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.

-------