Part 8: The EPA feels your pain

Now if after seven posts you are having a difficult time accepting the convoluted and confusing regulations when a perfectly usable material could be recycled, you are not the only one.  I think most people would agree that Air Products' sulfuric acid really could be managed as a product and not a waste and that by itself it posed no greater health or environmental harm than pure sulfuric acid.  If Agrifos was mismanaging it, well that's an issue to take up with them.

It's now sort of easy to see why Air Products wanted to manage this material in a way that would accommodate both the bottom line and be environmentally sound.  In a somewhat similar situation, involving solder instead of sulfuric acid, the EPA wrote:

"In your letter, you pointed out that used, slightly contaminated solder would have environmental impacts similar to those from unused solder. You are correct in pointing out that the federal hazardous waste regulations, as currently structured, can require vastly different levels of control based on what may appear to be minor details about the circumstances of a material's use or generation. We are concerned that our current distinction based on a material's use may not be valid, just as you raised in your letter."

The EPA then concluded:

"In response to important reasons (such as yours), we are currently involved in a major effort to reevaluate the federal definition of solid waste to determine if it functions as a barrier to environmentally sound recycling practices. One of the main objectives of the reassessment is to see if the controls imposed under RCRA can be better matched to the environmental risks that a material or process poses. [I] very much appreciate the issues you have raised and will ensure that they are considered as part of our broad assessment of the definition of solid waste."

Wow, they get it...they finally get it!  Only problem is, this was written in 1992!  But alas, we now have some relief for recyclable materials not becoming hazardous waste due to what the EPA admitted was "based on a distinction [that] may not be valid."

Enter the new and improved "Definition of Solid Waste Final Rule," October 2008.

Finally!  The EPA has addressed this problem.  Too late for Air Products, but good for the rest of us, right?  Well hold on there pilgrim!  You should know by now that it's never as good as it really needs to be.  Baby steps my good reader!  One baby step every 16 years.

And it is a good rule, not perfect or as inclusive as it should be, but it does do what it set out to do, that is, allow more materials to be recycled without forcing them to be classified as discarded making them solid waste, and - for some of them - hazardous waste.

But in the case of Air Products' spent sulfuric acid, it would not have changed a thing.  Why?  Because the same concerns are still etched into the thinking of the EPA.  You can now do this, this, and this.....unless the secondary materials are recycled by:

• use constituting disposal
• burning for energy recovery

Now there is a pretty good reason why it is done this way.  And if you think about it from a regulators point of view it makes perfect sense.  Most of us don't need to have a watchdog keep us in line, but the EPA has to consider not only what we environmentally conscious folks would never think of doing, but also what those who - unlike Woodsy Owl - don't give a hoot.  To say land disposal or burning is OK for recycling opens the door for everything to be recycled that way.

Yes there is a possibility that methyl-ethyl-bad-stuff could now be recycled under this new rule, but there are enough safeguards in place to minimize this.  On the other hand, allowing anything to be burned or placed on the ground puts that material in a place where it then could be transported to a human receptor or cause damage to the environment.

Well why not make exceptions for the stuff that's not going to cause a problem, like spent sulfuric acid used to make a fertilizer?  I mean it's not the sulfuric acid that's being put on the ground, it's the fertilizer made from it.

Good question!  And the EPA has an answer for that.

Next post: 40 CFR 266 Subpart C — Recyclable Materials Used in a Manner Constituting Disposal


The EPA has a pretty good Power Point presentation on the new Definition of Solid Waste Rule that's worth viewing.




.