 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Basf Corporation's Exemption Permit From Hazardous Waste Land Disposal Restrictions7/31/2000
future. The DEQ Secretary also discounted neutralization as a feasible HCl disposal alternative, citing a scientific study showing that the neutralization process would result in a tenfold increase in volume, as compared to unneutralized acid that would be disposed of in the injection well, or some 1.5 million gallons of salt water to be discharged into the Mississippi River on a daily basis. Additionally, the acid neutralization process produces waste sludges that require disposal in landfills. Other chemical recycling processes proposed were rejected as being economically unfeasible, which would require BASF to invest in multi- million dollar manufacturing facilities. Our review of the record reveals that the DEQ Secretary correctly concluded that no economically reasonable and environmentally sound alternatives to disposal by deep well injection exist. Accordingly, we find that LSA-R.S. 30:2193(G) is applicable to this case.
Appellants also argue on appeal that DEQ erred in failing to require additional monitoring of the injection well. Although DEQ ordered BASF to use their deep monitoring well, MW-1, to satisfy the ambient requirements for the lowermost underground source of drinking water, appellants maintain DEQ erred in failing to require additional monitoring of the first aquifer overlying the confining area, monitoring of groundwater quality in the first aquifer overlying the confining area, and the use of indirect, geophysical techniques to determine the position of the waste front, the water quality in a formation designated by the administrative authority, or to provide other site-specific data, all in accordance with LAC 33:V.2271(N). Since we have concluded in this opinion that LSA-R.S. 30:2193(G) provides that the requirements of LSA-R.S. 30:2193(E)(2) and LAC 33:V.2271 are not applicable to a paragraph (G) applicant, appellants' reliance on LAC 33:V.2271(N) is misplaced. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to rule on whether the DEQ Secretary erred in the level of monitoring ordered in this case.
After reviewing the extensive record compiled before DEQ, we find no error in the DEQ decision authorizing the BASF injection well and finding LSA-R.S. 30:2193(E) inapplicable to BASF in this matter. For the reasons assigned, we affirm the judgment of the district court; all costs of this appeal are to be borne by appellants, Louisiana Environmental Action Network and Ascension Parish Residents Against Toxic Pollution.
AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|