REGULATORY
FOCUS
Revamping RCRA
M i c h a e l R. Deland
American industry annually produces the equivalent of one ton of hazardous chemical waste for each person in this country. By regulating that waste from generation to disposal, or "cradle to grave," the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) was designed to ensure its safe disposition. The public perception that RCRA is not meeting that responsibility has led to the current clamor in Congress not merely to reauthorize the statute but to revamp it, making it considerably tougher. However, EPA's administration of the statute, rather than the law itself, bears the brunt of congressional frustration. Committee report
In mid-May the House Committee on Energy and Commerce reported on comprehensive changes to RCRA entitled the "Hazardous Waste Control and Enforcement Act of 1983" (H.R. 2867). The accompanying report acknowledges that "the efforts of EPA to secure compliance . . . have demonstrated that the task of comprehensive hazardous waste management is one of unparalleled scope and complexity." But the report also notes that it was not until May 1980, four years after the passage of RCRA, that the agency published the first major package of regulations. Despite the progress associated with these regulations, "it is estimated that an amount of hazardous waste equal to 0013-936X/83/0916-0293A$01.50/0
that which is currently regulated under R.I.) has introduced legislation which, RCRA (40 million metric tons per while covering most of the areas adyear) is escaping control through var- dressed by the House, places fewer ious loopholes." H.R. 2867 systemat- restraints on EPA's administrative ically seeks to plug each of these holes, discretion. However, the Senate picthe largest of which include treatment ture is clouded by the recent introof small-quantity generators, land duction of a bill by Sen. Gary Hart disposal of hazardous waste, and the (D-Colo.) that goes far beyond the questions of "burning and blending" other proposals by requiring technoland of enforcement powers. In each ogy-based standards. instance, the committee reflects its displeasure with EPA's implementa- Initial response tion of RCRA by severely restricting The reaction from environmental the agency's administrative discre- groups, much of industry, and the tion. "new" EPA is generally favorable. The For example, "small-quantity gen- Environmental Defense Fund and the erators," or those producing less than Natural Resources Defense Council 1000 kg/month currently are not both favor the House version, feeling regulated by EPA. H.R. 2867 regu- that EPA needs specific deadlines and lates them by requiring EPA to pro- directions to prod it into action. Both mulgate standards within 18 months groups favor the inclusion of strong of enactment for all hazardous waste citizen suit provisions to supplement generators that produce between 100 EPA's enforcement authority, believand 1000 kg/month. If EPA fails to ing it has been all too infrequently meet this statutory deadline, then 24 exercised. months after enactment, hazardous Business groups such as the U.S. waste produced by small-quantity Chamber of Commerce support the generators automatically becomes Chafee bill, preferring the broader subject to the same requirements ap- latitude given to EPA as compared to plicable to large generators. the regulation by "fiat" set forth in the The committee finds that land dis- current House version. posal of wastes should only be used as Testifying before the Senate, Lee a "last resort." It similarly limits EPA M. Thomas, acting assistant admindiscretion by establishing a "starting istrator for solid waste and emergency point" specifically listing those wastes response at EPA, was supportive of the for which land disposal is prohibited. Chafee bill but critical of the "unrea"Burning and blending" refers to sonably short" deadlines and "autothose facilities that burn hazardous matic prohibitions" in H.R. 2867. waste for the primary purpose of enThe main question then is one of ergy recovery. These facilities are crust—whether EPA can be counted currently exempt from regulations, and on to implement congressional policies EPA estimates that "10 or 15 million or whether explicit deadlines and ditons of hazardous wastes are burned rections must be imposed on the each year in boilers." While com- agency. How Congress answers this mending EPA for its recent efforts to question depends largely on EPA's identify and regulate illegitimate or ability, under Administrator Ruck"sham" burning, H.R. 2867 specifies elshaus's leadership, to regain the that "EPA will exercise its authority public respect it once enjoyed. over all facilities that blend or burn hazardous waste for energy recovery." Deland writes this column monthly and is Meanwhile, Sen. John Chafee (R- counsel to ERT, Concord, Mass.
© 1983 American Chemical Society
Environ. Sci. Technoi., Vol. 17, No. 7, 1983
293A
