Student: Jonas Miller-Stockie
Graduation date: May 2019
Type: Concentration (single major)
Date approved: November 2016
Go to concentration landing page
Summary
Transportation and Storage of Hazardous Waste in America
The dichotomy between commodity products and waste products is a paradox in that they are both formed by the same processes but are labeled as beneficial to society or not worth keeping in their vicinity. The phrase ‘One man’s trash is another man’s treasure’ describes how waste can be a broad socially constructed term which changes with different people and societies. Hazardous waste is a specific category broadly defined in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to “cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating illness; or, pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed.”(Hepworth 2011). Hazardous waste is found in all forms be it liquid chemical by-products, dirt contaminated with radioactivity, or even household batteries which are not even regulated even though they can be extremely toxic. “1.1 trillion pounds of hazardous waste were generated in 1995, only 21 billion pounds of it–under 2 percent– were shipped offsite for management” (Atlas 2002) according to the EPA data from 1995; and that number has not lowered in the past 20 years. “The challenge for regulatory policymakers is to impose a problem framework, of risk analysis and management, which structures the behavior of the different regulated parties in acceptable ways, while not interfering with other freedoms that are regarded as legitimate.”(Wynne 1987) In the US, the key agency in the regulation of hazardous waste is the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). There are also informal regulatory oversights such as cultural norms, social and professional obligations, and media attention (Wynne 1987). Movements such as NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) are an example of informal regulation which pushes hazardous producing industries to move away from areas with populations that have the education, organization, and capital to fight back. The EPA must walk a thin line of protecting citizens health while at the same time not limiting business’ freedoms to produce hazardous byproducts. Unlike waste generators, facilities that store hazardous waste have strict regulations and need permits to store their waste. This is problematic because these storage facilities only account for 2 percent of the hazardous waste created, leaving the other 98 percent to less regulated waste produces. A lot of this hazardous waste is strategically released or stored with a significant amount of calculated risk. Setting boundaries for danger the reach of hazardous waste storage facilities is complicated because the line being drawn will always leave someone disadvantaged. Viewing the storage of hazardous waste through an environmental justice lens brings up issues of distribution of adverse health and ecological risk. Industries tend to settle in locations surrounded by marginalized populations, racial or lower economic classes for example, because these areas are cost effective and tend to have less political push-back due to lower social and economic capital. A political and economic lens will shed light on the ways waste are commodified and the implications that stem from this.
One example of the storage of hazardous waste and its contention involved a waste processing facility called Innovative Waste Solutions (IWU) in southern Phoenix. The opening of the facility brought a lot of protest from the community, but was still granted permission to open. After only three years the facility was shut down and charged with attempting to dump hazardous waste in public landfills, money laundering and bribing a public official among many other charges (Sicotte 2008). Although this is a specific case which was caught early, accounts of similar cases are not unusual.
Another case from St. Louis is an example of mismanagement of hazardous waste on the part of the private sector and of the EPA who has not done anything to change the situation. The municipal landfill in St. Louis, the West Lake Landfill run by Republic Services, manages the landfill which smolders underground due to poor coverage of waste and decomposition producing flammable gas. The West Lake Landfill is near a decades old storage site of nuclear waste from the Manhattan project. Both facilities are near highly populated areas of minority and low income communities. Even though tests have found significant levels of radioactivity in nearby creeks and disproportionate levels of cancer were found in the community, both facilities continue their practices. It wasn’t until recently that the EPA decided to reinvestigate the case after local and national press coverage began to pile up (Schuessler 2015). This case brings up negative implications that involve inequity of hazardous waste because of the status of surrounding residents.
A study by V. Kerry Smith and William H. Desvousges set out to observe the perceptions on living near a hazardous waste disposal site of suburban and rural Boston residents (Smith, 1986). The study found that residents were willing to pay $330 to $495 per mile further from a facility per year. They also found that “suburban Boston households indicate a threshold of about 10 miles for a majority of [their] respondents to accept a hazardous waste site and about 22 miles for the nuclear plan” (Smith, 1986). There is an implication in the results of this study that residents perceive a risk in living near hazardous waste storage areas and do not trust in the regulatory agency’s oversight to protect their health.
Bibliography:
Atlas, Mark. 2002. “Few and Far Between? An Environmental Equity Analysis of the Geographic Distribution of Hazardous Waste Generation.” Social Science Quarterly 83 (1): 365–78.
Hepworth, Malcolm T. 2011. “Hazardous Waste.” Environmental Encyclopedia. 4th ed. Vol. 1. 842-844. Web. 16 Oct. 2016.
Schuessler, Ryan. 2015 .”St. Louis Anxious about EPA Plan for Barrier between Fire, Toxic Waste.” Al Jazeera America. Accessed September 20, 2016.
Sicotte, Diane. 2008. “Dealing in Toxins on the Wrong Side of the Tracks: Lessons from a Hazardous Waste Controversy in Phoenix.” Social Science Quarterly 89, no. 5 : 1136-152.
Smith, V. Kerry, and William H. Desvousges. 1986. “The Value of Avoiding a Lulu: Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 68, no. 2: 293-99. doi:10.2307/1925509.
Wynne, Brian. 1987. Risk Management and Hazardous Waste: Implementation and the Dialectics of Credibility. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 1-84
Zimring, Carl. 2004. “Dirty Work: How Hygiene and Xenophobia Marginalized the American Waste Trades, 1870-1930.” Environmental History 9 (1): 80–101. doi:10.2307/3985946.
Questions
Descriptive: What are the different types of waste produced? What are the relationships between producers of this waste and its storage? Who or what does the storage of hazardous materials effect, if at all? What makes a waste hazardous?
Explanatory: How do we designate areas for storage of waste? In what ways do the areas which are designated for waste reflect how society views the place which is used? How do different society’s views about consumption and waste differ?
Evaluative: What are the implications of having a market around the movement of hazardous waste? Because waste is traded within the private industry is it a commodity; and if so what are consequences of commodifying hazardous material? What kind of communities or demographics are affected by hazardous waste storage.
Instrumental: Can the duties of transportation and storage of hazardous waste move to the public sector or not, and why? Are there really any reliably safe ways to store hazardous waste?
Concentration courses
- Chem 100: (Perspectives in Environmental Chemistry, 4 Credits) Spring 2017 Hazardous waste is mainly produced through chemical and radioactive reactions. I cannot study the effects of hazardous waste without taking the chemical aspect into consideration.
- SOAN 305 (Environmental Sociology, 4credits) spring 2017 This course plays in directly to my lens of Environmental Justice; that being said it will further my studies in concepts around EJ such as urbanism and social inequality.
- ENVS 460 (Topics in Environmental Law and Policy, 4 credits) fall 2017 This course is important because it gives me an introduction to understanding the policies that rule the management of waste and how they came to be.
- SOAN 342 (Power and Resistance) fall 2017/18 Power and resistance are both key functions in the sphere of waste management; my research so far has left out the role of communities in resisting powerful industries that produce and store waste.
- ENVS 350 (Environmental Theory, 4 credits), spring 2018 This course will help me dig deeper and question my prior assumptions and biases about waste management and the social constructs that my assumptions came from.
- SOAN 365 (The Political Economy of Green Capitalism, 4 credits) fall 2017/2018 if available The topic of green capitalism plays a lot into consumerism and therefore waste production. Learning about alternative energy solutions and the waste they produce will add to my knowledge of this production.
Arts and humanities courses
- PHIL 215 (Philosophy and the Environment, 4 credits). Pre-approved A&H course; no justification required.
- Hist 239: (Constructing the American Landscape, 4 credits) fall 2017. The political, social, and economic history of the United states is vital to understanding the structures that implement and create waste management.