1 / 13

RCRA and EJ Overview

RCRA and EJ Overview. Environmental Law 2008. Brief chronology of RCRA:. Mid-’70s--RCRA enacted; mainly solid waste management (trash and garbage) Starts out as a kind of EPA “backwater” 1978: Love Canal inspires a media “feeding frenzy”. The Love Canal dilemma.

geraldine-travis
Download Presentation

RCRA and EJ Overview

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RCRA and EJ Overview Environmental Law 2008

  2. Brief chronology of RCRA: • Mid-’70s--RCRA enacted; mainly solid waste management (trash and garbage) • Starts out as a kind of EPA “backwater” • 1978: Love Canal inspires a media “feeding frenzy”

  3. The Love Canal dilemma • FEMA can help only the victims of natural disasters • This is a manmade disaster • So, go bring a tort action

  4. Love Canal’s Lessons Learned • There needs to be a program for dealing with hazwaste—an unknown (but large) number of “ticking time bombs” • RCRA imminent hazard provision pressed into service • Superfund (CERCLA) enacted in 1980, states follow suit with parallel programs

  5. Hazwaste Politics • Jan. 1980—lame-duck administration approves Superfund; incoming Reagan team says “No son of Superfund!” • Sweetheart settlements, scandals • RCRA landfill regs approved despite admitted concerns over leakage of dumps, because it was cost-effective

  6. RCRA’s General Approach: • Command-and-control (to the point of micromanagement) • Permitting of parts of waste disposal industry • Post-closure liability (CERCLA and PCLFs) • Hierarchy of preferred options for hazwaste

  7. Features of HASWA ‘84: • Land bans • Increased regulation of TSDFs • “Hammer” provisions • Tighter small generator exemptions • “Nondelegation run riot”

  8. Listed Wastes (Rulemaking but we won’t go there) Characteristic wastes Ignitable Corrosive Reactive (old) Extraction Potential Toxicity (EP tox) (current) TCLP (toxic constituent leachate potential) What is hazwaste?

  9. Incineration Deep-well injection Chemical alteration (e.g., neutralization)--sometimes Landfilling Re-use or recycle (or incorporate in product) Avoid generating (toxics use reduction) Which of these alternatives should we prefer? What incentives should we create so better alternatives will be used? What can be done with hazwaste?

  10. RCRA and the MSW Incineration Problem • Incineration (“energy recovery”) emerges as the solution to solid waste--1980s • Dioxins and furans, other complex chemicals are produced by incineration of plastics and other wastes • Some materials (e.g., mercury) volatize • Toxins rain down and enter food webs • Ash left after incineration concentrates metals • Materials that are burned can’t be otherwise recycled

  11. Environmental Justice in New York (CP-29) • Environmental justice means the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, or income with respect to … environmental laws, regulations, and policies • Fair treatment means that no group of people, including a racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group, should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences ….

  12. EJ in NY: • ECL 27-1102.2.f  requires that the Hazwaste Siting plan include “a determination of the number, size, type, and location by area of the state of new or expanded industrial hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities which will be needed for the proper long-term management of hazardous waste consistent with . . . an equitable geographic distribution of facilities.” 

  13. How should New York State decide what distribution of hazwaste facilities is equitable?

More Related