International transmrt of hazardous w&te
By Alben E. Fry Hazardous waste has become the focus of increasing public interest in recent years, and the international shipment of these materials is currently a very hot public policy issue. The M. V. Karin E , a ship carrying waste from Philadelphia; the Zanoobia; and other ships carrying hazardous waste have made headlines in Europe, America, and around the world. Where has all this hazardous waste suddenly come from and why is it being shipped around the world? One major source of “new” hazardous waste comes indirectly from the US. Congress and other governmental bodies that have, through legislation, designated many new substances as hazardous. Physically we are dealing with the same old materials, only now they bear the scary label “hazardous or toxic.” Another source of increased hazardous waste is the very materials that are cleaned out of the air and water prior to their legal release into the atmosphere or water bodies. In this case, pollution control itself generates sludges and solid wastes that are or contain hazardous substances. As one example, what was on that “infamous” ship from Philadelphia? Why was it bottom ash from a municipality that burned its trash rather than burying it in a sanitary landfill? This ash is dirty, dusty, and unpleasant. But you can touch it and nothing bad will happen to your hand or to your health in either the short or long term. Of course, you will have to wash your hands after touching this dirty ash. This material is now designated as hazardous because it contains some residual 508 Envimn. Sci. Technol.. MI. 23, No. 5. 1989
A l h m Fry
trace metals. If these trace metals are leached out by rainwater and subsequently enter groundwater sources in sufficient quantities, that water would become unsafe to drink without adequate treatment. Why wasn’t this material buried in a secure landfill in the Philadelphia area away from groundwater? NIMBY not in my back yard. The good citizens of metropolitan Philadelphia don’t want new landfills, especially if the materials to be placed in these landfills are labeled hazardous. Once an item is on a hazardous waste list, the public no longer makes any distinction between the most poisonous or dangerous substances on the list and those items that might pose some vague threat under special circumstances. They are all “toxic,” and the public doesn’t want them in their neighborhood even when the treatment and disposal proposed is state-of-the-art. Interestingly enough, hazardous waste generated by the large multinational corporations, the ones the public would like to blame for the hazardous waste problem, is not increasing and in many cases is actually decreasing in volume. This is occurring because these companies do not want either the potential liability or adverse publicity associated with hazardous waste. They are modifying their production proc-
esses to reduce waste, recycling or reusing waste materials internally, and in many cases choosing to treat their wastes within company-managed facilities. The hazardous waste never leaves the control of the generating corporation. However, this introduction begs the question somewhat; there are real problems that do need to be addressed. There are certain unethical practices in the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes. Although there is no solid empirical evidence, some waste exporters are mislabeling hazardous wastes for shipment to less developed countries or are entering into contracts with importers who do not have the competence or facilities to treat or dispose of hazardous wastes in an environmentally acceptable manner. Some importing nations do not have trained personnel in place to identify hazardous waste or ensure that wastes are, in fact, disposed of in a safe, environmentally sound manner. In every industrialized country there are thousands of small generators of hazardous waste who simply want to get rid of their waste materials at the lowest possible cost. When the cost of disposal soars, as it has in most industrialized countries, and when the public resists construction of new waste handling facilities, there is increased pressure to export-legally or otherwise. So there are problems and we need to find a way to stop obvious abuses in transboundary movement of hazardous wastes. The immediate response of some has been to recommend a ban on the export of all hazardous waste. This is a simple solution and a wrong one! Some countries have geological or land limitations
M)13-936W891092305081 .SO10 @ 1989 American Chemical Sociely
that preclude proper land disposal. 0thers do not have adequate specialized treatment facilities. Just as in many other lines of business, some nations or companies have advantages that make them better able to process hazardous waste. The largest volume of trade in hazardous waste is between developed nations and almost always produces economic benefits. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Develop ment estimates that at least 80% of international trade in hazardous waste is between developed nations. When done correctly, this trade often produces environmental benefits as well because the waste is disposed of more completely and safely within the country of import than would have occurred in the country of export. Interestingly enough, Great Britain, a small nation, is a major importer of hazardous waste for a rather basic reason. It has discovered how to turn a profit from the dis-' p o d business. The developing nations also could be harmed by a ban. These countries already generate domestic hazardous waste and if they cannot treat this waste properly internally, they may wish or need to become exporters. A ban on international trade would do little to guarantee that hazardous waste is treated in an environmentally safe manner. The United Nations Environment Rogramme (UNEP) has proposed establishing a Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes. This convention would provide a framework that would permit responsible parties to transport and dispose of hazardous waste in an environmentally safe manner and make it increasingly difficult for irresponsible parties to move or dispose of hazardous waste in an unacceptable manner. A working group of legal and technical representatives from over 50 na- over phrasing ot articles and provitions has met on several occasions in sions. Also, there is a tendency for adGeneva, Caracas, and Luxembourg to vocates to keep extending the scope of work out acceptable consensus lan- the proposal. Provisions calling for guage for this convention. Consensus is training and exchange of technical incrucial to the success of this or any con- formation and assistance are being vention; it would not work if many na- added. Complex definitions of illegal trade and provisions dealing with the tions refused to sign the document. Dr. Mustafa Tolba, the Executive Di- status of existing and future bilateral or rector of UNEP, and the government of multilateral agreements have been deSwitzerland have scheduled a Plenipo- bated. Coordination of the new provitentiary Meeting for Basel, Switzerland sions of this convention with existing on March 2C-22, 1989, at which time transportation, labeling, and shipping ministers would be requested to en- requirements has taken a great deal of dorse the convention. Unfortunately, time and effort. As a result, the Plenithe national delegations so far have potentiary Meeting may have to be debeen unable to agree on consensus lan- ferred until later in 1989. guage. As in most international conThe business community supports a ventions, there is an enormous amount simplified and standardized manifest of discussion (sometimes dissension) system that would make it easier for
government omcials to screen out unacceptable trade practices and stop illegal trade in hazardous waste. The sooner the working group reaches agreement on straightforward language to achieve this basic goal, the better the chances become for a workable convention that can be ratified by the maximum number of interested nations.
Albert E. Fry is Deputy Director of 7he International Environmental Bureau, a nonpro$t business organization in Geneva. Sw'tzerland. His master's degree and Ph.D. studies in history were carried out af the University of Pennsylvania. Before his 1986 appointment. he was assistant executive director of 7he Business Roundtable. Environ. Sci. Technol.. MI.23. NO.5. 1989 SO9
