Recently, the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, a collaboration between Canada, Mexico and the United States pursuant to the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), issued a final draft report titled, Hazardous Trade? An Examination of US-generated Spent Lead-acid Battery Exports and Secondary Lead Recycling in Mexico, the United States and Canada (2012). The 83-page report which was recently discussed in the New York Times, examines the following issues according to the abstract:
The independent report, written under the authority of NAAEC Article 13, was initiated in 2012 in response to concerns that a surge in spent lead-acid battery (SLAB) exports to Mexico in recent years was an effort to avoid the costs of stricter environmental and health protection laws prevalent in the United States. Lead is a persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic substance and how lead-acid batteries are recycled is an important economic, public health and environmental issue. A draft of the report had been made available by the Secretariat for public comments and benefited as well from the input of key stakeholders.
Key findings of the report include:
- Between 2004 and 2011, US net exports of SLABs to Mexico increased by 449–525 percent, and 221 per cent to Canada.
- The regulatory frameworks covering secondary lead smelters in the United States, Canada and Mexico do not provide equivalent levels of environmental and health protection.
- National cross-border accounts in all three countries do not accord with shipping or receiving volumes of SLABs from either sending or receiving countries.
- Notwithstanding Mexico’s permitting process, there are important gaps in its overall regulatory framework, as well as with respect to the prevailing environmental and public health standards in the United States and Canada.
The report also presents various recommendations to environmental authorities in Canada, Mexico, and the United States, that will enhance the protection of our shared environment, and the health of workers and communities.
Pursuant to Article 13 (3) of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, the Council will normally make the final report publicly available within 60 days of the submission, unless the Council decides otherwise.
Recently, the National Academies Press (NAP) released a report produced by Charles W. Wessner, Rapporteur; the Subcommittee on Electric Drive Battery Research
and Development Activities; Committee on Competing in the 21st Century: Best
Practice in State and Regional Innovation Initiatives; Board on Science,
Technology, and Economic Policy; Policy and Global Affairs; and the National Research
Council titled, Building the U.S. Battery Industry for Electric Drive Vehicles: Summary of a Symposium (2012). The 246-page report is available free with a one-time registration. According to the abstract,
[s]ince 1991, the National Research Council, under the auspices of the Board on
Science, Technology, and Economic Policy, has undertaken a program of activities
to improve policymakers' understandings of the interconnections of science,
technology, and economic policy and their importance for the American economy
and its international competitive position. The Board's activities have
corresponded with increased policy recognition of the importance of knowledge
and technology to economic growth. The goal of the this symposium was to conduct
two public symposia to review and analyze the potential contributions of
public-private partnerships and identify other relevant issues for the
Department of Energy, Office of Vehicle Technologies, Energy Storage Team's
activities in the energy storage research and development area. The symposia
will also identify lessons from these and other domestic and international
experiences to help inform DoE as to whether its activities are complete and
appropriately focused. Additional topics that emerge in the course of the
planning may also be addressed. Building the U.S. Battery Industry for
Electric Drive Vehicles: Summary of a Symposium gathers representatives
from leading battery manufacturers, automotive firms, university researchers,
academic and industry analysts, congressional staff, and federal agency
representatives. An individually-authored summary of each symposium will be
issued.
The symposium was held in Michigan in order to provide direct access to the
policymakers and industrial participants drawn from the concentration of battery
manufacturers and automotive firms in the region. The symposium reviewed the
current state, needs, and challenges of the U.S. advanced battery manufacturing
industry; challenges and opportunities in battery R&D, commercialization,
and deployment; collaborations between the automotive industry and battery
industry; workforce issues, and supply chain development. It also focused on the
impact of DoE's investments and the role of state and federal programs in
support of this growing industry. This task of this report is to summarize the
presentations and discussions that took place at this symposium. Needless to
say, the battery industry has evolved very substantially since the conference
was held, and indeed some of the caveats raised by the speakers with regard to
overall demand for batteries and the prospects of multiple producers now seem
prescient. At the same time, it is important to understand that it is
unrealistic to expect that all recipients of local, state, or federal support in
a complex and rapidly evolving industry will necessarily succeed. A number of
the firms discussed here have been absorbed by competitors, others have gone out
of business, and others continue to progress.
Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released its report, titled Batteries and Energy Storage Federal Initiatives Supported Similar Technologies and Goals but Had Key Differences GAO-12-842 (Aug. 30, 2012). This 79 page report, available here, was conducted as the
GAO was asked to (1) identify the scope and key characteristics of federal battery and energy storage initiatives; (2) determine the extent to which there is potential fragmentation, overlap, or duplication, if any, among these initiatives; and (3) determine the extent to which agencies coordinate these initiatives. GAO focused on fiscal years 2009 through 2012 because DOE made large investments in these technologies during these years. GAO surveyed initiatives identified in six agencies: DOE, DOD, NASA, NSF, EPA, and NIST. GAO included questions about the following key characteristics: funding obligations, technologies, uses, technology advancement activities, goals, eligible funding recipients, and funding mechanisms. GAO analyzed survey responses and interviewed agency officials to gather more information. GAO examined external coordination for all agencies and internal coordination in DOE and DOD because they had the largest obligations of the agencies GAO reviewed.
