The amount of plastic debris in the oceans is not well established. Estimates range from 100 million to 500 million pounds annually, most of which stems from the commercial fishing industry's garbage disposal and fishing net losses. Land based plastic manufacturing activities, sewage operations, solid waste disposal (including seepage from landfills) and littering are also major sources of pollution in the oceans. Littering has been the focus of municipal attention for many years, and many areas threaten litterers with high fines. Plastics are often the focus of public concern over littering because they are highly visible and nondegradable. Most recently, plastics have become a focus of attention as a part of the larger national waste problem. Several thousand landfills have already closed, and the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that over the next four years, 27 states will face critical landfill capacity problems. Approximately 80 percent of all wastes-nearly 200 million tons of trash each year-is landfilled, while 10 percent is recycled and another 10 percent is incinerated. Many municipalities are already feeling the increasingly high costs associated with waste disposal as landfills around them close. Plastics are only about 7 percent of landfilled waste by weight, but analysts say the amount will rise to 10 percent by 2000. Furthermore, plastics tend to be bulky, and thus make up closer to 15 percent of landfilled waste by volume. About 50 percent of plastic in landfills is packaging material. Most plastics are extremely durable materials and may last in a landfill for centuries. Incineration is one option to reduce the use of land disposal. However, incineration is of concern because residual ash, which may contain heavy metals and other toxic elements, must still be landfilled. Additionally, incineration of plastics, particularly polyvinyl chloride (PVCs), can create airborne dioxins and furans that can pose a threat to public health. State and local governments have been quite active on the issue of plastic waste control. More than a dozen states are considering legislation to restrict the use of plastics such as egg cartons, disposable diapers and grocery bags. A number of municipalities have enacted legislation. In April, Suffolk County, New York, adopted legislation that will ban use at the retail level of plastic grocery bags and many plastic food containers beginning in July 1989. The city of Berkeley, California has enacted legislation which would ban nondegradable fast food packaging. The state of Florida has also adopted new legislation to address its solid waste crisis. Over the last several years, a number of companies have developed degradable plastics. In general, there are two categories of degradable plastics: photodegradable plastics, which decompose under light, and biodegradable plastics, which require microbial action to decompose them. The latter product has drawn the attention of agricultural interests, since the key degradable ingredient comes from corn. As research continues, more specialized and complex forms of degradable plastic are emerging. The technology has developed to a point where virtually any form of plastic can be made degradable. Plastic sheet mulches, cups, straws, six-pack rings, fast-food containers, milk jugs, soda bottles, and grocery bags can now all be made in degradable forms. Degradable plastics are beginning to be widely used in Canada and Italy, among other countries. In the U.S., however, its use in packaging has been delayed by the lack of Food and and Drug Administration approval. Hearings On August 10, 1988, the Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture Research, and Environment held a hearing on H.R. 5000, the Recyclable Materials Science and Technology Development Act of 1988, and on the potential of degradable plastics to address waste problems. H.R. 5000 would require, over a five year period, the development of recyclable consumer goods. After five years, those goods which could not be feasibly recycled would be required to be degradable. There are a number of issues that need to be resolved in determining the role that degradable plastics can play. Most analysts agree, however, that degradable plastics will ultimately be only one part of a multifaceted strategy that will be needed to address the nation's impending solid waste crisis. Issues examined at the hearing included: (1) To what extent are degradable plastics likely to play a role in solving plastic pollution problems? Are they equally suited to address marine pollution, litter, and municipal landfill problems? (2) Is there an inherent conflict between recycling plastics and the greater use of degradable plastics? (3) Are the gaps in our knowledge about the effects of degradable plastics on health and the environment? If so, should the Federal government play a role in finding answers to those questions? (4) What are the respective federal and state roles in creating market incentives for the greater use of recycling or degradable materials? The Subcommittee heard testimony from the Honorable Martin Lancaster (D-NC), the Honorable Jim Courter (R-NJ), the Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman (R-NY), Senator George Kirkpatrick, Florida State Senate; Ms. Jeanne Wirka, Environmental Action; Mr. Patrick H. Toner, Society of the Plastics Industry; Mr. Zoltan J. Dworko, Enviromer Enterprises; Mr. Roger Lloyd, ICI Americas, Inc.; and Mr. Wayne Maddever, St. Lawrence Starch Co., Inc. Committee Publication Number 100-132. 3.3(s) Remediation Strategies for the Stringfellow Superfund Site Background The Stringfellow Superfund site in Glen Avon, California, has become a national case study for the legacy of careless dumping of hazardous wastes and the enormous costs and technical challenges of clean-up. During the 1950s and 1960s, the Stringfellow quarry site was used as a dump for a wide range of hazardous and industrial wastes, including acids, pesticides, chlorinated solvents, PCBs, metals and volatile organic chemicals. In 1969, heavy rains caused an overflow from the waste pits which flowed into the lower-lying community. In 1972, the first signs of groundwater contamination were detected. Dumping ended in 1972, and various efforts began to clean and close the site. In 1978, the pits again overflowed into the community. Studies done in 1980 indicated that much of the prior engineering work to secure Stringfellow was inadequate, and estimated the total cost of removal of contaminated material as $20 to $40 million. After passage of Superfund in 1980, Stringfellow became California's number one Superfund site, and it was added to the National Priorities List in 1982. Despite further effort by EPA and others to contain the wastes, a report in 1983 indicated that the plume of contaminated groundwater had traveled twice as far as had been expected and was already in the aquifer used by the Glen Avon community for drinking water. In 1984, a contract was selected to begin work on the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) to identify clean-up alternatives. The RI/FS was expected to take about 18 months and cost about $1.5 million. In 1987, two years late and as much as $8.5 million over budget, the draft RI/FS was completed. The RI/FS identified five remedial options (not including the required "no action" alternative), ranging in cost from $226 to $812 million. The alternatives include various combinations of onsite dewatering, extraction and treatment of onsite leachate, soil-gas extraction, in-situ flushing, downgradient plume management, and excavation and treatment of all onsite diggable soil. Hearings The Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture Research and Environment convened a field hearing on September 10, 1988, to review the RI/FS alternatives and to explore the remedial technologies available for cleaning up Stringfellow in particular and Superfund sites in general. The hearings were held during the public comment period on the RI/FS to enable the hearings to make a contribution to public understanding and review of the RI/ FS. The hearing also reviewed the progress in cleaning-up the Stringfellow site since the Subcommittee's previous field hearing in 1983. The Committee heard testimony from Mr. Alexander Cunningham, Chief Deputy Director, California Department of Health Services; Jan Meyer and Beth Jines, Toxic Substances Control Division, California Department of Health Services; Joe Petrelli, Science Applications International Corp.; Jeff Zelikson, Director, Toxic and Waste Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Joel Hirschorn, Senior Associate, Congressional Office of Technology Assessment; Ms. Penny Newman, Executive Director, Concerned Neighbors; and Dr. Joe Highland, Environ Corporation. While the testimony supported at least some of the remedial technologies listed in the RI/FS, most of the comments expressed disappointment with the failure of the RI/FS to consider other promising technologies, particularly taking into account the cost and the delay in producing the RI/FS. Many of the comments also expressed strong reservations with alternatives that would leave contaminants in place at the Stringfellow site with plans to contain the site and to divert and treat groundwater contaminants. Several comments suggested that additional feasibility studies be carried out on promising treatment technologies, including soil washing. Committee Publication Number 100--. 3.3(t)-Review of Indoor Air Quality Programs and H.R. 5373, the National Indoor Air Quality Act Background Because people spend 80 to 90 percent of their time indoors, the quality of indoor air has become an issue of rising concern to the public. However, the complexity of the variables involved make indoor air quality a complicated environmental issue. Because the circumstances leading to indoor air pollution vary greatly, it has been extremely difficult to design a single, comprehensive approach. First, many different kinds of contaminants exist, such as inorganic gases (ÑO2, CO, SO2), particles (asbestos), biological pollutants (viruses, bacteria, molds), radioactive gases (radon), and volatile organic compounds (household cleaners, solvents, pesticides). Second, contamination arises from a variety of sources, including gases from synthetic products, human activities, naturally occurring emissions, and even the ambient air outdoors. Third, exposure occurs in many different kind of buildings with different types of ownership, including single-unit residences, multi-unit residences, public buildings, offices, and schools. Furthermore, the health risks associated with different contaminants are often difficult to assess because of a lack of reliable scientific information regarding human health effects, indoor air concentrations, amount of population exposed, or degree of exposure. This uncertainty is one of the reasons that indoor air policies are often adopted as a reaction to particular situations, such as asbestos in schools or radon contamination, instead of being based on a more general approach. Human health effects of some indoor air contaminants have been well established. EPA estimates that radon causes between 5,000 and 20,000 cancer deaths a year. Other sources of indoor air pollution, not including exposure to asbestos or pesticides applied indoors, may be responsible for an additional 3,500 to 6,500 cases of cancer per year. Other health effects range from severe and debilitating allergic reactions to a general loss of comfort and worker productivity. In other cases, human health effects or degree of population exposure is still uncertain. However, the expansion of research in this field has generally supported the view that indoor air pollution is a much greater problem than originally perceived. In EPA's 1987 environmental comparative risk assessment, Unfinished Business, indoor air contamination ranked high as a human health hazard when compared to other forms of pollution. Although the Clean Air Act establishes standards for the protection of ambient air quality, EPA has interpreted the term "ambient" to mean air outdoors. As a result, protection of air quality indoors is currently limited to a different set of federal, state, and local statutes. Congress began to appropriate funds for EPA research on indoor air quality and radon mitigation in 1984, although overall guidance was lacking. In 1986, EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) recom mended that EPA pursue the development of a long-range research plan. Subsequently, Congress enacted the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) that included a provision requiring EPA to research indoor air quality health effects, to disseminate information concerning indoor air quality, and to assess appropriate federal actions to mitigate indoor air pollution. H.R. 5373, the Indoor Air Quality Act of 1988, was introduced on September 23, 1988. The principal purposes of the Act are to: (1) strengthen EPA's indoor air research program; (2) issue health advisories indicating levels at which identified contaminants would have no adverse health effects; (3) focus the use of existing regulatory authority to implement a national response plan based on the health advisories; (4) provide grants to the States to assist them in developing basic management strategies and assessments; (5) establish an EPA office for indoor air activities and a coordinating interagency Council on Indoor Air Quality; and (6) give EPA the lead responsibility for developing a federal response to indoor air quality. Hearings On September 28, 1988, the Subcommittee held hearings to review H.R. 5373 and the general status of indoor air programs. The Subcommittee heard testimony from Senator George J. Mitchell; the Honorable Joseph Kennedy; Donald Clay, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ms. Sandra Eskin, Consumer Federation of America; Denis Parker, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO; Rosanne Bacon, President, Massachusetts Teachers Association, accompanied by Kathleen Clinton; Dr. Michael J. Hodgson, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE); William H. McCabe, Jr., International Council of Shopping Centers; John Welch, Safe Building Alliance; and Denise Wilson, Building Owners and Managers Association International. Committee Publication Number 100--. 3.3(u)-The National Biological Diversity Conservation and To establish a national policy for the conservation of biological diversity; to support environmental research and training necessary for conservation and sustainable use of biotic natural resources; to establish mechanisms for carrying out the national policy and for coordinating related activities; and to facilitate the collection, synthesis, and dissemination of information necessary for these purposes. Background and Summary of Legislation Biological diversity refers to the variety and variability among living organisms and the ecological complexes in which they occur. The term encompasses genetic, species, and ecosystem diversity. Conservation of biological diversity refers to maintaining the full abundance and distribution of these components. Biological diversity provides the raw materials for all of the food that we eat, most pharmaceuticals and medicines, clothing, and |