electric competition
pollution prevention

U.S. Congressman Doug Applegate letter
to U.S. EPA Adminsitrator William Ruckleshaus
concerning WTI's permit


July 25, 1983


I have raised questions concerning the incompleteness of the permit application and have provided your office a copy of remarks made by the Hearing Examiner for the Ohio Hazardous Waste Facilities Board. The response was 'not applicable to RCRA.'

I have raised concerns about the process used to permit the facility used by the U.S. EPA. Frankly, I am not sure the procedures have adequately safeguarded the public in this instance. Again, the response 'not within the scope of RCRA.'

Finally, I have raised technical questions that have brought about a slew of non se'quitors and bureaucratic rhetoric and no real answer except 'we believe them.'

The runaround I have gotten from your agency and the lack of response to most of my inquiries does not lend itself to the credibility and trust you were chosen to instill in the U.S. EPA's function.

Using WTI's estimate for particulate discharge of 95 tons per year, simple mathematics demonstrate that an overall reduction of .05% in the ESPs performance will result in emissions in excess of 100 tons per year. This is in excess of the 'trigger' figure needed to require a discharge permit under the Clean Air Act that WTI could not obtain; East Liverpool is nearly twice the accepted national standard for particulate pollution and is, therefore, a nonattainment area.

In sum, Mr. Ruckelshaus, I would be much more comfortable with this situation if it were not for a decided feeling that EPA wants this facility as much as WTI does and that this permit is too important to the agency to deny no matter what the consequences are to East Liverpool.