1.
The Law of Conservation of Matter
Discussion of wastes and environmental pollutants must include an understanding of the law of conservation of matter. It states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed but merely changed from one form to another. In simpler terms, everything we think we have thrown away is still here with us in one form or another. It is imperative that children are taught this law that everything must go somewhere. We live in a “throwaway” society, or so we are told. In reality nothing is ever really thrown away but changed to dust, soot, solid wastes or, in the case of industry, hazardous wastes.
2.
Why do we have Hazardous Wastes
?
Hazardous wastes are with us because we have become a highly technological society. The plastics we consume with great regularity emit hazardous waste material as a natural by-product. Making an automobile or refrigerator results in hazardous wastes from acids used to clean steel and from cyanides used to harden steel. Wastes from the ink used to print this very page are probably hazardous because of the organic dyes it may contain. In essence, hazardous wastes are unavoidable. They have become a facet of our lives.
Industry creates the bulk of hazardous wastes material, but surely hospitals, the Department of Defense and others do their part. It would take some drastic changes in our American life style to do away with these industrial wastes—changes we are neither prepared to propose nor willing to carry out. These changes would dig deeper than just going back to bottled milk rather than the plastic containers we use now. These changes would be more sweeping than just doing away with all the plastic wraps for good old plain paper. These changes are unrealistic, inconceivable and never to be seen. We as Americans have grown to rely on the technology we have developed for our very existence. The state of Connecticut, in fact, without its factories wouldn’t be nearly as prosperous as it is now. So the hazardous wastes themselves seem to be here to stay. Our problem is what do we do with them?
3.
How are Wastes Hazardous
?
Wastes become hazardous when they are haphazardly stored. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that from 7080% of waste disposal is held on the generator’s property. Liquid wastes are stored in drums. Solid wastes are piled on the ground and wetted down to prevent dispersion in the wind. Others dump waste material in lagoons and small lakes or rivers.
The waste material that is improperly stored, transported or disposed of can enter the ecosystem in six basic ways:
-
1. Liquids that leak from disposal sites contaminate groundwater;
-
2. Runoff from disposal sites contaminates surface water;
-
3. Incineration, evaporation or wind erosion of wastes pollutes the air;
-
4. Poisonous wastes are absorbed or ingested by organisms that pass them on in the food chain;
-
5. Poisons spill in storage or transit, doing damage by direct contact;
-
6. Fires and explosions do direct damage.
Each of these ways can cause harmful, if not fatal, side effects on living things coming into contact with the poisonous material. Some chemicals emitted are known to cause cancer, birth defects and genetic damage in test animals. Arsenic, a pharmaceutical byproduct, can damage the brain and nervous system. Benzene, a chemical solvent, has been known to cause leukemia. Cadmium, a plasticizer, is known to damage kidneys and cause hypertension. The list goes on. Chromium, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, selenium, trichloroethylene; all have been linked to one or more serious human malconditions.
Wastes can be hazardous in any or all of these ways:
TOXIC—Poisonous, potentially harmful to humans causing the aforementioned maladies.
CORROSIVE—Can corrode storage containers; can damage human tissue if touched.
REACTIVE—Unstable; can react if exposed to heat, shock, air or water.
IGNITABLE—Can explode, catch fire or emit toxic fumes or gases.
The tragedy of Love Canal in Niagara Falls, New York epitomizes the destruction poorly managed hazardous wastes can wreak on a community. Chemicals leaking from corroded drums buried twenty years earlier have totally uprooted some 240 families. The frightening thing is there are more potential “Love Canals” festering in all parts of the country.
4.
The Alternatives
Hazardous wastes, as I have previously mentioned are here to stay. It then becomes of major importance how we store or dispose of them. Alternatives are being explored but with the alternatives come “trade offs”. For example, should we pollute the oceans instead of streams, lagoons and rivers? The alternatives are interesting, expensive and in most cases controversial. Here are the latest ideas:
A landfill cell—
This controversial but most conventional method is widely used. Land, about 150 meters long and wide is excavated and fitted with a liner of reinforced synthetics It is then covered with a meter of clay. Drums are placed in the excavated area divided by clay barriers into subcells. Incompatible wastes are kept separate. When totally filled the pit is capped with another synthetic liner and another layer of clay.
Incinerator ships—
This proposal would take the smokestacks out of the cities and into the oceans. It would cut costs and reduce social pressure. Incineration on land costs $110 much abuse from neighbors. (Incineration is good—but not next door to me.) Incineration at sea costs $80 per ton and the contaminants are greatly diluted by the water. In fact many of the contaminants are natural to the oceans. People opposed to this method cite increased handling and transportation as a drawback because it raises the possibilities of spills while in transit or being loaded. Also environmentalists are opposed to any ill effect imposed on marine life.
Handling sludge—
Sludge containing zinc, lead, PCB’s and other chemicals can be spread in areas with inedible plants and covered with topsoil. This is one of those “trade-offs” because other alternatives are not conducive to the safety of the public. (i.e. burial at sea, piled up on land, spread over cultivated areas.)
Deep-well injection—
Liquid waste is injected into porous rock deep in the earth. Industry has employed this technique for years with mixed results. Opponents to this method argue that the liquids injected into poorly constructed wells can rise to contaminate subsurface waters. The EPA has since devised ways of measuring and predicting the viability of such deep wells and is monitoring all existing sites.
Cement kilns—
These are being used as an alternative to incineration. Extremely high temperatures are used to decompose highly toxic substances such as PCB’s.
Treatment—
This is a long term approach to the hazardous waste problem. Wastes are treated prior to disposal in an effort to detoxify the hazardous components. The process is not foolproof since the end product cannot be determined to be completely nonhazardous. This method can be amplified into a centralized treatment concept where industries with like hazardous wastes can bring the toxic liquids to for treatment. This would reduce costs for industry since ,they would share in the operation of such a plant rather than maintaining one of their own.
5.
The Role of Industry
It was previously stated that industry must use some highly toxic chemicals in the production of essential products. An example of this is the common additive chromium. Chromium is used as a protective agent in the manufacturing of stainless steel cutlery. In fact it makes up about 12% of the final product. Chromium is highly resistant to heat and aids in keeping the cutlery tarnish free. However, in this process of chromium plating chromic acid mists rise from the plating tanks. Dermatitis can result from constant contact with this acidic mist. Skin that is irritated by chromic acid should be washed with warm water and soap. Clothing should be washed before reuse.
Since chromium is a powerful oxidizing agent, it can cause fires. Therefore, it should be stored in a cool place away from all fire hazards. Persons involved in the storage of chromium should wear protective clothing such as goggles, rubber gloves, rubber aprons, face shields and some type of head gear.
Strict adherence to safety regulations is the essential role of industry. Hazardous chemicals do not have to endanger the public. Proper storage and discriminate disposal will play a large part in the hazardous waste solution.
6.
The Role of Government
A bill that addressed the question of liability in cases of hazardous waste abuse was signed into law by President Carter in December of 1980. The bill became known as “superfund” while being debated in the Congress. The end product hardly lives up to that name.
The original proposals tried to answer these questions concerning hazardous wastes:
—Who should pay for clean up of existing sites, industry or the government?
—Are responsible parties liable to fines?
—Where should the money to create a “superfund” come from?
—What relief for victims, if any, should be included?
The House of Representatives version of the bill called for a $1.2 billion fund, of which $900 million would be contributed by industry to clean up “top priority” sites. The companies would be held liable for future indiscretions. No relief for victims was included.
The more extravagant Senate version called for a $4 billion fund, of which $3.5 billion would be industry derived. This money would be used to clean up any existing site and pay for victim compensation. Also, health studies of areas possibly affected by existing sites would be undertaken. Liability for future indiscretions would be on the offenders.
The bill that President Carter signed was a watered down version of what environmentalists lobbied for. The “lame duck” Congress was running out of time and rather they “passed what they could now—come back next year for the rest.” PL96-510 provides $1.6 billion over the next five years to pay for response costs, remedial actions and damages to natural resources due to the release of hazardous substances. Eighty-seven percent money will be industry derived. “Superfund” does not address the problem of victim compensation.
7.
The Role of Citizen Groups
The name “Love Canal” has become synonymous with hazardous wastes. It has become the rallying cry of groups concerned with a clean environment. Actually Love Canal, located in Niagara Falls, New York had an innocent if not ambitious beginning. It was originally dug in 1890 to serve as a power plant and supply route. When these plans fell through it became the local swimming hole in summer and ice skating pond in winter. Hooker Chemical Company bought the body of water for use as a dumping site for drums of chemical wastes. Years later the canal was filled in and a housing development was built. In 1976 tragedy struck. The buried drums had apparently corroded and hazardous chemicals began showing up in the drinking water. An entire community was uprooted.
Environmental groups around the country were alarmed. Future “Love Canals” would have to be prevented. Local citizen groups concerned with the horrors of Love Canal cropped up. A national association called “Hunt the Dump” was formed. Its purpose is to seek out hazardous waste sites and determine whether they are environmentally dangerous.
In Enfield, Connecticut a legal battle is taking place between a local citizens group, CASE, and a Texas firm whose intent it is to build a hazardous waste treatment site in their community. The CASE group was formed by community people who are out to make sure their health and safety is not being compromised to accommodate industry. Their battle has been fought on many fronts: organized rallies and protest marches for media attention, bumper sticker and lawn sign campaigns, legislation introduced into the state House of Representatives and in the courts where the decision will ultimately be made. To be sure, the disposal of hazardous wastes is a hot topic. It will be interesting to see what happens in Enfield. A precedent might be set for future clashes between citizens and industry.