California’s new hazardous waste plan has environmentalists worried

California’s Environmental Protection Board has approved a state plan that outlines strategies for safely reducing hazardous waste — despite sharp criticism from environmental groups that say many aspects of the plan could invite chaos.

A 2021 state law directed the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to publish a plan every three years, outlining the state’s approach to reducing hazardous waste generation, disposal and incineration. In March, the state agency released its first draft of a hazardous waste management plan, drawing opposition to a controversial recommendation to allow the dumping of highly contaminated soil in non-hazardous landfills.

Eight months later, after four public meetings, a revised plan was discussed during a hearing at CalEPA headquarters in Sacramento in mid-November. Many environmentalists remain cautious, noting that the plan still calls for a review of federal exemptions for hazardous materials that can be recycled and a sweeping reevaluation of California’s standards. Their fear is that it could lead the state to roll back its protocols – widely considered the strictest in the country.

“We see this plan as highly unregulated and paves the way for DTSC to pick up more loopholes for the industry,” said Andrea Loeira, an attorney with the San Francisco-based nonprofit EarthJustice.

“Excluding hazardous waste from the law does not magically make hazardous waste hazards disappear,” she continued.

The Environmental Protection Board, a five-member committee tasked with overseeing DTSC, voted 4-1 to approve the plan. Board members said they recognize the unease surrounding parts of the plan but vowed to follow the recommendations closely to ensure any changes don’t result in harmful irregularities.

“I’ve heard serious concerns that the assessments requested … will necessarily produce results that are less protective of public health,” said Andrew Rackstraw, the board’s chairman. “And … we, as a board, our job is to make sure that doesn’t happen.”

Board member Ingrid Brostrom echoed those sentiments, ultimately voting in favor of the plan.

“What I’m afraid of is, if we basically allow DTSC to proceed without a plan, we’ve simply removed our oversight,” Brostrom said. “The question for me is, is having this plan better than having no plan at all? For me, the answer is no.”

The plan suggests that the state should evaluate the federal government’s exemptions and exemptions for recyclable hazardous waste streams.

Due to California’s more stringent hazardous waste regulations, more potentially hazardous waste must go to a required landfill or treatment facility than required by federal government regulations.

However, the state only has two hazardous waste sites, and disposal there is very expensive.

There is a loophole, which has also caused confusion among environmental advocates: Often, industry and government agencies export California’s hazardous waste to municipal lands in neighboring states that rely on less restrictive federal regulations.

The federal program also waives fees and requirements for “legitimate” recycling of certain hazardous wastes, such as scrap metal. Environmentalists said they worried it would put more communities at risk, the largest environmental cleanup in California history of lead-contaminated homes near a former battery recycling plant in southeast Los Angeles County.

“This is not the time for us to stand on par with the federal government trying to eliminate hazardous waste protections,” said Ivana Castellanos, an organizer for Physicians for Social Responsibility.

The state’s new plan is designed to address these problems by identifying ways to reduce hazardous waste at source and ways to recycle emerging sources of hazardous waste, such as lithium-ion batteries.

But many environmental organizations say the plan doesn’t give the state a proper road map, leaving out specific goals or deadlines for reducing hazardous waste.

At the Nov. 17 meeting, the board said it will consider requiring DTSC to set hazardous waste reduction and diversion goals for the next iteration of the plan, which is scheduled for 2028.

Environmentalists also say the plan appears to attempt to reduce hazardous waste by redefining hazardous waste.

The plan suggests that the state should review the federal government’s exemptions and exemptions for recyclable hazardous waste streams, such as recovered scrap metal.

A number of recommendations in the plan call for an evaluation of the effectiveness of state testing to determine how toxic materials can leach from contaminated solid waste under landfill conditions; how exposure to certain California-regulated metals correlates with health effects; and state standards for lead-containing waste.

DTSC officials said the assessments were required under a 2021 law that created the state’s hazardous waste management plan. At the hearing, DTSC Director Katie Butler dismissed allegations that the plan was an unregulated scheme, insisting that its main goal is to protect Californians.

“The goal is to protect health, safety, the environment — and that’s the lens through which we view this whole plan,” Butler said at the meeting.

In addition to approving the state plan, board members voted to discuss ways to oversee these “opposing” recommendations at a Jan. 14-15 public meeting in Sacramento.