A California environmental oversight board approved a state plan outlining strategies to safely reduce hazardous waste \u2014 despite sharp criticism from environmental groups who say several aspects of the plan could invite deregulation. <\/p>\n
A 2021 state law<\/a> directed the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to publish a plan every three years, outlining the state\u2019s approach to minimize the generation, disposal and incineration of hazardous waste. In March, the state agency released a draft of the first-ever hazardous waste management plan, drawing opposition for a controversial recommendation<\/a> to consider allowing more contaminated soil to be dumped at nonhazardous landfills. <\/p>\n Eight months later, after four public meetings, a revised plan was discussed during a hearing in mid-November at the CalEPA headquarters in Sacramento. Many environmentalists remained wary, noting the plan still recommends reviewing federal exemptions for hazardous materials that can be recycled and a broader reassessment of California\u2019s standards. Their fear is that this could lead the state to roll back its protocols \u2014 widely considered among the most strict in the country. <\/p>\n \u201cWe find this plan to be extremely deregulatory and paving a path for DTSC to adopt more loopholes for industry,\u201d said Andrea Loera, an attorney with San Francisco-based nonprofit Earthjustice. <\/p>\n \u201cExcluding hazardous waste from the law,\u201d she continued, \u201cdoes not make hazardous waste dangers magically disappear.\u201d<\/p>\n The Board of Environmental Safety, a five-member committee tasked with supervising DTSC, voted 4-1 to approve the plan. Board members said they recognized the unease around parts of the plan but vowed to closely track these proposals to ensure any changes did not result in harmful deregulation. <\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019ve heard serious concerns that evaluations called for … will necessarily lead to outcomes that are less protective for public health,\u201d said Andrew Rakestraw, the board\u2019s chair. \u201cAnd … we, as a board, our mandate is to ensure that does not come to pass.\u201d<\/p>\n Board member Ingrid Brostrom echoed those sentiments, ultimately voting in favor of the plan. <\/p>\n \u201cWhat I fear is, if we basically allow DTSC to move forward without the plan, we have simply removed our oversight,\u201d said Brostrom. \u201cThe question for me is, is having this plan better than having no plan at all? For me, the answer is no.\u201d<\/p>\n The plan suggests the state should evaluate the federal government\u2019s exemptions and exclusions for recyclable streams of hazardous waste. <\/p>\n Because of California\u2019s more stringent hazardous waste regulations, much more potentially dangerous waste needs to go to a specialized landfill or treatment facility than would be required by the federal government\u2019s rules. <\/p>\n However, the state only has two hazardous waste landfills, and disposal there is significantly more expensive. <\/p>\n There is a loophole, which has also caused an uproar among environmental advocates: Oftentimes, industry and government agencies opt to export California hazardous waste waste to municipal landfills in neighboring states that rely on the less-restrictive federal rules. <\/p>\n The federal program also waives fees and requirements for \u201clegitimate\u201d recycling of certain hazardous wastes, such as scrap metal. Environmentalists said they worry this would put more communities at risk, noting the largest environmental cleanup in California\u2019s history is of lead-contaminated homes<\/a> near a former battery recycling plant<\/a> in Southeast Los Angeles County. <\/p>\n \u201cIt is not the time for us to stand on par with the federal government which is trying to dismantle hazardous waste protections,\u201d said Ivana Castellanos, an organizer with Physicians for Social Responsibility.<\/p>\n The state\u2019s new plan set out to address these dilemmas by identifying ways to minimize hazardous waste at the source and explore ways to recycle emerging sources of hazardous waste, such as lithium-ion batteries.<\/p>\n But many environmental organizations say the plan doesn\u2019t provide the state with a proper road map, leaving out specific targets or dates for reducing hazardous waste. <\/p>\n At the Nov. 17 meeting, the board said it would consider requiring DTSC to set hazardous waste reduction and diversion goals for the next iteration of the plan, which is due in 2028. <\/p>\n Environmentalists also say the plan appears to try to reduce hazardous waste by redefining what counts as hazardous.<\/p>\n The plan suggests the state should review the federal government\u2019s exemptions and exclusions for recyclable streams of hazardous waste, such as reclaimed scrap metal. <\/p>\n A handful of recommendations in the plan call for the evaluation of the effectiveness of a state test that simulates how toxic substances may leak out of contaminated solid waste in landfill conditions; how exposure to certain California-regulated metals corresponds with health effects; and the state\u2019s benchmarks for lead-containing waste. <\/p>\n DTSC officials said these evaluations were required under the 2021 law that established the state hazardous waste management plan. At the hearing, DTSC director Katie Butler pushed back on accusations that the plan was a deregulatory scheme, stressing its overarching goal is to safeguard Californians. <\/p>\n \u201cThe intention is to protect health, safety, the environment \u2014 and that is the lens in which we look at this entire plan,\u201d Butler said at the meeting.<\/p>\n