July/August 1988
U.S. and European regulation of precious metals came under sharp scrutiny during the June conference.
By Robert J. Garino
Robert J. Garino is director of commodities for the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Washington, D.C.
Company representatives from the U.S., Belgium, and England were on hand to discuss regulatory and environmental issues at the International Precious Metals Institute's 12th International Precious Metals Conference, June 5-9 in Boston. Of particular interest to scrap precious metals recyclers were presentations by Robert Brayley, Engelhard Corporation, and John Bullock, Handy & Harman.
Confusion about the definitions of waste and hazardous waste, Brayley observed, makes difficult the decisions about whether to discard or recycle precious metal-bearing secondary material. Brayley said a substance must first be determined a solid waste before it can be classified as a hazardous waste.
The status of environmental regulation for precious metal reclamation in the United States is in dispute. In its Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Congress has defined waste as "garbage, refuse, ... and other discarded material." The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) interpreted the law to encompass many materials destined for recycling, including some materials destined for precious metal reclamation, and accordingly included recycling operations within the scope of its waste management regulations.
Subsequently ruling on a challenge to the EPA’s alleged authority to regulate recycling operations, a U.S. Court of Appeals struck down the Agency's authority to regulate as "discarded material" certain in-process recycled materials in the petroleum refining and ore processing industries. [American Mining Congress, et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 824 F.2d 1177 (D.C. Cir. 1987).] Although the court's decision raised doubts about the EPA’s authority to regulate recycling, the actual effect of the decision was limited to a narrow set of circumstances involving the specific materials at issue in the petroleum and mining industries.
On January 8, 1988, in response to the court's decision, the EPA again proposed slight modifications in the hazardous waste regulations that would still encompass precious metal reclamation. The debate continues as the EPA, industry, environmental groups, and citizens seek appropriate jurisdictions for recycling regulation.
Reclaimed Precious Metal = Waste?
Bullock explored the argument over whether or not precious metal-bearing secondary material is solid waste. He stated that recent EPA actions have resulted in "chaos" in regulating precious metal scrap, and that proposed environmental regulations continue to be based on the "incorrect premise that such material is waste."
Currently, environmental agencies treat precious metal scrap as waste-"like garbage that would be thrown away... if it were not for government efforts and regulations," said Bullock. He said waste management regulations are inappropriate, producing only confusion and increased costs with no advantage to the environment.
Bullock contends that the debate over whether the definition of waste should encompass recycled materials should first consider the unique circumstances of precious metal reclamation. Because such reclamation involves transporting, handling, and processing some toxic and hazardous metals and chemicals, the scrap processing and recycling industry is already subject to a great deal of environmental regulation.
For example, transportation within the U.S. is subject to Department of Transportation hazardous materials regulations. Wastewater discharges are subject to industrial standards under the Clean Water Act. Air emissions are regulated by Clean Air Act stipulations; spills and releases are subject to reporting and, possibly, cleanup under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
"Careless environmental management has not been a problem in precious metal reclamation," said Bullock.
Waste regulation is designed to prevent abuses of valueless waste, Bullock explained, but the inherent value of precious metal-bearing secondary material distinguishes it from waste. He believes that regulatory burdens are causing certain precious metal-containing photoprocessing material to enter the waste stream instead of being processed.
Bullock emphasized that the scarcity and inherent value of precious metals have always dictated careful management, waste minimization, and reclamation of secondary material. Its transportation and reclamation processing are regulated to control emissions to the water, air, and ground. Such regulation of precious metal reclamation as an industry is sufficient, he said; precious metal reclamation should not be further burdened with hazardous waste management regulation. The EPA should acknowledge that, as the court in the
American Mining Congress case held, the present statutory definition of waste as "discarded material" precludes the EPA from regulating as waste valuable precious metal-bearing secondary material, which is well managed and never discarded.