|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 Advisory Committee on Mercury PollutionSeventh Meeting: Wednesday, September 29, 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 by Richard Phillips. Agenda Item 1- Accept minutes of the May 5 meeting. The minutes of the May 5, 1999 meeting were reviewed and accepted. Agenda Item 2- Acknowledge addition of replacement for David Deen and elect new chair and vice-chair of the Committee. It was noted for the record that Mary Sullivan has been appointed to replace David Deen as of February 19, 1999. Rich Phillips advised the Committee that it would be necessary to elect a new Chair. Mr. Phillips noted that he had been acting in the absence of David Deen but he would like to have someone else fill the position. Mr. Phillips prompted those present to volunteer for the position or to nominate a member that they felt would be appropriate to chair. Hollie Shaner asked what the responsibilities of the chair would be. Mr. Phillips advised that the chair would facilitate the meetings and is responsible for organizing and prioritizing the agenda items. Mr. Phillips added that the agenda and minutes could still be maintained by Karen Knaebel at the Agency of Natural Resources. Some of the agenda items are determined at the previous meeting. Ms. Shaner stated that she would be willing to co-chair but suggested that perhaps someone who was more involved would be better suited to chair the meetings. It was agreed by the Committee that Rich Phillips would remain the acting Chair of the Committee and the recommendation for another member of the Committee to assume the responsibilities as Chair would be addressed at a later date when more members where present. It was also understood and agreed that Hollie Shaner would co-chair the Committee. Agenda Item 3- Discuss adding member of solid waste district as ex-officio member of committee. Rich Phillips pointed out to the Committee that the solid waste districts had a key involvement in the implementation of many mercury programs. He suggested that the Committee consider including a representative from the solid waste districts to attend the meetings. He added that this possibility was raised before legislature committees, but no changes occurred in the law. Mr. Phillips suggested to the Committee that they officially invite a representative from the solid waste districts to each of the meetings for coordination and information sharing purposes. The Committee agreed that the representative would not be an official member and would not have the benefit of vote, but could have all other member privileges. Elizabeth Ready pointed out that this attendee could not be an "ex officio" member of the committee and that any type of membership should not be extended to the public. The Committee agreed that a letter should be drafted by Rich Phillips to the members of the Association of District Managers to request that a representative be appointed to attend the meetings of the Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution. Agenda Item 4- Review letter to Chairs of House and Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee. Rich Phillips reminded the Committee of the previous decision to compose a letter to the two chairs of the House and Senate Natural Resources Energy Committee. This letter was to address the concerns of the Committee and to offer information and testimony by the Committee for input into the legislative process. Mr. Phillips advised that he had drafted a letter as requested. A copy of this letter was sent by E-mail to the members for review. He has received responses from members of the committee and the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation. Mr. Phillips stated that the letter was still in the draft stage and he questioned the necessity of a letter which would be addressed to the chairs of the House and Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committees who are also on the Advisory Committee. Tim Scherbatskoy told the Committee that he felt that the letter would serve to identify the concerns of the Committee and that they were valid concerns. He added that the value of the letter was so that the chairs of the House Natural Resources and Energy Committees could share this information with their committees. He felt if the conversation was held within the Advisory Committee that it would not have the same impact as it would if the information was shared by the chairs with their own committees. Mr. Phillips told the Committee that if they wished, he would continue by updating the draft and re-circulate for comments so that a finalized document could be approved at the next meeting. Mary Sullivan suggested that the letter be addressed to the members of the committees rather than the chairs. Hollie Shaner raised the question as to who would sign the letter. Mr. Phillips advised the had been drafted for the entire committee to sign. Mr. Scherbatskoy explained that there are experts on the Advisory Committee who could contribute legislative testimony. He added that there is a great deal of knowledge and talent in the Committee and this is an avenue of recognition of this talent. Hollie Shaner added that this Committee was appointed by the Governor to advise the legislature but it seemed, from her standpoint, that not a lot happened. People testified, but she questioned whether the legislative committees even knew the recommendations of the Advisory Committee. Rich Phillips recognized that the Committee had two or three meetings last year where the Committee developed a legislative report. Essentially last year’s report was a series of recommendations for legislative changes. David Deen took those and placed them into a bill and the outcome of the legislative process was an extension of time on the labeling plan. Many of the issues that were proposed by the Committee were not acted upon. But a better opportunity would be to keep the legislative committees informed of the Advisory Committee’s activities and offer the Committee’s expertise when possible. Ms. Shaner added that she would rather see a pro-active approach rather than wait to be called upon for testimony. Mary Sullivan added that she would welcome regular updates that could be sent out to the House Committee to keep them apprised of current progress. Tim Scherbatskoy suggested quarterly updates be sent. Rich Phillips suggested copies of the minutes. The Committee agreed that the minutes should be sent to the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee together with a letter summarizing the Advisory Committee’s current activities and issues which the Committee considered important. Ms. Sullivan explained to the Committee that, at the beginning of the legislative sessions, presentations are commonly made on various issues. Ms. Sullivan suggested that the Committee consider coordinating a display for the card room to be held at the beginning of the legislative session. The Committee agreed that they would pursue this idea and discuss coordination of the details at a later meeting. Agenda Item 5- Review model legislation and finalize Committee work plan. Rich Phillips advised the Committee that the model legislation which was being developed through NEWMOA (Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association) had not yet been released. Mr. Phillips projected that the draft would be released around October 15, 1999 and that on November 23 and November 30, stakeholders meetings had tentatively been scheduled. Mr. Phillips discussed the key elements of the model in a handout as follows:
Mr. Phillips advised the Committee that the model legislation was a substantial project which would take some time to finalize. After the stakeholders meetings, the model legislation would have to be redrafted which would require countless follow-up meetings. It would then go through the Northeast Governors before it could be approved as a model. After that it would then have to go through the legislative process. Mr. Phillips felt it would be necessary to update the mercury rules in order to obtain better clarity and authority. As far as changes to the law, the Agency does not suggest to go back into the legislature until the model legislation changes are made and the document finalized. Mr. Phillips told the Committee that the issues being dealt with in the model legislation were complex and would require a substantial amount of time and effort to finalize and reach consensus. Mr. Phillips added that the Committee would have a document they could begin to review and evaluate and suggested that the Committee use the model legislation as a primary focus for the work plan. Mary Sullivan asked Mr. Phillips if the assumption was that other states would be working toward the model legislation at the same time. Mr. Phillips said that he believed that the model legislation has to be adopted as a package at the same level in each state. Other states, he concluded, would be looking at the legislation as a menu as to what aspects of the legislation would best suit their needs. Mr. Phillips advised the Committee that he would forward a copy of the model legislation to the members as soon as it was available. Ms. Sullivan also added that the regional information should be included in the information provided to the legislative committee. Agenda Item 6- Review information to be placed on mercury web site for Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution. A hand-out introducing a potential format for the Advisory Committee page was given to the Committee by Karen Knaebel for review. Ms. Knaebel outlined the structure of the existing mercury web site where the Advisory Committee information would be included and its content. Ms. Knaebel asked the Committee members to review the information and advise her of any comments or recommendations. Agenda Item 7- Update on Information and Education Campaign. Gary Gulka updated the Committee on the progress of the school science lab clean-out project. Mr. Gulka told the Committee that middle and high schools were contacted in June informing them of the program. Mr. Gulka told the Committee that schools that were signed up for the program would attend a training in October and another in the spring. The program assists schools in identifying targeted chemicals for disposal. Twenty-five schools will be attending the first training on October 5, 1999 which will include speakers from out-of-state. Inventories will be conducted and chemicals will be picked up for disposal this fall. In spring, the second round of school training will begin. The Agency has the funding to complete the project with three rounds of schools. Mr. Scherbatskoy was interested if this would include any type of thermometer or thermostat take back program. Mr. Gulka said that they were trying to find a method to implement some sort of a program and include it in the laboratory chemical management plans they would be putting together with the schools in the spring. Hollie Shaner added that there were also mercury-containing chemicals in the school kitchens and many items in the nurses offices. Mr. Scherbatskoy asked if the Agency had a ball-park figure on the cost per school to clean out the chemicals. Mr. Gulka stated that it would cost between $1,000 and $2,500 per school and that they were trying to keep the cost down by consolidating the chemicals at the solid waste districts so as to dispose in aggregate. He believes the overall cost to be around $200,000 plus. Mr. Gulka added that about fifty pounds of mercury-added components are disposed through appliances each year into the landfills. The Agency is determining how to provide incentives for the removal and proper disposal of these components. Mary Sullivan felt that few people were aware of proper fluorescent bulb disposal. Mr. Scherbatskoy noted that if there were fifty pounds per year from appliances then what was the number for fluorescent lamps that would go into the landfills? Rich Phillips stated that in 1995 the figure was 105 pounds. He added that the lamps contained about 30 mg of mercury at that point and since it was now nearer to 12-15 mg that the 105 pounds could be slightly high. He also noted that lamps now have a longer life. Mr. Phillips estimated 70 pounds per year go into the landfills. The Committee agreed that the public should be informed as to the requirements for disposal of fluorescent lamps. Mr. Gulka advised the Committee that the solid waste districts and municipalities are required to set up programs to get the information out to the public and businesses. Karen Knaebel informed the Committee on the current progress of the mercury labeling program. Ms. Knaebel noted that she had received thirteen alternative labeling requests that had been approved and another twelve that were pending. She added that the Agency had approved fourteen plans and approximately sixteen were pending. Ms. Knaebel added that she had fielded about 300 inquires from manufacturers. Ms. Knaebel informed the Committee that she felt the manufacturers were making every effort to comply with the provisions of the law. She showed the committee several samples of labels which were being used by various types of product manufacturers. Ms. Knaebel noted that she had made an attempt to locate manufacturers of products containing mercury through the types of products which were manufactured. She advised that she had sent out around 3,000 notifications and had received several hundred responses from those manufacturers which did not manufacture the items which contained mercury. By this elimination and the notification she is receiving from manufacturers, she hopes to establish an accurate listing of the mercury-added product manufacturers and those manufacturers who incorporate these components into their products. Rich Phillips recapped the current status of the NEMA suit. He advised the Committee that they were waiting for the decision. Mr. Phillips also stated that the auto industry had agreed to label the doorpost on the vehicles. They had also stated that all components to the automobile would not need to be labeled providing the doorpost label was in place and a salvage yard program was implements. Mr. Phillips added that this had been a long back and forth process of negotiation, but that he believed an agreement had been made to label everything they produce everywhere. (Subsequently this belief was shown to be incorrect. The manufacturers will only label for Vermont.) Mr. Phillips continued by briefing the Committee on a current issue with consumer electronics industries who had just recently realized that they were required to label. It was proposed that, since a system was not in place for proper disposal through the solid waste districts, a two-year alternative labeling would be granted. This alternative would eliminate internal component and product labeling and replace it with any method of notifying the consumer prior to purchase. This could be mail order, Internet or other methods strictly complying with the visibility requirement under the rule. Mr. Phillips added that this was still being negotiated. Mr. Phillips explained that a label on the product at this point would trigger the landfill ban of the product. Since there were no programs in place for the recycling of consumer electronics, this could place a burden on the consumer as to how to properly dispose of the product yet be in compliance with the landfill ban. Mr. Phillips told the Committee that any agreement which was reached with the electronics industries would have a limited duration of two years at which time it would be re-evaluated. Agenda Item 8- Other topics not on agenda. Mary Sullivan asked the Committee if the Agriculture Department had received the backing that they needed and if the amount which was needed was known. Gary Gulka told the Committee that he heard Annie MacMillan state, in a recent meeting, that a study was completed this past summer. She had stated that there were approximately 75 farms at an estimate of $300.00 per farm. Ms. Shaner believed that the $22,500 seemed low. Ms. Sullivan suspected that the abandoned farms might not be included in that figure. She stated that one spill from an abandoned farm could cost upwards of $10,000. Hollie Shaner suggested that the Committee obtain an update from Annie MacMillan. Hollie Shaner updated the Committee on the Public Service Announcement (30-second TV PSA) which is to be sponsored by Fletcher Allen Health Care. She advised the committee that the order was bumped and she was still waiting to hear about the proposed scheduling. Agenda Item 9- Set date and agenda for next meeting. The Committee suggested that the next meeting be held at the Burlington Municipal Waste Water Treatment Plant in Burlington. The date was set for November 5, 1999 between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. The location has since been changed to the board room in Fannie Allen Campus of Fletcher Allen Health Care on Route 15 in Colechester, Vermont.
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |