United Staffs Environrnantal Proteclion Aesncv Office of Water Programs Washington, DC 20460 Miy 1984 Water Decision ori Ocean Incineration Permits May 1984 ------- A \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY I WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 r-iAY 2 3 OFFICE OF WATER Dear Public Hearing Registrant: I want to thank you for participating at the public hearing in Brownsville/ Texas, on November 21, 1983. Because of your interest, I am sending you a copy of my final decision. This decision responds to an application by Chemical Waste Management and Ocean Combustion Services, B.V., for the M/T Vulcanus I and M/T Vulcanus II to incinerate mixed liquid organic compounds and liquid DDT wastes at the Gulf of Mexico Site. The issue of ocean incineration is technically complex, as well as highly controversial. It is my hope that by working together, we can establish a firm basis for an environmentally safe research program. Thank you for your continued interest and support. Sincerely, Jack E. iRavan Assistant Administrator Enclosure ------- Research permits should not be issued to the Applicants at this time. I affirm the need for additional research burns as indicated in the Hearing Officer's report. However, the research permits recommended by the Hearing Officer depart significantly from those originally sought by the Applicants and thus were never the subject of a tentative determination under 40 CFR §222.2 or of a public hearing under 40 CFR §222.7. Accordingly, I am unwilling to grant the research permits recommended by the Hearing Officer based upon the record before me. Applications for research permits must follow the procedures set forth in EPA regulations in order to ensure that all the legal, technical and operational issues are addressed and the public has adequate opportunity for meaningful comment. Since I am denying the research permits at this time, I need not consider delaying such permits pending the State of Alabama's review under the Coastal Zone Management Act. Comprehensive Research plan for incineration at Sea In order to address the legal, technical and operational concerns involving research permits, I am directing my staff to meet with potential applicants and other interested parties (including but not limited to the following: State of Texas; State of Alabama; Gulf Coast Coalition for Public Health; Valley Interfaith; Texas Rural Legal Aid; the ocean incineration companies, the Corp of Engineers, etc) in order to design a comprehensive research plan. Although the Port of Mobile at Chickasaw, Alabama is not ruled out as a potential loading port, I also direct that the research plan consider sites and ports for at-sea incineration in the Atlantic and pacific Oceans as well as in the Gulf of Mexico. I am requesting that my staff complete its task no later than August 23, 1984. It is expected that this plan will assist me in making any future decisions on research permits. Until our research needs are better defined and until we have a better sense of the need for incineration at sea, permit issuance shall be deferred. ------- -3- I want to emphasize that my decision is intended to foster a well researched and deliberative approach to the development of ocean incineration as a potential means for hazardous waste disposal. jack E. Ravan Assistant Administrator for Water ------- SUMARIO DE LA DISCUS I ON ENTRE CIENTIFI COS DE LA AGENCIA DE PROTECCI ON AMBIENTAL Y EXPERTOS INDEPENDIENTES TOCANTE PLANES DE INCINERAR DESECHOS TOXICOS EN EL GOLFO DE MEXICO (ARREGLADA POR LA COAL ICION PARA LA SALUD PUBLICA DE LA COSTA DEL GOLFO, HARLINGEN, TEXAS DIEZ DE ENERO, 1984) Senor Brent Hunsaker, en colaboracion con la estacion KGBT-TV, canal 4 de Harlingen, Texas, fue el moderador de la discusion sobre planes de la Agencia de Proteccion Ambien+al (EPA en ingles) de au+orizar la incineracion de quimicas toxicos en el Golfo de Mexico. Dr. Bruce Piasecki, profesor del Colegio de Technologia de Clarkson, de Pottsdam, New York, principio la discusion expIicando que el problema de deshacernos de desechos toxicos es el problema mas importante de nuestro tiempo, Esta discusion es para evitar que este peligro vuelva ser una catastrofe. Hizo las siguentes preguntas: Nos pondran en peligro los buques "Vulcanus"? Esta buena la technologia de incineracion? Causaran dano a nuestro salud o a los recursos naturales? Existen alternatives que no cuestan demasiado dinero? Si existen, por que no son apoyados o utilizados por la Agencia de Proteccion Ambiental? Sera justo a los estados que han tornado accion legal en contra de los buques Vulcanus, aprobar los permisos? Seran suficientes los beneficios en relacion a los riesgos que la region mas cerca tendria que asumir? El Dr. Steven Safe, toxicologo del colegio Texas A&M, explico su preocu- pacion con el grupo de quimicas que consisten de bipheniles poIicI orinados, feniles poIicI orinados, dibenzo furanes, y dibenzo dioxinas (P.C.B's, "poly- chlorinated di benzodioxins", en ingles). Estas "dioxinas" son impurificaciones inferiores y forman productos secundarios durante la combustion de PCBs. Estas quimicas son altamente estables, resisten degradacion quimica, y biologica, y son soluble en corpulento y pueden ser muy toxicas. Algunos miembros de esta clase de quimicas son de las mas peligrosas que conocemos. El dijo que las quimicas se concentran en la cadena alimenticia ecologica y que perduran muchos anos. Por eso, la introduccion de cantidades pequenas de estas quimicas en el medio-ambiente como resultado de la quema puede resultar en efectos significantivos en el medio-ambiente y en dano a la salud. La solucion para desachernos de estas quimicas no es dilucion en el mar. Desde el punto de vista de el Dr. Safe, el peor sitio posible para la incineracion de estas quimicas toxicas seria en o cerca del mar o ambien+e acuatico. En su opinion, la manera que utilizo la agencia para escoger el sitio y de optener apoyo de los residentes de la area fallecio compIe+amen+e. El recomendo que el permiso para la incineracion en el Golfo de Mexico no sea conced i do. El Doctor Marty Allen hablando para la Region VI de la Agencia de Proteccion (EPA en ingles) estuvo generalmente de acuerdo de que la desposicion por tierra de estas quimicas toxicas no era una buena idea. Sin embargo, el comento que la Region VI contiene un numero de incineradores en las grandes facilidades petroquimicas que la Agencia de Proteccion Ambiental ha examinado y encontro que era la technologia mas uti I para la destruccion de estos quimicas para eliminar problemas para las generaciones futuras. ------- CONDENSATION OF THE DISCUSSION BETWEEN EPA AND INDEPENDENT SCIENTISTS CONCERNING PLANS TO INCINERATE TOXIC WASTE IN THE GULF OF MEXICO. (ARRANGED BY GULF-COAST COALITION FOR PUBLIC HEALTH, HARLINGEN, TEXAS, JANUARY 10, 1984) By Charles H. Marks, P.E., Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. The panel discussion was moderated by Brent Hunsaker, a member of News Center 4, local television station KGBT-TV, Harlingen, Texas. Dr. Bruce Piasecki, of Clarkson College of Technology, Pottsdam, New York made the opening statement. He explained that since America's toxic waste problem has become the most important environmental question of our time the panel had been assembled to "prevent risk from becoming a catastrophe". He posed the fol lowing questions: Are the Vulcanus ships safe? Does incineration work? Will there be damage to health and natural resources? Do reliable cost effective alternatives exist? If so, why are they not being used or endorsed by the EPA? Is approval fair to the states that have taken legal action against the Vulcanus? Are the benefits greater than the risk to the region forced to absorb it? Dr. Steven Safe, a toxicologist at Texas A&M, expressed his concern about a group of chemicals consisting of the polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), the chlorinated phenols and the structurally related polychlorinated dibenzo dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzo furans. The latter group, he explained, are minor impurities in almost all chlorinated phenol preparations and furthermore, form important byproducts from the combustion of PCBs. These chemicals are highly stable, resist both chemical and biological degradation, are fat soluble and can be highly toxic, some members being among the most toxic chemicals known. Dr. Safe pointed out that because these wastes can become bioconcentrated in the food chain, the introduction of small quantities into the environment as a result of ocean incineration can result in significant effects on the environment and human health. He felt strongly that for these chemicals "the solution is not dilution" in the ocean. In Dr. Safe's view the worst possible site for the destruction of these toxic chemicals would be in or close to any marine or aquatic environment. In his view, public acceptance and siting for this ocean going incinerator proposal failed miserably. He recommended that the permit for incineration in the Gulf not be granted. ------- -2- El dijo que se toma en cuenta el sitio del incinerador en aprobar permisos para la incineracion pero "la base para aprobar (incineradores en tierra firme). . . se basa en satisfacer condiciones muy rigorosas relacionadas con la destruccion del 99.9999? o mas del con+aminante. Todas las facilidades, localizadas a borde de buques o en tierra firme, tienen que pasar una serie de pruebas muy rigurosas, incluyendo examenes annuales y visitas de "inspec+ores desinteresados, simi lares a los que viajan a bordo del buque". Dos incineradores comerciales de tierra han sido aprobados en la Region VI de la Agencia de Proteccion Ambiental. La Region VI incluye el estado de Texas. El dijo que hasta hoy dia estos incineradores no han presentado ningun problema relacionado con el escapa de bipheniles poIicI orinados (PCBs, Poly- chlorinated biphenyls en ingles) o otros productos quimicos nocivos que pueden afectar el aire y el ambiente acuatico. El Doctor George Crozier del laboratorio maritimo de la Is la de Dauphin (Dauphin Island Sealab en ingles), indico su preocupacion con el transporte de estas materiales por el puerto de Mobi le, a traves de la bahia de Mobi le y su estuario y finalmente hasta la parte norcentral del Golfo de Mexico. El estudio del peligro de contaminacion, preparado por los consultores de la EPA, era en su punto de vista totalmente inadecuado. Ciertos topi cos no fueron analizados adequadamente y el opino que el estudio no incluyo el impacto a las corrientes circulares del Golfo y otras corrientes distribuidoras de la plataforma continental. Desde su punto de vista el caso peor seria un escape de contaminantes en el sistema estuario de la bahia de Mobile. Segun el, el impacto seria permanente, con un gran perdida de recursos naturales y quizas un cambio en la I lanura aluvial que volviera ser inhabitable. La bahia siendo un sistema semicer en menos de varias semanas. El Doctor Crozier temia que apenas se aprobara la licencia de funcionamiento del incinerador, el transporte de material contaminado causaria el escape de contaminantes que poco a poco afectarian la cadena alimenticia ecologica a consecuencia de la acumulacion de estos contaminantes en peces y mariscos. El estada de acuerdo con el Doctor Safe en preguntar si esta solucion es la mas logica y si la localizacion del incinerador es la mas segura que proporcione el minimo riesgo para la incineracion. Dijo que el no escogeria este sitio. El Doctor Goldman, un meteorologo para el Centro InternacionaI Para Resolver Problemas Ambientales (International Center for the Solution of Environmental Problems en ingles) indico que residentes que viven cerca o corriente abajo del lugar de incineracion, le habian pedido que el examine el peligro de operar el incinerador. Su preocupacion mayor es la manera en que calcularon el "caso peor". El no cree que casos que han ocurridos en situaciones similares o la frecuencia de estos acontecimientos o el promedio de peores situaciones sean pertinentes. Lo que el recomendaba que se haga es la evaluacion del caso peor que pueda ocurrir de acuerdo con el conocimiento cientifico de hoy dia y de conocimiento de fenominas atomosfericas. Tambien el demostro dudas sobre el modelo de dispersion que fue usado para examinar el caso peor. El Doctor Goldman cone Iuyo que el caso peor usado por JRB (los consultores para la EPA) esta basada en informacion muy limitada y no es el caso peor posible, y el propuso un estudio mas elaborado del ambiente fisico. ------- -2- Dr. Marty Allen speaking for EPA Region VI, said he generally agreed that land disposal of these toxic wastes was not a good idea. However, he stated that Region VI contained a number of incinerators in large petro-chemicaI facilities which EPA had tested and found to be the best technologies available for the destruction of these compounds to eliminate problems for future generations. He said that for land based incinerators, site location is taken into account when issuing permits for incineration but "the basis for approval. ... is based on meeting very stringent destruction removal efficiencies in the order of six nines or greater." All incinerators, whether they be on vessels or land based facilities, must go through a rigorous testing procedure, including annual testing and "third party inspectors similar to the proposed ship riders." Two commercial land based incinerators had been approved in 1981 in EPA Region VI and today had not posed a problem that resulted in the release of PCBs or other chemicals into the air or into the environment, he said. However, he had not seen data for the Vulcanus incinerators. Dr. George Crozier of the Dauphin Island Sealab was disturbed about the transportation of these materials through the Port of Mobile, down the Mobile bay estuarine system and then ultimately into the North Central Gulf of Mexico. He thought the risk assessment, conducted v'by a "variety of consultants" to the Environmental Protection Agency, was wholly inadequate. A number of issues were not adequately analyzed, nor did he believe that the study dealt with the Gulf of Mexico loop current or any other distributive currents on the shelf. In his view, the true worst case was a catastrophic discharge into the estuarian system of Mobile Bay. This would have a permanent impact and would result in the loss of natural resources and a change in the flood plan that could render it unihabitabIe. The Gulf is a semi-encIosed body of shallow water and has, as he pointed out, a flushing rate estimated at several weeks. Dr. Crozier feared that once this permit was granted it would result in a gradual increase of these toxic materials into the food chain, through the trawl fisheries and the deep water catch. He shared, Dr. Safe's concern whether we had in fact established the most logical, safest site which would provide minimal risk. He would not have chosen the designated site for incineration. Dr. Lewis stated that a buoy dropped in the site had traveled all around the western Gulf. ------- -3- JRB respondieron que ellos estan de acuerdo que un escape de contami- nantes en la bahia de Mobile seria el caso mas dras+ico que podria ocurrir en la operacion de un incinerador localizado en un buque. Ellos anotaron que se puede discu+ir si el caso peor tiene que ver con la dispersion maxima o con la concentracion del contaminante. La localizacion del sitio en el Golfo fue basada en varios parametros, el mas importante de los cuales fue las condiciones oceano graficas. JRB (los consul+ores) concedieran que en realidad no hay ningun modelo fisico que haya sido aprobado para represen- +ar la dispersion de aire con+aminada en el ambiente acuatico. Los modelos que se usan generalmen+e representan la dispersion sobre tierra firme y por distancias cortas de menos de 10 kilome+ros y no representant casos en el oceano donde distancias de mas de 300 kilometros son comunes. El Doctor Kleppinger se presento como un cuidadano preocupado. Primero, el cree que las pruebas que se Ies dieron al buque Vulcanus no fueron completamente puesto que el protocolo basico para las pruebas no fue sequido. Ademas, aunque EPA no tomo muestras por toda la chiminea, nunca demostro que los gases emi+idos no estaban estratificados. Ademas, se hizo la suposicion, que las particulas en las emisiones serian esteri les y no con+enian ningun material organico y no hizieron ninguna investigacion que puede haber apoyado conclusiones d i ferentes. Sequndo, los dos buques no pueden recibir una licencia para operar, a no ser que EPA haga una excepcion a sus reglamentos y metodos de prueba. El anoto que los incineradores son de taI diseno que no serian aceptados para operar en tierra firme aunque tuvieron algun mecanismo para limpiar las emisiones gaseosas. Tercero, EPA no ha demonstrado, (en su opinion], una necesidad actual para expedir esta licencia. Su cuarto punto tiene que ver con el metodo de control del peligro de algun accidents en el buque y el escape de contaminants que no se puede recobrar. Di jo que uno noi debe tomar un riesgo cuando hay un benificio muy I imitado y si se ocurre el riesgo uno no puede sobrevivir. Su conclusion fue que el buque Vulcanus consiste de tecnologia antigua, y esta technologia "es imposible de mejorar o adaptar, y es tecnologia que no perdona". El cree que no se debe cortceder la licencia de operacion. MerriI I Jackson, representando EPA en el grupo de prueba de los buques Vulcanus I y II, dijo que el procedimiento que se siguio en las pruebas se baso en la mejon tecnologia que existia. Dijo que una prueba anterior que consistio en quemar Agente Anarajado ("Agent Orange" en ingles) (una hierbicida que consiste de 2,4,5-T y 2, 4-D), demostro que no hay necesidad de tomar muestras en las capas transversa Ies de las emisiones de la chimeneas. Ademas, en los incineradores a bordo de buques, todo el material organico esta en estado gaseoso debido a las altas temperaturas, y debido a esto no se pueden recoger particulas. En cuanto a particulas de materiales inorganicos, los Iiquidos que se quemaron en estos buques contenian niveles muy bajos de oxidos de metales. ------- -3- Dr. Goldman a meteorologist from the International Center for the Solution to Environmental Problems said that he had been asked by the citizens living closest to and downwind of the proposed incineration area to examine the risks associated with the proposed ocean incineration activity. His major concern was the worst case scenario that had been considered. He did not think that actual worst case occurrences or the frequency of occurrences of events or average worst case conditions were relevant. What he wanted to see done is the evaluation of the true worst case that can happen in theory based on the entire basis of knowledge and the understanding of the atmosphere. Specifically, he questioned the dispersion model that was used in examining the effects of a worst case scenario. Dr. Goldman's basic conclusion was that the "worst case analysis" used by JRB was based on limited data and might well not be the very "worst" and he proposed a more elaborate assessment of the physical environment. JRB, consultants to EPA, agreed that they considered a spill in the Mobile Bay as the most drastic situation that could occur from the at-sea incinerator ship operation. They noted that it could be argued whether or not the worst case would be characterized by maximum dispersion or by concentration. The specific site had been chosen on the basis of several criteria, oceanographic considerations being the primary concern. JRB agreed that there is in fact no approved model for plume dispersion over water. The plume dispersion models that are widely used today are used for dispersion of plumes over land and over relatively short distances such as 10 kilometers or so where as in the case of ocean incineration distances of over 300 kilometers are involved. Dr. Ed Kleppinger spoke as a concerned private citizen. First, he thought the testing of the Vulcanus ships was completely inadequate since the standard test methods had not been followed. Moreover, EPA had not taken samples throughout the stack. However, it had not demonstrated that the stack gases in the Vulcanus were not stratified, making this unnecessary. Furthermore the assumption had been made that all particulate matter emitted from the Vulcanus is sterile and contains no organic materials. No particulate sampling was done to demonstrate that this was in fact true. Second, the two ships could not be permitted unless EPA granted waivers of major provisions of the regulations and thest requirements. He observed- that the incinerators are of such design that they would not be permitted on land even if they had no scrubbers. ------- -4- Don Oberacker, dirigiendose al topico de tiempo de residencia, indico que anteriormente se creia que se necesitaban dos sequndos o mas para des+ruir el contam i nante, pero segun el la experiericia indica que el tiempo necesario es mucho menor si el produc+o se a+omiza y se man+iene la temperatura adecuada. Esto contribuyo a covencer a EPA que el entasis debe ser en los resul+ados y no en requisi+os de diseno o operacion. Despues, se clarifico que todavia no estan publicados los datos mencionades. El Doctor Piasecki felicito a EPA por haber prohibido el deshecho de liquidos en tierra, pero el mantiene que la incineracion a bordo de buques en el oceano es insostenible por la posibilidad de una explosion o fuego causado por la mezcla de quimicas, la falta de una estrategia para controlar dano, los riesgos de transporte y carga, y la falta de reguIaciones. El anoto que hay muchas companias pequenas que usan un tratamiento efectivo para deshechos. Ademas, estas companias pierden su clientela si nos deshacemos de estos deshechas en una manera inappropiada; y en efecto lo que la EPA esta haciendo es competir injustamente con estas companias. El cree que reunir mi Nones de toneladas de PCBs, DDT, hierbicidas y insecticidas en un solo lugar va en contra de los principios cientificos de control del peligro. Ademas, el peligro del transporte de estos productos no es conocido. El Doctor Piasecke perfiere el sisterna decentraI izado, que aunque utiliza metodos distintos, es menos peligroso y puede ser el mas economico si la EPA cambia su actitud con respecto a esas companias. Tim Oppelt, jefe de la Oficina de Investigacion de Incineracion de la EPA, estuvo de acuerdo con el Doctor Piasecki en que existen alternativas emergentes que utilizan tratamiento quimico o termoquimico. Aun cuando este tratamiento parece ser efectivo, solo se utiliza en aceites con un concentracion de PCBs de menos de \%. Oppelt dijo que hay un poco mas de media docena de estos sistemas montados en remolques que detoxifican materia Ies que contienen PCBs. Pero, el demostro un gran escepticismo en estos procesos hasta que puedan demonstrar buenos resultados a largo plazo y a los niveles de destruccion necesarios. El no estaba de acuerdo con el Doctor Piasecki que usando incineracion a bordo de un buque previene la introduce ion de nuevos sistemas en este campo, El anoto que hay riesgo tanto en tecnologia tradicional como en tecnologias nueva. El Senor Hugh Kaufman, aunque empleado por la EPA, asistio como un ciudadano privado. Su interes primario fue, la falta de evidencia de que este metodo se necesite para destruir materiales peligrosos. Bajo la convencion de deshechos de Londres, a la cual los Estados Unidos pertenece, se convino de que la necesidad se debe demostrar antes del uso de la incineracion en el oceano. El no ha visto ninguna prueba de eso. El sequndo punto de discus ion del Senor Kaufman era la comparacion de riesgos y beneficios. Puesto que no hay manera concreta de asegurarse del funcionamiento de esta clase de sistemas, la EPA ha publicado reglas de diseno, y funcionamiento. La EPA autorizo a la compania ignorar algunos de estas reglas en este caso. Por esta razon, el concluyo que el riesgo existe. ------- -4- Third, EPA had not demonstrated a real need for this permit. His fourth point related to risk management of an accident on the Vulcanus where the released material could not be recovered. He said that one should not take a risk when there is very little benefit and where if the risk occurs one can't survive it. His conclusions were that the Vulcanus was old technology, a technology that "cannot be upgraded or adapted, and is unforgiving technology." It should, in his view, not be permitted. Merri I I Jackson, who was the EPA representative of the sampling team on board the Vulcanus I and II, said that the sampling procedure was based on the best available technology. He said a previous test on the Agent Orange Burn had clearly demonstrated that traversing the stack for future burns was not necessary. Furthermore, on the ocean going incinerators, all organic material was in a gaseous state at the high temperatures and would have been collected in the sampling train and analyzed as part of the total train. As far as inorganic particulates are concerned, the liquids burned on the ocean going vessels contained very low levels of oxides of meta I s . Don Oberacker, addressing himself to the subject of residence times, said that in the 1970's, EPA had believed that 2 seconds or better was needed but that recent data had shown that much shorter residence times produce the required destruction efficiencies, provided that atomization and temperature were adequate. This fact led EPA to focus on the ena result rather than specifying the design/operating requirements. It was later clarified that this data has not yet been pub I i shed . Dr. Piasecki congratulated EPA for stopping the dumping of toxic liquids into the ground but he maintained that at- sea incineration is presently untennable because of the possibility of fire or explosion due to the mixing of chemicals, the lack of a damage control strategy, the loading and transportation risks, and the lack of regulations. He pointed out that there are a lot of small companies who are treating the waste in the right way. They lose their markets every time hazardous waste is treated the wrong way; in effect EPA has undercut all these small companies. He felt that channelling millions of tons of PCB's, DDTs, herbicides, insecticides, into one centralized destruction vehicle defies commonly accepted notions of scientific risk assessment. In addition, transportation risks are questionable. He preferred the safe and decentralized treatment solutions which, although diverse in methods are less risky. However, in his view, these will become cost effective only when EPA changes its attitude toward these companies. ------- -5- Tim Oppelt, Chief of the EPA Incineration Research Branch, agreed with Dr. Piasecki that there are emerging alternatives that involve chemical treatment and other types of thermo-chemical processes. While these processes appear to work we I I they are predominantly for low concentration PCBs, less than one percent in oil. Oppelt said that there are little more than half a dozen of these trailer-mounted units operated by various companies which detoxify PCBs. However, he looked with great skepticism on these processes until they can demonstrate long-term performance at these levels of destruction efficiency. He did not agree with Dr. Piasecki that going toward ocean incineration prevents the new devices from being brought to the market place. He pointed out that there is risk associated with both the accepted technology as welI as the new technologies coming down the line. Mr. Hugh Kaufman, although employed by EPA, appeared as a private citizen. His primary concern was the lack of a demonstration of a need for this method of hazardous waste disposal. Under the London Dumping Convention, to which the United States is a party, it was agreed that there must be proof of a demonstrated need for ocean incineration. He has seen no data demonstrating such a need. The second issue Mr. Kaufman raised was that of risks and benefits. Since there was no concrete scientific way to continuously 'and efficiently monitor performance EPA has promulgated design and performance standards. These standards were waived for this particular proposal; for this reason he concluded that an unacceptable risk exists. Furthermore, Mr. Kaufman stated, the established techniques that EPA and the Coast Guard have used for years for cleaning up oi I spi I Is cannot be used for these types of hazardous materials. No hard data are available on the cost of cleanup and he suggested that no risk assessment or worst case scenario can be adequately performed unti I one can define what is required to clean up the spill and what it would cost. The final portion of the program involved questions from the audience. In the discussion of these questions, the following points were made: 1. What will happen to the PCBs in case of a spill is not known. 2. A legal question has been raised by the Attorney General of Texas as to whether in fact liability can be assessed by the EPA because of a certain loophole in the Superfund law that was put in at the 24th hour that may transfer liability to the tax payers. ------- -6- 3. Where the particulate matter and combustion products will go and how constant low level exposure wi I I affect the Texas coastal environment and food chain is not known. 4. Operations at sea cannot be assumed to be as safe as on land. The premium makes up about 25% of the entire gross operating expense of an offshore rig. ------- |