HAZARDOUS WASTES PROGRESS AND POLLUTION

Hazardous Wastes: Coming to Terms with the Problem

Attacking Hazardous Wastes on Two Fronts
Case study 18-1: Exporting Toxic Troubles
Case study 18-2: Redefining National Security: Waste from the Nuclear Weapons
Industry
Point Counterpoint Are We Facing an Epidemic of Cancer?
America's Epidemic of Chemicals and Cancer Lewis G Regenstein
"America's Epidemic of Chemicals and Cancer": Myth or Fact? David L Eaton
Chapter Supplement 18-1: A Closer Look Solid Wastes: Solving a Growing Problem

There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action

GOETHE

Shenandoah Stables was a large and successful quarter horse ranch in Moscow Hills,
Missouri, northwest of St. Louis. But in the last week of May 1 a rcurine pre cedure triggered a
disastrous chain of events. Tc control dust, the owners had hired 2 man to spread 3800 liters
(1000 gallons) of waste automobile oil on the arena. Shortly after the oil had been applied, one of
the owners noticed strong chemical odors in the air in the barn and on the grounds. A day later
she discovered dozens of dead sparrows on the floor of the bam. Then the dogs and cats at the
ranch began to lose their fur and to d drate. By mid.June 11 cats and 5 dogs had died, each with
the same symptoms of 85 horses routinely exercised in the arena, 43 died. within a year.
Autopsies revealed that their intemalorgans were swollen and bloody In 1971, 41 horses on the
ranch had been bred; most pregnancies ended in spontaneous abortion. Of those born alive, all
but one died within a few months Soon afterward, both of the owner's daughters, who lived at the
stables, became ill, complaining of severe headaches one developed sores on her hands. The
other began bleeding internally and was hospitalized. The owner herself suffered chest pains,
headaches, and diarrhea. What caused the poisonings and deaths? Tests on the oil applied to the
arena showed dioxin, PCBs, and other highly toxic contaminants. Investigators found that the oil
had been sold to a company hat was supposed to remove the contaminants before reuse Instead,
the company

423
 Figure 18-1. (a) In May 1984, workers from the Newille Chemical Plant in Santa Fe
Springs, California, began covering soil believed to be contaminated with highly toxic
chemical wastes. The covering prevented the turic seil irom blowing from the site.
Company officials were recently found guilty of illegally disposing of hazardous wastes.
(b) Pollution Abatement Services chemical dump a Oswego, New York. The dump is now
inactive and awaitirg cleanup.

spread the oil on at least four sites in Missouri, leaving behind "a rail of sickness and
death, in the words of the state assistant attorney general The tragedy at Shenandoah Stables is
representative of a much larger problem: illegal and irresponsible hazard ous waste disposal that
continues even today (Figure 18-1). What we can do to clean up the mess and what we can do to
prevent further disasters are the topics of this chapter.

A. Hazardous Wastes: Coming to Terms with the Problem

Love Canal: The Awakening Hazardous wastes are waste products of industry that, I
not disposed of properly or destroyed, pose a threat to the environment. The problem of
hazardous waste caught the attention of the American public in the 1970s when toxic
chemicals began to ooze out of a dump known as Love Canal, in New York near Niagara
Falls. The incident has forever changed the way Americans view hazardous wastes

The story of Love Canal began in the 1880s when William Love began digging a
canal that would run from the Niagara River just above Niagara Falls to a point on the river
below the falls. For one reason or another, the canal was never complet Only a small remrant
of the canal remained in the early 1900s. In 1942 the Hooker Chemical Company signed an
agreement with the canal's new owner, the Niagara Fower and Development Corporation, to
dump wastes there. In 1946 Hooker bought the site, and from 1947 to 1952 it dumped over
20,000 metric tons of highly toxic and carcinogenic wastes, including the deadly poisonous
dioxin.

In 1952 the story took an ironic twist. In that year the city of Niagara Falls began
condemnation proceedings on the property that would allow it to use the land for an
elementary school and residential community With no other choice, Hooker sold the land for
1 in exchange for a release from any future liability Hooker insisus that it warned against any
construction on the dump site itself but it allegedly never disclosed the real danger of
building on the abandoned dump. Before turning the land sealed the dump with a clay cap
and to the city, Hooker copsoil, once thought sufficient to protect hazardous waste dumps

Troubles began in January 1955, however, when workers removed the clay cap during
the construction of the school. In the late 1950s rusting and leaking barrels of toxic waste
began to surface. children playing near them suffered chemical bunns; some became ill and
died Hooker said that it warned the school board not to let children play in contaminated
areas, but made no effort to warn local residents of the potential problems

The problem continued for years. Chemical fumes took the bark off trees and wiped
out grass and garden vegetables. Smelly pools of toxins welled upon the surface. In the early
1970s after a period of heavy rainfall, the water table rose, and basements in homes near the
dump began to flood with a thick, black sludge of toic chemicals. The chemical smells in
homes around the dumpe Site became intolerable

Tests in 1978 on water, air, and soil in the area detected 82 different chemical
contaminants, a dozen of which were known or suspected carcinogens. The Stare Health
Department found in 1978 that nearly one of every three pregnant women in the area had
miscarried, a rate much higher than expected. Birth delects were observed in 5 of 24 children.
Another study released in 1979 by Dr Beverly Paigen of the Roswell Cancer Institute,
showed that over half of the children born between 1974 and 1978 to families living in areas
where groundwater was leaching toxic chemicals from the dump had birth defects this study
the overall incidenoe of birth defects in the Love Canal area was one in five oompared with a
normal rate of less than one in ten (see Chapter 14. The mis rate was 25 in 100, compared
with 8 in 100 women moving into the area. Asthma was four times as prevalent in wet areas
as dry areas in the region. the incidence of urinary and convulsive disorders was almost three
times higher than expected. The incidence of nasal and sinus infections, respiratory diseases,
rashes, and headaches was also elevated.
 As a result of public outcry theschool was soon closed. The state fenced off the canal
and evacuated several hundred families (Figure 18-2). Presidert Carter declared the dump a
disaster area. In May 1980 a new study revealed high levels of genetic damage among
residents living near the canaL An additional 780 families were evacuated from outlying
areas As of 1987 Love Canal had cost the state of New York and the federal government
about $200 million for cleanup, research, and relocation of resicients. In 1987 the EPA
announced plans to dredge the sewers and creeks in the Love Canal area to remove sediments
that have been containinated with toxic materials. Dredged material will be incinerated, then
buried in a landfill. All told

Figure 18-2. House is bulldozed in the Love Canal area of Niagara Falls, New York.

about 35,000 cubic meters of sediment will be burned, making this the largest single
application of thermal destruction in modern history. The EPA estimates that the dredging
and incineration will take about five years to complete and will cost $26 to $31 million

A 1980 study by the FPA showed that chemical contem inaticn was pretty much
limite to the canal area (the actual dump), an area immediately south of it, and two rows of
houses on either side of the canal (Figurc 18-3). The last group of residents to be evacuated,
the report said, were probably moved out unnecessarily. The EPA study also showed that the
dump had contaminated shallow groundwater, but not the deeper aquifers. The EPA
concluded that further migration of toxic chemicals was highly unlikely Based on this study
and other wock, the EPA and the state of New York declared two-thirds of the evacuated
Love Canal site "habitable" and proposed to move families back in. Lois Gibbs, the Love
Canal resident largely responsible for drawing public attention to the disaster and geuing the
state and federal governments to take action, argues that the decision to resettle the area New
York State Health Department, she says, spent $14 million to compare the Love Canal site to
two other sites in the city. It found that the site was as contaminated as two other sites, both
contaminated by industrial wastes, and thus deemed it suitable for resettlement. Gibbs warns
that resettling Love Canal will put more people 21 risk.

The Dimensions of a Toxic Nightmare

Love Canal began the frenetic search for hazardous waste dumps and illegal waste-
disposal practices than is still

Figure 18-3. Love Canal Arca within the colored rectangle was closed off, and
citizens were evacuated. Citizens were also evacuated from the declaration area, but tests
have shown that hazardous wastes have not migrated into this area.

going on. Many people, previously unable to explain bizarre diseases in their family, soon
found the answer in nearby waste dumps or factories that leaked hazardous wastes into ier,
neakby streams, or the air.

In the years following the Love Canal incident the American public has been barraged
by a list of startling statistics showing that what appeared to be an isolated incident was in
fact just the tip of the iceberg. The EPA, for instance, estimated that there were i4 other sites
in Niagara Falls alone that it considered an "imminent hazard" Nationwide, the EPA
announced, Love Canal was one of a thousand or more sites in need of a cleanup Today,
some experts put the number of dangerous hazardous waste facilities that need to be cleaned
up at well over 10,000.
 Making matters worse, each year factories create an estimated 54 to 72 million metric
tons ofwaste considered hazardous by federal standards and about 200 million metric tons of
hazardous waste covered by state regulation The total is well over a ton per person. But the
United States is not alone. European countries also pro duce millions of tons of hazardous
waste each year.

Even more startling than the sheer amount of waste produced is its fate. Until quite
recently 90% of the hazardous wastes in the United States were improperly disposed of,
ending up in abandoned warehouses; in rivers, streams, and lakes, in leaky landfills that
contaminate groundwater in fields and forests; and along highways Because of improvements
in hazardous waste management, smaller amounts of toxic waste are being improperly
discharged. But don't be misled, the nation needs to do a great deal more to curb this
problem. In 1987 in California alone businesses produced 2.5 million metrictons of pollution.
Here's where it ended up

1. 65% was discharged into the ocean, laks. ands, rivers.

2. 27% was injected into deep wells.

Total sites in U.S. 1,224m

Represents final and proposed sites on Navional Priority Lisa.

Includes nine in Puerto Rico and one in Guam.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Priorities List Fact Book
 Figure 18-4. Proposed and potential hazardous waste sites on the EPAs 1989 priority
list for cleanup. All told, 889 sites are slated for cleanup; 335 aduitional sites are proposed for
cleanup.

3. 4.3% plants went to public sewers and sewage treatment

4. 1.8% went to treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
5. 1.396 escaped into the air.

Surprisingly little is known about hazardous waste production and disposal. This we
do know: Ill-conceived and irresponsible waste disposal creates a legacy of pollute
groundwater and contaminated land. The US Office of Technology Assessment believes that
it will cost $100 billion to clean up the 10,0ce sites in the United States that pose a serious
threat to health (Figure 18-4).

Point/Counterpoint

Are We Facing an Epidemic of Cancer?

America,s Epidemic of Chemical and Cancer

Lewis G. Regenstein

Len vis Regenstein, an Atlanta writer and conservationist, is author of How to Survive
in America the Poisoned (Acropolis Books)
 America is in the throes of anunprecedented cancer epidemic, caused in large part by
the pervasive presence in our envi ronment and food chain of deadly, cancer-causing
pesticides and industrial chemicals

Today, significant levels of hundreds of toxic chemicals known to cause cancer,

miscarriages, birth defects, and other health effects, are found regularly in our food, our air,
our water--and our own bodies. Accompanying this widespread pollution has been a dramatic
and alarming rise in che cancer rate in recent decades Each year, almost a million Americans
(about 985,000 in 1988, not including skin cancers) are diaguosed as having cancer--almost
3000 people a day! The disease now strikes almost one American in three, and kills over a
thousand of us every day! This means that of the Americans now alive, some 70 to 80 million
people can expect to contract cancer in their lifetimes. More Americans die of cancer every
year (an estimated 494,000 in 1988) than were killed in combat in World War II, Korea, and
Vietnam combined

Man-made chemicals are also depleting the Earth's protect tive ozone layer, which
makes life on the planet possible by shielding us from most of the sun's uitraviolet rays. The
US Environmental Protection Agency (EFA) projects that the increase in radiation hiting the
Earuh will cause Americans to suffer 40 million cases of skin cancer, 800,000 deaths in the
next 88 years, and 12 million incidences of eye cataracus.

Cancer is the leading cause of death for women betwee the ages of 30 and 40, and for
children aged 1 to 10. Thus the elevated cancer rate is not caused solely by people livin
longer, as the chemical industry often claims, it has now become a common disease of the
young as well as the old

In 1978, the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) reported

unequivocally that "most researchers agree that 70% to 90% of all cancers are caused by
environmental influences and are hence th preventable. Only about 30% of the nation's
annual cancer deaths mainly lung cancers) are thought to be caused by cigarette smoking,
and many of these may be related to carcinogenic pesticides and chemicals in tobacco. The
remaining 70% of cancer deaths are caused by a variety of other factors, with toxic demicals
thought to playamajor role. For instance, in 1978 the Depart ment of Health, Education, and
Welfare warned that 20% to 38% of all cancers could be attributed to occupational exposure
to just six industrial chemicals.

In 1980, the federal inter-agency Toxic subtances Strategy Committee issued its
report clearly demonstratirg thetic chemicals are a threat to the lives and health of untold
millions of Americans, and confirming thealarming rise in the cancer rate. In announcing the
findings, CEQ emphasized that "man-made toxic chemicals are a significant source of death
and disease in the United States today" The agency stressed the link between the increase in
production of such chemicals between 1950 and 1960 and the large increase in the cancer
rate showing up 20 to 25 years later, "the lag time one might expect.

Evidence continues to mount demonstrating that toxic chemicals are heavily

contributing to the cancer epidemic. In general, the most polluted areas of the country have
the highest cancer rates, with heavily industrialized New Jersey having the greatest
concentration of chemical and vetruleJm fa iities. In July, University of Medicine and
Dentistry of 1982, the New Jersey released a study showing a correlation be the presence of
toxic waste dumps and elevated cancer death rates (up 50% above average) in areas of the
state

In February, 1984, a report by researchers at the Havard School of Public Health

demonstrated a link between the consumption of chemically contaminated well water near
Woburn, Massachusetts an the extraordinary incidence of childhood leukemia, stillbirths,
birth defects, and child hood disorders of the kidneys, lungs, and skin among local residents

An October 1984 report by the Council on Economic Priorities round an "alarming

increase in cancer deaths. Rates in rural counties with high employment in chemical and
petroleum industries that generate large amounts of toxic waste. And a July 1985
Congressional study found an apparent link between high respiratory cancer rates and the
presence of petrochemical plants in 133 counties east of the Rockies

Some scientists and government officials, pointing to the decrease in rates of some
cancers, continue to insist that the cancer scare has gotten out of hand, that there is no
"cancer epidemic, and that toxic chemicals play a small role in causing cancer. But Dr.
Samuel Epstein of the University of Illinois Medical Center, perhaps the foremost authority
on the subject, points out that a from AlDS, cancer is the only major killing disease which is
on the increase, with incidenoe rising by at least 2% a year, and death rates at 1% annually
over the last decade. He concludes that "the facts show very clearly that we are in a cancer
epidemic now in large part because of the carcinogenizing of our environment, the increasing
contamination of our air and our water and our food and the workplace

Today, every American is regularly and unavoidablyexposed to a variety of

dangerous, health-destroying chemicals Dozens of pesticides used on our food are known or
thought to cause cancer and birth defects in animals. By the time restrictions were placed on
some of the deadliest chemicals, such as DDT dieldrin, BHC, and PCBs, these carcinogenic
poisons were being found in the fleshtissues ofliterally 99% of tested, as well as in the food
chain and even mother's milk. In fact, breast milk is heavily contaminated wida high levels of
banned, cancer-causing chemicals

Virtually all Americans carry in their bodies traces of dioxin (TODD), the most
deadly manmade chemical known The sources of this dloxim to which we are regularly
exposed include food (such as fish and beef, contaminated from waste dumping and he
spraying), emissions from municipal and industrial incinerators (which produce dioxins when
plastics are burned), milk from white cardboard cartons, andexposure to other white paper
products, in which the bleaching process creates dioxins

The response of the US government has been largely weak or nonexistent

enforcement of the nation's health and environmental protection laws. For example, with few
exceptions, the EPA has refused to carry out its legal duty to ban or,restrict pesticides known
to cause cancer. Nor has the government adequately implemented or enforced the laws
regulating hazardous waste, which is being generated at a rate of up to 275 million metric
tons a year-over a ton for every man woman, and child in the narion. Much ofthis isdisposed
of a manner that will ultimately threaten the health of nearby residents.

Thus we are even now sowing the seeds for cancer epidemics of the future. Only time
will tell what will be the effecton this generation. and future ones, of Americans-the chemical
industry's ultimate guinea pigs. By the time we know the answers, it may be too late to do
anything effective about the problem.

Point/Counterpoint

America's Epidemic of Chemicals and Cancer--Myth or Fact?

David L Eaton

David L. Eaton is Associate Professor of EnvironmentaiHealth and Environmental Studies,

and Director of Taxicology at zise University of Washington. He has an active research
program on the mechanisms by which chemicals cause cancer
 There is no debate that cancer is a devastating and deadly disease. One in three people
living in the US today will contract some form of cancer in his or her lifetime, and one in
four will die from it, if current rates continue. However, the contention that we are in the
throes of an unprecedented cancer epidemic, and that this "epidemic" is caused in large part
by cancer-causing pesticides and industrial chemicals is simply not supported by the
scientific data available on cancer incidence and etiology (causes)

Are cancer rates increasing in epidemic propoutions? The total number of people and
the fraction of all deaths attributable to cancer have increased dramatically in the past 50
years. However, cancer is largely a disease of old age, and thus it is necessary to adiusu such
suauistics for changes in the age distribution of our population. A 1988 report from the
National Cancer Institute states that "the age adjusted mortality rates for all types of cancers
combined, except lung cancer have been declining since 1950 for all individual age groups
except 85 and above" statistics from the American Cancer Society yield the same conclusion

Excluding lung cancer in this evaluation allows us to exam ine cancer trends without
the surong influence that the dramatic increase in lung cancer incidence (and deaths) have on
total cancer rates. We are in an "epidemic" of lung cancer. For most of the first half of this
century, lung cancer mortality was not even in the "top five" types of cancer-related deaths.
Lung cancer is now the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in both men and women.
About 8 of all lung cancers in nen, and pernaps 70% in women, is directly attributable to
smoking. Per capita consumption of cigarettes increased fold in men from 1900 to 1960, and
with it a concomitant increase in lung cancer This pattern was repeated, 20 years later, in
women. The risks of several other types of common cancers are also increased by smoking
Ceg., cancers of the bladder and esophagus. Approximately one-third ofall can cer deaths
could be eliminated by eliminating smoking from our society. The supposition that many of
these smoking related cancers may be related to carcinogenic pesticides and tobacco is
grossly misleading, as the source of chemicals in these carcinogenic pesticides and chemicals
is mother nature not he cheiniai ana agricultural industry.

what proportion of cancers can be related to environmental pollution from synthetic

pesticides and industrial chemicals The often-cited statistic that to 90% of all cancers are
caused by environmental influences and are hence theor as cally preventable" is frequently
incorrectly interpreted meaning that chemical pollution is responsible for 70-90% of cancers.
Studies in the 1960s suggested that most cancer could not be direcly traced to genetic or
hereditary factors therefore, it was concluded that the majority of cancers must have an
"environmental" cause. In this context, the term "environmental" includes not only
chemicals, but lifestyle facuo such as smoking and alcohol, dietary factors such as the
proportion of fat and fiber in the diet, "natural" carcinogens that occur in nearly ell foods,
cancer-causing viruses such as hepatitis B, and occupational exposures to substances such as
asbestos
 Of the variety of environmental factors other than smoling dietary factors are now
generally thought to represent the largest source of cancer risk, perhaps related to 30-40% of
all cancers. Although synthetic chemicals such as industrial pollutants and pesticides present
in trace amounis in our food supply may contribute to dietary risk, recent studies have
suggested that this con is trivial relative to other "non pollutant" factors. For example, the
risk of breast cancer in women (second only to lung cancer in incidence and mortality) is
significantly increased by high fadieus, and the amount of fiber in the diet substantially
influences the risk of colon cancer, a major site of cancer in both men and wom

The largest source of exposure to cancer-causing chemicals may not be industrial

pollution, but chemicals that occur narurally in our diet. all plants produce toxic chemicals as
a means of protection against insects, fungi and animal predators. has been estimated that we
ingest in our diet about 10,000 times more of "nature's pesticides" than man-made chemical
residues. Many of these chemicals are potent mutagens and carcinogens, and are frequently
present at levels thousands of times higher than the trace levels of synthetic pesticide residues
and industrial chemicals sometimes found in food crops. For example, narural chemicals
which are potentially carcinogenicare found in mushrooms, parsley, basil, fenne, pepper
celery, figs, and mustard, to name a few The vast majority of cemicals present in foods (tens
of thousands) have never been tested to determine if they might be carcinogenic. Also,
cooking of foods, especially meats, forms highly mutagenic and perhaps carcinogenic
chemicals from nanural precursors such as certain protein components. Taken together the
dietary risk factors from natural sources, often present in relatively high amounts, are far
more important than the pesticide residues and industrial chemicals that can often be detected
at exceedingly small concentrarions in our diets. Unfortunately, because of the relatively high
exposure to carcinogens from narural sources, he complete elimination of synthetic industrial
chemicals from our diet, ifir were possible would noi likely have any sigaificantbeneficial
effect on Cancer incidence and mortality.

There is no question that extensiveexposure industrial chemicals can increase the risk
of certain types of cancer Every effort should be made to identify and reduce workplace
exposure to these chemicals. However, the reliance upon a 1978 report of the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare which stated that "20 to 38% of all cancers could be atributed
to occupational exposure to just 6 industrial chemical is no longer valid. The authors of this
report ,acknowiedge that this was a substantial overestimation of the contribution of
occupational exposures to total cancer incidence. Most authoritati e sources now estimate
that ocupational exposures account for nu more than 5 to 10% of all cancers, and many of
these cancers are a result of extensi exposures to asbestos and a few other industrial
carcinoge that were commonplace in the 1950s and 1960s, but have since been greatly
reduced (although certainly not eliminated). Of course, 5% is too high, and every effort
should be made to reduce this contribution further
 Finally, recenr advances in the understanding of the biologi of cancer suggest that
"spontaneous" or "background" alterations in DNA may explain much ot the cause of cancer.
The use of modern techniques in molecular biology has revealed that DNA is inherently
unstable and can be altered by norma errors in DNA replication. DNA is subject to extensive
dame from processes associated with normal cellular metabolism within our life span, our
cells undergo about 10 million billion

LUZT It's Not what You Think

You feel dizzy. Your head spins. Vour insides ache. You haven't been yourself for
weeks. What may be ailing you is LUST but not the usual kind. Your symptoms may be
caused by the latest in a long list of hazardous chemical problems, groundwater pollution
from a leaking underground storage tank, which EPAs top acronymists have dubbed LUST

Underground tanks containing petroleum by-products toxic chemicals, and hazardous

wastes deteriorate over time, springing leaks and dripping out their toxic substances.
Moisture and soil acidity 2re primarily responsible for the leaks. The main concern is the
potential effecton groundwater and human health. Even a small leak can contaminate large
quantities of groundwater. For example, a leak of only 1.5 cups of hazardous liquid per hour
can contaminate nearly 3.8 million liters (1 million gallons) of groundwater in a single day.
Contaminated groundwater is very difficult and expensive to clean up (Chapter 16). In some
cases, it may be impossible to clean.

Many people in affected areas have switched to bouled water, only a temporary
solution at best. Contamin Bated water used for baths and showers can also be dangerous.
Benzene, a component of gasoline that can cause cancer is absorbed through the skin when
bathing. Shova ering generates dangerous vapors that can cause skin and eye irritation

A report by the New York DepartmentofEnvironmental Conservation suggosts thatat

least half of the state's underground steel tanks containing petroleum products over 15 years
old may now be leaking. Nationwide, 3 to 5 million underground storage tanks containing
hazardous materials dot the United States. The EPA estimates that 200,000 to 400,000
(maybe more) of these tanks are leaking

Major oil companies have already spent millioms to clean up polluted groundwater
and soil. Many other companies have installed new tanks at a quicker pace to avoid further
contamination, but the cost of such actions can be exorbitant. Chevron alone estimates ins
replacement costs at about $100 milliori. Unfortunately, half of ser vice stations are owned by
independeni dealers, who gencrally are not financially able to replace the leaking tanks.
Many tanks that could be leaking are under schools, police stations, and private homes.
 About 90% of the cleanup and replacement of leaking tanks is being financed and
performed by private industry. The rest is being done by the states themselves. Tie EPA sets
guidelines for cleanup and replacement and also provides financial assistance to help states.
Today, more than 30 states have their own funds to pay for part of the cleanup cost. State and
federal funds are derived from taxes on gasoline.

Attacking Hazardous Wastes on Two Fronts

Two hazardous waste problems face society today; (1) what to do with the enormous
amounts of hazardous waste produced each year, and (2) what to do with the leaking waste
disposal sites or with areas like times beach, missouri, wich was contaminated by road oil
containing dioxin.

What to Do with Today's Waste

The Legal Approach In 1976 congressional reprentatives proudly announced ough,

new law-the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) designed to cut back on
illegal and improper waste disposal. What are its major provisions? First, RCRA named the
Environmental Protection Agency as the hazardous waste watchdog. The EPA's first role was
ro determine which wastes were hazardous. Second, RCRA called on the agency to establish
a nationwide reporting system for all companies handling hazardous chemicals. This
requirement created a trail of paperwork that would fol low hazardous wastes from the
moment they were generated to the moment they were disposed of from cradle to grave. This
stipulation, Congress believed would make it difficult for waste generators to dump wastes
improperly. Third, and perhaps most important RCRA directed the EPA to set industrywide
standards for packaging, shipping, and disposal of wastes. Only licensed facilities could
receive.

Wastes fortunately, RCRAs implementation has been slow. It was not until four years
after Congress passed the act that the EPA came up with its first hazardous waste regulations.
To the dismay of many, the regulations were full of loopholes, so much so that about 40
million metric tons of pollutants escaped control each year!

Public pressure mounted, and in 1984 Congress passeda set of tough amendments to
RCRA eliminate loop holes and ensure proper waste disposal. For example under the original
law if a company produced under 1000 kilograms (2200 pounds) of hazardous wastes per
month it could dump them in a local garbage dump if it wanted Today any generator of waste
over 100 kilograms (220 pounds) must follow the same guidelines imposed on large waste
producers. In a bold move Congress's 1984 amendments declared that it was the national
polic to reduce or eliminate land disposal of hazardous waste. Congress made it clear that
land-disposal technologies must be considered a last resort. Preference is given to recycling,
destruction, and other processes, discussed below. Unfortunately, these recommendations are
often ignored. The newest additions to RCRA also address the problem of leaking
underground storage tanks. Beginning in May 1985 all newly installed underground tanks
must be protected from corrosion for the life of the tank The lining of the tank must be
compatible with stored substances. Owners and operators must have methods for detecting
leaks, must take corrective action when a leak occurs, and must report such action.

RCRA, while an important first step in helping us solve the hazardous waste problem,
still has many loop that critics want eliminated. Ihe most important change would be
broadening the definition of hazardous to include many wastes that now escape very
stringent controls. Michael Picker of the National Toxics Campaign, for example, thinks that
municipal waste itself should be classified as hazardous wasue because it contains toxic
chemicals, such as pesticides, that are routinelv discarded in municipal trasi. Leachates from
some municipal land fills are as toxic as those coming from regulated hazard ous waste
facilities. Picker also thinks that sewage and untreated wastewater handled by publicly
owned sewage treatment plants should be considened a hazardous waste Toxic chemicals in
the sewer system, which are released by factories and by homeowners, can escape into the air
and into waterways. Agricultural wastes, mostly pesticides are also not regulated. In
California, or exampie, rules require that leftover pesticides be diluied and sprayed into the
environment. Mill and mine tailings are also excluded from most regulatory control. By
expanding the definition of what is toxic and instituting better controls the government could
greatly cut back on the constant flow of hazardous materials into the increasingly poisoned
environment.

One lesson we have learned in the past 20 years is that the passing of law is not a
guarantee of protection. Why? For one, agencies whose responsibility it is to administer and
enforce new programs under new environmental laws don't always do as they are instructed.
Some drag their feet because they don't approve of the law. More commonly, agencies are so
badly underfunded and overworked that they can't take on new responsibilities or, if they do,
they do a shoddy The EPA is a case point. Understaffed and underfunded, the EPA today
struggles to implement RCRA and other laws aimed at protecting

Exporting Toxic Troubles

Tough regulations and rising costs for hazardous waste disposal in the Unlted States have led
many industrial hazardous waste producers to look to foreign countries as a place to dump
their hazardous materials. Today, most US waste, including municipal solid waste, is dealt
with domestically some goes to Canada and Mexico, but an increasing amount is finding its
way to Third World nations.
Developing nations in needofcash to pay foreign debt have fallen victim to
unscrupulous wastetraders Mary ofthetraders have no qualms about characterizing a produca
as less hazardous than it realy is. Cities with tight budgeus, like Philadelphia, have found
that environmental laws have made costs prohibitive and are looking elsewhere for waste
disposal sites They are finding that it is much cheaper for them to ship their waste to Africa
or Central America where it can be disposed of at a fraction of the cost in the Urited States
 The problem with exporting waste is that many of the countries that receive the
waste dontknow what is in it, don't know how toxic the materials really are, and don't have
facilities to store it or dispose of it properly
In March 1988 a Norwegian freighter arrived on Africa's west coast to deliver a
cargo listed as raw materials for bri A Guirea concrcte manufacturer had purchased the
material to build roads and cinder blocks. Unfortunately the marerial proved to be terribly
inadequare-Bricks crumbled in the of laborers. Moreover, trees near the piles where the
material was stored before use began to die. On closer examinarion the brick riateral turned
out to bo ash from 2 Philadelphia garbage incinerator hat contained heavy metals and
dioxins
The ash kad originally been destined for Panama, where it was to be used to build a
road through a wetlands, but the environmental group Greenpeace warned the government.
that the material would cause incredible damage. The government halted the shipment and
the seller founda new home in Africa.
In Tecate, Mexico, Mexican officials found uhat 400,000 liters (100,000 gallons) of
hazardous materials had been carelessly dumped on the ground. Thewaste came from the
United States and had been shipped uo a bogus, un licensed Mexican recycling compuny
and dumped near Tecate
These incidents stirred debaue on what the United Stares can do to regulate the
export of hazai dous materials. In 1986 Congress amended the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RORA) by establishing procedures to nutify importing countries and also to
require a prior writen consent. These regulations, however, are already under fire. EPA
officials think that hundreds of tons of hazardous wastes are being exported illegally
The practice of exporting hazurdous waste, besides polluting Third World nations.
may also prove to be bud politics The relationship between Nigeria and Italy for example,
was severely strained after nearly 3000 metric tons of highly toxic waste weredumpedim the
Africancountry in 1988 byan Italian businessman, Citizens expressed outrage over the
incident. The military govemment of Nigeria, in fact, threatened executions, arrested 15
alleged dumpers, and seized two Italian ships. the US continues to allow hazardous waste to
be shipped to developing nations, similar political nighmares
Exporting hazardous waste to a nation without its fun consent goes against important
principles of international law. Many African nations have agreed toa resolution condemning
the disposal of toxic wastes on African soil. Other nations in the developing World are
following theAfrican lead The Orga rizadon of Eastern Caribbean States in 22Latin
American countries, for instance, has joined forces to stop the dumping of hazardous wastes
on their soils. In May 1988 the European parliament passed a resolution calliog for, an end
to large-scale hazardous waste export-to developing oountries. Currently Europe annually
exports 2pprormately 450,000 metrics tons of toxic waste Thetwelve member European
Community adopted initiatives that require prior notification as well assurance that the
recipient is capable oi properly handling the waste. In the United Nations talks are under
way for she development of global standards to regulate transboundary movement of
hazardous waste: This action say some environmentalists, is a step in the wrong direction,
for it could end up promoting export and not encorraging waste reducetion. Furthermore,
regulating such a system and enforcing such a program could prove n be a nightmare.
On the legal front, there are several major options open to the United States. We
could maintai: the existing regulatory structure under RCRA which is ineffective and full of
loop holes, or amend RCRA so that the government can more effectively monitor the
hazardous waste trading
Others believe that a complete ban on the international movement of waste may be
the best answer. This would help protect the environment from inadequate disposal methods
and would help nations develop long-term solutions that reduce hazardous waste production.
Ultimately the waste trade is not a problem in itself, but a symptom of the failure of
the developed world to intelligendy deal with its overproduction of waste, says Greenpeace
author Judy Christrup. Banning the international waste trade would help stop the
contamination of the environment. Providing waste makers with an escape valve such as
export moves us in the wrong direction. The only real solution is to reduce toxic waste at its
source, that is, to stop it before it is produced.

Adapted from: Christrup. 1. (1988). Reum Scnder: Clamping daan on the International Waste Trade. Green
Novi Dec. 1988 13 (6): 8-11

Figure 18-5. A three-tier hicrarchy of options for handling hazardous wastes The top tier reduces the
hazardous waste stream; it contains the most desirable options. The middle tie converts hazardous
 materials into nonhazardous or less hazardous substances. Perpetual storage, the lowest tler, is the least
desirable, but often the cheapest, alternative.

public health and the environment. Since the agency was formed its workload has
more than doubled, but funding has remained at more cr less the same level when we adjust
for inflation) until very recently. Even now increases only partly offset the remarkable
increase in potential workload

Another lesson that time has taught us is that tougher legislation often has
unanticipated effects. Because disposing of wastes properly invariably costs more than
dumping wastes in sewers and in lakes and streams tougher laws can lead to increased illegal
dumping unscrupulous business people. The high cost of hazardous waste management has
also led some companies to seek foreign countries that are willing to take their waste Hungry
for money, these countries will take the waste and dump it in ways that would be illegal here.
(For more on this practice, see Case study 18-1

Technological Answers In 1983 the prestigious National Academy of Sciences issued

a lengthy report out lining, in order of desirability, many of the United States options for
handling hazardous wastes (Figure 18-5). At the top of the list are in-plant options, changes
that can be made to reduce hazardous waste production. Changes in the way products are
manufactured can drastically cut waste. In a report called Cutting Chemical Wastes, a group
called Inform outlines numerous options that can help cut toxics use. Industry, for example,
can change the raw materials it uses, substituting a nontoxic or less toxic substance for high
toxic materials cleo wrap the world's largest producer of gift wrapping, for example switched
inks and cut the production of hazardous waste by 140,000 kilograms (300,00U pounds
ayear. Industri can also change the components of a product, eliminating ones that might be
harmful or produce harmful by products during manufacturing. Companies can also better
monitor their processes to locate leaks that may be emitting toxic wastes into the air, ground,
or water. On Chemical, for example, installed floating lids over some vats containing volatile
organic compounds, thus greatly reducing losses from evaporation. The Office of Technology
Assessment argues that American industries could reduce or prevent more than 50% of the
nation's hazardous wasto generation by applying such measures. In some instances wastes
can be separared and purifaed yielding salable or reusable chemicals. Recycling and reuse
strategies help cut waste and may save companies millions of dollars a year in operating
costs. The recycling and-reuse option also eliminates the cost of waste disposal, cuts down on
potential environmental and health damage, and saves valuabie raw materials, including
energy.

Not every waste product can be used, however. There-fore, some waste will always
be produced--the less the better. The academy recommended thar these remaining wastes be
destroyed or detoxified, converted to less hazardous materials. Detoxification can be
accomplished for certain types of waste by applying them to land and mixing them with the
top layer of soil. where they are broken down by chemical reactions, oxidation by sunlight, or
by-

Figure 18-6. A mobile hazardous waste incinerator owned and operated by the

EPA avoids the problem of transporting exceptionally dangerous materials.

Bacteria or other organisms in the soil. Some nondegradable wastes may be absorbed
onto soil particles and held there indefinitely. Others may migrate into deeper layers. Land
trearment is an expensive option, requiring care to avoid polluting ecosystems, poisoning
cattle and other animals, and contaminating groundwater.

Destroying hazardous wastes by incineration is a questionable option. High-

temperature furnaces at stationary vaste disposal sites, on ships that can burn their wastes at
sea, and on mobile trailers can all burn organic wastes (Figure 18.6). Oil or natural gas is
used as a fuel Hazardous substances are injected into the furnace or mixed with the fuel
before combustion. In 1985 the EPA announced that its new mobile incinerator destroyed
99.9999% of the dioxin wastes in soil and liquids. Officials at the EPA are optimistic that the
incinerator will be useful in clearing up dioxin wastes at sites targeted for cleanup by
Congress. Critics point out, however, that these results come from tests run under optinal
conditions. In real life, incinerators must handle a wide variety of wastes that may not burn
so eficiently.

Incineration can provide energy for plant operations can eliminate toxic organic
wastes such as dioxin and PCBs, and can reduce perpetual storage. However, com munities
often object to incinerators, fearing environmental ination because of possible spills during
transport or emissions and leaks from the plants. Incinerators may not always perform
adequately and operating personnel may bypass regulations. Communities have real cause to
be concerned about the placement of 3 toxic incinerator.

Low-temperature decomposition of cyanide and toxic organics such as pesticides

offers some promise. In this technique wastes are mixed with air and maintained under high
pressure while being heated to 45 to 600 C (84 to 1100 F) during The process organic
compounds are broken into smaller biodegradable molecules. Valuable materials can be
extracted and recycled This process uses less energy than incineration

Chemical, physical, and biological agents can be used to detoxify or neutralize

hazardous wastes. For example,lime can neutralize sulfuric acid. Ozone can be used to break
up small organic molecules, nitrogen compounds and cyanides. Toxic wastes can be
encapsulared with plastic waterproof seal, lowering the risk of land disposal. Many bacteria
can degrade or detoxify organic wastes and may prove helpful in the future. New strains
capable of destroying a wide variety of organic wastes may be developed through genetic
engineering

In-plant modifications and conversion technologies hat destroy or detoxify wastes

cannot rid us of all of our waste. By various estimates, 25% to 40 of the waste stream will
remain even after the best efforts to recycle reuse, and destroy it.

Wastes that cannot be destroyed entirely and detoxified wastes as well must be stored.
Residual waste can be dumped in secured landfills, excavated pits lined by synthetic liners
and thick, theoretically impermeable layers of clay. To lower the risk of leakage, landfills
should be placed in arid regions neither over aquifers nor near major water supplies. Special
drains must be installed to catch any liquids that leak out of the site. Groundwrater and air
should be monitored to detect leaks

Growing public opposition to hazardous wastes makes it more dificult for companies
to find dump sites. Observers have labeled this the NIMBY syndrome: get rid of the stuff, but
not in my backyard. It seems that most people want the products that make waste or give
little thought to their purchase, but no one wants the wastes dumped (or even burned) nearby.
New studies show that landfill liners are not as reliable as once thought, further supporting
community doubts

Even though the EPA has issued tough new regulations for landfills, critics argue that
landfills are only a temporary solution. No matter how well constructed they are they will
eventually leak. Landfills are one of the cheapest waste disposal practices in use today and
are therefore highly favored by industry But savings today, critics warn are inevitably
charged to future generation3. In an attein to avoid making problems for future generations,
the EPA has drawn up a list of chemicals that cannot be disposed of in landfills other methods
of perpetual storage include C1) use of surface impoundments and specially built warehouses
that hold wastes in ideal conditions and prevent any material from leaking into the
environment, (2) deposition in geologically stable salt formations, and (3) deposition deep in
the ground in arid regions where groundwater is absent.

Barriers to Waste Reduction The most effective way of reducing hazardous waste
problemns is to cut back on the generation of wastes in the first place. Unfortunately, when
the EPA besan its hazardous waste control program in the United States it spawned a large
and lucrative treatment and disposal industry. This politically powerful industry with its close
ties to government may be thwarting the development of waste minimization strategies.

The EPA today spends less than 5% of its hazardous Waste budget on preventing
pollution. Decreasing hazardous waste production would undercut the hazardous waste
management industi y and discourage investment in an industry spawned by EPA action.
"Hazardous waste regulators, says Picker, "tied to the needs of the industry they foster have a
powerful incentive to encourage waste production

This bias toward waste disposal and treatment, the riches that can be made in the
industry, and some Americans' blind faith in technologies such as incinerators and secured
landfills, are three barriers to a system of hazardous waste management. (For more on
barriers to sustainability, see Chapter 20.)

Disposing of High-Level Radioactive wastes High level radioactive wastes are some
of the United States most hazardous wastes, but they have long been ignored Even today,
despite the buildup of 18,000 metric tons of spent uranium from commercial reactors and
8000 to 9000 metric tons of Department of Defense high-level waste from weapons
production, the country is withou a solution. The seriousness of continued delay is under
scored by three facts: many radioactive wastes have a long lifetime, some materials can
concentrate in animal tissue and radiation poses a serious threat to human health (Chapter 12)

High-level radioactive waste is not a problem that will go away, even though the
American nuclear power industry faces bad times. By 2000, experts predict, 40,000 more
tons of radioactive wastes will have been generated by existing commercial plants. Expanded
nuclear capacity (possible in the future), continued operation of the existing facilities, and
construction of nuclear weapons necessitate long-term, low-risk storage of nuclear wastes,
and soon. But progress in developing storage sites has been painfully slow.

The 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act established a strict Department of Energy to
choose sites timetable for the for disposal of high-level radioacive wastes. According to the
act, the Department of Energy (DOE) had to select a site by 1987, and the site must be in
operation by 1998 States have the right to veto sites unless overridden by troth houses of
Congress. If a veto stands, a new site must be chosen. Sites in Nevada, Washington, and
Texas have been selected, among many others. In 1986 the Washington site vvas dropped. In
1987, the Texas site was also dropped by Congress. The Department of Energy must focus all
of its resources on studying the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada. The
decision to limir the search to one site was made to save money and to quiet public protest
over the two other sites. Studying a single site will cost over $1 billion. The Yucca Mountain
site seemed the most suitable based on preliminary data. This decision, however, has not
pleased many Nevadans. In order for federal decision makers to approve the site they must be
elatively sure that future earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and climate change will not
threaten the stability of the repository. State geologists question the accuracy of some of the
federal research on the geological stability of the Yucca Mountain site, 100 miles northwest
of Las Vegas. Federal scientists may be analyzing dieir data in a way that underestimates the
nazards of the Yucca Mountain site

If the Nevada site passes a set of criteria, and the state doesn't oppose its construction,
workers will dig a repo sitory 600 meters (2000 feet below the surface of the earth to store
high-level wastes. Nuclear wastes from power plants and defense facilities all over the
United States and possibily from other countries) will be shipped in casks to their
Chopefully) permanent home However, if the Nevada site proves unsatisfactory, the process
begins again, delaying construction even more.

Many authorities believe that deep geological disposal is the best option for dealing
with dangerous radioactive wastes. However, little is known about the interaction between
heat generated from radioactive wastes and the rock and near groundwater. Still, deep rock
and salt formations 600 to 1200 meters (2000 to 4000 feet below the surface in geologically
stable regions are believed to be the best option for keeping wastes from entering
groundwater and contaminating the environment.

Some people have suggested transporting wastes into space. Cost, energy
requirements, and material requirements would be major problems. Disposal of radioactive
wastes from a single 1000-megawatt nuclear plant would cost over $1 million a year.
Furthermore, radioactive cap sules shot into space might someday return to earth or in a
replay of the Ciallenger tragedy, never make it out of our atmosphere.

Others have suggested dumping radioactive wastes on uninhabited lands in the Arctic
and Antarctica. Too little is known about the effects of this disposal technique for Experts to
assess its safety and effectiveness

Radioactive waste can be bombarded with neutrons in special reactors to transmute,

or convert, some of it into less harmful substances. However, existing reactors do a poor job
of altering cesium-137 and strontium-90, two of the more dangerous by-products of nuclear
fission.

Seabed disposal has been used in the past by the United States and European
countries but is now forbidden. Still, some scientists suggest that the sea may promide a site
for radioactive wastes: the effects are difficult to predict.
 A final suggestion has been to build special anks on the ground: individual canisters
would be placed in enormous 35-ton steel casks surrounded by a thick concrete covering.
Canisters might also be stored in cooled and guarded warehouses.

Ironically, the Uuited States nas spent billions ofdollars of private and public money
on nuclear reactors but very little on research on radioactive wastes. The disposal issue is
independent of the future of nuclear veapons and nuclear power; a complete ban on nuclear
weapons and nuclear power would not solve the problems of accumuiated waste. Therefore,
wisdom dictates establishing a cost-effective and low-risk dismethod, keeping in mind the
costs to future societies.

Disposing of Low- and Medium-Level Radioactive Wastes Low-level from waste hospitals
and research laboratories is packaged and shipped to three sites in Nevada, Washington, and
South Carolina for dis The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is currently trying to reclassify
low-level wastes so they can be discarded in ordinary sanitary landfills, the dumps where
your garbage ends up. This proposal has some health officials and environmentalists up in
arms.

Medium-level waste from nuclear power plants and weapons facilities is znother
matter altogether. The United States also has, as yet, no permanent repository for these
wastes

The Department of Energy built what could be the first medium-level radioactive
waste depository in New Mexico, called WiPP (Waste Isolation Pilot Plant). WIPP is an
experimental project, which, if successful, could be expanded to full operation. In August,
1988, however two months before the site was to begin receiving wastes, the Department of
Energy announced that it would post-pone the opening. Researchers were concerned about
the safety of the $700 million facility, which has been carved out of salt deposits 630 meters
(2100 feet) below the ground near Carlsbad, New Mexico. Early in 1988 water had leaked
into the facility, leading a New Mexico State scientific advisory committee to question the
safety of the site. Water might corrode the steel canisters, allowing radiation to leak.
According to the EPA, the Energy Department has not yet dcmonstrated diat the fadlity will
meet EFA standards for radioactive waste storage At this writing, while dangerous medium-
level wastes build up the Department of Energy has offered no revised date for opening.
B. S
C. S
D. S
E. S
F. S
G. s