- Email: [email protected]
Managing household hazardous waste—A framework for action
307
ENVIRON IMPACT ASSESS REV 1988;8:307-322
G E N E R A T I N G A L T E R N A T I V E POLICIES, PROGRAMS AND DESIGNS
MANAGING HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE--A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION
SCOTT CASSEL
Household hazardous waste (HHW) is "any material discarded from the home that may, because of its chemical nature, pose a threat to human health or the environment when handled improperly" (Galvin and Toteff 1986). Hazardous substances exist in solid, liquid, and gaseous forms and are found in common household products including drain openers, oven cleaners, furniture polish, moth balls, disinfectants, motor oil, car wax, paint thinners, weed killers, batteries, and nail polish remover (EPA 1986). Federal hazardous waste management regulations apply to generators of greater than or equal to 1000 kg/mo of hazardous waste (2205 lbs/mo or 1 tonne); a more limited set of regulations applies to "small quantity generators" (SQGs), those that generate between 100 to 1000 kg/mo. HHW is specifically exempt from federal regulations, even though it may contain exactly the same chemical substances that, if generated in larger quantities, would be considered "hazardous" and subject to special (and costly) treatment, storage, and disposal regulations. Some state hazardous waste regulations are stricter than federal standards. For example, California and Minnesota regulate all quantities of hazardous waste from commercial sources, while Massachusetts regulates anything above 20 kg/mo (45 lbs/mo). However, even these states exempt HHW from regulation. Why did Congress exempt households from regulation, and why has no state regulated them? One answer relates to the multitude of dwellings that such a law would cover. To regulate the disposal of HHW in municipal sewers alone would require a costly compliance system. Another reason why the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state governments do not regulate households is because they still need to implement existing hazardous waste laws governing commerce, which is where the vast © 1988 Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010
0195-9255/88/$3.50
308
SCOTT CASSEL
proportion of waste is generated. The first set of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations in 1976 only applied to businesses that generated more than 1000 kg/mo. It wasn't until the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 that small businesses were regulated to include generators of between 100 to 1000 kg/mo. EPA and state regulators are still busy educating local entrepreneurs about their hazardous waste management responsibilities and devising incentive systems and enforcement procedures to bring them into compliance.
Problems With HHW Household hazardous material (HHM) can pose problems, even before it is sold in final form to the consumer, during extraction of raw materials from the environment or manufacture of intermediate substances. Plant emissions and production activities pose additional risks to workers, nearby residents, and the environment. Industry personnel also must transport hazardous intermediate materials to the plant and HHM (end products) to retailers. Finally, manufacturers and retail store owners must store HHM before it reaches the consumer. After a product is purchased, HHM can cause additional problems during its use, storage, and disposal. These substances pose a threat during home use through inhalation of toxic fumes or ingestion of residues left on the skin. The storage of incompatible wastes in cellars and garages is also risky due to potential fires and explosions. Still other dangers are due to neither storage nor use but to the disposal of HHW. Although these dangers are intuitively obvious and accepted as fact by the EPA, evidence is lacking or inconclusive regarding actual damage to human health or the environment (EPA 1986). There are five basic HHW disposal methods that constitute a risk to human health and the environment: (1) backyard dumps and open-pit burning, (2) landfills, (3) septic systems, (4) wastewater treatment plants, and (5) incinerators/resource recovery facilities. The most obvious, but often overlooked, disposal problem can arise when wastes such as motor oil and paint are thrown "out back" where they can affect children playing or passersby, and can eventually contribute to soil and groundwater contamination. Another backyard problem, more commonly associated with rural areas, is the open-pit burning of trash containing hazardous substances. A second, and perhaps the best studied, disposal problem is that of household products that are deposited in the regular trash and are eventually sent to a solid waste disposal facility. The Association of Bay Area Governments in California documented injuries to state sanitation workers from HHW. For example, one worker in Sacramento County lost his sight when splashed by swimming pool acid while a sanitation truck compacted waste. Also, in 1986, 42 workers in Los Angeles were hospitalized for various injuries related to handling hazardous substances in garbage (EPA 1986). In fact, each year approximately 3 percent
MANAGING HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
309
of all garbage collectors are injured as a result of HHW. In addition, equipment damage to dumpsters, trucks, and waste shredders due to fires and explosions have occurred in Duluth, Minnesota, and Ohio (Tufts 1986). The EPA (1986) also reported specific incidents involving injured personnel at transfer stations, landfills, or other disposal sites associated with the unloading, spreading, and compacting of refuse. However, the EPA report concludes that: "It is impossible to designate HHW as the sole cause of the injuries . . . . Factors such as the wide range of waste collected and the lack of detail in the reported incidents preclude any definitive conclusions" (EPA 1986). There is even greater potential for environmental problems at landfills, where about 95 percent of municipal wastes are sent (Tufts 1986). Any substance that is deposited in an unlined landfill may eventually contribute to leachate and seep into the subsurface. (Leachate is the liquid portion derived from rainwater that migrates through landfills and usually becomes contaminated by waste products.) Of the approximately 375 landfills in Massachusetts still accepting municipal solid waste, only about 30 have either a compacted clay or synthetic liner beneath the base of the landfill to prevent leachate from seeping into the underlying soil (Herrigel 1987). More than 12 former municipal waste landfills across the country are now Superfund sites requiring cleanup (EPA 1986). Lined landfills are still too new a technology to be assessed as to their reliability over time. However, good management practices, including liners, leachate collection, and leachate detection systems (to monitor leachate movement in the soil) will minimize the impact of HHW on the environment. A third HHW disposal problem arises in unsewered areas where households must rely on individual septic systems. In 1975, this meant almost one third of the homes in the United States, or about 70,000,000 people. Septic tanks are underground concrete boxes that connect to household toilets and sinks via plumbing. They decompose sewage, collect the sludge, and disperse excess wastewater through drain tiles or perforated pipes to the soil (Hammer 1975). Septic tanks create a problem when HHW, such as photographic chemicals, drain cleaners, or paint solvents are poured into toilets or sinks. Although these chemicals may be degraded somewhat within the septic tank and by the initial assimilative capacity of the soil, over time they often contribute to groundwater contamination. In addition, the common use of chemical septic tank cleaners adds to the contamination and destroys the microorganisms that degrade the sewage within the tank. The effect of HHW on municipal wastewater treatment facilities represents a fourth disposal problem. One study by the City of Seattle (Cal Recovery 1985) actually detected the contribution of household contaminants to sanitary sewers. The problem facing Boston area residents is amplified by the city's antiquated municipal sewer system that dispenses raw, untreated sewage directly into Boston Harbor during rainy weather due to the inability of the two sewage treatment facilities to process the excess runoff water.
310
SCOIT CASSEL
The fifth disposal problem relates to air emissions from burning municipal waste in incinerators and resource recovery facilities. In addition, the ash that remains after burning reverts to a landfill disposal problem. Both the EPA and Congress are currently devising policies to better dispose of municipal incinerator ash, a waste that is exempt from RCRA regulations even though it sometimes is analyzed as "hazardous" according to the EPA RCRA definition. The same innovative policies for landfill disposal of municipal incinerator ash have also been discussed for HHW, including the creation of landfill standards that are stricter than Subtitle D nonhazardous waste disposal regulations but less strict than Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations.
Initial Management Efforts Once people became aware of HHW disposal problems, they sought safer disposal methods. While everyone agreed that current methods were not good enough, there was no place to take the wastes and few people had alternative strategies. Furthermore, there were no EPA or state guidelines on HHW disposal. In 1981, citizens in Marion County, Kentucky, took matters into their own hands and collected pesticides from residences, small businesses, schools, and agricultural firms during a 5-day program that yielded about 1900 pounds of chemicals at a cost of $1,200, paid for by local government (EPA 1986). After this initial effort, programs sprang up spontaneously across the country (Tufts 1986). The League of Women Voters in Lexington, Massachusetts, sponsored the first collection devoted exclusively to HHW on October 30, 1982. Another HHW program, in San Diego, was recommended by a special task force set up to respond to citizens who had nowhere to dispose of their HHW after officials told them not to put it in the trash due to sanitation worker injuries (EPA 1986). Instead of pushing the state government or the EPA to find a solution or forcing household product manufacturers to change their ways, local citizens took the first step within their ability to produce results--they organized HHW collection programs. The most popular HHW program is the l-day collection site where citizens bring their HHW to a centralized location for identification, packaging, and shipment to a permitted hazardous waste facility. A few municipalities use different strategies, such as separating HHW at the landfill, using mobile or permanent collection facilities, providing curbside or back-door pickup by appointment, and giving telephone advice to residents about proper disposal methods. The League of Women Voters was the most influential catalyst for initiating HHW collection programs across the country (Tufts 1986). Other program sponsors were local environmental groups or local government agencies responsible for environmental protection, health, sanitation, and energy. In some states, the legislature propelled state sponsorship of these programs or offered matching
MANAGING HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
311
grants. In other places, local industries---either generators, transporters, or waste management firms--decided to sponsor HHW collections for their communities (Tufts 1986). HHW collection programs became the solution most often sought by those concerned about HHW. Local collections increased in each successive year after the initial 1981 program. By 1982, five other states became leaders: California, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, and Washington, and by the following year Massachusetts and California established themselves as trendsetters by boosting their HHW collection totals. In 1983, there were 29 collections in seven states; by November 1987, the number of collections for that year had grown to 288 in 29 states, bringing the total number to 849 programs in 41 states (Tufts 1987b).
Current Local Efforts Due to the localized benefits of HHW collections, local groups still focus on establishing new programs or improving old ones. HHW coordinators seek to improve past collections by correcting two main problems: high program costs and low participation rates. Collection costs vary depending on the rates of the waste transporter, distance to the waste management facility, the waste management option used, the amount and type of waste collected, donations and services received, the type of operation, and the extent of the publicity campaign. However, collection costs are always considered high. For example, the cost of a l-day program in San Diego for 289 participating households (13,326 pounds of HHW collected) was $24,731 (Golden Empire Health Planning Center 1987). In addition to high program costs, most collections also exhibit low participation rates, even with heavy publicity and educational campaigns. Data suggest that rates are highest among those from the upper class, those with more education, and in communities that already have pollution problems. Even so, participation can be expected to be about 1 to 2 percent of the total target population. First-time collections in Connecticut, for example, varied from 0.5 to 7.0 percent (Tufts 1986), and Florida's multi-year "Amnesty Day" program met with participation rates of 0.1 to 1.8 percent (EPA 1986). Even with low participation rates and high program costs, veteran program coordinators push for more HHW collections. They do so out of a strong belief that public education components to collection programs are just as important as safe disposal of the waste. In fact, program coordinators such as Gina Purin (EPA 1987b) and Susan Ridgely (Tufts 1986) justify high program costs by emphasizing the number of people exposed to the media in collection target areas. HHW program coordinators teach residents what HHW is, how it affects them on a daily basis, and what they can do to reduce its use. For example, sponsors tell people to buy only the amount of hazardous material needed at any one time
312
SCOTTCASSEL
and to use less toxic alternative products. For example, the Albuquerque, New Mexico, Environmental Health and Energy Department recommends alternative "home remedies" such as boric acid for cockroach pesticides and cedar chips for moth balls (EPA 1986). The long-term objective of public education is to teach residents that hazardous substances are not only an industrial problem but a householder's problem as well. It attempts to make consumers aware that toxic products directly affect the environment, and that other goods, such as televisions and toaster ovens, generate hazardous waste as a by-product of their manufacture. Education also promotes discussion on the hierarchy of hazardous waste management options: waste reduction, reuse, recycling, recovery, treatment, incineration, and landfilling. In addition, coordinators of Rhode Island's HHW program hope that residents might be less opposed to siting hazardous waste facilities if they realize they are partly responsible for hazardous waste generation (EPA 1987b). Local sponsors raise issues to be addressed at the state or EPA level. For instance, those concerned with accidents at the collection site pressed the EPA to clarify their liability as it pertained to RCRA and CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or "Superfund"). In addition, HHW program coordinators have made the EPA and state officials aware of special wastes that disposal facilities refuse or are unable to take. Dioxin-bearing HHW, for example, can be legally accepted by hazardous waste facilities, but no one will take it due to public perception that it is extremely hazardous and too risky. Public interest groups are usually the ones that convince local sponsors to fund HHW collections. Local government funding mechanisms have included surcharges on refuse collection, water bills, and landfill tipping fees; general tax revenues, revenue sharing funds, or contingency reserve accounts; and special real estate tax assessments (Tufts 1986). A few years after establishing initial collection programs, local groups usually lobby state officials to institutionalize the process by funding permanent collection centers or collections held on a regular basis. This disposal strategy alleviates the need for residents to store wastes for long periods and acknowledges the daily generation of HHW. Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, and San Bernadino, California, are the first two areas to begin to establish permanent collection centers. Getting the legislature to commit funds for institutionalized programs routinizes the HHW issue and cements it onto state agendas, making its removal difficult. However, with this trend comes increased state involvement and less local influence due to the steady and substantial funds necessary to carry out the operation. The most important contribution of public interest groups and local officials is that they have pushed the issue of HHW successfully onto state government agendas. A natural alliance has formed between local activists and state officials, especially since many activists have created positions for themselves in state
MANAGING HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
313
programs as a result of no one else having the necessary information. Local groups rely on the state for financial and technical support in organizing HHW collections. For this reason, they urge state officials to pass laws, regulations, and guidelines regarding HHW.
State Government While local HHW initiatives began in 1981, state government became involved around 1984, and has increasingly done so on two levels: through the state environmental agency and through the state legislature. Environmental officials act as conduits to the legislature by relaying community concerns over HHW disposal and requesting funds for collections. Due to the public's overwhelming support, these programs have been a popular environmental issue to fund. Eleven state legislatures have passed laws governing HHW collections (Tufts 1987a). Two HHW programs are fully state-run as a result of legislative action. The Florida State Legislature developed "Amnesty Days" in 1983 due to its concern about groundwater pollution. The law directed the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation to conduct collections in each community throughout the state over a 3-year period. Rhode Island, which has the other fully staterun HHW program, started its "Toxic Cleanup Days" program in 1984 due to residents' calls and news of successful programs in other states (EPA 1987b). The state-run approach enhances bargaining power over hazardous waste contractors by guaranteeing larger quantities. Also, the state is a more cost-efficient sponsor than individual local groups because it is more experienced at running programs. In addition, fully state-run programs recognize the disparity in wealth of local governments and can spread funds so all communities, even the poorest, can hold HHW collections. There are 13 states that currently fund HHW collections by state legislative appropriation: Alaska, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin (Tufts 1987a). Seven states, most notably Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin, offer state matching grants to encourage HHW programs. The Connecticut legislature has appropriated $554,000 for HHW collections over a 3-year fiscal period beginning in 1984. New Hampshire allocates $100,000 per year from the State Hazardous Waste Cleanup Fund, with the appropriation being revived each year by generator fees and fines. From September 1985 through December 1986, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management funded 131 communities, covering a population of 2,444,494, with $490,000 of matching grants for HHW collections (EPA 1987b). State legislatures usually fund collections easily during a program's first 3 years. However, after that time they carefully analyze program accomplishments before appropriating additional funds. State program coordinators in Connecticut
314
SCOTTCASSEL
and Massachusetts anticipate getting more funding in 1988 for matching grants. However, coordinators in Florida and Wisconsin met with a different fate. After a 3½-year HHW collection program that was a model for others across the nation, Florida's legislature has not yet renewed funding. Wisconsin's legislature originally proposed an HHW program budget of $100,000 per year for 1985, but cut it to $50,000 per year for 2 years. During the 1987 fiscal year, the governor vetoed the line item, leaving no money for the program unless a current refunding bill is passed. Instead, the legislature replaced Wisconsin's HHW program with a program to collect pesticides and other agricultural waste (EPA 1987b).
Innovative State HHW Management Policies State legislatures are beginning to address the true costs of HHM production and HHW disposal. HHW collections reduce pollution damage. However, the entire public pays, not just those that benefit from the product's use. Furthermore, by hiding the costs of HHW collections in general taxes, the government disguises the connection between increased costs and toxic products. New legislative measures emphasize policies that increase consumer demand for less toxic products by advertising the dangers of HHM. As consumer demand changes, manufacturers are expected to provide less toxic alternatives through least-cost methods, either by changing inputs to the process or the process itself. Two California measures represent an approach that influences consumers' buying habits solely by requiring labels on HHM. The first measure, the Consumer Product Warning Provision of Proposition 65, was passed in November 1986. This measure requires that manufacturers provide warning labels on consumer products that contain one or more carcinogenic or mutagenic ingredients (Redway 1988). The second measure, Assembly Bill 2290, requires labels on all products that contain hazardous waste. A second approach, introduced in Iowa, takes product labeling one step further by requiring retailers who sell HHM to pay a permit fee based on their gross retail sales of HHM. Permitted stores place round yellow stickers with symbols on shelves above HHM. A nearby poster explains the symbol and teaches consumers about problems with its use, storage, and disposal (Bender 1988). A third approach, excise taxes (or user fees), attaches a monetary value to the environmental damage likely to be created by HHM, thus directly linking product use to pollution. Washington State's legislature, for example, passed the State Superfund law in October 1987, putting a 0.8 percent excise tax on the first-time sale of hazardous substances, ~ including HHM, pesticides, paint thinner, and gas products (Campbell 1988). These laws alert consumers to product dangers and external costs by requiring label-like identification stamps. When consumers are faced with the knowledge that increased costs are due to a product's pollution potential, the incentive for them to choose alternatives is stronger. State legislation can also expand the scope of the HHW issue by explicitly
MANAGING HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
315
including it in an overall hazardous waste management plan. California passed a bill (AB 2948) in fall 1986, known as the Tanner Planning Process, that requires county governments to develop hazardous waste management plans. Counties must assess the quantities of hazardous waste generated by all entities, including households, and develop treatment alternatives and waste minimization plans (Sherry 1988). Some state legislation gives citizens limited fights, either through legal action or alternative forums, for conflict resolution. Both mechanisms give industry the incentive to reduce household product toxicity. In California, the Consumer Product Warning Provision allows citizens to sue manufacturers that expose them to an HHM listed by the state as carcinogenic (Redway 1988). Iowa's permit fee law contains a citizen complaint provision that attempts to resolve differences before lawsuits are enacted. Citizens have the fight to issue complaints against manufacturers whose products violate state policies of waste reduction, recyclability, or toxicity. If the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) verifies the complaint, it will mediate between the complainant and the product manufacturer or take enforcement action (Bender 1988). As state government shifts its support from HHW collections to intervention in product manufacture, industry opposition increases considerably. Faced with overwhelming public support for expensive, inefficient collection programs and adamant industry opposition to more effective HHW management strategies, state government is at a crossroads. It needs to find new strategies that are acceptable to both sides. Furthermore, this conflict occurs at a time when other hazardous waste problems, such as abandoned waste sites, have commanded the majority of state and national attention. These circumstances have led state legislatures to reevaluate HHW programs, reduce state funds for collections, and begin to force industry to account for externalities created by their products.
Industry Industry's reaction to the emergence of the HHW issue ranges from overwhelming support for HHW collections from many small businesses and a handful of corporations to those who believe that no problems exist and current regulations are sufficient. Industry's response to progressive state legislation is to introduce weaker rival bills or to introduce weak federal legislation that would override individual state laws. The National Paint and Coatings Association, for example, is working on a federal labeling bill. Like most local and state activity, industry support for HHW management strategies focuses on HHW collections. Several corporations sponsor HHW collections for company employees and/or residents of the community in which a manufacturing plant is located. Their main benefit from sponsoring programs is better public relations. Leading corporate sponsors are Dow, Monsanto, SperryGrant, BFI, Chemical Waste Management, GSX, and Hercules. Most manu-
316
SCOTTCASSEL
facturers strongly believe that HHW should be reduced, recycled, and treated before being incinerated or used in landfills. However, they do not offer ways to reduce hazardous waste generation by either cutting production of toxic products or by finding substitute ingredients for them. Some corporate representatives oppose HHW management strategies they perceive as antagonistic to their interests. These apprehensions serve to widen the scope of debate. Whereas few state and local actors focus on any solution other than HHW collections, many in industry view HHW as another part of the waste disposal dilemma. They recognize that solutions to the problem may include major changes on their part. However, before spending millions of dollars, they want the HHW problem to be better defined and put into perspective. For example, Donald Lofty of The Drackett Company maintains that we need to know more about the hazards of current HHW disposal strategies before imposing extra costs on industry in the form of excise taxes or labeling laws (EPA 1987b). The uncertainty of data showing that HHW disposal causes problems has led to the classic "battle of the experts." Some researchers (Brown and Donnelly 1987; Sabel and Clark 1983; and Kmet and McGinley 1982) conclude that leachate from municipal solid waste landfills may be just as contaminated as leachate from industrial waste landfills. This implies that households contribute significantly to contamination at municipal landfills. Consultants for industry, on the other hand, claim that the municipal landfills studied also accepted commercial waste, so the other researchers cannot draw definite conclusions (EPA 1987b). Corporate consultants attack the methodology and unfounded inferences of these other studies and, in effect, stall debate on the environmental consequences of HHW disposal. Although few people argue that unlined solid waste landfills are safe for underlying groundwater, regulators focus on another debate: whether amended RCRA Subtitle D regulations that require municipal landfills to be upgraded with liners will protect the environment. Industry representatives believe that the minimum Subtitle D regulations are sufficient to contain HHW, whereas environmentalists believe that more stringent Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations should apply. Dr. Gary Moore (Tufts 1986), a professor with industry ties, said that Subtitle C facilities are already overtaxed and should be reserved for commercial waste. In his view, HHW collection programs are too expensive and public funds should be devoted to higher priority issues. Most industry representatives express a willingness to work with government and public interest groups and change their products "when the situation warrants" but first want direct evidence that the advantages of diverting waste from municipal to hazardous waste landfills outweigh the disadvantages. For instance, Lofty (EPA 1987b) has challenged excise tax proponents to prove that diverting "extremely small amounts of hazardous substances" from municipal waste landfills will improve landfill leachate quality. By insisting on direct proof of causation between HHW collections or less toxic products and lower risk, industry
MANAGING HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
317
avoids change. Resistance to change is natural behavior for an industry that is threatened with large costs in exchange for little or no tangible benefits. However, this resistance clashes with those who want to move ahead with new solutions before specific and provable problems arise. Even though industry helps to expand the HHW debate, it leaves unstated the basic premise behind its opposition--the loss of profits. When faced with lower profits from reduced sales due to excise taxes or labeling laws, some industry representatives claim that they want to protect the taxpaying public from unnecessary price increases. What they are really doing is camouflaging their special interest in the guise of public concern. Sadly, discussions have not yet focused on how industry profits can be maintained while simultaneously enhancing environmental quality through cooperation. For instance, some small companies/flready market nontoxic varieties of ordinarily toxic household products. These efforts are conducted by fringe companies similar to those that initially provided natural foods, items that are now found on supermarket shelves across the country. Government and public interest groups need to convince industry that taking a more active role in the HHW disposal issue may not only bring them a better public image, but also greater profits.
Federal Government (The EPA) In the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, Congress expressed a vague interest in the potential impact of HHW. The EPA responded to Congress' interest in HHW with a cautious implementation strategy. The EPA's early efforts at managing HHW consisted of awarding 17 grants totaling $466,194 to local communities in 1985 to support HHW collection programs (EPA 1986). These grants helped to establish pilot projects that later served as models for other collection efforts. The EPA became a visible part of the HHW debate in November 1986 when it co-sponsored the First National Conference on Household Hazardous Waste Collection Programs with Tufts University Center for Environmental Management. At this conference, the EPA came forward with guidance on major policy issues in at least four related areas: liability, dioxin-bearing HHW, EPA land ban regulations, and other nonregulated wastes. In November 1987, the EPA again co-sponsored a national conference on HHW, this time changing the title to Household Hazardous Waste Management, although the main strategy still being discussed was collection programs. These two conferences successfully provided a national forum in which the HHW issue could be raised and debated. In addition, the EPA funded at least three studies that address issues of national significance. In October 1986, the EPA released the first comprehensive nationwide study of HHW, called A Survey of Household Hazardous Waste and Related
318
ScoTrcASSEL
Collection Programs, that identified existing information on the types and quantities of HHW present in municipal waste, the dangers it poses to human health and the environment, and the various types of HHW collection programs (EPA 1986). In August 1987, the EPA issued a second report, Characterization of HHW from Marin County, California, and New Orleans, Louisiana, that estimated the amount of HHW in household trash to be about .35 and .40 percent. Also in 1987, the EPA gave MIT's Hazardous Substances Management Program a grant to assess the impact that regulating HHW and other nonregulated waste would have on existing hazardous waste facilities and the need for future sites. This study will include alternative policies for managing HHW. By funding research that is broad in scope, the EPA has begun to redefine HHW as an overall hazardous waste problem. The 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) already requires each state to develop plans to manage its hazardous waste by 1991. The EPA wants to assess whether HHW, if regulated, would significantly contribute to such facilities. Even though the EPA has made the connection between HHW and overall hazardous waste management, it has not guided the debate in this direction, perhaps due to all the unanswered questions regarding environmental effects. It does, however, strongly support HHW collections and corresponding public education programs, even while acknowledging high program costs and low participation rates. Furthermore, the EPA's enthusiasm for collections is not dampened by inconclusive data on the quantities of HHW generated, its impact on human health and the environment, and exact costs and benefits of collection programs. Joseph Carra, of the EPA's Office of Solid Waste, has said: "We cannot precisely define the contribution of HHW to environmental contamination. We know that HHW contains constitutents that have been shown to be a significant problem. Even a very small fraction of the 133 million tons of municipal solid waste generated annually is too significant an amount to be ignored. Thus, we should take every opportunity to carefully manage these wastes" (EPA 1987b). The EPA also stresses the educational benefits of HHW collections, although recognizing that the benefits are hard to measure. They too want to establish a link in the public's mind between the products we use to maintain our standard of living and the waste that accompanies them. The EPA has not taken a public position regarding HHW management strategies other than collection programs. Even with respect to collections, however, it has limited its role to funding a handful of innovative programs. The EPA relinquishes all responsibility to the states and local government to monitor collection programs because RCRA specifically exempts HHW from regulation (EPA 1986). In Mr. Carra's words, "EPA's role will continue to be that of providing technical assistance . . . and I hope that that role will grow in the next couple of years, although I can't guarantee it" (EPA 1987b).
MANAGING HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
319
The Next Step---A Proposal State legislatures are the group most likely to influence the future of the HHW issue by promoting government intervention in product manufacture. Conflict among interest groups is imminent. However, the manner in which state government manages this conflict will determine its future relationship with these groups. The following proposal represents a process to help parties interested in the HHW debate reach consensus on a statewide HHW strategy. Most legislation is a top-down mandate that doesn't fully account for parties' interests and objectives. These directives search for "optimal solutions" that rarely satisfy real-world concerns. State environmental agencies should manage the anticipated conflicts by setting up an HHW Committee composed of representatives from state and local government, industry, and public interest groups. These HHW Committees would provide a forum for conflict resolution and address issues of concern to all groups that would be affected by HHW regulations. The Committee's purpose would be to agree on an overall statewide HHW management strategy. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources set up a similar Advisory Committee to develop rules to administer its permit fee program. Iowa's Committee addressed retail storeowner concerns about cumbersome public education displays and, in so doing, reduced industry opposition to implementation of the law. The HHW Committee that I suggest would cooperate not only in the implementation of laws, but also in the policy-making process. It calls for a completely different relationship between potential adversaries. The goals of such a committee could be to (1) reduce costs of waste disposal, (2) reduce the risks to human health and the environment, (3) attain allocational efficiency of costs and benefits while assuring distributional equity and justice, and (4) review newly manufactured chemicals. The Committee would have to provide technical assistance and resources to less affluent members to assure full participation. It must also find a way to make agreements binding. Open-ended agreements will be much less effective. Committee recommendations might include legislation to provide incentives for industry to change its production processes. For example, the legislature might provide grants to universities and corporations to research "waste minimization" procedures, such as substituting less hazardous ingredients for more hazardous ones, substituting one product for another, and making products more reusable or recyclable. In addition, incentives along the entire user cycle, as well as the production process, will enhance toxics use reduction. The Committee could request legislative appropriations for, or work jointly with the EPA on, studies to define the following five issues: (1) the types and amounts of HHW generated in each state, (2) the problems posed by HHW
320
SCOTFCASSEL
disposal in septic tanks, wastewater treatment plants, incinerators, and landfills, (3) the relative risks posed by HHW in its use, storage, and disposal, (4) whether Subtitle D, Subtitle C, or other landfill regulations are most appropriate for HHW disposal, and (5) the impact of HHW on present and future disposal facilities. Once these issues became clearer, the Committee could determine the extent to which HHW should be included in overall state hazardous waste management plans. Joint fact-finding discourages the exaggeration of benefits and costs by encouraging shared information. The Committee could also consider the full costs of production and disposal, including the cost to human health and the environment along the entire life cycle of a substance or product. In addition, it could compare the full costs and benefits of producing toxic and nontoxic substances, including the costs of finding substitutes or changing production processes. A neutral facilitator could enhance the productivity of the HHW Committees by coordinating meetings, suggesting inclusion of relevant affected parties, and helping set Committee goals. A mediator could offer options for agreement on the statewide HHW management strategy, coordinate technical studies into joint fact-finding ventures, and resolve differences in perspective. The threat of legislation could bring all parties to the table to negotiate with the use of a neutral party. If such a Committee endeavor failed to produce consensus, the option would always exist for any of the parties to introduce legislation. State environmental agencies should begin to include HHW in their overall hazardous waste management plans, as California is doing with its Tanner Process. Three additional legislative measures could be included in the policy repertoire to be discussed by HHW Committees: differential excise taxes, prohibition, and take-back programs. All three policies would contribute to making the concept of the environment as a free good obsolete. Differential excise taxes, a "front-end" policy, would place a high tax on the most polluting products and a lower tax on those that are least polluting. This policy would aim at getting more abatement (pollution reduction) from the firm that produced high polluting products. Firms would produce less toxic products until the pollution cost of manufacturing a product was less than the cost of abatement. In this way, those for whom it costs little to abate will abate more than those whose abatement is costly. Each state would set its own tax and marginal pollution damage potential 2 (MPD) for household products sold in that state. Instead of rating the MPD cost of each product, which is a laborious task, state environmental agencies could set up categories for differential treatment based on several factors, including level of toxicity and whether products are reusable, recyclable, or biodegradable. Of course, nonlinearities must also be considered, such as the product's effect on susceptible populations and fragile environments. Since firms are cost-minimizers, each firm would figure its least-cost method
MANAGING HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
321
of reducing its pollution. Using this approach to pollution abatement, the state environmental agency would not have to know the firm's marginal abatement cost function. 3 However, to determine the MPD, manufacturers may have to disclose the contents of their products, as in ingredient lists on food products. HHW Committees could engage in joint studies to determine the MPD of important products and substances. A second front-end policy, prohibition, is an option for products or substances that are known to have irreversible negative effects or if the risks of exposure are too high. In these cases, the availability of cheap substitutes aids the prohibition policy. The third policy entails setting up programs that require retail stores to take back particular HHW generated in large quantities (i.e., motor oil, car batteries, other automotive products, and paint). This approach prioritizes HHW disposal problems and targets specific high visibility, high polluting products for special treatment.
Individual Responsibility HHW brings the issue of hazardous waste into our homes. It provides tangible proof that each one of us is part of the problem and therefore there is no escaping responsibility for finding solutions. With the knowledge that each product choice carries with it a cost to the environment, the public will be more conscious of protecting the environment. However, for people to begin using less toxic alternatives, the products must be of comparable price, quality, and accessibility. Although HHW itself will not create a crisis, it is quickly becoming redefined as part of the overall crisis of hazardous waste management. As regulators begin to control larger hazardous waste issues, such as the cleanup of contaminated sites, HHW will move to the foreground. Even though the amount of HHW is small compared with waste from commercial establishments, it will have disproportionate influence in changing people's behavior so that they demand a less toxic environment.
Notes 1. For example, a raw material that becomes an input to make another product is only taxed the first time it is sold in-state. 2. This is the potential pollution damage from one additional unit of production. 3. This is the curve representing the cost to the finn of each additional unit of abatement.
REFERENCES Bender, R. 1988. Administrator, Waste Management Authority Division, Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Personal communication. Brown, K. W. and Donnelly, K. C. 1987. An Estimation of the Risk Associated with the
322
SCOTI'CASSEL
Organic Constituents of Hazardous and Municipal Waste Landfill Leachate. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University, Soil and Crop Sciences Departments. Cal Recovery Systems, Inc. 1985. Characterization and Impacts of Non-regulated Hazardous Wastes in Municipal Solid Waste of King County, Washington. Seattle: Puget Sound Council of Governments. Campbell, S. 1988. Aide to Jolene Unsoeld, Washington State Representative. Personal communication. EPA. 1986. A Survey of HousehoM Hazardous Wastes and Related Collection Programs. Washington, DC: EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA. 1987a. Conference on Household Hazardous Waste Management. San Diego, California, November 2-4. Galvin, D. and Toteff, S. 1986. Toxics on the home front. Sierra 71:5. Golden Empire Health Planning Center. 1987. Looking at costs. Handout at EPA Conference on Household Hazardous Waste Management. San Diego, California, November 2-4, 1987. Hammer, M. J. 1975. Water and Waste-Water Technology. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Herrigel, JoAnn. 1987. Formerly with Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management. Personal communication. Kmet, P. and McGinley, P. 1982. Chemical characteristics of leachate from municipal solid waste landfills in Wisconsin. Proceedings of the 5th Annual Madison Waste Conference. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin. Redway, N. 1988. Sierra Club, Sacramento, CA. Personal communication. Sabel, G. V. and Clark, T. P. 1983. Volatile organic compounds as indicators of municipal solid waste leachate contamination. Proceedings of the 6th Annual Madison Waste Conference. Madison, WI: University of Sherry, S. Local Government Commission, Sacramento, CA. Telephone conversation. January 22, 1988. Tufts University, Center for Environmental Management. 1986. Summary of the First National Conference on Household Hazardous Waste Collection Programs. Medford, MA: Tufts University. Tufts University, Center for Environmental Management. 1987a. State level household hazardous waste laws and regulations, 1981-1987. Handout at Second National Conference on Household Hazardous Waste, CA, November 2-4, 1987. Tufts University, Center for Environmental Management. 1987b Household hazardous waste collection programs. Handout at Second National Conference on Household Hazardous Waste, CA, November 2-4, 1987.
ENVIRON IMPACT ASSESS REV 1988;8:307-322
G E N E R A T I N G A L T E R N A T I V E POLICIES, PROGRAMS AND DESIGNS
MANAGING HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE--A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION
SCOTT CASSEL
Household hazardous waste (HHW) is "any material discarded from the home that may, because of its chemical nature, pose a threat to human health or the environment when handled improperly" (Galvin and Toteff 1986). Hazardous substances exist in solid, liquid, and gaseous forms and are found in common household products including drain openers, oven cleaners, furniture polish, moth balls, disinfectants, motor oil, car wax, paint thinners, weed killers, batteries, and nail polish remover (EPA 1986). Federal hazardous waste management regulations apply to generators of greater than or equal to 1000 kg/mo of hazardous waste (2205 lbs/mo or 1 tonne); a more limited set of regulations applies to "small quantity generators" (SQGs), those that generate between 100 to 1000 kg/mo. HHW is specifically exempt from federal regulations, even though it may contain exactly the same chemical substances that, if generated in larger quantities, would be considered "hazardous" and subject to special (and costly) treatment, storage, and disposal regulations. Some state hazardous waste regulations are stricter than federal standards. For example, California and Minnesota regulate all quantities of hazardous waste from commercial sources, while Massachusetts regulates anything above 20 kg/mo (45 lbs/mo). However, even these states exempt HHW from regulation. Why did Congress exempt households from regulation, and why has no state regulated them? One answer relates to the multitude of dwellings that such a law would cover. To regulate the disposal of HHW in municipal sewers alone would require a costly compliance system. Another reason why the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state governments do not regulate households is because they still need to implement existing hazardous waste laws governing commerce, which is where the vast © 1988 Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010
0195-9255/88/$3.50
308
SCOTT CASSEL
proportion of waste is generated. The first set of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations in 1976 only applied to businesses that generated more than 1000 kg/mo. It wasn't until the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 that small businesses were regulated to include generators of between 100 to 1000 kg/mo. EPA and state regulators are still busy educating local entrepreneurs about their hazardous waste management responsibilities and devising incentive systems and enforcement procedures to bring them into compliance.
Problems With HHW Household hazardous material (HHM) can pose problems, even before it is sold in final form to the consumer, during extraction of raw materials from the environment or manufacture of intermediate substances. Plant emissions and production activities pose additional risks to workers, nearby residents, and the environment. Industry personnel also must transport hazardous intermediate materials to the plant and HHM (end products) to retailers. Finally, manufacturers and retail store owners must store HHM before it reaches the consumer. After a product is purchased, HHM can cause additional problems during its use, storage, and disposal. These substances pose a threat during home use through inhalation of toxic fumes or ingestion of residues left on the skin. The storage of incompatible wastes in cellars and garages is also risky due to potential fires and explosions. Still other dangers are due to neither storage nor use but to the disposal of HHW. Although these dangers are intuitively obvious and accepted as fact by the EPA, evidence is lacking or inconclusive regarding actual damage to human health or the environment (EPA 1986). There are five basic HHW disposal methods that constitute a risk to human health and the environment: (1) backyard dumps and open-pit burning, (2) landfills, (3) septic systems, (4) wastewater treatment plants, and (5) incinerators/resource recovery facilities. The most obvious, but often overlooked, disposal problem can arise when wastes such as motor oil and paint are thrown "out back" where they can affect children playing or passersby, and can eventually contribute to soil and groundwater contamination. Another backyard problem, more commonly associated with rural areas, is the open-pit burning of trash containing hazardous substances. A second, and perhaps the best studied, disposal problem is that of household products that are deposited in the regular trash and are eventually sent to a solid waste disposal facility. The Association of Bay Area Governments in California documented injuries to state sanitation workers from HHW. For example, one worker in Sacramento County lost his sight when splashed by swimming pool acid while a sanitation truck compacted waste. Also, in 1986, 42 workers in Los Angeles were hospitalized for various injuries related to handling hazardous substances in garbage (EPA 1986). In fact, each year approximately 3 percent
MANAGING HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
309
of all garbage collectors are injured as a result of HHW. In addition, equipment damage to dumpsters, trucks, and waste shredders due to fires and explosions have occurred in Duluth, Minnesota, and Ohio (Tufts 1986). The EPA (1986) also reported specific incidents involving injured personnel at transfer stations, landfills, or other disposal sites associated with the unloading, spreading, and compacting of refuse. However, the EPA report concludes that: "It is impossible to designate HHW as the sole cause of the injuries . . . . Factors such as the wide range of waste collected and the lack of detail in the reported incidents preclude any definitive conclusions" (EPA 1986). There is even greater potential for environmental problems at landfills, where about 95 percent of municipal wastes are sent (Tufts 1986). Any substance that is deposited in an unlined landfill may eventually contribute to leachate and seep into the subsurface. (Leachate is the liquid portion derived from rainwater that migrates through landfills and usually becomes contaminated by waste products.) Of the approximately 375 landfills in Massachusetts still accepting municipal solid waste, only about 30 have either a compacted clay or synthetic liner beneath the base of the landfill to prevent leachate from seeping into the underlying soil (Herrigel 1987). More than 12 former municipal waste landfills across the country are now Superfund sites requiring cleanup (EPA 1986). Lined landfills are still too new a technology to be assessed as to their reliability over time. However, good management practices, including liners, leachate collection, and leachate detection systems (to monitor leachate movement in the soil) will minimize the impact of HHW on the environment. A third HHW disposal problem arises in unsewered areas where households must rely on individual septic systems. In 1975, this meant almost one third of the homes in the United States, or about 70,000,000 people. Septic tanks are underground concrete boxes that connect to household toilets and sinks via plumbing. They decompose sewage, collect the sludge, and disperse excess wastewater through drain tiles or perforated pipes to the soil (Hammer 1975). Septic tanks create a problem when HHW, such as photographic chemicals, drain cleaners, or paint solvents are poured into toilets or sinks. Although these chemicals may be degraded somewhat within the septic tank and by the initial assimilative capacity of the soil, over time they often contribute to groundwater contamination. In addition, the common use of chemical septic tank cleaners adds to the contamination and destroys the microorganisms that degrade the sewage within the tank. The effect of HHW on municipal wastewater treatment facilities represents a fourth disposal problem. One study by the City of Seattle (Cal Recovery 1985) actually detected the contribution of household contaminants to sanitary sewers. The problem facing Boston area residents is amplified by the city's antiquated municipal sewer system that dispenses raw, untreated sewage directly into Boston Harbor during rainy weather due to the inability of the two sewage treatment facilities to process the excess runoff water.
310
SCOIT CASSEL
The fifth disposal problem relates to air emissions from burning municipal waste in incinerators and resource recovery facilities. In addition, the ash that remains after burning reverts to a landfill disposal problem. Both the EPA and Congress are currently devising policies to better dispose of municipal incinerator ash, a waste that is exempt from RCRA regulations even though it sometimes is analyzed as "hazardous" according to the EPA RCRA definition. The same innovative policies for landfill disposal of municipal incinerator ash have also been discussed for HHW, including the creation of landfill standards that are stricter than Subtitle D nonhazardous waste disposal regulations but less strict than Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations.
Initial Management Efforts Once people became aware of HHW disposal problems, they sought safer disposal methods. While everyone agreed that current methods were not good enough, there was no place to take the wastes and few people had alternative strategies. Furthermore, there were no EPA or state guidelines on HHW disposal. In 1981, citizens in Marion County, Kentucky, took matters into their own hands and collected pesticides from residences, small businesses, schools, and agricultural firms during a 5-day program that yielded about 1900 pounds of chemicals at a cost of $1,200, paid for by local government (EPA 1986). After this initial effort, programs sprang up spontaneously across the country (Tufts 1986). The League of Women Voters in Lexington, Massachusetts, sponsored the first collection devoted exclusively to HHW on October 30, 1982. Another HHW program, in San Diego, was recommended by a special task force set up to respond to citizens who had nowhere to dispose of their HHW after officials told them not to put it in the trash due to sanitation worker injuries (EPA 1986). Instead of pushing the state government or the EPA to find a solution or forcing household product manufacturers to change their ways, local citizens took the first step within their ability to produce results--they organized HHW collection programs. The most popular HHW program is the l-day collection site where citizens bring their HHW to a centralized location for identification, packaging, and shipment to a permitted hazardous waste facility. A few municipalities use different strategies, such as separating HHW at the landfill, using mobile or permanent collection facilities, providing curbside or back-door pickup by appointment, and giving telephone advice to residents about proper disposal methods. The League of Women Voters was the most influential catalyst for initiating HHW collection programs across the country (Tufts 1986). Other program sponsors were local environmental groups or local government agencies responsible for environmental protection, health, sanitation, and energy. In some states, the legislature propelled state sponsorship of these programs or offered matching
MANAGING HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
311
grants. In other places, local industries---either generators, transporters, or waste management firms--decided to sponsor HHW collections for their communities (Tufts 1986). HHW collection programs became the solution most often sought by those concerned about HHW. Local collections increased in each successive year after the initial 1981 program. By 1982, five other states became leaders: California, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, and Washington, and by the following year Massachusetts and California established themselves as trendsetters by boosting their HHW collection totals. In 1983, there were 29 collections in seven states; by November 1987, the number of collections for that year had grown to 288 in 29 states, bringing the total number to 849 programs in 41 states (Tufts 1987b).
Current Local Efforts Due to the localized benefits of HHW collections, local groups still focus on establishing new programs or improving old ones. HHW coordinators seek to improve past collections by correcting two main problems: high program costs and low participation rates. Collection costs vary depending on the rates of the waste transporter, distance to the waste management facility, the waste management option used, the amount and type of waste collected, donations and services received, the type of operation, and the extent of the publicity campaign. However, collection costs are always considered high. For example, the cost of a l-day program in San Diego for 289 participating households (13,326 pounds of HHW collected) was $24,731 (Golden Empire Health Planning Center 1987). In addition to high program costs, most collections also exhibit low participation rates, even with heavy publicity and educational campaigns. Data suggest that rates are highest among those from the upper class, those with more education, and in communities that already have pollution problems. Even so, participation can be expected to be about 1 to 2 percent of the total target population. First-time collections in Connecticut, for example, varied from 0.5 to 7.0 percent (Tufts 1986), and Florida's multi-year "Amnesty Day" program met with participation rates of 0.1 to 1.8 percent (EPA 1986). Even with low participation rates and high program costs, veteran program coordinators push for more HHW collections. They do so out of a strong belief that public education components to collection programs are just as important as safe disposal of the waste. In fact, program coordinators such as Gina Purin (EPA 1987b) and Susan Ridgely (Tufts 1986) justify high program costs by emphasizing the number of people exposed to the media in collection target areas. HHW program coordinators teach residents what HHW is, how it affects them on a daily basis, and what they can do to reduce its use. For example, sponsors tell people to buy only the amount of hazardous material needed at any one time
312
SCOTTCASSEL
and to use less toxic alternative products. For example, the Albuquerque, New Mexico, Environmental Health and Energy Department recommends alternative "home remedies" such as boric acid for cockroach pesticides and cedar chips for moth balls (EPA 1986). The long-term objective of public education is to teach residents that hazardous substances are not only an industrial problem but a householder's problem as well. It attempts to make consumers aware that toxic products directly affect the environment, and that other goods, such as televisions and toaster ovens, generate hazardous waste as a by-product of their manufacture. Education also promotes discussion on the hierarchy of hazardous waste management options: waste reduction, reuse, recycling, recovery, treatment, incineration, and landfilling. In addition, coordinators of Rhode Island's HHW program hope that residents might be less opposed to siting hazardous waste facilities if they realize they are partly responsible for hazardous waste generation (EPA 1987b). Local sponsors raise issues to be addressed at the state or EPA level. For instance, those concerned with accidents at the collection site pressed the EPA to clarify their liability as it pertained to RCRA and CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or "Superfund"). In addition, HHW program coordinators have made the EPA and state officials aware of special wastes that disposal facilities refuse or are unable to take. Dioxin-bearing HHW, for example, can be legally accepted by hazardous waste facilities, but no one will take it due to public perception that it is extremely hazardous and too risky. Public interest groups are usually the ones that convince local sponsors to fund HHW collections. Local government funding mechanisms have included surcharges on refuse collection, water bills, and landfill tipping fees; general tax revenues, revenue sharing funds, or contingency reserve accounts; and special real estate tax assessments (Tufts 1986). A few years after establishing initial collection programs, local groups usually lobby state officials to institutionalize the process by funding permanent collection centers or collections held on a regular basis. This disposal strategy alleviates the need for residents to store wastes for long periods and acknowledges the daily generation of HHW. Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, and San Bernadino, California, are the first two areas to begin to establish permanent collection centers. Getting the legislature to commit funds for institutionalized programs routinizes the HHW issue and cements it onto state agendas, making its removal difficult. However, with this trend comes increased state involvement and less local influence due to the steady and substantial funds necessary to carry out the operation. The most important contribution of public interest groups and local officials is that they have pushed the issue of HHW successfully onto state government agendas. A natural alliance has formed between local activists and state officials, especially since many activists have created positions for themselves in state
MANAGING HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
313
programs as a result of no one else having the necessary information. Local groups rely on the state for financial and technical support in organizing HHW collections. For this reason, they urge state officials to pass laws, regulations, and guidelines regarding HHW.
State Government While local HHW initiatives began in 1981, state government became involved around 1984, and has increasingly done so on two levels: through the state environmental agency and through the state legislature. Environmental officials act as conduits to the legislature by relaying community concerns over HHW disposal and requesting funds for collections. Due to the public's overwhelming support, these programs have been a popular environmental issue to fund. Eleven state legislatures have passed laws governing HHW collections (Tufts 1987a). Two HHW programs are fully state-run as a result of legislative action. The Florida State Legislature developed "Amnesty Days" in 1983 due to its concern about groundwater pollution. The law directed the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation to conduct collections in each community throughout the state over a 3-year period. Rhode Island, which has the other fully staterun HHW program, started its "Toxic Cleanup Days" program in 1984 due to residents' calls and news of successful programs in other states (EPA 1987b). The state-run approach enhances bargaining power over hazardous waste contractors by guaranteeing larger quantities. Also, the state is a more cost-efficient sponsor than individual local groups because it is more experienced at running programs. In addition, fully state-run programs recognize the disparity in wealth of local governments and can spread funds so all communities, even the poorest, can hold HHW collections. There are 13 states that currently fund HHW collections by state legislative appropriation: Alaska, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin (Tufts 1987a). Seven states, most notably Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin, offer state matching grants to encourage HHW programs. The Connecticut legislature has appropriated $554,000 for HHW collections over a 3-year fiscal period beginning in 1984. New Hampshire allocates $100,000 per year from the State Hazardous Waste Cleanup Fund, with the appropriation being revived each year by generator fees and fines. From September 1985 through December 1986, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management funded 131 communities, covering a population of 2,444,494, with $490,000 of matching grants for HHW collections (EPA 1987b). State legislatures usually fund collections easily during a program's first 3 years. However, after that time they carefully analyze program accomplishments before appropriating additional funds. State program coordinators in Connecticut
314
SCOTTCASSEL
and Massachusetts anticipate getting more funding in 1988 for matching grants. However, coordinators in Florida and Wisconsin met with a different fate. After a 3½-year HHW collection program that was a model for others across the nation, Florida's legislature has not yet renewed funding. Wisconsin's legislature originally proposed an HHW program budget of $100,000 per year for 1985, but cut it to $50,000 per year for 2 years. During the 1987 fiscal year, the governor vetoed the line item, leaving no money for the program unless a current refunding bill is passed. Instead, the legislature replaced Wisconsin's HHW program with a program to collect pesticides and other agricultural waste (EPA 1987b).
Innovative State HHW Management Policies State legislatures are beginning to address the true costs of HHM production and HHW disposal. HHW collections reduce pollution damage. However, the entire public pays, not just those that benefit from the product's use. Furthermore, by hiding the costs of HHW collections in general taxes, the government disguises the connection between increased costs and toxic products. New legislative measures emphasize policies that increase consumer demand for less toxic products by advertising the dangers of HHM. As consumer demand changes, manufacturers are expected to provide less toxic alternatives through least-cost methods, either by changing inputs to the process or the process itself. Two California measures represent an approach that influences consumers' buying habits solely by requiring labels on HHM. The first measure, the Consumer Product Warning Provision of Proposition 65, was passed in November 1986. This measure requires that manufacturers provide warning labels on consumer products that contain one or more carcinogenic or mutagenic ingredients (Redway 1988). The second measure, Assembly Bill 2290, requires labels on all products that contain hazardous waste. A second approach, introduced in Iowa, takes product labeling one step further by requiring retailers who sell HHM to pay a permit fee based on their gross retail sales of HHM. Permitted stores place round yellow stickers with symbols on shelves above HHM. A nearby poster explains the symbol and teaches consumers about problems with its use, storage, and disposal (Bender 1988). A third approach, excise taxes (or user fees), attaches a monetary value to the environmental damage likely to be created by HHM, thus directly linking product use to pollution. Washington State's legislature, for example, passed the State Superfund law in October 1987, putting a 0.8 percent excise tax on the first-time sale of hazardous substances, ~ including HHM, pesticides, paint thinner, and gas products (Campbell 1988). These laws alert consumers to product dangers and external costs by requiring label-like identification stamps. When consumers are faced with the knowledge that increased costs are due to a product's pollution potential, the incentive for them to choose alternatives is stronger. State legislation can also expand the scope of the HHW issue by explicitly
MANAGING HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
315
including it in an overall hazardous waste management plan. California passed a bill (AB 2948) in fall 1986, known as the Tanner Planning Process, that requires county governments to develop hazardous waste management plans. Counties must assess the quantities of hazardous waste generated by all entities, including households, and develop treatment alternatives and waste minimization plans (Sherry 1988). Some state legislation gives citizens limited fights, either through legal action or alternative forums, for conflict resolution. Both mechanisms give industry the incentive to reduce household product toxicity. In California, the Consumer Product Warning Provision allows citizens to sue manufacturers that expose them to an HHM listed by the state as carcinogenic (Redway 1988). Iowa's permit fee law contains a citizen complaint provision that attempts to resolve differences before lawsuits are enacted. Citizens have the fight to issue complaints against manufacturers whose products violate state policies of waste reduction, recyclability, or toxicity. If the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) verifies the complaint, it will mediate between the complainant and the product manufacturer or take enforcement action (Bender 1988). As state government shifts its support from HHW collections to intervention in product manufacture, industry opposition increases considerably. Faced with overwhelming public support for expensive, inefficient collection programs and adamant industry opposition to more effective HHW management strategies, state government is at a crossroads. It needs to find new strategies that are acceptable to both sides. Furthermore, this conflict occurs at a time when other hazardous waste problems, such as abandoned waste sites, have commanded the majority of state and national attention. These circumstances have led state legislatures to reevaluate HHW programs, reduce state funds for collections, and begin to force industry to account for externalities created by their products.
Industry Industry's reaction to the emergence of the HHW issue ranges from overwhelming support for HHW collections from many small businesses and a handful of corporations to those who believe that no problems exist and current regulations are sufficient. Industry's response to progressive state legislation is to introduce weaker rival bills or to introduce weak federal legislation that would override individual state laws. The National Paint and Coatings Association, for example, is working on a federal labeling bill. Like most local and state activity, industry support for HHW management strategies focuses on HHW collections. Several corporations sponsor HHW collections for company employees and/or residents of the community in which a manufacturing plant is located. Their main benefit from sponsoring programs is better public relations. Leading corporate sponsors are Dow, Monsanto, SperryGrant, BFI, Chemical Waste Management, GSX, and Hercules. Most manu-
316
SCOTTCASSEL
facturers strongly believe that HHW should be reduced, recycled, and treated before being incinerated or used in landfills. However, they do not offer ways to reduce hazardous waste generation by either cutting production of toxic products or by finding substitute ingredients for them. Some corporate representatives oppose HHW management strategies they perceive as antagonistic to their interests. These apprehensions serve to widen the scope of debate. Whereas few state and local actors focus on any solution other than HHW collections, many in industry view HHW as another part of the waste disposal dilemma. They recognize that solutions to the problem may include major changes on their part. However, before spending millions of dollars, they want the HHW problem to be better defined and put into perspective. For example, Donald Lofty of The Drackett Company maintains that we need to know more about the hazards of current HHW disposal strategies before imposing extra costs on industry in the form of excise taxes or labeling laws (EPA 1987b). The uncertainty of data showing that HHW disposal causes problems has led to the classic "battle of the experts." Some researchers (Brown and Donnelly 1987; Sabel and Clark 1983; and Kmet and McGinley 1982) conclude that leachate from municipal solid waste landfills may be just as contaminated as leachate from industrial waste landfills. This implies that households contribute significantly to contamination at municipal landfills. Consultants for industry, on the other hand, claim that the municipal landfills studied also accepted commercial waste, so the other researchers cannot draw definite conclusions (EPA 1987b). Corporate consultants attack the methodology and unfounded inferences of these other studies and, in effect, stall debate on the environmental consequences of HHW disposal. Although few people argue that unlined solid waste landfills are safe for underlying groundwater, regulators focus on another debate: whether amended RCRA Subtitle D regulations that require municipal landfills to be upgraded with liners will protect the environment. Industry representatives believe that the minimum Subtitle D regulations are sufficient to contain HHW, whereas environmentalists believe that more stringent Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations should apply. Dr. Gary Moore (Tufts 1986), a professor with industry ties, said that Subtitle C facilities are already overtaxed and should be reserved for commercial waste. In his view, HHW collection programs are too expensive and public funds should be devoted to higher priority issues. Most industry representatives express a willingness to work with government and public interest groups and change their products "when the situation warrants" but first want direct evidence that the advantages of diverting waste from municipal to hazardous waste landfills outweigh the disadvantages. For instance, Lofty (EPA 1987b) has challenged excise tax proponents to prove that diverting "extremely small amounts of hazardous substances" from municipal waste landfills will improve landfill leachate quality. By insisting on direct proof of causation between HHW collections or less toxic products and lower risk, industry
MANAGING HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
317
avoids change. Resistance to change is natural behavior for an industry that is threatened with large costs in exchange for little or no tangible benefits. However, this resistance clashes with those who want to move ahead with new solutions before specific and provable problems arise. Even though industry helps to expand the HHW debate, it leaves unstated the basic premise behind its opposition--the loss of profits. When faced with lower profits from reduced sales due to excise taxes or labeling laws, some industry representatives claim that they want to protect the taxpaying public from unnecessary price increases. What they are really doing is camouflaging their special interest in the guise of public concern. Sadly, discussions have not yet focused on how industry profits can be maintained while simultaneously enhancing environmental quality through cooperation. For instance, some small companies/flready market nontoxic varieties of ordinarily toxic household products. These efforts are conducted by fringe companies similar to those that initially provided natural foods, items that are now found on supermarket shelves across the country. Government and public interest groups need to convince industry that taking a more active role in the HHW disposal issue may not only bring them a better public image, but also greater profits.
Federal Government (The EPA) In the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, Congress expressed a vague interest in the potential impact of HHW. The EPA responded to Congress' interest in HHW with a cautious implementation strategy. The EPA's early efforts at managing HHW consisted of awarding 17 grants totaling $466,194 to local communities in 1985 to support HHW collection programs (EPA 1986). These grants helped to establish pilot projects that later served as models for other collection efforts. The EPA became a visible part of the HHW debate in November 1986 when it co-sponsored the First National Conference on Household Hazardous Waste Collection Programs with Tufts University Center for Environmental Management. At this conference, the EPA came forward with guidance on major policy issues in at least four related areas: liability, dioxin-bearing HHW, EPA land ban regulations, and other nonregulated wastes. In November 1987, the EPA again co-sponsored a national conference on HHW, this time changing the title to Household Hazardous Waste Management, although the main strategy still being discussed was collection programs. These two conferences successfully provided a national forum in which the HHW issue could be raised and debated. In addition, the EPA funded at least three studies that address issues of national significance. In October 1986, the EPA released the first comprehensive nationwide study of HHW, called A Survey of Household Hazardous Waste and Related
318
ScoTrcASSEL
Collection Programs, that identified existing information on the types and quantities of HHW present in municipal waste, the dangers it poses to human health and the environment, and the various types of HHW collection programs (EPA 1986). In August 1987, the EPA issued a second report, Characterization of HHW from Marin County, California, and New Orleans, Louisiana, that estimated the amount of HHW in household trash to be about .35 and .40 percent. Also in 1987, the EPA gave MIT's Hazardous Substances Management Program a grant to assess the impact that regulating HHW and other nonregulated waste would have on existing hazardous waste facilities and the need for future sites. This study will include alternative policies for managing HHW. By funding research that is broad in scope, the EPA has begun to redefine HHW as an overall hazardous waste problem. The 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) already requires each state to develop plans to manage its hazardous waste by 1991. The EPA wants to assess whether HHW, if regulated, would significantly contribute to such facilities. Even though the EPA has made the connection between HHW and overall hazardous waste management, it has not guided the debate in this direction, perhaps due to all the unanswered questions regarding environmental effects. It does, however, strongly support HHW collections and corresponding public education programs, even while acknowledging high program costs and low participation rates. Furthermore, the EPA's enthusiasm for collections is not dampened by inconclusive data on the quantities of HHW generated, its impact on human health and the environment, and exact costs and benefits of collection programs. Joseph Carra, of the EPA's Office of Solid Waste, has said: "We cannot precisely define the contribution of HHW to environmental contamination. We know that HHW contains constitutents that have been shown to be a significant problem. Even a very small fraction of the 133 million tons of municipal solid waste generated annually is too significant an amount to be ignored. Thus, we should take every opportunity to carefully manage these wastes" (EPA 1987b). The EPA also stresses the educational benefits of HHW collections, although recognizing that the benefits are hard to measure. They too want to establish a link in the public's mind between the products we use to maintain our standard of living and the waste that accompanies them. The EPA has not taken a public position regarding HHW management strategies other than collection programs. Even with respect to collections, however, it has limited its role to funding a handful of innovative programs. The EPA relinquishes all responsibility to the states and local government to monitor collection programs because RCRA specifically exempts HHW from regulation (EPA 1986). In Mr. Carra's words, "EPA's role will continue to be that of providing technical assistance . . . and I hope that that role will grow in the next couple of years, although I can't guarantee it" (EPA 1987b).
MANAGING HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
319
The Next Step---A Proposal State legislatures are the group most likely to influence the future of the HHW issue by promoting government intervention in product manufacture. Conflict among interest groups is imminent. However, the manner in which state government manages this conflict will determine its future relationship with these groups. The following proposal represents a process to help parties interested in the HHW debate reach consensus on a statewide HHW strategy. Most legislation is a top-down mandate that doesn't fully account for parties' interests and objectives. These directives search for "optimal solutions" that rarely satisfy real-world concerns. State environmental agencies should manage the anticipated conflicts by setting up an HHW Committee composed of representatives from state and local government, industry, and public interest groups. These HHW Committees would provide a forum for conflict resolution and address issues of concern to all groups that would be affected by HHW regulations. The Committee's purpose would be to agree on an overall statewide HHW management strategy. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources set up a similar Advisory Committee to develop rules to administer its permit fee program. Iowa's Committee addressed retail storeowner concerns about cumbersome public education displays and, in so doing, reduced industry opposition to implementation of the law. The HHW Committee that I suggest would cooperate not only in the implementation of laws, but also in the policy-making process. It calls for a completely different relationship between potential adversaries. The goals of such a committee could be to (1) reduce costs of waste disposal, (2) reduce the risks to human health and the environment, (3) attain allocational efficiency of costs and benefits while assuring distributional equity and justice, and (4) review newly manufactured chemicals. The Committee would have to provide technical assistance and resources to less affluent members to assure full participation. It must also find a way to make agreements binding. Open-ended agreements will be much less effective. Committee recommendations might include legislation to provide incentives for industry to change its production processes. For example, the legislature might provide grants to universities and corporations to research "waste minimization" procedures, such as substituting less hazardous ingredients for more hazardous ones, substituting one product for another, and making products more reusable or recyclable. In addition, incentives along the entire user cycle, as well as the production process, will enhance toxics use reduction. The Committee could request legislative appropriations for, or work jointly with the EPA on, studies to define the following five issues: (1) the types and amounts of HHW generated in each state, (2) the problems posed by HHW
320
SCOTFCASSEL
disposal in septic tanks, wastewater treatment plants, incinerators, and landfills, (3) the relative risks posed by HHW in its use, storage, and disposal, (4) whether Subtitle D, Subtitle C, or other landfill regulations are most appropriate for HHW disposal, and (5) the impact of HHW on present and future disposal facilities. Once these issues became clearer, the Committee could determine the extent to which HHW should be included in overall state hazardous waste management plans. Joint fact-finding discourages the exaggeration of benefits and costs by encouraging shared information. The Committee could also consider the full costs of production and disposal, including the cost to human health and the environment along the entire life cycle of a substance or product. In addition, it could compare the full costs and benefits of producing toxic and nontoxic substances, including the costs of finding substitutes or changing production processes. A neutral facilitator could enhance the productivity of the HHW Committees by coordinating meetings, suggesting inclusion of relevant affected parties, and helping set Committee goals. A mediator could offer options for agreement on the statewide HHW management strategy, coordinate technical studies into joint fact-finding ventures, and resolve differences in perspective. The threat of legislation could bring all parties to the table to negotiate with the use of a neutral party. If such a Committee endeavor failed to produce consensus, the option would always exist for any of the parties to introduce legislation. State environmental agencies should begin to include HHW in their overall hazardous waste management plans, as California is doing with its Tanner Process. Three additional legislative measures could be included in the policy repertoire to be discussed by HHW Committees: differential excise taxes, prohibition, and take-back programs. All three policies would contribute to making the concept of the environment as a free good obsolete. Differential excise taxes, a "front-end" policy, would place a high tax on the most polluting products and a lower tax on those that are least polluting. This policy would aim at getting more abatement (pollution reduction) from the firm that produced high polluting products. Firms would produce less toxic products until the pollution cost of manufacturing a product was less than the cost of abatement. In this way, those for whom it costs little to abate will abate more than those whose abatement is costly. Each state would set its own tax and marginal pollution damage potential 2 (MPD) for household products sold in that state. Instead of rating the MPD cost of each product, which is a laborious task, state environmental agencies could set up categories for differential treatment based on several factors, including level of toxicity and whether products are reusable, recyclable, or biodegradable. Of course, nonlinearities must also be considered, such as the product's effect on susceptible populations and fragile environments. Since firms are cost-minimizers, each firm would figure its least-cost method
MANAGING HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
321
of reducing its pollution. Using this approach to pollution abatement, the state environmental agency would not have to know the firm's marginal abatement cost function. 3 However, to determine the MPD, manufacturers may have to disclose the contents of their products, as in ingredient lists on food products. HHW Committees could engage in joint studies to determine the MPD of important products and substances. A second front-end policy, prohibition, is an option for products or substances that are known to have irreversible negative effects or if the risks of exposure are too high. In these cases, the availability of cheap substitutes aids the prohibition policy. The third policy entails setting up programs that require retail stores to take back particular HHW generated in large quantities (i.e., motor oil, car batteries, other automotive products, and paint). This approach prioritizes HHW disposal problems and targets specific high visibility, high polluting products for special treatment.
Individual Responsibility HHW brings the issue of hazardous waste into our homes. It provides tangible proof that each one of us is part of the problem and therefore there is no escaping responsibility for finding solutions. With the knowledge that each product choice carries with it a cost to the environment, the public will be more conscious of protecting the environment. However, for people to begin using less toxic alternatives, the products must be of comparable price, quality, and accessibility. Although HHW itself will not create a crisis, it is quickly becoming redefined as part of the overall crisis of hazardous waste management. As regulators begin to control larger hazardous waste issues, such as the cleanup of contaminated sites, HHW will move to the foreground. Even though the amount of HHW is small compared with waste from commercial establishments, it will have disproportionate influence in changing people's behavior so that they demand a less toxic environment.
Notes 1. For example, a raw material that becomes an input to make another product is only taxed the first time it is sold in-state. 2. This is the potential pollution damage from one additional unit of production. 3. This is the curve representing the cost to the finn of each additional unit of abatement.
REFERENCES Bender, R. 1988. Administrator, Waste Management Authority Division, Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Personal communication. Brown, K. W. and Donnelly, K. C. 1987. An Estimation of the Risk Associated with the
322
SCOTI'CASSEL
Organic Constituents of Hazardous and Municipal Waste Landfill Leachate. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University, Soil and Crop Sciences Departments. Cal Recovery Systems, Inc. 1985. Characterization and Impacts of Non-regulated Hazardous Wastes in Municipal Solid Waste of King County, Washington. Seattle: Puget Sound Council of Governments. Campbell, S. 1988. Aide to Jolene Unsoeld, Washington State Representative. Personal communication. EPA. 1986. A Survey of HousehoM Hazardous Wastes and Related Collection Programs. Washington, DC: EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA. 1987a. Conference on Household Hazardous Waste Management. San Diego, California, November 2-4. Galvin, D. and Toteff, S. 1986. Toxics on the home front. Sierra 71:5. Golden Empire Health Planning Center. 1987. Looking at costs. Handout at EPA Conference on Household Hazardous Waste Management. San Diego, California, November 2-4, 1987. Hammer, M. J. 1975. Water and Waste-Water Technology. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Herrigel, JoAnn. 1987. Formerly with Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management. Personal communication. Kmet, P. and McGinley, P. 1982. Chemical characteristics of leachate from municipal solid waste landfills in Wisconsin. Proceedings of the 5th Annual Madison Waste Conference. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin. Redway, N. 1988. Sierra Club, Sacramento, CA. Personal communication. Sabel, G. V. and Clark, T. P. 1983. Volatile organic compounds as indicators of municipal solid waste leachate contamination. Proceedings of the 6th Annual Madison Waste Conference. Madison, WI: University of Sherry, S. Local Government Commission, Sacramento, CA. Telephone conversation. January 22, 1988. Tufts University, Center for Environmental Management. 1986. Summary of the First National Conference on Household Hazardous Waste Collection Programs. Medford, MA: Tufts University. Tufts University, Center for Environmental Management. 1987a. State level household hazardous waste laws and regulations, 1981-1987. Handout at Second National Conference on Household Hazardous Waste, CA, November 2-4, 1987. Tufts University, Center for Environmental Management. 1987b Household hazardous waste collection programs. Handout at Second National Conference on Household Hazardous Waste, CA, November 2-4, 1987.