=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #186
—June 20, 1990—
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===
NIAGARA RIVER–PART 1: HOW INDUSTRY SURVIVED LOVE CANAL.
When Love Canal broke into the headlines in 1978, American
manufacturers must have suffered nightmare visions of themselves
noosed up to lamp posts by vigilante mobs. Better than anyone
else they knew what poisons they had been dumping into holes in
the ground (or in near-by creeks) for the past twenty years. And
they knew they couldn’t stop doing it anytime soon.
The present generation of manufacturing plants is based upon
inefficient technologies that produce enormous quantities of
waste, and not much can be done about that until America rebuilds
its factories, which it does once every 50 years or so. Until a
new industrial apparatus can be constructed, based on closed-loop
technology with zero discharge as its design goal, the old plants
will continue spewing industrial poisons into the environment.
Meanwhile, manufacturers in 1978 faced this serious problem: With
thousands of dumps being discovered each year, and with
manufacturing wastes being created at an accelerating pace (the
rate of waste production increases at a steady 6% per year, which
means that total waste production is doubling every 12 years),
how could industry survive decades of confrontation with a
suddenly-awakened, and outraged, public? How could industry
finesse all the poisoning that had gone on, and at the same time
keep pumping out new poisons at an accelerating pace? The public
might be gullible, but were they really that gullible?
Happily for the industry, Congress came to the rescue almost
immediately by creating the Superfund law and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Superfund was to find
“solutions” to old dumps, and RCRA was to assure the orderly
creation of new ones.
Starting in 1980, Superfund created a brand new “site
remediation” industry, which now spends roughly $2 billion per
year and employs thousands of engineers and lawyers who spend
their lives conducting technical debates that go on for years
(literally). The debates are, for the most part, conducted behind
closed doors; the public is excluded; periodically, a public
relations flak for the EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)
(or for the state regulatory agency) emerges and holds a press
conference to assure the public that “cleanup” is proceeding
apace and all is well in the republic. “Cleanup” is never
defined; the Superfund program still has no official answer to
the question, “How clean is clean?” Meanwhile, across town a
different group of EPA scientists (or state agency scientists)
are closeted behind polished doors with a small cadre of
industrial lawyers, putting the finishing touches on a new RCRA
permit which allows the creation of yet another “state of the
art” landfill or deepwell-injection hole. Or, as an alternative,
the regulatory officials are signing off on a new scheme to dump
chemical wastes into the local sewers (which is perfectly legal
and entirely exempt from RCRA control), or is sanctioning the
shipment of hazardous wastes to a cement kiln or to some other
RCRA-exempt incinerator which was never intended for destruction
of hazardous wastes and, as you would expect, doesn’t do a very
good job of it.
Thanks to Superfund and RCRA, America’s manufacturers can now
sleep peacefully, secure in the knowledge that very few of them
will ever be brought to justice for their past crimes, and they
can continue dumping into pits, ponds, lagoons, landfills, or
deep holes in the ground because the RCRA process makes it all
perfectly legal. Superfund and RCRA have done some good by
raising awareness of these problems, but they have also built a
wall of government sponge around the guilty parties, insulating
them from direct confrontation with the affected publics. At the
few public meetings that ARE held, industrial decision-makers are
not required to appear; it’s the regulatory officials who face
the public, take the heat on behalf of industry and make all the
official explanations about why it’s got to be this way. (After a
few years of loyal service as a lightning rod for public outrage,
those regulatory officials will be invited to pass through the
revolving door where they will be rewarded with cushy, safe jobs
inside the industries they have “regulated” so faithfully, and a
new generation of youngsters will be hired by government to face
the angry public, to explain the necessity of permitting of new
sources of poisoning, and to finesse the nearly-universal failure
to clean up old dumps in a timely fashion).
Is this a paranoid nightmare that we have manufactured? Not at
all. It is the way the nation’s hazardous waste system actually
works today. Since 1980, with more than $7 billion spent, fewer
than 50 Superfund sites have actually be cleaned up. And in the
12 years since Love Canal was discovered, American industry has
pumped out a total amount of toxic waste equal to all of the
toxic waste created prior to Love Canal (during the period from
1880 to 1978). The vast majority of wastes created since Love
Canal has been placed (perfectly legally) in landfills, or
deep-well injected, or dumped down a sewer (another perfectly
legal means of disposal), or has been sent to serve as fuel for
an incinerator that was never meant to handle hazardous
waste–another perfectly legal means of disposal which EPA has
calls “recycling.” Throughout the decade, armies of scientists,
engineers, and lawyers have gotten wealthy by wringing their
hands, scowling into the cameras and intoning, “These are very
complex problems, which the public is not able to understand, but
believe us, everything is under control.” Meantime, the public is
in fact not able to understand what’s going on because there’s so
much razzle-dazzle, so much behind-the-scenes dealing, and so
much shucking and jiving by all the highly paid scientists and
lawyers and EPA flaks. All of the public is affected by what’s
going on, but most of the public doesn’t know it yet. Those
members of the public who do know they are affected have turned
out in droves and they have become the Movement for Environmental
Justice (though many of them may not even know they’re part of
something larger–they’re often just focused on trying to stop
the S.O.B. down the block from spewing glop into their drinking
water).
If you don’t believe this picture of reality, take a careful look
at an excellent video called TESTING THE WATERS, cited in our
last paragraph, below. This video examines the process that
started in 1978 for cleaning up the Niagara River, near Love
Canal. Cleanup of the Niagara River is important. The Niagara is
a short river with tremendous flow (200,000 cubic feet per
second) because it connects Lake Erie with Lake Ontario. It is
also an important river because twenty-five percent of all
Canadians (including everyone in Toronto, Canada’s second-largest
city) take their drinking water from Lake Ontario. All together,
some 5 million people (Americans and Canadians) take their
drinking water either directly from the Niagara River or from
Lake Ontario, below the Niagara.
The Niagara River is known to most of us because it’s the site of
Niagara Falls, a romantic symbol of America’s power and promise.
What many of us don’t know is that about a mile above the falls
on the American side, there’s a huge industrial complex–a
cluster of enormous chemical factories-that began to grow in the
1890s and continued building throughout this century. The
industry grew there because the site offered cheap hydroelectric
power and a convenient place to dump chemical wastes.
Whoosh–they just disappeared over the falls.
It was the owners of this industrial complex who created Love
Canal and 65 other huge chemical dumps along the banks of the
Niagara River. The Niagara River hosts the greatest concentration
of toxic dumps anywhere on the north American continent. Love
Canal is not even the biggest of them–it is just the most
famous. The Hyde Park dump contains 80,000 tons of toxins,
compared to Love Canal’s 20,000 tons. The S site contains 70,000
tons; the 102nd Street Site contains 80,000 tons; and all stand
within a few hundred yards of the river.
In the late 1970s, the U.S. Government, the government of Canada,
the state government of New York and the provincial government of
Ontario formed a Niagara River Toxics Committee to develop a plan
for cleaning up the Niagara River. By this time, it was obvious,
even to these government bodies, that the situation was
dangerously out of control. Toxins were showing up in fish and
wildlife at truly alarming rates and scientists and doctors were
beginning to examine humans, expecting to find health damage. In
the late 1980s, health damage to humans began to be reported
around the Great Lakes.
[To be continued next week.]
–Peter Montague, Ph.D.
Descriptor terms: niagara river; hazardous waste system; epa;
rcra; superfund; remedial action; cn; love canal; hyde park;
landfilling; s site; 102 street site; 102nd street site; lake
ontario; zero discharge; chemical industry; lynn corcoran;
groundwater;