Toxic & Hazardous Wastes

1. Toxic & Hazardous Wastes

2. Waste Materials: Many Types • Radioactive (nuclear) • Hazardous, toxic • Biological • Liquid, solid • Just plain

3. Waste Materials: Many Issues • Where to put it? A highly politicized question. • Danger of environmental contamination • Sheer volume • NIMBYism • Fairness (justice) issues • US • International (mainly North-South) transport

4. Many Issues, cont. • Resource depletion/valuable materials in waste • Petroleum • Metals • Disposal sites • Abandoned sites • Criminal activity

5. Domestic Policy

6. Traditional Approach • Problem conceptualized as a siting & a public health issue, & largely under local jurisdiction • Zoning boards • Public health departments (districts, etc.) • General purpose jurisdictions (counties, cities, townships, etc.) • With some state government oversight

7. Traditional Approach, cont • Specific areas would be zoned for waste disposal activity, possibly subject to local public health regulations • Would be users could apply for variances if they wished to engage in a non conforming activity

8. Problems With The Traditional Approach • Expertise??? • Enforcement • Variances were easy to obtain • Non conforming activities often ignored • Due to • Low priority • Susceptibility to political & economic pressure

9. Resolving The Problems • Federalization, but with limits • Zoning boards & public health agencies still play traditional roles, e.g. Landfill siting in Dayton/Montgomery County • Federal involvement (preemption) in some issue areas, e.g. Montgomery County waste incinerators • Several key laws

10. Solid Waste Disposal Act (1965) • Left authority to regulate ordinary wastes with states, but offered • Federal $ and technical assistance

11. Resource Conservation & Recovery Act of 1970 (RCRA) • Aimed at the disposal of hazardous substances • Federal $ to build disposal facilities • Federal research $

12. RCRA Amendments, 1976 • For all wastes: • Ordered closing of open dumps • Landfills, recycling, incineration, etc. to be substitutes • For hazardous/toxic wastes: • Required licensing of hazardous/toxic waste handlers (expertise, insurance, financial capacity) • Required “cradle to grave” tracking of all such wastes

13. Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 • And its 1986 amendments • Aimed at the creation and production of hazardous substances • Requires • Data gathering on production & use • Testing & screening of new and existing substances • Controls on use of hazardous substances • Controls on asbestos

14. Superfund (1980) • A.K.A. the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA) • An effort to deal with existing abandoned toxic/hazardous waste sites • Required identification & listing of high priority sites via the National Priority List (NPL)

15. Superfund, cont. • Provided for federal direct action • Immediate removal of certain wastes • Planning for removal of all other wastes • Required remedial action (e.g. topsoil removal, groundwater filtration) after waste removal

16. Superfund, cont. • Originally provided $16 Billion in a revolving fund to do this • Some from an earmarked tax on certain chemicals, the rest from the federal government’s general funds • Plus a 10% match from the governments of the states in which Superfund cleanups are conducted

17. Superfund, cont. • Monies expended on clean ups to be replenished by responsible parties • Responsible (liable) parties include • Site’s owner(s) • All parties that had dumped materials at site, or produced wastes dumped at the site • All responsible parties are fully liable (strict liability)

18. Superfund Renewal • Superfund Amendments & Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) • In response to • Serious implementation problems • Enormous number of sites • Almost no sites actually cleaned up • Difficulties in identifying liable parties • Liable parties resistance to making payments

19. Superfund Renewal, cont. • $85 Billion • New (stricter) cleanup standards • Notification (to local governments & communities) requirements

20. Continued Funding Debate • Authorization for corporate taxes to support trust fund expired in 1995 • Pres. Clinton tried, but failed, several times to renew them • Pres. Bush announced in February, 2002, that it would not ask Congress to reauthorize these taxes • Not necessarily opposed in principle, but has concerns about current program • Supporters of the taxes are also concerned

21. Funding Debate • Bush administration’s (& some Congressional Republicans) concerns • Litigation costs waste funds • Strict liability • Taxes on some industries to pay for pollution caused by others • Critics of the Bush administration’s concerns • Letting polluters off without payment (disincentive to clean up?) • Draining funds from other worthy projects to pay for Superfund projects

22. International Policy

23. Issues • International waste transport • Primarily a North-South (richer-poorer) phenomenon • Safety (transportation & disposal) • Expertise of receiving nations • Disclosure • Contamination of international resources, especially the oceans

24. International Transport: A Key Agreement • The Basel Convention on the Control of the Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, 1989 • Supplemented by Rotterdam Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Convention in 1998

25. Basel Convention • Deals with the generation, transport & disposal of hazardous wastes • Especially problematic in Europe/Africa • UNEP is the secretariat • U.S. a minor exporter, but originally a strong opponent of any limits on export. Signed the treaty after it was modified, but has not yet ratified.

26. Basel Convention, cont. • Had a slow start • Negotiated 1987 - 1989 • Did not take effect until 1992, & then none of the major exporting nations had ratified • Originally a weak regime • Parties to the agreement made no effort to restrict the trade • Originally only required that recipient nations understood risks, etc. (informed consent)

27. Basel Convention, cont. • Then it grew some teeth • Total ban on hazardous waste exports adopted by 1994 Council Of Parties (COP) to the Convention • Unilateral bans on exports by key actors • U.S. (a policy change) • Western & Central European nations

28. Basel Convention, cont. • As a result of • African nations unified front (e.g. Bamako Convention: 12 nations agreed to ban such imports) • Pressure by former colonies on their corresponding European nation • G77 (Group of 77 developing nations) pressure on members to refuse to accept such imports

29. Rotterdam Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Convention • Listed (hazardous) substances may only be exported from one country to another with the permission of the receiving state’s government • Not strictly limited to wastes • As of 2004, 41 products are listed, and 70 nations are party to the treaty • Chrysotile (the most important form of asbestos) is not listed – a source of controversy • Again, U.S. has signed, but not ratified

30. Contamination Of International Resources: The Oceans • Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 (London Dumping Convention) • International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 & 1978 (MARPOL)

31. London Dumping Convention • Deals with marine pollution caused by dumping wastes generated on land • International Maritime Organization (IMO), London, is the secretariat • Adopted in 1972, entered into force in 1975 • By 1991, had been ratified by 65 nations

32. London Dumping Convention, cont. • Required that nations establish permit systems for dumping some types of wastes (e.g. municipal waste) • Adopted a voluntary ban on dumping of others (especially radioactive)

33. MARPOL • Deals with marine dumping of wastes generated by ships themselves • Petroleum cargo • Human wastes • Bilge water • Involves both environmental pollution & maritime safety issues

34. MARPOL, cont. • Requires signatory parties to inspect & certify ships before allowing them to be registered (i.e. allowing them to fly the national flag) • Requires periodic follow-up inspections (twice within 5 years)

35. MARPOL, cont. • Requires construction of waste disposal facilities at maritime ports • Allows boarding & inspection of ships entering ports

36. MARPOL, cont. • Enforcement is carried out by signatory parties, e.g. • Canadian Coast Guard boards all vessels entering St. Lawrence River • Checks ship’s log, shipping manifests • Checks ship’s holds, tanks, bilges • Enforces both Canadian & U.S. inland waters regulations • Secretariat is IMO, London