=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #60
—January 18, 1988—
News and resources for environmental justice.
——
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org
==========
The Back issues and Index are available
here.
The official RACHEL archive is here.
It’s updated constantly.
To subscribe, send E-mail to rachel-weekly-
request@world.std.com
with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It’s free.
===Previous issue==========================================Next issue===
CHEMWASTE ABANDONS PLANS FOR OCEAN INCINERATION OF LIQUID WASTES, BLAMING EPA.
Chemical Waste Management (ChemWaste), a subsidiary of Waste
Management, Inc. (the nation’s largest waste hauler) announced
new year’s eve 1987 they were abandoning their six-year effort to
gain permission to burn hazardous liquid wastes on ocean-going
ships. Citizens on both coasts and along the Gulf of Mexico rang
in the new year celebrating a major victory. William Y. Brown, a
spokesperson for Waste Management, blamed the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for the firm’s decision to give up its
effort to burn liquid hazardous wastes from 26 states off the
coast of New Jersey and Maryland. Mr. Brown said EPA’s tortuous
regulatory process forced ChemWaste to give up its quest. He
criticized the agency for an “unending series of maneuvers to
avoid making a decision” on ocean burning, in reaction to citizen
opposition.
Mr. Brown also said EPA’s May, 1987, proposal to regulate
on-shore incineration killed ocean burning economically. Last
May the EPA proposed regulations to control the burning of
hazardous wastes in industrial boilers on land; the proposed
regulations would “grandfather” boilers built before a certain
date, allowing them to operate under less stringent rules.
According to Mr. Brown, this grandfather clause will allow older
incinerators to burn liquid wastes more cheaply than ChemWaste
could do it at sea, thus destroying the economic incentive for
ocean burning. “The same kind of waste we’d proposed to
incinerate 100 miles out at sea will now be burned, if the [EPA’s
May] proposal goes forward, in hospital boilers 100 feet from the
neonatal unit and around the corner from the emphysema ward,” Mr.
Brown said. An EPA spokesperson responded testily, calling Mr.
Brown’s assertions “patently untrue and apparently self-serving.”
Mr. Brown is right. EPA’s proposed boiler rules are not
stringent enough to protect public health. Mr. Brown is also
correct in his assertion that the EPA has been responding to
citizen pressure. At public hearings along the Gulf Coast, 6000
people showed up to oppose the ChemWaste burning scheme. It was
the largest public hearing ever held. A year later, 3000 people
appeared at hearings along the East coast. EPA got the message
loud and clear.
–Peter Montague, Ph.D.
Descriptor terms: cwmi; incineration; ocean incineration; epa;
wmi; william y. brown; regulation; health; investigations;