Summary of EPA Meeting with Environmental Justice Groups Regarding DSW

June 30, 2009

On Tuesday, June 30, 2009, OSWER’s AA Mathy Stanislaus and staff met
with representatives of various environmental groups (Group) to discuss
the response to the petition regarding the revisions to the definition
of solid waste (DSW).  Jennifer Wilbur explained that this would be a
listening session and the AA would be unable to answer any questions
about the substantive content of the petition response at this time. 
The discussion would be made a part of the official record and that all
comments submitted during the comment period would be given careful
consideration.

The Group highlighted some of the issues raised in their written
comments submitted during the public comment period.

°	They urged the AA to rescind the rule.  Stated that there was no
justification for the sweeping exemption which no longer required
hazardous wastes destined for recycling to be included within the
definition of solid wastes subject to RCRA regulation.  They expressed
concern that the deregulation of recycled hazardous waste posed a major
national health threat, especially to minority and low-income
communities. 

°	Group claims that out of 600 damage cases, EPA only conducted a study
of 218 of such.  According to the Group, the study indicated that there
were toxic releases from recycling activities, causing serious
contamination, necessitating costly clean-ups.  Nearly all of these
damages cases occurred at facilities that were not operating under RCRA
permits.  

°	During the 17 years the workgroup worked on the rule, never solicited
input from NEJAC.

°	During the rulemaking process, EPA declined to evaluate how this new
RCRA exemption would impact people of color and poor people.  Group
claimed that this violated Executive Order 12.898 which sought to ensure
that no segment of the population bear a disproportionately high impact
on human health and the environmental. 

°	During the rule making process, the Agency made a finding of no
significant environmental impact on EJ communities but did no analysis
was done to justify that finding.  The Group requested that EPA conduct
an EJ analysis to determine the impact of the deregulation on EJ
communities.  (This type of analysis is discussed in Dr. Robert
Bullard’s comments).

°	Expressed concern that the rule allowed manufacturers to decide
whether or not RCRA should apply.  This scheme invited companies to
dispose of hazardous wastes by putting them into commercial products
including products targeted at children and other sensitive populations

°	Indicated that several States did not want to enact the rule because
it was not protective of human health and the environment.

°	May be advantageous to recycle hazardous wastes in certain
circumstances, but recycling operations pose all of the same risks that
other hazardous wastes operations pose to human health.  Also indicated
that the rule would not provide an incentive to reduce harmful hazardous
waste.

 

Attendees were:

Dr Robert Bullard – Clark-Atlantic University

Rep. Harold Mitchell – House of Representatives (South Carolina)

Vernice Miller-Travis – MD Communities on EJ & Sustainable Communities

Al Huang – NRDC

Lisa Evans – Earth Justice

Abigail Dillen – Earth Justice

EPA:  Mathy Stanislaus

EPA:  Jennifer Wilbur

EPA:  Antoinette Powell Dickson

