|
The Calcasieu Community Health and Environmental Forum has committed to making a good faith effort to receive and answer questions from the public in attendance at each community meeting. During the course of each
meeting, questions from the public are submitted on note cards. Questions are sorted and forwarded to appropriate individuals for a response. Some questions are edited to enhance clarity. In some instances, similar questions are
combined, and some complex questions are divided into two or three questions to facilitate the maximum return of information.
Questions from each public meeting of the Forum are grouped into appropriate categories to facilitate ease of location by individuals interested in different topics. The questions from each public meeting of the
Forum are listed separately, using the date of the meeting as the heading.
The questions and answers segment is intended to be a living page, meaning that items will be added as they become available. Consequently, one can expect that the content of the page will change often.
If you have questions that you would like to ask or comments that you would like to make outside of the public meetings, please message the Forum at forum@mail.mcneese.edu
Question and Answer Topics
What is the difference between volatile and semivolatile pollutants?
Volatile and semivolatile pollutants refer to organic compounds that have somewhat different vapor pressures. Essentially, a volatile pollutant is an organic compound that evaporates quickly at ambient (natural outside environment)
temperatures, and a semivolatile pollutant is an organic compound that evaporates slowly. The more complete definitions of these and other terms are given below form the Facts On
File Dictionary of Environmental Science; Wyman and Stevenson, 2001 (Facts On File, Inc. New York).
volatile organic compounds (VOCs): A category of organic compounds with relatively high vapor pressure, a major category of air contaminants. Most VOCs are carbon-hydrogen compounds (hydrocarbons), but they may also be aldehydes,
ketones, chlorinated hydrocarbons, and others. Thousands of individual compounds exist, including the unburned hydrocarbon compounds emitted from automobiles or industrial processes and organic solvents lost to evaporation from
household, commercial, or industrial cleaning or painting operations and other activities. Some VOCs participate in the atmospheric reactions that lead to photochemical air pollution, and excessive exposure to certain individual
compounds is associated with skin irritation, central nervous system depression, and/or an increased risk of cancer. Large quantities of VOCs are introduced to the air by vegetation; these are termed biogenic volatile organic
compounds. (Facts On File, Inc. New York).
semivolatile organic compounds: A class of organic contaminants consisting of relatively high-molecular-weight hydrocarbons and synthetic derivatives of hydrocarbons. Compounds are placed in this class because of a restricted
volatility at ambient temperatures; they evaporate less readily than volatile organic compounds. Overexposure to many of these agents represents a health hazard. Common examples include a variety of chlorinated derivatives of
benzene and phenol, aniline and related compounds, toluene, and various polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (Facts On File, Inc. New York). LHS
What is the Toxic Substances Control Act and when was it enacted?
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): TSCA is a 1976 federal law that authorizes the United States Environmental Protection Agency to regulate or prohibit the manufacture, sale, or use of any new or existing chemical substance if the
agency determines that the material poses an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. The main focus of the law is on the review of new chemicals or proposed new uses of existing materials, which starts with a
premanufacturing notice sent by the chemical producer to the agency. The notice may include the results of toxicity testing of the chemical and other pertinent information required for the “unreasonable risk” determination (Facts On
File, Inc. New York). LHS
If a citizen has knowledge of an engineer that has violated a patent on a device that recovers product from a wastewater stream, to whom does the citizen report the violation?
Patent matters are serious and involve various layers of the criminal justice community, and such matters are of importance in all industrial facilities. How to deal with the violation of patents is a legal question that can best be
answered to someone in the legal profession. Likewise, such questions can be answered on several levels. For example, if an individual is in violation of a patent held by you or your family, bringing the activity to the attention of
an attorney specializing in patent matters would be advisable. If you have knowledge of a person employed in Company A operating in violation of a patent held by someone outside of Company A, communication of the information to the
corporate legal staff of Company A would be helpful in bringing the practice to the attention of the management of the company.
Do Professional Engineers operate with a code of ethical practices that addresses the issue of properly reporting training and/or continuing education credits to superiors?
Yes. There is a code of ethics for professional registered engineers. For more information contact:
H. Glen Kent, Executive Secretary
Louisiana State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers
and Land Surveyors (LSPELS)
9643 Brookline Avenue, Suite 121
Baton Rouge, LA 70809-1433
State law requires that registered engineers take 30 hours of professional development courses biannually and report same to LSPELS.
If someone has knowledge concerning an engineer who habitually violates this code, who should be appraised of this breach of ethics?
Can, or how does, a private citizen make a request for information relating to complaints or records concerning possibly inappropriate or unethical actions of a Professional Engineer in the state of Louisiana?
To file a complaint about allegedly unethical practices of a registered professional engineer, write:
Curtis Dyle
932 Sixth Street
Lake Charles, LA 70601
How can a person contact the Forum outside of the normal public meetings?
Questions can be submitted or the Forum can be contacted by electronic mail through forum@mail.mcneese.edu . (LHS)
Can the format of the public sessions be altered to prevent members of the Panel from taking most or all of the time for questions following each speaker and for the open mike session at the end of the meeting?
Yes, the sessions can and will be altered. This meeting being our first public effort, we found a number of improvements that can be made. Allowing more time for questions from the public in attendance is one of the top priorities
for improving the meetings. (TH)
Why were the “quarterly meetings” organized by the EPA ended when they seemed to have been generating worthwhile communication?
EPA announced in January 2001 that the January meeting would be the last “Quarterly Meeting” and that their hope was that a local effort could be established to replace the meetings. From the beginning, the EPA and the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality agreed to start the Quarterly Meetings with a defined timeframe. The timeframe established ended with the January 2001 meeting. The desire for a local initiative and the original agreed-to
timeframe led to the establishment of the Forum. (TH)
Does the Forum foresee itself as a “policy making” organization which may issue recommendations to the EPA, LDEQ, industry or local governments in regard to safe environmental practices?
The Forum is a volunteer organization of local citizens created to enhance communication regarding health and environmental matters. While the broad-based representation of the Forum can offer a credible opinion on health and
environmental matters in Calcasieu Parish, the Forum is not a policy making body. (TH)
Where do you see the future of the Forum in 10 years?
The community recognizes that some form of communication must exist to effectively address issues that affect the health and environment in Calcasieu Parish. The Forum is the most significant development to date at establishing a
broad-based group that can work to establish and improve that communication. Communication will continue to be an issue 10 years from now. We would expect that the Forum or some similar mechanism will be in place to foster the
improvements. (TH)
How long does a member stay on the Forum?
The length of membership is not limited by the Guiding Principles of the Forum. Groups, both environmentalists and industry, are responsible for their representation and individuals are free to serve as long as they feel they are
contributing. The only membership rule for Forum members is attendance requirements. (TH)
What need was there to add a ministerial member to a forum addressing community health and environmental issues?
The Forum is a broad-based group taken from a cross-section of the community. The ministers are key contributors to the community and they maintain communications with a wide variety of citizens of the parish. Other Forum members
felt someone with their wide experience was a necessary addition to establish a broad-based community effort. (TH)
Do members of the Forum get paid or is this a volunteer service?
All Forum members are volunteers and do not get paid for their service. (TH)
Is the Forum prepared to deal with a community with a large number of environmental concerns?
Yes, the underlying reason for the original Quarterly Meetings and the newly established Forum is the needed effort to communicate the concerns of the community. (TH)
Has the Forum heard from a representative of “sportsmen” or hunting/fishing groups like Ducks Unlimited or CCA to attend meetings or relay concerns from this segment of the community? Perhaps local industry can do something to have
a positive impact on these type of groups.
No, as of now we have not heard from these groups. However, the Forum is new and new interests such as the “sportsmen” groups may have an interest in participating. (TH)
Will these meetings really bring about a change in the community? Is there a chance something will promote a change for the better in the community?
Yes, we think the meetings themselves are the first change for the better in the community. In these public meetings, the community not only gets to see and hear a presentation on health and environmental issues in Calcasieu Parish
but also has an opportunity to provide input for future meetings. The broad-based representation of the membership combined with public community meetings where issues can be openly discussed does promote a change for the better in
the community. (TH)
The forum members include six environmentalists and only three members from industry. Why the imbalance? Does this not automatically weight the forum deliberations toward environmental activists? The statement was made that the
forum membership replicated the previous forum make-up. How was the ratio of six environmentalists versus three industrialists determined in the first place?
The Forum representation was modeled after the Community Estuary Task Force organized through the Calcasieu Parish Police Jury. In the case of the environmentalists, the number of representatives was increased from 3 that serve on
the Estuary Task Force to 6. The reason for this increase is that discussions with the various environmental groups in the Lake Area indicated that while they do have common points of interest, the groups also have other interests
or priorities that are not shared across the spectrum of organizations. As an inclusive group, the Forum membership felt that the representation by environmentalist should be increased to reflect the various views. This point also
addresses the question of an imbalance. If the environmental groups were in alignment on all issues, indeed such an imbalance would likely exist. However, as explained, the current representation of 6 environmentalists insures that
a diversity of citizen concerns will be addressed by the Forum. Also, the Forum represents a broad cross section of the community including individuals other than environmentalists and industrial representatives (TH)
Were RCRA sites along the Calcasieu River and tributaries considered in the design of the Estuary study that has been going on for the last several years? If no, why not?
A comprehensive sampling design was used for the Calcasieu Estuary to determine impacts from both known and unknown sources. RCRA sites were included as potential known sources.
Does the information available from various RCRA sites near the Calcasieu River system contribute to an understanding of the sediment contamination that is under Interstate 210 near the Lockport Oil Field?
Yes, the delineation of contamination around the Lockport Oil field was undertaken using the existing data from PPG’s on- and off-site studies.
What is the approximate timeline for the ultimate decision on placing the Calcasieu Estuary in the National Priority (Superfund) List?
There is currently no consideration for placement of the Calcasieu Estuary on the National Priorities List. This decision will be re-evaluated in the future as circumstances dictate.
Recent fish and crab tissue samples taken from the Citgo area show the presence of chlorinated organic compounds that one would not expect at a refinery. What are the implications of such a finding?
The evaluation of the tissue data is just beginning and it is too early in the process to fully reply to this question. One observation that is apparent is that larger fish are wide ranging and may have exposure to contamination in
one location, and be captured at another location.
If the industrial complex continues to expand, will the air pollution near the facilities become so bad that those living close to the complex will be forced to move?
No. As industry expands existing operating units, adds new operating units, and modifies existing units, they are using the best available technology to minimize emissions and to maximize the efficient utilization of energy. In
fact, since 1987 several new plants have been constructed and existing plants have expanded production capabilities; during this same period TRI was reduced by 78%.
What does the former Vista facility (now Georgia Gulf and SASOL) plan to do with the property involved in the Mossville buyout? Are there plans to expand those facilities into that property?
SASOL has no plan for the development of the property in question.
Is it possible for the facilities in the local industrial complex to push technology forward so that they pollute the air and water less than they do now?
All of the industrial plants are currently operating within the defined and authorized limits of their respective operating permits. In fact, many of the facilities have voluntarily implemented technologies that allow them to
operate below there permitted limits. As industry expands existing operating units, adds new operating units, and modifies existing units they are using the best available technology to minimize emissions and to maximize the
efficient utilization of energy. Since 1987 several new plants have been constructed and existing plants have expanded production capabilities; during this same period the Toxic Release Inventory was reduced by 78%.
I grew up in Lake Charles in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. During that time, the industrial and political leadership assured the public that all was well and that there was no need for government to interfere with private enterprise. Now
we see many problems resulting from the practices of that time. Why should we believe the new assurances that we hear today?
The increased knowledge that has resulted from technology advances since that period of time has changed operating technology, laws and regulations. These changes are fostering continuous improvement in reduction of emissions and
improved efficiency in the use of energy. In fact, since 1987 several new plants have been constructed and existing plants have expanded production capabilities; during this same period the Toxic Release Inventory was reduced by
78%.
Are records kept of complaints of improper maintenance of air monitoring equipment in Calcasieu Parish? If a citizen has knowledge of improper maintenance of air monitoring equipment in the Parish, to whom can that information be
passed so that corrections can be made?
Maintenance records are kept for the ambient air monitoring equipment. Concerns may be communicated by going to the Lake Area Industry Alliance web site at www.laia.com and clicking on “E-Mail Us”. This will automatically address an
e-mail in which the information can be communicated.
Since the control of most of the facilities in the industrial complex is heavily dependent on the use of computer controls, is there a danger of someone from outside of the facility breaking into the computer system from the outside
and causing a major catastrophe by manipulating the controls. Are safeguards in place to prevent such sabotage by computer?
Plant process computers are generally not tied to the Internet, which is a requirement for access from the outside. Facility computers that are tied to the Internet or equipped with “firewalls” that guard against outside intruders.
What can local college students do to better educate themselves about the operation of local industrial facilities?
Plant tours are available for student groups and other responsible parties.
Are Internet resources available to help people understand the operation of local industrial facilities?
The Lake Area Industry Alliance web site at www.laia.com provides some basic information on each of the LAIA member facilities.
Generally, how many staff people are involved in waste management in our industrial facilities?
Everyone on the facility is responsible for minimizing waste generation in his or her area of responsibility. The number of staff people whose specific responsibility is the management of waste will vary depending on the size of the
facility. In small facilities it will one of several responsibilities assigned to a specific individual, in large facilities several people may be assigned to this responsibility.
What did the refineries do with their waste before RCRA?
Most companies were handling their waste in an environmentally responsible manner even before RCRA was instituted in 1976. Their first priority was to minimize waste. Then, depending on the particular material being handled it was
either treated and stored on site in facilities such as impoundments or land treatment facilities, or sent to offsite facilities permitted by the state DHHR.
Are the wastes disposed of before the passage of RCRA presenting us with any problems at this current time?
Yes. The Lake Area is confronted with a variety of contamination problems associated with past practices. Part of that legacy was the subject of the forum held on November 13, 2001. The inadequacy of past practices is also reflected
in the current ongoing examination of the Calcasieu Estuary by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
What are fence-line monitors at industrial facilities? Who operates these monitors? Are the levels of air pollutants measured outside on the property of local facilities? Who operates and controls these monitors?
Fence-line monitors are, as the name suggests, ambient air monitors that are located on the perimeter of a facility. There are basically two types of monitors - "open path" and "fixed location". The "open path" monitor includes some
type of light source (infrared or ultraviolet) and a receiver. The monitor evaluates the light after it passes through the path and determines the quantity of pollutants in the air mass. The "fixed location" monitor evaluates the
air mass at a discrete location, by either analyzing the air mass in-situ (such as a gas chromatograph) or by collecting a sample and analyzing it in an off-site laboratory (for example, using as summa canisters). Fence-line
monitors are operated and controlled by the manufacturing facility or by a contractor hired by the manufacturing facility.
Are there any prospects for adding significant new facilities to the industrial complex in the Lake Area?
Addition of significant new facilities is driven by the state of the national and world economy. When the demand for the products produced in the local complex exceeds the supply of those products, expansion of facilities to
increase the production will take place. In the short term, the potential for adding significant new facilities is probably limited.
Assuming that all citizens care about the environment in which they live and work, how is the agenda of an environmentalist different from that of other citizens that live in a community?
The great majority of environmentalists are only ordinary citizens that care about environmental issues. Ordinary people get tagged as “environmentalists” when they educate themselves on environmental and health issues and become
committed to addressing those issues for the betterment of their communities. When they discover that either the natural environment or human health is put at risk, environmentalists are not reluctant to bring the risk to the
attention of the public. The primary agenda difference among environmentalist is that they spend their own money and time on environmental issues in much the same way that others may spend their resources on sports, religion, or
politics. The holding of industries, regulatory agencies, or public officials accountable for environmental issues can result in ridicule and criticism from those who have no personal interest in such issues. Often, the behavior of
a small fraction of those who are labeled “environmentalist” gives all those interested in environmental and public health affairs a poor image among the public. On some occasions, a fraction of “environmentalists” is interested in
using environmental issues to pursue personal financial gain, or in using environmental issues to advance other political, economic, or social objectives.
Which agency of the state or federal governments has responsibility for requiring and/or conducting the cleanup of abandoned oil well sites in Louisiana?
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is responsible for the cleanup of abandoned oil well heads.
Lake Area lakes and beaches are used for swimming and recreational water sports. Are citizens using our water facilities being exposed to troublesome chemical contaminants in the water?
LDEQ conducts water quality sampling (which also includes ambient bacteria sampling) in a watershed-based approach which is providing exhaustive data on all subsegments in the state. Advisories are issued by the Department of Health
and Hospitals (DHH) and LDEQ when the analyses of the samples indicate problems. LDEQ’s Web site (www.deq.state.la.us) contains the water quality data and advisory status.
Are there contamination problems in the 500-foot sands of the Chicot Aquifer that would endanger the usefulness of the aquifer as a source of drinking water?
To date, no chemical contamination has been found in any Calcasieu Parish public water systems (this includes 105 public water systems tested for about 84 contaminants). The drinking water in Calcasieu Parish is drawn from the
Chicot Aquifer. The Chicot Aquifer can be divided into four hydrostratigraphic units: the upper sands, the 200 foot sands, the 500 foot sands, and the 700 foot sands. The public water supply comes primarily from the 500 foot sands.
Ground water contamination has been found in the upper sands and the 200 foot sands of the Chicot Aquifer. Private wells in the Chicot Aquifer’s upper and 200 foot sands may be vulnerable to local sources of contamination.
Recent testing done by the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (LDHH) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) support the fact that there are no contaminants with concentrations above the National Primary
Drinking Water Standards in the Mossville public water supply sources. These wells are screened at the 500 foot sands of the Chicot Aquifer. Shallower zones of the Chicot Aquifer have shown signs of contamination, but these areas do
not serve as a source for a public water supply.
Is there a source of drinking water other than the Chicot Aquifer that could serve the needs of Southwest Louisiana?
Possible alternate sources of drinking water, if the 500 foot sands of the Chicot Aquifer are contaminated and treatment is determined infeasible, would include: 1) the 700 foot sands of the Chicot Aquifer, 2) the deeper Evangeline
Aquifer, 3) surface water sources in the Parish, 4) tying into a neighboring public water system, or 5) bottled water. These possible alternate drinking water sources are not listed in priority order.
What should be the major concerns of citizens in the Lake Area concerning the drinking water aquifer?
The major concerns of Lake Charles’ citizens should be that their drinking water meets the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations set forth in the Safe Drinking Water Act. They should stay involved in drinking water protection
efforts and review their annual Consumer Confidence Reports that list all contaminants detected in their public water supply. Any odd taste, odor, or colorations of their drinking water should be reported to their local water
supplier (the phone number is usually on the water bill).
The old Chateau Charles was forced to close, in part, because of contamination of their well with chlorinated organics. How deep was their well and are other wells in the region of the old hotel contaminated? Where did the
contaminants in the Chateau Charles well come from?
The two wells at the Chateau Charles hotel were screened in the 200 foot sands of the Chicot Aquifer. These wells have since been abandoned as a drinking water source and the hotel was tied into the Mossville public water system in
1993. The two wells, (one screened in the 190 to 250 foot interval, and the other screened in the 205-254 foot interval of the Chicot Aquifer) are still in use, but only for fire protection. The wells have been sampled by LDEQ since
1993, and the results for chlorinated solvents were below the limit of analytical detection (“nondetect”). The Safe Drinking Water Information System data indicates that no other public water systems were contaminated with
chlorinated organic compounds in the area. A number private domestic wells however, completed in the 200 foot sands of the Chicot Aquifer, were affected by the contamination. The exact source of the contamination is not known.
How widely dispersed are the contaminated groundwater zones in the Lake Area and how do these areas of contamination impact our drinking water?
Groundwater clean up is occurring at PPG, Conoco Docks area, Fisherville rail yard, and CONDEA-Vista. The contamination is confined to the upper sands and 200 foot sands of the Chicot Aquifer. The Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality (LDEQ) is working with industries to implement remediation activities to protect groundwater. In some cases, contamination in Lake Charles existed before federal laws were in place. Contaminants from these
sites have not entered the public drinking water supply.
What actions are being taken to maintain the water supply in the local Chicot Aquifer?
The Chicot Aquifer (specifically, the 500 foot sands of the Chicot Aquifer that serve as the public water supply source) is protected through a State ground water protection strategy, the Wellhead Protection Program, and the Source
Water Assessment Program. Both of these programs are described in more detail at EPA’s web site www.epa.gov/safewater/. Additionally, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, a.k.a. “Superfund”) also contain mandatory provisions for groundwater protection and remediation.
The LDEQ has a groundwater quality protection strategy and monitoring program. They monitor several aquifers in the State of Louisiana. A good source of the details on the Aquifers Management Strategy is contained in the report by
McNeese University entitled, “Aquifer Management Strategy For The Chicot Aquifer System, Final Report to Louisiana Board of Regents, LEQSF (86-89)-RD-D-12,” submitted by McNeese State University, November, 1990.
In addition, many public water systems that use groundwater as a source already have the essentials of a source water assessment program completed under a different program known as the Wellhead Protection Program. Lake Charles and
Mossville public water systems both have approved Wellhead Protection Programs in place. If you desire assistance on how to obtain information on the Wellhead Protection Program for your water system, please contact Howard Fielding
at the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality at (225) 765-0578. Furthermore, the SDWA Amendments of 1996 established the Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP). These statutory amendments mandate that all SWAPs be completed
in 2003. This date is the deadline for all states in the U.S. The amendments mandate SWAPs be completed at more than 54,000 public water systems nationwide. This requirement is a tremendous workload that will take time to complete.
Many of these public water systems, however, will have their assessments completed well before 2003, especially in high priority areas such as Calcasieu Parish.
Drinking water protection is a community-wide effort, beginning with protecting the source of your water, and including education, funding, and conservation. Many communities already have established source water protection
programs. Call your local water supplier to find out if your community participates. You can also support efforts to improve operation, maintenance, and construction of water treatment processes. States are now engaged in source
water assessments, to work with communities to identify local sources of contamination. You can contact your state source water protection program to find out how to get involved in this process, or join a local group in Adopting a
Watershed .
If toxic chemicals find their way into the aquifer from which the Lake Area citizens draw their drinking water, what will be the method of alerting citizens of the toxic materials in their drinking water?
Your water supplier must notify you by newspaper, mail, radio, TV, or hand-delivery if your water doesn’t meet EPA or state standards or if there is a waterborne disease emergency. The notice will describe any precautions you need
to take, such as boiling your water. Follow the advice of your water supplier if you ever receive such a notice. The most common drinking water emergency is contamination by disease-causing germs. Boiling your water for one minute
will kill these germs. You can also use common household bleach or iodine to disinfect your drinking water at home in an emergency, such as a flood (see EPA’s emergency disinfection fact sheet for specific directions on how to
disinfect your drinking water in an emergency, at www.epa.gov/safewater/).
How can we encourage the EPA, DEQ or USGS to communicate the condition of the drinking water in the parish relative to the contamination by toxic chemicals?
The Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (LDHH) is the primacy agency for the Safe Drinking Water Act in the State of Louisiana. EPA oversees the work of LDHH to ensure they are complying with all federal standards required
by the Safe Drinking Water Act requirements and regulations. The Act requires that certain public notification requirements (see the response to question above about alerting citizens to contamination) are followed in the event that
the drinking water exceeds any of the National Primary Drinking Water Standards (NPDWS). A fact sheet on the notification rule requirements can be found at www.epa.gov/safewater/. In addition, the SDWA requires public water systems
to issue a drinking water quality report annually to their customers. This Consumer Confidence Report includes information about all contaminants detected in the public water supply. More information about Consumer Confidence
Reports can be found on EPA’s web site at www.epa.gov/safewater/ccrfs.html
Do any contaminants in the Chicot Aquifer at the present time exceed any state or federal standards for safety of drinking?
Data taken from the Safe Drinking Water Information System indicate that none of the 105 public water systems in Calcasieu Parish exceed the Safe Drinking Water Act’s Maximum Contaminant Levels for any chemical contaminant. Many of
these public water systems use the Chicot Aquifer as a drinking water source (typically the 500 foot sands of the Chicot Aquifer serve as the primary drinking water source for most of the public water systems in the Parish).
Some of the public water systems have occasionally violated the total coliform rule Maximum Contaminant Levels, because the samples have tested positive for coliform bacteria. Coliform bacteria serve as an indicator of disease
causing microorganisms in drinking water, but they are not necessarily harmful. Positive total coliform bacteria tests are followed up with more specific testing for disease causing microorganisms to see if the water supply is
contaminated. These more specific tests for either Escherichia coli or fecal coliform have not indicated that the water supply is contaminated with disease causing microorganisms.
What are the levels of lead and mercury in the drinking water of Lake Charles?
The public water supply has been tested for lead as required by the USEPA since 1992. In the initial testing, 60 sites selected for their age and other factors were required. Two rounds of sampling, six months apart, were done.
Currently, regulations require the sampling of 30 sites every three years. The action levels (the amounts of contamination that will trigger a response on the part of an agency) for lead and copper are 0.015 mg/l and 1.3 mg/l
respectively. Action levels are exceeded if the “90th percentile” value is greater than the action level. Testing results of the public water supply in Lake Charles have never exceeded the “90th percentile.” In fact, during all of
the sampling of the local water supply very few sites with lead above 0.001 mg/l have been found. An estimate from all of the samples taken of the Lake Charles water supply is about 0.001 mg/l for lead and about 0.3 – 0.5 mg/l for
copper. Importantly, the source water that leaves the water processing facilities in Lake Charles has zero lead or copper present. The lead and copper recovered from water collected from taps in the city come from existing plumbing
in homes where leaded solder is used on copper pipes as well as from faucets and fixtures that contain lead.
What kinds of chemicals found in the drinking water are detrimental to public health? Are any of these chemicals added to the drinking water during processing?
None of the chemicals used to treat water distributed to the public in Lake Charles are considered to be harmful at the levels which they are added to the system. The use of certain chemicals used in the treatment of drinking water
has been studied at length to develop limits which are not considered harmful to the general population. The added chemicals perform a variety of functions that allow a safe and acceptable product to be delivered to the public. The
following chemicals are used to treat the water supply in Lake Charles (the list will not be significantly different in other communities.):
Chlorine – used as a primary oxidant of iron and as a primary disinfectant to inactivate disease-causing microorganisms;
Ammonia – used to combine with chlorine to form chloramines, which allow chlorine residuals to reach the outermost areas of the distribution system. These chloramines also inhibit the formation of trihalomethanes (potential
carcinogens);
Potassium permanganate – used as the most important oxidant of manganese in source water (The manganese will promote the development of a black coloring in the water and on fixtures.);
Sodium hydroxide – used to elevate the pH of the water (to make more basic) to prevent corrosion of cast iron mains in the system;
Zinc orthophosphate – used as an additional tool to inhibit corrosion within the distribution system; and
Fluoride – used as an additive to prevent the tooth decay among the customers.
When was the last time the analysis of contaminants in the drinking water done in Lake Charles?
The analysis of many parameters is done on a daily or even an hourly basis. The standard checks of chlorine residuals, iron content, hardness, alkalinity, pH, and other parameters are done every day. Bacteriological analysis as
required under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is performed on a monthly basis. The in-depth examination of the water supply for certain organic compounds, pesticides, herbicides, and a suite of inorganic elements is done
following a schedule mandated by the SDWA and the state of Louisiana, usually once every three years. Characteristically, Lake Charles attempts to perform the extensive analysis every two years. The most recent round of extensive
testing in Lake Charles was completed in the spring of 2000. The results of the survey in 2000 can be obtained in the most recent edition of the Consumer Confidence Report, City of Lake Charles Water Division.
How many water wells serve the city of Lake Charles?
The City of Lake Charles has 17 wells supplying water to the public, all drilled in the 500 or 700 foot sands of the Chicot Aquifer. All well are not utilized simultaneously.
Where are the water-processing plants serving Lake Charles located?
The water treatment facilities serving Lake Charles are located at the following sites:
G.H. West Water Plant – 225 North Ryan Street, west of the Entergy complex;
Chennault Water Plant – 1501 West Main at the Chennault Airpark;
Southwest Water Plant – 4000 Alma Lane, by the Dixie Youth complex;
McNeese Water Plant – 617 East McNeese Street, corner of Common and McNeese streets; and Center East and Center West Plants – 3207 and 3208 Center Street, just north of Prien Lake on Center Street.
What are the rust-colored deposits that come in water supplies from time to time. Are the posposits dangerous? What causes this problem?
These deposits are normally rust. Some of this material is caused from oxidized iron which is not completely removed in the treatment process. The majority comes from rusting and corrosion of cast iron mains and fittings used in the
distribution system. Normally, these sediments are at the bottom of the water mains and scale around the inside of the mains. During high demand times, or when breaks occur, this material can become dislodged and travel along the
mains into the homes of consumers. Problems are frequently encountered with dead-end mains where the deposits build up from time to time. Flushing of the water mains is used to alleviate some problems associated with rust and
sediments. This fusty material is not considered dangerous but is definitely an aesthetic problem.
When were the water treatment systems serving Lake Charles built?
The oldest plant, G. W. West was constructed in 1929. The Chennalut, McNeese, and Center West facilities were constructed in the late 50s and 60s. The Center East plant was built in 1983. The newest facility, the Southwest facility,
was constructed in 1997. All of the facilities have had upgrades and improvements at various times over the past 10 years.
I understand that the new recovery system in the PPG South Dock area has horizontal recovery wells inserted at the interface of an old waste pit and a muddy bog area. That well has been reported to remove about five gallons of heavy
bottom waste in a 24-hour period. At this rate, about how long will it take to recover the free bottom wastes?
There are nine such wells. Approximately 150 tons are removed annually with this system. It is technically impractical to remove all of the waste beneath the South Dock area using existing technologies. We will operate this system
as long as it is effective.
An individual stated at the first Estuary Task Force meeting that 55-gallon drums were buried east of the clay-lined ponds. Where are the drums now and what does PPG plan to do about this problem?
Based on the question posed previously, PPG conducted an extensive investigation and did not find any buried drums.
How many tons of EDC and other organic wastes were put into the ground below Area “B” Acid Pit at PPG?
The “acid pit” was a brick-lined structure used to collect wastewater streams and recycle chlorinated organics. It was an effective process during its operation. In the 1980s, it was taken out of service and removed. The area was
investigated as part of the RCRA Facility Investigation and corrective actions are in place.
Rumor has it that PPG knew as early as 1975 that heavy bottoms were draining from a ditch that was south of the lead-lined ponds at PPG South dock. Is this true and what was done about the problem?
After reviewing available information, PPG cannot confirm any facts about such a rumor. This area is also included in the RFI and will be covered by the Corrective Measures Study to be submitted to the LDEQ later this year.
How many injection wells were operated at the PPG facility before this form of waste disposal was discontinued?
PPG has never owned or operated an injection well within its facility.
Has a plume of pollutants migrated horizontally off of the PPG property?
PPG uses withdrawal well pump and treat systems to contain any vertical or horizontal migration of pollutants.
How much cooling water will be used at the new power plant at PPG? Will this water be discharged through the new canal and will it dilute their wastewater so that PPG can meet its discharge requirements.
The operation of the new power facility will actually decrease the water flow in that area by approximately 50% due to the technology used including cooling towers. Water that is still discharged will be monitored in the same manner
as existing effluent and covered by our permit.
I understand that recovery wells were installed at the PPG south dock prior to 1966. Did these wells ever work and are they still working today?
The earliest recovery well in this area was installed in 1988.
What happened to the liner in the PPG area “B” waste treatment unit? When was it discarded.
It is assumed that the question refers to the bentonite clay liner from the closure of the WTU surge pond. The portion of the bentonite clay liner that contained contaminants was transported to a RCRA permitted incinerator for
disposal. The reminder of the uncontaminated clay was backfilled with clean soils. A “post-closure” permit governs this area today.
Rumor has it that the large silver tank at PPG south dock is filled with solidified tank bottoms. How will this be disposed of?
There is no large silver tank at the PPG South Dock. There are no wastes stored in the tanks at the South Dock.
PPG has several incinerators regulated under RCRA and TSCA. Yet one thermal combustion unit at PPG is less-stringently regulated even though analysis of the feed shows a chlorinated hydrocarbon feed similar to that going into other
incinerators. Why is this the case?
The #4 thermal oxidizer does not burn RCRA or TSCA waste, therefore it is not permitted as such and is not governed by the same regulatory requirements. It treats only gaseous vent streams.
Why doesn’t the mercury Retort furnace fall under the same safeguards as the other units since the furnace could also become a generator of PCBs and dioxins under certain conditions?
The Mercury Recovery Unit is exempt from the Boiler-Industrial-Furnace (BIF) rules but it is subject to air regulations and a state air permit.
How did the contaminant plume under the old waste pits at PPG reach the 200-foot sands of the Chicot Aquifer?
We assume this question refers to the former organic disposal facility. The Chicot containment well in this area has always been nondetect for chlorinated hydrocarbons.
Has the plume of contaminants under the old waste pits at PPG reached the sands of the Chicot Aquifer used to produce drinking water for the cities of Calcasieu Parish?
No.
Are there any plans to try new or different clean-up technologies to manage the DNAPL contamination at PPG?
All existing technologies have either been studied, attempted or are being utilized at the PPG site. We continue to look for and review new technologies relative to managing DNAPL.
What preventative measures are now being taken to keep contaminants currently in the ground from reaching the drinking water sections of the Chicot Aquifer?
We are operating well systems to control the migration of contaminants into the Chicot Aquifer. As our site investigation dictated, additional recovery was needed and PPG has enhanced the systems.
Where and for how long does PPG store barrels filled with waste oil and other hazardous substances? How are the barrels of waste disposed of?
PPG manages all drums of waste as outlined in the hazardous waste regulations by using either “90 day” or “permitted” drum storage areas. Permitted storage areas may store wastes up to one year. If PPG cannot manage its wastes
onsite through reuse or incineration, the wastes are shipped offsite for disposal following all applicable regulation, including DOT shipping requirements. Only permitted disposal facilities are approved for use.
Could I get an in-depth description of a horizontal well?
Yes, PPG has placed a document in the public library (IT, 1998.24) describing horizontal wells at the Lake Charles facility. The title of the document is “South Terminal Horizontal Well Recovery System Installation Report.”
Does PPG have an energy conservation plan? Can you describe the basic parts of this plan and relay any conservation results?
PPG established a corporate energy policy in 1977. In 1991, PPG modified and affirmed its corporate energy policy and outlined a strategy for advancing our efficiency in energy usage even further.
PPG has established the following goals and strategies related to its use of energy:
GOALS:
1) To significantly reduce the energy consumed per unit of PPG’s production.
2) To serve the marketplace with products that help our customers same energy.
3) To promote sound public energy policies.
Strategies
1) Create a corporate Energy Council responsible for providing leadership, planning and implementation of PPG energy savings programs and designate energy policy coordinators at each operating location.
2) Establish specific energy conservation goals for each business unit and location 3) Monitor energy use and report regularly on progress toward achieving energy savings objectives and related reductions in air pollutants emitted.
4) Raise awareness and enlist the active participation of PPG associates in efforts to conserve energy at work as well as away from work.
5) Promote improved energy efficiency in all areas of existing operations, replacement equipment and new facility design.
6) Develop and commercialize products that help customers save energy.
7) Collaborate with other organizations in advocating public policy, which promotes voluntary conservation and addresses long-term energy requirements.
At the Lake Charles, Louisiana production facility, PPG has announced a $240,000,000 combined cycle cogeneration facility of 425 MW capacity to be started-up in mid-2002. This project (RSCogen) is a 50/50 joint venture between PPG
and the power development division of Entergy Corporation. The project consists of two gas turbines and one steam turbine. The effect on the operations of the PPG-Lake Charles site will be to reduce the usage of energy per unit of
product produced, consistent with the corporate energy goals and strategies.
What is done to dispose of hazardous wastes that cannot be recycled?
Hazardous wastes can be disposed only in state or federally permitted facilities. These facilities can include injection wells, landfills, incinerators, or other thermal destruction units.
What procedures are used to dispose of hazardous wastes?
Generators of hazardous wastes must first characterize their waste, and second inform the disposer as to the nature of the materials via written documents. The disposer will then determine if the facility can lawfully manage, treat,
and/or dispose of the wastes. If the waste is approved to be taken at the facility, checks will be made at the facility’s receiving location to ensure that the waste expected is the waste received. This can include checking shipping
manifests, visually inspecting the load, and sampling/testing the waste to check characteristics. Only after these checks have been done will the waste be routed for treatment or disposal at the facility.
What is the average or usual size of commercial hazardous waste disposal sites?
Commercial hazardous waste sites can vary in size from a few hundred acres to a few thousand acres.
Will present-day hazardous waste disposal sites present a potential problem for contamination of groundwater in the future?
Knowledge of appropriate waste disposal practices and environmental monitoring has grown considerably over the past 30 years. Studies by USEPA and other government agencies along with universities have shown that the technologies
used today for disposing hazardous waste do not pose a threat to the environment or human health. Consistently, USEPA has developed regulations that are conservative to ensure the protection of aquifers, the environment, and the
public.
Can structures be built on the top of landfills after landfills are filled and closed?
Structures are certainly possible to be built upon filled and closed landfills. There are many successful projects of this type. Recreational facilities, including golf courses have been operating well for many years on top of
landfills. Careful consideration of proposed structures is given to design features so that the integrity of the closure cap of the landfill will not be jeopardized nor will damaging stresses be imposed on the waste or liner system.
Finally, all post-closure activities must be approved by applicable state or federal agencies.
About how much hazardous waste is produced and/or disposed of by landfilling in Louisiana on a yearly basis?
From a USEPA publication, “State Detail Analysis – The National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report (Based on 1999 Data)”, 174,966 tons of hazardous waste were landfilled in Louisiana in 1999. A total of 4,324,972 tons of hazardous
waste were generated in Louisiana.
Where in Louisiana are the commercial sites for the disposal of hazardous wastes located?
From a USEPA publication, “State Detail Analysis –The National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report (Based on 1999 Data)”, the following commercial hazardous waste facilities are listed:
-Chemical Waste Management, Sulphur
-Safety-Kleen, Plaquemine
-Rhodia, Baton Rouge
-Safety-Kleen, Baton Rouge
-Cecos International, Sulphur
-Exide, Baton Rouge
-Safety-Kleen, Pineville
-Safety-Kleen, Kenner
What is the difference between commercial and noncommercial hazardous waste storage facilities?
Commercial hazardous waste facilities can accept materials from sources outside the company owning the facility. Noncommercial hazardous waste facilities can only manage waste generated from within their own company.
What is the size of the local hazardous waste disposal site and about how long will it take to fill the facility at current rates?
The Chemical Waste Management Facility is 280 acres in size; at the current rate of disposal, it will take more than 30 years to fill the facility.
Is the federal government responsible for correcting the problems associated with or caused by hazardous wastes in the environment?
Owners of facilities along with generators of wastes emplaced at disposal facilities are the primary parties responsible for correcting releases to the environment caused by waste disposal operations. If these parties cannot be
determined or if there are no financial resources available from the companies, then the Federal Government under the “Superfund” program can allocate monies for cleanup.
Are there any plans to open new commercial facilities to handle hazardous wastes in Louisiana?
No plans for new commercial facilities for management of hazardous waste in Louisiana are known at this time.
What happens to hazardous waste storage containers (i.e., barrels and roll-off boxes) after they cannot continue to be used?
Containers that cannot continue to be used in hazardous waste service can either be disposed or reclaimed. Any time that storage containers will be sold for reclamation, they must be decontaminated. This usually involves washing
with water and/or detergents and/or steam and can involve post-cleaning chemical testing of the container. If the containers are to be disposed, they must be crushed (for drums) or cut up (for roll-off boxes) and landfilled.
Where is research being done to develop new technologies for the disposal of hazardous wastes?
Most technically based universities have research programs to investigate new technologies for disposal of hazardous waste. In addition, USEPA conducts research in the disposal of hazardous wastes at several locations across the
country, the chief of which is in Cincinnati, Ohio.
What tests are done to determine if wastes destined for a commercial landfill are hazardous?
To determine if a waste is hazardous, it must be investigated in two ways. First, USEPA and Louisiana regulations list various kinds of wastes from various industrial processes that are automatically considered hazardous wastes. If
the waste does not fall into these categories, the chemical nature of the waste is determined by quantifying the magnitude of certain contaminants. These tests can involve the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)
analysis by Gas Chromatograph-Mass Spectrometer (GC-MS) or Atomic Absorption (AA), and/or inorganic analyses depending upon the nature of the process generating the waste. Full details on waste characterization can be found in the
Code of Federal Regulations, 40CFR Part 262 and 268 and Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality regulations Title 33, Part V, Subpart 1, Chapters 9, 11, 13,15, and 22.
How often are facilities inspected for proper use of Hazardous materials, and what procedures are in place for facilities that do not meet the standards?
LDEQ does not regulate the storage of hazardous materials, just the storage, treatment or disposal of hazardous waste. LDEQ does inspect permitted facilities at least once a year. If an inspector sees that a facility is violating
any hazardous waste regulation, the inspector will write a field inspection report and submit it to the Enforcement Division for issuance of possible violations of the LAC 33:V Hazardous
Waste Regulations.
One of the goals of the RCRA program is an 80% reduction in hazardous waste generated, transported, stored and disposed. What are the LDEQ and EPA doing to promote the realization of that goal?
The LDEQ and EPA, through Memorandum of Agreement, Grant and the Government Performance and Result Act (GPRA) programs, set priorities to permit treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities that have been identified and
prioritized. LDEQ and EPA promote programs at facilities that emphasize reduction or elimination of hazardous waste generation at the source and hazardous waste minimization elements.
Are there any other contaminant plumes in the groundwater for the Mossville area other
than the ethylene dichloride plume?
An additional ethylene dichloride plume was recently discovered south of Old Spanish
Trail, on the Conoco Excel property. This plume has been delineated as a result of a CPT
investigation, and monitor wells are currently being installed around and within the
plume. No other plumes of groundwater contamination are known to exist in the area.
What is the status of the plan to clean up the perchloroethylene spill that took place in the North Lake Charles area in 1983?
The Phase III investigation report has been submitted and final plans for addressing the RECAP issues are being prepared for submittal in 2002. Cleanup is currently ongoing at this site. Please see the Summary below
Is anything available concerning the extent of the perchloroethylene plume from the release in the North Lake Charles area in 1983? What is the extent of the vertical and horizontal migration of the plume?
Yes, a final Phase III investigation report is available for public review in the DEQ offices in Lake Charles and Baton Rouge. This report shows the plume definition and includes analytical data confirming the Chicot Aquifer is
clean at this site. Please see the Summary below
Are the residuals from the perchloroethylene plume from the release in the North Lake Charles area in 1983 a danger to the people living in the area of the spill?
There are no private wells producing this water in the area for public use. Soil samples have not been contaminated. Since the public is not in contact with the water, and since the soils are not contaminated, there are no known
pathways for the public to be exposed to PCE. Please see the summary below
Could a summary of the of the Union Pacific Railroad PCE spill site at South Railroad Avenue at Cherry Street be provided?
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
· In 1983 a railway tank car released 11,700 gallons of PCE (Perchloroethylene) (Dry Cleaning Fluid)
· Emergency response activities included excavating affected soils, and removing about 10,550 gallons of PCE
· The remaining 1,150 gallons of PCE could not be recovered, as it migrated downward into the shallow groundwater
· In 1986 a system of groundwater monitoring wells, and three recovery sumps were installed. Monitoring and recovery of contaminated groundwater has occurred since that time
· Knowledge and technology regarding the remediation of contaminated groundwater is constantly improving. As a result, the DEQ required additional investigation and improvement to the system in 1996. An additional recovery sump was
installed. A deeper well was installed, and it was discovered that the PCE had migrated deeper than originally known
· In 1998, as a result of the deeper discovery, an additional investigation was performed, including the installation of more monitor wells
· Currently, the investigation is ongoing. It is expected that this data will define the full extent of the contaminant plume. This work will be completed by the end of 2002. The results may or may not indicate the need for
additional investigation or well installation
· A risk evaluation and final corrective action plan is in preparation. This will be released for public comment by the end of 2002.
NOTES
· Recovery of contaminated groundwater is a very slow process, and will take many years. Contaminants in groundwater migrate very slowly
· Since the PCE is underground, in the shallow water bearing zones, there should be no exposure at the ground surface. PCE is heavier than water, and it sinks
· To our knowledge, there are no private drinking water wells in the area of the contamination. Public water supply has served the area since before the spill occurred
· All field work is done by Union Pacific and their consultants, with the approval of the DEQ
· Recovery wells or sumps will be located and operated for the optimum remediation of the groundwater. Clean monitor wells will form a perimeter network around the contaminated area, and will continue to be monitored
· Union Pacific submits quarterly reports to the DEQ. All documents submitted by UP are available to the public in Lake Charles at the DEQ office at 3519 Patrick Street, (337) 475-8644, and will be available at the Central Library
at 301 West Claude Street
What is the policy of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality concerning the acceptance of gifts (trips, golf weekends, meals, etc.) from the regulated community by LDEQ leadership and employees.
The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality requires that its employees adhere to the Code of Governmental Ethics, La. R. S. 42: Chapter 15 (available on the web at http://www.ethics.state.la.us/laws/ethiclaw.htm).
If a citizen has knowledge of an employee of LDEQ behaving in an unethical or illegal manner, to whom does this citizen report the behavior?
This information may be reported to the appropriate officials (i.e., unethical behavior may be reported to the Louisiana Board of Ethics (telephone 225-922-1400; website: http://www.ethics.state.la.us/; illegal behavior may be
reported to the appropriate law enforcement authorities or district attorney). This information may also be reported to the Human Resource Director (telephone 225-765-0054) or the General Counsel (telephone 225-765-0241) at the
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality.
If a citizen has knowledge of a LDEQ employee who falsifies training, certification or continuing education activities, to whom should this information be sent?
This information may be reported to the Human Resource Director (telephone 225-765-0054) at the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality.
Which agency of the state or federal government has responsibility for requiring and/or conducting the cleanup of abandoned oil well sites in Louisiana?
Both the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources' Office of Conservation and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality's Office of Environmental Assessment regulate cleanup of abandoned oil well sites in Louisiana.
Generally, DNR exercises the lead role and requires action of the responsible party. There is a major ongoing initiative in Louisiana between DNR, EPA and perhaps the Governor's Oil Spill Coordinator's office to locate and remediate
such sites with no responsibility party in Louisiana. A tremendous amount of money is being spent currently in this initiative. DEQ receives "PolReps" that document the progress being made. However, DNR or EPA can provide much more
detailed information on this initiative.
In addition, if the site contains certain materials or waste, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, may become otherwise involved through Superfund or other programs. If there is a release of oil or petroleum
products or damage to natural resources, additional agencies may be involved. Contact information for each agency follows:
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources
Office of Conservation
Gary Ross
Telephone 225-342-5540
Fax 225-342-2584
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Office of Environmental Assessment
Telephone 225-765-0355
Fax 225-765-0617
Email remediation@deq.state.la.us <mailto:remediation@deq.state.la.us>
Website <http://www.deq.state.la.us/remediation/remediation_submittals.htm>)
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6
Jim Mullins
Telephone 800-877-6063
Website http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/r6phone.htm
Abandoned oil well website:
http://www.epa.gov/Region06/6sf/pdffiles/opacalcasieu.pdf
Can, or how does, a private citizen make a request for information relating to complaints or records concerning possibly inappropriate actions by a Professional Engineer employed by the state of Louisiana?
This information may be requested through the LDEQ’s Records Custodian (telephone 225-765-0843 or 225-765-0428). Instructions and forms are available online at http://www.deq.state.la.us/pubRecords/default.htm. Please note that only
public records can be made available through a public records request. As one or more persons would normally have a privacy interest in information relating to complaints, allegations of misconduct, or misconduct, that information
is not typically made available to the public.
If a citizen has personal knowledge of an employee of LDEQ falsifying documents and professional credentials, to whom should the information be provided?
This information may be reported to the Human Resource Director (telephone 225-765-0054) or the General Counsel (telephone 225-765-0241) at the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality.
How can citizens of the state trust and have confidence in LDEQ when high-level administrators are under investigation for possible violations of the department’s code of ethics?
First, we note that under the United States and Louisiana justice systems, every person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law; mere allegations are not an indication of guilt or innocence. Louisiana citizens can have
trust and confidence in the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality--both the fact that an investigation process exists and that an investigation is conducted or has been conducted are assurances that any misconduct will be
discovered and dealt with appropriately.
If a field inspector for LDEQ makes a strong recommendation for a significant financial penalty and other enforcement actions for an industrial facility only to be overruled by Baton Rouge administrators, what recourse is available
for citizens who are dependent on the agency for relief from the problems cited by the field investigator?
LDEQ’s inspection procedure is taken from the Environmental Protection Agency guidance on compliance investigations and is located on their web site at (www.epa.gov/ebtpages/comcomplinvestigation.html).
The EPA procedures specifically state that inspections are intended to identify “areas of regulatory concern” and should not make statements regarding violations one way or the other. As stated in the EPA guidance, “you would be
making an institutional decision without using the system of checks and balances built into the program”. The inspector should avoid making any compliance conclusions. The Department believes this is consistent with the
Environmental Quality Act. Due process of law under section 30:2025 of the Act must rule.
The inspector must be an objective observer and witness of fact. The EPA further explains this reasoning. “The first reason is based on legal ethics. The inspector is the witness of fact and may not be the program compliance case
reviewer. If the inspector makes compliance determinations, two things may happen: (1) it places the inspector in the position of being the cop as well as the judge; and (2) it opens a door for emotional or personal bias. A system
where there is a division of job roles easily prevents this. The second reason is practical. Usually the program or counsel determines if there is documentation of a violation or not. If you have made a violation determination in
the field that was inappropriate, you may have caused unjust expense to the facility that responded to your allegations. If you told the facility, “There were no problems’ and the agency determines that there were, the agency might
have to mitigate its decision considerably based on your statements. You may also subject yourself to personal liability.”
The Surveillance Division refers areas of concern (AOC) identified during inspections to the Enforcement Division for evaluation. Not all AOCs addressed are necessarily violations, but areas where the facility may need improvement.
The AOCs are reviewed and compared to the regulations to determine if the facility is out of compliance, an if an enforcement action is warranted or needed to bring the respondent back into compliance. In many cases, the AOCs
identified are found not to be violations, so issuance of an enforcement action would not be appropriate. The Enforcement Division documents via TEMPO those AOCs that did not warrant an enforcement action.
Where is the headquarters for RCRA regulatory activities in Louisiana and what are important telephone numbers and electronic mail addresses that a citizen should be aware of to contact this headquarters?
The headquarters is the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality – Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Important telephone numbers
24 Hour Hotline
Chemical Emergency Response and Citizen’s Complaints – 225/342-1234
Permits and Citizen Outreach
Office of Environmental Services – 225/765-0219
Inspections and Enforcement
Office of Environmental Compliance – 225/765-0634
Groundwater and Remediation
Office of Environmental Assessment – 225/765-0335
Department of Health and Hospitals
Office of Environmental Health – 225/763-3590
web address: www.deq.state.la.us
How can the general public keep informed concerning activities of the RCRA program on a regular basis? Is there a Web site that maintains current information concerning RCRA activities in Calcasieu Parish?
The LDEQ Web site keeps a listing of public hearings that are scheduled for permitting actions at all facilities in the state. This and a wealth of other environmental information is available at http://www.deq.state.la.us.
Is there a relationship between listing a facility as a RCRA site and the normal or interim status of an operating permit (air or water)?
If a facility generates, transports, stores, or disposes of solid and/or hazardous wastes, that facility falls under RCRA. Depending on their operations, some RCRA facilities require a permit to manage their wastes. If a facility is
operating on the effective date of regulatory or statutory amendments, they may qualify for interim status. They must submit the Part A of the permit application and an EPA Notification Form to qualify.
Of the nine RCRA sites in Calcasieu Parish, how many and which are associated with facilities that are operating with interim air, water, or RCRA permits?
PPG is operating some units under an appealed permit. We are currently working on a new permit for this facility that will resolve the appeal issue.
What is the reason for the delay in the renewal of operating permits at Lyondell?
Lyondell requested a delay of permit review for its Hazardous Waste Permit Renewal Application. It received a Notice of Delay of Permit Review dated September 18, 2000. The request was contingent upon the closure of RCRA units at
the facility.
How many incinerators are operating at Lyondell? How many are operating on interim permits?
Lyondell operates one permitted incinerator. The facility has no incinerators operating under interim status.
How long can a facility expect to wait following the submission of a request for an operating permit before the process is finalized and the permit issued?
Regulations found under the Office of the Secretary (LAC 33:I.1505.C) contain the provisions known as the “410 Day Rule.” The rule stipulates that the permitting review and issuance process should by completed in 410 days, excluding
requests by the applicant for extensions of time to provide additional information to the DEQ. If the RCRA permit application contains all the information required by LAC 33:V.Chapter 5, and once it is deemed administratively and
technically complete, a permit may be issued in 410 days.
What are typical reasons for delays in acting on permit applications?
The administrative authority shall not begin the processing of a permit until the applicant has fully complied with the application requirements for that permit. Delays in acting on permit applications include but are not limited to
the permit applicant’s failure to submit the required application fees, inadequate or incomplete permit application information, slow response to the Department’s request for additional information, Notice of Deficiencies (NOD) and
similar administrative requests.
How long can a facility continue to operate without a current permit?
No facility may be used to treat, store, and/or dispose of hazardous waste without a permit for the specific activities, procedures, and classification of waste handled as outlined in their permit, or in emergency situations under
the direction of the administrative authority as provided in LAC 33:V.701 or 703. Facilities that submit timely renewal applications may continue to operate until the agency takes a final action of that renewal.
What has to happen to streamline the permitting process to avoid years of operating using interim permits?
The permitting process is designed to provide opportunity for meaningful public involvement, and these provisions do add uncertainty to the timelines in the permitting schedule. Additional staff resources to the permitting program
could help shorten the review period.
When a RCRA permit expires, why is a company allowed to operate indefinitely without renewing the permit?
LAC 33:V.315.A sets forth provisions for the Continuation of Expiring Permits. The conditions of an expired permit continue in force until the effective date of a new permit if:
the permittee has submitted a timely application under LAC 33.V.517 and the applicable sections in LAC 33:V.519-533 which is a complete (under LAC 33.V.503) application for a new permit; and
the administrative authority through no fault of the permittee, does not issue a new permit with an effective date under LAC 33: 33.V.705 on or before the expiration date of the previous permit (for example, when insurance is
impracticable due to time
Permits continued under this Section remain fully effective and enforceable.
Does a company experience any negative consequences for failure to renew a permit?
If the holder of a permit wishes to continue an activity regulated by the permit after the expiration date of the permit, the permittee must reapply for the permit as required in LAC 33:V.303.N.
Failure to submit a timely permit renewal application will require a facility to start closure activities in accordance with their approved closure plan for any waste management operations that require a permit.
How long does a RCRA permit remain effective and what types of violations, if any, could cause a permit to be revoked?
A hazardous waste permit is valid for up to ten (10) years in accordance with LAC 33:V.315. Any permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of the ACT and could be grounds for enforcement action, permit termination, revocation and
re-issuance or modification, or denial of a permit renewal application.
Why are companies allowed to operate for years without current permits?
No facility may be used to treat, store, and/or dispose of hazardous waste without a permit for the specific activities, procedures, and classification of waste handled as outlined in their permit, or in emergency situations under
the direction of the administrative authority provided in LAC 33:V.701 or 703.
Is a fine assigned to a facility for failure to meet the requirements of a permit?
A fine may be assessed to a facility for permit noncompliance. Noncompliance with a permit constitutes a violation of the Act (Environmental Quality Act 449) and any amendments and is grounds for enforcement action, permit
termination, revocation and re-issuance or modification, or denial of a permit renewal application in accordance with LAC 33:V.309.A.
Do some facilities challenge permit requirements and thereby retain the use of a less-than-modern permit for many years? On what basis are these facilities allowed to remain on interim status for years or decades?
Facilities have in the past challenged their permit requirements through permit appeals and modifications. In the appeal process, the facility may file a request for a hearing with the Secretary (in accordance with R.S. 30:2024) on
issues related to those particular permit requirements, no later than thirty (30) days after a permit is issued. If the request is granted, only those issues/requirements will be addressed. The remaining requirements will become
effective on the effective date of the permit. If the entire permit is appealed and the hearing request is granted, the facility will remain in interim status until the appeal is settled.
Do the provisions allowing for the operation of a facility on an interim permit for an extended time period dilute or reduce the enforcement capabilities of LDEQ?
No. Facility owners and operators with interim status must comply with interim status standards set forth in LAC 33:V.Chapter 43. u
Do the provisions allowing for an interim permit reduce the enforcement of new, updated provisions designed to reduce the emissions of pollutants into the ground, water, or air?
A facility operating under interim status will follow the interim status regulations (LAC 33:V.Chapter 43) until a permit is issued with conditions in accordance with all applicable state and federal regulations, subsequent
amendments, R.S. 30:2171 et seg., and regulations adopted thereunder.
As for air and water, there are no “interim permits.” Emissions and discharges from the site into the air and water will be controlled and reported by operating permits in accordance with LAC 33:V.1505.
Are RCRA permitted facilities monitored continuously or periodically?
RCRA permitted facilities and their records are inspected at least once a year.
In general, what types of guidelines must be followed by a facility to obtain a RCRA permit?
The facility has to submit a timely application under LAC 33:V.515 and LAC 33:V.517, and the applicable sections in LAC 33:V.519-533 (of the Environmental Regulatory Code, Part V) which is a complete (under LAC 33:V.503) application
for a new permit.
How does the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality decide which facilities must obtain a RCRA permit?
Any facility that treats, stores and/or disposes of any hazardous waste identified or listed in LAC 33:V.Chapter 49 is required to obtain a permit in accordance with LAC 33:V.305.A.
What is the outcome if a facility permitted under the RCRA program does not meet the RCRA standards or regulations?
Failure of a facility to comply with RCRA standards or regulations constitutes a violation of RCRA and the Act (the 1979 Environmental Affairs Act, Act 449 of Louisiana) and is subject to requirements in accordance with LAC 33:V.107
and 307.A.
What are the consequences if a company that should have a RCRA permit is operating without such a permit or outside the provisions of a permit?
A facility is subject to enforcement proceedings in accordance with LAC 33:V.107 and R.S. 30:Chapter 2-A, Enforcement Procedure and Judicial Review. Failure of a facility to comply with the conditions of its permit constitutes
grounds for enforcement action, permit termination, revocation and re-issuance or modification, or denial of a permit renewal application in accordance with LAC 33:V.309.A.
Are educational institutions required to have a RCRA permit?
If an educational institution treats, stores (for more than 90 days), or disposes of hazardous wastes, a permit is required in accordance with LAC 33:V.305.
How often are industrial facilities permitted under the RCRA program inspected by state and/or federal regulators?
LDEQ inspectors inspect facilities at least once a year. If an inspector sees that a facility is violating any hazardous waste regulation, the inspector will write a field inspection report and submit it to the Enforcement Division
for issuance of possible violations to the LAC 33:V Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Regulations.
How often are commercial disposal facilities permitted under the RCRA program inspected by state and/or federal regulators?
LDEQ inspectors inspect facilities at least once a year. If an inspector sees that a facility is violating any hazardous waste regulation, the inspector will write a field inspection report and submit it to the Enforcement Division
for issuance of possible violations to the LAC 33:V Hazardous Waste Regulations.
|
