California’s Environmental Oversight Board has approved a state plan outlining strategies to safely reduce hazardous waste, despite harsh criticism from environmental groups who say some aspects of the plan could lead to deregulation.
Mr. A directed the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to publish a plan every three years outlining the state’s approach to minimizing the generation, disposal, and incineration of hazardous waste. In March, the state agency released its first-ever draft hazardous waste management plan, prompting opposition to consider dumping more contaminated soil in non-hazardous landfills.
Eight months and four public meetings later, the revised plan was discussed at a public hearing at CalEPA headquarters in Sacramento in mid-November. Many environmentalists remain cautious, noting that the plan still recommends an overhaul of federal exemptions for recyclable hazardous materials and a broader reassessment of California’s standards. Their concern is that this could lead to the state reversing what is widely considered the strictest protocol in the country.
“We believe this plan is very deregulatory and opens the door for DTSC to introduce more loopholes into the industry,” said Andrea Loera, an attorney with the San Francisco-based nonprofit Earthjustice.
“Exempting hazardous waste from the law does not magically make the dangers of hazardous waste disappear,” she continued.
The Environment and Safety Committee, a five-member committee tasked with overseeing DTSC, approved the plan by a 4-1 vote. Board members said they recognized concerns about some parts of the plan, but vowed to closely follow these proposals to ensure any changes do not result in harmful regulatory relief.
“I have heard the serious concerns raised in the assessment…which will inevitably lead to an outcome that is less protective of public health,” said Andrew Rakstro, chairman of the board. “And…our mission as a board is to make sure that doesn’t become a reality.”
Board member Ingrid Broström echoed these sentiments and ultimately voted in favor of the plan.
“My concern is that if we basically allow DTSC to move forward without a plan, we’ve just removed oversight,” Brostrom said. “The question for me is: Is this plan better than no plan at all? For me, the answer is no.”
The plan suggests that states should evaluate federal exemptions and exclusions for recyclable streams of hazardous waste.
California’s more stringent hazardous waste regulations require much more potentially hazardous waste to be sent to specialized landfills or treatment facilities than required by federal regulations.
But the state has only two hazardous waste landfills, and disposal there is significantly more expensive.
There is a loophole, which has also caused an uproar among environmentalists. In many cases, industry and government agencies choose to export California’s hazardous waste to municipal landfills in neighboring states, which rely on less restrictive federal rules.
The federal program also waives fees and requirements for the “legal” recycling of certain hazardous wastes, such as scrap metal. Environmentalists said they fear this could put even more communities at risk, pointing to the area’s proximity to the largest environmental cleanup in California history in southeastern Los Angeles County.
Ivana Castellanos, an organizer with the Society for Socially Responsible Physicians, said: “This is not the time to be on par with the federal government, which is trying to abolish the hazardous waste protection system.”
The state’s new plan aimed to address these dilemmas by identifying ways to minimize hazardous waste at source and exploring ways to recycle new sources of hazardous waste, such as lithium-ion batteries.
However, many environmental groups argue that the plan does not provide the state with an adequate roadmap and omits specific targets and timelines for reducing hazardous waste.
The board said at its Nov. 17 meeting that it will consider requiring DTSC to set hazardous waste reduction and diversion goals in its next plan, scheduled for 2028.
Environmentalists also say the plan appears to be an attempt to reduce hazardous waste by redefining what is harmful.
The plan suggests states should review federal exemptions and exclusions for recyclable hazardous waste streams, such as recycled scrap metal.
Several of the plan’s recommendations call for evaluating the effectiveness of national tests that simulate how toxic substances leak from contaminated solid waste under landfill conditions. How exposure to certain metals regulated in California corresponds to health effects. and state lead-containing waste benchmarks.
DTSC officials said these assessments are required under a 2021 law that establishes the state’s hazardous waste management plan. At the hearing, DTSC Director Katie Butler pushed back against accusations that the plan is a deregulation plan, emphasizing that its primary goal is to protect Californians.
“The objective is to protect health, safety and the environment, and that’s the lens through which we view this entire plan,” Butler said at the meeting.
In addition to approving the state’s plan, board members voted to discuss how to oversee these “controversial” recommendations at a meeting Jan. 14-15 in Sacramento.
