeling section.
7. Jen Holiday had a concern regarding the definition for "formulated products" because of her involvement in the Chittenden Solid Waste District and their recycled paint program. She does not believe the labeling requirement would apply to recycled paint because mercury is not "intentionally added" (The Committee agreed). Her concern centers on landfill disposal for recycled paint that may need to be banned from landfill disposal. The recycled paint may potentially have no mercury and in the future will likely contain no mercury. Because it may contain mercury (under the definition of formulated product) it is banned from landfill disposal. The Committee suggested that Jen develop language to address this issue and provide it for Committee review.
Multistate Clearinghouse -
1. The Committee feels use of the Clearinghouse is essential for successful and consistent implementation of the law.
2. Language for the Clearinghouse section was modeled from Maine and Connecticut.
Notification -
1. The notification section was rewritten to include Maine and Connecticut language in order to be more consistent with current manufacturer requirements.
2. Language was added to allow reporting of mercury content by exact number as well as by range.
3. Language in this section was written to coordinate reporting dates to coincide with scheduled Clearinghouse reporting dates.
Restrictions on the Sale and Use of Certain Mercury-Added Products -
1. Section has sales bans without exemption for novelties, fever thermometers, thermostats, and dairy manometers similar to S.111. The Committee agrees that implementation dates for these sections are reasonable.
2. The section for Elemental mercury was moved to this section and is no longer a stand-alone section. The language is modeled after Maine legislation and is identical to S.111. This section only allows for medical or research use and addresses banning for cultural use.
3. A ban on food thermometers as included in S.111 is addressed in the measuring device section of this bill and allows for exemptions if necessary.
4. Neil Kamman had concern that mercury thermometers used for calibration in labs would be banned. He would like to hear from other states as to what they are doing with this issue and if they have received any exemption requests. Could this potentially be a repetitive exemption request that should be addressed as a standard exception to the requirement?
5. The proposed effective date on the ban on instruments and measuring devices (which includes thermometers other than fever) is January 1, 2007; Maine's effective date is 2006. The proposed legislation is Maine's language, and the Committee needs to determine if they are just going to ban food thermometers or all other lab thermometers.
6. Suggestion to provide language in the instrument ban that excludes lab thermometers with mercury-added button cell batteries.
7. Question as to whether autos would be banned under the "switch" ban. Allison responded that vehicles no longer utilize switches for any application in autos.
8. Language was added to this section to addresses industry concerns regarding the ban on components in larger products used for manufacturing processes in the event of component failure.
9. The draft also includes language that excludes a switch, relay or measuring device that is integrated and not physically separate from other components of the larger product. Rich Phillips is going to check with Maine to determine the purpose of this language.
10. Collection system requirements for exemptions were added and language was modeled after other states in region.
11. Requirement included to provide information on the renewal of an exemption that requires a manufacturer to make reasonable efforts to remove mercury from the product.
12. A critical issue with the relay ban may be Blodgett Ovens in Burlington. According to IMERC, Blodgett used three tons of mercury in one year. Although this is a significant amount, it is unknown if there is an alternative to the component that is utilized in Blodgett's ovens. The department plans to meet with Blodgett after the first of the year to discuss issues and options regarding the effects of this section of legislation.
13. Concern that bans on relays and switches may have an adverse effect when used in commercial products where a product that utilizes a mercury component may fail. If the product is not used in manufacturing, (for example a pizza oven where the business would be interrupted), should there be some sort of an exemption in these cases where time is crucial?
Labeling of Mercury-Added Products -
1. The language is very similar to S.111 as passed by with some standardized wording changing. Labeling section changes made to provide consistency with all other states whereby a manufacturer can comply in Vermont and meet the requirements of all other states with labeling legislation.
2. Section specific to exempting labeling button cell batteries, photographic film and paper products.
3. Identification of font size requirements for label wording.
4. Section added that applies to products that contain a button cell battery as their only component.
  1. Concern by Committee regarding opposition by EverReady.
  2. It was identified that the language for requirements on products with button cell batteries was specifically taken from Connecticut law requirement. This is a requirement specifically for manufacturers of products that contain button-cell batteries and does not include any requirements on the battery manufacturer. It is important to keep state labeling implementation consistent with other states during the development of legislation in Vermont.
5. Section added for products with backlighting. This section is consistent with Connecticut law and is primarily included to address electronic products where the lamp is not accessible.
6. Suggestion that wording be added to exclude automobiles from the "backlighting" section, as doorpost labeling is already included as a motor vehicle requirement and this would contradict the intent of that section.
7. Alternative renewal information was included as written in Connecticut law.
8. A note was added to the end of motor vehicle labeling for those motorized vehicles with no doorposts such as motorcycles.
9. Instruction was included in the legislation for updating labeling plans to identify any new labeling as required under new legislation.
Discarded Mercury-Added Products -
1. Section involving mandatory removal of auto switches may be more effective as a stand-alone bill modeled after Maine or New Jersey language that would provide for manufacturer responsibility.
2. Michael Bender advised the Committee that he would be opposed to including the auto switch removal requirements, which imposes the responsibility on the salvage yard.
3. Ginny Lyons had a concern as to the cost and expense for the local salvage yard. Question as to what has happened in Maine with their law that requires the manufacturer to be responsible?
4. Concern as to why button cell batteries banned from disposal. Suggestion to include mercury-added batteries in the disposal ban.
5. Rich Phillips advised that this section was incomplete and will be reviewed by the Solid Waste Division. Language will be revised per their suggestions and reviewed via e-mail.
Mercury in Schools -
1. Peter Taylor had concerns regarding the elimination of the Dental Vocational schools. The information was moved and included in the dental section of the legislation; Mr. Taylor would like to see it included in both places.
2. No changes overall to content of this section from S.111.
Mercury-Added Products Used in Dental Procedures -
1. The draft is similar to S.111 as passed through the senate.
2. It manages dental offices and vocational programs.
3. Agency consults with the Vermont State Dental Society (Dental Society) to develop best management practices.
4. Adds dental amalgam separate installation requirements.
5. Requires maintenance records to be kept for separators.
6. Adds definition of amalgam separator within this section.
7. Includes potential exemptions for those who do not place or remove amalgams.
8. Reporting requirement similar to S.111 but changes responsibility from the Vermont Department of Health (VDH) to Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) working with the Dental Society to provide recommendations (since DEC and Dental Society already have a working relationship on this issue).
9. Draft combines Maine and Minnesota exemption requirements.
10. Committee agreed that being specific as to who is exempt by including specialists categories and also including the wording "Any other dental office that does not place or remove amalgam" provides a broad enough range to capture offices not specifically listed that should be exempted.
11. Concern about reporting requirements - Gary Gulka advised the Committee that 90% of the dentists currently self-certify every other year regarding their compliance with Best Management Practices (BMP). The draft language facilitates what the dentists are currently doing on a volunteer basis. With self-certification they are able to review BMPs and indicate which ones they apply and follow. The information as to whether they installed and are maintaining amalgam separators would be added to the current certification process.
12. Peter Taylor advised that the Dental Society supported BMPs in the previous requirements and worked with DEC on the amalgam separator pilot. Mr. Taylor advised the Committee that the Dental Society supported the BMPs in the proposed legislation; however, they requested that the Committee consider not mandating amalgam separators. Mr. Taylor proposed that the Dental Society would work with their members to get separators installed in Vermont dental offices. Mr. Taylor suggested that the Committee add this requirement to the BMPs. He added that he felt most of the mercury was already currently being collected in the existing chair-side filter systems that are already installed in all dental offices.
  1. Question as to the number currently installed amalgam separators in Vermont. Peter Taylor advised the Committee that he was uncertain of the exact number but that the Dental Society would encourage the use of the separators.
  2. Some members of the Committee had concern that they believed that the purpose of the pilot project was that once it was completed, it was the Committee's understanding that the Dental Society was going to promote the use of amalgam separators to its members to avoid requirements.
  3. Some members of the Committee had concern that they had been working with the Dental Society for three years to develop the pilot in order that the Society could be more information in order to direct its members to the best possible equipment available.
  4. Suggestion that resistance to legislation may come from the national level through the American Dental Society. Peter Taylor advised the Committee that the resistance to this part of the legislation was not on a national level and that the Vermont Dental Society had been on that track for a long time.
  5. Question as to whether the Dental Society was making this request to allow for time for a volunteer program to work. The Committee felt that the proposed legislation postponed the requirement for an ample amount of time to work with dental offices. Peter Taylor advised the Committee that the language in the proposed legislation was well written. The Dental Society was just asking for consideration that amalgam separators not be mandated.
  6. Michael Bender advised the Committee that the New England Governors commit to a goal of 50% reduction in the region by 2005. The numbers show that 3% of the dentists in Vermont have amalgam separators in 2003 compared with Connecticut that has 60% - 70% compliance. He feels the approach the Committee is suggesting is a consistent approach with other states. Peter Taylor advised the Committee that he could almost guarantee that all dentists would be in compliance by 2006 through a voluntary effort. Mr. Bender responded that Seattle had ten years of voluntary programs with a 3% compliance rate.
  7. Rich Phillips reminded the Committee that the original discussion with the Dental Society was that once the pilot project was complete that the amalgam separator requirement was to be added to the BMP Procedures. He contended; however, that he did not feel this was unreasonable legislation to have a target date of January 1, 2007. This would give the Dental Society two years to work out the details. Mr. Phillips suggested that the Committee consider the request.
Hospital Mercury Reduction Plan -
1. An exemption was added for 95% reduction from the baseline year.
2. Concern that it may be difficult to identify baseline.
Public Education and Outreach -
1. Concern in the wording "may" provide outreach.
2. If the legislation is passed with no provision for additional staff, outreach will likely be reduced because of lack of resources.
Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution (ACMP) -
1. Addition of representative from a Solid Waste District per S.111.
2. Addition of representative from Fish and Wildlife.
3. Committee agreed to sunset ACMP 2010 unless extended by the legislature.
4. Discussion as to the imbalance of the Committee in reference to number of members of the Committee who are state employees. Suggestion to make an effort to include more members that do not work for state government to more appropriately balance the Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution membership.
5. Suggestion to add an environmental advocate to committee.
6. Committee agreed to leave member list as written in the draft which includes "a" and "b" above.
Misc. Sections -
1. Sections at the end of the bill are to identify current legislation that must be altered or repealed if new legislation is adopted. This section needs to be refined and can be dealt with when the legislation is drafted and a number assigned.

Draft legislation will be changed according to the decisions of this meeting and distributed to the members via e-mail. A meeting will be set to discuss only the outstanding key areas for final decisions that will be included in the legislative report. The report itself will be reviewed and approved for release via e-mail prior to the due date.

Agenda Item 3-
Other items not included on the agenda.

Discussion of timing for release of the report

Report due by January 15, 2005
Discussion to determine if legislation should be a part of the report or if the report should include a summary.
Administration does not have a mercury bill drafted at this time.
Committee agreed that draft legislation would be finalized via e-mail
Comment that a separate bill may be introduced to address the manometer portion of the mercury legislation and would include a funding schedule incremental over the year and may be moved over to an Agriculture bill. Key portion would be funding.
May be a separate bill regarding banning Thimerisol for infant vaccination and for pregnant women. Suggestion that the Committee take a position in the report on this issue.

Agenda Item 4-
Set date and agenda for next meeting.

The next meeting will be held in Montpelier and will be determined by the availability of all parties via e-mail. The meeting will be set for early in the first two weeks of January, before January 5th if possible.