EPA-230/2-86-008 Off ice of Policy, March 1985
,tion Planning and Evaluation
nycuuy Washington, DC 20460
Policy Planning and Evaluation
\>EPA Assessment of Incineration
As A Treatment Method for
Liquid Organic Hazardous
Wastes
Background Report V:
Public Concerns Regarding
Land-Based and Ocean-Based
Incineration
-------
PUBLIC CONCERNS REGARDING
OCEAN AND LAND-BASED INCINERATION
March 1985
A background report for the study by
EPA's Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation: "Assessment of Incineration
As a Treatment Method For Liguid Organic
Hazardous Waste."
U.S. Environmental Protection Tr—<-.T
H-"CJ.on 5, Library U".VT - ~ ' •
'-*1 .,) '>. Dearborn Street, Huoiu 1G70
Chicago, IL 60604
Prepared by:
Eleanor McCann, Matthew Perl
with assistance from Jackie Dingfelder, Tim Baden
Program Evaluation Division
Office of Management Systems
and Evaluation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
I. INTRODUCTION 5
11. PUBLIC CONCERNS AND SOLUTIONS 7
A. Ocean Incineration 7
1. Background Information on Cases Studied 7
2. Specific Concerns of Public 9
3. Solutions Offered by Public 18
B. Land-based Incineration 21
1. Background Information on Cases Studied 21
2. Specific Concerns of Public 24
3. Solutions Offered by Public 27
C. Comparison of Public Response to Ocean
and Land-based Incineration 29
III. PERSPECTIVES OF COMPANIES AND REGULATORY AGENCIES 31
IV. KEY ISSUES AND CONCLUSIONS 34
Appendix: Key Groups and Government Officials Involved
in Chemical Waste Management Permit Debate 41
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Incineration is a waste treatment technology which
EPA believes offers advantages over many existing waste
management practices, and may help to meet the anticipated
need for greater treatment and disposal capacity for managing
hazardous waste in the near future. However, public opposition
to the permitting of new incineration operations has been
strong in recent years, beginning in about 1980. In response
to the dilemma of perceived benefits versus public concerns,
EPA initiated an agency-wide assessment of incineration to
see whether there was any new information indicating a need
to change the Agency's approach toward regulating incineration.
One of the tasks for this assessment of incineration
was to pull together in one document the major issues being
raised by concerned citizens. The focus of this task was to
answer the guestion: what are citizens' attitudes and concerns
that affect the siting and permitting of incineration facilities?
This was not a survey of general public opinion on incineration,
but rather a study which cataloged the concerns reported by
a sample of those already opposed or at least involved in
the issue.
Major Findings
1. There has been public concern about, and some very vocal
opposition to, the siting and permitting of both land-based
and ocean incineration. For both types of facilities the
core of opposition has come from local citizens, and
this local opposition has included environmental groups,
civic associations and local government officials.
2. Ocean incineration has generally involved a greater degree
of public concern and opposition than land-based incinera-
tion. Opposition to ocean incineration has been regional
in scope, coming from local communities in a multi-state
area along the Gulf of Mexico, and has also involved a few
national environmental groups. Many people concerned
about ocean incineration are not completely against a regula-
tory program that allows ocean incineration, but they do
want significant safeguards built into the regulations and
permits.
3. The amount of public opposition to proposed permits for land-
based incinerator facilities has varied by location and type
of waste. On-site facilities that directly serve a single
waste generator have greater public acceptance than off-site,
commercial incinerators that serve multiple generators in a
large market area. Many people feel that off-site facilities
do not provide sufficient economic benefits to the local com-
munity to offset the risks associated with the importation of
-------
wastes from other areas. On-site facilities are more clearly
perceived as being linked to businesses that are important
to the local economy, and are generally not perceived as
being importers of hazardous waste. Opposition has tended
to focus primarily on new off-site facilities, which share
many similarities to incinerator ships; and on new applica-
tions to burn PCBs, which critics view as particulary hazar-
dous.
4. Major concerns reported by citizens opposed to incinerators
are the following:
0 Concern for potential spills of toxic substances on land
and water during transport, storage, and handling
activities.
0 Concern for potential environmental impacts at sea and
health impacts on land from incinerator air emissions.
0 Concern that the process of selecting sites for incinerator
facilities is not clearly defined, and that local citizens
do not have a role in this decision.
0 Concern that incinerator companies are not dealing
"openly" with the public when providing information
about their facilities and activities.
0 Concern that federal and state regulatory agencies lack
sufficient resources or commitment to maintain effective
permitting, monitoring and enforcement programs.
0 Concern that the ocean is a special "public resource" that
needs special protection.
0 Concern that there is insufficient data available on
the potential impacts of incineration on the marine
environment on which to base a regulatory program for
ocean incineration, and that the ocean incineration
regulatory program has been poorly managed by EPA in
the last few years.
0 Concern that regulation of ocean incineration needs to
be clearly linked to a national strategy for hazardous
waste management.
Issues and Conclusions
This study identifies several key underlying issues that may
have been acting as barriers to public acceptance of incineration
as a waste treatment method. Those underlying issues not already
reflected in the concerns summarized above are:
-------
0 Dissatisfaction with the public hearing process,
0 Heightened public fears regarding hazardous waste
disposal, and
0 Lack of public acceptability of risks from pollution.
Of these three issues, perhaps the most important one is the
dissatisfaction with the public hearing process, due to differences
in perspectives, expectations, and concerns brought by citizens
and regulatory officials to this principal forum for communication.
In hearings on proposed permits, the primary focus of the
EPA staff is on compliance of the proposed permit with regulations
and incinerator performance standards. This is because EPA officials
accomplish the job of protecting health and the environment through
diligent application of regulations and standards. Federal and
state regulatory agencies expect to discuss technical issues at
hearings, and are often perplexed by both the vehemence of public
concerns and the broad range of issues raised by citizens. Govern-
ment regulatory officials have already carefully evaluated a
company's proposal in terms of its adeguacy in meeting technical
and administrative requirements. Company officials, in turn,
present technical studies to show that the proposed facility
meets all regulations.
The public, on the other hand, is often concerned about
broader or nontechnical issues, such as site selection, local
economic impact, enforcement plans and capability, company
credibility and potential health risks. Most of these issues
are ones that either EPA believes were resolved prior to the
proposed permits (e.g., that incineration is an environmentally
sound technology), or that EPA has no jurisdiction over, such
as the siting of land-based incinerators. Likewise, the incinera-
tor company's past performance record, while of serious concern
to EPA, does not preclude the granting of a permit as long as
all conditions and requirements of the regulations are met.
This problem of differing perspectives indicates that citizens
often do not understand that the scope of permit hearings is
limited to the proposed permit, that technical reguirements
reflect underlying concerns for protecting health, and that
other activities such as transportation are controlled by
different regulations. This lack of public understanding or
differences in perspective may indicate a need for regulatory
agencies to provide a better explanation of the overall regulatory
framework for controlling hazardous waste.
-------
The basic conclusion of this study is that EPA needs to
better address the concerns of citizens regarding incineration
by:
1. taking actions to ensure maximum protection of health
and the environment; and
2. improving its public communication efforts and providing
more visible leadership in the area of hazardous waste
management.
Public opposition to both land and ocean incineration may
decline somewhat if EPA addresses more fully some citizen con-
cerns regarding national regulatory strategy, local community
impacts, equity of facility siting, public decision-making pro-
cesses, and especially enforcement plans and capability.
Clearly many of the public's concerns are also EPA's con-
cerns, such as the potential health and environmental impacts
from incineration. But the Agency needs to better communicate
how health and environmental concerns and priorities are reflected
in the Agency's regulations and standards. Better communication
of EPA's overall regulatory policy, strategy, and activities for
hazardous waste management is crucial in providing a context for
decisions on proposed permits for individual incinerator facilities
or vessels. Better public communication is also important for
improving EPA's credibility with the public, which is a necessary
foundation for the effective accomplishment of the Agency's
mission.
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
Incineration is a waste treatment technology which EPA
believes offers several advantages over some other existing waste
management practices, and may help to meet the anticipated near-
term need for greater treatment and disposal capacity for managing
hazardous waste. However beginning in about 1980, there has
been growing public opposition to the permitting of new incinerator
facilities for treatment of hazardous wastes, particularly
for ocean incineration. Most if not all of the concerns raised
about ocean incineration in the last few years had also been
raised during the period from the first proposed permit in 1974
to about 1930, and these concerns were satisfactorily responded
to by EPA management personnel at that time. However essentially
the same concerns have now been raised again by different citizen
groups that were not involved during the earlier period.
In response to the dilemma of perceived benefits versus
renewed public concerns, EPA's Deputy Administrator reguested in
early 1984 an agency-wide assessment of incineration to see
whether there was any new information indicating a need to change
the Agency's approach toward regulating land-based or ocean
incineration. One of the tasks for this assessment was to
summarize citizens' concerns about incineration.
Public concerns have already been identified and described
in several different places, from news stories to public hearing
transcripts. The purpose of this study was to summarize in one
document the major issues being raised by concerned citizens
regarding both ocean and land-based incineration. The focus
of this task was to answer the guestion: What are citizens'
attitudes and concerns that affect the siting and permitting of
incinerator facilities?
This report identifies and compares public concerns and
objections to land-based and ocean incineration. It also identi-
fies the public's proposed solutions, examines the perspectives
of government agencies and companies about public concerns, and
identifies potential barriers to implementing regulatory programs
for incineration.
It should be emphasized that this study is not an exhaustive
survey of public opinion on incineration, but rather a study which
discusses the concerns reported by a sample of those who have
already expressed interest, concern or opposition. The issues
described here were documented in the summer of 1984, and primarily
reflect opponents' concerns from a period between 1980 and 1983.
-------
Since that time, FPA has taken a number of actions to address
many of the concerns about ocean incineration. We have issued
proposed regulationss, developed a comprehensive research strategy,
and gathered more information, particularly on comparative risk,
through the Agency-wide study of which this report is a part.
Regardless of actions already taken, the value of this report is
in the documentation of concerns and opinions of interested and
affected members of the public, for future reference and continuing
discussion.
The approach used in this study was to identify only those
incinerator siting and permitting activities where there has
been opposition, and to gather as much information as possible
from the parties involved.
Screening calls were made to EPA Regional offices to
identify the land-based hazardous waste incinerators that
have received public opposition. Baseline data on the specific
incinerators were gathered from these calls. In addition,
we analyzed public hearing transcripts, where available, for
both ocean and land-based incinerators to which there has been
public opposition. From the analysis, we developed an initial
list of major public concerns. Public hearing transcripts and
screening calls were used to generate an interview list of
knowledgeable and interested individuals and representatives
of public groups, companies, and state agencies. We conducted
eighty telephone and in-person interviews for 12 case studies
in which there has been public opposition: two ocean cases
and ten land-based cases.
-------
II. PUBLIC CONCERNS AND SOLUTIONS
This section describes in considerable detail the incinera-
tion cases studied, the specific concerns of citizens, and the
solutions they offered, first for ocean incineration and then
for land-based incineration. Finally, there is a brief discus-
sion cornparinq ocean and land-based incineration in terms of
specific concerns, parties involved, and impacts of opposition,
A. Ocean Incineration
1. Background Information on Ocean Cases Studied
Incineration Facilities Studied; For ocean incineration,
there are only two case histories to examine. All of EPA's
permittinq experience is with one company, Chemical Waste
Manaqement, Inc. A second company, At-Sea Incineration, Inc.,
has progressed to the staqe of applyinq for a research burn
permit and searchinq for a port site. Both companies have
experienced public opposition to their activities.
Chemical Waste Management (formerly Ocean Combustion
Services) owns two incinerator ships, Vulcanus I and II, which
are currently in operation off the coast of Europe. Starting
in 1974, Vulcanus I has been used to conduct four series of
burns: three in the Gulf of Mexico and one in the Pacific
Ocean. Chemical Waste Manaqement has now applied for a
permit for another burn at the Gulf site. The company's port
facility is located in Mobile, Alabama. (The port site is
physically located in neiqhborinq Chickasaw, but is owned and
operated by the City of Mobile). There has been intense
public opposition to the burn permits and to the use of the
port facility in Mobile.
At-Sea Incineration launched the Apollo I incinerator
ship in February 1984 and is currently constructing a second
incinerator ship, Apollo II. Both vessels must underqo a
battery of sea-trials prior to certification by the Coast
Guard. The company has applied to EPA for a research burn
permit, and has been searching for several port sites,
including sites in Newark, Philadelphia, and Lake Charles,
Louisiana. There has already been public opposition to the
use of a port facility in Newark.
This study examined public opposition to the proposed
permit for Chemical Waste Manaqement to burn in the Gulf of
Mexico, and the proposed siting of a port facility by At-Sea
Incineration in the Newark area.
-------
parties Involved in the Debate; A wide ranqe of groups
and individuals have been involved in the debate over the
ocean incineration program, and over specific permits and
sites. In the case of Chemical Waste Management's proposed
burn permits, there has been increasing opposition from
broad-based local citizen and business groups, and state
and local government officials. There has also been active
participation in the debate by a few national environmental
groups, and by some land-based incineration companies.
Most opposition to land-based incineration comes from
the local population living or working near the incineration
site, and therefore directly affected. But because the
"site" of Chemical Waste Management's permit is perceived by
the participants as the entire Gulf plus the port facility
at Mobile, the "local" area affected is synonymous with the
entire Gulf region.
The parties who have been most actively involved in the
debate over Chemical Waste Management's permits include five
local or state environmental groups, five local or state
civic associations, two regional or state business groups,
four broad-based regional or state coalitions, government
officials from three local communities and three states, and
three national environmental groups. (See Appendix for
complete list.) Not all of these groups and individuals
are opposed to ocean incineration or to specific proposed
permits. (For example, of the three national environmental
groups, the National Wildlife Federation supports ocean
incineration, while Greenpeace and The Cousteau Society
oppose it.) But all of these parties have been interested
and involved in discussions of permits or regulations for
ocean incineration.
Local citizens and state officials assert that opposition
has been a grass-roots phenomenon that became increasingly
organized and sophisticated, with national environmental
groups in a support role and land-based companies providing
technical information. Concern about ocean incineration
began with local populations in Alabama next to the port
site and in Texas along the southern coast.
The two national environmental groups that oppose ocean
incineration became involved after opposition had built
locally, because they saw it as a national program that also
includes Atlantic and Pacific sites and because of the
universality of the ocean: "It's everybody's backyard."
Some land-based incinerator companies, as well as national
environmental groups, testified at public hearings and aided
local groups with technical comments. But according to state
officials, the land companies did not create public opposition,
they simply got free publicity out of it. There was tremendous
public concern regardless of the role of land companies.
8
-------
There was also substantial opposition to the proposed siting
by At-Sea Incineration of a port storage and transfer facility
in the Port Newark area. Opposition was raised initially by
citizen groups in the residential Ironbound section of Newark.
Public concern about hazardous waste storage and transfer then
spread to other local communities (Elizabeth and Bayonne),
making the issue more prominent at the state level, and finally
gained some interest at the national level with the involvement
of Greenpeace.
Some of the local groups in New Jersey who were most actively
involved are: Ironbound Committee Against Toxic Wastes, Coalition
for a United Elizabeth, Greater Newark Bay Coalition, Bayonne
Organization Against Toxic Sites, and Hudson Regional Health
Council. (It should be noted that some individual spokespersons
seem to represent more than one of these groups, whose membership
may overlap somewhat.)
Results of Opposition; Public opposition to ocean incinera-
tion permits from about 1980 to 1983 resulted initially in EPA's
commitment to develop a "worse case scenario" and to develop
more specific regulations to govern the program. Continuing
opposition to EPA's tentative decision to issue a permit to
Chemical Waste Management also strongly influenced EPA's decision
to defer issuance of any more ocean permits until a research
plan was developed, and until specific regulations applicable
only to ocean incineration, and thus replacing the current
reguirements under the ocean dumping regulations, are developed
and issued.
Public reaction was also a factor in EPA's decision to
conduct an in-depth study comparing different aspects of ocean
and land-based incineration, of which this study is a part.
EPA has sought early public input into the development of
ocean incineration regulations by holding public meetings on
issues and options. However, many public representatives who
attended these meetings said they did not believe that EPA was
really committed to incorporating their specific concerns,
especially since the proposed regulations would be issued for
public comment prior to the completion of the current study on
inc ineration.
In the case of At-Sea Incineration's proposed port facility
in Newark, the company was still planning as of January 1984 to
locate its New Jersey facility in Port Newark.
2. Specific Public Concerns Regarding Ocean Incineration
This section describes the specific concerns raised by a
sample of opponents and interested citizens regarding ocean
incineration, beginning with a brief overview.
-------
The two areas of concern cited most often are: (1) the
risk and potential environmental impacts of spills on land and
water from routine activities and catastrophic incidents; and
(2) perceived poor management of the ocean incineration
program by EPA in the past. Many of these people are not
completely against an ocean incineration program, but they do
want significant safeguards and guarantees. As one Alabama
resident summed up the situation: "In general, the concerns
are not about the technology but about the management aspects.
It's a people issue. It's a guestion of who's running the
program and who's running the ships."
People living near proposed or approved port sites in
Alabama and New Jersey are especially concerned about the
health and safety risk of spills on land or in the port due to
transportation, storage and handling activities. Texas residents
are especially concerned with the environmental and economic
impacts of spills in estuaries and open water. And national
environmental groups are worried about the environmental
impacts of spills on the open ocean. Almost everyone complained
about various aspects of EPA's management of the program in
the last few years. As one Texas resident commented, "If EPA
had handled the ocean incineration program differently, there
might not have been all these concerns about it."
The following discussion of specific concerns is organized
according to the freguency with which they were raised, discus-
sing first those concerns mentioned most often. The concerns
are taken from interviews with citizens who have been most
actively involved in the debate and who each represent a state
or local citizens' group (including ten from Texas, eight from
Alabama, two from Louisiana, and three from New Jersey), plus one
each from the three national environmental groups. In the
following discussion, many related concerns are grouped together
in order to highlight major issues.
Risk of Spills on Land and Water from Routine Transport,
Storage and Handling; The public is primarily concerned
about the potential for spills from transportation accidents,
which could occur on the way to the port, in the port, or on
the open water of the Gulf. In addition, there are concerns
about leaks from storage containers and spills from nnishandl ing.
In Chickasaw, Alabama, residents contend that access to
the port facility is on narrow residential streets that are
not built for truck traffic, and that pass two schools on the
way to the port. A city official in Mobile contends that a
proposed storage facility at the port would be susceptible
to damage from freguent hurricanes, and that there is a high
probability of accidents in the "very narrow, tortuous and
dangerous" ship channel connecting the Chickasaw port with
the Mobile River. New Jersey residents have similar concerns,
believing that the proposed port facility would significantly
increase the volume of tanker trucks in a populated area,
10
-------
that statistics on truck accidents show a poor record, and
that the Newark shipping channel is narrow and has about fifty
accidents a year.
Several Alabama residents feel that storage of hazardous
waste would be as much of a problem as the actual burn at sea,
especially storage of hazardous waste within the coastal
flood plain. They contend that RCRA prohibits storage of PCBs
in a flood plain, and that both FEMA and EPA Regional officials
have advised local officials in Mobile to prohibit the storage
of hazardous waste in that flood plain.
Risk of Catastrophic Spills in Ports and on Open Water;
Residents along the Gulf Coast worry about the potential for
unusually large spills or releases in port or at sea that
would cause major damage to the marine environment. Most
discussion focuses on major spills due to catastrophic events,
including ship collision or grounding, fire, flood in the port
area, or intentional dumping in life-threatening conditions
such as bad weather at sea. Bad weather at sea and flooding
in port areas are of particular concern because the Gulf is a
hurricane-prone area. Many people feel that the probability
of a catastrophic release is very high, based on their knowledge
of ships and sailors and the characteristic water and weather
conditions in the Gulf. Others feel that the probability of
a catastrophic release might be low, but that the resulting
environmental damage is potentially very high, and therefore
even a low probability is unacceptable.
Alabama residents feel there is a very high probability
of catastrophies due to hurricane damage to storage facilities
or to accidents in a highly congested harbor. Texas fishermen,
Greenpeace and The Cousteau Society believe the potential for
accidents at sea is high. Some people insisted that there is
a high rate of oil tanker accidents on the Gulf, with ships
running into other ships and into oil rigs. The Cousteau
Society comments that "From our extensive experience on ships
and at sea, we can assure you that docks, harbors and the open
ocean are not places which minimize chances of accidental
release of wastes, or where spill cleanup would be possible,
or effective environmental monitoring could be implemented.
We can think of no worse place than the ocean to transport and
destroy hazardous wastes."
Potential Health and Environmental Impacts from Spills;
The general concern expressed is that the potential effects
are unknown, and that there are too many unanswered guestions.
The major fear is about pollution of the marine ecosystem from
spills in the port or in the Gulf, which could immediately
impact nearby estuaries, wetlands, and fishing grounds, with
the additional potential for long-term effects of bioaccumulation
and magnification of persistent toxic pollutants in the food
chain. The estuary and wetlands of Mobile Bay provide a breeding
11
-------
ground for the fishing industry, and citizens believe that a
spill there could directly affect the food supply. People
worry that pollution in the ocean could damage fisheries,
beaches, and endangered aquatic species such as turtles and
whales. Fears were also expressed about surface and ground
water pollution resulting from leaks or spills in a flood
plain, as well as the direct health and safety aspects of
transportation-related spills on land.
Perceived Poor Management of EPA's Regulatory Program for
Ocean Incineration: Almost everyone interviewed complained
about the way EPA has handled the ocean incineration program in
the past, and for some it was their primary concern. Many people
believe EPA has made a decision that this is a preferred techno-
logy before the data are in to back it up; and that the Agency
is embarking on a major program without answers to some very
basic scientific questions. They feel that there is simply
not enough information about risks and impacts in order to
make informed decisions on how to regulate ocean incineration.
Since the public feels that there could be significant negative
impacts, they question whether it is reasonable to qo ahead
with the program without having evaluated the need for ocean
incineration, the associated risks, and the alternative techno-
logies available.
Public concern also focused on other aspects of program
management, especially EPA's actions to issue permits without
regulations in place, and then to develop regulations before
in-progress background studies are completed. Citizens inter-
preted these actions as evidence of an ad hoc, poorly planned
program that is not in the best interest of the public or the
environment. Concerns about some specific aspects of program
management include the following perceptions:
0 Lack of biological information, such as biological
baseline data on the burn site to determine carrying
capacity and allow later evaluation of impacts, and
data on Gulf habitats of endangered species.
0 Improper process for developing regulations, such as
developing proposed regulations before in-progress back-
ground studies are completed, and developing research
protocols simultaneously with regulations instead of
prior to regulations. These activities have created
the perception that the Agency has been unnecessarily
"in a rush" to propose and finalize regulations.
0 Inadequate biological testing and methodology in the
past, including incomplete monitoring results from past
test burns, lack of standard (and practical) procedures
and protocols for environmental monitoring, and lack of
a rational research plan.
12
-------
0 Lack of plans for ongoing biological monitoring at
the burn site in order to evaluate subtle or long-term
biological effects.
0 Inadeguate public participation, due to inadeguate
public notification of affected local residents regarding
proposed permits and port sites, and difficulty in
getting reguested information from EPA.
0 Inadeguate participation by state and local government
agencies in decisions on permitting and siting.
0 Lack of openness, integrity, and sensitivity of EPA,
based on news stories suggesting collusion between
company and EPA officials in the early years of the
program, and the feeling that EPA did not answer guestions
or willingly provide information, causing the perception
of a "cloak of secrecy". There were also complaints
of poorly managed public meetings on regulatory options:
rude and disdainful treatment of citizens, limited
invitations, materials received too late for adeguate
review, contradictory statements by EPA officials,
and lack of official transcripts of meetings.
Inadeguate Regulatory Controls; Public concerns about
inadeguate restrictions on ocean incineration are a logical
extension of many of the other concerns, such as the potential
risk and impacts of spills and the need to protect ocean
resources. Some people felt there should be more stringent
standards at sea than on land, because they believe that
things go wrong at sea more often than on land and that the
ocean is more environmentally sensitive than land. Others
feel that the reguirements for monitoring emissions and for
destruction efficiency achieved by the incinerator should be
the same for incineration at sea and on land. Many people
feel that ocean incineration regulations should be more
comprehensive in order to cover cradle-to-grave transportation,
storage, and handling of hazardous wastes to be incinerated.
Many people believe that the reguirements in proposed
permits have been inadeguate, such as the lack of stack
scrubbers and insufficient reguirements for liability insurance
and contingency plans. One person asserted that the POHC
monitoring system was inadeguate, and that the company should
test for byproducts of combustion for all wastes that are
fed into the incinerator. There was a suggestion that waste
mixing should be limited because mixing of incompatible wastes
might cause explosions, and on the ocean containment of the
resulting spill would not be possible. A few people worried
that incineration would eventually be allowed for inappropriate
wastes such as heavy metals, low level radioactive wastes,
and wastes that bioaccumulate or biomagnify in a marine
environment.
13
-------
A major concern for many people is the issue of liability.
Who is legally liable for accidents at sea: the generator,
the incinerator company, or nobody? How can anyone prove
damage, or recover damages? Since cumulative damage may not
show up for ten years or longer, who will be responsible at
that time? "Besides," said one person, "it's too late by then,
since no one can compensate for the loss of sea turtles, bottom
fishing, or a major coral reef." Someone else noted that it's
extremely difficult to calculate the loss of expected revenue
for the seafood and resort industries and sport fisherman. It-
was suggested by some people that the company should be required
to cover damage from the worst case. "If liability is too
great, and insurance too expensive, then maybe ocean incinera-
tion should be re-evaluated."
Difficulty of Implementing Ocean Incineration Program; Many
people worry about the difficulties of implementing an adeguate
regulatory program, even if we have the best regulations. The
two major concerns are that enforcement and compliance monitor-
ing will be difficult on the ocean, and that environmental
monitoring of long-term impacts on the ocean's ecology will be
almost impossible. Finally, there is some concern that no
one will really be regulating cradleto-grave transportation,
including transport from the Emelle landfill to the port, and
from the port to the burn site.
The public believes that enforcement and compliance monitor-
ing are much more difficult on the ocean than on land. They
believe that it is difficult to adequately monitor a mobile
facility, since regulatory agencies can't do unannounced spot
checks. They worry that when the incinerator burns at night,
at 200 miles off the coast, it is "out of sight, out of mind."
A shiprider might be feasible, but they question how he would
keep his objectivity. A black box records, but it is not
preventive. One Texas fisherman commented that, based on his
long experience with ships and sailors, he is convinced that
there is simply a lack of any practical way to regulate ocean
incinerator ships.
Unsuitable Burn Site in Gulf; Many Gulf coast residents
feel that the unigue ecological characteristics of the Gulf of
Mexico and of the specific burn site in the Gulf make the
designated site unsuitable. They contend that because the
Gulf is a semi-enclosed inland sea, the water circulation
pattern would send any toxic spills toward the Texas shoreline
rather than out to the Atlantic Ocean. They believe that
since only a little water escapes, the Gulf will retain most
of what is placed in it. In addition, it was alleged that the
designated burn site is located 20 miles from the "Flower
Gardens," which is said to be the only living coral reef in
this part of the hemisphere, and a site that has been repeatedly
proposed for special protection. People worry about impacts
14
-------
on endangered species in the Gulf, such as the brown pelican,
sea turtles and whales, and that incineration will interfere
with the bird flyway over the Gulf, since the Gulf is part of
a major bird migration route.
In addition to being concerned about protecting the Gulf's
ecology, coastal residents believe that the Gulf's large amount
of daily ship traffic creates a high probability of ship colli-
sions. Finally, international relations was mentioned as a
constraint on use of the Gulf site, with specific reference to
an existing treaty with Mexico to prevent pollution in that
body of water.
Several people said they were not opposed to ocean incinera-
tion, but were opposed to the Gulf site because EPA hasn't
determined the Gulf's biological carrying capacity for incinera-
tion, or developed regulatory controls that would reduce the
opportunities for accidents. One Texas resident said he believes
that the opposition to the Gulf site is partly the syndrome of
"not in my backyard," because the local population feels it
may be hurt in terms of local food supply and local industries
such as fishing and tourism.
Company Credibility; Many reported concerns relate to the
lack of credibility of the two ocean incinerator companies.
One of the companies was perceived as having a guestionable
past record of hazardous waste management practices elsewhere.
Both companies have also been accused of not dealing openly with
the public, and of failing to provide adequate information on
the technology and health and environmental effects of ocean
incineration. Accusations in news stories of past collusion
between Chemical Waste Management and EPA have increased the
public's feeling that the company is trying to get away with
something, and that their activities are not being carried out
in good faith.
In addition to their concerns about the two specific
companies involved in ocean incineration, a number of citizens
reported a "serious concern" about the past and present
involvement of organized crime in the hazardous waste industry,
and about the "extremely high opportunity for corruption" that
is presented by highly profitable ocean incineration activities.
Inadequate Incineration Technology; There were a few con-
cerns about the technical aspects of incineration at sea. There
was concern that the destruction efficiency is not sufficient
to protect the marine ecology at the burn site, and that it
will be difficult to maintain optimal operating conditions at
sea because of the effect of salt water and motion on the
eguipment. There was also concern that use of outdated technology
would be allowed even though better technology is available,
and that there would be less stringent technical requirements
for ocean incineration than for landbased (e.g., lack of scrubbers
and secondary burn chambers). A final technical disadvantage
15
-------
noted by some was that conservation of heat energy is not
possible at sea, as it is on land.
Adverse Economic Impacts; Many people are concerned that
pollution from incineration activities in the Gulf will harm
existing commercial and non-commercial activities that are
dependent on a healthy marine ecology and coastal environment.
Especially strong concerns were voiced regarding likely harm
to the fishing and tourist industries, which are major elements
of the economies of many coastal states. There is also some
concern about adverse impacts of water pollution on general
lifestyles in the Gulf region, involving fish as a major food
source and water-based recreation, which would affect both
local residents and the tourist industry.
Residents assert that there would be substantial economic
ramifications from damage to the marine fisheries. One Texas
resident guoted an estimate that the fish and shrimp industry
in the Gulf is worth about $500 million a year, and accounts
for 70% of the U.S. fish production. A Louisiana resident
noted that Louisiana's economic health depends more on fisheries
than on the petrochemical industry. An additional problem
for fishermen is that even if there is no real biological
damage from spills, rumors of spills can kill the shrimp market
for several weeks. A Texas fisherman said that their past
experience with oil spills is that public perception of damage
from spills in the Gulf results in enormous loss of market-
ability of shrimp and other seafood.
Residents are also very worried about economic impacts on
the tourist industry on the Gulf coast, although no dollar
estimates were guoted. For example, an elected town official
of South Padre Island, located near the southern tip of Texas,
is concerned about protecting the environment, and thus the
economy, of that totally tourist community. Not only would
residents be affected, said the town official, but also the
tremendous number of people who have investment property there,
many of whom live in the Houston area.
Inadeguate Emergency Response Capability: There are con-
cerns among citizens in Alabama and New Jersey that local fire
departments might not have adeguate training or resources to
respond to emergencies involving toxic waste spills on land or
in port. Of even more concern to some people is the lack of
adeguate technology available for containing or cleaning up
major toxic waste spills on the open ocean. There were also
several complaints about the lack of reality of Chemical Waste
Management's contingency plan. The company's plan apparently
did not reflect local conditions, such as the fact that Chickasaw
has only two firemen, and has no hotel for the company to use
as a base for emergency operations.
16
-------
Potential Environmental Effects of Air Emissions; Some
citizens are concerned about the potential lonq-term effects
of air emissions on the marine environment. Specific concerns
include the hazards of unburned organic residues and bypro-
ducts, and of acid air or acid rain. There is concern that
particulates could fall and be trapped in the ocean's micro-
layer and have long-term impacts on the larva of seafood,
which is the first part of the food chain.
Unsuitable Port Sites (Mobile, Newark); Many residents
near the port sites in Mobile and Newark feel that the storage
and tranfer of toxic wastes should not be located near such
high density populations. It was also asserted that both
ports involve a dangerously narrow and winding navigation
route from the dock facility to open water, and both ports
are heavily used, with a high likelihood of accidents. In
Mobile, there were complaints of poor land access to the
company's dock facility, requiring trucks to travel on narrow
streets through residential neighborhoods. Mobile also
involves a wetlands area, and is located in a flood plain and
hurricane-prone area. Newark residents complained that their
port is located in an area that already faces a large safety
threat from existing industry and hazardous waste disposal
sites.
Lack of National Strategy for Managing Hazardous Waste;
A number of people said they are concerned by the perceived
lack of a national strategy for managing hazardous wastes,
which could provide the framework needed for a decision to
either promote or abandon ocean incineration. Many feel
that environmental risks at sea are significantly greater
than on land, and that ocean incineration is therefore neither
a quick fix nor the ultimate answer. They suggested the need
for more research on alternative technologies, and that EPA
should have a long-term strategy that promotes the reduction
of wastes produced and energy recovery.
Need to Protect Oceans as a Public Resource; In general,
people interviewed see the ocean as a public resource worthy
of special protection, especially as a primary food source.
Several people pointed out that this presumption in favor
of special treatment underlies the requirement of the London
Dumping Convention that a need for ocean incineration must
be demonstrated before issuing permits to burn. They also
complained about the lack of a required needs assessment,
and insisted that in fact there is a currently unused capacity
for land incineration, and therefore no need for ocean incinera-
tion.
Negative Impact on Better Methods of Hazardous Waste
Management; Some citizens are concerned that promoting
ocean incineration would have the effect of discouraging
industry from moving toward better methods, such as waste
reduction and recycling.
17
-------
Importation of Outside Wastes; Citizens in Alabama,
Louisiana and New Jersey complained that wastes generated else-
where were being transported into their local areas. They assert
that their states are already dumping grounds with major environ-
mental problems, and that it is unfair to use them as a dumping
ground for the rest of the country.
3. Solutions Offered by Citizens Regarding Ocean Incineration
As part of this study, we asked the participants to list
specific solutions to their concerns about ocean incineration.
The following list summarizes the solutions offered to specific
areas of concern.
Risks from Transport and Handling;
0 Strengthen the controls on transportation of hazardous
wastes, or better enforce existing regulations.
0 Reduce transportation of hazardous waste by managing it
on land, and especially on-site (i.e., where generated).
0 Choose a different port site which can provide a safe
transport route.
Poor Site Suitability;
0 Have EPA set national siting criteria for both the burn
site and the port facility.
0 Site the port in an area of low density population.
0 Site the port in a more accessible area.
0 Reguire sufficient buffer zones for all burn sites in
order to minimize environmental impacts.
0 Don't burn in the Gulf.
Inadequate Regulatory Controls;
0 EPA should provide a practical process for effective moni^
toring of ocean incineration (both ambient and compliance).
0 A 24-hour shiprider should be reguired to accompany all
ocean incineration vessels.
0 EPA should require scrubbers for ocean incineration.
0 Better liability and contingency plans should be
developed.
18
-------
Unsatisfactory Process for Developing Ocean Incineration
Program;
0 Prepare a risk assessment for different port and burn
sites within the Gulf area.
0 Prepare a needs assessment to determine if the need for
ocean incineration exists.
0 Provide complete baseline data on the proposed burn sites.
0 Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the port site
0 Keep the public informed, and include the public in the
regulation development process.
0 Don't draft the ocean incineration regulations until
the studies are completed and all alternatives are
considered.
EPA Credibility:
0 EPA should seek scientific sources outside the agency
to do studies. Also, a system of peer review should be
set up to evaluate the studies.
0 EPA should remain a neutral party - don't promote ocean
incineration or specific companies.
° EPA should improve enforcement of existing regulations.
Company Credibility:
0 EPA should include a moral integrity clause in the
ocean incineration regulations to assure that the inciner-
ation company is reputable.
0 Incineration companies should be more open with the
public and attempt to provide complete information to
all concerned groups.
0 The companies should make an effort to familiarize
themselves with the local areas, and to work within the
communities to address both the technical and non-
technical concerns.
Alternatives to Ocean Incineration;
0 Incineration on land, and especially use of mobile land
incinerators.
0 Store the waste until newer, more effective disposal
technologies are developed.
19
-------
EPA should provide economic incentives to encourage
waste reduction at the source.
EPA should promote more permanent and acceptable alternatives
such as waste reduction, recycling, neutralization and
detoxification.
20
-------
B. Land-Based Incineration
1. Background Information on Cases Studied
Incineration Facilities Studied; When regulations governing
land-based hazardous waste incinerator facilities were issued in
1981, there were about 350 existing incinerator facilities that
continued to operate under "interim status" while waiting for
permit applications to be requested by EPA. As of the summer of
1984, EPA had received about 200 permit applications from com-
panies interested in continuing to operate their facilities.
Public hearings on proposed permits had been held for about two
dozen existing facilities, and the Agency has now issued 23
final permits. For proposed new facilities, only four permits
have been issued.
From the screening calls made to EPA Regional offices, we
identified fourteen cases where there has been some degree of
public opposition. We found that public opposition is likely to
occur when facilities go through the RCRA permitting process or
TSCA approval process, because the public can then voice concerns
through public hearings and meetings. Twelve of the cases were
either in the RCRA permitting or TSCA approval process, while
two cases were still undergoing State-level review prior to
public hearings.
We also found that most opposition was to off-site commercial
facilities rather than on-site facilities: eleven cases were
off-site, while only three were on-site. Moreover, all new
off-site facilities have been the target of some opposition.
The prospect of public opposition is one incentive for commercial
companies to purchase existing facilities with interim status
rather than construct new ones.
We examined a sample of ten out of the 14 cases in more
depth.* These ten included the three on-site facilities, of
which two were new and one was existing, plus seven off-site
facilities, of which three were new and four were existing.
Table 1 (next page) provides background information about
each of the ten cases examined. At the time of our survey in
July 1984, four of the five existing facilities were currently
operational. All five have interim status and have yet to go
* Three cases not examined due to lack of easily accessible
citizen contacts for interviews at the time of our survey were
IT, Massachusetts; Rollins, Louisiana; and Rollins, Texas. A
case study of ENSCO, Arkansas, appears in "The Siting of Hazard-
ous Waste Management Facilities and Public Opposition" (U.S.
EPA, SW809, Nov. 1979), and was reviewed as part of this study.
21
-------
TABLE 1
STATE
COMPANY
NAME
TYPE OF
FACILITY*
PERMIT STATUS
CURRENT OPERATIONAL STATUS
(as of January 1985)
New York
New Jersey
North Carolina
Kentucky
Illinois
Ohio
Michigan
Ohio
Ohio
Louisiana
GE
Rollins
Mitchell
Systems
Pyrochem
SCA
PPG
BFC
wri
Cincinnati
Waste |
Disposal
(Municipal)
IT
On-site
Off-site
Off-site
Off-site
Off-site
On-site (would
receive some
off-site waste
On-site
Off-site
Off-site
Off-site
Has RCRA interim status.
Part B submitted, and
TSCA approval pending.
Has RCRA interim status,
Part B submitted, and
TSCA approval pending.
Has RCRA interim status
and Part B called in.
New facility with
RCRA Part B submitted.
Has RCRA interim status,
Part B submitted, and
TSCA approval.
New facility with RCRA
Part B permit issued.
New facility with RCRA
Part B permit issued.
New facility with RCRA
Part B permit issued.
- Has RCRA interim status.
New facility with RCRA
Part B permit issued.
Operational. PCB trial
burn conducted.
Operational since 1968. Will
conduct PCB trial burn.
- Operational since 1981.
- Permit application tech-
nical review at state level,
Construction not started.
- Operational since 1981.
Construction expected to
begin in 1985.
- Construction started.
- Construction started.
- Operational.
- State permit being appealed.
Construction not started.
* For purposes of this report, an off-site incinerator is defined
accepts hazardous waste that is generated at outside sites. An
accepts hazardous waste generated on the same site.
as a conmercial operation which
on-site incinerator is one which
-------
through a public comment period for their RCRA permits. The
existing facility not operational was the municipal incinerator
in Cincinnati, which had been closed by the state for air
emissions violations. As of January 1985, this facility had
resolved its problems and become operational again.
The remaining five facilities were proposed new facilities
which must obtain RCRA permits before starting construction
of the facility. Four of the five new facilities had been
issued RCRA permits, but one of those was delaying construction
because its state permit was being appealed.
Parties Involved in Opposition; A range of public groups
has been involved in opposing both new and existing land-based
incinerators. The opposition has been primarily local rather
than regional or national. The types of groups involved in
opposition are categorized below:
0 Local groups (e.g., below state level) organized for
the specific purpose of opposing the siting or permitting
of a hazardous waste incinerator (e.g., Those Opposed
to the Experimental Incineration of Chemicals (BFC);
Save Our County (WTI); and Save Ourselves (IT).
0 Previously existing coalitions and civic groups working
at the local level (e.g., Avalon Trails Home Improvement
Association (SCA); and East Ascension Sportsmen's League
(IT)).
0 Previously existing local groups with an environmental
focus (e.g., People for Environmental Protection, and
Americans for Environmental Action (Rollins); Citizens
for a Better Environment, and Lake Calumet Study
Commission (SCA); and Citizens for Clean Water (GE)).
0 Local elected officials or appointed public boards that
either have an official role in siting or permitting
or who play an advisory or advocacy role (e.g., Township
Environmental Commission (Rollins); and Environmental
Advisory Council (Cincinnati Waste Disposal).
0 State environmental organizations that have become
involved at the local level (e.g., Ecology Center of
Louisiana and Louisiana Chapter of Sierra Club (IT);
and Scenic Hudson (GE)).
0 Individual local residents unaffiliated with any formal
group.
It is difficult for us to judge the extent of local opposi-
tion. Companies and state officials indicated that in some
cases a majority of local residents were opposed, while in
others the opposition stemmed from a small but highly vocal
segment of the local population.
23
-------
Results of Opposition: Public opposition has produced
several impacts that can be readily measured. A specific
impact has been to delay the sitinq and permitting process.
In several cases, permits were issued by state or federal
agencies but subsequently appealed by local opposing parties
(WTI, IT, BFC and PPG). In one case, public opposition
caused the company to announce that an alternative site for
its proposed facility would be selected (Pyrochem). Public
involvement has also caused regulatory agencies to make
permit changes which incorporate specific public criticisms
and suggestions (Rollins, WTI, and SCA). Finally, public
involvement has in some cases resulted in the creation of
citizen advisory committees to deal with issues relating
specifically to the facility (PPG and Pollins).
Public opposition is also responsible for several-
impacts that are not directly measurable. For example,
opposition has caused companies and government agencies to
provide more information to the public. It has also contri-
buted to raising local awareness of the issues and has
encouraged other local groups, the media, and politicians
to become involved.
Public Support for Incineration Facilities: In some
cases initial public opposition has eventually been replaced
or overridden by public support. In the case of the new
off-site incinerator facility now being built by Waste
Technologies Industries (WTI) in East Liverpool, Ohio, the
East Liverpool City Planning Commission asserts that public
opposition was from a few vocal individuals "whose only
concerns were their own self-interest." The Planning
Commission, after careful study of the proposal by a special
task force, unanimously gave its "enthusiastic approval" for
the proposed facility. An East Liverpool citizen who supports
the WTI facility recommends that specific concerns raised by
citizens regarding other facilities should be made a part of
the permit, as was done for the WTI permit in East Liverpool.
A similar case is the proposal by PPG Industries for a
new on-site incineration facility in Circleville, Ohio.
Although the permit approval was appealed by a local citizens'
group, the Pickaway County Commissioners did not object to
the permit issuance and the opposing citizens' group eventually
withdrew all appeals. This dissipation of opposition was
because of an earlier, separate agreement between PPG and the
Pickaway County Commissioners providing for environmental
protection measures extending beyond the reguirements of the
law in order to respond to citizen concerns.
2. Specific Public Concerns Regarding Land-Based Incineration
The following concerns were reported by citizens opposed
to land-based hazardous waste incinerators. The first five
concerns listed below were raised most frequently.
24
-------
Health Risks from Air Emissions; Under the major heading
of health risks due to air emissions, a variety of concerns
were voiced. The health risks associated with fugitive air
emissions are of concern to many people. Localities with
existing air guality problems, for example areas subject to
air inversions and areas with a non-attainment status for a
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), are greatly
concerned about any additional air emissions. Areas with a
high incidence of birth defects or respiratory ailments are
also concerned about additional air emissions. Other concerns
included the lack of knowledge of the chemical synergisms
between air pollutants, the effects of toxic air pollutants
on the chronically ill, and the lack of emission standards
for products of incomplete combustion (PIC's).
Risk of Spills from Transport and Handling: The risk of
spills from transport and handling of hazardous wastes is a
major concern. While transportation accidents are of primary
concern, citizens are also concerned about container leaks and
spills from mishandling or vandalism. Fears were raised about
surface and groundwater pollution resulting from leaks or spills,
and the potential impacts on health and the environment.
Company Credibility; The credibility of the company
managing the incinerator facility is of great concern to
citizens. There are two main areas that have an effect on
how the company is perceived by the public. The first is
directly tied to the company's public relations effort. The
public is very sensitive when it feels that information is
being distorted or withheld. Two case studies in Ohio (PPG-
Circleville, WTI-East Liverpool) are representative of this
situation. According to opponents, the PPG facility was
initially presented to the public as an "energy recovery
unit," and the WTI facility as a "waste to energy" unit. In
both cases no mention was initially made of hazardous waste.
Public distrust of the companies was heightened when it
became known that the facilities would be burning hazardous
waste.
The second factor influencing credibility is the company's
past record. The company's environmental, financial, and
management records often are subjected to close scrutiny by
the general public. Local investigations of different companies
have uncovered information considered by citizens to be
damaging. Some examples are;
0 One company had three ownership changes in three years.
It reportedly followed a pattern of pollute, file for
bankruptcy, and reorganize;
For one company, a landfill at the same site had
already contaminated the groundwater;
25
-------
o
In one case a company facility had 164 previous violations
of its NPDES permit;
One facility's manaqement was found to have been indicted
on charges of not reporting toxic releases at other
sites.
Insufficient Resources for Effective Monitoring and
Enforcement; A major public concern is that the regulatory
agencies do not have sufficient resources to adequately monitor
land-based hazardous waste incinerators and to enforce enforce
regulations. One commentor highlighted this by stating that
incinerators operate 24 hours a day, while regulatory agencies
do not.
Poor Site Suitability; Many people are concerned about
how well suited some of the locations are for sitinq hazardous
waste incinerators. Of major concern is the incinerator's
proximity to populated areas, allowing for a larger potential
impact should an accident occur. Other aspects of site suit-
ability which concern citizens are the location of a plant in
a valley flood plain, over an aquifer, near a river, on fertile
soil, or in areas where heavy industry has already contributed
to high levels of pollution.
Inadequate Emergency Response Capability; Another concern
raised in several cases is that no contingency plan had been
prepared by local government authorities. In smaller towns,
concern was expressed that even with a contingency plan, the
available emergency facilities were inadequate to handle a
major accident.
Uncertainties about Incineration Technology; The public
had questions about the efficacy of the present technology and
how well it has been tested. The validity of trial burn data,
the availability of toxicity data, the level of environmental
protection that a 99.99% destruction efficiency offers, the
long-term viability of incinerators, and the unknown long-tern
effects of incineration on the environment are all of concern
to the public.
Unsatisfactory Siting and Permitting Process; A major
concern is the lack of public input into the sitinq and permit-
ting process. The lack of public access to information and
the lack of siting criteria are other related concerns that
were raised.
Importation of Outside Wastes; Another concern is that
the wastes incinerated in one locale were generated outside of
the immediate area (often out of state). Citizens in many
communities feel that they are being used as a "scapegoat",
becoming a dumping ground for the country's hazardous waste.
While some individuals feel that the incineration of hazardous
waste is needed, they do not feel that they should be expected
26
-------
to handle outside wastes and the accompanying risks. This
concern is intensified when the waste includes PCB's, dioxins,
and other highly publicized wastes.
Adverse Economic Impacts; Also of. concern to the public
is that off-site incinerators do not provide sufficient economic
benefits to the local community to offset the risks imposed on
them. People feel that few if any jobs are provided by commercial
hazardous waste incinerators, although minor benefits sometimes
result from increases in the local tax base. Potential economic
costs of all incinerators are often cited, including declines
in property value, property damages from corrosion, general
community deterioration, and possible damage to agricultural
crops.
Nuisance; In the case of a facility that is already operat-
ing, a few local residents are concerned about noises, odors,
and gases that they claim irritated their eyes and noses.
There is some concern that continued incineration of hazardous
wastes will only make the situation worse.
3• Solutions Offered by Public Regarding Land-Based Incineration
As part of our survey, public groups were asked to offer
solutions to the problems and concerns they identified. The
following list indicates specific areas of public concern and
summarizes the solutions offered.
Unsatisfactory Siting Process and Poor Site Suitability:
0 Develop explicit site selection criteria, such as not
siting near residential areas and siting where waste is
generated.
0 Decentralize hazardous waste disposal and treatment sites,
rather than put the burden on one community.
0 Public should have a more active role in decision-making
prior to siting a facility.
0 Companies and government agencies should provide more and
better information to the public from the outset, before
any siting decisions are made.
Unsatisfactory Permitting Process;
0 Create an independent agency to evaluate and arbitrate
permit decisions and to assist citizen groups.
0 Companies and government agencies should provide more and
better information to the public from the outset, before
any permitting decisions are made.
27
-------
0 Regulatory agencies should maintain more of a neutral
position. Under current procedure, the permitting
agency is perceived to be in the position of endorsing
a specific facility when it issues notice of a draft
permit to the public.
0 The public should have a more active role in decision-
making prior to issuing a draft permit.
Inadeguate Regulatory Control;
0 Strengthen monitoring and inspection program by reguiring
independent, periodic inspections financed by a tax on
the company.
0 Reguire ambient air and water monitoring.
0 Reguire monitoring for products of incomplete combustion
(PICs).
0 Regulatory agencies should put more emphasis on pro-
tecting health and the environment by reguiring risk
assessments and environmental impact statements.
0 Improve coordination between EPA and states in enforcement
activities.
0 Reguire incinerator companies to carry larger insurance
or establish a public trust fund.
Uncertainties About Incineration Technology;
0 Reguire that state-of-the-art technology be used.
0 Conduct additional research to determine the validity
and safety of incineration technology.
28
-------
C. Comparison of Public Response to Ocean and Land-based
Incineration
Parties Involved in Opposition; The core of opposition
to both ocean and land-basedincinerators has been from local
citizens. For both types of facilities, local opposition has
included not only environmental qroups but also broader based
civic associations and local government officials. In both
situations, state-wide environmental organizations have eventually
become involved, as well as some state politicians and congressmen.
Opposition to ocean incineration has been more regional in
scope, since an incinerator ship is perceived by many citizens
to potentially have multi-state impacts. Opposition to ocean
incineration has also involved a wider range of people, including
congressmen and governors, fishermen and farmworkers, scientists
and local residents, and employees of land-based incinerator
companies. While the priority concerns of each group may
differ, they seem united by their opposition to facilities
that they believe would significantly harm their communities,
jobs and lifestyles. Only for ocean incineration has there
been active opposition by a few national environmental groups
and some competing (land-based) incinerator companies.
Impacts of Opposition: For both land-based and ocean incinera-
tion,the measurable impact of citizen opposition has been to
delay the EPA permitting process, and to make it more difficult
to obtain local or state government approvals for the siting
of land-based incinerators and port transfer facilities for
ocean incineration.
For ocean incineration, citizen opposition was a factor in
EPA's decision to delay new permitting until the Agency has
issued specific regulations applicable only to ocean incinera-
tion, and thus replacing current reguirements under the ocean
dumping regulations. Opposition was also a factor in the
Agency's decision to conduct a study of incineration to see
whether there was any new information that would indicate a
need to change the Agency's basic approach toward regulating
ocean or land-based incineration. (This study of public concerns
is part of that larger effort.)
Specific Concerns Peported By Citizens; Many of the concerns
reported by citizens arethe samefor land-based and ocean
incineration, such as the issue of potential spills of hazardous
waste during transport, storage and handling. There are also
some differences, such as the concern for potential health
impacts from emissions on land, and potential environmental
impacts from emissions at sea. Table 1 provides a comparison
of the major concerns about ocean and land-based incineration.
29
-------
TABLE 1: COMPARISON OF CONCERNS REPORTED BY CITIZENS
IN OPINION SURVEY
OCEAN INCINERATION
* Risk of spills on land and water from routine
transport, storage and handling, and accompanying
health and environmental impacts.
* Inadequate public participation in the siting and
permitting process.
* Insufficient state and federal resources for ef-
fective monitoring and enforcement of regulations.
* Unsultabillty of Gulf burn site and of port sites
in Mobile and Newark.
* Lack of credibility of incinerator operators.
* Uncertainties about incineration technology, and
concern about level of environmental protection
afforded by a 99.99 percent destruction efficiency
* Adverse economic impacts on local fishing, tourism
and property values.
° Inadequate local emergency response capability for
accidents on land, and inadequate technology for
cleanup of spills in ports and on open water.
* Risk to the marine environment from air emissions.
* The importation of outside wastes into local areas
is inequitable.
* Difficulty of enforcement and compliance monitor-
ing and of environmental monitoring of long-term
Impacts on the ocean.
* Risk of catastrophic spills In ports and on open
water.
° EPA' s poor management of the regulatory program
for ocean incineration.
° Regulatory controls are not stringent enough on
scrubber requirements and other technical
issues.
* Lack of a national strategy for managing hazardous
waste in order to provide the basis for a decision
to either promote or abandon ocean incineration.
* The ocean is a public resource which should re-
ceive special protection.
° Ocean incineration would inhibit development of
better methods for managing hazardous waste.
(Not reported for ocean.)
LAND-BASED INCINERATION
* Risk of spills on land from routine trans-
port storage and handling, and accompanying
health and environmental impacts.
' Same.
* Same.
* Unsultabillty of incinerator sites.
* Same.
* Same.
* Adverse economic impacts on local property
values and lack of increase in local employ-
ment.
* Inadequate local emergency response capabi-
lity in the event of accidents.
0 Risk to human health from air emissions.
' Same.
( Not reported for land.)
( Not reported for land.)
( Not reported for land.)
( Not reported for land.)
( Not reported for land.)
( Not reported for land.)
( Not reported for land.)
* Nuisances such as noises, odors and eye-
irritating gases.
30
-------
III. PERSPECTIVES OF COMPANIES AND REGULATORY AGENCIES
As part of the study, we interviewed individuals connected
with each case who represented state and federal regulatory
agencies, and companies. In this section, we discuss their
perspectives with regard to public concerns on ocean and land-
based incineration.
State and Federal Regulatory Agencies;
0 Regulatory agencies felt that public concerns were
genuine although not always well-founded from a
technical standpoint. It was pointed out that some
of the concerns of citizens being reported here are
based on inaccurate or incomplete facts.
0 Regulatory agencies generally felt that they, and the
companies, are doing as much or more than is necessary
to comply with what is required under law. They felt
that through the public comment and hearing process,
they have given the public a fair chance to voice
concerns and be heard. They also commented, however,
that they are not able to respond to concerns which
aren't technical in nature, and that technical answers
are not sufficient in dealing with public fears of
the unknown.
0 They recognized that they are in the position of
defending a proposed permit if the applicant meets
technical requirements and regulatory standards.
0 In some land-based cases, regulatory agencies indicated
that through their efforts, public opposition had
lessened, but that some segments of the public will
always be opposed, no matter what.
0 The EPA raised the issue that it was being unfairly
criticized by the public for selecting poor sites for
land incinerators and port facilities. They viewed
this as unfair because they do not have a decision-
making role in siting these facilities.
0 Some EPA laboratory staff also felt that the Agency was
being unfairly criticized by the public for inadequate
biological testing during trial burns in the Gulf.
They pointed out that the testing standards have changed
over time, but felt that each specific instance of testing
was adequate to the needs of that time.
31
-------
0 Some commentors from regulatory agencies suggested
that EPA's ocean incineration program is very new
and, as with any new program, there are still areas
where complete information is not available. They
felt that the public was not taking this into account
and was being overly critical in light of the
c ircumstances.
0 Finally, there were several comments by regulatory
agencies that the kinds of concerns raised by the
public are not unique to incineration. Similar con-
cerns have been raised for hazardous waste landfills,
nuclear plants, and liquified natural gas terminals.
Additionally, several commentors felt that EPA should
provide a better picture to the public on national
hazardous waste problems.
Companiesi
0 Companies unanimously felt that they have done as much
or more than necessary to comply with all regulatory
requirements. Additionally, many companies indicated
that they had attempted to secure public support by
engaging in a variety of activities. These included:
holding public meetings to answer questions and discuss
issues; distributing literature; keeping the press
informed of significant activities; and giving tours
(in cases of existing facilities).
0 They felt that many of the public's concerns were
more emotional than technical, and that the technical
responses that companies can offer are not sufficient in
dealing with emotional concerns. One company also
commented that many persons seem either to be unaware
of or to disbelieve factual information provided by
EPA and the Coast Guard.
0 Companies commented that there were a number of dif-
ferent "public agendas", and that it is very difficult
to respond to them all.
0 In many cases, companies felt that public opposition
was not very widespread, but was centered among small,
highly vocal segments of the public. They also felt
that the media treated the issues in such a way as to
sensationalize them, which fueled public opposition.
0 One company asserted that in today's climate you can
never hope to have no local opposition to the permitting
of hazardous waste facilities. Given the reality that
project sponsors will never be able to "win them all,"
32
-------
the practical goal should be to persuade a majority of
citizens that a project will be compatible with their
community. This requires innovative steps to respond
to citizens concerns, steps that often must go beyond
the letter of the law.
Finally, companies felt that the public needs a more
accurate picture of national hazardous waste problems,
and that the EPA should take the lead in providing
better information to the public. Several companies
felt that many public concerns are based on a lack
of information by both citizens and local governments.
33
-------
IV. KEY ISSUES AND CONCLUSIONS
Analysis of public concerns regarding incineration, and
especially ocean incineration, have brought to light a number
of key underlying issues that may have been acting as barriers
to public acceptance of incineration as a waste treatment/disposal
method. These issues are discussed below in some detail,
followed by overall findings.
1. Issue: Dissatisfaction With The Public Hearing
Process. At the point in the regulatory process when
public hearings are conducted for both ocean and land-based
incinerator permits, EPA officials typically discover that
they have very different perspectives and specific concerns
than those voiced by the public at such hearings. This has
led to misunderstandings and citizens' dissatisfaction with
public hearings and with the permitting process in general.
In hearings on proposed permits, the primary focus of
the EPA staff is on compliance of the proposed permit with
regulations and performance standards. This is because EPA
officials accomplish their jobs of protecting the environment
and human health through the diligent application of regulations
and standards.
The public, on the other hand, is often concerned about
broader or nontechnical issues, such as site selection,
enforcement plans and capability, company credibility, and
perceived health risks. Most of these issues are ones that
either EPA believes were resolved prior to the proposed
permit (e.g., that incineration is an environmentally sound
technology), or that EPA has no jurisdiction over, such as
the siting of land-based incinerators. Likewise, the incinera-
tor company's past performance record, while of serious concern
to EPA, does not preclude the granting of a permit as long as
all conditions and reguirements of the regulations are met.
Part of the problem is that each group has different
expectations for public hearings on proposed permits.
Federal and state regulatory agencies, and the company,
expect to discuss technical issues, and are often perplexed
by both the vehemence of public concern and the broad range
of issues raised by citizens. Government regulatory officials
have already carefully evaluated a company's proposal in
terms of its adeguacy in meeting technical and administrative
reguirements. Company officials, in turn, present technical
studies to show that the proposed facility meets all regulations.
In contrast, community opponents talk in terms of potential
health risks, inequity of siting decisions, and adverse local
34
-------
economic impact. When EPA and the state agency respond only
to technical and permit-specific issues, the public perceives
the regulatory agencies as being biased in favor of the company
and being generally inflexible and unresponsive.
The perspective of regulatory agencies and most incinerator
companies is that they are doing as much or more than is neces-
sary to comply with what is reguired by law. They believe
that through the public comment and hearing process, citizens
are given a fair chance to voice concerns and be heard. Regula-
tory agency staff also claim, however, that they are not able
to respond to concerns that are not technical in nature or
that go beyond the scope of the regulations, and that full
application of regulatory restrictions is not sufficient in
dealing with citizens' general fears about toxic pollutants.
In the case of ocean incineration, EPA focused its discus-
sion at public hearings primarily on the performance capabilities
of the technology and on the risks and impacts at the ocean
burn site. But the public was concerned about cradLe-to-grave
regulation, the potential health risks, environmental and
economic impacts outside the burn site, and the ability of
regulatory agencies to adeguately enforce its regulations.
This difference in scope of concerns reflects a lack of under-
standing by citizens that the scope of permit hearings is
limited to the proposed permit, that technical reguirements
for an incinerator permit reflect underlying concerns for
protecting health, and that other activities such as transporta-
tion are controlled by a different set of regulations.
2. Issue; Dissatisfaction With Siting Decisions. A number
of issues relating to the siting of incineration facilities
stand out as influencing public opposition. The siting process
itself is a source of frustration. Comments from the public
indicate that the siting process isn't clearly defined and
that the public feels left out of siting decisions. They feel
that criteria for selecting sites do not exist or are rudimentary
at best. Certain aspects of any site seem to inevitably generate
opposition, such as the transport route of waste to the site,
the proximity of the site to schools, residential areas, or
recreational areas, and the prior existence and impact of
industries or hazardous waste facilities in the area. It
should be noted, however, that solutions offered by the public
to resolve siting problems were sometimes conflicting, for
example some called for facilities to be spread out in order
to minimize the burden on any one community while others called
for the siting of centralized facilities.
EPA officials point out that they are being unfairly
criticized by the public for siting decisions, since EPA has
no authority over the selection of sites for land incinerators
or port facilities. However, EPA does select ocean burn sites
for incinerator ships.
35
-------
One factor pervading all siting issues is the "not in my
backyard" reaction. Many cases of opposition eventually boil
down to simply not wanting an incineration facility nearby under
any circumstances, even if incineration itself is thought to
be an acceptable method of waste disposal. The underlying
public concern here is the question of equity in the original
siting decision: why should their community bear such a large
share of the environmental costs of modern industry?
3. Issue; Lack of Credibility of Government and Industry.
Regulatory agencies and companies are constantly judged by
the public with regard to their credibility and the degree
to which they act as providers of information. Public trust
or distrust of regulatory agencies and companies strongly
influences the acceptability of incineration regulatory
programs in general, and the siting of individual facilities
specifically.
State and federal regulatory agencies are judged by
the public according to their past record in enforcement,
permitting, monitoring, inspection capability, and cleanup
activities. Public lack of understanding of agency policy,
regulations, and permitting procedures also directly affects
agency credibility. Information regarding incineration
technology, potential health and environmental effects,
and alternatives for hazardous waste management is of prime
importance to the public.
Perhaps most of all, public opinion of regulatory agencies
is influenced by the sense of whether the agency is dealing
openly and honestly with the public, and acting in their
best interests. One Alabama resident observed that state and
federal agencies seem to depend too much on industry for
direction, and to accept data from industry without many
questions. The public also believes that there is a lack of
sufficient federal and state resources to maintain and expand
effective permitting, monitoring and enforcement programs.
This view is based on publicized budget cuts at federal and
state levels, and on public perception of an inadeguate past
record of regulatory agencies in these areas.
EPA's poor public image with opponents of ocean incinera-
tion largely resulted from their perception that the program
was being managed in a very ad hoc manner. For land-based
incineration EPA's credibility is a concern, but its relative
importance varies from case to case and is not nearly so
prominent an issue as in ocean incineration.
Companies intending to incinerate hazardous waste have
come under intense public scrutiny. Their credibility is
measured by their past experience in the community, their
expertise in managing hazardous waste, and their past perfor-
mance and safety record. In general, there is a very low
36
-------
degree of public trust of incinerator companies. It is often
felt that the companies do not provide the public with
information that is accurate and readily available, thus
creating the perception that the company is not dealing
"openly" with the public. The public also believes there is
significant involvement of organized crime in the hazardous
waste industry.
4. Issue: Heightened Public Fears Regarding Hazardous
Waste Disposal. There are basic fears by the public of any
activity associated with hazardous waste, and according to
citizens interviewed, there is a general lack of readily
available public information on issues of hazardous waste
management other than through the news media. One of the
major findings of a 1979 study by EPA* is that there is a
widespread increase in public opposition to the siting and
operating of hazardous waste management facilities of any
kind, and that this increase can be traced to the national
publicity given to the hazardous waste problem. "This
publicity," says the report, "is focused almost exclusively
on the disastrous results of improper management of hazardous
wastes. The public is therefore unable or unwilling to
distinguish between patently improper sites for hazardous
waste disposal... and properly managed disposal sites."
Public fears have been heightened by news of ocean oil
spills, discoveries of illegal hazardous waste dumps, and
contamination caused by leaking landfills and other shoddy
hazardous waste disposal operations. These fears, which
have been described by some companies as irrational or fears
of the unknown, tend to act as a unifying force among much
of the opposition.
5. Issue; Lack of Public Acceptability of Risks From
Pollution. A related issue is that of the level of risk
acceptable to the public. Risk assessments may show that
risks from hazardous waste incineration do not pose a signifi-
cant threat to the public and are considerably less than
risks associated with common daily activities such as driving
an automobile. However valid this may be, a segment of the
public seems to be saying that any additional risks are
unacceptable, especially when there is a probability, however
minimal, of a catastrophic event occurring which could have a
serious environmental, health or economic impact.
i addition, people seem to accept risk more readily if
imposed voluntarily rather than involuntarily. Thus
ms tend to accept the risks of driving a car or smokii
* "Siting of Hazardous Waste Management Facilities and Public
Opposition," U.S. EPA, SW 809, November 1979.
37
-------
cigarettes more easily than the risks of environmental pollu-
tion, even though the risks to health from driving cars is
statistically higher than the risks from certain types of
environmental pollution. In the case of incineration, the
relatively low risks to health are not acceptable to some
people because the risk-taking is perceived as not of their
choosing and not under their control or influence.
The amount of risk "acceptable" to the public also varies
according to the amount of perceived community benefit from
the incinerator facility. With some exceptions, off-site
commercial incinerator companies are generally unknown to
the local community, or, if known, may be associated with
problems at their facilities in other communities. In contrast
to local manufacturing businesses, the community envisions few
benefits from a proposed commercial incinerator facility:
a few jobs and perhaps some tax revenues. In addition, poten-
tial risks are often seen as overwhelming: polluted air or
water supplies threatening the entire community, decades of
uncertainty, and hundreds of trucks carrying thousands of
drums of hazardous waste on local roads. When local communi-
ties perceive the risks to be great and the benefits small,
they tend to demand that the probability of something going
wrong be low, or more often, nonexistent.
6. Issue; Need to Protect the Ocean as a "Public Resource".
Many citizens view the ocean as a public resource that must be
protected, rather than as a handy dumping area which is "out
of sight, out of mind." In other words, the ocean is perceived
to be everybody's backyard rather than nobody's backyard.
Consequently, ocean incineration has gained the status of a
national issue, and for some people even an international
issue.
7. Issue; Need for Ocean Data. Because of some data gaps
and assumptions relating to marine ecology and the potential
impacts of ocean incineration, it is extremely difficult to
convince the public that risk assessments, needs assessments,
or worst case scenarios are valid. Any scientific assessment
made that appears to support ocean incineration is likely to
be refuted by other scientific authorities. In general, the
public seems to have more certainty, and thus is more comfort-
able, regarding the impacts of and control over incineration
on land than at sea.
8. Issue; Need for Intergovernmental Coordination. An
issue raised specifically for ocean incineration is the need
for better coordination regarding the siting of port facilities,
the permitting for ocean burns, and the provision of public
information. This is because ocean incineration involves
several different agencies at each governmental level—federal,
state and local.
38
-------
9. Issue; Need for Link Between Ocean Incineration
Regulation and a National Hazardous Waste Management Strategy.
Another issue unique to ocean incineration is the request
from citizens and state officials interviewed that EPA develop
and/or communicate a national hazardous waste strateqy that
provides a framework for either promoting or abandoning
ocean incineration as a viable and environmentally sound
technology.
Overall Findings and Conclusions
The overall findings of this study of public concerns
suggest that ocean incineration has given rise to a greater
degree of public opposition than most land-based incinerator
operations (either proposed or existing). This is primarily
because the perceived impact of land-based incineration is
very localized, whereas ocean incineration is felt by some
citizens to potentially affect an entire region: the port
community, all the communities along the coastline near the
burn site, and the marine environment. However off-site,
commercial operations on land, which have many characteristics
in common with ocean incineration, have also received
substantial opposition.
The findings also suggest that for land-based incineration,
on-site facilities that directly serve a single waste generator
have greater public acceptance than off-site, commercial
facilities that serve multiple generators in a large market
area. This is because people feel that off-site facilities
do not provide sufficient economic benefits to the local
community to offset the risks associated with importing wastes
from other areas. On-site facilities are perceived as linked
to businesses that are important to the local economy, and
are generally not perceived as importers of hazardous waste.
Our basic conclusion is that EPA needs to better address
the concerns of citizens regarding incineration by:
1. taking actions to ensure maximum protection of health
and the environment; and
2. improving its public communications efforts and
providing more visible leadership in the area of
hazardous waste management.
Public opposition to incineration on both ocean and land
may decline somewhat if EPA more fully addresses some citizen
concerns regarding national regulatory strategy, local community
impacts, equity of facility siting, public decision-making
processes, and especially enforcement plans and capability.
As one Alabama resident summed up: "If the present Administration
39
-------
and Congress would provide the proper staffing and funding,
and federal and state agencies would enforce existing regula-
tions (such as penalizing illegal acts and jailing owners),
then public confidence would change. Until it is shown that
EPA and state agencies can and will do what is necessary to
protect human health and the environment, then public opposi-
tion will continue."
Clearly many of the public's concerns are also EPA's con-
cerns, such as the potential health and environmental impacts
from incineration. But the Agency needs to better communicate
how health and environmental concerns and priorities are
reflected in the Agency's regulations and standards. Better
communication of EPA's overall regulatory policy, strategy, and
activities for hazardous waste management is crucial in providing
a context for decisions on proposed permits for individual
incinerator facilities or vessels. Better public communication
is also important for improving EPA's credibility with the
public, which is a necessary foundation for the effective
accomplishment of the Agency's mission.
40
-------
APPENDIX: KEY GROUPS AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS INVOLVED IN
THE DEBATE OVER OCEAN INCINERATION PERMITS FOR
CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.*
Local and State Citizen Organizations
Environmental Groups:
0 Calcasieu League for Environmental
Action Now (Louisiana)
0 Frontier Audubon (Texas)
0 Mobile Bay Audubon (Alabama)
0 Alabama Sierra Club
0 Texas Sierra Club
Civil Associations:
0 Chickasaw Community Affairs Group
0 Mobile League of Women Voters
0 Texas League of Women Voters
0 Alabama League of Women Voters
0 Texas Rural Legal Aid (farmworkers)
Business Groups:
0 Texas Shrimp Association
0 Gulf Coast Fishermans Environmental
Defense Fund
Coalitions:
0 Coastal Environmental Alliance
(business, civic, environmental groups)
0 Gulf Coast Coalition for Public Health
(fishing industry, resort industry,
environmentalists)
0 Texas Environmental Coalition
(medical groups, environmental groups,
labor unions, fishing industry)
0 Valley Interfaith (religious groups)
41
-------
Local and State Government Officials;
0 City of Mobile (buildinq inspector, city council)
0 City of Chickasaw (city council)
0 South Padre Island (city councilman/assistant major)
0 State of Louisiana (attorney general)
0 State of Texas (governor, attorney general)
0 State of Alabama (attorney general, environmental
agency)
National Environmental Groups
0 National Wildlife Federation
0 Greenpeace
The Cousteau Society
Other Parties
Land-based incinerator companies
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
* NOTE: Not all of these groups and individuals are opposed
to ocean incineration or to proposed permits. For
example, the National Wildlife Federation supports
ocean incineration, while the Texas League of Women
Voters has taken a neutral, educational role, being
neither for nor against ocean incineration. But
all parties listed here have been interested and
involved in discussions of permits or regulations
for ocean incineration.
42
------- |