=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #52
—November 23, 1987—
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===
PHILADELPHIA TRIES TO SHIP TOXIC ASH TO THE THIRD WORLD, BUT PLAN IS SUNK BY
SUPPRESSED EPA DATA
Incinerator problems in Philadelphia foreshadow the future for hundreds of communities across America.
The NEW YORK TIMES reported November 15 (pg. 1) that 210 municipal solid waste incinerators are under
construction now around the country, with many more to be built in the coming decade. And, said the
TIMES, 25 states have petitioned the U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) to have incinerator ash
officially declared “non-hazardous” so it can be dumped in municipal landfills and not handled (expensively)
as legally-hazardous waste. How the ash is handled–cheaply or expensively–could well determine the
viability of municipal incinerator technology. Philadelphia is facing the ash problem squarely now.
Philadelphia has been burning 40% of its trash in two large incinerators since the late-1970s. Initially, the ash
was dumped across the Delaware river in the Kinsley landfill in New Jersey. Then New Jersey got smarter
about landfill problems and closed Kinsley to Philadelphia’s ash in late 1984. Philadelphia sued NJ but lost.
Philadelphia had to–and still has to–find a permanent solution to its ash problem or close down its
incinerators. Pennsylvania landfills take some of the ash, but as citizens learn about the toxicity of
incinerator ash and about the certainty that landfills will all eventually leak, local fights develop and one
dump after another closes its gates to Philadelphia’s ash.
In December, 1986, Philadelphia’s mayor, Wilson Goode, announced a new plan: a contract had been signed
with a Pennsylvania firm, Bulkhandling, to barge a million tons of Philadelphia’s ash to the city of
Changuinola in the Province of Bocas del Toro in the country of Panama in Central America where it would
be mixed with sand and lime to build a highway 30 feet wide, three feet thick, and several hundred miles long.
The first year’s shipment would be 250,000 tons. Environmentalists raised their eyebrows at this plan but
only one group did anything about it: Greenpeace.
Greenpeace collected reports from the federal EPA showing that Philadelphia’s ash contains hazardous
levels of lead, cadmium, benzene and dioxin. It fed these reports to the Panamanian government through its
embassy in Washington. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in January, 1987, began
asking U.S. EPA in Washington whether the rumors were true, that the ash was toxic. EPA in Washington
relied on data from EPA Region III in Philadelphia and sent back word, “No problem.” But rumors and
questions persisted in Panama; in May, 1987, as Greenpeace and friends fanned the flames of doubt, the
U.S. Ambassador in Panama wired the U.S. State Department in Washington citing the chilling effect it
would have on international relations if Uncle Sam shipped dioxin-laced ash to foreign friends.
Throughout the summer, Panama’s interest in the proposal quickened. Then on September 8, one week
before the first shipment of ash was scheduled to leave Philadelphia by barge, two Greenpeace activists,
Kenn Hollis and Richard Harvey, scaled City Hall in downtown Philadelphia at 2:30 in the morning and hung
a huge banner to greet workers as they streamed into center city after sunrise; it said in English, “Don’t
Export Toxic Ash to Panama,” and in Spanish, “Don’t Poison Panama.” The two were arrested.
Simultaneously, Greenpeace provided Panamanian journalists with news that the ash shipment was
imminent–something no one in Panama knew. The resulting news stories in Panama raised an immediate
outcry. Two days later, Dr. Augustin Luna, a spokesperson for the Panamanian Ministry of Health, told
United Press International, “We have given orders to our defense forces that this trash cannot enter the
territorial waters of Panama.” “Panama won’t accept it for the same reason six states in the United States
won’t accept it,” he said.
Now EPA in Washington swung into high gear. A week later, internal documents show, half a dozen
branches of EPA hurriedly gathered data on Philadelphia’s ash. EPA’s Inspector General–the highest
investigative authority within the agency–put together a summary report dated October 5, 1987, which said,
“Our contacts with [U.S. government] experts confirm that the [Panamanian road-building] project will very
likely create serious environmental and human health damage.”
The Inspector General’s report makes many important points, among them:
** The Pennsylvania firm, Bulkhandling, in concert with a Norwegian shipping firm, has contracted with the
Panamanian city, Changuinola, to ship up to 660,000 tons of ash per year for 10 years, for a total of 6.6
million tons of ash. This is more than Philadelphia can produce, so there must be plans for other
(undisclosed) cities to ship their ash to Panama.
** Philadelphia’s ash is “considerably more toxic than previously publicized” by the regional EPA office in
Philadelphia. Region III EPA (in Philadelphia) had suppressed studies of the ash showing its true toxicity.
The EPA Inspector General describes in detail the evidence available to Region III, which was never
reported to Washington, and concludes, “It is clear from the above results that the actual levels of 2,3,7,8-
TCDD [dioxin], as well as the overall dioxin toxicity of the ash, are significantly greater than previously
publicized by Region III.” The report makes clear that the regional EPA office, like the city of Philadelphia,
had contrived to prevent the Panamanians from understanding what they were getting into.
** Although the ash may not meet the legal definition of hazardous waste, it can nevertheless damage the
environment: “And the presence of heavy metals and toxic chemicals, despite being generally below
hazardous waste thresholds, nevertheless may cause serious damage if released into the environment,” says
the Inspector General’s report, citing 1800 pounds of arsenic, 4300 pounds of cadmium, and 435,000 pounds
of lead in the first year’s shipment of 250,000 tons of ash. This is an important admission by a high EPA
official and incinerator fighters should note it and quote it.
Not surprisingly, the Panama caper came home to roost in Philadelphia. Local people, who have been
complaining about the city’s incinerators for nearly a decade, came out fighting: “If it’s bad for Panama, what
about the people up here?” asked Bill Schwartz, president of the Germany Hill Civic Association. It was not
lost on local people that the EPA Inspector General’s report revealed the ash contained more dioxin than the
soil at Times Beach, Missouri, where the whole town was evacuated in 1983, and that regional EPA officials
in Philadelphia had misrepresented the situation. Philadelphia in mid-October had 280,000 tons of ash stored,
awaiting final disposal. The city is not close to finding a solution; indeed, there is none in sight.
For the Inspector General’s report, write John C. Martin, Inspector General’s Office, EPA, 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20460; phone (202) 382-3137; request a copy of “Flash Report–Philadelphia Incinerator
Ash Exports for Panamanian Road Project–Potential Environmental Damage in the Making,” dated Oct. 5,
1987.
–Peter Montague, Ph.D.
Descriptor terms: msw; incineration; ash; philadelphia; pa; hazardous waste; heavy metals; greenpeace;
garbage barge; panama;