=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #64
—Feb. 15, 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===
EPA ABANDONS EFFORT TO LICENSE OCEAN-GOING INCINERATION SHIPS.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has “suspended all
agency activities supporting its ocean incineration program”
because of “severe budget constraints,” the agency announced in
early February. The agency said cancelling the program will save
$2.6 million per year. The program was to develop rules for
ocean-going ships burning liquid hazardous wastes, to designate
sites where such burning would be allowed, and to establish
criteria for evaluating companies seeking permission to operate
incinerator ships.
When the program was cancelled EPA was “nearing promulgation of
final regulations for designating ocean incineration sites off
the coasts of the U.S.” and was just “weeks away” from seeking
public comment on proposed regulations covering the permit
application process and proposed criteria for evaluating permit
applicants. The Gulf coast, the East coast, and the Pacific
coast all have been considered as possible sites for ocean
incineration in recent years. Citizen opposition has been
massive and adamant.
The EPA had had only two applicants for an ocean burning
permit–Chemical Waste Management, Inc. (CWMI), a subsidiary of
the giant waste-hauler, Waste Management, Inc., and SeaBurn,
Inc., of Greenwich, CT. CWMI owns two aging incinerator ships
they bought from the Netherlands, but on New Year’s Eve, 1987,
CWMI withdrew its application angrily, blaming agency
footdragging for its withdrawal, though to some environmentalists
it looked like ChemWaste might just be playing possum. A
spokesman for EPA said the agency’s abandonment of its rulemaking
program had nothing whatever to do with ChemWaste’s withdrawal of
its permit application a month earlier.
SeaBurn Inc. expressed surprise and disappointment at EPA’s
abandonment of the program. SeaBurn has no ships but claims to
have received approval from the U.S. Coast Guard for a vessel
design, and approval from the EPA for an incinerator design.
They claimed to have received construction bids from shipyards
but were awaiting an EPA permit before beginning ship
construction. An earlier firm in the business, At-Sea
Incineration, also of Greenwich, CT, had begun building two ships
with federal loan money when they went bankrupt. The EPA decision
throws into question the ownership of the two partially built
ships that At-Sea had started to build in Tacoma, WA. Litigation
is underway among private parties and the U.S. Department of
Transportation’s Maritime Administration, which had loaned money
to At-Sea. The 1972 London Dumping Convention says an
incinerator ship can only sail under the flag of a country that
has “regulations resembling the parameters delineated under the
convention.” The U.S. has no such regulations so the ships, when
completed, could not operate under U.S. flag in U.S. waters. It
seems possible, however, that the ships could operate under
foreign flag, or under the flag of a foreign subsidiary of a U.S.
firm if the foreign country had issued the necessary regulations.
The EPA said that its suspension of its rulemaking for ocean
incineration could be reversed if money becomes available in the
future.
Beth Milleman of the Coast Alliance in Washington, DC, said she
is “very pleased” by the EPA decision but said she did not
understand “why they had to come up with that half baked story
about losing their funding.” She points out that for a decade EPA
has continued to support ocean incineration as a method of
hazardous waste disposal despite lack of public and congressional
support, despite scientific and legal concerns raised during
public debate on the issue, and despite the recent decision by
several European governments to abandon ocean incineration in the
North Sea by Jan. 1, 1995.
Ms. Milleman said EPA’s decision to close up shop within weeks of
ChemWaste’s abandonment of its permit application was “no
coincidence” and “speaks volumes about who is setting hazardous
waste policy in this country.” She added that “if the EPA has any
sense, they won’t start the program up again.” The Coast Alliance
can be reached by phone: (202) 265-5518.
–Peter Montague, Ph.D.
Descriptor terms: incineration; ocean incineration; epa; siting;
criteria; regulations; citizen groups; cwmi; wmi; SeaBurn; ct;
at-sea incineration; inc.; dot; federal; beth milleman; coast
alliance; congress;