|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3837
|
|
|
|
|
MARVIN MANDEL, Governor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
recycled used oil may be represented as equivalent to new
oil.
The purpose of the bill, through both an educational
program and the restrictions noted above, is to avert
some of the pollution of the State's water and land
areas, as well as to recapture used oil, by providing
alternative methods for the disposition of used oil.
Certainly, that purpose is a good one.
The major problem with the bill is its requirement
that all oil sold for off premises use be in resealable
or recoverable containers. Testimony presented at a veto
hearing on this bill showed that, at the present time,
this is impractical and may well be dangerous.
The bill is directed at those persons who buy oil,
generally in one quart cans, over the counter, in order
to self-service their cars, rather than taking them to a
service station. It assumes that these
"do-it-yourselfers" will drain the used oil into a pan,
pour it into the resealable one quart cans, seal the
cans, and promptly take the filled cans to a collection
center for disposition.
According to testimony from representatives of the
leading producers of cans used for oil and of the
companies packaging oil for off premises use, there has
not yet been developed a safe, reliable, and economical
resealable or recoverable one quart can that can be used
for oil. A "screw-top" can of one quart size may not be
practical as a receptacle for used oil drained from a
crankcase, and nearly all of the can and oil company
representatives assume that the bill would require the
cans to contain a plastic cap.
Both Quaker State Oil Company and Boise Cascade
Company, a leading producer of cans for oil, have
conducted tests on the use of plastic tops, and have
found that they are not adequate for the purpose. The
cap, which is nonbiodegradable and which itself is
manufactured from petrochemicals, has been found not to
be an effective seal, as it will become permeated by the
oil. If this is so, the storage of oil in such cans
could well create its own pollution problems, as well as
a serious fire hazard.
Offers were made at the veto hearing by the oil and
can companies to work with the appropriate legislative
committees over the summer and fall to devise more
practical ways of achieving the objectives of the bill,
which they and I support. Various alternatives are
apparently being tested now. The principal proponents of
the bill appearing at the veto hearing acknowledged that
some time was needed to work out the problems noted, but
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
