NC State of Business

What is Hazardous Waste? Well… first it’s a solid waste ( as defined by EPA). OK, then – what is a solid waste? Now the fun begins.

EPA has just passed a rule (Dec in 2008) – that redefines solid waste – to exclude more recycled material - from Haz Waste regulations. This is good, right? Recycling should be promoted – and an exemption from burdensome regulations – would do just that, right?
Well not exactly. The Sierra Club has requested EPA -to stop the passage of this rule OR as they phrase it:

Dear Ms Lisa Jackson: … the Sierra Club respectfully requests that you reconsider and repeal the final Revisions to the Definition of Solid Waste (“DSW Rule”), … and that you stay implementation of the Rule as soon as possible. ….The rush to publish produced a vague and unenforceable rule that arbitrarily and capriciously ignores the significant adverse impacts to health and the environment that will be caused by the Rule’s removal of fundamental RCRA protections

Now- don’t you love that legal jargon? Does it send goose bumps down your back?

The new DSW rule was issued in October of 2008 with an “effective date” of December 29, 2008. The old rule defined Solid Waste as being either abandoned, inherintantly waste like or recycled (weird –recycling a material actually caused it to be a regulated solid waste). But this was all done to prevent so-called “sham-recycling operations from circumventing the rules. Along comes the new DSW rule – which exempts the category of recycled wastes from regulations – known as Hazardous Secondary Materials (HSM). So what’s so bad about that? Well the Sierra Club says –

The [DSW] Rule exempted 1.5 million tons (over 3 billion pounds) of hazardous waste from stringent regulation under RCRA….The Rule is an impermissible abdication of the agency’s statutory mandate to prevent spills, midnight dumping, and poor management practices that contaminate air, soil, and water, especially in the minority and low-income neighborhoods disproportionately affected by pollution.

The industrial counterparts have also responded to the Sierra Club’s accusations. John L. Wittenborn, legal counsel for the “industrial respondents” states:

These "de-regulatory" benefits [of the new DSW rule] will not lead to "sham recycling"; to the contrary, the specification of legitimacy criteria in the DSW Rule will, if anything, diminish any sham recycling that may be occurring currently. Nor will achieving these benefits result in any material diminution of environmental protection. Rather, as noted in our response to Sierra Club's petition, EPA has painstakingly developed conditions that are more than sufficient to ensure that recycling is legitimate and that the environment is protected.

Interestingly enough, in NC, the Division of Waste Management (DWM) - who implements these hazardous waste rules in NC, has “postponed the adoption” of the new DSW rule – until the dust settles (listed date of Oct 2009) Now that’s a smart move

All-in-all; this is a complicated issue. What is the bottom line for one group (i.e., regulatory relief) may not be the bottom line for others (i.e., environmental justice for low income communities). EPA has set p a public meeting for June 30, 2009 to discuss possible revisions to the rule. The NC DWM has also set up a meeting for June 1, 2009 – to discuss this rule as well.

More information on EPA’s progress can be found at http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/dsw/rulemaking.htm#2009

Information on NC DWM can be found at http://www.wastenotnc.org/hwhome/dsw_temp_suspense.htm