Is Ignorance Bliss when it comes to RCRA?

February 7, 2017

As noted in my recent article, The Value of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA was created in the aftermath of growing concern over the country’s increasingly polluted air, water, and land. The agency’s founding, established by the Nixon administration, had strong bipartisan support.

Also noted in the article was the fact that the Trump Administration’s nominee to head the EPA, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, has filed numerous lawsuits against the Agency, has questioned climate change, the toxicity of mercury, and more. Having cleared the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Pruitt is set to be confirmed to take over the agency tomorrow.  

Waste Dive conducted an in depth analysis of questions posed to Pruitt by the Senate. According to its analysis, Pruitt's default response on almost all of the questions was to “plead ignorance.” Pruitt was reportedly not familiar with the wide range of waste topics covered—landfills, recycling, coal ash, marine plastics, and environmental justice. Perhaps Mr. Pruitt would benefit from a quick history of solid waste laws that have been established under the Agency he is about to lead.

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), passed by Congress on October 21, 1976, is the country’s primary law governing the disposal of solid and hazardous waste. Under RCRA, EPA develops regulations designed to carry out the congressional intent of the law’s original passage, thereby providing explicit and legally enforceable requirements for waste management.

As with the creation of EPA, RCRA was adopted to address the growing volume of municipal and industrial waste, and the rising impact of waste on communities. Prior to RCRA, land disposal of solid waste was largely uncontrolled, resulting in significant effects on human health and environmental quality, including groundwater contamination. RCRA Subtitle D set criteria for municipal solid waste landfills and other solid waste disposal facilities and put into place a ban on open dumping of all solid wastes.

When RCRA became law, President Gerald Ford cited the special threat faced by our nation from hazardous waste disposal, calling it "one of the highest priority environmental problems confronting the Nation." Under the new law, EPA was mandated to identify and publish a list of hazardous wastes and set standards for the handling, transportation, and ultimate disposal of these wastes. Moreover, under guidelines to be developed by EPA, states were directed to establish regulatory programs; if states failed to do so, EPA regulations would apply. RCRA Subtitle C established a system for controlling hazardous waste from the time it was generated until its ultimate disposal.

RCRA set national goals for protecting human health and the environment from the potential hazards of waste disposal and programs to ensure that waste is managed in an environmentally sound manner.

Significantly, RCRA established a fundamental shift in how we look at our waste. The law set into motion goals for conserving energy and natural resources and reducing the amount of waste the nation generated. For example, the law requires all Federal procurement agencies to purchase items composed of the maximum allowable percentage of recycled materials.

As with other environmental laws set by EPA, the law is built on a partnership with the states. RCRA establishes the framework for a national system to manage solid waste. Under Subtitle D, states play the lead role in implementing non-hazardous waste programs. EPA sets minimum national technical standards for how disposal facilities should be designed and operated, and states issue permits to ensure compliance with EPA and state regulations. This process ensures equal rights for clean air, water, and land for all Americans.

Given Mr. Pruitt’s history of claiming EPA has overreached with its regulatory requirements, it’s safe to say he will be more in favor of a state-based regulatory approach to solid and hazardous waste management. That focus is likely to roll back any emphasis on climate change mitigation, an important component of which is materials management; EPA has identified 42% of US-generated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as resulting from provision of goods and food.

Congress has amended RCRA several times since its enactment, and can certainly do so again. Mr. Pruitt’s claim of not knowing about the specifics of RCRA may or may not bode well for the future of the sustainable materials management path that EPA is currently embarked upon. Since RCRA’s fate may lie in the hands of Congress, and EPA will be under the whims of its Administrator, let’s hope that any forthcoming actions take into consideration the pivotal founding of both EPA and RCRA. Such actions may have profound implications for our country and the future of our planet.

By Athena Lee Bradley (with editorial input from Robert Kropp)

To learn more about RCRA and its critical importance, see Resource Conservation and Recovery Act: Critical Mission & the Path Forward.