|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 Advisory Committee on Mercury PollutionSixth Meeting: Wednesday, May 5, 1999 MINUTES Present: The Committee members and interested parties gathered in the Conference Room of the Burlington Municipal Waste Water Treatment plant at Burlington, Vermont and the meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. by Richard Phillips. Agenda Item 1- Accept minutes of the January 18 and March 31 meetings. The minutes of the January 18, 1999 meeting were reviewed and accepted. In review of the minutes for the January 18 meeting, Hollie Shaner noted for the record that a study by Brian J. Fitzgerald referred to in the January minutes had been completed. The March 31, 1999 minutes were reviewed and accepted with one minor correction requested by Hollie Shaner regarding a statement she had made on page three, paragraph three of the minutes whereas she added the word "asked" to the first sentence. Agenda Item 2- Develop 1999 Committee Work Plan. Rich Phillips addressed the Committee by noting that the report from the Regional Task force would not be available until around January 15, 2000. Mr. Phillips explained that there were groups within the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers, on the regional level, created to implement an action plan for mercury. One of the task forces of which Vermont is involved, is working on model legislation for mercury-added products which could be adopted by all states within the region for consistency from state to state. He was not able to share the details of the task force meeting, but gave the Committee an outline of the coverage of items which were currently being discussed as follows:
Mr. Phillips told the Committee that the Regional Task Force was scheduled to meet in Quebec by June 11, 1999 to review the model legislation draft. A second meeting is tentatively scheduled for September once that draft is approved. After that, any state would have common language that they could adopt for model legislation. Tim Scherbatskoy asked if the Canadians were participating in the meetings. Mr. Phillips advised that they had participated very well, even though it was difficult for them to attend. Hollie Shaner asked about the economics that were attached to this list of coverage items. Mr. Phillips felt as though it was a matter of presenting what should be in the legislation and then backing it up with the money necessary to implement. Certainly though, Mr. Phillips added, it would dictate what could be done. Given the probability of readdressing mercury issues in the next legislation, he felt as though the Committee could benefit from the efforts of the regional groups. A case could be prepared for next years legislative session based on the regional model. Mr. Phillips felt as though the work plan for the Committee should be a part of what the regional task force is developing. Hollie Shaner thought that if the Committee used the model legislation that perhaps it would be more beneficial if they prioritized the issues and focused on them in more detail. The Committee reviewed the following information to become a part of the work plan:
Dr. Tim Scherbatskoy identified that there was no mention of an education program and suggested the importance of information and education on mercury issues. Dr. Scherbatskoy asked if the Committee was to address each of the issues on the list. Rich Phillips noted that the Committee had not addressed all the issues on the list. Dr. Scherbatskoy suggested that the Committee make an effort to capture key bits of data and summarize this information to make it more accessible. Gary Gulka added that sometime this fall when a replacement is hired for the vacant position in the Agency regarding mercury, that more support would be available to implement some of the programs which have been considered by the Committee. These programs would be helpful methods to facilitate the issues of the Committee. It could be a determination to consider what programs would be most effective, how they could be implemented, where the funding could be obtained and on which programs the Committee should place their focus. Mr. Gulka suggested that these types of items could be added to the work plan. Hollie Shaner asked the Committee if there were certain critical periods when the members of the Committee should be available. Rich Phillips suggested that he felt the Committee should first work on getting together the information for legislation including the work plan prior to September. He also added that he felt the Committee should review the charge of the Committee and add education and information to the work plan and keep that as a continued area of focus. Mr. Phillips suggested that the Committee provide feed back to the Agency on approaches they might try to take in the area of education which were tangible, practical activities. Agenda Item 3- Continue discussion regarding public service announcements and media coverage. Hollie Shaner suggested to the Committee that a one page document for information on the Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution would be beneficial. This document could communicate who the Governor’s Mercury Task Force is, the issues agreed upon as a group and those issues which were considered priorities. This document could be distributed so that when the legislature begins, they can invoke the Advisory Committee so that these priorities do not get lost. Dr. Tim Scherbatskoy believed that this type of informational document would be very well received by the policy makers and legislators. He suggested a one or two sentence biography, the mandate of Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution and an indication of the issues the Committee is concerned about. Gary Gulka asked the Committee if they considered the audiences to be more than legislators or regulators. Hollie Shaner believed that it would be anybody who had any opportunity to shift the focus or impact in any way. Gary Gulka suggested that this information be placed on the Agency’s mercury web site which already exists to inform the public. Dr. Scherbatskoy agreed that it would certainly aid in visibility to the Committee. Hollie Shaner provided a list of bulleted items to the Committee she felt would be appropriate to include on the web site for the Committee. These items were reviewed and the Committee agreed that information would be compiled and reviewed by the Committee. Rich Phillips added that David Deen had expressed that he was no longer involved in the committee and that his information should be updated for the page on the web site. Mr. Phillips believed that he was to be replaced, but had not received any information regarding that change Rich Phillips indicated that there was still no date set for the Governor’s press conference. He explained that the conference would include a fifteen to twenty minute slot with the Governor promoting perhaps the replacement of thermometers or the labeling aspect of the law and his involvement in regional activities. And for visual, there would be a mercury-added products display board. There was discussion that a graph or charts might be made with information from Dr. Scherbatskoy showing data regarding mercury. Mr. Phillips told the Committee that the Agency would like to have the Commissioners from Health, Natural Resources, Education and Agriculture together with representatives from the solid waste districts available after the press conference to speak to reporters to address specific issues. The Agency plans to lead from there into a month of concentrated public service announcements and eventually a public service announcement which is to be sponsored by Fletcher Allen this summer. Gary Gulka told the Committee that the Agency was working with the solid waste districts to help get the word out to the general public and businesses. Information and displays have been set up at home shows and plans have been made to attend the Business Expo at the end of the month in an effort to get the mercury theme out to small businesses. A pegboard display of mercury-added products will be used for schools and business shows. Mr. Gulka added that the Agency is putting together brochures that are being funded from an enforcement case. He further explained that one of the brochures was being adapted from the Minnesota Great Lakes Region brochure which gives information on alternatives, proper handling and disposal. The Agency is awaiting bids for 5,000 to 10,000 brochures which would be distributed to businesses. The second brochure was one that was geared toward the general public and was adapted from a flyer that was produced by the Western Lake Superior Sanitary District in Duluth, Minnesota. The Agency feels this was an effective piece which contains information on what mercury is, its impact on the environment, bio accumulation and proper handling and disposal. The Agency is also working on a logo which will identify the program specifically to Vermont to be incorporated with these brochures. These are big ticket items which the Agency hopes to introduce with the media campaign and have them available throughout the program. Dr. Tim Scherbatskoy indicated that he had statistical information and data that might make the information in the brochures more Vermont specific. He added that he wrote two scientific publications a year with this type of information and thought that this type of information might be useful. Gary Gulka suggested that this information could be very beneficial to Vermont’s general public. The Committee suggested that Dr. Scherbatskoy compile a list of topics on which he had data so that this information might be either incorporated into the brochures, used in the public service announcement or shown on the mercury web site. Dr. Scherbatskoy advised the Committee that he had been notified by Channel 5 and had an appointment with a reporter to discuss issues regarding mercury. He suggested that he might include that he was a member of the Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution. The Committee recommended he offer the information with their support. Hollie Shaner suggested that this interview might have been prompted by the Dental Amalgam story initiated around the debate in Montpelier. Mr. Gulka continued by advising the Committee of plans to focus on supplying information to several other groups including plumbing contractors and construction trades by working with trade associations to get the word out about mercury. A lot of those groups know what items contain mercury, but need better information on the proper disposal of mercury-added products. Bill Bress told the Committee that the EPA is promoting an effort where a contractor provides information to the homeowner on the possible hazards when remodeling a home. Mr. Bress indicated that his department would be initiating an outreach effort to trade associations and suggested that the Agency could include their mercury information as well. Hollie Shaner asked if it was possible to work with suppliers. Mr. Bress indicated that his department had a good rapport with Home Depot and conducted several workshops there. The Committee suggested this might be a good source to provide information to the public and the construction industry. The school clean-out project is also currently underway. This project, Mr. Gulka stated, is a good opportunity to not only remove the hazardous chemicals and mercury from the labs, but to educate the schools for the effective management of these chemicals in the future. The program is scheduled to start this summer with planning and they should have all the pieces together by September. The program is funded through the solid waste management assistance fund and will pass through a grant allowing them to administer the program. The projected plan is to process twenty-five schools the first year starting this fall, go through a training program, an inventory and clean out program, and then start again with a new set of schools. Mr. Gulka went on to say that the Agency anticipated distributing OpEd pieces, and information through a regular column called "Reflections on the Environment." In the future, Mr. Gulka added, we would like to be talking about other outreach programs; however, at this point we are saturated in our current efforts. Hollie Shaner advised the group that she would also be contacting Ruth Page of Vermont Public Radio’s switchboard to see if she could arrange some time on that program. The Committee asked Annie McMillan with the Vermont Department of Agriculture the status of the Dairy Manometer program. Ms. McMillan advised the Committee that a program would be developed through the course of the summer, but that there was no funding approved. Mr. Gulka asked if the program would happen without special appropriations. Dr. Scherbatskoy asked if she knew where the funding would come from. Ms. McMillan told the group that she felt awareness was a key to the program’s success and that the funding would need to come through appropriations. She acknowledged that although the appropriations committee had given them a great deal of support, the program could only be implemented with proper funding. Bill Bress advised the Committee that there was a Mercury Spill Conference hosted by the Health Department scheduled for June 22, 1999 at the Ramada Inn at White River Junction. The audience for this conference would be first responders, public health nursers and fifty people from the EPA are scheduled to attend. Mr. Gulka asked if they anticipated any teachers or food technicians. Mr. Bress advised the group that the grant was written to offer the program to first responders, but there was room available for other groups. Agenda Item 4- Legislative Activity. Rich Phillips told the Committee that although the legislation did not follow the recommendations of the Committee, they dealt with a number of issues. Mr. Phillips added that emissions were not addressed. He went on to tell the Committee that the draft of the mercury legislation was passed by the House; however, he believed that the Senate would not have the time to move on the legislation. Because of the time frame, Mr. Phillips felt that only one portion of the legislation might be passed regarding the extension of time for labeling from July 1, 1999 to July 1, 2000 with the compliance being certified by January 1, 2000. Mr. Phillips stated that if only the extension-of-time portion of the bill was passed by the Senate then there would be several issues which would not have been addressed. These issues were: the notification requirement by the manufactures, the word "labeled" replaced with "listed" in source separation, the dairy manometer exchange program, and the ban on use of mercury in secondary schools with the requirement for colleges and universities to inventory and report. Mr. Phillips felt that these were valuable bills and expressed his concern at the time and effort by many which had gone into trying to get them passed. Mr. Scherbatskoy asked Mr. Phillips the process for moving the bill through the House and Senate. Mr. Phillips explained to the Committee that the House Natural Resources was presented with three bills. Out of these three bills, they reached a consensus whereas they took portions from each bill and created a committee bill (H561) which first had to be passed by the House. An addition was made to this committee bill before it passed the House adding an exemption for automobile manufacturers. Mr. Phillips continued by explaining that once the bill passed the House, it was passed on to the Senate for consideration. The Chairperson of the Senate has expressed a concern that the remaining time would not allow for additional testimony in the Senate. Hollie Shaner asked if it was too late for anyone on the Committee to contribute to the legislative process.. Mr. Phillips told the group that according to the chair of the Senate that it was too late to accept any more testimony. Mr. Phillips stated that he thought that time has gone by that cannot be recovered. Ms. Shaner suggested that if it was too late to testify, perhaps the Committee could make a statement or draft a letter before the end of the session to look into the future and give the Committee a visible role. Rich Phillips suggested that it could possibly be accomplished through a letter to the two chairs of the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee. Since the Advisory Committee meets on a regular basis, it might be able to anticipate the process and suggest that members of the Committee could testify on any issues that are relevant to mercury. Tim Scherbatskoy suggested that it would be hard to argue that there are experts on the Committee that have been appointed because of their expertise. In addition there is a work plan, stated Dr. Scherbatskoy, that could be advantageous to advise the legislators of what it entails including some more specific pieces such as the regional model legislation. Dr. Scherbatskoy suggested that the work plan be extended to advocate more specific topics. Hollie Shaner added that as pieces of legislation get put aside she would like to make people aware of the health implications of such actions so that there is a clear understanding of what mercury is and how these laws work. Rich Phillips noted that because there are different experts within the Committee on different issues that the Committee could take a stand based on a strong understating of two people out of seven and a consensus could be agreed upon by the Committee. Mr. Phillips added that the legislative decision in the House was a seventeen to zero decision. There couldn’t have been more support in the committee of the House, and the Senate was unable to act because it appears that it just could not be taken up because of the process. The House had a lot of testimony; they reached a decision. Next year, Mr. Phillips believed there were going to be other more significant changes which were going to be important to all the members of the Committee to fully understand and possibly testify. Mr. Phillips felt that these issues could be stronger with support from the Advisory Committee. Hollie Shaner asked if the Committee could consider a briefing of the two chairs of the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee. Ms. Shaner would like to see a relationship built between the two chairs and the Advisory Committee between now and January so that the chairs could understand the concerns and issues regarding mercury. Rich Phillips added that the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee looks for this type of information from the Departments as updates on the issues, he felt that a briefing from the Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution would not be unlike the information which is provided by the Departments. The Committee agreed that its members represent several areas of expertise and during next years legislation they would like to see members of the Mercury Advisory Committee speak on issues within these certain of expertise. The Committee determined that a letter should be drafted to the two chairs of the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee. In the letter the Committee wanted to express their disappointment regarding the outcome of the mercury legislation and their interest in contributing to the legislative process. The Committee concluded that Hollie Shaner would compile topic points for the letter to the two Chairs, and the letter would be drafted by Rich Phillips for final approval by the Advisory Committee. Agenda Item 5- Review NEMA lamp labeling alternative request. Rich Phillips told the Committee that the Agency of Natural Resources had mailed letters to potential manufactures of mercury-added products and had been making various determinations on alternatives which had mostly been requests that required small interpretations. The Agency, however, had received a major proposal which was presented by the National Electronics Manufacturers Association (NEMA) on behalf of its members. Mr. Phillips presented a handout to the Committee regarding an alternative labeling request and asked that the Committee review the information and provide feedback. Rich Phillips advised the Committee that, basically, NEMA is proposing an alternative under the rule which is:
They have expressed a number of concerns and reasons for their proposal. Remember, Mr. Phillips added, you should know that this proposal affects hundreds of products by these companies, it is not one fluorescent tube type. There are hundreds of different fluorescent tubes and high intensity discharge lamps that contain mercury. Some of their concerns are that just having a label on that product that indicates there is mercury there will reduce the use of the environmentally preferred product. Another point is that manufactures do not control distributors of their product and they do not know what portion of their product might be heading to Vermont. They would say that is unreasonable to label for one state as everyone along the distribution process would have to maintain separate inventories. In other words, if you didn’t separately label for Vermont, and distributed the lamps to other states, it could cause conflicts with the lamp handling policies in other states. Hollie Shaner asked if they were not already labeling lamps for Minnesota. Mr. Phillips explained that Minnesota exempted lamps. Another concern is that they cannot put more labeling on many of the lamps due to the size and the manufacturing process. Remember the lamps go all the way from an inch and one quarter down to five sixteenths of an inch. We’ve met with the company’s representatives overall, stated Mr. Phillips, and we’ve heard all their concerns. Our proposal today would be to put a small symbol on the product. The symbol could be Hg or an M in a circle. The Hg raises the problem that it is the symbol for mercury. Dr. Tim Scherbatskoy asked if a compromise was made to accept this proposal would more pro active language be used in other parts of the packaging. Mr. Phillips responded that the basic label requirements of the law for minimum wording would state "Contains Mercury, Do Not Dispose in Trash, Recycle or Dispose as Hazardous Waste." Our view of the packaging would be a sticker onto the package in Vermont or wholesaler to a retailer whereas the final packaging would be labeled. Also, we would like to see a label on the invoice where the final purchaser is a contractor, business, commercial enterprise, institution as opposed to a homeowner, and, a flyer with label information to homeowners with the final purchase. Dr. Scherbatskoy asked who would see the invoice in the business. Would it be the installation contractor or head of facilities? Mr. Phillips noted that every operation works differently. Mr. Phillips noted that in the end, you would need a symbol you could tie back to the label or on the invoice. Dr.Scherbatskoy stated the importance of tying all of this back to an education program. Gary Gulka asked if the lamp manufacturers were able to label and stamp all of the lamps even the smaller ones. Rich Phillips responded that all of the lamps were labeled. Bill Bress asked how the lamps had to be labeled. Mr. Phillips explained that the lamp manufacturers label their lamps with ink and not a label. He noted that the lamps have existing labeling on them including an "E" in a circle for the energy-efficient program. The Committee concluded that those who had not already responded would forward their recommendations by e-mail. Agenda Item 6- Other agenda items. Rich Phillips advised the group that the Agency would probably also be working with the auto industry whereas a doorpost label would be considered together with an end of life salvage yard program. The auto industry is suggesting that the information is provided in the owner’s manual. Agenda Item 7- Set date and agenda for next meeting. The Committee suggested that the next meeting be held at the Environmental Assistance Division office in Waterbury. The date was set for June 11, 1999 between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. and those unable to attend would attend by Tele-conference.
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |