GOVERNMENT
Solid Waste Problem Receiving More Attention from Congress Waste," noted that the report makes a number of recommendations that dovetail with the proposed bills and actions suggested by the Environmental Protection Agency under the current Resource Conservation & Recovery Act. Levenson says it's time the U.S. revisited the concept, "waste not, want not," as a policy on wastes to guide the nation into the next The steadily rising mountains of mu- century. One of the main themes of nicipal trash throughout the U.S. the report is the need for proper are becoming objects of intense na- use of materials, including manutional scrutiny. Old city landfills facturing and consumption, as waste are rapidly filling and citizen con- management policy. cern is creating problems in findThe OTA report recommends that ing sites for new facilities. Concerns a material management strategy asabout incineration and hazardous sess wastes by their chemical and leachate fouling groundwater have physical properties—separating restopped landfill plans in many states cyclable materials and materials that and counties. could be burned for energy—and The growing solid waste prob- even redesigning the manufacture lem also has attracted attention in of products so that they would genCongress, where the Senate has in- erate less waste. Levenson says troduced two bills this year. The recycling should be given top priSenate Environmental Protection ority, both to save landfill space Subcommittee held its first hear- and for energy conservation. ings on the bills late last month. The report notes that one diffiTitled the Solid Waste Disposal culty standing in the way of waste Act Amendments, S. 1112, and the reduction, especially of hazardous Waste Minimization & Control Act wastes, is the public's demand for of 1989, S. 1113, the bills comple- convenience and disposable prodment each other. Their objectives ucts. OTA says that federal actions, are the same: to solve the waste such as establishing goals for toxicdisposal dilemma. Both bills empha- ity reduction in products or impossize source reduction and recycling ing economic incentives such as as preferred methods for managing taxes, would help. Also, banning spewastes and provide some frame- cific substances that are hazardous works for achieving stated goals. or that cannot be recycled is given Among specific features of the bills as a possibility. are the banning of cadmium as a EPA acting assistant administrapigment and prohibition of dispos- tor for solid waste and emergency al of lead-acid and mercury batter- response Jonathan Z. Cannon says ies in landfills. EPA is m o v i n g forward, albeit At the hearings, Howard Leven- slowly, on policies to manage solid son of the Congressional Office of wastes. Earlier this year, the agency Technology Assessment and project released its own report laying out a director of OTA's recently completed strategy to deal with municipal solreport, "Facing America's Trash: id waste management. The strategy What Next for Municipal Solid relies on four elements: source re-
EPA, Congress' Office of Technology Assessment issue reports on disposal dilemma; hearings address Senate bills on source reduction, recycling
Paper is largest portion of municipal waste
/ v f l H H I I i ^ ^ ^ ^ m Food
,^^^^^¥^^^9^ Metals Other / ^ p ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ i K i i r
inorganics J ^ W l i l l p W | ^ ^ ^
2%
/
y ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ K Glass
Rubber & Textiles & leather wood 3%
Plastics
Source: Congress' Office of Technology Assessment
duction, recycling of materials, waste combustion, and landfilling. "To reduce the burden on incineration and landfilling technologies, the preference is for source reduction and recycling/' Cannon told the subcommittee. Using its strategy, EPA expects a 25% reduction in waste volume by 1992 with about two thirds of the remaining waste being landfilled and the rest incinerated. A great deal of state and local cooperation is necessary for any significant reduction to happen, Cannon says. The Senators present at the hearings were particularly interested in learning about the hands-on experience of William L. Rathje, the archeologist from the University of Arizona who has made a name for himself studying the contents of modern landfills (see page 60). His work has led to five basic findings. The first is that all landfills basically have the same mix of wastes. Second, that the biodegradation of landfilled materials is a myth. Under normal conditions, landfill refuse retains its original weight, volJuly3, 1989C&EN
23
Government ume, and form even after being buried for 25 years. Third, that the volume of plastics in landfills has not increased despite news media articles about plastics disposal problems. Manufacturers have been making plastic products lighter and thinner (called light-weighting), effectively keeping volumes in landfills constant over the past 20 years. Rathje's fourth conclusion is that preventing toxic materials, such as paints and swimming pool chemicals, from being dumped in landfills is critical to public health. His research shows that even a small community of 100,000 people deposits 477 tons of hazardous wastes into its landfill every year. Fifth, that reducing the volume of wastes into landfills is the most important factor to keeping them open. Highly publicized bans on materials such as expanded polystyrene are not going to help, he says. These products make up only 0.25% of landfill volume and, in use, would have to be replaced with something else, probably a plastic-coated paper, Rathje says, which wouldn't degrade either. Paper, in fact, is the biggest problem in landfills, he says. If solid waste volumes are to be reduced, recycling paper is the quickest way to do it. As Congress gets more serious about the solid waste problem, it clearly is not convinced that EPA is doing enough on its own. Sen. Max Baucus (D.-Mont.), chairman of the environmental protection subcommittee, says that a tough, responsible bill must be passed to resolve the issue. And hazardous wastes are a part of the equation. "We must make sure that today's landfills don't become tomorrow's Superfund sites," he states. "We cannot tolerate landfills that contaminate our drinking water and incinerators that poison our air." EPA policies seem to indicate that manufacturers of disposable products are going to come under increasing pressure to make their products with less hazardous materials and to make them easier to recycle. Because of public concern, it is likely that some substances, such as cadmium, may eventually be banned from all products. David Hanson 24
July 3, 1989 C&EN
EPA offers new Superfund strategy Threading gingerly t h r o u g h the rocky shoals of past criticisms of the nine-year-old Superfund program, E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protection Agency Administrator William K. Reilly has set his agency on a new course. After a 90-day staff review of the hazardous waste cleanup program, Reilly says EPA will vigorously pursue an "enforcement first" policy. Instead of using Superfund trust fund money to pay for cleanups and then go after potentially responsible parties for reimbursement, EPA will now focus on getting the responsible companies to pay for the bulk of waste removal or taking them to court if they refuse. This approach is dictated by the number of sites likely to fall under Superfund and the soaring costs of cleaning them up. There are now more than 1100 sites on the National Priorities List (NPL). This number is expected to nearly double by the year 2000. Currently cleanups are costing about $25 million per site, but these costs are expected to increase in the future as more complex sites enter the remedial construction (cleanup) phase. According to Reilly, it will cost about $30 billion to clean up the sites now on the NPL, assuming that half the cost is borne by responsible parties, half by the trust fund. EPA's new direction also will encompass a "safety first" approach, with the most serious threats to human health receiving the earliest and more aggressive action. After these are taken care of, the agency will direct its attention to the worst sites on the NPL needing long-term work. As Reilly recently told the Senate Environment Committee, "The program can pursue either complete cleanup at some sites, or incremental cleanup at many sites. It cannot fully accommodate both goals simultaneously." Reilly's candor is based on his belief that EPA needs "to set and clearly communicate fair and realistic expectations for a program of the relative novelty and scope of Superfund." Part of the past criticisms can be attributed to in-
adequate communications—with affected communities and the general public. Reilly plans to change this. First, measures of success will change. Rather than listing the number of sites deleted from the NPL— now 26, soon to be 36—success will be "more appropriately measured in terms of the successive, interim steps that quickly provide a margin of safety for local residents," explains Reilly. Second, local residents will be more closely consulted in the selection of remedies, especially at sites being cleaned up by responsible parties. "EPA will use permanent remedies where possible and will aggressively seek innovative treatment technologies that reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of wastes at Superfund sites," Reilly promises. A staff recommendation is that the agency undertake a research, development, and evaluation program on new treatment technologies and bring them into use at sites more quickly. Reilly promises to improve the efficiency of program operations. He says EPA can "simplify some costly and time-consuming procedures at many sites," without loss of quality. Reilly has also pledged to reduce the agency's reliance on outside contractors, a repeated criticism of the past program. Lewis S. W. Crampton, a special assistant to Reilly who directed the 175-member staff task
Superfund plan focuses on seven areas needing action Control acute public health threats immediately Clean up worst problems, sites first Monitor, maintain sites over the long term Stress enforcement to get private-party cleanup Search for innovative cleanup technologies Improve efficiency of program's operations Encourage community participation in decision-making
force, says there will be "a major reallocation of resources within Superfund." About $75 million now pegged for consultants in the next fiscal year will be redirected for use in hiring 500 new lawyers and technical people. Crampton says 90% of the 500 will be hired for the 10 regional offices, the remainder for headquarters. The agency's new policy and recommendations have won qualified support. Clean Sites Inc., a nonprofit organization dedicated to cleaning up hazardous waste sites, calls the new strategy "an outstanding first s t e p . " But Clean Sites president Thomas P. Grumbly cautions, "The next—and crucial—step will be to carry out the new strategy." One knowledgeable Senate staffer sighs, "Finally a direction but no meat." He characterizes EPA's policy as "very shallow." Congress' Office of Technology Assessment's Joel S. Hirshhorn, who has written several reports critical of the program, says, "For what it was, it was good." He says that EPA offered some very positive changes, but "if you ask me if it is enough to turn the program around, I would probably have to say no. A lot of the big issues were not addressed." Hirshhorn notes that the limited nature of the review and its subsequent staff-written report was due to the 90-day time constraint on its completion. But he insists that at some point the big issues will have to be addressed. The report, for example, d i d n ' t define p e r m a n e n t cleanup technologies, nor did it address the "How clean is clean?" issue. Former head of the Superfund program, J. Winston Porter, says there may be a bit more emphasis on enforcement in the new strategy. "But as near as I understand, it's heading in roughly the same direction as I was." According to the Senate staffer, "EPA has bought itself another 90 days." Reilly informed the Senate Environment Committee that "a complete schedule and implementation plan for all the recommendations will be prepared by Sept. 1." Lois Ember
WHO PUTS THE FLUFF • I THE FLANNELS? For ten years, we've had a special partnership with people who make fabric softeners. We're the world's largest supplier of softener concentrates for laundry products used in washers and dryers. And for combined detergentsofteners. Our ingredients make things softer in homes, commercial laundries and textile mills. This is just one way our chemistry works for companies with product challenges. For more information, call us toll-free: (800) 366-6500.
C
