Laidlaw Environmental Services - Commissioner Ruling, September 19, 1994
Commissioner Ruling, September 19, 1994
STATE OF NEW YORK : DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233-1550
In the Matter
- of -
the Application of Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. and BDT, Inc., for
a Modification of Existing Hazardous Waste Facility and Air Permits; and Certificates to Operate;
and Approval of a Change of Operational Control pursuant to Environmental Conservation Law
Articles 19 and 27; and Title 6 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of
the State of New York, Parts 201 et seq. (Air Pollution Control)
and Part 373 (Hazardous Waste Management Facilities)
File No. 9-1432-00004/00001-0
RULING OF THE COMMISSIONER
September 19, 1994
Ruling of the Commissioner
This Ruling is in response to a request for clarification of my June 28, 1994 Decision (the "Decision") in this matter. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. ("Laidlaw") asks for clarification with respect to the environmental monitoring condition and with respect to the information to be required in its periodic updates of record of compliance filings.
The Decision refuses to unconditionally require more than one environmental monitor but it also states that a monitor must be present whenever any risky activity (defined to include incineration, hydrolysis, testing and experimental procedures) is taking place. The record on which the Decision was based did not provide information on the extent to which these activities took place and therefore it was unknown whether more than one monitor would be needed in order to provide this coverage. If these activities cannot be conducted within the work week of a single monitor, the Decision requires Laidlaw to pay for as many monitors as necessary to comply with this requirement. In an accommodation to practical concerns, the Department Staff may allow on-going activities to continue interrupted during short work breaks by the environmental monitor.
The Decision also confirmed the Administrative Law Judge's recommendation that Laidlaw be required to update its record of compliance submission periodically. There was no specific intent in the Decision with respect to frequency or content of the submittals other than they be set within reasonable parameters by the Department Staff. It appears that Staff have done so in this case and hence there is no reason to require revision to this permit condition.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Department of Environmental Conservation has caused this Ruling to be signed and issued and has filed the same with all maps, plans, reports, and other papers relating thereto in its office in the County of Albany, New York this 19th day of September, 1994.
_____________/s/_____________
LANGDON MARSH, COMMISSIONER
