Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee rejects bill seeking EPA‑level emission standards for medical‑waste incineration after extended questioning
Summary
After extended questioning about permitting, the company Reworld and federal review, the committee failed to advance a bill that would have required regulated medical waste incineration to meet EPA emission standards; DEQ testified that EPA review and objection are part of the air‑permit process.
Representative Blintset told the committee that a company (Reworld) seeks to add regulated medical waste to the municipal waste stream at a Tulsa incinerator and that the facility’s requested variance could allow up to 41,000 tons of medical waste annually — a volume the sponsor said would make it the largest regulated medical‑waste incinerator in the U.S. "If we're gonna be the largest in The US, at least follow the established protocol for air emission standards," the sponsor said.
Members questioned the permitting sequence, whether EPA review happens and how state DEQ variances operate. Director Rob Singletary of the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality told the committee that air permits (Title V and related reviews) go to EPA for review and that EPA may object; he also explained that some EPA new‑source performance standards apply only to facilities permitted after a standard is proposed, so existing facilities can fall into a different state permitting path.
Representative questions centered on: (1) whether the facility’s request for a state variance could produce emissions below EPA new‑source standards; (2) whether a demonstration burn showing the proposed waste stream’s emissions would be required (the sponsor said DEQ had not required a demonstration burn); and (3) who would ultimately enforce emission limits. Director Singletary said EPA can object to a permit and that state rules currently apply where federal new‑source standards cannot be retroactively applied to existing sources.
After extended discussion, the committee vote on a do‑pass failed (8 yes, 17 no) and the bill remained the property of the committee. The sponsor said the goal was to close a perceived permitting loophole and ensure regulated medical waste is treated under standards appropriate to its composition; opponents raised concerns about unintended economic effects and whether federal review already provided sufficient safeguards.
