Mercury Reclamation Act of 2006
Latest action. Referred to the subcommitteeA smaller panel inside a standing committee with jurisdiction over a slice of its subject matter. Most hearings and the first markup usually happen here.Read the full definition (opens a new tab) on Environment and Hazardous Materials.
Mercury Reclamation Act of 2006 - Amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in cooperation with the Secretary of Transportation, to: (1) review storage, transportation, tracking and packaging requirements as they pertain to mercury-bearing solid waste; and (2) promulgate regulations governing the tracking, storage, packaging, record keeping, and reporting on the shipments of mercury-bearing waste. Requires such regulations to ensure the ability to track the generation, treatment, and disposal of mercury wastes and require accountability for waste generators and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities to identify and document wastes and comply with treatment and disposal requirements.
Requires the Administrator to promulgate packaging standards to prevent the release of mercury and mercury vapor during the transportation and storage of mercury-bearing wastes. Exempts from the standards wastes generated by households, until such wastes are received by a treatment, storage, or disposal facility.
Provides for enforcement through compliance orders.
Requires, with certain exemptions, that each person who generates any solid waste which consists of a device that contains mercury integral to its function: (1) take steps to insure that such waste is treated to reclaim the mercury; or (2) transfer such waste to another person who has accepted responsibility for such reclamation. Requires the Administrator to develop a voluntary compliance program to maximize the collection of mercury-containing exempted items.
Requires the Administrator to re-evaluate the 100 kg/month exemption from hazardous waste standards for small quantity generators.
Requires the treatment standards applicable to all hazardous waste containing mercury in concentrations of 260 mg/kg or more to require the recovery of mercury from such waste prior to land disposal using a technology approved by the Administrator. Authorizes the Administrator to: (1) limit the organic content of such waste that may be subjected to mercury recovery technologies; (2) limit the use of such technologies for radioactive wastes; (3) issue variances and exceptions to the required use of such technologies, based on feasibility of mercury recovery; and (4) revise such treatment standards to incorporate the capabilities of the most advanced available mercury recovery technologies.
The summary continues for 1 more paragraph. Read it in full on Congress.gov
Written by analysts at the Congressional Research Service and published on Congress.gov, not by Civibrief. Summarized at the "Introduced in House" stage on September 29, 2006. It describes the bill, it is not the legal text.
Where is it in the process, and what happens next?
4 steps remain before this bill could become law.
The record's latest action, on October 2, 2006: Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials.
- Clearing the committees it was referred to, and being scheduled for a floor vote
- Passage by the House
- Passage by the Senate
- The President's signature. If the President vetoes it, two-thirds of both chambers must vote to override.
How likely is it to become law?
Civibrief does not forecast outcomes and this page has no opinion about this one. What the record supports is a base rate, which is a fact about the whole pile, not a prediction about this measure.
In the 109th Congress (2005-06), 482 of the 10,701 bills and joint resolutions introduced became law, about 4.5 percent. That count covers every measure at every stage, including the many that never left committee.
This one is not there yet: 4 steps are still outstanding, listed above.
Has anyone actually voted on it?
No. No roll call in this Congress cites this measure. That is the ordinary outcome: most measures never reach a recorded floor vote, and a committee ends most of them simply by not acting.
A vote is not the only thing that happens to a measure. Hearings, markups, and referrals are all recorded actions, and none of them is a vote of the full chamber.
Who is behind it?
GIL GUTKNECHT (R-MN) introduced it on September 29, 2006, and 3 members have since signed on as cosponsors.
They come from both major parties: 2 Democrats, 1 Republican.
Cosponsoring is a formal signature on the text. It is not a commitment to vote for the measure, it does not bind anyone's party, and a long list of cosponsors is a measure of attention rather than of prospects.
How long has it been in play?
It was introduced on September 29, 2006, 7333 days ago. The most recent recorded action was 7330 days ago, on October 2, 2006.
Measures do not carry over. Anything the 109th Congress has not finished by January 3, 2007 dies when the term ends, and has to be introduced again from the start in the next Congress.
Every answer above is assembled from this measure's own record on Congress.gov and from published counts of what Congress has passed before. Civibrief does not predict outcomes and takes no position on any measure.
Vote history
- HouseIn committee, no floor vote yet
- SenateAwaits House passage
- PresidentAwaits both chambers