=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #142
—August 15, 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===
MR. REILLY’S EPA IS FORCING STATES
TO SITE 90 HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATORS.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has begun an
aggressive program to force states to site 90 hazardous waste
incinerators. If a state refuses, the EPA says it will cut off
all Superfund aid for cleanup of toxic dumps. In essence, the EPA
is holding hostages-the victims living near chemical dumps–and
is threatening them bodily harm, saying, “If you (state
governments) want us to help these unfortunate people, you will
have to give industry what it wants, which is 90 incinerators to
burn chemical wastes.” If Mr. Reilly succeeds in this blackmail,
industry will be able to burn all the hazardous waste it wants
during the next 20 years, removing a major incentive to cut waste
production.
In response, grass roots activists across the country will hold
press conferences and demonstrations August 17 at many locations,
urging state governments to resist EPA’s arm-twisting on behalf
of industry. To find out how you can participate in the August 17
activities, phone Linda Wallace Campbell in Alabama at (205)
652-9854. Ms. Campbell is coordinating these demonstrations for
the National Toxics Campaign, headquartered in Boston [(617)
482-1477; ask for Michael Stein].
Background: Capacity Assurance Plans
In 1986, industry could see that they were losing the battle to
site new chemical waste facilities (dumps and incinerators). The
people had spoken at site after site across the country and the
message was clear: “Not in anybody’s back yard, these things are
too dangerous.” So industry lobbied Congress to get a new
provision added to the Superfund Law. As a result, by October 17,
1989, each state must prove to EPA that their state has
sufficient waste management capacity to handle all the hazardous
waste that will be created within the state during the next 20
years, or they must show that they have agreements with other
states to send their wastes to other states. The proof that a
state has sufficient capacity is called a “Capacity Assurance
Plan” or CAP. Each state must produce a CAP by October 17 this
year.
Naturally there are two ways to get sufficient capacity to manage
wastes: build new facilities to keep up with rising waste
production, or take steps now to reduce waste so that present
facilities can do the job.
It must be obvious to everyone that reducing waste is the better
way. Wastes that are never produced can’t hurt anyone; they can’t
harm workers; they can’t poison unsuspecting families living near
factories or dumps or incinerators. Wastes that are never
produced won’t require a high-priced EPA bureaucrat to measure
them and evaluate their hazard; no EPA engineer will be required
to argue with the company that this technology or that technology
is the “best available control technology” for this particular
waste. Wastes that are never produced won’t require an EPA lawyer
to take the polluter to court after the polluter digs in its
heels and refuses to stop polluting. Wastes that are never
produced cannot generate liability lawsuits against the waste
generator. Wastes that are never produced do not require the
expenditure of huge sums on doublelined landfills and much larger
sums cleaning up those double-lined dumps after they start
leaking in a few years. Wastes that are never produced are the
cleanest, safest, cheapest wastes imaginable. Who would argue
otherwise, except some pitiful waste junky hooked on the
production of poisons for profit?
The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)–the research arm of
the United States Congress–estimates that 50% of all industrial
wastes produced today could be avoided during the next five years
with EXISTING TECHNOLOGY. No technical breakthroughs would be
needed to cut today’s industrial hazardous wastes in half in five
years, says OTA. Obviously, with some effort, more than 50% could
be cut.
Unfortunately, there are enormous forces pushing EPA to ignore
common sense and to require states to build new incinerators,
instead of requiring states to hammer industry to reduce wastes.
First, the “waste management industry” is now huge and is now
dominated by some of America’s leading industrial giants.
Monsanto, Dow, Westinghouse, GE and many other Fortune 500
companies have all found business opportunities in
end-of-the-pipe waste treatment technology. Another factor is the
vast army of consulting firms that have sprung up within the last
15 years. These consultants are known as “beltway bandits”
because their offices are clustered around the I-495 beltway that
rings Washington, DC, and because they charge high prices for
warmed over work that they store in their word processor and sell
repeatedly to one community after another, merely typing the name
of a new client on the cover sheet (in the trade this is called
“boiler plate” and even the best firms rely upon it). You know
the names of these consulting firms because you’ve come up
against their risk assessments in local fights: “Our state of the
art assessment of this state of the art chemical incinerator [or
dump or whatever] shows that this facility presents no immediate
threat to health and safety; our mathematical models prove that
living 100 yards from this [fill in the blank] is safer than
eating two tablespoons of peanut butter and anyone who thinks
otherwise is a dangerously uninformed, or is motivated by
selfishness and greed. That will be $186,000, please.”) We are
only exaggerating slightly to make a point. The “waste
management” industry is now grossing $80 billion per year, so
proposals to reduce wastes are not well-received among their
ranks. These people’s jobs were created by the Clean Air Act, the
Clean Water Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Safe
Drinking Water Act, and the Superfund Act. No wonder they aren’t
promoting sensible public policies to start making all these laws
obsolete.
In addition, industry doesn’t make serious efforts to reduce
waste because of simple inertia. Industries that are making money
don’t want to risk any changes. For years, they have successfully
run factories making aspirin tablets or paint or whatever,
passing the costs of waste disposal onto future generations. Who
knows? If they change how they do things, they may not succeed.
At the very least, there would be an uncomfortable period when
things were up in the air, which would mean fewer afternoons on
the golf links and, when it was all over, who could guarantee it
would work as well as the present system, which hums along like a
self-propelled money machine?
At bottom, the strongest objection to waste reduction may be
simple stubbornness. “Those damn nervous nellie nimbys and those
power-hungry bureaucrats in Washington don’t get to tell ME what
to do!” So there you have it: many persuasive reasons why
sensible public policies, like waste reduction, are never tried
and, in their place, the EPA is pushing 90 hazardous waste
incinerators.
But why would the EPA–especially the EPA headed by a
professional environmentalist like William Reilly-turn its back
on sensible public policy and cave in to irrational industry
wishes? Only George Bush knows the answer. He is the one who
gives Mr. Reilly marching orders and he is the one whose next
fabulously expensive Presidential campaign begins about 18 months
from now.
For an excellent new 66-page booklet on these issues get: Sanford
Lewis and Marco Kaltofen, FROM POISON TO PREVENTION (Boston, MA:
National Toxics Campaign, 37 Temple Place, 4th fl., Boston, MA
02111); $15 for community groups. For others, price unknown.
Phone: (617) 482-1477.
FROM POISON TO PREVENTION describes the EPA’s plan for covering
the nation with hazardous waste incinerators, details the hazards
of these incinerators, offers specific ideas for fighting the
plan, and gives detailed recommendations for industrial waste
reduction.
–Peter Montague, Ph.D.
Descriptor terms: waste reduction; epa; national toxics
campaign; ntc; waste treatment technologies; hazardous waste
incineration; air pollution; capacity assurance planning; cap;
siting; regulations;