(owned by the Concord Resources Group) outside Montreal; in the massive mercury contamination of a stream running through impoverished villages in South_Africa; and in the masks worn by children going to school next to a lead smelter in Taiwan. The words "environmentally sound management" simply are used to facilitate waste trade. The failure of the Basel Convention to clearly define what these words mean, especially when this phrase is the convention's centerpiece, symbolizes the wider failure, of the convention to recognize that waste trade is fundamentally environmentally unsound.

Article 2.8 of, the convention reads:

'Environmentally sound management of hazardous wastes or other wastes' means taking all practicable steps to ensure that hazardous wastes or other wastes are managed in a manner which will protect human health and the environment against the adverse effects which may result from such wastes.

The use of the word 'practicable' in this definition opens the door for infinite interpretation. Economic considerations might, and no doubt will, be used to defend a particular method of waste management.

So in effect, as Brazil's Minister-Counsellor for Foreign Affairs, Filipe MacedoSoares, argued at the signing-ceremony of the convention, the phrase 'environmentally sound management,' as defined in the convention, means nothing.

Minister Macedo-Soares offered this as proof that "the efforts of some developed countries during the discussions showed that they regarded the elaboration of this draft convention as an exercise aimed at setting up rules for the smooth trade in hazardous wastes.3

In the Basel Convention, 'environmentally sound' waste management means nothing, and everything. Its operative provisions all follow the presumption that it allows only 'environmentally sound' waste trade. For example, Article 4.2.(e), which is often highlighted as Basel's main accomplishment, requires parties to "not allow the export.of hazardous wastes or other wastes. . . if it has reason to believe that the wastes in question will not be managed in an environmentally sound manner. Article 11.1 allows parties to enter into multilateral waste trade agreements outside the Basel Convention as long as they "stipulate provisions which are not less environmentally sound than those provided for by this Convention." Article 11.2 allows parties to grandfather agreements entered into prior to their joining Basel as long as these agreements "are compatible with the environmentally sound management of hazardous wastes and other wastes as required by this Convention." In other words, countries may maintain or create waste trade agreements outside Basel, as long as these agreements are consistent with nothing.

While the convention calls for the promulgation of criteria for the definition of 'environmentally sound management' after Basel enters into force, Greenpeace doubts these discussions will produce meaningful results. The Basel convention, after all, is a dumper's convention; this sad reality is reflected in the general support for the convention expressed at today's hearing by a number of waste generators and disposal companies, and associations representing them.

REVIEWS OF LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS TO IMPLEMENT BASEL

Bush Administration Bill (S. 1082)

Negotiators for the Bush Administration actively and successfully undermined almost every effort to create provisions in the convention that would restrict the trade in toxic wastes.4 The convention is, in many ways, a reflection of a "free trade in waste" philosophy that dominates governments of heavily industrialized countries.

Therefore, we were neither surprised nor impressed when the Bush administration introduced implementing legislation for Basel this spring. We were surprised, however, that the Bush administration drafted legislation that is not only environmentally destructive, but also is directly inconsistent with the Basel Convention. S. 1082, the Bush Administration's proposed "Hazardous and Additional Waste Export and Import Act of 1991," has three main components. It:

most significantly, exempts scrap metal waste exports for recycling from any regulation, and allows the massive export of these wastes with no government oversight.

The Administration bill exempts scrap metal from any regulatory oversight if it is exported for 'recycling.' This decision is a direct contravention of the Basel Conven

tion's definition of wastes covered by the convention. Scrap metal is defined under U.S. law as:

Bits and pieces of metal parts (e.g., bars, turnings, rods, sheets, wire) or metal pieces that are combined together with bolts or soldering (e.g. radiators, scrap automobiles, railroad box cars, which when worn or superfluous can be recycled. Put another way, scrap metal is defined as products made of metal that become worn out (or are off-specification) and are recycled to recover their metal content . . .5

This definition does not include waste products of smelting and refining operations, liquid wastes containing metals, liquid metal wastes or metals containing wastes with a significant liquid component, such as spent batteries.

Many scrap metals actually are covered by the scope of the Basel Convention, which defines hazardous wastes as any waste considered such under a country's national law, or categories of wastes to be controlled (Annex I) or requiring special consideration (Annex II). Waste streams covered by Basel relevant to the U.S. definition of scrap metals include, under Annex I, wastes having as constituents: metal carbonyls; capper compounds; zinc compounds; cadmium and cadmium compounds; and lead and lead compounds.

Scrap automobiles certainly contain many of these compounds, and other potentially toxic compounds, such as PVCs. So do many-other types of scrap metal as defined under U.S. law. The Center for Investigative Reporting documented massive shipments of 'scrap metal' wastes to Taiwan, ranging from "transformers filled with PCB-contaminated oil to old electrical, equipment containing asbestos, PCBs or metal dust. The processing (of scrap metal in Taiwan) itself also includes dangerous and illegal practices such as burning copper cable, a method that releases poisonous fumes." " 6

Far too frequently, metals waste exports end up being ‘recycled' in people's blood, air and water. Wherever Greenpeace has investigated recycling of metals wastesfrom Cato Ridge, South Africa to Bilbao, Spain to Palmerton, Pennsylvania—we have encountered environmental and human health horror stories. Workers in metals recycling plants commonly have hazardous levels of heavy metals in their blood. Streams running from recycling plants carry massive levels of metals into peoples' water supplies. And metals smelters are leading contributors to atmospheric pollution worldwide.

The international trade in scrap metal is an enormous business. At a recent briefing, a State Department official estimated the value of U.S. scrap metal exports at over four billion dollars per year. These exports must not be exempted merely because of their size; indeed, the massive extent of scrap metal exports, and a relative lack of knowledge about the impact of these exports on human health and the environment abroad, demand more intensive government investigation.

⚫ institutionalizes the non-restrictive, notification agreements ink effect between the United States and Canada and the U.S and Mexico.

Here, the Bush administration is taking advantage of a loophole built into the Basel Convention which exists largely because U.S. negotiators demanded that it be there. This loophole, discussed above, allows Basel countries to maintain existing bilateral agreements in place before these countries ratify Basel, without modification.

The bilateral waste trade agreement between the U.S. and Canada, signed in Ottawa on October 28, 1986; establishes a 'tacit consent' arrangement which is unquestionably weaker than Basel's notification scheme requires. The goal of this agreement is not to ensure that U.S.-Canada waste trade is 'environmentally sound,' but rather, to ensure that this trade occurs expediently. This bilateral agreement has resulted in a virtual free trade bin waste between the U.S. and Canada, where companies take advantage of comparative weaknesses in both countries' waste disposal laws.

U.S. companies are shipping mostly heavy metal wastes to Canada to avoid recent bans on their direct disposal in landfills in the United States, and to escape Superfund liability provisions. Landfills in Sarnia, Ontario (owned by Laidlaw) and Blainville,, Quebec (owned by Concord Resources), are targets of growing citizen opposition and governmental investigations of pollution discharges. Similarly, Canadian companies exploit U.S. regulatory exemptions for hazardous waste burning in cement and aggregate manufacturers' kilns. These exemptions allow the unregulated incineration of non-chlorinated solvents under the guise of recycling.

The U.S.-Mexico waste trade agreement is Annex III "to the Agreement between the U.S. and Mexico on Cooperation for the Protection and Improvement of the Environment in the Border Area," signed in Washington on November 12, 1986. This

agreement is a simple notification system, closely related to existing U.S. waste exports regulations. It makes no provision to ensure the 'environmentally sound' management of traded wastes, and is thus theoretically weaker than Basel.

• bans waste trade with countries that have not entered into a bilateral or regional agreement (beyond the Basel Convention) with the United States.

Greenpeace would appreciate it if the Bush Administration would clearly indicate those countries with which it intends to negotiate bilateral and regional waste trade agreements. While we encourage banning waste exports to as many countries as possible, we are concerned that this approach will entrench waste trade to dozens of countries, and maintain a dynamic where waste exporters can shop' for a country within a regional agreement with low waste disposal costs and little or no regulatory oversight. This approach wail continue the flow of poisons from the United States, and provide no incentive to U.S. industry to halt their production of toxic waste.

Further, the administration's decision to exempt scrap metals exports for recycling from any regulation means that the entire world will remain vulnerable to U.S. exports of these potentially-toxic wastes; so the Administration's self-described global 'ban' on waste exports, with exemptions for bilateral and regional agreements, is false.

WASTE EXPORT CONTROL ACT (H.R. 2358)

H.R. 2358 was introduced by Representatives Mike Synar and Howard Wolpe on May 15, 1991. It regulates, rather than prevents the international export of U.S. waste. It does not address the import of waste into the U.S. from other countries, and for this reason alone, fails to implement the Basel Convention.

Under this bill, U.S. waste could continue to be exported abroad to facilities which conform to U.S. waste disposal standards. International agreements would be developed between the U.S. and the importing countries which provide for access to foreign facilities by U.S. inspectors, an exchange of detailed information on how the waste will be managed at the importing facility, and prior consent by the importing country. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would develop a permit program for waste exporters which requires exporters to report on their efforts to minimize their wastes.

Also, like the Bush administration bill, the Waste Export Control Act exempts scrap metals exports for recycling from all regulatory oversight.

This proposed legislation is based fundamentally on the premise that U.S. standards adequately 'control' the problems associated with waste disposal. One need only look at existing government-approved incinerators, landfills, deepwell injection facilities and other dumpsites, and realize that these U.S. 'controls' have failed to prevent massive discharges of toxic pollution into our air and water.

Exporting these standards abroad is no solution to waste trade pollution, for the following reasons:

• U.S. waste disposal standards have proven inadequate to protect human health and the environment in the United States, and are unlikely to perform better abroad.

• The over-burdened and under-funded EPA is unlikely to actually inspect foreign facilities.

• Even if inspections occur, enforcement and monitoring are impossible.

• U.S. standards are irrelevant when wastes are shipped to communities which lack hospitals, roads, communication technology, emergency response capabilities,

etc.

• This approach gives a U.S. “"stamp of approval" to U.S. waste exports. While it may legitimize the practice (and therefore make it more immediately attractive), the inevitable environmental damage caused by these exports will generate distrust of the U.S. government.

WASTE EXPORT AND IMPORT PROHIBITION ACT (H.R. 2500)

This legislation, introduced June 6, 1991 by Representative Edolphus Towns (chair of the Congressional Black Caucus) is the only bill that fully implements the Basel Convention. It also is the only bill that will protect other countries from our poisons, and will meet our responsibility, under the U.N. Declaration on the Human Environment to "not cause damage to the environment of other States.'

This bill, unlike the other two approaches, covers all potentially-hazardous wastes, without exemption, including lowlevel radioactive waste and scrap metals containing hazardous compounds.

When enacted into law, the Waste Export and Import Prohibition Act will essentially ban all international export and import of waste from and to the United States. It will:

guarantee that U.S. wastes will not contaminate human health and the environment abroad, and that foreign wastes will not contaminate people and the environment here.

• remove additional pressure on limited U.S. waste disposal capacity imposed by imports of foreign waste.

• require no new EPA resources.

⚫ be consistent with the policies of 83 countries which have banned all waste imports.

⚫ not impose on other countries the unfair choice between poison and poverty (when they are offered lucrative, U.S.-approved waste import deals).

IN CONCLUSION

Representative Towns' bold waste trade ban legislation is the only bill consistent with agreed U.S. waste management priorities which prefer waste prevention and reduction over waste disposal. The Towns bill represents Congress' only effort to force generators to solve, not export, their waste disposal problems.

It is time to end our society's growing dependence on toxic industrial chemicals and products, and to replace dirty industry with clean production. Clean production means avoiding toxic feedstocks or industry, like chlorine, lead and mercury. It means considering the environmental costs of products, from the time of conceptualization to the product's ultimate disposal. Clean production does not involve methods which pretend to reduce the volume of hazardous waste through recycling, incineration, concentration or by diverting the hazard by dilution or the transfer of pollutants from one medium to another. Products yielded through clean production are compatible with ecosystems and biological processes throughout their entire lifecycle.

Greenpeace urges Congress to meet our country's obligation to not poison people abroad, and to make a strong move against the production of toxic waste. If the United States must ratify Basel, it should do so only if it simultaneously implements a waste export and import ban, as expressed in Congressman Towns' legislation. The United States government must become a proactive and positive force against waste trade, and use our powerful global position to inspire the world to adopt a total ban on this deadly, useless practice. Thank you.

FOOTNOTES

1 U.S. President George Bush, "Remarks by the President and Secretary of Health and Human Services Dr. Louis W. Sullivan at Swearing In Ceremony," Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C., March 10, 1989.

2 The International Trade in Wastes: A Greenpeace Inventory (1991), the newsletter Waste Trade Update and many other waste trade publications are available by writing to: Publications Dept., Greenpeace International Waste Trade Project, 1436 U St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 20009.

3 Filipe Macedo-Soares, Minister-Counsellor for the Foreign Affairs Ministry, written and verbal statements at the Plenipotentiaries Conference of the Basel Convention, March 20-22, 1989.

4 Greenpeace attended Basel Convention negotiation sessions as "observer" delegates in June 1988 (Caracas), November 1988 (Geneva), January 1989 (Luxembourg), March 1989 (Geneva again), and finally late March 1989 (Basel). At these sessions, we witnessed perpetual efforts by the United States delegation to strike restrictive provisions from the draft convention, occasionally threatening to not become a party to Basel if these provisions were adopted. Among the U.S.'s successful interventions:

• blocking language restricting agreements outside Basel to those "consistent with the provisions of the Convention," rather than the ultimate requirement that these agreements be "compatible with the environmentally sound management of hazardous wastes and other wastes as required by this Convention."

• blocking language restricting waste exports to countries with equal or greater disposal standards than the country of export

blocking language requiring that all waste trade notifications be sent to the Convention's Secretariat, and be made available to all Parties.

5 Federal Register, January 4, 1985, vol. 50, no. 3, p. 624.

6 Center for Investigative Reporting and Bill Moyers, Global Dumping Ground: The International Traffic in Hazardous Waste (Cabin John, MD: Seven Locks Press, 1990), p. 73.

7 Jim O'Brien, U.S. State Department, panel discussion on the Basel Convention sponsored by the Environmental and Energy Study Conference, U.S. Capitol, July 15, 1991.

ANNEX

GREENPEACE LIST OF COUNTRIES BANNING WASTE IMPORTS

[As of July 23, 1991]

Algeria, Angola, Antarctica (World Ban), Antigua & Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Comoros, Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea Bissaù, Guyana, Haiti, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Rwanda, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & Grenadines, Sao Tome & Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sudan, Surinam, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Western Samoa, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Total # of countries banning waste imports=83.

STATEMENT OF ASARCO INCORPORATED

ASARCO Incorporated ("Asarco") appreciates the opportunity to submit the following comments to be included in the record of the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Environmental Protection hearing on proposed legislation to implement the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (the Basel Convention).

Asarco is one of the world's leading producers of nonferrous metals and minerals, principally silver, copper, lead, and zinc. The company's facilities, including mines, mills, smelters, and refineries, are located in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Tennessee, and Texas. The company also has operations through associated companies in Australia, Mexico, and Peru. The processes at these plants extract economically valuable metals, metallic compounds, and mineral products from beneficiated ores. In addition to processing beneficiated ores, Asarco's smelters and refineries process other metal-bearing in-process materials.

The primary metals production process involves a complex relationship among several different plants. Recovering nonferrous metals entails a series of processing steps at Asarco's smelters and refineries. This multiple-step, multi-site sequenced production process extracts as much of the metal and mineral content as is technically and economically feasible. A particular ore, concentrate, or metal-bearing inprocess material can be processed to recover more than one metal, compound, or product. Metals recovery is maximized and the volume and toxicity of any remaining wastes are minimized. This process is a clear example of pollution prevention. Asarco would like to make the following points with regard to the implementation of the Basel Convention:

• Timely U.S. ratification of the Basel Convention and passage of the accompanying implementing legislation is important to ensure U.S. participation in meetings among signatory countries.

• U.S. implementing legislation should clarify that ores, concentrates, and smelted and refined metal products are not subject to the restrictions and requirements of the Basel Convention.

• Materials bound for reclamation (e.g., scrap metal) should be exempted from Basel regulation by the U.S. implementing legislation.

• U.S. implementing legislation should allow case-by-case review and classification of materials that are generated during the primary metals extraction production process are used as feedstocks.

The Basel Convention is an international agreement sponsored by the United Nations that would prohibit or tightly control the international movement of many wastes, including hazardous wastes, certain industrial scrap, household waste, municipal waste, combustor ash, and any substance considered a hazardous waste by a