|
In 2003, the Bush administration proposed a rule to change the definition of solid waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). If the rule were adopted, an estimated three billion pounds of hazardous waste annually would no longer be regulated as waste under certain conditions. If the waste is no longer regulated, it will be much easier for these still toxic substances to make it onto our land and into our waters. By allowing large amounts of hazardous waste to escape the regulatory safeguards now in place, the proposal would:
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act has established a comprehensive program for managing hazardous waste from generation to ultimate disposal or reclamation. A manifest system tracks the movement of waste. Rules set procedures for handling and storing waste. Recordkeeping, employee training, and accident prevention plans are required. Facilities that treat, store and dispose of waste must obtain state or federal permits, and they must provide financial assurance so as not to saddle taxpayers with the burden if they close or have accidents. Under the Bush administration proposal none of the RCRA safeguards described above would apply to waste that is reused or reclaimed within the same industrial category. There would be no tracking or recordkeeping system to ensure the material reaches the recycler, no permit required of the recycler, no employee training, no accident prevention, and no financial assurance requirement to ensure proper closure and cleanup of the recycling facility. According to the Federal Register notice, "Today's proposal is de-regulatory in nature, in that certain recyclable materials that have heretofore been subject to hazardous waste regulations would no longer be regulated under the hazardous waste regulatory system.s (68 Federal Register 61560) Recycling hazardous waste rather than disposing of it is a laudable goal. The EPA argues that this proposal's goal is to encourage recycling rather than disposal. However, it is really a proposal to encourage unregulated recycling of toxic materials rather than regulated recycling. Dumping waste is cheaper than any form of responsible management. Why should a company spend $500 per ton to send waste elsewhere for recycling when it could spend $400 to have it dumped? The recordkeeping requirements currently in place provide protections against that, but this proposal would eliminate those safeguards. By increasing the likelihood that hazardous waste would be mismanaged, this proposed rule puts our land and water at greater risk. Taxpayers, rather than polluters, may be required to pay to clean up environmental problems this rule could create. Sierra Club urges the Bush administration to stop this proposed rulemaking and instead define "continuous industrial process" narrowly to include only materials recycled on-site, within an industrial facility.
Up to Top HOME | Email Signup | About Us | Contact Us | Terms of Use | © 2008 Sierra Club |
