Interview with EPA-Times Beach Offcial

[Cdstelzer@aol.com]

Bob Feild, EPA Region VII, project director of Times Beach Superfund cleanup
phone interview conducted in 1994

"On the length of time that the incinerator will actually be operating, we
really didn't know how long that would take until the actual contract was
signed and worded for incineration, because we wouldn't know how big of a
unit we would have.
     "The unit that we have lined up to go out there, though, has a capacity
large enough to process all of the material from all 27 Eastern Missouri
sites in about eight months. Given downtime for maintenance and other routine
operations, we anticipate that the incineration phase of the project can be
completed within a year. And during that year, actual incineration will
probably be going on about eight months. As far as the cost, there's not a
whole lot of information available regarding incineration versus APEG-PLUS or
BCD. I have spoken with the project manager at the Wide Beach site, which is
in New York. That was a site where they processed PCBs using this base
catalyzed decomposition technology. He thought that the cost of the BCD
technology would be about the same as incineration, when all costs were
considered. At this point in time, there is not enough information out there
to be able to predict whether or not the cost would be higher or lower for
any alternative technologies.
      The one thing to consider is that incineration is a very mature
technology, ... and there are a number of vendors bidding competitively with
that particular technology. Whereas, some of these newer technologies do not
have the degree of competition, therefore, may not have the competitive
driving force to lower the cost.
       
Syntex

"The issue is that Syntex was awarded a contract for incineration under the
consent decree, ... which requires the EPA, the state and Syntex each to
perform certain aspects of this cleanup for the 27 sites.
      "Under the terms of that consent decree, Syntex was responsible for
arranging for the incineration at Times Beach. In September of 1992, they
awarded a contract for incineration to IT Technology out of Knoxville, Tenn.
Under the terms of their 1992 contract, with IT, they had a certain amount of
time in order to allow IT to mobilize to the site. They have not been able to
allow IT to mobilize to the site, and they are currently being penalized in
accordance with their contract. The contract with IT provides for Syntex to
pay to IT penalties for every month they are not allowed to proceed. 
      If there were to be a significant delay to this project, a delay on the
order of a year to 18 months, which could easily occur, as a result of the
GAO study, if we had to wait for that. Those penalties that Syntex is
accruing as a result of their contract with IT would become so severe that
Syntex may reconsider their willingness to participate in the remedy, to
participate in the consent decree.
      They may be able to invoke what is called a force majeure provision of
the consent decree, which essentially means that the project is going to cost
them much more than they envisioned when they entered into the consent
decree, and therefore, they could break the consent decree, and return to
litigation. Perhaps conceivably to try and recover money they have already
spent.
       The other thing to consider is we entered this consent decree in
December 1990. They immediately negotiating to provide a vender to provide
these incineration services. Because of the magnitude of this contract, these
negotiations are very involve. It wasn't until September 1992 that they
finally awarded the contract to IT. With that award, they had to make certain
guarantees to It, one of them ... was that they could mobilize in a certain
amount of time.
      If it turns out that there is a significant delay in this project, IT
is not allowed to mobilize and use their equipment, IT is not going to let
their equipment sit idle. There is a huge opportunity cost, and therefore IT
in all likelihood would take their equipment and use it at other sites. So if
there was a significant delay, the equipment that was dedicated to this
project would no longer be available, which would put Syntex in a position of
having to go through a negotiation process to award another contract, which
is multi-year process. So it would result not only in significant penalties
to Syntex, which may allow them to invoke force majeure and break the consent
decree. And this is something that has been alluded to by Syntex in
statements with their press officer.
     "It not only would result in significant penalties and a break in the
consent decree, it would probably result in us losing access to the
 equipment that we have. All of these things are going to result in a delay
not just in the duration of the study conducted by GAO. But then you also
have to consider the years it would take to go through the contracting
process and then go through the permitting process once again just to get to
the point we are here with in other remedy.

Syntex PR: 415/855-6021

"We have never had any contact with Syntex insurers during the entire
negotiation period and during the implementation. We have only dealt directly
with Syntex. And to our knowledge Syntex is funding this project. They have
at least to us that they are. We've never had any contact at all with their
insurers one way or another what role they may play. I'm not aware of any
role they play."

GAO study

Talent

"I'm not going to speculate about his motivations for opposing the project,
but as far as what he has done is to introduce some legislation in
Washington, which would delay implementation of the remedy until a GAO study
is completed. This Government Accounting Office evaluates alternative
technologies to incineration. According to GAO, they feel it would take
approximately 18 months to conduct this study. 

alternative techs
      
As far as some of these alternative studies, there are some points that maybe
should be clarified. There is some thought that BCD technology can be
operated as a closed system without any stacks without any release of any. In
fact, that particular technology, in order to be applied to a project as
large as the Times Beach project, ... would have to have a vent stack. And so
there would be emissions from that process to be concerned about just as
we're concerned about potential emissions from the incinerator. It could not
be operated in a closed system and be completed in any reasonable time frame.

       In order to be operated as a closed system, it's operated in a batch
mode and it's operated at a very low capacity. It would take years and years
to complete the project at the rate that they would be limited to if we did
operate in a closed system. That's a key point -- there would be emissions
from a BCD project at Times Beach.
        
"A (closed) system that large has never been constructed. If we were to
consider another technology, first we would have to conduct bench scale
testing and field scale testing to see if that technology was effective for
the materials at Times Beach. At this point in time, on the basis of the
testing that has been performed, we don't believe there is sufficient
evidence to support that this technology would be effective for the
contaminants and materials we have at Times Beach
      "Once we got through the field testing only then would we get to the
point where we would consider changing our remedy, which in and of itself
takes a number of months or years. We have to have additional studies, we
have to have public comment period, finally culminating in an amended record
of decision to go forth with another technology. Then once we would get to
that point, where we had changed our remedy, then we could begin the contract
procedure in order to award a contract for this sort of project, which in
itself could take years.
      "So you're talking about a project that would take not just 6 months or
18 months, you're talking about a process that would take many years to get
to the point where we are right now, where we're at with incineration. 
      "The other key aspect of this project is that in order any remedy to be
implemented the funding source has to be available. Under the current consent
decree, Syntex, the responsible party, is paying for all of the cost of
incineration at Times Beach, which is the majority of the remaining costs for
entire Eastern Missouri dioxin cleanup.
       "If in fact something were to happen, where we no longer had Syntex
under obligation to conduct the cleanup then we would have to look at other
avenues for funding this project. At this point in time, we do not have any
other avenues to fund this project with. In order to proceed with a
fund-lead, where the Superfund would pay for this project, then we would
require a state cost-share. And the state may or may not be able to provide
the necessary matching funds that are necessary under the Superfund law to go
forward with that approach.
       "So if Syntex were to invoke their force majeure provision and not
implement incineration it would jeopardize any remedy at Times Beach
incineration or otherwise.
        
"The agencies would have to go back to court. They would have to present that
to the United States District Court in St. Louis, the Department of Justice
and the Missouri Attorney General's office would be involved. It would become
a legal matter. It would return the whole matter back to litigation rather
than proceeding with the remedy.

equipment

At this point in time, that equipment had been used at a cleanup down in
Houston, Texas called the Sykes Disposal Pit site.


913/551-7003 EPA Region VII