Destroying Toxic Wastes at Sea

By J.D. Reed

While the EPA fiddles over the issue, environmentalists burn

"If we can't recycle hazardous wastes, there are only three things that we can do with them: put them in the air, the ground or the water."

--William Ruckelshaus, Environmental Protection Agency administrator

The possibilities are as volatile as the chemicals. As landfills close and air-pollution rules stiffen, the U.S. continues to produce some 275 million metric tons of poisonous wastes each year, and millions of metric tons still await disposal. Concerned citizens across the nation, although they agree that hazardous materials should be disposed of somewhere, answer Ruckelshaus' reasoning with the acronym NIMBY: Not in My Backyard!

Up until last week, it looked as though a new killing ground had emerged for destroying U.S. toxic materials: the ocean. But the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has appeared to favor the burning at sea of deadly substances like PCBs, announced a preliminary decision to delay the issuance of operating permits for incinerator ships. The halt meant that three specially designed vessels were temporarily left high and dry. The move did not calm environmentalists, who are concerned about the fate of the oceans and the coastlines. Says EPA Director of Water Regulations and Standards Steven Schatzow: "The definition of 'backyard' has become much larger."

The controversy centers on ships like the maroon-hulled Vulcanus I, a converted oil tanker, and its newer sister, Vulcanus II, which operate in the North Sea. Both of them are owned by Waste Management Inc., an Illinois-based disposal Goliath. Over the past decade, Vulcanus I has conducted test burns in the North Sea and the Gulf of Mexico. Vulcanus II was set to begin commercial operations in the gulf, where the ship's giant furnaces were to reduce thousands of tons of liquid poisons to harmless vapor. To broaden the burn program, the Maritime Administration backed a $55.8 million loan that enabled At-Sea Incineration Inc. to build two disposal vessels in Tacoma, Wash. Advocates call Apollo I and Apollo II "state of the art."

According to the EPA, its tests show that ocean burning has no discernible effects on air quality or marine life. The cost is approximately half that of onshore destruction. Opponents, however, brand all incinerator craft "leper ships." They point out that six European nations that have burned wastes on North Sea ships for more than a decade are talking about ending the practice. Concerned scientists contend that it may not be possible to maintain the required 2,400DEG F heat under seagoing conditions. This could allow the escape of dangerous emissions like dioxins. Those poisons would infect fish, opponents say, and eventually human beings through the food chain.

The EPA last year announced plans to issue waste-ship operating permits before it had set formal regulations for ocean incineration. The agency's pace led to protests. At open hearings in Brownsville last November, more than 6,000 demonstrators, including Texas Governor Mark White, confronted EPA officials. They argued that a spill at sea could destroy the shrimp and tourist industries on the south Texas coast. When the EPA answered that this eventuality was remote, White commented, "No one believed the Titanic could sink either."

Some critics are worried that monitoring Waste Management's vessels would be difficult. Over the past year the company has been battling charges of improper handling of toxic materials at various of its landlocked disposal sites around the nation. Others object to toxic wastes being trucked to and stored at dockside facilities. Says John Vaughn, a Lake Charles, La., municipal official: "We know there is a problem with hazardous wastes, but we don't want to solve it for all of Louisiana, Alabama, Texas and Mississippi."

Prodded by the urgency of the need for a solution to the mounting piles of toxic wastes, the EPA is expected to approve burning at sea by the end of the year. The agency is now recommending four test burns totaling 3.3 million gal. to study efficiency and resolve uncertainties about environmental impact. Attorney Peter Arnow, a Louisiana department of justice official who is critical of the EPA, sadly notes that ocean burning seems inevitable. Says he: "On land you have neighbors. But there is no political opposition from the fish." --ByJ.D. Reed. Reported by Jay Branegan/ Washington, with other bureaus

With reporting by Jay Branegan, other bureaus