=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #85
—July 11, 1988—
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===
STATE OF THE ART DANGERS LURK IN ‘SPECIAL WASTE’ ASH REMOVAL.
Whenever someone proposes a new chemical dump or a new
incinerator, or a new gizmo to intercept enemy missiles, they try
to sell it to us by claiming it is “state of the art.” The phrase
originated among military contractors who are skilled at finding
new words to describe familiar items. For example, military
contractors have found that, if they call a hammer a “metallic
compression device,” they’ve got a better chance of selling one
to the Pentagon for $600. If they call it a “state of the art”
metallic compression device, maybe it will bring $800.
Now everyone is selling “state of the art” this and that. For
example, Congressman James Florio (D-NJ) introduced a bill into
U.S. Congress last week requiring the ash from municipal
incinerators to be called ‘special waste’ (as distinct from
hazardous waste), and to be dumped into landfills. And the
Congressman’s press release called these ash landfills “state of
the art” in design.
What does “state of the art” really mean? It just means “the
best we can do today.” Nothing more.
For citizens looking at some proposal (such as Mr. Florio’s
landfills), “state of the art” doesn’t matter. It is not
important whether some project is state of the art. The right
question to ask is: “Is it adequate to protect public health and
safety?”
If some proposed facility can’t protect public health and safety,
who cares if it’s state of the art? If it’s a danger to the
community, who wants it, even if it is state of the art? On the
other side of the coin, if some project is adequate to protect
public health and safety, who cares if it’s “state of the art” or
not? If it is adequate, that’s sufficient. Congressman Florio is
a longtime friend of the environment. He is intelligent and
thoughtful. His voting record is excellent. Mr. Florio was the
first person in Congress to use the phrase, “There is no such
thing as a secure landfill,” so we know he understands all
landfills leak. He was the original sponsor of the Superfund law
requiring at least $10 billion tax dollars to clean up leaking
landfills. But now, for some reason, Mr. Florio has decided to
help salvage the municipal incinerator industry, which is choking
on its own ash, and he has chosen to do it by promoting “state of
the art” landfills.
The ash from municipal incinerators is heavily laced with toxic
metals (lead, cadmium, arsenic, etc.) and is therefore
dangerous. Incinerator ash is actually more dangerous than the
raw garbage from which it was derived. Inside the incinerator,
garbage breaks up into tiny particles. The small particles have a
large surface area, relative to their volume. Metals collect on
the surface of the tiny particles and thus become available to
leach out of the ash when the ash is landfilled. Today’s ash
landfills are tomorrow’s superfund sites.
Mr. Florio’s “state of the art” ash landfills may be “state of
the art” so far as landfill design goes, but, as the Congressman
himself has often pointed out, all landfills eventually leak. So
ash landfills are not an adequate solution to the problem of
incinerator ash. The only adequate solution we know of is: don’t
make the ash, don’t incinerate garbage.
If you want to tell Congressman Florio what you think of his
“state of the art” ash landfills, drop him a post card at: The
Capitol, Washington, DC 20515; or phone (202) 225-6501.
–Peter Montague, Ph.D.
Descriptor terms: state of the art; incineration; ash; florio;
nj; congress; landfilling; leaks; toxicity; heavy metals;
particulates; leachates; sara; siting; msw;