5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORUII’JAY
Page 1
1
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
2
IN THE MATTER
OF
)
STANDARDS
FOR UNIVERSAL
)
P. 05-8
3
WASTE MANAGEMENT
)
~
CLERK’S OFFICE
(35 ILL.
ADM.
CODE PARTS
703,
4
720,
721,
725,
728 AND 733)
)
O~C2O2OO4
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution
Control
Board
The Rulemaking Proceedings, before
the
Illinois Pollution Control Board,
was held
December
15,
2004,
at 10:05
a.m.
at 100 West
Randolph Street, Room 8-033,
Chicago,
Illinois,
before Marie
E.
Tipsord,
Hearing Officer.
Page2
1
APPEARANCES:
2
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
100 West Randolph Street
3
Suite
11-500
Chicago,
Illinois
60601
4
(312)
814-3900
BY:
Ms.
Marie Tipsord
5
Mr.
J.
Phillip Novak,
Board Member
Mr.
G.
Tanner Girard,
Board Member
6
Mr. Nicholas Melas,
Board Member
Mr. Thomas Johnson,
Board Member
7
Mr. Anand Rao,
Board Staff
Ms. Alisa Liu,
Board Staff
8
Mr. Timothy Fox,
Board Staff
9
Illinoi? Environmental
Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East,
10
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield,
Illinois
62794
11
(217)
782-5544
BY:
Mr.
M.
Kyle Rominger
12
Mr.
Kevin Green
Mr. Mark Crites
13
Ms.
Lindsey Evans
14
Appeared on behalf
of the Illinois
Environmental
Protection Agency.
15
16
ALSO PRESENT:
Mr. Leonard Worth
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page 3
1
HEARING
OFFICER TIPSORD:
Good morning.
2
My name is Marie Tipsord.
And
I have been
3
appointed by the board to serve as a hearing
4
officer in these proceedings entitled in the
5
Matter of Proposed Standards for Universal Waste
6
Management Amendments
to 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 703,
7
720,
721,
724,
725,
728 and 733.
The docket
8
number
is R05-8.
9
To my left is chairman Phillip Novak,
10
the lead board member assigned
to this matter.
11
To my right
is Dr.
Tanner Girard, who is also
12
assigned to this rulemaking.
13
Also present
to Dr.
Girard’s right
is
14
Nicholas
J.
Melas and board member Thomas
15
Johnson
--
I
should say board member Nicholas
16
Melas as well.
17
From our technical staff,
we have
18
Anand Rao and Alisa Liu.
And also present
is Tim
19
Fox,
attorney assistant
to Chairman Novak.
20
This is the first hearing to be held in
21
this proceeding.
The purpose of today’s hearing
22
is to hear the testimony of the Illinois
23
Environmental
Protection Agency and to allow
24
anyone who wishes to ask questions of the agency.
Page4
1
Also,
anyone who wishes may make an opening
2
statement.
3
As the prefiled testimony is short,
we
4
will allow
it to be read into the record.
After
5
the agency has completed the testimony,
we will
6
open the floor for questions.
Anyone may ask
a
7
question.
However,
I do ask that you raise your
8
hand,
wait
for me to acknowledge
you.
After
I
9
have acknowledged you, please state your name and
10
who you may represent before you begin your
11
question.
12
Please speak one at a time.
If you are
13
speaking over each other,
the court reporter will
14
not be able to get your questions on the record.
15
Also note that any questions asked by a
16
board member or staff are intended to help build
17
a complete record for the board’s decision and
18
not to express any preconceived notions or bias.
19
On the left-hand side of the room,
we
20
have sign-up sheets for the notice and service
21
list,
also copies
of the current notice and
22
service list and copies of the public act upon
23
which this proposal
is based.
I believe the
24
agency has also placed copies of the proposal and
Page
5
1
the testimony over there.
2
At this time,
Chairman Novak, would you
3
like to say good morning?
4
CHAIRMAN NOVAK:
Thanks,
Marie.
And
5
members
of the pollution control board,
staff
6
and,
of course, members of the agency and
7
interested parties,
we thank you for coming this
8
morning.
I
think this is a relatively
9
straightforward
rulemaking.
It is pursuant to
10
legislation that was signed by the governor this
11
past year dealing with some items that have
12
potential toxic impacts on the environment.
And
13
we look at this Universal Waste Rule as the
14
method by which to address this issue.
15
So we want to go forward with this
16
rulemaking.
Hopefully,
it will be expeditious.
17
And we might
as well get started.
Thank you for
18
your participation.
19
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD:
Dr.
Girard?
20
MR. GIRARD:
Just echo the comments of
21
Chairman Novak and welcome everyone this morning.
22
And we look forward to your testimony.
Thanks.
23
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD:
With that,
24
Mr. Rominger,
would you like to start?
Page 6
1
MR. ROMINGER:
Good morning.
My name
2
is Kyle Rominger.
I am the attorney with the
3
Illinois EPA.
We are here to present our
4
proposal.
With me is Kevin Green,
he is the
5
manager of the Office of Pollution Prevention at
6
the agency.
To my right
is Lindsey Evans,
she is
7
one of the other attorneys
at the agency.
And at
8
the end of the table
is Mark Crites,
he is a
9
project manager in the RCRA area with the bureau
10
and
I guess the main point person that we have on
11
universal waste agency.
12
As Chairman Novak stated,
this proposal
13
is pursuant
to legislation that was passed this
14
last year going back to 93-964 and became
15
effective August
20th,
2004.
We have a copy of
16
that legislation
in our proposal.
17
The legislation
--
the pertinent part
18
to these rules deals with mainly three issues.
19
The first one was designating
as universal waste
20
three types of waste,
the mercury relays,
mercury
21
switches and scientific and instructional
22
equipment containing mercury added during their
23
manufacturer.
24
The second portion of the legislation
Page 7
1
requires the agency to propose in order to adopt
2
rules to address the universal waste designation
3
and to prescribe management standards for the
4
universal waste.
And then it also requires the
5
board to adopt rules that are equivalent
to USEPA
6
rules
should the USEPA adopt rules
in the future.
7
Our proposal
is based on a proposal by
8
the USEPA to make mercury-containing equipment
9
universal waste.
That was proposed back on
10
June 12th of 2002.
And since the board rules
11
eventually have to match what the USEPA rules
12
are, we thought
it was best we base our proposal
13
upon these rules.
I have talked with the
14
attorney working on the USEPA rules.
At this
15
point they project the final rules
to be out
16
possibly
in late spring of 2005.
17
There
is one difference
I would like to
18
note between the USEPA’s proposal and our
19
proposal.
The definition
of mercury-containing
20
equipment
is somewhat different.
In the USEPA
21
rules,
it is broadly defined.
And what we have
22
done in our proposal
is limit
it only to the
23
types
of mercury-containing equipment that is
24
addressed in the legislation;
that being the
Page 8
relays,
the switches and the scientific and
instruction equipment
The USEPA proposal also addresses
cathode ray tubes,
which we are not addressing
here.
And
I believe the USEPA rules,
they have
split that docket between the CRT, cathode ray
tubes,
and mercury rules.
So when they come up
with final rules for the mercury,
that will
address the mercury-containing equipment.
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD:
Mr. Rominger,
before you go on,
since you have been discussing
some of the facts of the USEPA rule,
I
think
I
would be more comfortable by having you sworn
(Kyle Rominger sworn.)
MR. ROMINGER:
With that,
I will turn
it over to Mark Crites for his testimony.
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD:
Let’s swear
you in as well
(Mark Crites
sworn.)
MR.
CRITES:
Hello, my name is Mark
Crites.
As Kyle said,
I work in the Bureau of
Land Permit Section
in the RCRA unit.
I am the
Illinois EPA contact for universal waste issues.
My comments today will address the
in.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page 9
1
characteristics
of mercury-containing equipment
2
that renders
it hazardous waste and the
3
appropriateness
of allowing such waste to be
4
managed as universal waste.
5
The devices that are the subject of
6
this proceeding,
namely,
the mercury relays,
7
mercury switches and scientific instruments and
8
instructional
equipment containing mercury added
9
during their manufacture,
all contain an amount
10
of elemental mercury, which varies by the type of
11
device.
12
Mercury
is
a well-known
toxin that
13
preliminarily affects the central nervous system
14
and kidneys and is a hazardous constituent under
15
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
16
Under the current
rules,
solid waste
17
that exhibits the characteristic
of toxicity,
18
which is defined at
35 Illinois Administrative
19
Code 721.124, must be managed under the hazardous
20
waste management system.
Solid
waste is
21
considered
a hazardous waste
if the mercury
22
concentration
in the extract from a
23
representative
sample of the waste exceeds
0.2
24
milligrams per liter by the Toxicity
Page 10
1
Characteristic Leaching Procedure.
Specific
2
testing
of the mercury-containing devices covered
3
by this proposal has not been conducted by
4
Illinois EPA.
But because of the composition
of
5
the devices,
we expect that all exceed the TC
for
6
mercury and are,
therefore,
currently subject to
7
regulations
as hazardous waste.
8
The subject proposal would allow
9
generators
of these mercury devices to manage
10
them under a more streamline
system called the
11
Universal Waste Rule.
The Universal Waste Rules
12
was established by USEPA as an alternative
13
management
system for certain wastes that would
14
normally be managed as hazardous waste.
It is a
15
system whose goal is to improve the management of
16
commonly mismanaged wastes by encouraging proper
17
collection,
consolidation and other management
18
through the use of stream-lined procedures.
19
Universal wastes are generally wastes
20
that meet the definition
of hazardous waste,
are
21
produced by
a large variety of generators
that
22
are commonly unfamiliar with the hazardous waste
23
management
system.
And as a result,
these wastes
24
are commonly mismanaged.
Page 11
1
Current universal wastes include
lamps,
2
mercury-containing thermostats,
suspended and
3
canceled pesticides
and batteries.
Generators
of
4
hazardous waste that qualify for management
as
5
universal waste have the option of continuing to
6
manage the waste under the hazardous waste
system
7
or to manage the waste under the Universal Waste
8
Rule.
9
Those opting
for management under the
10
Universal Waste Rule are not required to include
11
this waste
in their hazardous waste totals for
12
purposes of determining generator category.
13
In our opinion,
the types of
14
waste included in this proposal
fit the
15
above description
of universal waste.
16
Mercury-containing thermostats
are in virtually
17
every climate-controlled building in the state.
18
Similarly,
mercury relays are used in many
19
common types
of equipment used every day.
20
Mercury-containing
scientific and educational
21
equipment will be found in virtually every school
22
or laboratory and medical facility.
In the vast
23
majority of the locations where the devices are
24
employed,
no one at the facility is familiar with
Page 12
1
the hazardous waste management
system and,
as a
2
result, many of these devices are improperly
3
discarded.
4
To further substantiate the
5
classification of mercury-containing waste as
6
universal waste,
the USEPA has proposed and
7
intends to soon finalize similar regulation,
8
which includes a much broader scope of mercury
9
devices at
the federal level.
A copy of the
10
USEPA’s proposal
is submitted
in the Illinois
11
EPA’s original filing for this proceeding.
12
Additionally,
other states,
including
13
Pennsylvania
and Michigan,
have also added
14
mercury device categories
to their Universal
15
Waste Rule as well.
Because inclusion in the
16
Universal Waste Rule tends to decrease improper
17
disposal
of the waste in question, USEPA and
18
various states generally do not see much
19
opposition
to this approach.
20
The subject proposal would regulate
21
these mercury devices in the same way as mercury
22
thermostats
are currently regulated under the
23
Universal Waste Rule.
This is because many of
24
the devices included
in this proposal are similar
Page 13
1
in nature to mercury thermostats.
And because of
2
this
--
because this is the way that the USEPA
3
proposal would regulate such devices.
An
4
advantage
of this approach is when and if the
5
USEPA
finalizes its mercury device rule,
it
6
should be a relatively simple matter to update
7
the Illinois regulations
to keep them consistent
8
with the federal rule.
9
In our experience,
the Universal Waste
10
Rule has been successful in its goal of
11
encouraging proper management
of the existing
12
wastes included in the rule.
Most importantly,
13
it has done so without any significant unexpected
14
sequences.
We expect similar success with the
15
addition of mercury-containing devices to the
16
Universal Waste Rule.
17
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD:
Thank you.
18
Just as a note,
would you like to enter
19
Mr.
Cites’
resume
as an exhibit since
it was
20
attached?
21
MR. ROMINGER:
Yes,
either attached or
22
as a separate exhibit.
23
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD:
Let’s go
24
ahead and put it in as an exhibit.
If there
is
Page 14
1
no objection,
we will mark it.
2
CHAIRMAN NOVAK:
These impending
3
federal
rules you mentioned,
do you think there
4
is a possibility that whatever shape or form they
5
take will pre-empt what we are doing here today?
6
MR. ROMINGER:
From what they have told
7
me,
they are supposed to be pretty much similar.
8
There should be no surprises between the original
9
proposal and what are out as a final ruling.
10
CHAIRMAN NOVAK:
What
is the status
of
11
the rules out there?
12
MR. ROMINGER:
They are currently going
13
through their internal sign-off.
14
CHAIRMAN NOVAK:
They haven’t been out
15
for public comment?
16
MR. ROMINGER:
The proposal was out in
17
2002.
And when
I originally talked to the
18
attorney back in September,
they told me possibly
19
five months.
And
I
called them just this past
20
Monday,
and they said now it looks like late
21
spring of 2005.
We don’t have the final rules
22
out.
23
CHAIRMAN NOVAK:
You say there
is a
24
component in there for CRT.
Page 15
1
MR.
ROMINGER:
The
original proposal
2
covered both CRTs and mercury-containing
3
equipment.
Because there
is so much going on
4
with the CRT5, you can split the dockets.
So the
5
rules that are coming out in the spring will be
6
the mercury rules.
The CRTs will come out
7
sometime later.
8
CHAIRMAN NOVAK:
Okay.
Because that
9
would effect every used computer that is out
10
there.
11
MR. ROMINGER:
Correct.
12
CHAIRMAN NOVAK:
Among other things.
13
Thanks.
14
MR. ROMINGER:
We also have to enter
as
15
an exhibit a document titled “Economic Analysis
16
of Including Mercury-Containing Devices
in the
17
Universal Waste
System,
Notice of Proposed
18
Rulemaking.”
19
This was in the supporting
20
documentation
for the USEPA rules.
And we
21
thought
it might be helpful to
--
we are
22
submitting
it just for informational purposes for
23
the board.
24
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD:
If there
is
Page 16
1
no objection,
we will mark that Exhibit No.
2.
2
Seeing none,
it is marked as Exhibit No.
2.
3
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD:
Are you ready
4
for any additional questions?
5
MR. ROMINGER:
Yes.
6
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD:
Any
7
additional questions?
8
MR.
JOHNSON:
While Kyle is answering,
9
the legislation
calls for a report to be
10
generated by you guys by January 1st, which is
11
fast approaching.
I wondered what the status
of
12
that was?
13
(Kevin Green sworn.)
14
MR. GREEN:
The first draft of the
15
report has been prepared.
And it is undergoing
16
internal review, which
I think will take place
17
over the next week,
week
--
couple of weeks.
And
18
the next step will be for the report
to go to the
19
Governor’s office
for review.
I hope that we
20
will have the report out by January
15th,
20th,
21
sort of
in that time range.
22
MR. JOHNSON:
Thank you.
23
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD:
Anything
24
further?
Page 17
MR.
RAO:
Would
it be possible
for you
to submit that report into the record once it is
officially published by the IEPA?
MR.
GREEN:
We can do that
MR.
RAO:
And also at this time do you
have,
you know,
some information you can share
about,
you know,
what kinds
of programs are there
right now in the state to,
you know,
deal with
this issue of mercury?
MR.
GREEN:
There are a couple things
going
on.
At the federal
level,
USEPA has
established
a stakeholder group that includes
representatives
from auto manufacturers,
scrap
yards,
steel manufacturing facilities
as well as
state governments and environmental
groups to try
to come up with a national program to collect
mercury light switches from discarded or
end-of-life vehicles.
These negotiations or
discussions have been going on for the last
12 months
I am not sure
--
they are trying to
come up with a voluntary program.
I am not sure
if they are going to be able to get agreement or
not.
At the same time,
in November,
state
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page 18
1
representative
Karen May convened a meeting with
2
representatives
from the same interest groups
to
3
see if a program for collecting mercury light
4
switches from discarded vehicles could be
5
established in Illinois.
She instructed
the
6
Illinois EPA to come up with a budget,
what
it
7
would cost to develop
a program.
And we have
8
come up with a draft budget that is also under
9
internal
review.
I am hoping that that will be
10
delivered
to Representative May within the next
11
couple of weeks.
12
So the most immediate impact that this
13
rulemaking will have will be to facilitate
the
14
removal and collection
of mercury light switches
15
from discarded vehicles.
But
I need to caution
16
you that,
like anything else,
it is going to have
17
to probably be a negotiated agreement among the
18
different parties because the
--
to help pay for
19
the cost of removing and collecting and shipping
20
those switches off site to
a mercury retorting
21
facility.
And we haven’t reached agreement yet
22
on who will bear responsibility for paying for
23
different parts
of that program.
24
MR.
JOHNSON:
Are there any similar
Page 19
1
programs going on anywhere else in the states?
2
MR.
GREEN:
Yes.
Maine passed
3
legislation two years ago that required the
4
automakers
to establish a program and also
5
required them to pay a bounty of
$1 per switch to
6
scrap recyclers and auto dismantlers.
And that
7
program has been in effect
for about a year.
And
8
it is
--
it has had some good success.
It needs
9
some refinements.
10
At the same time,
the State of Michigan
11
just reached an agreement with the automakers
to
12
set up
a voluntary program to collect auto
13
switches from discarded vehicles.
And that will
14
be going into effect sometime next year.
There
15
is legislation pending in several northeastern
16
states to establish
a program similar to Maine
17
where the responsibility for setting up and
18
paying for the program will be placed on the
19
automakers.
20
A couple
of other states have laws in
21
place that require the auto recyclers and
22
dismantlers
to remove the mercury switches
--
to
23
identify and remove the mercury switches from the
24
vehicles before they are scraped.
Page 20
1
CHAIRMAN NOVAK:
Are you guys pretty
2
well satisfied with the definition
of what a
3
mercury switch
is according to the statute,
in
4
addition to those switches
in grandma’s house?
5
There
is a lot of other things.
6
MR.
GREEN:
For now
I think we are
7
satisfied.
But it doesn’t mean we might not come
8
back at some later time to make refinements.
9
This is new territory for us as we work more and
10
more on the so-called product stewardship
11
legislation.
We are trying to focus on consumer
12
products and commercial products that are in the
13
waste stream.
So we may have to do some fine
14
tuning later
on.
But right now
I think we are
15
okay.
16
CHAIRMAN NOVAK:
And who in the agency
17
extrapolates
all that data,
you,
your office?
18
MR.
GREEN:
Well,
it is typically a
19
joint initiative between the Office of Pollution
20
Prevention and the Bureau of Land.
We tend to
21
work together.
22
CHAIRMAN NOVAK:
Do you handle the
23
light bulb stuff too?
24
MR.
GREEN:
No.
The Bureau of Land is
Page21
1
handling the fluorescent bulbs.
2
CHAIRMAN
NOWAK:
Thanks.
3
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD:
Any more
4
questions?
5
MR. WORTH:
My name is Leonard Worth.
6
I do lamps in the state of Illinois.
It is my
7
understanding
--
and
I don’t mean to be
8
correcting the EPA.
But it
is my understanding
9
that there are mercury switches in automobiles
10
that are not used for activating lights.
And
I
11
think
I heard the word light switch.
And
I think
12
that is misleading because there
is mercury
13
switches in ABS systems,
for example.
I don’t
14
think the word light should be included in
15
mercury switch identification.
16
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD:
Could
I have
17
you sworn in since that is a clarification?
18
Thank you.
19
(Leonard Worth sworn.)
20
MR.
GREEN:
May
I respond?
He
is
21
correct.
In fact,
the discussions that we are
22
having will address both the mercury light
23
switches as well as the switches that are in the
24
antilock brake systems.
Page 22
1
MR. CRITES:
I would like to respond as well.
2
Our definition of mercury switch doesn’t mention
3
light.
Basically,
anything that opens or closes
4
an electrical
circuit,
gas valve
--
it is a broad
5
definition of sorts if you read it.
6
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD:
Alisa,
did
7
you have a question?
8
MS.
LIU:
Was your question fully
9
answered?
10
MR. WORTH:
Yes.
They said it doesn’t
11
restrict
it only to light switches.
12
MS.
LIU:
The question
I had goes back
13
to an earlier discussion on the local level in
14
the state of
Illinois.
I was wondering if the
15
agency was doing any sort of public outreach with
16
regards to this program to schools or homeowners
17
or local junkyards,
that kind of thing.
18
MR. GREEN:
We do have a special
19
program that we put into place about
a year and a
20
half ago to collect waste chemicals and old
21
mercury-containing devices from K through
12
22
schools.
And
I think we have conducted over 300
23
collection events
at schools
in the last year and
24
a half,
two years.
a
Page 23
We also encourage consumers to bring in
their old thermostats,
their mercury switch
thermostats,
to household hazardous waste
collection events that we conduct during the
spring and fall months
As
I mentioned earlier,
we are a part
of a work group that has been pulled together by
Representative May to see if we come up with
program to collect mercury switches from both
and light switches from discarded vehicles.
that
is going to take a little bit more work.
That
is something that our agency doesn’t have
the resources to fund.
And
so we are going
to
have to get some help from the private sector to
set up the program to identify and remove and
collect those switches from old vehicles.
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD:
Anything
else?
MR.
CRITES:
I would just like to add
that when she brings up the households,
the
individuals
in their homes,
this rulemaking
wouldn’t apply to them at all because households
are exempt
from the hazardous waste management
system.
As Kevin pointed out,
we do do the
ABS
But
——.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page 24
household hazardous waste collections throughout
the state, which is a really good program.
It
collects a whole
lot of materials that would have
went to the regular landfill
When it comes to businesses,
as far as
the outreach,
we found that the
--
our best tool
for outreach
is actually the people
in the
business of recycling.
They are very effective
of going out and trying to get new customers.
And
I periodically give presentations on the
Universal Waste Rule throughout
the state to
anybody who
is interested
in attending as well.
So
I
just want to point out mainly there
is two
separate issues when you talk about households
versus anybody else
MR. GREEN:
There
is one other program
I would like to mention.
The three major
manufacturers
of thermostats have set up
a
nonprofit corporation
to help recycle mercury
switch thermostats.
It is called the Thermostat
Recycling Corporation.
They have an operation
here
in Illinois
And they work with heating and
ventilation and cooling contractors.
And
I
think
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page 25
1
there is 40 to 50 HVAC wholesalers who are
2
participating in the program.
They have a little
3
bin at their facilities.
And they have brochures
4
and other materials.
And they try to encourage
5
contractors when they do work in
a home or are
6
doing major renovation or building
a new home
--
7
actually,
it will be more renovation-type work or
8
if they are out replacing the thermostat
in the
9
home to bring that old thermostat back so it can
10
be recycled properly.
11
And our agency is part of a nationwide
12
initiative trying to find ways to strengthen that
13
program
in the states where
it is offered.
14
MR.
JOHNSON:
Do you guys have any
15
estimate
as to the quantity that you are going to
16
keep out of landfills?
17
MR.
GREEN:
I have a guesstimate.
In
18
terms
of mercury switches from automobiles,
we
19
estimate there are about 280,000 cars that are
20
scraped annually in Illinois.
And each car
21
contains between
.5 to
.8 grams
--
.5 to
.8
22
switches.
Not all cars contain
a switch,
some
23
do,
some don’t.
24
CHAIRMAN NOVAK:
Where are they found,
Page 26
Kevin?
MR.
GREEN:
They
are found in hood and
trunk lights.
Convenience
lighting, when you
lift up the hood,
the little switch in the back
makes the light as well as the ABS sensors.
CHAIRMAN NOVAK:
And that is it?
They
are not in the ignition?
MR. GREEN:
No.
There
is mercury in other
parts of the car,
but not in the form of
switches.
You can find mercury in some of the
high-intensity discharge lamps that you are going
to find on some of the upper-end vehicles and we
are beginning to see in some of the background
lighting
for the navigational
systems
CHAIRMAN NOVAK:
The GPS deals?
MR.
GREEN:
Yes.
We are
--
the various
state governments and local governments are
trying to work with automakers
to find
alternatives.
Because that can become a growing
problem in the future.
But there
is some value
right now to recycling those old ones.
CHAIRMAN NOVAK:
Is there any of that
stuff in the LCD screens?
MR. GREEN:
In some computers
there
is.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page 27
1
But
I am not sure which kind of computers may
2
find mercury.
3
But anyhow,
we estimate there are about
4
150 to 200,000 mercury switches present
in
5
discarded vehicles that are scraped annually here
6
in Illinois.
That amounts to about 270
to
7
400 pounds
of mercury that potentially could be
8
recycled,
assuming you had a program set up.
And
9
it won’t be possible to get to every switch in
10
the car.
If a car has been involved in an
11
accident, you are not going to be able to
12
necessarily open up the hood and remove the
13
switch.
14
So any effort to get something going
15
would
--
we would want the auto recyclers to make
16
a good faith effort
to remove the switch from the
17
car.
18
CHAIRMAN NOVAK:
Then
where does it go?
19
MR.
GREEN:
Well,
it
would
--
each of
20
them would get a little five-gallon bucket.
And
21
that would hold approximately 450 light switches.
22
They would store that
--
those switches at their
23
facility and then ship those to a mercury
24
retorting facility.
There
is one in Wisconsin
I
Page 28
believe as well as Pennsylvania.
few others
Illinois.
There may be a
CHAIRMAN NOVAK:
None in Illinois?
MR. GREEN:
None that
I
am aware
of in
When you retort,
that
CHAIRMAN NOVAK:
is a chemical process
MR.
GREEN:
Yeah,
they pull mercury out
of items.
And that raises
a big issue.
Ideally,
you want to keep mercury out of new products
coming into manufacture.
So there
is a national
debate going on over what to do with the mercury
that is being collected
Because as you encourage manufacturers
to remove the mercury
--
I mean stop using
mercury
in the new products and switch to safer
alternatives, you ultimately don’t want to see
the mercury that is collected go back into new
products.
So there
is some debate over setting
up sort of a stockpile of collected mercury.
CHAIRMAN NOVAK:
Like maybe a nuclear
power plant
there.
MR. GREEN:
Yeah,
I didn’t want to go
But that is an issue
in terms of what are
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page 29
we going to do ultimately with the mercury that
is being collected.
But right
now,
some of
it
will get recycled into new products
MR.
JOHNSON:
So the local guy would be
your small handlers that are defined in here.
And then they would,
in turn,
ship it to the
large handlers
MR. GREEN:
Yes
MR. WORTH:
Just for the record,
we
retort.
We are RCRA permitted.
We would have to
file a modification
for switches.
But we are
retort and we are RCRA permitted.
We are the
only ones in Illinois
CHAIRMAN NOVAK:
retort
it?
MR. WORTH:
Well, we separate the
mercury.
The mercury gets sold to a company
called Goldsmith in Evanston.
They purify
it.
In order to use it commercially,
it can only be
100 percent.
And what we have retorted out is
like 99.6 or some number like that
CHAIRMAN
NOVAK:
What
do
you retort out
of
the mercury?
after you
What do you do
with it
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. WORTH:
We retort the mercury from
Page 30
1
the phosphor powder that exists in the
2
fluorescent
lamp.
3
CHAIRMAN NOVAK:
So
it is the phosphor
4
powder that is extracted?
5
MR. WORTH:
Well,
it is a rather
6
involved
question.
The machine
separates the
7
phosphor powder.
It cleans the glass
--
we do
8
lamps.
It cleans the aluminum or the ends.
It
9
cleans the glass.
It separates the phosphor
10
powder and captures any vapor that escapes during
11
the process.
12
The phosphor powder is then retorted.
13
And the mercury is removed from the phosphor
14
powder.
So the phosphor powder comes out pure
15
and the mercury remains
in the vat.
16
CHAIRMAN NOVAK:
I
see.
So this outfit
17
in Evanston buys
it from you?
18
MR. WORTH:
They buy it very
19
reluctantly.
There
isn’t much of a commercial
20
value.
21
CHAIRMAN NOVAK:
As we evolve with this
22
issue,
I mean states,
as well as Illinois,
they
23
are looking for more and more ways to restrict
24
the use of mercury.
One of such is the reason
Page 31
1
why we are having
a meeting
today.
So there
is
2
an end somewhere.
3
MR.
WORTH:
There has to be eventually.
4
CHAIRMAN NOVAK:
What do you do with
--
5
MR.
WORTH:
Right now we are simply
6
taking it out of the environment
and capturing
7
it.
8
CHAIRMAN NOVAK:
So what do they do
9
with this stuff now?
You bring up this irony
10
here.
11
MR.
GREEN:
Well,
it is going to find
12
its way into some new products that are being
13
manufactured.
At the same time,
there
is an
14
interest in trying to get them to work with the
15
manufacturers
to find safer alternatives.
And we
16
are finding more and more states
--
we are part
17
of a national
initiative working with other
18
states to try to identify commercial and
--
19
CHAIRMAN NOVAK:
Is there a market
for
20
it,
Kevin?
21
MR.
GREEN:
I think the market
is not
22
as much as it was in the past,
obviously.
That
23
is one of the reasons the scrap yards would like
24
to be reimbursed
for moving
the mercury because
Page 32
1
there
is not much value to it.
There
is value to
2
other things they are pulling out of the car.
3
But they tell us there
is no value to pulling out
4
the mercury.
There
is no economic reward for
5
them to pull the mercury switches out of
the
6
cars.
So,
therefore,
they would like to be
7
reimbursed
for doing that.
That is one of the
8
issues we are trying to address in setting up a
9
collection program.
10
MR.
GIRARD:
Are you contemplating
11
adding a recycling fee like you do for tires to
12
the products?
13
MR.
GREEN:
Maine basically required
14
the automakers to pay a bounty for each switch
15
that is collected.
I can’t say at this point.
16
Representative
May has only had one meeting.
I
17
can tell you we did not reach agreement over
18
whether or not the auto recyclers should be
19
reimbursed
and,
second,
who was
going to
20
reimburse them for that service.
21
Some people said we might be able to
22
handle a portion.
It sounded like the cost of
23
moving
it,
but also shipping it off-site and
24
going some educational
outreach,
putting training
Page 33
materials together for the scrap yards.
We are
trying to cost out what that kind of program
would mean for the state
But
I am not sure what
--
again,
it is
so early in the discussions,
I am not sure how we
would address that issue
MR. GIRARD:
Thank you
MR. MELAS:
Has Maine been finding much
resistance
from the auto manufacturers?
MR.
GREEN:
They are very upset.
MR. MELAS:
I
would imagine.
MR.
GREEN:
And they are lobbying
against similar legislation that has been
introduced
in other
states
MR. MELAS:
What did you say Michigan
is doing?
MR.
GREEN:
Michigan developed
a
voluntary program.
And the auto manufacturers
are going to help pay only for the collection and
the educational outreach.
They are not going to
pay for the removal
of the switches at the scrap
yards.
So
it remains
to be seen how many scrap
yards will participate
in that program.
MR. MELAS:
That
is always the problem
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page 34
1
with the voluntary programs.
2
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD:
Anything
3
further?
4
MS.
LIU:
I just have one more
5
question.
Along with the scrap yards,
are you
6
including
auto repair facilities
that might
be
7
removing switches that need to be replaced in
8
your educational
outreach?
9
MR.
GREEN:
We have talked about that.
10
We have talked to some of the other states, and
11
they feel the best place to remove them is when
12
the cars are discarded with the auto recyclers.
13
There has been some talk of whether or not you
14
should try to reach out to the auto repair,
the
15
auto dealers.
16
Intuitively,
it makes
sense.
But we are
17
hearing from other states that have conducted
18
pilot programs or set up state-wide programs
--
19
there has only been a few,
like Maine
--
and they
20
believe the best place to remove them is when
21
they go to the scrap yards.
22
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD:
Anything
23
else?
Then
I
think we are ready to close if
24
there is nothing further at this point.
Page 35
1
Okay.
We have a second hearing
2
scheduled for January 6th,
2005,
in Springfield.
3
The hearing is at
1:30 p.m.
at the IEP building,
4
training room 1214 west.
Prefiled testimony must
5
be filed by December 30th,
2004.
6
And for those of you who are keeping
7
up-to-date,
you may file the testimony
8
electronically.
The electronic
filing
is
--
we
9
are proceeding with
it.
So anybody who wants to
10
--
since this proposal was filed electronically,
11
if you want to file your testimony
12
electronically,
we will keep this as a modern-age
13
rule.
14
If there
is nothing further,
Chairman
15
Novak,
Dr.
Girard,
do you have anything further?
16
CHAIRMAN NOVAK:
No.
Thanks for your
17
interest
in this issue.
It is something that.
18
needs
to be dealt with and has the potential of
19
--
and has the exponential
of growing.
20
HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD:
I want to
21
thank you all for your comments and testimony.
22
We are looking forward to the second hearing and
23
we will see you in Springfield in January.
Thank
24
you very much.
We are adjourned.
Page 36
(
Hearing adjourned.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Page 37
1
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
SS:
2
COUNTY OF LAKE
3
I,
Cheryl
L.
Sandecki,
a Notary Public
4
within and for the County of Lake and State of
5
Illinois, and
a Certified Shorthand Reporter of
6
the State
of
Illinois,
do hereby certify that
I
7
reported in shorthand the proceedings had at the
8
taking of said hearing and that the foregoing is
9
a true,
complete,
and correct transcript
of my
10
shorthand notes
so taken
as aforesaid,
and
11
contains all the proceedings given at said
12
hearing.
Notary Public,
Cook County,
Illinois
15
C.S.R.
License No.
084-03710
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
