1 / 37

Toxic & Hazardous Wastes

Toxic & Hazardous Wastes. Waste Materials: Many Types. Radioactive (nuclear) Hazardous, toxic Biological Liquid, solid Just plain . Waste Materials: Many Issues. Where to put it? A highly politicized question. Danger of environmental contamination Sheer volume NIMBYism

jacob
Télécharger la présentation

Toxic & Hazardous Wastes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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

More Related