1 / 60

Presentations May 23 – 25, 2005

Presentations May 23 – 25, 2005 Portland, Maine For related information visit: http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/conferences. In the beginning. MN. Labeling

morag
Download Presentation

Presentations May 23 – 25, 2005

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Presentations May 23 – 25, 2005 Portland, Maine For related information visit: http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/conferences

  2. In the beginning . . . . MN • Labeling • Lamps -inform the purchaser on the invoice • Ban on toys • Ban on mercury manometers

  3. Minnesotahttp://www.moea.state.mn.us/

  4. Vermont’s 1998/1999 Legislation • All mercury-added products manufactured after March 1, 2000 must be labeled. • Manufacturers provide a Certified Labeling Plan • Detailed descriptions of the products • Label size & material • Label wording • Label location and attachment method

  5. Alternative Labeling:

  6. VT Labeling Law • Label: • Product • Prior to purchase • Products to be labeled: • Thermostat or thermometer • Switch, individually or as part of another product • Medical or scientific instrument • An electric relay or other electrical device • A battery– other than a button battery • k A lamp

  7. Vermont’s breakthroughs in lamp labeling . . .

  8. Lamps manufactured after November 2003 must be labeled. • Lamps were labeled nationally/internationally

  9. Lamp Package Label

  10. HID AUTOMOBILE HEADLIGHT

  11. MODEL LEGISLATION • Comprehensive: Designed to achieve virtual elimination goal • Regional: Promotes consistency across the states • Menu: Enables states to select provisions that are best suited to their jurisdiction/political interests

  12. Labeling Model / VT Labeling • Model Label: • Product • Component • Prior to purchase • Package • Products to be labeled: • Fabricated products • Formulated products • Responsibility • Final manufacturer • Vermont Label: • Product (Component) • Prior to purchase (Package) • Products to be labeled: • Vermont list • Responsibility • Manufacturer of product

  13. States that followed . . . MAINE Vermont’s List Lamps on Invoice OREGON Thermostats WASHINGTON Lamps

  14. More states that followed . . . RHODE ISLAND Model Legislation Lamps on Invoice No Batteries CONNECTICUT Model Legislation Lamps Products w/Batteries NEW YORK Model Legislation Lamps Batteries Developing Rules

  15. CONNECTICUT ELECTRONICS LABELING VERMONT 2007 ELECTRONICS LABELING • Non-replaceable +7” • ProductorCare & Use • Component (lamp) • Package orCare & Use • Non-replaceable  7” • Product orCare & Use • Component (lamp) • Package orCare & Use • Non-replaceable +7” • Product • No (lamp) label • Care & Use • Non-replaceable  7” • Care & Use • No (lamp) label

  16. CONNECTICUT ELECTRONICS LABELING VERMONT 2007 ELECTRONICS LABELING • Replaceable lamps • Product • Package or Care & Use • Visible prior to purchase • Replaceable lamps • Product • Package • Care & Use (if any) • Visible prior to purchase

  17. What’s the difference? • Products with button cell batteries • Connecticut and New York • Medical products • Vermont and New York

  18. Contact Information KAREN KNAEBEL (802) 241-3455 KarenK@anr.state.vt.us

  19. Presentations May 23 – 25, 2005 Portland, Maine

  20. Legal Issues & Challenges with Mercury Reduction & Labeling Laws Jon Hinck Natural Resources Council of Maine May 24, 2005 ACHIEVING MERCURY REDUCTION IN PRODUCTS & WASTE: COORDINATING NATIONAL & LOCAL GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES CONFERENCE

  21. TWO CASE STUDIES: • MAINE'S AUTO SWITCH LAW 38 M.R.S.A. §1665-A(1) (2002) • VERMONT'S MERCURY LABELING LAW Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 6621d(a)(1998)

  22. Origins of Maine’s Mercury Switch Law • Mercury Products law enacted in 2000 requiring: • Labeling and • Recycling • Auto switch part delayed 6 months to address concerns of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) and the Maine Auto Recyclers Association (MARA). • DEP directed to develop a plan for auto switches

  23. Enactment of Maine Auto Switch Law, 38 M.R.S.A. §1665-A(1) In April 2002, Maine enacts law that requires automakers to: • set-up a statewide system to collect, consolidate and recycle mercury-added switches • pay a $1 per switch bounty to car recyclers

  24. Key Elements of the Maine Law • Shared Responsibility for removal and recycling of Hg switches : • ELV handlers remove the switches, log and transport them to a consolidation facility.

  25. Key Elements of the Maine Law Continued • Automakers establish consolidation facilities, pay $1 for each switch delivered to the facilities, and ship for recycling. • The DEP provides information and training on removal and recycling of the switches.

  26. Implementation by Automakers Plans received from AAM, Subaru, Recreation Vehicle Industry Association and Truck Manufacturers Association.

  27. Elements of AAM plan(covering most of the fleet) • Two consolidation locations—Portland and Bangor. • Party delivering switches to these locations must: 1. Provide VINs for each source vehicle; and 2. Certify that source vehicles were dismantled in Maine.

  28. Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers v. Kirkpatrick (Fed. District Court of Maine) AAM sued, arguing the law violates its members rights under the following clauses of the U.S. Constitution: • (1) “Dormant” Commerce; • (2) Equal Protection; and • (3) Due Process

  29. AAM v. Kirkpatrick • On July 17, 2003, U.S. Magistrate Judge Margaret Kravchuk issued an opinion recommending dismissal. • On February 17, 2004, the U.S. District Court adopted the recommended decision granting summary judgment for Maine.

  30. AAM v. Kirkpatrick Analysis The opinion  recognizes the State’s broad authority to protect public health and the environment.

  31. AAM v. Kirkpatrick Analysis • Pursuing those objectives, the State can shift costs to parties responsible for creating a recognized hazard such as mercury pollution.

  32. AAM v. Kirkpatrick Analysis “The Alliance has not challenged Maine’s assertion that upwind release of mercury results in appreciable mercury deposition in Maine or that the burden placed on manufacturers is wholly out of proportion to the degree of harm presented.  Each of the challenged provisions appears to have a rational relationship to advancing the mercury remediation effort.” 

  33. AAM v. Kirkpatrick Analysis “The obvious answer to the Alliance’s [interstate commerce clause] challenge it that it is not excessively burdensome to impose on those who placed mercury switches in interstate commerce a reasonable financial obligation to help ensure that the encapsulated mercury does not cause harm to public health or the environment.”

  34. AAM v. Kirkpatrick Analysis “The Alliance ultimately fails to make any factual showing in support of its conception of fairness. What is offered is that the manufacturers estimate the cost of compliance to amount to roughly $200,000 in start up costs and projected annual costs of $120,000. In my view, this simple showing falls short of demonstrating a clearly excessive burden in relation to the local benefit of recovering switches”

  35. AAM v. Kirkpatrick AnalysisNo violation of Due Process and Equal Protection • “According to the Alliance, because certain provisions in the Act serve the purpose of protecting domestic industries from certain financial and administrative burdens under the regulatory scheme, the Court should infer that these same burdens were relegated to manufacturers 'solely because of their residence.'  This simply does not follow.”

  36. AAM v. Kirkpatrick AnalysisNo violation of Due Process and Equal Protection • “It is far more plausible that the primary burden was imposed on manufacturers in recognition of the fact that the need for a mercury switch recovery program existed solely by virtue of the manufacturers' incorporation of these mercury-laden components in their automobiles for roughly ten years after the industry's cognizance of the mercury disposal problem.”

  37. AAM v. Kirkpatrick Analysis •  The Court also rejected the automakers’ slippery slope argument alleging harm that would arise if other states adopted their own version of this law. In response, the Court said that “the consequence would be akin to multi-state bottle bills,” posing no great restriction on commerce.   

  38. Vermont Mercury Labeling Law • 1998 Vermont law, 10 Vt. Stat. Ann. § 6621d, (as later amended) requires labeling of mercury-added consumer products. The label must: inform consumers that (1) the product contains mercury and (2) should be recycled or disposed of as hazardous waste and not discarded.  

  39. Vermont Mercury Labeling Law • Applies to: thermostats; thermometers; switches; medical and scientific devices; electrical relays and other electrical devices; lamps; and certain batteries.  

  40. Nat’l Elec. Mfgs (NEMA) v. Sorrell • In 1999, The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) – a trade association – filed suit in federal court on behalf of manufacturers of fluorescent and other mercury-containing lamps. • NEMA sought to enjoin enforcement of the labeling requirement.

  41. NEMA v. Sorrell • NEMA claims: • Labeling requirement violates its members' constitutional rights under the: • (1) Commerce; • (2) Supremacy; and • (3) Due Process Clauses, and • (4) the First Amendment.

  42. NEMA v. Sorrell, • On 11/8/99, District Court, Judge Garvan Murtha issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement holding that NEMA had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. • The 11/6/01, the Second Circuit Appeals Court reversed holding for the State of Vermont. 272 F.3d 104 (2nd Cir. 2001)

More Related