{"id":507,"date":"2020-08-05T06:42:58","date_gmt":"2020-08-05T06:42:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/schnitzerwatch.org\/?page_id=507"},"modified":"2020-08-13T20:23:41","modified_gmt":"2020-08-13T20:23:41","slug":"summary","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/schnitzerwatch.org\/summary\/","title":{"rendered":"summary"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>[et_pb_section fb_built=&#8221;1&#8243; _builder_version=&#8221;4.5.3&#8243; _module_preset=&#8221;default&#8221;][et_pb_row _builder_version=&#8221;4.5.3&#8243; _module_preset=&#8221;default&#8221;][et_pb_column type=&#8221;4_4&#8243; _builder_version=&#8221;4.5.3&#8243; _module_preset=&#8221;default&#8221;][et_pb_text _builder_version=&#8221;4.5.3&#8243; _module_preset=&#8221;default&#8221; text_font_size=&#8221;16px&#8221; hover_enabled=&#8221;0&#8243;]<\/p>\n<h3>On August 5, the A\u2019s sued the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to compel it to comply with applicable law by applying the Hazardous Waste Control Law to Schnitzer Steel\u2019s management of hazardous waste and revoking a variance called an \u201cf letter.\u201d As detailed in that lawsuit:<\/h3>\n<p>1. <strong>Schnitzer produces approximately 200,000 tons per year of metal shredder residue that exceeds the toxicity thresholds for hazardous waste in a predominantly low-income, largely African-American West Oakland community.<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Schnitzer Steel (Ticker: SCHN) is a publicly-traded multinational corporation. Over the last three years, Schnitzer has generated an average of <u>over $2 billion in total revenue<\/u> and $85 million in net income, with cash flow from operations averaging approximately $135 million.<\/li>\n<li>Schnitzer operates the <u>largest metal-shredding facility in California<\/u>, a 26.5-acre complex at 1101 Embarcadero West in West Oakland, a low-income community of color with a long history of suffering environmental pollution.<\/li>\n<li><u>The Schnitzer facility is located closer than any other metal shredder in California to nearly every class of sensitive receptor<\/u>.<sup>1<\/sup> The Facility is located within a mile of approximately 23,000 residents and dozens of \u201csensitive receptors,\u201d including numerous daycare centers, parks, schools, senior living centers, and hospitals.<\/li>\n<li>Schnitzer\u2019s operations include shredding junk automobiles, appliances, and other metal-containing materials in a \u201c<strong>mega-shredder<\/strong>,\u201d and removing ferrous (iron-containing) and non-ferrous metals.<\/li>\n<li>Junk vehicles and other metal-containing \u201cfeedstock\u201d regularly contain hazardous materials, including gasoline, oil, antifreeze, lead-acid batteries, vehicle air bags, compressed gas cylinders (e.g., propane tanks, compressed gas tanks, and fire extinguishers), refrigerants in air conditioning or heat transfer systems, capacitors containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), light ballasts, transformers, and items containing elemental mercury (e.g., tilt-switches or thermostats). California law requires metal shredders to remove hazardous materials from feedstock before feeding the scrap metal through the shredder, a process known as \u201cde-pollution.<\/li>\n<li>Each year, the shredding process yields hundreds of thousands of tons of materials, including the harvested metals, which can be resold. But the process also generates waste, classifications of which include aggregate (a combination of metal shredder residue and non-ferrous metals), untreated metal shredder residue, and treated metal shredder residue.<sup>2<\/sup><\/li>\n<li>As explained in the complaint, regulators have consistently found contaminants in both Schnitzer\u2019s aggregate, untreated metal shredder residue and treated metal shredder residue to exceed toxicity thresholds for hazardous waste under California law. However, pursuant to policies that a DTSC legal memo found to be \u201coutdated and legally incorrect\u201d 20 years ago, Schnitzer still does not manage or dispose of these materials as hazardous waste.<sup>3,4<\/sup><\/li>\n<li>Furthermore, Schnitzer trucks approximately 200,000 tons per year of \u201ctreated\u201d metal shredder residue\u2014which DTSC has found continues to exceed hazardous waste toxicity thresholds despite treatment\u2014through surrounding neighborhoods to landfills that are not designated to receive hazardous waste. Once there, the toxic shredder residue is spread as a top layer over nonhazardous garbage as \u201calternative daily cover.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>2. <strong>Multiple agencies have found that Schnitzer\u2019s metal shredder residue has polluted West Oakland\u2019s air, water, and soil.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Schnitzer stores aggregate and metal shredder residue in large stockpiles outside and uncovered where contaminants can leach into the soil and groundwater, blow offsite, and catch fire.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Soil and groundwater contamination<\/strong>. Soil and groundwater tested throughout the Schnitzer facility have been found to exceed San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Environmental Screening Levels) for several metals, including arsenic, copper, lead, and zinc.<sup>5<\/sup><\/li>\n<li><strong>\u201cFluff\u201d deposited in neighboring areas<\/strong>. Schnitzer\u2019s shredding, stockpiling, processing, and treatment of aggregate and metal shredder residue have also caused hazardous materials, including light fibrous material (also known as \u201cLFM\u201d or \u201cfluff\u201d) to be blown offsite and migrate onto neighboring properties. Multiple agencies have found that Schnitzer\u2019s operations have caused a large amount<sup>6<\/sup> of LFM to be deposited across a broad swath of West Oakland. DTSC has determined that LFM frequently exceeds toxicity thresholds for hazardous waste under California law due to high concentrations of lead, copper, and zinc.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Water pollution and \u201cfugitive dust\u201d<\/strong>. Schnitzer\u2019s hazardous-waste-management practices have degraded the San Francisco Bay and Oakland Inner Harbor. The San Francisco RWQCB recently acknowledged that the \u201cdischarge of unacceptable contaminated groundwater [from the Schnitzer facility] to the San Francisco Bay has been occurring and documented since 2013.\u201d<sup>7<\/sup> The agency also concluded that these discharges are still \u201cdegrading the water quality of San Francisco Bay and adversely affecting the Bay\u2019s beneficial uses.\u201d The SF RWQCB has also found evidence that airborne fugitive dust from the Facility is deposited directly into the Oakland Inner Harbor.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Toxic fires<\/strong>. Schnitzer\u2019s operations have led to at least six fires in eleven years, many of which have sent dark plumes of toxic smoke into the air and forcing local residents to seek refuge indoors.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<div class=\"divTable\" style=\"border: 1px solid #000;\">\n<div class=\"divTableBody\">\n<div class=\"divTableRow\">\n<div class=\"divTableCell TableFirst\">April 8, 2009;<\/div>\n<div class=\"divTableCell\">Fire breaks out in a stockpile and the smoke creates air quality concerns for local neighborhoods.<sup>8<\/sup><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"divTableRow\">\n<div class=\"divTableCell TableFirst\">September 29, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"divTableCell\">Stockpile catches fire, emitting a dark plume of smoke visible for miles.<sup>9<\/sup><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"divTableRow\">\n<div class=\"divTableCell TableFirst\">January 31, 2018<\/div>\n<div class=\"divTableCell\">Oakland Fire Department Incident Report No. 2018-0008289<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"divTableRow\">\n<div class=\"divTableCell TableFirst\">March 10, 2018<\/div>\n<div class=\"divTableCell\">Oakland Fire Department Incident Report No. 2018-0018338<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"divTableRow\">\n<div class=\"divTableCell TableFirst\">March 11, 2018<\/div>\n<div class=\"divTableCell\">Oakland Fire Department Incident Report No. 2018-0039820<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"divTableRow\">\n<div class=\"divTableCell TableFirst\">June 2, 2018<\/div>\n<div class=\"divTableCell\">Fire breaks out and is visible throughout the Bay Area, emitting what a Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) official called a \u201ctoxic brew\u201d and prompting widespread concern about public health impacts and ongoing agency investigations.<sup>10<\/sup><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"divTableRow\">\n<div class=\"divTableCell TableFirst\">June 17, 2020<\/div>\n<div class=\"divTableCell\">Fire breaks out at the facility, sending large plumes of black smoke over West Oakland, Alameda, and the Bay.<sup>11<\/sup><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p>3. <strong>For nearly forty years, DTSC has allowed Schnitzer to operate without complying with Hazardous Waste Control Law (\u201cHWCL\u201d) requirements, pursuant to an outdated exemption called an \u201cf letter.\u201d<strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Enacted in 1972, the HWCL directs DTSC to regulate the handling, processing, and disposal of hazardous and extremely hazardous waste to protect the public and environment from hazards to health and safety.<\/li>\n<li>In 1984, DTSC first determined that metal shredder residue was California hazardous waste. These findings subjected metal shredder residue to statutory and regulatory requirements for California hazardous waste management, including permitting, treatment, transportation, and disposal requirements. In accordance with these findings, on March 9, 1984, DTSC directed metal shredding facilities to manage metal shredder residue in accordance with hazardous waste regulations.<\/li>\n<li>Between 1986 and 1992, DTSC issued conditional nonhazardous waste classifications to seven shredder facilities in California. These conditional nonhazardous waste classifications were referred to as \u201cf letters.\u201d Under the \u201cf letters\u201d and DTSC\u2019s Official Policy and Procedure Number 88-6 (OPP 88-6), metal shredders were not required to handle and dispose of metal shredder residue as hazardous waste \u2013 even though the residue continued to exceed toxicity thresholds for hazardous waste after \u201ctreatment.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>On numerous occasions over the last 20 years, DTSC has come close to ordering metal shredders to comply with the HWCL, only to retreat at the last minute after intensive lobbying efforts by the metal shredding industry.\n<ul>\n<li>On October 9, 2001, DTSC issued a legal memorandum concluding that DTSC\u2019s policies on metal shredder waste, including \u201cf letters,\u201d were \u201coutdated and legally incorrect.\u201d<sup>12<\/sup> Yet DTSC left its policies in place.<\/li>\n<li>In 2002, DTSC issued a report recommending rescission of the \u201cf letters.\u201d However, the agency did not act to rescind these policies and regulate metal shredders pursuant to the HWCL.<\/li>\n<li>In 2008, DTSC\u2019s Director notified Schnitzer that rescission of the \u201cf letters\u201d was required to \u201censure the safety of public health and the environment from harmful exposures to toxins.\u201d After an intense lobbying campaign by the metal shredding industry, however, DTSC again did not act.<sup>13<\/sup><\/li>\n<li>In 2009, the California Integrated Waste Management Board (now CalRecycle) issued the \u201cAlternative Daily Cover White Paper,\u201d raising concern about metal shredders\u2019 hazardous waste management practices, stating that \u201cthe material should be considered hazardous, and [metal shredder waste] should be required to be disposed in Class I landfills.\u201d<sup>14<\/sup><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>DTSC has found that hazardous waste management practices like Schnitzer\u2019s pose significant public health risks to the surrounding community<\/strong>. However, DTSC allows Schnitzer to continue operations that do not meet requirements of the HWCL, a law that numerous other industries and businesses comply with every day.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>4. <strong>In 2014, frustrated state leaders passed a new state law requiring DTSC to revoke the \u201cf letter\u201d and require DTSC to \u201cthoroughly evaluate[] and regulate[ metal shredders] to ensure adequate protection of the human health and the environment.<strong>\u201d<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong><strong>In 2014, after a series of toxic fires at metal shredder facilities, Governor Jerry Brown, Senator Jerry Hill, and the California State Legislature finally took matters into their own hands by passing the Metal Shredding Facilities Law (MSFL) into law.<\/strong><\/strong><\/li>\n<li>During the legislative process, the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality explained that legislation was required because \u201cDTSC has failed to revoke the nonhazardous waste classifications for treated shredder waste granted decades ago to the metal shredding industry despite a 2001 legal opinion by DTSC attorneys, which called the exemption \u2018outdated and legally incorrect,\u2019 and warnings from the department\u2019s scientists that this waste could become hazardous during the shredding process.\u201d<sup>15<\/sup><\/li>\n<li>The Bill\u2019s author, Senator Jerry Hill, explained that SB 1249 was prompted in part by several fires that had occurred at metal shredding facilities, including at least one within his District. (Id. at p. 3.) He explained that the Counties of San Mateo, Alameda, and Santa Clara issued health advisories because of the smoke from these fires, and school districts were forced to keep students inside because of poor air quality. (Id.) He concluded that \u201cthese incidents provide clear evidence that this industry is not currently adequately regulated.\u201d (Id.)<\/li>\n<li>The MSFL required DTSC to take one of two actions before January 1, 2018: (1) develop and apply alternative management standards to the metal shredding facilities or (2) apply the HWCL to the facilities and rescind the \u201cf letters.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>In 2015, DTSC\u2019s Deputy Director sent Schnitzer a letter explaining that the \u201consite activities and management of wastes and materials\u201d at metal shredding facilities \u201craised serious concerns\u201d and were \u201calarming.\u201d Again, however, DTSC did not act, notwithstanding the legislative mandate of SB 1249.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>5. <strong>DTSC failed to act by the January 1, 2018 deadline and the hazardous-waste-management practices of concern continue<\/strong>.<br \/>\n<strong><\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>DTSC failed to act by the MSFL\u2019s January 1, 2018 deadline<\/strong>. Even in the face of a clear legislative mandate, DTSC failed to revoke the variance that the State Legislature had specifically commanded it to revoke. That same month, another toxic fire was reported at the Schnitzer facility.<\/li>\n<li>DTSC neither adopted alternative management standards nor began to apply the Hazardous Waste Control Law to metal shredders, as the MSFL required. Rather, DTSC issued a \u201cdraft evaluation,\u201d which yet again found that metal shredders\u2019 hazardous waste management activities \u201cpose substantial risks to nearby communities.\u201d DTSC concluded that the MSFL did not authorize alternative management standards, which should have left DTSC with no other option but to rescind its outdated policies and apply the HWCL to metal shredders.<\/li>\n<li>Over two and a half years later, DTSC still has not acted. The \u201cf letters\u201d remain in place. Schnitzer continues to be excused from complying the HWCL as hundreds of companies around the state do every day. And DTSC still had not acted despite repeatedly finding that Schnitzer\u2019s practices place surroundings communities and the environment at substantial risk.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>6. <strong>Meanwhile, West Oakland residents are experiencing significant economic, environmental, and health distress<\/strong>.<br \/>\n<strong><\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>High poverty<\/strong>. The Schnitzer facility is surrounded by neighborhoods that have a high proportion of socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. Approximately 27% of residents living in zip code 94607, which encompasses most of West Oakland, live below the federal poverty level. This is almost three times greater than Alameda County\u2019s overall 10.6% poverty rate.<\/li>\n<li><strong>High pollution levels<\/strong>. The community surrounding the Facility is also already burdened by much higher pollution levels than other areas in Oakland and California.<sup>16<\/sup> The Alameda County Public Health Department has found that \u201c[l]ow income neighborhoods and communities of color [in Alameda County] are unjustly burdened by a disproportionate number of hazardous facilities that pollute the air, ground water and soil with toxic contaminants.\u201d In fact, \u201cthe density of industrial chemical and fuel release sites in very high poverty neighborhoods [in Alameda County] is 4 times higher than in affluent neighborhoods.\u201d<\/li>\n<li><strong>Environmental distress in local schools<\/strong>. The Oakland Unified School District has found that five schools in West Oakland near the Facility show the highest \u201cenvironmental stress indicators\u201d based on exposure to poor air quality, among other risks.<sup>17<\/sup>\n<ul>\n<li>Prescott School, an elementary school near the Facility, has the highest score possible (145 out of 145) for environmental stress factors.<\/li>\n<li>Martin Luther King Jr Elementary School is located less than a mile from the Facility and is shown to be \u201chighly stressed,\u201d with a score of 112. In 2014, DTSC found that Schnitzer had caused hazardous LFM to be deposited at Martin Luther King Jr Elementary School. DTSC\u2019s testing showed that the LFM samples exceeded California hazardous waste toxicity threshold for lead.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Poor health conditions<\/strong>. The rate of asthma emergency department visits in West Oakland neighborhoods surrounding the Facility is almost double Alameda County\u2019s rate. Stroke and congestive heart failure-related hospitalization rates are also much higher in West Oakland, as well as stroke and heart disease mortality rates. Death rates in West Oakland are 1.3 times the rate for Oakland overall and 1.5 times the rate for Alameda County overall. In fact, an African American child born in West Oakland has a life expectancy that is 12.4 years shorter than a white child living in the more affluent Oakland Hills.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>7. <strong>West Oakland deserves environmental justice now<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>DTSC\u2019s failure to obey the Legislature and act on its own findings have let down the West Oakland community, its residents, students, and the thousands of people who access its services and businesses. As if to punctuate the ongoing harm caused by DTSC\u2019s violation of the law, just last month, a large fire at Schnitzer\u2019s Facility sent dark plumes of toxic smoke into the skies above Oakland and Alameda.<\/li>\n<li>Included in that West Oakland community are the Oakland Athletics baseball club, who maintain business operations near the Schnitzer facility and are in the process of seeking approvals to build a ballpark for Major League Baseball games and other events in close proximity to the Schnitzer facility.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>* * *<\/p>\n<p>As the A\u2019s establish a presence in West Oakland, environmental justice is one of their top priorities. In February 2019, the team announced a groundbreaking partnership with the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project to support their work and inform the ballpark community benefits agreement process. In addition, the A\u2019s have made binding commitments to the State of California to uphold environmental standards in the development of their new ballpark. This includes building to LEED Gold standards and ensuring net zero greenhouse gas emissions, with 50% of offsets done locally.<\/p>\n<p>The Athletics have filed the lawsuit described above to compel DTSC to perform its duties under state law and to protect the West Oakland community by\u2014as required by statute\u2014rescinding Schnitzer\u2019s outdated and unlawful \u201cf letter\u201d and applying the HWCL to its operations.[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_divider divider_weight=&#8221;10px&#8221; _builder_version=&#8221;4.5.3&#8243; _module_preset=&#8221;default&#8221;][\/et_pb_divider][et_pb_text _builder_version=&#8221;4.5.3&#8243; _module_preset=&#8221;default&#8221; text_font_size=&#8221;14px&#8221;]<\/p>\n<p><sup>1<\/sup> \u201cThe Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has identified and compared six metal shredding facilities that process automobiles in CA. (DTSC, Evaluation and Analysis of Metal Shredding Facilities and Metal Shredder Wastes (Jan. 2018) (\u201c2018 DTSC Evaluation\u201d), p. 83.)\u201d<\/p>\n<p><sup>2<\/sup> DTSC has defined \u201cmetal shredder wastes\u201d to include all of this material: \u201cA collective reference to all wastes being managed at metal shredding facilities that emanate from the metal shredding process, including metal shredder aggregate, metal shredder residue, and Chemically Treated Metal Shredder Residue (CTMSR).\u201d (2018 DTSC Evaluation, p. 4.)<\/p>\n<p><sup>3<\/sup> In 2019, Schnitzer indicated that it had taken steps to improve its environmental performance during the last several years, such as enclosing its \u201cmega-shredder\u201d and joint products plant, installing scrubbers at the mega-shredder to reduce particulate matter emissions, improving its stormwater collection system, modifying its ship conveyor belt to reduce discharges to the Bay, electrifying its crane, expanding paved surfaces, and working to clean up large quantities of toxic materials from the Facility that were blown offsite. However, public records indicate that several substantial public health and environmental concerns with Schnitzer\u2019s Oakland Facility remain, including those identified in the complaint.<\/p>\n<p><sup>4<\/sup> DTSC Senior Staff Counsel Nancy J. Long, memorandum to DTSC Senior Environmental Scientist Peter Wood, Oct. 9, 2001, p. 17.<\/p>\n<p><sup>5<\/sup> 2018 DTSC Evaluation, pp. 61-62; Terraphase Engineering, Revised Groundwater Investigation and Monitoring Well Installation Report, Schnitzer Steel Facility (July 14, 2017) Table 4; Terraphase Engineering, Draft Multi-Media Investigation Report, Schnitzer Steel Facility (2016).<\/p>\n<p><sup>6<\/sup> E.g. (Community Meeting Regarding Schnitzer Steel, pp. 71, 73; DTSC, Proposed Operational Considerations for Hazardous Waste Operations at Metal Shredding Facilities (Feb. 2019) p. 3.)<\/p>\n<p><sup>7<\/sup> SF RWQCB California Water Code section 13267 Order to Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc. (April 16, 2019), p. 2.)<\/p>\n<p><sup>8<\/sup> D. Sanchez, ABC News, <a href=\"https:\/\/abc7news.com\/archive\/6751956\/\">Fire Breaks Out at Steel Plant in Oakland<\/a> (Apr. 8, 2009); 2018 DTSC Evaluation, p. 61.<\/p>\n<p><sup>9<\/sup> A. Woodall, East Bay Times, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.eastbaytimes.com\/2011\/09\/29\/%20oaklandfirefighters-extinguish-scrap-metal-blaze\/\">Oakland Firefighters Extinguish Scrap Metal Blaze<\/a> (Sept. 29, 2011); 2018 DTSC Evaluation, p. 61.<\/p>\n<p><sup>10<\/sup> L. Anthony, ABC Channel 7 News, <a href=\"https:\/\/abc7news.com\/oakland-fire-is-recycling-plants-fifth-in-eight-years\/3561037\/\">West Oakland fire is recycling plant\u2019s fifth in eight years<\/a>, (June 4, 2018); A. Hassan, NBC Bay Area, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nbcbayarea.com\/news\/local\/Recycling-Pile-on-Fire-in-Oakland-484396781.html.\">Air Quality Concern in Oakland Following Recycling Plant Fire<\/a> (June 2, 2018).<\/p>\n<p><sup>11<\/sup> KTVU, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ktvu.com\/news\/crews-responding-to-blaze-at-schnitzer-steel-in-oakland\">Crews responding to blaze at Schnitzer Steel in Oakland<\/a>, (June 17, 2020).<\/p>\n<p><sup>12<\/sup> DTSC Senior Staff Counsel Nancy J. Long, memorandum to DTSC Senior Environmental Scientist Peter Wood, Oct. 9, 2001, p. 17.<\/p>\n<p><sup>13<\/sup> C. Richard, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.kqed.org\/news\/11359491\/is-californias-toxic-waste-regulator-letting-enforcement-slide\">Is California\u2019s Toxic Waste Regulator Letting Oversight Slide?<\/a>, KQED News (April 24, 2017.)<\/p>\n<p><sup>14<\/sup> California Integrated Waste Management Board, Alternative Daily Cover White Paper (Oct. 2009) p. 22.<\/p>\n<p><sup>15<\/sup> Sen. Comm. on Environmental Quality Analysis of SB 1249 (2013\u20132014 Reg. Sess.) p. 4.<\/p>\n<p><sup>16<\/sup> Alameda County Pub. Health Dept., East and West Oakland Health Data Existing Cumulative Health Impacts (Sept. 3, 2015), p. 7.<\/p>\n<p><sup>17<\/sup> Oakland Unified School Strict, School Environment: Environmental Stress Factors 2016.<\/p>\n<p>[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=&#8221;1&#8243; _builder_version=&#8221;4.5.3&#8243; _module_preset=&#8221;default&#8221; background_color=&#8221;#1e1d1c&#8221; custom_margin=&#8221;0px||0px||false|false&#8221; custom_padding=&#8221;7vh||7vh||false|false&#8221; global_module=&#8221;379&#8243;][et_pb_row _builder_version=&#8221;4.5.2&#8243; _module_preset=&#8221;default&#8221; custom_margin=&#8221;0px||0px||false|false&#8221; custom_padding=&#8221;0px||0px||false|false&#8221;][et_pb_column type=&#8221;4_4&#8243; _builder_version=&#8221;4.5.2&#8243; _module_preset=&#8221;default&#8221;][et_pb_signup mailchimp_list=&#8221;Schnitzer Website|024e71ff7c&#8221; name_field=&#8221;on&#8221; title=&#8221;Sign up for email updates here!&#8221; _builder_version=&#8221;4.5.3&#8243; _module_preset=&#8221;default&#8221; header_level=&#8221;h3&#8243; header_font=&#8221;|600|||||||&#8221; body_text_color=&#8221;rgba(255,255,255,0.75)&#8221; background_enable_color=&#8221;off&#8221; border_width_all_fields=&#8221;1px&#8221;][\/et_pb_signup][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>[et_pb_section fb_built=&#8221;1&#8243; _builder_version=&#8221;4.5.3&#8243; _module_preset=&#8221;default&#8221;][et_pb_row _builder_version=&#8221;4.5.3&#8243; _module_preset=&#8221;default&#8221;][et_pb_column type=&#8221;4_4&#8243; _builder_version=&#8221;4.5.3&#8243; _module_preset=&#8221;default&#8221;][et_pb_text _builder_version=&#8221;4.5.3&#8243; _module_preset=&#8221;default&#8221; text_font_size=&#8221;16px&#8221; hover_enabled=&#8221;0&#8243;] On August 5, the A\u2019s sued the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to compel it to comply with applicable law by applying the Hazardous Waste Control Law to Schnitzer Steel\u2019s management of hazardous waste and revoking a variance called an [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","spay_email":""},"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v14.9 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>summary | Schnitzer Watch<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Schnitzer Watch, the place to get the facts about the Oakland A\u2019s lawsuit about Schnitzer Steel\u2019s activities in West Oakland.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/schnitzerwatch.org\/summary\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"summary | Schnitzer Watch\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Schnitzer Watch, the place to get the facts about the Oakland A\u2019s lawsuit about Schnitzer Steel\u2019s activities in West Oakland.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/schnitzerwatch.org\/summary\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Schnitzer Watch\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/SchnitzerWatch\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-08-13T20:23:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/schnitzerwatch.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/schnitzer.jpg?fit=1400%2C1049&#038;ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1400\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1049\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@SchnitzerWatch\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@SchnitzerWatch\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/schnitzerwatch.org\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Schnitzer Watch\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/schnitzerwatch.org\/\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/SchnitzerWatch\",\"https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/SchnitzerWatch\/\",\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/SchnitzerWatch\"],\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/schnitzerwatch.org\/#logo\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/schnitzerwatch.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/schnitzerwatch-textlogo.png?fit=1046%2C153&ssl=1\",\"width\":1046,\"height\":153,\"caption\":\"Schnitzer Watch\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/schnitzerwatch.org\/#logo\"}},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/schnitzerwatch.org\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/schnitzerwatch.org\/\",\"name\":\"Schnitzer Watch\",\"description\":\"Get the facts!\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/schnitzerwatch.org\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":\"https:\/\/schnitzerwatch.org\/?s={search_term_string}\",\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/schnitzerwatch.org\/summary\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/schnitzerwatch.org\/summary\/\",\"name\":\"summary | Schnitzer Watch\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/schnitzerwatch.org\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-08-05T06:42:58+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-08-13T20:23:41+00:00\",\"description\":\"Schnitzer Watch, the place to get the facts about the Oakland A\\u2019s lawsuit about Schnitzer Steel\\u2019s activities in West Oakland.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/schnitzerwatch.org\/summary\/\"]}]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/Pcfo5X-8b","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/schnitzerwatch.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/507"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/schnitzerwatch.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/schnitzerwatch.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/schnitzerwatch.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/9"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/schnitzerwatch.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=507"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"https:\/\/schnitzerwatch.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/507\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":620,"href":"https:\/\/schnitzerwatch.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/507\/revisions\/620"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/schnitzerwatch.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=507"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}