Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
120358698
label
Metzenbaum-WTI [Waste Technologies Industries]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
120358698
contentType
document
title
Metzenbaum-WTI [Waste Technologies Industries]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Council on Environmental Quality (Clinton Administration)
Kathleen McGinty's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
120358698
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7432005-20120769F-Seg1-022-012-2017
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
0f084020896b2963
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2012-0769-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Council on Environmental Quality
Series/Staff Member:
Kathleen (Katie) McGinty
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
2888
FolderID:
Folder Title:
Metzenbaum - WTI [Waste Technologies Industries]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
61
5
10
1
They's
U.S. Senator Howard M.
Committees:
Judiciary
Labor and Human Resources
METZENBAUM
Select Committee on Intelligence
Environment and Public Works
Chairmanships:
of Ohio
Subcommittee on Antitrust
Subcommittee on Labor
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Nancy Coffey
Date: July 24, 1992
(202) 224-2315
METZENBAUM REACTS TO APPEALS BOARD RULING ON WTI
"THIS RULING CONFIRMS WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG THAT
EPA ACTED ILLEGALLY AND IMPROPERLY IN ISSUING THE PERMIT TO WTI.
SURELY EPA KNEW THAT FEDERAL REGULATIONS REQUIRE THAT THE OWNER
OF THE LAND BE LISTED ON THE PERMIT. SURELY EPA KNEW THAT NO
PERMIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED BEFORE IT WAS VERY CLEAR WHO OWNS
THE INCINERATOR. BY NOW THE EPA SHOULD KNOW AND JUST ADMIT THAT
THE WTI PERMIT IS HOPELESSLY FOULED UP AND SHOULD BE REVOKED.'
U.S. Senator Howard M.
Committees:
Judiciary
METZENBAUM
Labor and Human Resources
Select Committee on Intelligence
Environment and Public Works
Chairmanships:
of Ohio
Subcommittee on Antitrust
Subcommittee on Labor
STATEMENT OF SENATOR HOWARD M. METZENBAUM
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
MAY 20, 1992
WII AMENDMENT
--THIS AMENDMENT PROHIBITS THE INCINERATOR BUILT IN
THE LIVERPOOL, OHIO, FROM BURNING HAZARDOUS WASTE UNTIL SUCH EAST
BEEN COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS RELATING TO THE PROJECT TIME HAVE AS
RESOLVED TO FINAL JUDGEMENT.
--IT IS A NARROWLY DRAFTED AMENDMENT. IT APPLIES ONLY THE
INCINERATOR BUILT BY WASTE TECHNOLOGIES INDUSTRIES TO
LIVERPOOL, PENDING AND ONLY TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND COURT IN ACTIONS EAST
AS OF THE DATE OF ENACTMENT.
THE --MR. VERY CHAIRMAN, THE WTI PROJECT HAS BEEN A CLASSIC END
RIVER BEGINNING WHEN IT WAS SOLD TO THE TOWNSPEOPLE AS RUN AN FROM OHIO
PORT DEVELOPMENT.
SAGGING --13 YEARS AGO, THE OHIO LEGISLATURE, IN AN EFFORT TO BOOST THE
ECONOMY OF THIS DEPRESSED OHIO RIVER
APPROPRIATED $4 MILLION "TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY AND COMMUNITY, MAKE
RIVERS.' IMPROVEMENTS AS ARE NECESSARY TO ENHANCE THE USE OF OHIO'S SUCH
HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATOR.
--BUT, THEY NEVER GOT A PORT. WHAT THEY GOT INSTEAD WAS A
NEWLY --IN FACT, THE DEAL WAS CUT AND A LEASE WAS SIGNED
PORT FORMED COLUMBIANA COUNTY PORT AUTHORITY AND WII BETWEEN BEFORE THE THE
AUTHORITY EVER EVEN PURCHASED THE LAND.
WTI --IRONICALLY, IS ALTHOUGH LOCATED ON THE WATER AS A PORT
ITS PROHIBITED BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS FROM OBTAINING FACILITY,
SHIPMENTS BY WATER. IT'S TOO DANGEROUS.
--MR. IS CHAIRMAN, OF ALL THE DEALS THAT I'VE EVER SEEN, THIS ONE
PROBABLY THE MOST QUESTIONABLE.
WE --THE DON'T ORIGINAL RCRA PERMITTEES NO LONGER OWN THE PROJECT. IN FACT
EVEN KNOW WHO THE REAL OWNERS ARE.
THAT --THE VON RCRA PERMIT LISTED WTI AS THE OPERATOR. NOW IT
THE PERMIT HOWEVER, - A VON VIOLATION ROLL WAS OF NEVER RCRA. CERTIFIED AS THE OPERATOR MAY ON
WTI. ROLL COMPANY IS THE OPERATOR, AND THAT VON ROLL APPEARS OWN
THEY --IF GOING THE EPA DOESN'T KNOW WHO THE REAL OWNERS ARE, THEN HOW ARE
ACCIDENT? TO HOLD ANYONE ACCOUNTABLE IN THE EVENT OF AN
--THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS LAUNCHED A FULL-SCALE
INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE WHO THE TRUE OWNERS ARE.
ADMITTED --TWO WEEKS AGO, THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORTED THAT EPA
HAZARDOUS IN A CONGRESSIONAL HEARING THAT THE, "EPA VIOLATED LAWYERS THE
WASTE LAW IN ISSUING THE [WTI] PERMIT."
--110W? THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ON WHICH THE INCINERATOR WAS
PERMIT. BUILT - THE COLUMBIANA COUNTY PORT AUTHORITY NEVER SIGNED THE
--WHEN CONFRONTED WITH THE PROBLEM NINE YEARS LATER, THE US EPA
UNILATERALLY PUT THE PORT AUTHORITY ON THE PERMIT WITHOUT ITS
CONSENT - AND AGAINST ITS WISHES.
--HOW DID EPA'S LAWYERS CHARACTERIZE THAT ACTION?
--ANOTHER VIOLATION OF THE LAW.
--THAT'S NOT ALL.
--THE INCINERATOR IS 1,100 FEET FROM AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, WHOSE
SCHOOL CHILDREN WILL BREATHE THE LEAD, MERCURY AND OTHER HEAVY
METALS SPEWED INTO THE AIR BY THE PLANT.
--IT'S 400 FEET FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD FULL OF HOMES.
--THE INCINERATOR IS BUILT IN A FLOOD PLAIN. OHIO BUILDING
REGULATIONS RELATING TO SOIL COMPACTION WERE WAIVED, OHIO
STATUTORY SET-BACK REQUIREMENTS WERE IGNORED.
WAS FUDGED.
--THE REGION IS A CLEAN AIR ACT NON-ATTAINMENT AREA. THAT ISSUE
OHIO EPA IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT.
--THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA HAS SUED WTI, THE U.S. EPA, AND THE
--THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH HAS FOUR PERMIT APPEALS NOW PENDING
BEFORE THE OHIO BOARD OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. THE CITY SOLICITOR
IS ALSO CONSIDERING A FEDERAL LAWSUIT.
--YET IN SPITE OF ALL THIS, THE U.S. EPA IS BULLDOZING FORWARD
CONSIDERING WHETHER TO LET WTI PROCEED WITH ITS TRIAL BURN
PROJECT NEXT MONTH - AND COMMERCIAL BURNING AFTER THAT
--THE CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER SUMMED IT UP WELL IN AN EDITORIAL
TWO WEEKS AGO: "WTI OFFICIALS HAVE CONSISTENTLY DISPLAYED AN
ARROGANCE BORN WITH THE EASE WITH WHICH THEY GOT WHAT THEY WANTED
FROM THE TOWN AND STATE."
[WTI] OFFICIALS POOH-POOHED EAST LIVERPOOL RESIDENT'S CONCERNS
ABOUT EMISSIONS ARGUING THAT THE OHIO RIVER VALLEY WAS ALREADY SO
POLLUTED A LITTLE EXTRA WOULDN'T MATTER."
--BUT, I BELIEVE THEIR ARROGANCE LED THEM TO MISJUDGE THE LEVEL
OF OPPOSITION THROUGHOUT OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA AND WEST VIRGINIA.
WORKER GROUPS HAVE REGISTERED THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE PLANT.
--14 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, AND SCORES OF HEALTH, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND
VIRGINIA HAVE QUESTIONED THIS PROJECT.
-SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES FROM OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA AND WEST
MOLLOHAN, STAGGERS AND KOLTER OPPOSE IT.
-- SENATORS BYRD AND ROCKEFELLER, SENATOR GLENN, REPRESENTATIVES
--THIS INCINERATOR NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUILT.
THE COURT CASES AND APPEALS RUN THEIR COURSE.
--MY AMENDMENT WILL AT LEAST MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T OPERATE UNTIL
--THE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE THEIR DAY IN COURT BEFORE THE FACILITY
IS PERMITTED TO OPERATE.
-30-
Calendar No. 495
102d Congress
2d Session
}
{
REPORT
SENATE
102-301
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY
I
ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1992
REPORT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
TO ACCOMPANY
S. 976
JUNE 19 (legislative day, JUNE 16), 1992.-Ordered to be printed
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
55-947
WASHINGTON : 1992
S. Rept. 102-301 - 1
88
89
As part of a comprehensive solid
and will spend tens of millions of dollars to improve performance.
process, States were urged to prohibit
The State of New York has taken enforcement action with respect
within five years of the date on which
to Freshkills and the landfill is under order to upgrade its oper-
grant program for State solid waste
ations to provide additional protection for human health and the
authorized under subtitle D. Grant
environment.
hat continued to allow the operation
PROHIBITION ON BURNING (SECTION 418)
or sanitary landfills in 1979. The cri-
facilities in flood plains, protection
SUMMARY
with the discharge requirements
This section specifically prohibits the Waste Technologies Indus-
water contamination, land applica-
tries (WTI) hazardous water incinerator, located in East Liverpool,
vectors, prohibition of open burn-
Ohio from conducting test burns until such time as the litigation
and other safety hazards.
Solid Waste Amendments Act Con-
and administrative appeals pending on the date of enactment have
the criteria for sanitary landfills
been resolved to final judgment.
wastes and small quantity generator
DISCUSSION
for siting, ground water monitoring
criteria were promulgated in Oc-
Currently pending in Federal District Court is a 9 count suit
against WTI, the U.S. EPA and the Ohio EPA filed by the Attorney
has been in place for many
General of West Virginia. In addition, the City of Pittsburgh, Penn-
implemented. Although EPA can
sylvania has 4 WTI permit appeals pending before the Ohio Board
against facilities that do not satisfy
of Environmental Review, and has filed a notice of intent to sue
EPA has chosen to rely principal-
WTI and the Ohio EPA.
However, the grant program
At issue are allegations that hazardous waste permits issued to
that developed comprehensive solid
WTI by U.S. EPA pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Re-
on open dumps has not been
covery Act, and Ohio EPA pursuant to state law are illegal. More
there has been little inducement for
specifically, the parties allege that (1) the landowner was not made
Federally-imposed requirement.
a party to the permit, a violation of the Resource Conservation and
the Federal impetus for the sani-
Recovery Act, (2) the facility operator was not certified on the
rohibition on open dumps. It uses the
RCRA permit, also a violation of RCRA; (3) the partnership that
loss of Federal grant dollars, origi-
currently owns WTI is comprised of different companies than the
atute. The bill requires the Adminis-
partnership in whose name the RCRA permit was issued; (4) after
the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water
the RCRA permit was issued, the activities authorized pursuant to
Act (including grants for hazard-
the permit were expanded without modification and interested par-
for every State that continues to
ties were not notified; (5) the plant does not meet the specifications
years after enactment of the Re-
required in the state construction permit; (6) U.S. EPA and Ohio
Act Amendments of 1992. They
EPA failed to review the suitability of the proposed incinerator lo-
the authority of each of the three
cation after the State of Ohio enacted new siting standards; (7) the
is required to make the reductions
construction of the incinerator on property owned by the Colum-
that no open dump is receiving
biana County Port Authority (CCPA) violates the terms of an
must the State have a prohibition on
agreement between CCPA and the State of Ohio; (8) the lease
the prohibition must be effectively
agreement between WTI and CCPA is invalid because CCPA ig-
nored Ohio law on private sector solicitation and public notice; and
be phased in with reductions of 10
(9) the incinerator is located within a floodplain, on the banks of a
enactment, 20 percent in the fourth
river, within 1,100 feet of an elementary school, and within 800
in the fifth year after enactment
feet of a neighborhood.
year and each subsequent year after
The issues raised in the litigation and administrative actions
the allocation of any State not com-
should be resolved before the WTI incinerator is permitted to burn
be reallocated to other States for
hazardous waste.
the authorizing statutes.
to the Freshkills landfill which is
municipal waste generated in New
of the largest landfills in the nation
II
Calendar No. 495
102D CONGRESS
2D SESSION
S.976
[Report No. 102-301]
The "Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Amendments of 1991".
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
APRIL 25, 1991
Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. CHAFEE, and Mr. BURDICK) introduced the fol-
lowing bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Envi-
ronment and Public Works
JUNE 19 (legislative day, JUNE 16), 1992
Reported by Mr. BURDICK, with an amendment and an amendment to the title
[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]
A BILL
The "Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Amendments
of 1991".
1
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3
SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS
4
SECTION + This Act may be cited as the "Resource
5 Conservation and Recovery Act Amendments of 1991".
408
1 SEC. 418. PROHIBITION ON BURNING.
2
(a) IN GENERAL.-Notwithstanding any other provi-
3 sion of law, and except as provided in subsection (b), the
4 Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
5 may not approve a trial burn plan for the commercial haz-
6 ardous waste incinerator located in East Liverpool, Ohio,
7 with respect to which a permit was issued with the Envi-
8 ronmental Protection Agency hazardous waste permit iden-
9 tification number OH980613541, and no burning of haz-
10 ardous waste may be carried out at the incinerator.
11
(b) APPLICABILITY.-The prohibitions under sub-
12 section (a) shall apply until such time as all State and
13 Federal administrative appeals pending on the date of en-
14 actment of this section relating to the incinerator have been
15 exhausted, and a final judgment has been entered in any
16 related action pending in a State or Federal court on the
17 date of enactment of this section.
18 SEC. 419. MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE RESEARCH.
19
Section 8006 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42
20 U.S.C. 6986) is amended to read as follows:
21
"MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE PROGRAMS
22
"SEC. 8006. (a) MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE RESEARCH,
23 DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION.-(1) The Adminis-
24 trator may establish a comprehensive research, development,
25 and demonstration program for the purpose of identifying
26 and addressing, in the safest and most efficient manner,
.S 976 RS
HOWARD M. METZENBAUM
COMMITTEES.
OHIO
JUDICIARY
LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES
SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
United States Senate
ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS
CHAIRMANSHIPS
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-3502
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ANTITRUST
October 16, 1992
SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR
Mr. William K. Reilly
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Reilly:
On October 5, 1992, I wrote to you expressing very serious
concerns about the way in which your Region V staff was handling
the Waste Technologies Industries hazardous waste
incinerator/RCRA permit process.
USEPA internal memorandums made public over the past few
weeks made very clear that there has been a consistent agency
bias in favor of permitting WTI to move forward with the plant.
That is why I urged you in my letter to assemble a new team to
undertake an independent and impartial review of the WTI/RCRA
project.
The day after my letter was received in your office, your
spokesman Dave Cohen told a Cleveland Plain Dealer reporter that
a reaction to Metzenbaum will take time. However, Mr. Cohen was
then quoted as having said "I'd wage a guess that it will end up
being said that an examination reflects the fact that the agency
feels all of the procedures and decisions made so far stand up to
any scrutiny."
Once again, your staff has made a predetermined conclusion
without so much as having considered the facts of the matter.
That has been my concern all along -- that the agency's modus
operandi has been to ignore the facts, to disregard the concerns
expressed by citizens and public officials, and to do whatever it
takes to move WTI forward.
I always believed that you brought integrity to the USEPA.
The top environmental post is a difficult job in the Bush
administration, and you have always had my support. But I am
frank to say to you now that I am mightily disappointed in your
handling of this project.
I urge you again to undertake an independent review of
USEPA's role in permitting the WTI facility. And I would
appreciate hearing from you on the matter.
Very sincerely yours,
Howard M. Metzenbaum
United States Senator
[mp/WWH
HOWARD M. METZENBAUM
COMMITTEES:
OHIO
JUDICIARY
LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES
SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
United States Senate
ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS
CHAIRMANSHIPS:
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ANTITRUST
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-3502
SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR
October 5, 1992
Mr. William K. Reilly
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Reilly:
As you know, I have been closely monitoring decisions made
by the USEPA regarding the Waste Technologies Industries (WTI)
hazardous waste incinerator in East Liverpool, Ohio.
Accordingly, I was shocked by the contents of the attached
memorandum prepared by the USEPA Assistant Regional Counsel
Nancy-Ellen Zusman, and made public last week. According to
Ms. Zusman, the document, which was addressed to all of the
senior EPA regional personnel working on WTI, "serves to
memorialize the schedule of items to be accomplished in relation
to the
incinerator
which was discussed in a briefing of the
Regional Administrator on August 20, 1992."
The memo outlined a sixteen point chronology of steps that
USEPA would undertake culminating in a date certain in which,
"WTI would be allowed to bring hazardous waste on site (Feb.
1993) What the memo makes clear is that it was the position of
USEPA all along to give WTI the go-ahead. The questions raised
by the USEPA Inspector General, the administrative appeals and
other outstanding issues were merely to be handled for public
relations purposes. There would be no serious examination of the
issues, just a resume of steps to be completed before announcing
the final decision to bring hazardous waste on site.
Furthermore, Ms. Zusman concluded the memo by stating,
"There is nothing to indicate that the original permit is
invalid, nor that the Agency did not have a viable liable party
to pursue However, a second USEPA internal memorandum
addressed to Ms. Zusman from Mr. Ignacio Arrazola, Law Clerk,
SWERB v, titled "Possible transfer of the WTI RCRA permit"
contradicted Ms. Zusman's conclusion. Mr. Arrazola concluded
that "Good faith legal arguments can be made to either buoy or
sink WTI's existing permit. Ultimately, the decision of whether
the permit should pass through the legal niceties unscathed is a
policy determination. That is exactly what USEPA Region V did.
They made a policy decision, in advance of any investigation, to
permit WTI to move forward.
Mr. William K. Reilly
October 5, 1992
Page Two
I don't believe that I have ever seen such irresponsibility
on the part of government officials. The Region V staff from the
Administrator down through the fourteen other individuals to whom
the Zusman memo was addressed are so completely compromised that
the public has no chance of getting a fair determination. And I
am frank to say to you that you don't seem to understand that you
are being made a party to this. I urge you to suspend the WTI
permit, and to designate an entirely new team to undertake a
complete review of the WTI/RCRA situation.
Very sincerely yours,
Howard M. Metzenbaum
United States Senator
HMM/dwj
FROM : Terri. Swearingen
PHONE NO. : 304 387 0574
P01
\
/
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 5
77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD
OPA
CHICAGO. IL 60604-3590
DICK
REFLY TO THE ATTENTION OF:
WOODRUFF
FOIA EXEMPT
21 pages
ATTORNEY-CLIENT
PRIVILEGE
INTERNAL USE ONLY
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Waste Technologies Industries
July 20, 1992 Briefing
FROM: August Nancy-Ellen Zusman NEZ
Assistant Regional Counsel
TO: See Below
DATE: July 21, 1992
trainst
This memorandum serves to memorialize the schedule of items to be
accomplished in relation to the Waste Technologies Industries
("WTI") hazardous waste incinerator in East Liverpool, Ohio,
which was discussed in a briefing of the Regional Administrator
on August 20, 1992.
It was agreed that the following activities would take place in
regard to the above referenced facility:
1.
ORC will write a letter to the Ohio Attorney General's
Office formally requesting its determination on the
ownership and operational control issues for the WTI
permit.
2. Bill Muno will contact HQ (Rich Cuimond) and explain
what actions the Region intends to take with regard to
the WTI facility.
3. U.S. EPA will inspect the WTI facility on 8/25 and 8/26
to determine compliance with its permit.
4. A "Dear Interested Party" letter will be sent by OPA
explaining recent developments at the WTI facility,
including the lead issue (raised in the IG report) and
Printed on Recycled Paper
93%
10-01-92 01:44PM P001 #04
FROM : Terri Swearingen
PHONE NO. : 304 387 0574
P02
2
the July 24, 1992, ruling by the Environmental Appeals
Board. (Week of 8/24/92)
5. U.S. EPA will issue a letter to WTI stating the results
of the technical inspection and that there are problems
with the permit in relation to the ownership and
operational control of the facility. Until those
issues are cleared up to U.S. EPA's' satisfaction no
hazardous waste will be permitted to be brought on
site. (Early Sept.)
6.
A "Note to Correspondents" will be sent by OPA
explaining the inspection results and that no waste
will be brought on site until the ownership and
operational control issues have been cleared up to the
Agency's satisfaction. (Early Sept.)
7. The real estate transaction between the Columbiana
County Port Authority and WTI/Von Roll will be
consummated, clearing up the property owner problem.
(Mid Sept.)
8. WTI will submit its revised permit application, as
previously requested. (Mid Sept.)
9. The Ohio AG's office will give U.S. EPA its preliminary
assessment of the owner/operator issues. (Mid Oct.)
10. U.S. EPA will respond to the IG Report. (Due Oct. 15)
11. U.S. EPA will take enforcement action against WTI for
failure to notify and will request a Class 2
modification to correct the problems with the current
permit. (Mid oct.)
12. Ohio will issue its formal determination. (Early Nov.)
13. WTI will initiate a Class 2 modification. (Early Nov.)
14. The permit will be modified to correct the
owner/operator issue. (Jan. - Feb. 1993)
15. HQ (Guimond) will respond to the Metzenbaum letter.
(Feb. 1993)
d
16. WTI will be allowed to bring hazardous waste on-site.
(Feb. 1993)
The majority of these dates are tentativo. The dates and/or
milestones may change at any time if U.S. EPA datermines that
human health or the environment is not being protected. At some
point during this timeframe it is presumed that the trial burn
plan will be approved by U.S. EPA and that ohio EPA will issue a
permit to operate to WTI. The West Virginia lawsuit, Palumbo V.
R-93%
10-01-92 01:44PM P002 #04
FROM : Terri Swearingen
PHONE NO. : 304 387 0574
P03
3
WTI. U.S. EPA. Ohio EPA, et al., will also be ongoing. OPA will
issue "Notes to Correspondents" to let the public know about
milestones. There is nothing to indicate that the original
permit is invalid, nor that the Agency did not have a viable
liable party to pursue for violations of the WTI permit at all
times. For any questions about any of these issues, I can be
reached at 6-7161.
Addressees:
Valdas V. Adamkus - Rey. Admis
William Muno -
David Ullrich - Acting " we Dep. RCG Dir Admin. Woste Myt. Div.
Margaret McCue . Dir. Office of Public Affairs
Norman Niedergang Acting Assoc: DisDirector RCIEN
Gail Ginsberg. Counsel
Anne Rowan - Public Affairs
"
Suzanne Kircos
Karl Bremer Chief RCRA permitting brasch
Gary Victorine section RCRA (vades Invement
Larry Kyte - Office Reg. Counsel Chief
Rett Nelson- Attry Reg. Counsel Chief
Dan O'Riordan stated Coordinator Ohio twis.
Mary Canavan Conq. Limison
Tami Odell Corry. Asst.
R=94%
10-01-92 01:44PM P003 #04
OCT
7-92
WED
11:32
IV 310142286872
P002/003
HOWARD M. METZENBAUM
OHIO
COMMITTEES:
JUDICIARY
LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES
SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
United States Senate
ENVIRONMENT $ PUBLIC WORKS
CHAIRMANSHIPS.
WASHINGTON, DC 205 10-3502
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ANTITRUST
SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR
October 5, 1992
Mr. William K, Reilly
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Reilly:
As you know, I have been closely monitoring decisions made
by the USEPA regarding the Waste Technologies Industries (WTI)
hazardous waste incinerator in East Liverpool, Ohio.
Accordingly, I was shocked by the contents of the attached
memorandum prepared by the USEPA Assistant Regional Counsel
Nancy-Ellen Zusman, and made public last week. According to
Ms. Zusman, the document, which was addressed to all of the
senior EPA regional personnel working on WTI, "serves to
memorialize the schedule of items to be accomplished in relation
to the
incinerator which was discussed in a briefing of the
Regional Administrator on August 20, 1992."
The memo outlined a sixteen point chronology of steps that
USEPA would undertake culminating in a date certain in which,
"WTI would be allowed to bring hazardous waste on site (Feb.
1993) What the memo makes clear is that It was the position of
Card USEPA all along to give WTI the go-ahead. The questions raised
by the USEPA Inspector General the administrative appeals and
other outstanding issues were merely to be handled for public
relations purposes. ! There would be no serious examination of the
issues, just a resume of steps to be completed before announcing
the final decision to bring hazardous waste on site.
Furthermore, Ms. Zusman concluded the memo by stating,
There is nothing to indicate that the original permit is
invalid, nor that the Agency did not have a viable liable party
to pursue However, a second USEPA internal memorandum
addressed to Ms. Zusman from Mr Ignacio Arrazola, Law Clerk,
SWERB V, titled Possible transfer of the WTI RCRA permit"
contradicted Ms Zusman's conclusion. Mr. Arrasola concluded
that "Good faith legal arguments can be made to either buoy or
sink WTI's existing permit. Ultimately, the decision of whether
the permit should pass through the legal niceties unscathed is a
policy determination." That is exactly what USEPA Region V did
They made a policy decision, in advance of any investigation, to
permit WTI to move forward.
P.03
OCT- -92_WFR.R.
October 5, 1992
Page Two
on the part of government officials The Region V staff from the
I don't believe that I have ever seen such irresponsibility
Administrator down through the fourteen other individuals to whom
the Zusman memo was addressed are so completely compromised that
the public has no chance of getting a fair determination. And I
are being made a party to this. I urge you to suspend the WTI
am frank to say to you that you don't seem to understand that you
permit, and to designate an entirely new team to undertake a
complete review of the WTI/RCRA situation.
1,
Very sincerely yours,
Howard M. Metzenbaum
United States Senator
HMM/dwj
CT- 5-92 MON 12:39
G3
P.03
UNITED
STATES.
AGENCY
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PROTECTION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SEP 30 1962
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
The Honorable Howard M. Metzenbaum
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Metzenbaum:
On July 23, 1992, your staff met with my deputy Richard J.
Guimond, regarding the Waste Technologies Industries (WTI)
incinerator in East Liverpool, Ohio. You expressed concerns
about the ownership and operational control of the facility. I
would like to report to you our findings on these issues.
As you noted in your letter, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) requested extensive information from
WTI with respect to the ownership and operational control issues
surrounding the facility under section 3007 of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Based on our review of the
certified materials submitted by WTI, we believe that the WTI
permit is valid and that WTI is the owner of the facility, as
well as an operator of the facility. However, we believe that
WTI's managing partner, Von Roll (Ohio), Inc. (VRO), is also an
operator of the facility, and that WTI should have submitted a
permit modification request, and VRO should have signed a permit
application, to add VRO to the permit. These issues are
discussed in more detail below.
OWNERSHIP OF THE FACILITY
With respect to the ownership issues, you expressed concern
that WTI was constituted pursuant to a joint venture agreement
and applied for a RCRA permit in 1981, but did not apply for a
partnership license in the State of Ohio until November 1987.
This is true, but we do not believe that a general partnership in
Ohio is required to obtain a license in order to do business.
The filing of a certificate of general partnership is necessary
to enable the partnership to commence or maintain an action on or
on account of a contract in the partnership's name in state
court, or transfer a conveyance of real estate to or from the
partnership. Ohio Revised Code sections 1777.02, 1777.04. We do
not believe that WTI was required to obtain a license in order to
be recognized as a bona fide partnership and to apply for a RCRA
permit.
Printed on Recycled Paper
2
Concerns have also been expressed about changes in the
ownership of WTI, and whether these changes have caused WTI to
dissolve or become a different legal entity than the entity that
applied for and received a permit. Based on our review of the
materials submitted by WTI and meetings regarding this issue with
both concerned citizens and WTI, we have no basis to conclude
that there has been a legal change in the partnership entity.
The original four partners in the partnership were Koppers
Environmental Corp., Energy Technology Co., Waste Technologies,
Inc. (with a comma), and Von Roll America, Inc. (VRA). Since
1981, Stephens Inc., which owned 98.96% of the stock of Waste
Technologies, Inc., sold Waste Technologies, Inc. interest in
WTI to WTI Acquisition, Inc., which was wholly owned by Stephens.
WTI Acquisition, Inc. then changed its name to Waste Technologies
Inc. (without a comma). As a result of this transaction,
Stephens Inc., became the sole owner of the partner company. In
addition, VRA created VRO as a subsidiary, and sold its interest
in the partnership to VRO. Koppers changed its name to
Environmental Elements Ohio (Inc.) and there has been no change
with respect to Energy Technology Co. Finally, although the four
original companies had separate corporate parents, all are now
owned by VRA.
The WTI joint venture agreement specifically limits the
grounds for dissolution, and contemplates that the partnership
will continue notwithstanding changes in the partners. We
believe that such provisions prevent dissolution upon the change
)
of partners. See, e.g., Cherry Hill Corp. V. Estate of Riley,
1982 WL 5555 (Oh. App.) (unreported) i Heath V. Spitzmiller, 663
S.W.2d 351 (Mo. App. 1983) ; Hunter V. Straube, 543 P.2d 278 (Or.
1975) ; Adams V. Jarvis, 127 N.W.2d 300 (Wis. 1964) ; 59A Am. Jur.
2d Section 829. In view of these provisions, we do not believe
the decision in Fairway Dev. Co. V. Title Ins. Co., 621 F. Supp.
120 (N.D. Oh. 1985), holding that a change in partners dissolves
a partnership, is controlling. Based on the express provisions
of the joint venture agreement, we cannot conclude that the
transfer of partnership interests dissolved WTI.
We also inquired into whether the ownership by VRA of the
stock in all four partners, along with the fact that the four
partners and VRA have substantially identical directors, would
lead an Ohio court to disregard the corporate entities and
conclude that WTI is not a valid partnership. We do not believe
a court would come to this conclusion. WTI is composed of four
corporations that, according to the documentation submitted by
WTI in its certified response to USEPA's RCRA section 3007
information request, are validly incorporated and in good
standing both in their states of incorporation and in Ohio. Our
understanding is that Ohio law will not disregard the corporate
form unless the form is used to perpetrate a fraud or other wrong
or injustice. North V. Higbee Co., 3 N.E.2d 391 (Oh. 1936) ;
3
Bacyrus-Erie Co. V. General Products Corp., 643 F.2d 413 (6th
Cir. 1981). We do not believe that complete ownership of a
subsidiary by a parent and the fact of common directorates would
lead a court to disregard the corporate form. Therefore, we do
not believe that the composition of WTI would lead an Ohio court
to conclude that it is not a valid partnership.
Because these are difficult, technical issues of state law,
we will continue to monitor the inquiry into WTI presently being
conducted by the Ohio Attorney General's Office as part of its
routine background check of RCRA facility owners, and we are of
course receptive to any other new information or arguments on the
issues. In addition, we are forwarding to the Ohio Attorney
General's office documents and information received in the course
of our inquiry into WTI's ownership, including information
provided by local citizens. However, it should be noted that,
regardless of the resolution of these technical issues, the de
facto owners and operators of RCRA facilities are fully liable
for compliance with RCRA regardless of whether they are on the
permit, and USEPA has full authority to enforce the applicable
statutory and regulatory requirements against all such parties.
We do not believe that the enforceability of a RCRA permit turns
on technical issues of state business association law.
]
In addition, with respect to the financial assurance
mechanisms obtained by the facility pursuant to regulatory
requirements, 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart H, the required liability
insurance was obtained by WTI (the partnership) effective
December 31, 1991. Thus, even if the above-referenced
transactions effected a change in the partnership (and, as
explained above, we believe they did not), they all occurred
prior to the date the policy was issued, and the policy therefore
would be held by WTI as presently constituted. The standby
letter of credit for closure, also required by the regulations,
was obtained by VRO, which is a properly incorporated entity
according to the information and documentation submitted by WTI.
As explained below, U.S. EPA Region 5 is taking steps to add VRO
to the permit a facility operator.
A final issue that has been raised with respect to the
ownership status of the facility is whether the absence from the
permit as originally issued of the land owner, the Port Authority
of Columbiana County, renders the permit invalid. It does not.
Although USEPA's regulations require that landowners be included
on RCRA permits, the practice in USEPA regional offices at the
time of permit issuance varied, and WTI's permit, as well as
others, was issued without identifying the landowner as
[
permittee. As we have explained, the failure to include the Port
Authority was inadvertent, and the issue was not raised by anyone
during two rounds of public comment on the draft permit. The
time period provided under RCRA for legal review of the permit
has long expired. In any event, the issue is now moot because
4
WTI purchased the land from the Port Authority, effective
September 18, 1992.
OPERATIONAL CONTROL OF THE FACILITY
With respect to the operational control issues, WTI entered
into a contract with VRO on September 21, 1990, assigning
substantial independent operational discretion and control to
VRO. We believe that, under this arrangement, VRO is an
"operator" of the facility within the meaning of RCRA and that
the arrangement should have been effected through a Class I
permit modification with prior approval. 40 CFR Section 270.40.
1
We further believe that a 1987 amendment to the WTI joint venture
agreement making VRO managing partner and giving VRO exclusive
authority to manage and control the partnership made VRO an
"operator" prior to the execution of the 1990 contract and
required prior approval. WTI maintains that the 1990 contract
simply reflected VRO's role as managing partner under the 1987
amendment. Finally, VRO obtained the letter of credit for
facility closure, which is a responsibility of the facility owner
or operator, 40 CFR 264.143. We therefore believe that WTI
violated the RCRA regulations by effecting this change without
approval.
However, the error does not affect the validity of the
permit. As stated above, VRO is fully liable for compliance with
RCRA requirements as a de facto operator of the facility
regardless of whether it is on the permit.
Moreover, we do not believe WTI's violation of its permit
warrants action by USEPA to prohibit facility operation. We do
not have evidence indicating that WTI's violation of the
regulations was willful. USEPA typically has not required that
individual partners or shareholders of owner and operator
companies be identified as owners or operators on the permit.
However, where individual partners or shareholders exercise such
independent discretion and control that they themselves fall
within the definition of "operator" in 40 CFR Section 270.2, EPA
believes they must be included on the permit, see In re Southern
Timber Products, Inc, RCRA Appeal 89-2 (February 28, 1992). WTI
maintains that, under USEPA's permit regulations, an individual
partner acting in its capacity as manager is not itself an
"operator," and that therefore a permit modification was not
necessary to delegate management authority to VRO. We disagree
with WTI's reading of the regulations based on the substantial
independence and control exercised by VRO, but we recognize that
the determination of whether an individual or entity falls within
the "operator" definition is a fact-specific determination that
must be made on a case-by-case basis.
Based on the foregoing analyses, we believe the WTI permit
is valid. USEPA Region 5 is notifying WTI and individuals on the
5
facility mailing list of our analysis, and reminding WTI that it
may not receive hazardous waste until it has complied with the
terms of a stipulation entered into by the parties to West
Virginia VS. WTI et al, requiring WTI to notify all parties to
the suit seven days prior to the commencement of operations. In
the meantime, Region V plans to process a Class I permit
modification request that WTI has submitted to add VRO to the
facility permit as operator. Region 5 will also request that VRO
submit a signed permit application as required under regulation,
40 CFR Section 270.40. Although notice and the opportunity for
comment are not required by the regulations on Class 1
modifications, Region V plans to provide a 30-day period for
public comment on the change because the change was originally
accomplished without prior approval and there is significant
public interest in issues relating to WTI's ownership and
operational control.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
D-NCA
Assistant Administrator
UNITED STATES.
AGENCY
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
PROTECTION
AUG 25 1992
Duk
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Honorable Howard M. Metzenbaum
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Metzenbaum:
Thank you for your letter of July 24, 1992 concerning the
briefing given to your staff regarding the Waste Technologies
Industries (WTI) facility. The purpose of the briefing was to
provide you with information on the status of the WTI facility
and the then pending Environmental Appeals Board decision. In
your letter, you raise questions regarding ownership and
operational control of the facility.
As you know, the Regional office issued a letter to WTI
under section 3007 of RCRA, inquiring into the details of the
corporate partnership and operational control of the facility.
Region V is currently reviewing WTI's response to this request.
I plan to fully respond to you as soon as their review has
clarified the matter.
I appreciate your concern regarding the WTI facility.
Please be assured that EPA will conduct a thorough inspection of
the facility and of all the materials submitted by WTI.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Guimond
Assistant Surgeon General, USPHS
Deputy Assistant Administrator
Printed on Recycled Paper
HOWARD M. MET: ENBAUM
COMMITTEES:
OHIO
JUDICIARY
LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES
SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
United States Senate
ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS
CHAIRMANSHIPS:
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-3502
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ANTITRUST
SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR
July 24, 1992
Mr. Richard J. Guimond
Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Guimond:
I wish to follow up on the meeting that took place last
night between you, other USEPA officials, my staff and the staffs
of Senators Wofford, Rockefeller, Glenn, and Specter regarding
the Waste Technologies Incinerator in East Liverpool, Ohio.
The USEPA's own Inspector General and Regional Counsel have
raised significant questions, ones that were brought up again
last night, about who really owns and exercises control over WTI.
The question of ownership and control, which has never been
answered adequately, has a direct bearing on whether anyone is
financially responsible for the incinerator.
Furthermore, there is a second level of outstanding issues
relating to whether the alleged operator, Von Roll, Inc., and the
owner-partners it allegedly controls, are fully obligated to the
terms of the 1983 RCRA permit that was issued to WTI.
Additionally, there is the question of whether WTI could have
legally applied for and received a RCRA permit in the first
place. According to the Inspector General, "In 1981, the WTI
partners developed a partnership agreement and applied for a
Federal RCRA permit. However, WTI did not apply for a
partnership license in the State of Ohio until November 1987,"
three years after the permit was issued.
Last night you indicated that USEPA is attempting to obtain
answers to all of these questions. You said the agency was
awaiting WTI's compliance with USEPA's RCRA Section 3007
information request about ownership and control. You indicated
that once the agency receives the information from WTI, the
agency would make a decision, fully supported by examination of
the documents and interviews with the individuals responsible, as
to the validity of the 1983 permit. You agreed that USEPA would
Mr. Richard J. Guimond
July 24, 1992
Page Two
put all of the relevant facts and justification for the agency's
decision in writing in a letter to me. Finally, you agreed that
if USEPA finds the existing permit to be valid, the above
mentioned letter would be signed and delivered to my office
before WTI is permitted to initiate any activities relating to
incinerator start-up, trial burn, and bringing hazardous
materials on site in East Liverpool.
Finally, apart from the above-stated concerns about
questions of WTI's control and ownership, I continue to have a
number of concerns about this facility from the standpoint of
public health and safety. Should the issues of control be
legally resolved, USEPA still has not demonstrated to my
satisfaction that the facility can and will operated and
monitored to prevent plant emissions from harming the community.
I appreciate your cooperation, and look forward to hearing
from you on this very important matter.
Sill Howard M. Metzenbaum
Very sincerely yours,
United States Senator
HMM/dwj
CC: William K. Reilly, Administrator
HOWARD M. METZENBAUM
COMMITTEES:
OHIO
JUDICIARY
LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES
SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
United States Senate
ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS
CHAIRMANSHIPS
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-3502
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ANTITRUST
SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR
June 30, 1992
The Honorable J. Danforth Quayle
Chairman
White House Council on Competitiveness
Old Executive Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20501
Dear Mr. Chairman:
We are deeply concerned about news reports that staff of the
White House Council on Competitiveness recently met with
supporters of the Waste Technologies Industries (WTI) hazardous
waste incinerator in East Liverpool, Ohio.
Every citizen is entitled to be heard by his or her elected
officials on matters of concern, and WTI's supporters have every
right to meet with the Competitiveness Council staff. However,
we want you to know that we have studied this highly
controversial incinerator very carefully, and there is nothing
about it that involves excessive government regulation, red tape
or hindrance of business. To the contrary, permits to build the
WTI incinerator were handed over by state and federal regulators
with little regard for the law. USEPA officials admitted to
Congress that the agency broke the nation's hazardous waste law
when it issued WTI an operating permit in 1983.
The Attorney General of West Virginia has a nine count
lawsuit against WTI, USEPA and Ohio EPA currently pending in
Federal District Court. Administrative appeals relating to Ohio
EPA's permits to WTI are pending before the Ohio Board of
Environmental Review. A House Judiciary Subcommittee is
investigating the role of USEPA in issuing permits to the
incinerator. The Ohio Attorney General is investigating to
ascertain who the true owners of WTI are pursuant to Ohio's
public disclosure statute. In addition, legislation is pending
on the Senate calendar that would prohibit the incinerator from
operating until such time as the litigation and administrative
appeals have been resolved to final judgement.
Given the tremendous amount of controversy surrounding the
entire WTI matter, the ongoing litigation, inquiries and
administrative appeals, we urge you in the strongest terms to
The Honorable J. Danforth Quayle
June 30, 1992
Page Two
direct the Council on Competitiveness not to intervene further.
There is clearly no appropriate role for the Council in the WTI
matter.
We appreciate your personal attention to this.
Sincerely yours,
Harris HamillaFford Wofford
Howard M. Metzenbaum
John D. Rockefeller, IV
Robert Rolust 6. C. Byrd Byrd
N
15:02
3:
wonRoll
PRESIDENT
VON INC
NORCION
TELEPHONE
May 21. 1992
404,729,0403
The Honorable 5. Danforth Quayle
Vice President of the United States
The White House
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Quayle,
Von Roll America, a subsidiary of Swiss-based Von Roll A.G., is engaged in an intensely
pitched battle to open a $140 million hazardous waste incinerator in East Liverpool, Ohio. I
believe our story -- an incredible one, to say the least -- underscores the need for the sane
measures you have taken to balance the nation's regulatory process and put America back to
work.
Almost two years ago we approached the United States EPA for permission to include some
advanced pollution control equipment in the design of the plant, which could have been bullt 25
originally designed and permitted back in the mid-1980s. This equipment, essentially 1
sophisticated spray dryer. would eliminate any low-grade contaminated waste water from going
into the municipal water system. Its effectiveness has been proven at other Von Roll facilities
since the Ohio permits were originally secured. Incorporating the spray dryer would not save
the company any money; quite the contrary, but was considered essential because Von Roll.
with over 500 environmental facilities world-wide, wanted to own and operate the world's most
advanced facility in North America for obvious business advantages.
Had the company not taken the initiative to ask for this environmental improvement, the plant
would now be in commercial operation.
Instead, the plant sits idle. We are $15 million over budget, technically in default with our
bankers and the future of our 100 highly trained employees is uncertain. Also uncertain is the
waste treatment opportunities for our three primary customers -- Du Pont, BASF and Chemical
Waste Management - -- each of which pre-purchased the plant's capacity for the next ten years.
More than 60 companies, employing some 90,000 workers, will feed the plant via Chem Waste:
The demand for capacity illustrates need.
AUG- 4-92 TUE 15:03
P.03
vonRoil
Honorable J. Danforth Quayle
May 21, 1992
Page Two
The re-regulatory process over the last two years regarding this one piece of proven technology -
- a benefit to the environment --has placed us squarely at the mercy of the regulatory process
run amok. Both the state and federal EPAs approve of the spray dryer, we finally got the U.S.
EPA permit in February. But our initiatives to improve the plant gave opponents opportunity
to file appeals to the permit. This action puts us on hold while the highest levels of EPA
review the appeals. The valid permits to construct we once had are now invalid. We sought
environmental improvements (in keeping with the plant's purpose to provide environmental
solutions in the treatment and destruction of wastes) but now we wait with new roadblocks to
operation cropping up almost daily.
Ironically, we believe the regulators are impressed with both our technologies and commitment
to safety. For example, even without the spray dryer the plant's emissions will be magnitudes
lower than what the EPA deems safe. We are the only company within the industry, and
perhaps within all of industry, that has willingly published our expected emissions and made a
commitment to voluntarily achieve these low levels.
Clearly, we did not foresee that Greenpeace would use our efforts to improve the plant 23 an
opening to mount significant smear campaigns against the company and enlist short-sighted
politicians who are unwilling to deal realistically with our nation's industrial waste issues.
Together these groups have severely criticized and pressured the EPA, which has responded
almost to the point of inaction: This scenario has been our reality, bringing the company to the
brink of default.
And yet while these obstructionist groups use every possible regulatory avenue to impede
progress, the majority of the residents support the plant. I believe we have earned the respect
of regulators, Governor George Voinovich, the local and state Chamber of Commerce and the
Ohio Manufacturing Association. A show of support raily for the plant this past weekend drew
more than 1,000 people, three times the number plant opponents have been able to gather at any
given time. And there have been over 10,000 job applications. Yet, with all this support, the
regulatory "due process" is stacked against both the creation of industry in America and certainly
against environmental incentives.
Mr. Quayle, over the last several months you have spoken up for companies like mine. To
move forward we must have a 180 day temporary authorization permit from the U.S. EPA,
which can be granted while the EPA reviews the appeals. I believe we need your help and ask
that you please consider whether there is anything you can do to assist Von Roll.
vonRoll
Honorable J. Danforth Quayle
May 21, 1992
Page Three
T2x be allowed to move forward would signal to industry everywhere that the barriers to
entry are formidable and that any initiative to build better and safer can be a death sentence.
Yours very truly,
VON
D.J.
President
cc;
Mr. C. Boyden Gray
Honorable Samuel K. Skinner
Dr. Michael J. Boskin
Mr. William K. Reilly
.