A
pproximately 86 percent of the automotive recycling facilities in the U.S. are small businesses with 10 or fewer employees, according to the Automotive Recyclers Association (ARA), the international trade association representing recyclers of automotive parts.
These small businesses are particularly vulnerable to legislative changes mandating expensive and extensive changes to their daily operations, as many within the industry typically have pre-tax operating margins of less than 2 percent and annual revenues of $100,000 to $249,000, according to a study published by the San Francisco-based organization Sustainable Conservation.
To mobilize its membership, the Fairfax, Va.-based ARA sponsors Hill Days each spring, inviting members from around the U.S. to meet with their legislators. Bill Steinkuller, ARA executive vice president, says legislators generally provide an understanding and receptive audience. However, challenges exist.
"It is a definite educational experience, both for our members as well as for the members of Congress and their staffs," Steinkuller says. "Unlike a lot of industries, we have to explain what the automotive recycler really does and what the automotive recycling industry’s many contributions to the environment and to the economy really are."
Steinkuller says the association has focused its lobbying on three primary issues: vehicle scrapping programs, the Motor Vehicle Owners’ Right to Repair Act and mercury legislation. Additionally, ARA is lobbying for model vehicle identification number (VIN) condemnation legislation.
These issues represent a threat to the auto recycler’s bottom line, either by limiting access to vehicles and marketing opportunities or by establishing costly and seemingly impractical tracking methods that create additional administrative responsibilities.
THE VEHICLE SCRAPPING ISSUE
The Energy Policy Act of 2002 included vehicle scrappage legislation advocating the scrapping of older vehicles in an attempt to reduce tailpipe emissions and increase fleet fuel economy.
"Under these programs, motor vehicle owners are offered financial incentives to scrap their vehicles and replace them with newer ones," according to ARA literature. "In most cases, the performance of the vehicles targeted for scrappage could be more cost effectively improved through proper maintenance and repair."
Steinkuller says, "The ARA opposes vehicle scrappage programs that basically paint a bull’s eye on small businesses in our industry by eliminating some of the very vehicles, parts and marketing opportunities that some in this industry really need to survive." He adds, "Since recycled parts used in the repair and upkeep of older vehicles are a significant source of commerce for some of our professional auto recycling members, the motor vehicle scrappage program poses an economic threat to the industry."
The legislation also included language stating that a state office will determine the appropriate payment to the recycler of the scrapped vehicle, a troublesomely vague notion for ARA.
|
SCRAPPING IT? |
|
Auto recyclers continue to focus on their primary business, the recovery and resale of auto parts. However, some are increasingly interested in further dismantling vehicles to maximize their profits. "Obviously, the easiest and most profitable part of the business are those auto parts that you can get out quickly and easily and sell fairly quickly and easily," Gordon Hawke of AADCO Automotive Inc., Brampton, Ontario, Canada, says. "Traditionally, that is what the industry is focused on." Bob Hoffman of QRP, Schofield, Wis., says that while auto recyclers may be interested in the scrap value of the cars they are processing, the labor costs associated with removing such components often outweigh the scrap value. Contrary views can be found, however. "We’re much more cognizant of the scrap value," Gary T. Wiesner of PRO Auto Recyclers, Williamstown, N.J., says. "At one time, it was more or less a by-product of everything we handled. Now, it has become an intricate part of our business." Hawke says, "I think traditional companies in the industry are moving towards dismantling more of the vehicles rather than just crushing them as they used to." Aluminum components, such as wheels and broken transmission housings, provide an easily accessible form of scrap for many auto recyclers, Hoffman says. Bill Steinkuller, executive vice president of the Automotive Recyclers Association, Fairfax, Va., agrees that many auto dismantlers have been removing the aluminum components from vehicles. "For those companies that perhaps are more into the scrap end of the equation, they will have aluminum [furnaces] and will have made a business decision that this was a good activity to pursue in-house, rather than selling in bulk the vehicle with its aluminum components," he says. AADCO completely dismantles its vehicles to retrieve high-value auto parts in the quality and quantity that the company wants. "That’s what drives us to the 100 percent environmental solution," Hawke says. " The trick is finding the best markets and eliminating the various middle men along the way," Hawke says. While plastics currently give AADCO problems, Hawke says the company’s most profitable material is steel, which it sells directly to a steel company. Wiesner says, " Aside from selling the resalable parts and reusable parts, we have to be aware of all of our sister industries, especially the scrap industry." |
THE RIGHT TO REPAIR ACT
While ARA is not lobbying against this legislation per se, its language is at issue.
The bill is intended to protect consumers’ rights to diagnose, service and repair their late-model vehicles by being able to choose independent shops rather than dealerships. While the bill mentions the consumers’ right to access original equipment manufacturer (OEM) parts as well as aftermarket parts, ARA would like the language amended to include recycled OEM parts.
According to ARA, the use of new parts in the repair of vehicles results in higher repair costs, which leads to the repair of fewer vehicles, the "totaling" of more vehicles by the insurance industry and ultimately to higher premiums for auto insurance.
MODEL MERCURY SWITCH LEGISLATION
Removing mercury switches from in-use and end-of-life vehicles in order to preserve the recycling infrastructure and the purity of steel supplied to electric arc furnace mini-mills is a priority for various trade associations, environmental groups and industries. However, the financing of such a program is at issue.
"Obviously, ARA’s concern is that small businesses are not saddled with the incredible cost, liability and toxicity of mercury," Steinkuller says. "Auto manufacturers made a conscious decision when they engineered their products to contain mercury. And while auto recyclers may be willing to assist with the problem, auto recyclers didn’t create it, and they are not in a position to accept the responsibility and the liability for such a toxic substance," he adds.
ARA would like to see automakers take responsibility for their design choices by taking financial and organizational responsibility for the collection and recovery of mercury and similar toxic substances from vehicles.
Draft legislation supported by the Partnership for Mercury-Free Vehicles, which includes the ARA, the Institute for Scrap Recycling Industries Inc. (ISRI) and several other organizations, seeks a 90 percent recovery rate and urges automakers to take financial and organizational responsibility for collection efforts, including the collection, transportation and recycling or disposal of mercury-containing devices. (See "The Mercury Program," Recycling Today, March 2002.)
"There has been some legislation in various states proposed and some progress made," Steinkuller says. "But it’s disappointing to see that the manufacturers are not as anxious to talk with us directly about a role that we might play in the mercury issue, rather than fighting state by state to see if they can get small ‘mom and pop’ businesses to take care of what, in essence, is a problem they created."
VIN CONDEMNATION LEGISLATION
Another ARA effort concerns severely damaged vehicles that could potentially make it back onto the road. According to the ARA, a national solution is needed to address the twin problems that often arise when non-repairable vehicles (those damaged far beyond safe repair) are sold at auto auctions to unscrupulous re-builders or thieves, who bid high for wrecks and then profit from them by committing serious, even deadly, wrongs against consumers. Currently, ARA has model VIN condemnation legislation for which it is seeking bipartisan support.
Steinkuller says the proposed legislation "bypasses the title branding debates that have been going on for a number of years and really attempts to address two key areas through federal vehicle identification number condemnation."
The legislation would condemn severely damaged vehicle s and establish a national registry of total loss vehicles.
"It provides a level playing field for ARA members," Steinkuller says. "But it is not simply a piece of legislation to help ARA members, it’s common sense legislation that will keep vehicles which have already been determined to be beyond economic repair off the highways and out of the hands of unscrupulous re-builders."
MAINTAINING MARKET SHARE
Steinkuller says that while automakers themselves haven’t necessarily lobbied for specific legislation harmful to ARA members, some do make statements in their literature that "casts doubt and disparages the recycled automotive part." He adds that this is ironic, given the fact that the vast majority of the parts sold by ARA members are OEM parts from the same manufacturers.
"In a real world marketplace, you do have obviously competing interests which would benefit potentially from not using a quality recycled product," Steinkuller says. "It’s clear that if you can sell your new part to the exclusion of your previously manufactured part, then that is to your economic advantage."
Despite the disparaging remarks and threatening legislation, recycled parts have enjoyed a strong market. "Some individuals always have a heightened sense of the value of recycled parts during an economic downturn," Steinkuller says. "The recycled parts market is steady," though Steinkuller adds that some ARA members are having a difficult time as a result of the economic downturn and their increasing environmental burdens.
"But the parts themselves are at least as valuable if not more so than they would be in more prosperous times," he says. "In times like these, sometimes people re-discover the recycled part, both on the retail and wholesale level, and that’s to everyone’s advantage."
| AUTO RECYCLERS CONCERNED ABOUT PROPOSED PARTS CHECKING REGULATIONS |
Bill Steinkuller, executive vice president of the Automotive Recyclers Association (ARA), Fairfax, Va., is concerned. “We’ve had some very onerous regulations proposed by the federal government on parts checking. The ARA is deeply concerned about the burden that it will place on small business,” Steinkuller says. According to the ARA, the proposed regulations would require auto recyclers to do the following:
If the auto recycler reports a part to the federal database that registers as stolen, the part is no longer saleable. According to the ARA, auto recyclers would have considerable overhead costs to accomplish these regulatory mandates. Additionally the mandates would require recyclers to considerably change the administration of their businesses. “We are currently working with our members and with the federal government to ensure that what one can only describe as a naïve approach to auto theft doesn’t end up damaging the small business professional auto recycler,” Steinkuller says.“ One of our number one priorities at this point is to meet with the federal government to have them better understand our industry and to work with them to put in effective controls and effective deterrents to auto theft,” he says. “But too often, industries are simply convenient places to impose regulation that really has no effect on auto theft.” |
| AIRBAG REUSE |
“Automobile manufacturers as well as air bag manufacturers oppose the reuse of a properly evaluated, removed, stored and reinstalled un-deployed airbag module,” Bill Steinkuller, executive vice president of the Automotive Recyclers Association (ARA), says. ARA, the Farifax, Va., based trade association for automobile recyclers, as well as the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and Airbag Testing Technology, has conducted numerous tests on the performance of reused airbags. These tests have shown the reused airbags are reliable performers. Steinkuller says that he is not aware of the automobile or airbag industry performing similar tests demonstrating that airbags should not or cannot be reused. He adds that the airbags are manufactured to a high standard. “One has to assume that the argument from the manufacturing community is based more on supposition and potentially emotion than on statistics,” Steinkuller says. “If they have such information, we’d love to see it.” According to the ARA, the availability of lower-cost un-deployed, properly recycled original equipment manufacturer (OEM) airbags reduces the incentive for consumers to use dummy covers of remanufactured or rebuilt airbag modules, which the ARA condemns. Steinkuller adds that the reused airbag studies that have been done “indicate that when they are properly handled and properly installed, [reused airbags] are a very viable and economically beneficial product.” |
| Status of Local, State and Federal Mercury Product Legislation and Laws 2001-2002 Legislative Sessions June 28, 2002 |
The following information was provided to Recycling Today by Michael Bender, northern representative for the Basel Action Network (BAN) Mercury Workgroup. Bender is also the director of the Mercury Policy Project. He can be contacted in Vermont at 802-223-9000 or by e-mail at MTBenderVT@aol.com. Additional information is available at http://www.mercurypolicy.org/. The regulation of mercury in products at the state and federal level is increasing rapidly. A good summary of existing state and federal laws on mercury product legislation is found in Appendix A of a draft report on mercury by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, and found on the Internet at http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PublicNotices/HWMP_REP_DraftMercury2.pdf. Local ordinances and state laws are also available on the web page of Health Care Without Harm, http://www.noharm.org/index.cfm?page_ID=14 - local. For mercury product legislation currently under consideration, the following is a summary of the bills that this compiler has found, along with their status and web page links. While the goal is to be complete, it is known that there are other measures – especially at local government levels – that have been missed. California AB 712 would prohibit the sale of high mercury fluorescent lamps (unless a specific exemption is provided), ban the disposal of all fluorescent lamps with mercury and impose a 3¢ per lamp fee on the retail sale of fluorescent lamps for use by the state to this law. Adopted by the Assembly; recommended for adoption by the Senate Environmental Quality Committee on June 24, 2002 and referred to Appropriations. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0701-0750/ab_712_bill_20020611_amended_sen.pdf AB 751 would require that mercury containing lamps be managed as universal waste from commercial facilities generating 30 or more a month. The bill has died. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_751&sess=CUR&house=B&author=jackson AB 2237 would limit the amount of mercury that is permitted in packaging. Recommended for adoption by the Assembly committee on Environmental Safety And Toxic Materials; currently in the Committee on Appropriations. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2201-2250/ab_2237_bill_20020418_amended_asm.pdf AB 2253 would modify existing state law on the responsibilities of the state agency for providing assistance and reports for the removal of mercury switches from autos. In Assembly Committee On Environmental Safety And Toxic Materials. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_2253&sess=CUR&house=B&author=cohn AB 2270 would ban the use of mercury amalgam fillings by January 1, 2007; prior to that date, dentists would need to provide patients information if the use of mercury amalgam fillings is proposed. In the Assembly Committee on Health. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_2270&sess=CUR&house=B&author=dickerson SB 529 would modify the state’s definition of novelties or which mercury is prohibited to exclude products with mercuric-oxide batteries. Currently in the office of the Secretary of the Senate. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0501-0550/sb_529_bill_20020107_amended_sen.pdf SB 633 was adopted and prohibits the sale of a number of products with mercury in them, including: fever thermometers except by written prescription, novelties, autos with mercury light switches, specific products in schools, and establishes procedures for the handling of mercury switches when removed from autos. Chaptered as Chapter 656. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0601-0650/sb_633_bill_20010914_enrolled.pdf SB 1011 would prohibit the collection of items containing mercury, including fluorescent lamps over 4 feet in length, unless the mercury is specifically contained. Recommended for adoption by committee, and referred to Committee on Appropriations. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1001-1050/sb_1011_bill_20020513_amended_asm.pdf Connecticut The 2002 legislative session is over, but with the passage of major legislation in HB 5539. HB 5539 has as its goal “to restrict the sale and use of products containing mercury to work toward the virtual elimination of the discharge of anthropogenic mercury”, and is a comprehensive bill based on the NEWMOA model. Was signed by the Governor on June 3, 2002. http://www.cga.state.ct.us/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB05539 or http://prdbasis.cga.state.ct.us/2002/cbs/h/hb-5539.htm or http://www.cga.state.ct.us/default.asp HB 5540 has the same goal as HB 5539, “to restrict the sale and use of products containing mercury to work toward the virtual elimination of the discharge of anthropogenic mercury”, and has had a hearing in the House Environment Committee, but has not proceeded further. http://www.cga.state.ct.us/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB05540 or http://prdbasis.cga.state.ct.us/2002/cbs/h/hb-5540.htm or http://www.cga.state.ct.us/default.asp In the 2001 session of the Connecticut Legislature, four mercury product bills were introduced, but none were adopted, as follows: HB 5179 would have banned the sale of mercury thermometers. Referred to Joint Committee on Environment, where no action was taken. HB 5181 would have discouraged the disposal of mercury-containing products. Referred to Joint Committee on Environment, but no action was taken. HB 6197 would have regulated mercury products and mercury emissions. Referred to the Joint Committee on Environment, where no action was taken. HB 6687 restricts the sale of products with mercury. Recommended for passage by the Joint Committee on Environment and several other committees, but did not get voted on by the full House. http://www.cga.state.ct.us/2001/cbs/H/HB-6687.htm SB701 is known as the Omnibus Mercury Reduction Act. Referred to Joint Committee on Public Health, which held a public hearing. http://www.cga.state.ct.us/2001/cbs/S/SB-0701.htm Illinois HB 3637 would prohibit the manufacture, sale or give away of mercury fever thermometers, except to a health care facility. Adopted by the House, in the Senate Rules Committee, with the last action on April 16, 2002. http://www.legis.state.il.us/scripts/imstran.exe?LIBSINCWHB3637 Indiana HB 1901 was adopted to prohibit the sale and distribution of most mercury-added novelties after July 1, 2003. Limits the circumstances under which a mercury fever thermometer may be sold or supplied to an individual after July 1, 2003. Restricts a public or nonpublic school from using or purchasing a mercury commodity, mercury compounds, or mercury-added instructional equipment and materials after July 1, 2003. Provides that a person may sell or provide a mercury commodity to another person after July 1, 2003, only if the person meets certain conditions. Requires the department of environmental management and solid waste management districts to implement mercury education programs. Permits local units of government to implement such programs. Requires the environmental quality service council to review various issues concerning mercury before January 1, 2004. http://www.state.in.us/serv/lsa_billinfo?year=2001&request=getBill&docno=1901 Maine In the second regular session of the 120th Maine Legislature (which adjourned April 17, 2002), two mercury product bills were adopted and signed into law, building upon the two bills adopted in the first regular session. LD 1921 “An Act to Prevent Mercury Emissions when Recycling and Disposing of Motor Vehicle” was enacted as PL 2001, c. 656. It prohibits the sale of mercury switches in automobiles as of January 1, 2003 and requires automobile manufacturers to establish a statewide system to collect, consolidate and recycle the switches. A bounty of $1 is provided for people who remove switches and return them for recycling, with the money to be provided by the auto manufacturers. http://janus.state.me.us/legis/status/gateway.asp?LD=1921 LD 2004 “An Act to Phase Out the Availability of Mercury-added Products” was enacted as PL 2001, c. 620. As introduced, the bill proposed a stepped-down phase out of products containing mercury, with those products having the most mercury phased out first. However, the bill was amended in committee to ban only mercury thermostats (effective January 1, 2006), and to postpone phase out of other mercury-added products pending DEP analysis of manufacturer data submitted under PL 2001, c. 373. The DEP analysis is due January 1, 2003. http://janus.state.me.us/legis/status/gateway.asp?LD=2004 In the first regular session of the 120th Maine Legislature (which adjourned June 22, 2001), two mercury product bills were adopted and signed into law: LD 1665 “An Act to Further Reduce Mercury Emissions from Consumer Products” was enacted as PL 2001, c. 373. It bans sale of mercury fever thermometers; requires manufacturers to provide written notice to the department before offering a mercury-added product for sale in Maine; prohibits the purchase of mercury or mercury compounds for use in schools; and requires manufacturers who sell products to hospitals to provide a certificate of mercury content upon hospital request. http://janus.state.me.us/legis/bills/billtexts/LD166501-1.asp LD1409 "An Act To Address The Health Effects of Mercury Fillings" was enacted as PL 2001, c. 385. It requires the state Department of Human Services, Bureau of Health to prepare a brochure and a poster on alternative dental restorative materials and procedures and their health and environmental impacts, and for dentists who use mercury to display the poster and provide patients with the brochure. http://janus.state.me.us/legis/ros/lom/LOM120th/8Pub351-400/Pub351-400-72.htm - P11191_797452 The Town of Freeport, Maine was the first municipality in Maine to ban the sale of mercury fever thermometers in January 2001. Contact the Town of Freeport Town Clerk to obtain a copy of the ordinance at (207)865-4743, or email johanna@freeportmaine.com. Maryland HB 75 was signed into law as Chapter 639. It prohibits marketers from selling or providing to consumers, beginning October 1, 2002, fever thermometers containing mercury, except under specified circumstances; prohibiting primary and secondary schools from using or purchasing for use in a primary or secondary classroom, beginning October 1, 2003, elemental or chemical mercury; requiring the Department of the Environment to provide outreach assistance to schools relating to the proper management, recycling, and disposal of mercury and mercury-added products; etc. http://mlis.state.md.us/2001rs/billfile/hb0075.htm Massachusetts Massachusetts has a two-year session. Four bills were introduced on mercury products, with two of them combined. H 1555 would ban the use of mercury in public schools. Referred to the Committee on Education, Arts and Humanities, which has held a hearing on it. There has been no action since June 2001. http://www.state.ma.us/legis/bills/house/ht01555.htm and http://www.state.ma.us/legis/history/h01555.htm. H 2217 contains provisions to phase out use of mercury in certain products, requires such products to be recycled rather landfilled or incinerated, prohibits the sale of mercury fever thermometers except by prescription, restricts schools from purchasing or using mercury, mercury compounds, commodities, or instructional equipment; bans the sale or distribution of mercury-added novelties; requires manufactures to disclose the mercury content of products used in hospitals on request, mandates labeling of mercury-added products; requires manufacturers to establish and fund (directly or indirectly) mercury collection/recycling programs; mandates the state Department of Environmental Protection to implement environmental education programs, and authorizes its participation in the establishment and implementation of a multi-state mercury clearinghouse to help achieve regional coordination. Referred to the Joint Committee on Natural Resources and Agriculture, which has held a hearing and recommended its adoption. It has been renumbered as H 4717, and is in the House Committee on Science and Technology. No action since November 2001. http://www.state.ma.us/legis/bills/house/ht04717.htm and http://www.state.ma.us/legis/history/h04717.htm. H 3772 prohibits the sale of mercury fever thermometers, except by prescription or mercury emergency. It has been signed into law by the Governor. http://www.state.ma.us/legis/bills/house/ht03772.htm and http://www.state.ma.us/legis/history/h03772.htm. Michigan HB 4599 would prohibit the sale of mercury thermometers. H-1 was adopted by the House on March 12, 2002. The substitute amended version allows trace mercury in button batteries for digital fever thermometers, and exempts the sale of mercury thermometers for use in applications required by state or federal law or rule, and fever thermometers for which a prescription is provided. It is now in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs, where it was recommended favorably on May 22, 2002. http://michiganlegislature.org/documents/2001-2002/billengrossed/house/pdf/2001-HEBH-4599.pdf and http://michiganlegislature.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=2001-HB-4599&userid= HB 5861 would do the following: -provide for mercury disposal capacity in each county -allow several possible options for funding the program -require a localized public education component -incorporate mercury P2 in county solid waste management plans -ban the disposal of mercury and mercury containing products in solid waste. -require product labeling for the above Introduced on April 9, 2002, it is now in the Committee on Land Use and Environment, where no action has been taken. http://www.michiganlegislature.org/documents/2001-2002/billintroduced/house/pdf/2002-HIB-5861.pdf and http://michiganlegislature.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=2002-HB-5861&userid= SB 6 would require that hospitals not use mercury after December 31, 2005 unless no mercury-free alternatives are available. Referred to Committee on Health Policy, where there has been no action since January 2001. http://michiganlegislature.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=2001-SB-0006&userid= In the 1999-2000 legislation session, Michigan adopted legislation to phase mercury out of use in school classrooms by 2004. See SB 1262, now known as Act No. 376, Public Acts of 2000 on the web at http://michiganlegislature.org/ Minnesota HF 274 and SF 70 prohibit the sale of mercury thermometers. Adopted into law as Chapter 47. http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/getbill.pl?session=ls82&version=latest&number= H274 Nebraska Nebraska’s legislature is adjourned until 2003 and did not adopt any mercury product legislation. It had one bill under consideration. LB 40 would have banned the sale of fever thermometers with mercury in them. http://www.unicam.state.ne.us/PDF/INTRO_LB40.pdf New Hampshire HB 253 establishes limits for mercury emissions from municipal waste incinerators. Signed into law. http://gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2002/HB0253.html HB 654 would have required the removal of certain mercury products from the waste stream prior to the incineration of the waste, as well as limiting mercury emissions from waste incineration. Its status is listed as “interim study.” http://gencourt.state.nh.us/ HB 655 would have established an advance disposal fee to fund local mercury presorting and recycling programs. Status is listed as “inexpedient to legislate ”. http://gencourt.state.nh.us/ HB 675 covered the reduction of mercury in products in a NEWMOA-style bill and incorporated elements of HB 654 and HB 655. Its status is listed as “interim study”, and will probably not be acted upon further. http://gencourt.state.nh.us/ and http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ie/billstatus/quickbill.html HB 1251 had prohibited the use of mercury amalgam fillings in certain persons and required dentists to provide information on mercury amalgam fillings prior to use in a patient as well as requiring mercury waste management equipment in dental offices. The prohibitions on the use of mercury amalgam were removed and then the bill was signed into law by the Governor as Chapter 0096. http://gencourt.state.nh.us/ and http://gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2002/HB1251.html HB 1413, signed into law, makes several modifications to the information that the state would provide on the use of mercury amalgam fillings and in the rules that the state would develop to allow the use of equipment or methods to trap and dispose of mercury in amalgam waste at dental offices. http://gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2002/hb1413.html and http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ie/billstatus/quickbill.html New Jersey The New Jersey Legislature has a two year session that begins in January of the even numbered years. S371 in the 2002 session is the same as A3250 and S2315 from the 2000 session, and would ban the sale of mercury thermometers within 180 days of passage. The bill is in the Senate Environment Committee, with no action since January 2002. http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2002/Bills/S0500/371_I1.pdf , http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/ New York S 03084 and A 04209 are the same bills in the two houses entitled "The Mercury Free Water Resources and Mercury Reduction Management Strategy Act of 2001"; provides for: disclosure of mercury content, phase-out of mercury-added products, disposal prohibition, labeling, source separation, collection, requirements for sewage treatment plants, point source release containment traps, ban on sale or distribution of certain mercury products, replacement of manometers and gas pressure regulators (agriculture department to handle for dairy industry), regulates dental use and bans health insurance discrimination therein, requires lamp recycling; adds all mercury-added products to state universal waste rules; provides for a state advisory committee on mercury pollution; provides for penalties for violations. The Senate version had advanced to the third reading in an amended form, restored to the original form and referred back to the Water Resources Committee while the Assembly version has been ordered to a third reading and was sent to the Environmental Conservation Committee. Neither has seen any action since January 2002. http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=S03084 , http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A04209 , or http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?by=k&qs=mercury A10263 bans the sale of mercury fever thermometers without a prescription. In Environmental Conservation Committee, amended in April 2002. http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A10263 or http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?by=k&qs=mercury A10707 and S06233 require dentists to recycle amalgam. Both bills in their respective Environmental Conservation Committee. Assembly version amended May 2002, Senate version amended twice in May 2002. http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A10707, http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=S06233 or http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?by=k&qs=mercury S06986 Prohibits the use of mercury containing gauges and manometers. In Environmental Conservation Committee. No action since April 2002. http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=S06986 or http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?by=k&qs=mercury Oregon The Oregon Legislature is adjourned for this session, as of July 7, 2001, but adopted major legislation on mercury products. HB 2816 would have prohibited the sale of mercury fever thermometers, mercury-added novelties and motor vehicles containing mercury light switches. Prohibits installation of thermostats containing mercury in commercial or residential building. Provides exception. Prohibits sale of thermostats containing mercury. Provides exception. Prohibits certain actions relating to mercury and mercury products. Directs Oregon Department of Administrative Services to remove mercury light switches from state-owned motor vehicles. Directs Department of Environmental Quality to work with local agencies to provide technical assistance to wrecking businesses concerning removal of mercury light switches from motor vehicles. Adopted by the House on a vote of 55-3, with 2 absent. Sent to the Senate and referred to Business, Labor, and Economic Development. The bill stalled there and was replaced by HB 3007, which was adopted and signed into law. http://www.leg.state.or.us/01reg/measures/hb2800.dir/hb2816.intro.html HB 3007. This is a replacement for HB 2816 and passed both the House (47-4, with 9 absent or excused) and the Senate (26-2, with 2 absent or excused) in early July. Signed into law on August 8, 2001. http://www.leg.state.or.us/01reg/measures/hb3000.dir/hb3007.b.html SB 903 creates a task force to conduct or sponsor research to address possession of hazardous substances, including mercury waste. Requires Department of Environmental Quality to allocate money to task force from moneys appropriated to its budget for biennium beginning July 1, 2001. Referred to Natural Resources, Agriculture, Salmon, and Water; then Ways and Means. http://www.leg.state.or.us/01reg/measures/sb0900.dir/sb0903.intro.html Rhode Island HB 6161 and SB 661 prohibit the landfill disposal of mercury and provide for the collection and proper handling of mercury. Sub A, which has many of the elements of the NEWMOA Mercury Model Legislation, was adopted into law on July 13, 2001. http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Billtext/BillText01/HouseText01/H6161Aaa.htm SB 153 bans the sale of mercury containing fever thermometers except with a prescription. It was adopted into law, effective July 13, 2001. http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Billtext/BillText01/SenateText01/S0153A.htm SB 649’s goal was to achieve significant reductions in environmental mercury by encouraging the establishment of effective waste reduction, recycling, management and education programs. It has died due to lack of action by the end of the session. http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Billtext/BillText01/SenateText01/S0649.htm Texas HB 3085 regulates the sale and use of products containing mercury. Voted out of Public Health Committee to Calendars in May 2001. http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlo/billnbr.htm The Texas Legislature has adjourned, so this bill is dead for this session. Vermont H. 111 proposes to establish a comprehensive approach to reducing the exposure of citizens to mercury in the environment, including bans on the use of mercury in certain products, such as fever thermometers, dairy manometers and novelties, elimination of mercury in schools, labeling requirements for mercury containing products, and related requirements. Currently in the House Natural Resources & Energy Committee. No action since January 2001. http://www.leg.state.vt.us/database/status/status.cfm?Session=2002 H. 283 establishes an advanced disposal fee for certain mercury-added products at a value of 8percent of the wholesale price, and financing municipal presorting of those products when discarded. Currently in the House; no action since February 2001. http://www.leg.state.vt.us/database/status/status.cfm?Session=2002 S. 91 covers comprehensive management of human exposure to mercury. Bans the sale of thermometers, dairy manometers and novelties with mercury. Bans several uses of mercury in schools and the disposal of mercury in landfills and incinerators. Requires the separation of mercury containing products prior to disposal or recycling. Requires manufacturers to report the amounts of mercury in products. Currently in the Senate Committee on Appropriations, having been reported out of the Committee on Natural Resources & Energy. A third reading was ordered on January 23, 2002. The bill has been incorporated into H. 14, which had initially passed the House, sent to the Senate, amended to include the provisions of S.91 and then sent back to the House, where no action has been taken since April 2002. http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2002/bills/intro/S-091.htm http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2002/bills/senate/H-014.HTM http://www.leg.state.vt.us/database/status/status.cfm?Session=2002 Washington The state legislature has adjourned, without adopting any mercury product legislation. However, in the state budget bill, the Department of Ecology was directed to establish an advisory committee to develop a state mercury action plan. HB 2686 and companion bill SB 6533 are titled “Reducing the Release of Mercury into the Environment”. This bill would required labeling of mercury containing products when sold, the establishment of recycling systems by the sellers of mercury thermometers and thermostats, prohibitions on the knowing disposal of mercury containing products with other solid waste, a prohibition on the sale of mercury containing novelties, a prohibition on the purchase of bulk mercury by schools, require the development of a mercury reduction plan for health care facilities, a prohibition on the use of mercury switches in autos, and related measures. The Senate bill has gone through two committees and two substitute bills. The second substitute, among other things, would prohibit the knowing disposal of mercury containing products with other waste, require the development of a mercury reduction plan for health care facilities, require state purchasing to give priority and preference to buying products with no added mercury, and require the state to develop a strategy for the elimination of mercury from the environment. http://www.leg.wa.gov/wsladm/billinfo/dspBillSummary.cfm?billnumber=2686 and http://www.leg.wa.gov/wsladm/billinfo/dspBillSummary.cfm?billnumber=6533 HB 2786 and companion bill SB 6678 would have set up a task force to evaluate the scientific and clinical studies on dental amalgams with mercury, with a report due by June 30, 2003. Introduced in January 2002, the House bill was referred to the Committee on Health Care, while the Senate bill was referred to the Committee on Health & Long-Term Care. http://www.leg.wa.gov/wsladm/billinfo/dspBillSummary.cfm?billnumber=2786 and http://www.leg.wa.gov/wsladm/billinfo/dspBillSummary.cfm?billnumber=6678 Wisconsin NR 446 is an administrative rule that is being modified to limit mercury emissions from coal burning plants and industrial operations that have mercury emissions of more than 10 pounds a year. A 15 year phase-in of a 90percent reduction is called for. As proposed, part of the required mercury reductions can be offset by removing mercury-containing products from use, with recovery of the mercury. The rule has gone to public hearings throughout the state, and is expected to go back to the Natural Resources Board this summer. NR 106.145 (7) is an administrative rule for wastewater treatment plants to allow establishment of community mercury product waste reduction programs as an alternative to removal of mercury from the wastewater stream. Approved by the Natural Resources Board at its meeting on June 25-26, 2002, the last remaining step is a potential review by the State Legislature. http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/wm/ww/mercury/order_wt-12-02_for_adopt.pdf http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/wm/ww/mercury/bkgd_memo_adopt.pdf A bill on reducing mercury in products was prepared but not introduced by Representative DuWayne Johnsrud, who chairs the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources and is vice-chair of the Assembly Committee on Environment, as well as being on both the Committee on Health and the Committee on Public Health. AB 793 and SB 435 would ban the sale of mercury thermometers, with exceptions granted for food research or processing, agricultural climate control or industrial measurement, calibration thermometers and electronic thermometers with mercury-containing batteries. This measure is included in the Senate version of the Budget Repair Bill (SA 2 to SSA 1 of AB 1 of the 2002 Special Session),but was not accepted in the list of items agreed to between the Assembly and Senate. The Internet address for Wisconsin legislation as well as state statutes and administrative codes is http://www.legis.state.wi.us/. At the local level, one county and 12 villages and cities throughout the state have adopted local ordinances banning the sale of mercury fever thermometers. In May, 2002, Dane County adopted an ordinance to require retailers of mercury thermostats and fluorescent lamps to take them back from consumers for recycling. The City of Superior has banned the landfilling of fluorescent light bulbs from all sources and included them in the city’s mandatory recycling program. The City of Ashland has adopted an ordinance to ban the sale of all products containing more than 50 milligrams of mercury, with the exception of amalgam fillings. The ordinance becomes effective in August 2002. Federal S. 351 would phase out sales of mercury thermometers, except by prescription, within 180 days after enactment and improve management of surplus mercury. The bill authorizes $20 million in funds for a grant program to states and other appropriate parties for collection of mercury thermometers and a thermometer exchange program. In addition, S.351 creates a Federal interagency task force to make recommendations regarding the proper management of surplus mercury. The bill also authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to spend $1 million per year to manage surplus mercury. It has 12 co-sponsors. A substitute was recommended unanimously by the Committee on Environment and Public Works for adoption on June 27, 20002. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:s.00351: H.R. 2266 would reduce the risk of the accidental release of mercury into the environment by providing for the temporary storage of private sector supplies of mercury at facilities of the Department of Defense currently used for mercury storage, to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to appoint a task force to develop a plan for the safe disposal of mercury, and for other purposes. Has one co-sponsor. Last major action August 2001. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR02266:@@@P H.R. 2729 would ban manufacturers from selling any mercury-containing product three years after adoption, along with controlling emissions of mercury from fossil fuel fired utilities, incinerators, chlor-alkali plants and cement manufacturers. It has 27 co-sponsors. In the House Energy and Commerce Committee, referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality on August 16, 2001m which is the date of its last major action. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.02729: H.R. 4163 United States Congresswoman Diane Watson (D-Calif) and Congressman Dan Burton (R-Indiana) introduced legislation in April 2002 with the following goals: 1) no mercury amalgam for children under 18, or for pregnant women, or for nursing mothers - effective July 1, 2002; 2) "disclosure before exposure" health warning for all - effective July 1, 2002; and 3) a phase out of all amalgam use, for anyone in the USA, in five years. Last major action April 2002. Five co-sponsors. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.04163: Source: Internet Web pages of the various legislative bodies along with updates via the email lists Mercury Policy, Legislation, and Regulations (mailto:mercury_policy@lyris.newmoa.org) and Hg-WG (mailto:mwg-mercury@igc.topica.com). |
The author is assistant editor of Recycling Today and can be contacted via e-mail at dtoto@RecyclingToday.com.
Explore the September 2002 Issue
Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.
Latest from Recycling Today
- Pennsylvania’s York County Solid Waste and Refuse Authority issues RFP
- Sibanye-Stillwater embraces recycling in its effort to reach carbon neutrality
- Scrap Expo 2024: Embracing digital payment solutions
- Atlantic Coast Recycling opens region’s largest combined single-stream, dual-stream MRF
- EuRIC calls for recycled-content targets for plastics in vehicles
- Leadpoint expands offerings to include on-route support services
- Scrap Expo 2024: Steelmakers, suppliers talk material flows and ‘green steel’
- Operations resume at East, Gulf coasts ports
