RACHEL's Hazardous Waste News #140

=======================Electronic Edition========================

RACHEL’S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #140
—August 1, 1989—
News and resources for environmental justice.
——
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org
==========
The Back issues and Index
are available
here.
The official RACHEL archive is here.
It’s updated constantly.
To subscribe, send E-mail to rachel-
weekly-
request@world.std.com

with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It’s free.
===Previous Issue==========================================Next Issue===

WHAT HAVE NIMBYS DONE FOR ME LATELY?

The term NIMBY is now at least 10 years old. So far as we can
trace the term back, it was invented by the nuclear power
industry to describe people who opposed the siting of nuclear
power plants nearby.

There are three NIMBY positions:

1) Society needs these things but I don’t want one near me
because they’re dangerous, so put it near someone else;

2) Society needs these things but I don’t want one near me
because they’re dangerous, and therefore no one should live near
one, so site them all remote from humans;

3) Society does not need any of these things and/or would be
better off without them, so I oppose siting them anywhere.

People trying to site new waste facilities (dumps and
incinerators) like to classify all their opponents as NIMBYs of
the first kind. The first type of NIMBY gives a self-centered but
rational response to a problem. NIMBYs of the second and third
kinds are not only rational, but they also have a broader
perspective.

Those who want to site new waste facilities argue:

1) Incinerators and dumps are no more dangerous than other things
people routinely accept;

2) They meet all government regulations;

3) Society has an obligation to accept these facilities because
society DEMANDS the products that create the wastes;

4) Society has an obligation to accept these facilities because
they are better than the facilities they replace.

We’ll discuss these points in order:

1) People have a right to choose the risks they are willing to
endure, and one person has no inherent right to impose a risk on
another person. If I choose to accept the risks of smoking
tobacco but I refuse to allow you to truck radioactive wastes
through my neighborhood, that is a legitimate choice for me to
make. You may disagree with my particular choice, and you may
wish to make different choices for yourself, but you have no
right to impose your choice on me. Even if “you” represent the
majority, it is still dubious whether you have the right to
impose your hazards on me; the Constitution presumes that you do
NOT have that right and we have elaborate legal mechanisms for
settling such questions.

2) Unfortunately, federal and state regulations are so skimpy (so
few, so lax, so unenforced) that waste facilities can be quite
dangerous and still meet all regulations. For example, as
NEWSWEEK points out (July 24, 1989, pg. 28), after 19 years of
effort, Congress and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) have established air quality regs for only seven toxic air
pollutants. Municipal solid waste incinerators emit at least 216
chemicals (or classes of chemicals, such as polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, many of which cause cancer in animals) [see RHWN #35], so it
is entirely reasonable to believe that one’s health
may be harmed by a municipal solid waste incinerator that meets
every regulation. The regs simply don’t protect public health and
safety.

But let’s be specific. We are currently opposing a new mass burn
incinerator in Falls Township, PA, about six miles from our
office. It will burn 2250 tons per day of municipal solid waste.
The proponent of the project (Wheelabrator) admits the plant will
emit the following pollutants each year: lead, 5 tons;
non-methane hydrocarbons, 8 tons; mercury, 17 tons; nitrogen
oxides, 2248 tons; sulfur dioxide, 853 tons; hydrogen chloride
(acid), 777 tons; sulfuric acid mist, 87 tons; fluorides, 18
tons; particles (PM10), 98 tons; cadmium, 580 pounds; nickel, 580
pounds.

This is a “state-of-the-art” incinerator, the very best that
money can buy, says Wheelabrator. But the lead emissions equal
the amount of lead put out by 2500 AUTOMOBILES DRIVING for a year
on leaded gasoline; the U.S. is phasing out leaded gasoline
because of the airborne lead hazard–does it make sense to now
burn garbage and introduce a new lead hazard? It does not. Any of
the three NIMBY responses to such a proposal makes sense.

Look at the mercury emissions from this state-of-the-art furnace:
17 tons per year. Back in 1971, the largest mercury polluters
(paper companies) rapidly cut their mercury emissions below one
ton per year–and then they changed technologies to pollute even
less. Mercury accumulates in the food chain and has serious,
irreversible effects on the human brain–it destroys brain cells,
leaving tiny cavities inside the skull. Again, any of the three
NIMBY responses make sense.

Look at the other pollutants on the list: fluorides, cadmium, and
nickel are toxic; non-methane hydrocarbons are a mixed brew of
carcinogens; nitrogen oxides (2248 tons of them) contribute to
the world’s worsening acid rain problem.

Wheelabrator will put the ash from this operation (562 tons of it
each day, 7 days a week) into a double-lined landfill. After 20
years, Wheelabrator will walk away from the dump, leaving local
people to worry about the following quantities of toxic heavy
metals, which will never degrade: 242,260 pounds of arsenic,
271,000 pounds of cadmium, 546,140 pounds of chromium, 1,067,620
pounds of nickel, and 23,569,860 pounds of lead. This is a “state
of the art” double-lined landfill, the best that money can buy,
Wheelabrator says. The HDPE (high density polyethylene) liners
are guaranteed by the liner manufacturer not to leak for 20 years.
But the metals are guaranteed (by God, or Nature) to remain toxic
for millenia. Again, any of the three NIMBY responses make sense.

These proposals could only slip through if local citizens
remained glued to their TV sets. It is a credit to their
alertness, their concern, and their energy that they are fighting
these proposals vigorously. If it weren’t for the NIMBYs (of all
three kinds), these proposals would be sailing through unopposed.

3) People may use the products that industry makes, but people do
not demand that they be made with dangerous chemicals. The
consumer demand for dangerous chemicals is created by the
companies that use dangerous chemicals in manufacture. In the
1970s, when American consumers boycotted (later outlawed)
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in spray cans, to protect the earth’s
ozone shield in the stratosphere, CFC demand plummeted. In
response, the CFC producers set their marketing departments to
work and developed replacement markets in the electronics
industry, where CFCs are now the standard way of cleaning circuit
boards. The CFC manufacturers had hundreds of millions of dollars
tied up in CFC production plants and felt they couldn’t afford to
lose their investment. But to blame the consumer, claiming the
consumer created the demand for these products, is simply not
true. The marketing of newly-created products is carefully
managed to manipulate consumer demand. For example, the campaign
to shift consumers to plastic bags at the grocery store had three
phases: during the first phase, the supermarket checker asked you
if you wanted paper or plastic; in phase two, you had to ask for
paper; in the final stage, you accepted plastic or nothing.

4) Newsweek magazine claimed July 24 that NIMBYs must be
“arrested” because “NIMBY patrols oppose nearly all construction
of new waste facilities, which has the effect of locking society
in to already-existing facilities–the lousy old designs.” But
the truth is, the new designs suffer from the same flaws as the
old designs: they are inadequate to protect the public and the
planet. The new designs are simply the lousy old designs dressed
up with a fresh coat of whitewash. There are sound reasons to
oppose them and, until adequate designs are put forth, NIMBYs of
all three kinds provide a needed service to the nation.
–Peter Montague, Ph.D.

Descriptor terms: nimby; incineration; landfilling;
wheelabrator; lead; mercury; nitrogen oxides; fluorides; arsenic;
air pollution; water pollution; beryllium; sulfur dioxide;
cadmium; nickel; fine particles;

Next Issue