Industry representatives say if the new regulation goes into effect, some recycling plants would have to shut down because of the increased costs. Rosegay also wrote that there's no evidence that toxins from shredder waste have actually seeped into groundwater, let alone made anyone sick. And she noted that other states don't even require recycling plants to treat the waste before sending it to ordinary municipal or county dumps.
State officials, meanwhile, are left making the difficult argument that although there may be no obvious harm so far, that doesn't mean there couldn't be in the future. Wood, the DTSC scientist, says the stakes are higher now because modern cars contain more of some types of toxins than old ones did. Recently built cars contain electronic equipment such as rear video screens, switches, and engine monitors containing mercury and other contaminants. Modern appliances, meanwhile, contain more galvanized steel, which is treated with zinc, which, when consumed in excess, can prevent the body from absorbing essential minerals.
Jamie Soja
Since the '80s, recyclers have disposed of toxic shredder waste at regular dumps like the Altamont Landfill.
Related Content
More About
"We thought when leaded gas was outlawed in California that, over time, the amount of lead we would see [in automobile shredder waste] would start to decrease," Wood said. "But if anything, we've seen it go up. Total copper, it's gone up. Cadmium has gone up. The biggest [increase] I've seen is in the amount of zinc."
While Wood played a key role in getting his bosses to reconsider the state's policy on shredder waste, Rick Lymp played one, too, according to Seward of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. "There was a lot of activity," Seward said. Lymp "was lobbying the DTSC, the state water board, and regulators in other regions. ... I think he perhaps had some effect."
So does Lymp feel vindicated? "Not entirely," he said. "I'm glad the policy's changing. But I don't think that's finishing the job. You've got hazardous waste, treated and untreated, in municipal landfills everywhere, percolating. And landfills leak."
Perhaps as important, Lymp says he doesn't believe that this policy change reflects a new era of "green" thinking by state policymakers. He believes it's more than a coincidence that DTSC announced the change a few months after SF Weekly began asking questions about claims in Peter Wood's 2002 report, and Lymp's 2005 lawsuit.
"I believe the decisionmakers are only making this change because of you," he said. "I believe the decision is being implemented because a reporter is asking them very specific questions, and they couldn't change the subject and avoid the questions."
Department of Toxic Substances Control officials have said during various interviews that the policy change is because of findings by staffers such as Wood.
Lymp doesn't buy it. "They could have made this decision years ago," he said. "They have acquired no additional information over the last eight or nine years that they didn't have 10 years ago. Because of their denial of the problem, I have spent a good portion of my life dedicated to this project. And I'm paying the price for it."
