“Hazardous Waste”- A Controversy

BY:

Thomas Dodson

Allison Arkfeld

Aaron Hoyos

Background Information

• In 1999, over 20,000 hazardous waste generators produced over 40 million tons of hazardous waste just in the United States.

• 71% of all U.S. hazardous waste comes from chemical and petroleum industries.

• 22% of all U.S. hazardous waste comes from metal processing and mining.

• Most of the hazardous waste comes from point sources.

Background Information (continued)

• In the United States, estimates for total clean-up of hazardous waste sites is between $370 billion and $1.7 trillion.

• The ten most superfund-hazardous materials are lead, trichloroethylene (TCE), toluene, benzene, PCB’s, chloroform, phenol, arsenic, cadmium, and chromium.

• Area’s most likely to be hazardous waste sites are smelters, mills, petroleum refineries, chemical manufacturing plants, mining facilities, and gasoline stations.

Background Information (still continuing)

• The average home can accumulate up to 100 pounds of hazardous household wastes.

• During the 1980’s, communities started special collection days or permanent collection sites for handling hazardous waste.

• Only 6% of all hazardous waste produced in the U.S. are legally defined as “hazardous waste”.

Materials NOT included in definition of Hazardous Waste

1. Radioactive waste2. Hazardous and Toxic materials discarded from

households3. Mining Waste4. Oil and Gas-drilling wastes5. Liquid wastes containing hydrocarbons6. Cement Kiln dust7. Wastes from businesses that produce less than

220 lb of hazardous waste per month.

Disposing of the Hazardous Materials

•Many types of businesses, both large and small generate hazardous waste.

•Examples: dry cleaners, auto repair shops, hospitals, exterminators, photo processing centers, chemical manufacturers, electroplanting companies, and petroleum refineries.

•Americans generate up to 1.6 million tons of waste per year.

Household Wastes

• Some main examples of common household items that are hazardous are paints, cleaners, oils, batteries, and pesticides.

• Most household items have labels that warn about the risk.

• Examples of these are – explosive, oxidizer, flammable gas, poison, corrosive, and dangerous when wet.

• Leftover portions of these products are called household hazardous waste (HHW)

Proper Household Waste Management:

1. Conserves resources and energy that would be expended in the production of more products.

2. Saves money and reduces the need for generating hazardous substances.

3. Prevents pollution that could endanger human health and the environment.

6 methods to dispose of hazardous materials

1. Discharge into streams and “dilute it”2. Locate the material to deep wells, salt caverns, or

specially designed landfills.3. Process it, detoxify it, recycle it, and so on.4. Store the material in pits, but 70% of

contaminate ponds do not have liners.5. Incinerate it.6. Store it in sealed drums, and the drums are

placed in hazardous waste landfills.

The Improper Dumping of Hazardous Waste…

• It is estimated that there are over 400,000 seriously contaminated sites in the United States.

• Only 100 of the 1400 sites on the National Priority List have been handled.

Environmental Protection Agency

• Environmental Protection Agency or a state hazardous waste agency enforces the hazardous waste laws in the United States.

• The EPA encourages states to assume primary responsibility for implementing the hazardous waste program through state adoption, authorization and implementation of the regulations.

Niagara Falls, New York (Love Canal)• In the 1940s and 50s the empty canal was used by

a chemical and plastics company to dump nearly 20,000 tons of toxic waste.

• The waste was sealed in metal drums in a manner that has since been declared illegal.

• The canal was then filled in and the land given to the expanding city of Niagara Falls by the chemical company.

• Housing and an elementary school were built on the site.

• By the late 1970s several hazardous chemicals had leaked through their drums and risen to the surface.

Love Canal- A Picture of the Disaster

What is a Superfund?

• The purpose of a superfund is to identify and clean up abandoned hazardous waste dump sites, such as the Love Canal, and leaking underground tanks that threaten human health and the environment.

• The cleanup is not paid for by taxpayers, instead they use the polluter-pays-principle.

• Meaning the potential liable culprit for the pollution has to pay for the entire cleanup.

Pictures of a Superfund Act

• Through NASA-funded protein crystal growth research, scientists have made an important step toward developing a treatment for Respiratory Syncytial Virus.

• It is a life-threatening virus that causes pneumonia and severe upper respiratory infection in infants and young children.All the research has to be done in

Space, above is Galactic Jet Fuel from the space shuttle.

Superfund's…YAY OR NAY

• Attempts are being made to improve the Superfund Act without seriously weakening it.

• The U.S. Office of Technology Assessment and the Waste Management Research Institute estimate that the Superfund list could eventually include at least 10,000 priority sites.

• The cleanup costs of up to $1 trillion, not counting legal fees.

Stop Superfund Waste

…the negative affects of the Superfund hazardous waste

cleanup program…

SuperfundSuperfund

• Created by the Comprehensive Created by the Comprehensive Environmental response, Environmental response, Compensation, and Liability Act of Compensation, and Liability Act of 19801980– $1.6 billion dollar program to $1.6 billion dollar program to

contain the damage and contain the damage and eventually clean up the nations eventually clean up the nations most dangerous abandoned toxic most dangerous abandoned toxic waste sites.waste sites.

What Superfund has become…

• It has evolved into an open-ended and costly crusade to return potentially thousands of sites to a near-pristine condition.

• This is resulting in a large and unjustifiable waste of the nation’s resources at the expense of other critical societal needs.

Costs Are Escalating• Estimates for cleanupEstimates for cleanup

– The 1,200 sites on the EPA’s The 1,200 sites on the EPA’s national priority list” range from national priority list” range from $32 billion to $60 billion$32 billion to $60 billion

– These estimates are well below These estimates are well below what the actually price for what the actually price for funding would be due to the fact funding would be due to the fact the more than 30,000 sites are the more than 30,000 sites are being considered for cleanup.being considered for cleanup.

Skewed PrioritiesSkewed Priorities• A key flaw in Superfund is A key flaw in Superfund is

that most of its effort and that most of its effort and money are directed to a money are directed to a relatively small number of relatively small number of “priority” sites, while “priority” sites, while thousands of others are thousands of others are ignored and, in most cases, ignored and, in most cases, not even sampled or studied.not even sampled or studied.

The Ranking Scheme• The EPA created a ranking scheme

that was not geared to actually finding the riskiest sites to clean, yet it was made to satisfy the letter of the CERCLA law.

• Sites were evaluated and a score of 28.5 (out of 100) was considered to be sufficient for an NPL listing due to the fact that Congress determined there must be 400 sites on the NPL and a score of 28.5 resulted in 413 listings.

Extreme Remedies• Once a site makes the NPL, money is

suppose to be no object in the remediation process. This was not necessarily the case under the original 1980 Superfund Law.

• SARA (Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act) increased funding for the program to $8.5 billion and ordered action to begin at more sites but to give preference to those that were in the worst conditions and could be helped permanently.

SARA’s Flaws• It effectively forced EPA to continue remedial

action even after all realistic risks at a site had been eliminated.

ex. Swope Superfund site• Excluded the use of other far less costly

remedies that would give the public the same or at least acceptable protection from harm– Ex. Bridgeport Rental and Oil Services Superfund site• Its not fair that one neighborhood can get a

permanent solution when another community gets a landfill with toxic residues from incineration and such.

Superfund’s Misleading Info.•The existence of toxic wastes

at a site does not necessarily mean that they pose a threat to nearby residents.

•Safety is not the focus of Superfund. It makes no rational attempt to link costs with benefits.

The Liability Mess

• The Superfund tab will have to be picked up by industry, through taxes imposed under CERLA, out-of-pocket cleanup costs, or settlements with insurance companies.

• CERCLA dictated a “polluter-pays” philosophy to deal with what had largely been lawful disposal of wastes. Any company remotely involved could be held responsible.

…Problems with Liability

• The liability system completely lacks cost accountability. With industry paying for most of the cleanup, the funds are not in EPA’s budget and thus do not have to compete in budget battles with other cash-starved federal programs.

• The liability provisions have pawned countless legal brouhahas that are consuming a large and increasing share of Superfund resources. – even after a site has finished its “permanent” cleanup process.

…Problems Continued

• Superfund’s emphasis on finding a one time, permanent solution magnifies the stakes to all parties, prolonging disputes and greatly increasing costs.

• The provisions have a negative effect on new investment at sites in older urban areas (that need investment). The reason is that any party that buys such a property would be caught in Superfund’s liability web.

What could happen…• The liability mess could get completely

out of hand if Congress goes along with a patently unfair proposal to exempt municipalities from liability at closed municipal landfills, which account for about 20% of NPL sites.

Steps to Reform

• EPA should first define the universe of sites that may present real health risks and then take steps to deal with immediate dangers, while thinking about the cost factor.

• Remedy decisions must be based on the expected future on the land and the cost and practicality of the proposed solution.

• EPA must have better information on the benefits and costs of different levels of cleanup.

More Steps

• The Liability provisions of the Superfund program also need to be changed

• The Liability scheme must be changed so that prospective owners of older urban sites are not deterred from making new investments in them.

How it was started

• Not much done about hazardous waste until 1978.

• 7.5 billion dollars spent since 1986

• 163 of 1,204 sites have been cleaned of hazardous wastes.

• Average cleanup cost it 25 million dollars

• Superfunds are meant to make the people responsible for the waste pay

• Many companies have the option of only cleaning up what they are responsible for.

• Avg. cost is $25,000,000, and it usually takes 7 to 10 years

• Many people have been dragged into superfund cleanups through legal responsibility

• Many towns, businesses, and families harmed.

• Some people are hurt by superfunds

• Takes place in low income areas

• surrounding areas may be polluted by old waste

Other problems with Superfunds

• EPA must hire subcontractors.

• Subcontractors can spend money frivolously

• Cost taxpayer dollars

• 28% of the $265 million dollar budget has been spent on wasteful administrative costs.

• 23 Companies have been taking part in such wasteful spending

• Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors were said to be the cause of pollution in Metamora, MI.

• They blamed 382 towns, businesses, and individuals for the problem.

• A local girl scout troop was even assessed $100,000 in damage.

• Many small businesses charged

• They pay unnecessary amounts of money

• Are tricked into thinking that they are responsible for pollution

• Polluters turn to insurance to pay for cleanup costs

• Insurance companies want to change laws, and make taxpayers pay for it.

• Superfunds are meant to protect the health of the public.

• Money to pay for cleanup could be raised from all economic sectors.

• Idea of Superfund law is a good one. Has good intentions

• Law had to be enacted by people who lobbied against it.

• Superfunds have enacted joint and several liability

• This has scared companies into being more careful about their waste

• Cost of cleanup is too high for companies to risk.

Superfund Recap

• Idea behind superfund is good

• Law needs reform• Discourages pollution• Can work in the future