Vermont Agency of Natural Resources |
|||
Advisory Committee on Mercury PollutionMeeting #18: Thursday, July 13, 2000 MINUTES Members Present: Guests Present: The Committee members and interested parties gathered in the Board Room of the Fanny Allen Campus of Fletcher Allen Health Care on Rt. 15 in Colchester, Vermont and the meeting was called to order by Hollie Shaner. Agenda Item 1- The minutes of the Seventeenth meeting on May 10, 2000 were reviewed and accepted with no changes Agenda Item 2- The Committee determined that all members were to review the draft letter which was previously forwarded to them via E-mail and final comments were to be E-mailed to Karen Knaebel by July 21, 2000. Agenda Item 3- Information on Geratherm was collected by Tim Scherbatskoy and Bill Bress from the Committee. The Committee was informed that a summer intern, Sergey Babakov, was working with John Berino of Fletcher Allen to determine the toxicity of the elements in the non-mercury thermometers. All information would be added to this research and the Committee would request final comments from their research by August 15, 2000. This information would be forwarded by E-mail to the members by Karen Knaebel. Agenda Item 4- The Committee noted that the status of many members of the Advisory Committee would need to be resolved as follows:
Other candidates were proposed by members as follows:
Since Hollie Shaner and Tim Scherbatskoy will not be available to serve as chairs, the Committee decided to elect a new chair. Rich Phillips was nominated by Michael Bender, the motion was seconded and the nomination was unanimously approved. The Committee determined that the appointment of a member of a solid waste district is not provided for by statute. The Committee agreed, however, that the input from the members of the solid waste districts was important and they wished to encourage their attendance. Agenda Item 5- The Committee determined that a general evaluation of each section of the model legislation would be more effective than the previous method of review. Review from this point on would involve key comments on each section and suggestions for major revision concerns. Rich Phillips gave an overview of each section for clarification. Continue review of Section 12 This section was deferred to a later date due to time constraints. Section 7 - Phase-out and Exemptions The purpose of this section is to move directly toward virtual elimination of mercury. How much mercury is there? What is its purpose? Is there a substitute? Very stringent section, but allows products to continue to be sold. Limits number of renewals of exemptions. a. For the first two years it deals with products with a gram or more of mercury. In four years that amount goes down to 100 mg. The sixth year the level goes down to 10 mg which is the de minimis for phase out. b./c. These sections insure that amount is applicable in individual components not to the total product. d. The value of fluorescent lamps is known. The industry itself knows where it is going. This gives them an eight-year window to see if the amount of mercury within the product can be lowered. e. This section speaks to health and safety requirements that may already be in place by federal requirements. f. If a product continues to have more than one gram the manufacturer can apply for an exemption. Applications for exemptions document the basis for the exemption and then there needs to be a collection system in place. The basis for the exemption requires that all three of the following criteria be met:
Comments:
Section 8 - Labeling of Mercury-added Products The purpose of labeling is education both in product selection and end of life disposal. Within two years products must be labeled on the product and its packaging. a. Also addresses retailers' liability concerning lack of knowledge that products contain mercury. b. Addresses mercury-containing component products and larger products which contain these component products. c. Addresses label visibility. d. Addresses durability of the label. e. Addresses point of sale notification. f. Addresses who is responsible for labeling. g. Addresses labeling for specific product categories. h. Addresses alternative methods of prior to purchase "public" notification including requirements to apply for alternative labeling and specifics for two-year limit. Comments:
Section 10-Collection of Mercury-added Products One year time frame for submission of collection plan by manufacturer. Manufacturer assumes some responsibility for having a collection plan in place. Manufacturers can develop or expand on existing collection systems. Within one year, entity submitting the plan shall insure recovery system is in full operation. Comments: Mention was made that the solid waste districts had presented a concern to include legislation to make removal of mercury components from appliances mandatory. This recommendation may be best addressed in another section.
After review of this section, the Committee determined that they would provide this information to representatives from the solid waste districts for their review and comment. Karen Knaebel is to E-mail the three representatives of the solid waste districts with the request from the Committee and forward the comments on to the members of the Committee if obtained prior to the next Committee meeting. Agenda Item 6-
Agenda Item 7- A suggestion was presented to the Committee that future Advisory Committee meetings be held in Waterbury as a central location for those members coming from Burlington and those coming from the Montpelier area. The Committee agreed that Waterbury would be a good central location for future meetings. The next meeting of the Advisory Committee on Mercury Pollution is to be held on Wednesday, August 30, 2000 from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. in the Training Room of Water Supply in the Waterbury State Complex in Waterbury, Vermont.
|