42 U.S.C. § 13101

Findings and policy

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) FindingsThe Congress finds that:(1) The United States of America annually produces millions of tons of pollution and spends tens of billions of dollars per year controlling this pollution.(2) There are significant opportunities for industry to reduce or prevent pollution at the source through cost-effective changes in production, operation, and raw materials use. Such changes offer industry substantial savings in reduced raw material, pollution control, and liability costs as well as help protect the environment and reduce risks to worker health and safety.(3) The opportunities for source reduction are often not realized because existing regulations, and the industrial resources they require for compliance, focus upon treatment and disposal, rather than source reduction; existing regulations do not emphasize multi-media management of pollution; and businesses need information and technical assistance to overcome institutional barriers to the adoption of source reduction practices.(4) Source reduction is fundamentally different and more desirable than waste management and pollution control. The Environmental Protection Agency needs to address the historical lack of attention to source reduction.(5) As a first step in preventing pollution through source reduction, the Environmental Protection Agency must establish a source reduction program which collects and disseminates information, provides financial assistance to States, and implements the other activities provided for in this chapter.(b) Policy

The Congress hereby declares it to be the national policy of the United States that pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe manner, whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be treated in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible; and disposal or other release into the environment should be employed only as a last resort and should be conducted in an environmentally safe manner.

(Pub. L. 101–508, title VI, § 6602, Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1388–321.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (a)(5), was in the original “this subtitle”, meaning subtitle F (§§ 6501, 6601–6610) of title VI, Pub. L. 101–508, which is classified generally to this chapter. For complete classification of subtitle F to the Code, see Short Title note below and Tables.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesShort Title

Pub. L. 101–508, title VI, § 6601, Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1388–321, provided that: “This subtitle [subtitle F (§§ 6501, 6601–6610) of title VI of Pub. L. 101–508, enacting this chapter and section 4370c of this title] may be cited as the ‘Pollution Prevention Act of 1990’.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1994–2021 · leading case: Always Towing & Recovery Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 2 F.4th 695 (7th Cir. 2021).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Always Towing & Recovery Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 2 F.4th 695 (7th Cir. 2021). · cites it 2× “§ 45 , and the Pollution Prevention Act, 42 U.S.C. § 13101 . Finally, plaintiffs attached to the Complaint an unexecuted copy of the 2003 Contract.”

Monsanto Co. v. Env't Prot. Agency & Carol M. Browner, Adm'r, 19 F.3d 1201 (7th Cir. 1994). “See 42 U.S.C. § 13101 (Supp. II), added by the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990; 42 Ú.”

Horsehead Resource Dev. Co. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 130 F.3d 1090 (D.C. Cir. 1997). “Further, it claims that the de-listing rule violates RCRA and the Pollution Prevention Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 13101 et seq. The intervenors and respondent EPA dispute Horsehead’s claims and, in addition, argue that Horsehead’s petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction,…”

Earth Island Inst. v. Crystal Geyser Water Co. (N.D. Cal. 2021). “” 42 U.S.C. § 13101 (b). And, according to Defendants, the 16 Complaint seeks to hold Defendants liable for “shift[ing] public focus to consumer recycling 17 behavior,” Compl.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.