fb tracking

Why Updating San Antonio’s Auto and Metal Recycling Codes Is Crucial for Public Safety

By Debra Ponce

On Jan. 24, I walked out of a task force meeting in protest, joined by another member, due to what I believe were unfair voting practices that jeopardized our community’s safety. The issue? The public’s right to know about the hazardous materials commonly stored and processed at auto and metal recycling facilities. 

In recent months, a task force created by the San Antonio City Council has been meeting to develop recommended changes to the city ordinances governing metal and auto part recycling facilities. The goal is to send the recommendations to the city council to update the ordinances to protect the neighborhoods around some of these recycling facilities and treat the industry fairly.

But things haven’t gone as planned.

At the Jan. 24 meeting, the city’s fire chief provided a detailed list of hazardous materials commonly found at recycling facilities. This list included chemical terms like pyrophoric solids, liquids, and gases. When the community task force members representing the city council districts asked for recognizable examples to be included, the fire department added specific materials commonly found in auto and recycling facilities, such as magnesium scrap and lithium-ion battery parts. However, industry representatives voted against including these examples in the municipal code, while community members strongly advocated for their inclusion to ensure transparency and protect public health. 

Why This Comprehensive List Matters
In San Antonio, a small group of recycling businesses operate on multi-acre industrial properties safely away from residential areas. However, larger clusters of recyclers operate beside residential homes, schools, and churches. For families living next to recycling facilities, the stakes are high. Some homes are just a fence away from these operations, which often store dangerous materials. If something were to go wrong—like a chemical leak or fire—entire neighborhoods would be left vulnerable. 

A clear, accessible list of hazardous materials would allow residents, city officials, and emergency responders to identify risks, prepare, and protect our community effectively. Removing this list serves no apparent purpose—it only compromises safety and hinders our ability to act. 

Fair Representation in the Voting Process
Updating these codes and achieving the goals of the Council Consideration Request requires fundamental fairness – the right to vote with equal representation. With frequent absences of community members, industry representatives often outnumber them, undermining the integrity of consensus-building and majority voting standards. We’ve been informed by the Council that there are no standardized rules for the voting process, leading to inconsistencies across meetings. For example, only three community members voted at the most recent meeting, while a full panel of industry representatives was present. This raises serious concerns that the process is being used as a mere formality, giving the illusion of community consultation, while effectively sidelining their input.

City Council Directives and Task Force Member Responsibilities
City Council members selected representatives for the task force in response to the outcry from residents living near local recycling facilities, especially those impacted by repeated fires. The residents who could not leave their homes had to shelter in place and still don’t know what hazardous substances they may have inhaled during these fires.

The task force’s directive, as outlined in the Council Consideration Request (CCR), is clear: “Bad-acting industries that emit hazardous pollution that harms our public health should not be able to rack up code violations and not resolve them promptly; should not be able to rely on city services to clean up their messes routinely; and should not be able to harm our communities without significant consequences. Thus, these issues must be addressed urgently to protect our communities from harmful air pollution, meet our city’s Climate Action & Adaptation Plan goals, and effectively meet the City’s commitment to racial equity.”

Enforcement Measures Proposed by City Council:

  • Temporarily ceasing operations of problematic facilities.
  • Fence-line air monitoring for a certain number of weeks to track air pollution levels.
  • Removal of non-conforming uses—properties being used in a way that doesn’t match zoning laws.
  • Fines to cover the costs of city services used to address violations and emergencies at recycling facilities.

What We Need to Move Forward
Updating these codes aims to reduce pollution and protect our community’s health. However, we can’t achieve these goals without fair representation in the decision-making process. We must ensure transparency, fairness, and accountability to protect our communities.

Stay informed, get involved, and speak out in support of timely inspections, more vigorous enforcement oversight, and transparent reports available to the public.


Debra Ponce is an organizer for the Texas office of Public Citizen. She lives and works in San Antonio.