Ocean incineration of hazardous wastes: An update U.S. plans call for more research as Europe reaflrms its banning date Fierce controversy characterid the annual meeting of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Scientific Group on Dumping, which was convened in London in mid-March. The delegates were strongly polarized during plenary sessions and topic-spe-
4e4 Envimn. Sci. Technal..Vol. 19. No. 6.1985
cific group workshops on the ocean incineration of hazardous wastes. An EPA science advisory board (SAB) report was suppressed, and a working group on ocean incineration was unable to reach consensus on several issues. Given the makeup of the groups r e p
resented at the meeting, perhaps contention was unavoidable. Among them were Greenpeace representatives, with delegates from five countries. They received support from IMO representatives, particularly from Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, and West Germany, who expressed many reservations concerning ocean incineration as a means of disposing of liquid hazardous wastes. In opposition were the U S . delegation and the Eurooean Council of Chekcal Manufa&rs’ Federation (CEFIC). . Tho& who led the opposing sides at the meeting are. opponents in the same controversy in the U.S. On one side were Edward Kleppinger and myself. We attended the meeting as Greenpeace technical observers. Our purpose was to support a report we had provided to EPA in April 1983.It was the first comprehensive, critical analysis of ocean incineration (I). EPA had suggested that certain problems exist with the report. On the other side of the debate was Donald Ackerman, who has reported extensively to EPA on burns of liquid hazardous wastes aboard the k l c m s vessels. With funding from Chemical Waste Management (CWM, Oak Brook, Ill.), he had prepared a rebuttal (2) to the points made in our critique. CWM owns klcanus I and Wcanus 11. Ackerman attended as a member of the CEFIC delegation. The analysis and its rebuttal were the basis for the discussion of the Ocean incineration of liquid and hazardous wastes by the meeting’s scientific group. Kleppinger and I attended to support the original analysis and to present an up-to-date expression of our uncertainties concerning ocean inciner-
0013-9.38X/85/C919-0486$01.~/0 0 1985 American Chemical Society
aboard the Wanus and publicity documents on the W m vessels (5)by Ocean Combustion Services BV, a European subsidiary of CWM.
Report suppressed The US. delegation, headed by lhdor Davies of the EPA, demanded the suppression of the SAB report on ocean incineration of liquid hazardous wastes (6). This report had expressed uncertainties about measurements and about the efficiency of incineration and destruction of the wastes, and its objections were similar to those we had p r e sentedpreviously (I, 2, 4).Despite the observation that the final draft of the SAB report, long available publicly, awaited only the EPA administrator’s signature for fmal release, the insistence was that the r e p ? had not been made f d .Hence, the scientific group was not permitted to apply the conclusions and recornnunendations of the S A B report at the 1985 meeting. Motives for this and other actions on the part of the US. delegation are unclear. Perhaps one reason is EPA’s intention to issue permits for the ocean incineration of liquid hazardous wastes later this year. Moreover, several delegates noted that the U.S.Maritime Administration provided a loan guarantee of about $55 million (7)for the construction of Apollo I and ApoNo II. These vessels are to be used for the ocean-based incineration of liquid hazardous wastes generated in the U S . Some trade reports mention requirements for additional $15 million in guarantees. Several delegates believe thatthe loan guaranteecouldbe in jeopardy if there is no US. ocean incineration program. Also,if the e x F t e d Eu-
e following statements are e from the science adviso ). All emphasis is a
I quent exposure assessments. ’’
“Recommendation 2: THE E SIONS AND EFFLUENTS OF H ARDOUS WASTE INCINERATOR NEED TO BE ANALYZED IN SUC A WAY THAT THE IDENTiTY QUANTITY OF THE CHEMl RELEASED INTO THE ENV MENT, INCLUDING THEIR P CAL FORM AND CHARACT TICS (PARTICLES, DROP GASES) CAN BE ESTIMATED.”
ropean ban on ocean incineration goes into effect in 1990, the only significant market for the use of CWMs M O vessels would be the U.S. Jack E. Ravan, EPA’s assistant administrator for water, has announced a 3-y extension of the comment period for proposed regulations on incineration at sea. The comment period will now close on June 28. Ravan is allowing the extension “to make sure. tbat the public has ample time to review and comment on these very technical regulations.” The proposed regulations were published in the Fedeml Register (Vol. SO, No. 40,Feb. 28, 1985, pp. 8222-88). During the plenary session, Greenpeace representatives expressed concerns about the validity of various measurements that are said to be the basis for proof of the effectiveness of the incineration and destruction of hazardous wastes at sea. The study group then convened a working group on ocean incineration. reached The working group was unable to reach agreement on the issues. It did decide, however, that the matters it reviewed were serious enough to justify forming an intercessionmy group of experts to consider them further. Early in the meeting, it had been said that a voluminous quantity of ocean incineration data is available. Neverthe less, Davies and Alan Wastler of EPA said that additional data, to be gathered by EPA this year, should be examined before any intercessional meetings of experts are held or before any motions concerning ocean incineration of hazardous wastes are passed by IMO.Presumably, these additional data are to be gathered for EPA from burns aboard the lklcmus. Other delegates, including the Greenpeace representatives, suggested that EPA’s perspective was shortsighted and that if an intercessionary group of experts were to determine that EPA’s methods were invalid, then EPA’s latest research would be for naught. European delegates noted that ocean incineration was only an “interim method of disposal of wastes” according to the London Dumping Convention (9). Many said that they plan to advise their governments to q u i r e re view or action on the uncertainties that had been discussed at the meeting concerning the reliabiity of ocean incineration and disposal of hazardous wastes. In addition, one delegate from West Germany pointed out that European countries may look toward beneficial uses of hazardous wastes. In that country, liquid hazardous wastes normally are processed for recycling and reuse
No eo-us
Working group impasse rking group convened to ean incineration was unable consensus on the lollowing ions, a h c h were subsequently eo to an IntercessNonary group perts lor examination: t is tne relationship between ana cornbust;on eflia wide range 01 o p g procedure should ain a representative
eo lor collecting particulate ma. iai in tne stack?
a be used for rnonilorcineration emissions? organic compounds hesized auring the in-
or they are. treated on site. This a p proach substantially reduces, if not eliminates, the need for ocean incineration. It is especially interesting to note that at the Oslo Commission meeting of 1981 (Io), at which the US. was not represented, member countries unanimously resolved to ban the ocean incineration of liquid hazardous wastes by 1990. European delegates privately expressed the opinion that such a ban could take effect before that year. --Desmond Bond
References (1) Kleppinger, E.; Bond, D. “Ocean Incineration of Hazardous Waste: A Critique”; EWK Consultants:Washington, D.C., April 1983. (2) Ackerman. D. et al. “The Capability of Ocean Incineration-A Critical Review and Rebuttal of the Kleppinger Report,” report by TRW to Chemical Waste Management; TRW Redondo Beach. Calif.. Mav 1983. (3) Kleppinger, E.; Bond, D. ‘ b a a Incineration of Hazardous Waste: A Revisit Io the Controversy”; EWK Consultants: Washington, D.C., March 1985. (4) Bond, D. Environ. Sci. Tefhnol. 1984, 18, 148-52A. (5) Ocean Incineration Services BV publicity brochure. (6) “lneineration of Hazardous Liquid Waste,” draft report of Environmental Effects, ltansport and Fate Committee, Science Advisory Board; EPA: Washington, D.C., December 1984. (7) “EPA Weighs Anchor on Long Feud”; Rcuhingron Posr. March 26, 1985, p. D26. (8) International Maritime Organization. “Report of the 8th Meeting of the Scientific Group on Dumping,; Dwument No. LDCl SG.8lWP.1; International Maritime Organization: London, U.,K.. March 1985. (9) Report of the Third Consultative Meeting of the London Dumping Conveution, London, U.K., 1972. (IO) 1981 Meeting of the Oslo Commission, Oslo, Norway, 1981. Envimn. Sci. Technol..Vd. 19. No. 6.1985 407
