Following last weekend's surreal blogging into the mind of Jesus, it's time to focus on recycling regulations and law. EPA is about to tinker with RCRA definitions of used electronics, purportedly to close the "loophole" of calling something reused a "commodity". It appears EPA wants to follow China's lead, and declare reused metals "wastes". This will help complete the snatch of authority from Department of Commerce by the Environmental Protection Agency, once again leaving horrific mining of raw virgin ores "commodity" and relatively clean scrap metals will be "hazardous wastes."
I've written previously about the "rights" of states to form rules which are stricter than federal rules - so long as the federal rule agrees that the substance is in fact "discarded". But the state environmental agency cannot charge into your house to find a "working" unit, and whether something "works" is a silly test if the non-working P4 is worth much more than the working P2.
What if a state wants to regulate an item which is excluded from "solid waste" as a "universal waste"? Can an item which meets commodity exclusion rules still be hazardous? Can it be universal, and hazardous, but not a waste? Earlier this year, we looked at the "chicken or egg" problems which arose in one state which tried to make e-waste "universal waste" without classifying reuse as waste.
I've written previously about the "rights" of states to form rules which are stricter than federal rules - so long as the federal rule agrees that the substance is in fact "discarded". But the state environmental agency cannot charge into your house to find a "working" unit, and whether something "works" is a silly test if the non-working P4 is worth much more than the working P2.
What if a state wants to regulate an item which is excluded from "solid waste" as a "universal waste"? Can an item which meets commodity exclusion rules still be hazardous? Can it be universal, and hazardous, but not a waste? Earlier this year, we looked at the "chicken or egg" problems which arose in one state which tried to make e-waste "universal waste" without classifying reuse as waste.
EPA and "universal waste" is something I'm very familiar with, going back to my days as recycling director for the Massachusetts DEP Division of Solid Waste (and later Consumer Programs division director). EPA ultimately sided with Mass. DEP in deciding that scrap metals should not be treated much differently from mined ores. If the ores were hazardous, then so should the scrap, but when the ores were not treated as hazardous, making scrap "hazardous" merely because it was secondary material was a mistake we didn't make. Why another refresher course on universal waste and RCRA?
For now, since so many are confused about what RCRA says in the first place, is a refresher course in USA USA
Related Posts
First, here is the language in § 261.4 of RCRARelated Posts
