Assembly committee advances multiple environment bills after Camden recycling‑facility fire testimony

Trap‑door‑style fires at recycling and shredding operations and the wider question of who pays for cleanup and public health prompted hours of testimony and several committee actions at the Assembly Environment and Energy Committee hearing. The committee released or amended bills addressing scrap‑metal facilities, automotive shredder residue (ASR), subsidy clawbacks for environmental violators, PFAS in firefighting gear, statewide organic‑waste targets and a broad packaging producer‑responsibility bill.

The hearing opened with a sponsor presentation on a three‑bill package — A5533, A5534 and A5535 — described as a response to the Feb. 21, 2025 fire at the EMR recycling facility in Camden. An unnamed assemblymember who introduced the package said A5533 would tighten requirements for the receipt and purchase of scrap metal containing propulsion batteries. A5534 would require businesses found responsible for violating environmental laws to forfeit a portion of state subsidies into a new Environmental Incident Recovery Fund. A5535 would classify automotive shredder residue as hazardous waste and require DEP permitting for facilities that store or process it.

Angel Fuentes, identified in the transcript as a former assemblyman and "current Camden City Council president," told the committee the EMR fire was "not just an industrial fire. It was an environmental and public health emergency that unfolded in the heart of a residential community," and urged members to advance the bills to protect Waterfront South and similar neighborhoods.

Local agencies and utilities offered technical context. Scott Schreiber, executive director of the Camden County Municipal Utilities Authority, said the wastewater treatment plant that serves about 500,000 residents is roughly 60–65 yards from the EMR site and warned that a disruption in pumping or power could have led to untreated sewage discharges and "multiple millions of dollars" in economic cost. Community advocates and environmental groups cited repeated incidents at the site (witnesses referenced "6 fires since 2021") and urged stronger enforcement and on‑site monitoring.

Industry witnesses, including Frank Brill of the Recycled Materials Association (formerly ISRI), acknowledged the battery risk but cautioned that reclassifying ASR as hazardous waste could have broad landfill, recycling and cost implications and urged careful drafting. A repeated procedural concern from business testimony was that A5534’s subsidy forfeiture trigger should be a final finding of violation rather than the issuance of a notice of violation (NOV), because NOVs can remain unresolved for years in some cases.

After questioning about definitions and implementation details — notably how "propulsion battery" and related terms are defined — the committee moved and released A5533, A5534 and A5535 for further consideration, with recorded abstentions by some members who cited vagueness or the need for clearer language.

In separate parts of the hearing, the committee advanced other major environmental measures.

• PFAS in firefighting equipment (merged A5195/A5223): The committee considered a merged substitute that would require manufacturers to notify purchasers if personal protective firefighting equipment contains PFAS and would prohibit sale or distribution of certain gear with intentionally added PFAS. Industry groups told the committee there are current gaps in commercially available PFAS‑free equipment and recommended an agency convening and review process tied to a deadline; firefighters’ and environmental witnesses said alternatives are emerging and urged a technology‑forward approach. The committee released the merged substitute after debate.

• Organic waste reduction (A4118, amended): The bill sets statewide targets (the amendment referenced a 50% reduction from baseline by year 7 and 75% by year 12), charges DEP with rulemaking and mandates a phased compliance schedule by generator size. Municipal officials and food‑industry representatives said infrastructure and food‑safety protocols need careful alignment with any mandate; the committee amended and released the bill.

• Packaging Product Stewardship Act (A5009): The longest debate centered on a broad extended producer responsibility (EPR) bill that would require producers to fund and implement stewardship plans, set source‑reduction goals, and create an Office of Plastics and Packaging Management at DEP. Municipal leaders and environmental organizations supported strong producer funding and a shift of costs from taxpayers to producers; packaging and manufacturing trade groups warned that mandatory source‑reduction targets, certain definitions (including printed vs. unprinted paper), and a producer surcharge could have unintended economic impacts. The committee adopted a committee substitute and released the bill for further work.

Votes at a glance

- A5533 (scrap‑metal / propulsion batteries): Motion to release passed; recorded abstentions cited vague definitions. (Sponsor presentation: SEG 034–136; vote: SEG 799–878.) - A5534 (subsidy forfeiture for environmental violators): Amended and released. (Read: SEG 880–960; motion/vote: SEG 1356–1381.) - A5535 (ASR hazardous waste / DEP permit): Amended and released. (Read: SEG 1382–1533; motion/vote: SEG 1499–1533.) - A4118 (statewide organic‑waste reduction targets): Amended and released after debate on municipal costs and infrastructure. (Read: SEG 1534–1966; motion/vote: SEG 1900–1966.) - A5195/A5223 (PFAS in firefighting PPE, merged): Committee substitute adopted and released after testimony from industry and firefighter advocates. (Read/testimony: SEG 1968–2653; motion/vote: SEG 2630–2653.) - A5265 (landscape irrigation enforcement): Amended and released; supporters cited enforcement gaps since local staffing reductions. (Read/testimony: SEG 2655–2856; motion/vote: SEG 2831–2856.) - A5009 (Packaging Product Stewardship Act): Committee substitute adopted and released following extensive testimony from municipal, environmental and industry stakeholders. (Read/testimony: SEG 3055–4228; motion/vote: SEG 4178–4228.)

What to watch next

Committee members and stakeholders repeatedly pressed for clearer statutory definitions (for example, the term "propulsion battery" and the legal trigger for subsidy clawbacks), for DEP rulemaking details and for assurances that enforcement steps will not inadvertently shift unrecoverable costs to municipalities or consumers. Sponsors and witnesses said continued amendment and technical drafting are expected before floor consideration.

Representative quotes from the hearing

• "What happened at EMR was not just an industrial fire. It was an environmental and public health emergency that unfolded in the heart of a residential community," Angel Fuentes testified (SEG 162–166).

• "Had the fire occurred under different atmospheric conditions ... it could have been catastrophic," Scott Schreiber (CCMUA) told the committee while describing proximity of critical sewer infrastructure (SEG 346–355).

• Industry witness Frank Brill warned that "turning ASR into hazardous waste" could "drive up costs" and shift material management out of state (SEG 468–476).

Next procedural step

The committee advanced all bills discussed for further legislative consideration. Sponsors and stakeholder groups signaled continuing negotiations on definitions, triggers for enforcement, and implementation timetables before floor votes.