For decades, the U.S. EPA has permitted the Clean Harbors Colfax facility in Louisiana to OPEN BURN and detonate more than 480,000 pounds of toxic waste each year including aerial flares that contain PFAS, according to the Cease Fire Campaign.
by Inside EPA Publishers
EPA plans to revise its regulations governing the open burn/open detonation (OB/OD) of waste explosives to require evaluation of alternative destruction methods and may set minimum technical criteria for remaining OB/OD units, but the plan falls short of environmentalists’ long-time call to ban the use of OB/OD to dispose of explosives waste.
One community advocate says some communities have expressed concern that EPA’s plan signals there will not be a ban.
Such concern is likely to intensify given President Joe Biden’s State of the Union remarks raising concerns about potential adverse health effects veterans, including his late son Beau Biden, may face from exposures to the burn pits and successfully urging lawmakers to approve legislation that would expand veterans’ access to healthcare and benefits from such exposures.
“We don’t know for sure if a burn pit was the cause of [Beau’s] brain cancer, or the diseases of so many of our troops. But I’m committed to finding out everything we can,” Biden said.
Biden’s comments come as EPA prepares for a March 10 meeting with stakeholders to discuss potential revisions to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C regulations for OB/OD.
“EPA is developing a rulemaking that will propose revisions to the regulations for the open burning and detonation (OB/OD) of waste explosives, in light of current information about the availability of more protective alternatives to OB/OD,” EPA says in an invitation to the meeting.
While EPA points to 2019 reports from the agency and National Academy of Sciences that found alternative technologies to OB/OD as the impetus for the planned rulemaking changes, it has also been under long-time pressure by community and environmental groups to bar OB/OD in lieu of alternatives.
In documents provided to participants, EPA outlines potential revisions and discussion topics. In particular, the agency plans to revise hazardous waste regulations addressing open burning to now require OB/OD owners and operators to evaluate available alternative treatment technologies and “potentially require implementation of identified viable alternatives,” EPA says in a background document for the meeting.
According to EPA’s long-term action agenda, the agency’s waste office plans to propose the rule this November detailing its plans, though officials have not yet set a date for a final rule.
In response to questions from Inside EPA, EPA notes that because existing alternative treatment technologies may be unable to treat all waste explosives, the agency “is also considering establishing technical standards for OB/OD units with the goal of ensuring national consistency in permitting and further reducing impacts to the environment.”
And, it says, while the agency is developing the revisions to the rule, “EPA is planning to issue formal communication to EPA and state permitting authorities with respect to open burning/open detonation, including evaluation and use of alternatives.”
Waste Explosives
EPA in 1980 banned open burning of hazardous waste due to potential hazards to the environment and human health, but the agency provided an exception for its use on waste explosives, which it said could not be safely disposed of through other means.
But while EPA has so far refrained from revising its regulations, officials in recent years has signaled support for a shift away from open-air burning of waste explosives in favor of less-polluting alternative treatments.
In December 2019, the agency issued a report noting a “wide range” of available alternatives that satisfy the safety mandates that were the main driver for using OB/OD.
While EPA notes on its website that OB/OD has been used to treat energetic hazardous waste, “nevertheless, OB/OD is still being used despite the availability of suitable and safe alternatives, in both the public and private sectors,” EPA’s report said. “Therefore, the information in this report should be useful to the regulated community in exploring alternatives to OB/OD.”
In the background document, EPA says it believes the rule changes “will not only reduce the amount of waste treated by OB/OD, but also the universe of operating OB/OD units.”
As of January, 67 OB/OD facilities — many with more than one unit — were operating nationwide, while about 138 facilities have closed or are closing, it says. This does not include facilities operating under emergency permits or other status. The operating facilities include both private and government-owned facilities.
EPA says that while RCRA permits have been issued for most of the operating facilities, three remain operating in interim status, awaiting an initial permit decision.
But environmental and community groups are likely to be disappointed with EPA’s plan, as it fails to outright ban OB/OD for waste explosives.
Last September, more than 100 environmental and grassroots groups wrote to EPA Administrator Michael Regan, urging him to immediately halt the military’s use of OB/OD to dispose of munitions waste, saying it produces uncontrolled releases of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and other toxic chemicals. PFAS is used in military flares and solid propellant for rocket motors.
“In order to protect the health of site workers, service members and neighboring communities, we are requesting an immediate halt to the open air burning and detonation of PFAS and hazardous waste currently permitted by the U.S. EPA or allowed to operate under interim status without a permit,” the groups wrote in a Sept. 30 letter to Regan. Instead, they called for moving to “safer advanced technologies.”
They added that many military and industrial sites are in rural and economically-depressed areas where community members have few resources to organize and “achieve environmental justice.”
The push renewed a long-time fight by grassroots environmental groups to stop the use of OB/OD for waste explosives.
Continued Need
But in its discussion topics for the upcoming meeting, EPA signals it does not believe alternatives will cover all needs for disposing of explosives waste, noting that “in recognition of a continued need for some OB/OD capacity,” the agency plans to set technical standards for OB/OD units.
It asks, “What technical standards do you think should be included in the rule?” and lists possible examples as: clarifying postponement of closure to allow for continued OB/OD for non-waste items such as explosives for training purposes; setting detailed waste characterization and analysis requirements; adding in location restrictions, or barring treatment of certain wastes such as depleted uranium or PFAS waste, among others.
EPA also asks stakeholders to weigh in on the timing for rule compliance, specifically asking whether EPA should “require or recommend prioritization of facilities with higher potential for risk to human health and the environment.”
Further, the agency asks what considerations it should take into account for adding an “explicit regulatory requirement” for facilities to evaluate available treatment technologies and subsequently implement alternatives identified. It says some actions it may include in this requirement could be a detailed waste analysis of waste streams, criteria for comparing available technologies, or third-party certification of an alternative technology evaluation.
EPA also asks stakeholders to provide feedback on how broadly the rule should apply, such as to all treatment, storage, and disposal facilities that conduct OB/OD, or should it also include OB/OD conducted in response to emergencies, Superfund cleanups and RCRA corrective actions.
— Suzanne Yohannan (syohannan@iwpnews.com)
Published March 4, 2022