2016 State Legislative Roundup
Bills in Virginia and New Jersey will carry over, but all the other states start fresh. Pre-filing became active in 24 states on November 15 with 9 more begin pre-filing in December, leading up to an inevitable flood of legislation when 43 states come back into session in January (2017 State Legislative Session Deadlines). A few standout trends and developments from the 546 bills ReMA tracked in 2016 are outlined below; you can keep track of the latest introductions using ISRI’s State Legislative Tracking System or by contacting Danielle Waterfield or Justin Short.
Recycled Rubber/Artificial Turf
Despite the introduction of over 20 bills in 10 states targeting synthetic turf fields with recycled rubber infill, legislation to ban or restrict installations ultimately failed to gain traction once legislators were informed of the scientific evidence. Tellingly, the only two bills directly impacting turf that passed were California SB 974, allowing local governments to impose “reasonable restrictions” on turf within the dripline of a tree protected by local ordinance, and New Jersey AB 3682, expressly permitting animal facilities to use artificial turf in outdoor enclosures. Recyclers in California, Minnesota, New York, Virginia, and Washington State can likely expect renewed legislation in 2017.
Additionally, three federal agencies (U.S. EPA, Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have been tasked to conduct a study on recycled rubber used as infill in artificial turf fields. ReMA and several other organizations have submitted comments to the agencies urging the use of sound scientific principles and comparative analysis with nearby natural fields adjacent to synthetic turf fields with recycled rubber infill to measure the levels of chemicals of concern that may be present. ReMA launched RecycledRubberFacts.org earlier this year to assist all stakeholders in confronting such unsubstantiated media reports with facts and will continue to encourage policymakers to look at the sound nonpartisan, peer-reviewed research that has been done before making reactive decisions that impact an industry that is so important to both the environment and the economy.
Electronics
States have also begun to pull away from electronic recycling mandates, with bills proposing new programs vastly outweighed by states seeking to fix issues or loosen requirements in laws already passed. These changes are largely due to the challenges presented by CRTs. In September, California passed AB 1419, which holds that CRT panel glass that only exceeds concentration limits for barium is not a waste and allows for certain specified end uses, while West Virginia removed its landfill ban for electronics earlier in the year. Illinois attempted to pass legislation allowing the storage of CRT glass in landfills for future retrieval, but ReMA members helped to put those bills on hold in favor of a process to achieve a non-legislative solution for recycling CRT glass.
Electronics recyclers should also keep a close eye on North Carolina</strong>; in the last few years legislators have repeatedly attempted to slip repeals of the state’s electronics recycling law into legislation near the end of the session. In April 2016, the North Carolina Dept. of Environmental Quality recommended that the legislature consider abolishing the program and gave their support to 2016 North Carolina HB 169 when it was amended to do so; however, that version was defeated and the bill was amended again to target tort claims.
Extended Producer Responsibility
With the trend away from statewide electronics recycling programs, proponents of producer responsibility/product stewardship models that give the responsibility for – and power over – recycling to the manufacturer have increasingly moved towards targeting new products or proposing framework legislation that allows regulators to add products after the law has passed. While states have adopted EPR plans for certain materials such as electronics, batteries, mattresses, carpet, and paint, efforts to expand such laws to other materials have been countered with the argument that imposing such on materials with vibrant existing markets would simply upend the current market-driven systems and replace them with unnecessary, artificial financial “stewardship programs” that give complete control of recycling industries to the manufacturers. These arguments have been successful in pushing back against tire legislation in Connecticut and paper and packaging bills in Rhode Island and Indiana, but advocacy groups dedicated to the passage of EPR legislation will continue to push for its adoption in existing markets in the coming session.
Materials Theft
Ten states amended their metals theft laws these have already been added to ISRI’s state metals theft law summaries available on ISRI’s State Specific Resources page and the Metals Theft Law Database. While none of these included the massive changes commonly seen in past years, recyclers should stay alert for bills such as those currently being considered in New Jersey. New Jersey AB 4200 is a reintroduction of language that was passed by the legislature and then vetoed in 2013, and would make changes to the recordkeeping and payment requirements and require statewide electronic reporting, while AB 2584 would ban the purchase of historical markers, grave markers, or burial vases. Electronic reporting and the expansion of pawnshop and precious metals requirements to scrap purchases will almost certainly be introduced in 2017.
Vehicle Mercury Switch Program
The National Vehicle Mercury Switch Recovery Program (NVMSRP) Steering Committee continues to mull options for the future of the switch recovery effort, with the national program currently slated to end in 2017. The Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA) supports continued funding of the program through 2021, and is currently engaged in talks with the End of Life Vehicle Solutions (ELVS) Corporation to determine the viability of this option, but a formal plan has not been presented to the Steering Committee. Representatives of the Environmental Council of States (ECOS) have expressed doubt that continuing the program will have a major impact on mercury emissions unless it includes restarting incentive payments and increasing outreach to potential collectors. ReMA continues to support the Program.
In September and October, EPA sent letters to minor and major source facilities to collect information and request testing on pollutants emitted from electric arc furnaces (EAFs), pursuant to its authority under Section 114 of the Clean Air Act. These Section 114 letters are meant as an update to letters that were sent in 2010, and were cited as a response to citizen suits about mercury emissions. During its November meeting, the Steering Committee will hear a report on the status of the requests as well as the current state of negotiations between SMA and ELVS and whether the continuation would carry the same indemnifications that vehicle dismantlers, scrap processors, and others receive for participating in the current program.