The Poisoning of America

(10 of 11)

Right now there are enough safe disposal facilities in the U.S., including incinerators and detoxification plants, to handle the toxic wastes, if the companies would go to the trouble and expense of using them. But as federal regulations governing the dumps become more stringent, and as the volume of wastes increases, the nation will need additional sites. Where to put them? "Everybody is in favor of safe disposal," says Costle. "They say, sure, let's have a safe landfill, but not in my town." Howard Tanner, chief of Michigan's Department of Natural Resources, goes even further. "We have technical solutions for these wastes," he says, "but we don't have social solutions. You don't want them anywhere near where you live—nor do I."

Looking for new waste sites, a private company has purchased obsolete Titan I missile silos in an Idaho desert. Near Grandview, three 160-ft.-deep holes, lined with 6-ft.-thick concrete walls and 13-ft.-thick concrete floors, are each being used to store some 1.5 million cu. ft. of wastes. Several European companies are using incinerator ships to burn chemical wastes at sea. Costle feels that U.S. private industry, rather than Government, should devise safe disposal techniques. Says he: "It's smarter and can do the job more efficiently than the Government."

If the future remains a problem, so does the past. The immense task of cleaning up the accumulated wastes still remains. A bill is slowly working its way through Congress to create a "superfund" to be used by the EPA to neutralize hazardous waste spills and dumps as they occur or are discovered. The legislation, now in various forms, could create a fund of up to $4 billion in the next six years. But there are bitter fights under way over just how to split the costs between the general taxpayer and the various industries that generate the wastes. The Carter Administration expects a compromise will be reached on the bill this year, possibly before Congress recesses for the November election. Even if passed, this act would be only a start. The EPA estimates the eventual cost of a national cleanup would be as much as $22 billion.

Insists Costle: "We can't afford not to clean up. All we'd be doing would be pushing the cost over to the next generation." He notes that when the Life Science Products Co., a chemical plant in Hopewell, Va., was found to be contaminating the James River with Kepone in 1975, the source of pollution could have been cleaned up at a cost of $250,000. The company delayed and since has paid out $13 million in damage claims. Now, experts estimate, it will cost at least $2 billion to purify the river. Contends Costle: "In a misguided sense of thrift, we can save ourselves broke."