Read and be enlightened.
[A few parts highlighted in red by Green Delaware]
1 THE STATE OF DELAWARE
2 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
3 .. .. .. .. .. ..
4 October 22, 2007 – Public Hearing
5 Delaware Proposed Regulations
6 Governing Hazardous Waste
7 .. .. .. .. .. ..
8 HEARING OFFICER: Lisa Vest
9 .. .. .. .. .. ..
10 A Public Hearing held on October 22, 2007,
11 commencing at 6:08 p.m. at the Department of Natural
12 Resources Conference Room, 89 Kings Highway, Dover,
13 Delaware, reported by Lorena J. Hartnett, a Registered
14 Professional Reporter and Notary Public.
15 .. .. .. .. .. ..
22 Wilcox & Fetzer
1330 King Street – Wilmington, DE 19801
1 MS. VEST: Alright, let’s go ahead and start
2 tonight. Officially, for the record, the time is
3 6:08 p.m. It is Monday, October 22, 2007, and we are
4 going to go ahead and start this hearing.
5 This is the first of two hearings that will be
6 held here at DNREC tonight. The first one is going to
7 be amendments concerning Delaware’s Regulations
8 Governing Hazardous Waste.
9 At this point we have waited approximately ten
10 minutes past the set start time, and there are no
1 members of the public currently here for this to offer
12 comment to the Department.
13 That being said, I am going to turn it over to
14 Bill Davis to enter the Department’s exhibits, and if,
15 after he is done, there are members of the public, we
16 will turn the floor over to them for comment at that
18 MR. DAVIS My name is Bill Davis, and I
19 represent the Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
20 Branch of DNREC tonight.
21 There will be five exhibits entered into the
22 public record in support of amending the Delaware
23 Regulations Governing Hazardous Waste.
24 The first exhibit is a synopsis of the
1 proposed regulatory changes. This gives a brief
2 summary of each change, including the Federal Register
3 reference and whether the Delaware amendment is as
4 stringent as the federal equivalent.
5 The amendments that we are proposing are
6 three.Â The first involves non-wastewaters from dyes
7 and pigments, and this amendment corrects typographical
8 errors in the regulatory text.
9 The second involves the new uniform waste
1 manifest, and this amendment is correcting errors and
11 does not create any new regulatory requirements.
12 The final amendment are state-specific to
13 Delaware, and these are used oil container closure, the
14 uniform manifest retractions of the federal portion,
15 financial assurance, in addition to federal language
16 plus typographical corrections, and then, finally,
17 clarifications of flow charts in Part 266, Appendix 9.
18 The second exhibit is the public workshop held
19 on August 22, 2007. This includes the presentation,
20 the sign-in sheet, an example of the invitation letter
21 sent to hazardous waste generators within Delaware, the
22 public meeting notification from DNREC’s web page, and
23 two public notices that appeared in newspapers.
24 Exhibit 3 is the public comments from the
1 workshop and the corresponding reply from the Solid and
2 Hazardous Waste Management Branch.
3 Exhibit 4 is the public notices for tonight’s
4 hearing, published in the News Journal and the Delaware
5 State News on September 26, 2007.
6 Finally, Exhibit 5 is the proposed amendments
7 to the Delaware Regulations Governing Hazardous Waste.
8 These are shown in blue and red strike-out and
9 underline format to highlight the changes.
10 This concludes the exhibits being submitted.
11 MS. VEST Okay, thank you, Mr. Davis Let
12 the record reflect that the Department’s exhibits as
13 identified by Mr. Davis are being entered into the
14 record at this time.
15 Does that conclude the Department’s
16 presentation tonight?
17 MR. DAVIS:Â Yes, it does.
18 MS. VEST Okay, at this time I just want to
19 note for the record that there has been nobody new from
20 the public coming in.Â So, that being said, I am going
21 to go off the record here for approximately ten minutes
22 just to double check and make sure that no one else
23 wants to come in and offer comment.Â We will go back on
24 the record in approximately ten minutes time.
1 (Off the record from 6:12 p.m.
2 to 6:21 p.m.)
3 MS. VEST: At this point I am going to go back
4 on the record.Â The time is 6:21. There have been
5 additional people coming in, and at this point I am
6 going to open the floor up if there is anyone here
7 present who would like to offer comment on the first
8 hearing tonight, which are the amendments to the
9 Regulations Governing Delaware Hazardous Waste.Â Is
10 there anybody here who would like to speak?
11 Mr. Muller?
12 MR. MULLER: Do you want me to talk into that
14 MS. VEST If you just stand up so people can
15 hear you, I don’t think you need a mike.
16 MR. MULLER I have a couple of questions
17 first, and I realize you have run through a
18 presentation and I wasn’t here, but I would like, in
19 case it’s not in the record, some clarification on just
20 why at this moment that Delaware Hazardous Waste
21 Regulations are being amended Is that part of like an
22 annual cycle of doing it or —
23 MS. VEST Bill, did you want to respond to
1 MR. DAVIS The state is required to keep our
2 program at least as stringent as the federal program.
3 MR. MULLER Okay.
4 MR. DAVIS And, as the federal program issues
5 new standards, we need to adopt those to remain as
6 stringent, so, yes, this is part of a routine adoption
7 of keeping our program as stringent as the federal
9 MR. MULLER: And does that happen on a regular
10 cycle or just when the feds have changed, or why is it
11 happening at this particular time?
12 MR. DAVIS: It is happening at this time
13 because of the three hazardous waste amendments The
14 first two, the federal have already implemented those
15 two, so we picked those two up.
16 And, while we have the Delaware Regulations
17 Governing Hazardous Waste open, we can also make some
18 state-specific changes too, and those are the — That’s
19 Amendment 3 that you have seen.
20 MR. MULLER I have seen it, and I noticed, I
21 will just mention the first one, which says used oil
22 container closure, and I don’t mean to ridicule that,
23 because it’s probably a good idea for people that are
24 collecting used oil in open tubs or something, that
1 probably should be changed.
2 But the reason I am here, ladies and
3 gentlemen, is that in the history of Green Delaware,
4 which goes back to 1994, we have had rather many
5 controversies and discussions involving the management
6 of waste in Delaware, and there are a lot of what seem
7 to me to be open issues.
8 For instance, the issue of the emanations of
9 material — I am trying to use a general term and not a
10 term of art — from the DuPont Edgemoor Plant and
11 whether or not that material is or is not something
12 that should be considered a hazardous waste, and what I
13 am getting at is when I read through these things, none
14 of the changes that you are proposing seem to me to
15 address what, in my experience, have been open issues
16 regarding the management of hazardous waste in
18 I really don’t think that used oil container
19 closure — And I mean that’s fine, but we have a
20 facility in Edgemoor that’s now discharging about
21 150,000 tons a year of waste, loaded with arsenic,
22 cadmium, dioxin, uranium, thorium, all kinds of
23 unpleasant materials, and there is a big controversy
24 over whether a pile of that should be left by the side
1 of the Delaware River.
2 Meanwhile, all that stuff is being sent to an
3 ordinary garbage dump in Lee County, South Carolina,
4 with no regulation at all from DNREC.
5 So I think that the waste regulations are in
6 need of some substantial change to address and clarify
7 some of the waste issues that Delaware is struggling
8 with, and I don’t see any indication of that in here.
9 And I don’t mean to be quarrelsome about it,
10 because it looks to me as if you have kind of looked at
11 the regulations through a microscope in proposing these
12 changes, but I want to suggest that the solid and
13 hazardous waste branch ought to take a wider look at
14 what’s going on.
15 And, very candidly, a very high percentage of
16 the scandals and controversies that we have got in
17 Delaware have got to do with waste management.
18 You know, just last week Bob Haynes conducted
19 a hearing on the Pigeon Point garbage dump, and
20 although that would be considered primarily a matter
21 for the solid rather than the hazardous waste
22 regulations, hundreds of thousands of tons of coal ash
23 are coming in there every year from out of state, and
24 the EPA has a proceeding going on now, which I will put
1 into the record, and the issue there is that although
2 coal ash is not now regulated, it is, in fact, nasty
3 stuff, it’s full of hazardous constituents, and I heard
4 a lot of testimony from a variety of people who are
5 very upset that this material is being hauled into
6 Delaware and put on a dump that’s supposedly closed.
7 It’s being done under pretext.
8 MS. VEST: I understand, Alan, and that record
9 is still being open, but as a matter of point here,
10 that’s Pigeon Point and that’s another hearing matter.
11 This hearing tonight is just for comments on the
12 proposed regs.
13 MR. MULLER: Well, I understand that, Lisa,
14 and the reason I am making that comment is simply to
15 make the point that Delaware’s regulations governing
16 hazardous waste aren’t, in fact, governing effectively
17 the management of hazardous waste in Delaware and some
18 very substantial changes are needed in those
19 regulations far and above, you know, having a cap on a
20 used oil tank.
21 And I won’t go on and on now at length about
22 that, but I think it’s important to note that there are
23 many, many issues that aren’t addressed in this
24 document, and the record needs to remain open in order
1 that we and other members of the public have an
2 opportunity to comment on that.
3 MS. VEST: Duly noted, and the record should
4 reflect, I will say it now, that the record is going to
5 remain open for public comment until the close of
6 business October 31, so, you know, absolutely if you
7 feel like you would or other members would like to
8 submit written comments, please do so. That gives you
9 a full week to get more comments in, and they will
10 become part of the record.
11 MR. MULLER: I know they will, and I would
12 like to ask you to hold the record open for 30 days.
13 MS. VEST: I will take that under advisement.
14 MR. MULLER You are only talking ten, and I
15 don’t think that —
16 MS. VEST: But, Alan, these have been noticed
17 for awhile.
18 MR. MULLER: Well, they have, and you are
19 quite right about that, but it’s also true that there
20 hasn’t been any substantial public outreach about this
21 that I am aware of, and I haven’t seen anything in any
22 DNREC publications inviting public comment.
23 MS. VEST Did the Department not workshop
1 MR. DAVIS Yes, we did workshop this, yes.
2 MS. VEST: And when did you workshop it?
3 MR. DAVIS That is shown in exhibit — That
4 is shown in Exhibit 2. We had a workshop on August 22,
5 and here is the presentation, and we also received some
6 comments, and these are the people who participated,
7 and here is the letter that went to all the hazardous
8 waste generators in the state, who they were sent to,
9 and here is the notice that was on the DNREC web page
10 and the public notice that appeared.
11 MR. MULLER: And I was in Minnesota at that
12 time and I didn’t attend the workshop, but I noticed
13 your mailing list was hazardous waste generators?
14 MR. DAVIS: Yes.
15 MR. MULLER: Did you send that to the press or
16 to any nongovernmental organizations, advocacy groups,
17 any other organizations?
18 MR. DAVIS: DNREC did issue a press release,
20 MR. MULLER I am just asking about that
22 MR. DAVIS That was a specific letter
23 specifically to hazardous waste generators.
24 MS. VEST:Â Just for clarity sake, Mr. Muller,
1 if you weren’t aware of that or if you would like to
2 get copies of the Department’s exhibits, we can get
3 them to you, but at this point we are bleeding into
4 another hearing, so if you do have additional comments,
5 I would ask if you could put them in writing and get
6 them to the Department.
7 I will take it under advisement if we can keep
8 the record open longer, but at this point, with the
9 Department having workshopped it and with this being
10 noticed for over a month now that it was going to be
11 happening tonight and nobody else showing up, I am not
12 inclined to keep it open beyond October 31.Â Do you
13 have any other additional comments?
14 MR. MULLER: No, I don’t.
15 MS. VEST: Okay, is there anybody else here
16 present that would like to offer comments?Â Again, this
17 is to close up or to wrap up, rather, the first hearing
18 tonight, which are the amendments governing the
19 hazardous waste.
20 MS. OVERLAND: I am Carol Overland of Port
21 Penn I do have just a question I need some
22 clarification on.
23 MS. VEST Sure.
24 MS. OVERLAND On this amendment we see about
1 financial where you have Section 264.43 H and G and
2 then 5 H and G.
3 MS. VEST Hold on. Did you get all of that?
4 (Speaking to reporter) Okay, I just wanted to make
5 sure You were rattling that off quick. I wanted to
6 make sure the court reporter got it.
7 MS. OVERLAND So is that duplicative, because
8 it looks like there is the same language for both G and
9 H of both 3 and 5 on Page 13 and 14, is that intended
10 to be that way?
11 MR. DAVIS: Yes, it is. One is for Part 264,
12 and one is for Part 265.
13 MS. OVERLAND: Oh, oh, oh, okay, I was just
14 looking on the suffix Got it. Okay, that was it.
15 Thank you.
16 MS. VEST: Very good. With no further
17 questions or comments being offered for the record at
18 this time, we are going to close the hearing.Â Again,
19 this is the first hearing for the amendments governing
20 the hazardous waste.Â We are going to take a brief
21 five-minute break and go back on the record.Â We will
22 begin the public hearing for the second portion, which
23 is governing solid waste.Â I also want to again
24 reiterate that the record will remain open for receipt
1 of public comment through the close of business
2 October 31, 2007.
3 (Concluded at 6:32 p.m.)
2 I, Lorena J. Hartnett, a Notary Public
3 and Registered Professional Reporter, do hereby
4 certify that the foregoing is an accurate and
5 complete transcription of the proceeding held at
6 the time and place stated herein, and that the said
7 proceeding was recorded by me and then reduced to
8 typewriting under my direction, and constitutes a true
9 record of the testimony given by said witnesses.
10 I further certify that I am not a relative,
11 employee, or attorney of any of the parties or a
12 relative or employee of either counsel, and that I am
13 in no way interested directly or indirectly in this
1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
16 hand and affixed my seal of office on this 25th day of
17 October 2007.
22 Lorena J. Hartnett, R.P.R.
23 Reporter Certificate #134-RPR, Exp. 01-31-2008
1 THE STATE OF DELAWARE
2 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
3 .. .. .. .. .. ..
4 October 22, 2007 – Public Hearing
5 Delaware Proposed Regulations Governing Solid Waste
6 .. .. .. .. .. ..
7 HEARING OFFICER: Lisa Vest
8 .. .. .. .. .. ..
9 A Public Hearing held on October 22, 2007,
10 commencing at 6:38 p.m. at the Department of Natural
11 Resources Conference Room, 89 Kings Highway, Dover,
12 Delaware, reported by Lorena J. Hartnett, a Registered
13 Professional Reporter and Notary Public.
14 .. .. .. .. .. ..
21 Wilcox & Fetzer
1330 King Street – Wilmington, DE 19801
1 MS. VEST: Good evening, we are going to go
2 ahead and start now.Â My name is Lisa Vest, and the
3 Secretary has designated me to be the hearing officer
4 appointed for this matter.
5 Let the record reflect that the time is now
6 6:38, and we are going to begin the second of two
7 hearings tonight.
8 The matter at hand presently is to receive
9 public comment and answer any questions that may be out
10 there regarding Delaware’s Proposed Amendments to
11 Regulations Governing Solid Waste.
12 What we are going to do is, as far as the
13 order of things here tonight, the Department is going
14 to enter their exhibits into the record and provide a
15 brief overview of what the proposed regulations concern
16 tonight or the amendments to those regulations, rather,
17 and then at that point we will open the floor up to any
18 kind of public comment that might be out there to
19 incorporate into the record for the Secretary’s review.
20 I should note again for the record before we
21 begin that there are a lot of issues out there
22 concerning hazardous waste and solid waste, I think, in
23 Delaware right now. We have to keep this hearing on
24 track, and the purpose of this hearing tonight is
1 simply comments and questions regarding the proposed
2 amendments to the Regulations Governing Solid Waste.
3 That being said, I am going to turn it over to
4 Bill Davis, who is going to give the Department’s
5 summary tonight.
6 MR. MULLER: Before you proceed —
7 MS. VEST: Yes?
8 MR. MULLER: — Green Delaware would like to
9 be acknowledged as a party to this proceeding.
10 MS. VEST Alan, I understand that question,
11 or I understand that request. I have to deny that at
12 this time.Â Delaware law has been completely solid with
13 regard to admittance of other parties to these
14 proceedings. It’s a regulatory matter to promulgate
15 some new amendments, so your request is acknowledged
16 but it’s denied.
17 MR. MULLER Okay, thank you.
18 MS. VEST: Bill?
19 MR. DAVIS: My name is Bill Davis, and I
20 represent the Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
21 Branch of DNREC tonight. There will be five exhibits
22 entered into the public record in support of amending
23 the Delaware Regulations Concerning Solid Waste.
24 The first exhibit is a synopsis of the
1 proposed regulation changes. This gives a brief
2 summary of each change. This includes five amendments
3 to the solid waste regulations. The first amendment
4 involves permits, and there are three changes regarding
6 Amendment Number 2 and 3 involve sanitary and
7 industrial landfills, and both of those clarify a
8 reference to an engineering report.
9 Amendment Number 4 is in regard to
10 environmental covenants, and that is replacing
12 Amendment Number 5 is in regards to infectious
13 waste, and there are 18 separate changes in regards to
14 that portion of the regulation.
15 The second exhibit is the public workshop held
16 on July 25, 2007. This includes the presentation, the
17 sign-in sheet, the public meeting notification from
18 DNREC’s web page, and two public notices that appeared
19 in newspapers.
20 Exhibit 3 is the public comment from the
21 workshop, which the Solid and Hazardous Waste
22 Management Branch addressed by revising the proposed
23 amendments as shown in Exhibit 5.
24 Other portions of the comment shown in Exhibit
1 3 that are not relevant to the 2007 amendments of these
2 regulations are being addressed separately.
3 Exhibit 4 is the public notices for tonight’s
4 hearing published in the News Journal and the Delaware
5 State News on September 26, 2007.
6 Finally, Exhibit 5 is the proposed amendments
7 to the Delaware Regulations Governing Solid Waste.
8 These are shown in blue and red strike-out and
9 underline format to highlight the changes.
10 This concludes the exhibits being submitted.
11 MS. VEST: Thank you, Mr. Davis. Let the
12 record reflect that the Department’s exhibits, as
13 identified by Mr. Davis, are formally entered into the
14 record at this time.
15 Did the Department wish to offer any kind of
16 summary or synopsis of this other than just submitting
17 their exhibits at this time?
18 MR. DAVIS It is shown in the synopsis.
19 MS. VEST: Okay Thank you very much. At
20 this point I am going to open the floor up to any kind
21 of public comment or questions that the public may
23 Obviously, all the public questions and
24 comments will be forwarded to the Secretary for his
1 review on this. Again, keep your comments and
2 questions consistent to the subject matter of this
3 hearing, which are just the regulatory amendments at
5 Alan, I know that you have comments. Is there
6 anybody else here this evening besides Mr. Muller that
7 has comments?
8 Okay, Alan, the floor is yours. And could I
9 just ask, just to make sure the court reporter gets it,
10 if you could stand over there by her? I just want to
11 make sure that she gets everything.
12 MR. MULLER: Is that microphone working?
13 MS. VEST: Honestly, I don’t know if it is or
14 not. Bill, can you check that?
15 MR. DAVIS: Yes.
16 MR. MULLER:Â Okay, how about this one? I only
17 have a few questions and comments. But, Lisa, I would
18 like to ask you, you commented about keeping the
19 hearing on track. Do I hear you saying — What does
20 that mean? Does that mean that you don’t want to hear
21 testimony on whether these regulations meet the needs
22 of Delaware?
23 MS. VEST: No, it means that this hearing is
24 exclusive tonight just to receive comment and questions
1 regarding the proposed amendments to the regulations at
3 I am not going to allow the record to sprawl
4 into Pigeon Point or any other kind of waste matters
5 that are currently subjects of their own hearings.
6 MR. MULLER:Â Well, let’s see now. Suppose our
7 point was, and, in fact, it is, that these proposed
8 amendments are inadequate and don’t have the effect of
9 causing Delaware’s Solid Waste Regulations to meet the
10 needs?Â Do you consider that to be outside the scope of
11 the hearing?
12 MS. VEST: No, not at all. That’s a comment,
13 and you just made it.
14 MR. MULLER: Okay.
15 MS. VEST And if you want to elaborate on
16 that, again the record is open through the close of
17 business on October 31. So in no way is the Department
18 trying to squelch the public’s right to offer comments.
19 I just want to make sure that we don’t become a bloated
20 record on matters that are already the subject of other
22 MR. MULLER: Well, it seems to me, frankly,
23 that you are trying to squelch me. I hope we don’t
24 have the kind of wrangle that you and I have had in
1 previous hearings.
2 I have, first of all, two exhibits to offer,
3 and I am going to put them up front, and these exhibits
4 illustrate how solid waste is now being managed in
6 One of them — They are both pictures of the
7 Cherry Island garbage dump, and the caption on the left
8 one shows a burning dump with a lot of smoke and fumes
9 coming out, and it says “20 May ’05, fire in the active
11 And the second one shows a lot of garbage
12 bags, debris, upon the surface. It’s dated 17 May ’05,
13 and it’s entitled, “Excessive trash/lack of cover on
14 the top of the landfill.”
15 Now, I could have brought many such images,
16 literally hundreds of them, but I think these
17 illustrate the fact that the present management of
18 solid waste in Delaware is not satisfactory.
19 And, yet, it is the position of the
20 Department, as I understand it, that solid waste is
21 being managed in accordance with the Delaware
22 Regulations for Solid Waste, and I hope my point is
23 clear that we are not where we need to be with regard
24 to this.
1 I would also like to put into the record, and
2 let me put this mike down for a minute — I do have
3 paper copies of these These are images. These were
4 taken by me on November 11, 2007, and they show trucks
5 dumping waste at the —
6 MS. VEST: Alan, excuse me —
7 MR. MULLER: — Pigeon Point landfill.
8 MS. VEST: I don’t mean to be rude, but did
9 you misstate — You said November of ’07.
10 MR. MULLER: Yes, I did.
11 MS. VEST: Okay.
12 MR. MULLER: And I would like these to be
13 marked as an exhibit.
14 MS. VEST: For the record, they are not
15 November. It’s September 11 of ’07. I just didn’t
16 want there to be confusion.
17 MR. MULLER: Oh, did I say November?
18 MS. VEST: Yes. I just wanted to correct
20 MR. MULLER: Okay, sorry about that.
21 MS. VEST: Okay. Alan, if I could, just so
22 the record is clear, you are presenting three
23 photocopies of photographs all taken by you on
24 September 11 of ’07?
1 MR. MULLER: They were.
2 MS. VEST: Okay.
3 MR. MULLER: And I would be glad to e-mail to
4 you copies of the original images with dates, if you
5 would like to have that.
6 MS. VEST: Let the record show that I am going
7 to enter these three photographs of photocopies of
8 Mr. Muller’s as Muller Exhibit Number 1. Go ahead,
9 Mr. Muller.
10 MR. MULLER:Â Okay, and my point is these are
11 images of the two solid waste landfills in New Castle
12 County that are generally accepting solid waste, and
13 the conditions of neither of them are in any way
14 satisfactory, and we would like to see Delaware have
15 solid waste regulations that would result in the
16 satisfactory management of solid waste. That may be a
17 comment that is obviously infantile, but this is not
18 the present situation.
19 Now, let me go through the regulations I
20 have a few comments and questions here. Forgive my
21 relatively unorganized presentation. At Section
22 220.127.116.11, which is application procedures for sanitary
23 and industrial landfills, it says, “An environmental
24 assessment shall be performed to provide a detailed
1 analysis of the potential impact of the proposed
2 facility on the environment. Factors to be considered
3 include,” and I won’t read all of them, but one of them
4 is public health and safety, and another is social and
5 economic factors, and I am wondering if it could be
6 explained to me what criteria would be used to analyze
7 these two items.
8 MS. VEST: Is the Department able to respond
9 to that at this time?
10 MR. DAVIS: I would like to note that his
11 specific question, those portions of the regulation are
12 not being amended.Â However, we have some other members
13 of the staff here tonight who might be able to
14 elaborate on that question.
15 MR. DALTON: Can you repeat the question?
16 MR. MULLER: Okay, the whole thing or? I
17 would like to know how public health and safety would
18 be incorporated into an environmental assessment for a
19 proposed dump.Â Just what would that mean?Â It’s stated
20 here, but I don’t see any description of how that would
21 be done or what that would mean in practice.
22 MR. DALTON: You are asking what kind of
23 criteria would go into that?
24 MR. MULLER: Exactly. I mean, for example, it
1 could be — The criteria could be that no harm to the
2 health of any resident was allowed to be caused by the
3 facility or something like that, and that might even be
4 a reasonable one, but I just don’t see any detail in
5 here on what that means.
6 And maybe the lack of detail is the reason we
7 get, you know, this in practice (pointing to picture),
8 and I am pointing to the picture of the burning dump.
9 I guess I should say that.
10 MS. VEST: Alan, I am going to remind you
11 that you are asking for the Department’s opinion as to
12 how we do these regulations as a whole. It’s not
13 what’s at issue tonight. What’s at issue tonight are
14 the proposed amendments to the regulation.
15 And I am not trying to thwart you, but I am
16 going to give you very little leniency on this. This
17 is not why we are here tonight.
18 MR. MULLER: Well, I think it’s why I am here
19 tonight. I think this is a hearing on the adequacy of
20 these regulations.
21 MS. VEST: No, it’s not. No, it’s not. It’s
22 not a public hearing on the adequacy of the
23 Department’s regulations. It is a hearing to receive
24 public comment and specific questions on the
1 regulations that are being proposed to be amended, not
2 the whole book.
3 And, again, I am not going to waste the
4 Department’s time arguing this with you. If you wish
5 to give us your treatise or wish to give us this in
6 written comment, by all means, you know, the record is
7 open through the close of the hearing, but we are not
8 going to sit here and have questions given to the
9 Department on why and how we write our amendments as a
10 whole. These are —
11 MR. MULLER: Well —
12 MS. VEST: These are questions and comments to
13 be directed about the proposed amendments, not the
14 whole book.
15 MR. MULLER: Well —
16 MS. VEST: So, again, I am giving you very
17 little leniency here.
18 MR. MULLER: Well, I notice that you appear
19 not to be allowing the gentleman to answer my question.
20 Is that your intention?
21 MS. VEST: No, he can answer them, but I am
22 going to give you very little leniency. The very next
23 question should be a question about the proposed
24 amendments.Â This question is outside the scope of this
1 hearing, and I am just warning you from the start.
2 MR. MULLER: Well, as I said before, Lisa, I
3 am here to point out that the proposed amendments to
4 the regulations are inadequate and unsatisfactory.
5 MS. VEST: Well, then I would suggest that you
6 gear your questions towards the proposed amendments and
7 not those that aren’t at issue here tonight.
8 MR. MULLER: Well, they are at issue from our
9 point of view, that this is an example of another
10 amendment that is needed to the regulations.Â We need
11 to have some clarity of just how public health and
12 safety would be assessed, and I would like to know how
13 that’s being done now, and I would like you to allow
14 the gentleman to answer my question about it.
15 MS. VEST: Is the Department able to provide
16 Mr. Muller with a brief explanation of this? Yes or
17 no? I mean is the Department ready? Because the
18 Department was not geared up to answer questions about
19 their regulations as a whole tonight. We are here to
20 answer questions about the proposed amendments on the
22 MR. DALTON: I think the forum to do that is
23 to address it in comments if he wants to submit
24 comments. I think that’s the best forum for us to
1 address it under at this point.
2 MS. VEST: Okay. There is your answer, Alan.
3 MR. MULLER: So I don’t get an answer to that
5 MS. VEST: No, the answer to the question is
6 if you pose a specific question in writing to the
7 Department, they will make sure they get a response to
8 you about it, but that’s not why we are here tonight.
9 MR. MULLER: Okay, let me try another one,
10 then. There is one here under the same section
11 entitled soil quality that is a proposed amendment.
12 It’s an additional item, I believe.
13 MS. VEST: Okay.
14 MR. MULLER: Would Your Honor consider it
15 appropriate for me to ask how soil quality would be
16 assessed in the implementation of these regulations?
17 What does that mean, soil quality?
18 MS. VEST: Is the Department able to give an
19 answer to Mr. Muller ‘s question, or is that better
20 posed in a written question and response?
21 MR. DALTON: I think we can address that under
22 a written request and do it that way. I would like to
23 add, though, that these requirements are being added in
24 and being made. It’s additional requirements for the
1 facilities that’s being added in, well, soil quality is
2 being added in for landfills and infectious waste
4 We are making the criteria here equivalent for
5 all of our permitted facilities, transfer stations, for
6 landfills, infectious waste facilities. I mean we are
7 increasing the requirements, because right now some of
8 these requirements listed in the blue are not required
9 for certain facilities, and I mean we can certainly go
10 through and discuss that at length, but —
11 MR. MULLER: Well, you know, I am a citizen
12 and I came here to discuss these things, and it seems
13 to me that you folks in the Department that are
14 proposing these regulations, then you ought to be
15 prepared to discuss them.
16 Now, it makes sense to have similar criteria
17 for different types of facilities, but to merely list
18 soil quality without telling us what that means or how
19 that would be implemented in practice isn’t, in my
20 opinion, satisfactory.
21 And, if you put it in here, you must have had
22 a reason for putting it in there and some intention
23 regarding, and I would like to know what that is.
24 MS. VEST: Can the Department provide a
1 further explanation to Mr. Muller in writing if he
2 poses it as a question in writing?
3 MR. DALTON: We can do that. I can give him a
4 very short answer right now. Some of these criteria,
5 in looking at a couple facilities that were cited, were
6 found to be deficient and needed some research on some
7 of these criteria, so we added these in to cover that
8 under the application process.
9 MR. MULLER: Well, I appreciate the answer,
10 but it’s not very specific. You know, “An
11 environmental assessment shall be performed.” Is the
12 intent to set some criteria regarding acceptable soil
13 quality under a dump or around a dump, and, if so, what
14 would it be?
15 MR. DALTON: Again, I think if you want to put
16 that in writing, I think we will address it.
17 MR. MULLER: Well, you understand my problem,
18 and I will again in this hearing ask that the record be
19 held open for 30 days, but if you are going to close
20 the record and — You know, in a previous proceeding we
21 received a response from the Department in a matter of
22 hours before the record was to be closed, and it didn’t
23 provide an opportunity for a response, for dialogue,
24 for communication with the public about it, and I don’t
1 want that to happen again.
2 Alright, now, I would like to move on to
3 Section 4.4, application procedures for resource
4 recovery facilities. What kinds of facilities are
5 covered under that? I believe you guys are calling a
6 garbage incinerator a resource recovery facility? Am I
8 MR. DALTON: I am going to read you back the
9 definition from the regs. Resource recovery means the
10 process by which materials, excluding those under the
11 control of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which
12 still have useful physical or chemical properties after
13 serving specific purpose, are reused or recycled for
14 the same or another purpose, including as an energy
15 source, use as an energy source.
16 MR. MULLER: Okay, so this would include
17 incinerators with energy recovery?
18 MR. DALTON: And resource recovery facility
19 means a facility that is either a materials recovery
20 facility or a thermal recovery facility.
21 MR. MULLER:Â Well, we throw a lot of terms
22 around here.Â I am just trying to get clear about
23 whether this is intended to cover a garbage
1 MR. DALTON: I am not as familiar with this,
2 Karen. (Handing to Ms. J’Anthony)
3 MS. J’ANTHONY: Alan, I will read you the
4 definition of thermal recovery. It’s a facility
5 designed to thermally break down solid waste and to
6 recover energy from the solid waste.
7 MR. MULLER: Well, again, I appreciate that,
8 but, you know, we have had quite recently over the
9 years many campaigns by the Delaware Solid Waste
10 Authority to bring back garbage incineration, and so we
11 look at this regulation and say suppose they did that,
12 you know, what regulations would apply, what would you
13 guys do? So I am asking you a common-sense question.
14 If a garbage incinerator was to be proposed or
15 permitted, would it be considered to come under this
16 section of the regulations?
17 If you aren’t prepared to answer, I will move
19 MR. DALTON:Â Well, this would be part of the
20 application requirements for the facility. This is
21 under Section 4, the permit and application
22 requirements and permit administrative requirements.
23 MR. MULLER: Okay.
24 MS. J’ANTHONY: I would like to make one more
1 comment. Before an incinerator, actually a solid waste
2 incinerator could be entertained, there is criteria in
3 Chapter 60, and the DSWA or whoever decides that they
4 want to operate an incinerator would have to
5 demonstrate they achieved the Chapter 60 requirements
6 before we could entertain it. And the Chapter 60
7 requirements are quite stringent.
8 MR. MULLER: Are you talking about an air
9 permit, for example?
10 MS. J’ANTHONY: No, in 7 Delaware Code,
11 Chapter 60, there are definitions for incinerator, and
12 it also describes the citing criteria for incinerators.
13 And before anyone could ask us to evaluate a permit for
14 an incinerator, they would have to demonstrate that
15 they could achieve this Chapter 60 requirements.
16 MR. MULLER:Â Well, that’s true, Karen, and our
17 organization has something to do with the writing of
18 those requirements, but there are people trying to roll
19 them back, and I am here tonight and this is a hearing
20 on the Delaware Regulations Governing Solid Waste, and
21 so my question has simply been one, and I am trying to
22 get an answer, to how would the Solid and Hazardous
23 Waste Branch address an incinerator, and there doesn’t
24 seem to be a lot of clarity there, so I will move on.
1 Section 4.5 is entitled application procedures
2 for transfer facilities, and there is a lot here that I
3 won’t continue with, but, as a practical matter, and
4 again I am a practical person, I think the regulations
5 should deal with the issues that actually exist in
7 There is a recycling operation in the City of
8 Wilmington being operated by Recycle Bank, and I think
9 that the recyclables are going to a facility operated
10 by Blue Mountain, and I think there is a transfer
11 station involved, and I was told by Recycle Bank that
12 the facility there for transferring the recyclables was
13Â Â Â exempt from permitting as a transfer station in
14Â Â Â Delaware, and I would like to know if that is the case
15Â Â Â and, if so, you know, have you proposed to change that
16Â Â Â or is it your view that that kind of a facility should
17Â Â Â continue to be exempt from permitting or regulation as
18Â Â Â a transfer station?
19Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MS. VEST:Â Is there anybody here from the
20Â Â Â Department that would be ready to answer or offer any
21Â Â Â kind of answer for Mr. Muller on that?
22Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MR. DALTON:Â There are exclusions under
23Â Â Â Section 10 for transfer stations for exemptions.Â I
24Â Â Â don’t know the specifics on the facility you are
1Â Â Â talking about.Â I can read through the exemptions, if
2Â Â Â you would like, but they are in Section 10.Â Well,
3Â Â Â actually, the old section.Â I need the new numbering on
4Â Â Â that.
5Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MS. VEST:Â Is this section at all involved
6Â Â Â with these proposed amendments?
7Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MR. DALTON:Â Not at all.
8Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MR. DAVIS:Â Not even in the discussion.
9Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MS. VEST:Â Move on, Mr. Muller.
10Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MR. MULLER:Â Well, I am not quite ready to
11Â Â Â move on yet, because I have a point, which is a
12Â Â Â facility is being operated, it appears to me a transfer
13Â Â Â station is being operated, and if it’s exempt from
14Â Â Â these regulations, it may be that there aren’t, in
15Â Â Â fact, adequate protections regarding these items that
16Â Â Â we have, such as air quality, water quality and so on.
17Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â And we don’t want to see life being made more
18Â Â Â difficult for the development of the recycling industry
19Â Â Â in Delaware, but I do think it raises a legitimate
20Â Â Â question regarding what should be exempted and what
21Â Â Â should not be.
22Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â So my suggestion is that, you know, I would
23Â Â Â like to see a response on that point.Â It appears to me
24Â Â Â that the Department’s answer is that you are not
1Â Â Â proposing to alter the exemptions, and I think another
2Â Â Â look should be taken at that.Â I would like to have a
3Â Â Â response on that.
4Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MS. J’ANTHONY:Â I have one response on that.
5Â Â Â Just to assist us, can we have the name of this
6Â Â Â facility that’s operating intentionally a transfer
7Â Â Â station without a permit?
8Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MR. MULLER:Â Well, I am not alleging that they
9Â Â Â are engaging in violations.Â I am suggesting that maybe
10Â Â Â it really is a transfer station even though it’s exempt
11Â Â Â from the regulations.
12Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â And I don’t know the name of the facility.Â I
13Â Â Â know that the City of Wilmington is delivering
14Â Â Â materials there and they go to Recycle Bank for
15Â Â Â processing in the Philadelphia area.
16Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â And, you know, my suggestion is that the
17Â Â Â nature of that facility needs to be looked at and a
18Â Â Â decision needs to be made about whether, in fact, some
19Â Â Â kind of permitting should be required for that.Â And I
20Â Â Â don’t know the answer, but I see that it isn’t
21Â Â Â addressed here, and I think it ought to be.
22Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â But I will get you, Karen, a more specific
23Â Â Â name or address for the facility.
24Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MS. J’ANTHONY:Â Okay, that would be helpful.
1Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MR. MULLER:Â Okay, now, Amendment 3 speaks to
2Â Â Â industrial landfills and liner.Â Now, there is a
3Â Â Â proceeding going on now involving the reissuance of
4Â Â Â permits for a coal ash dump at DuPont Edgemoor Plant?
5Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MS. VEST:Â And I am not going to entertain any
6Â Â Â comments or questions in this record on that.Â That’s
7Â Â Â another matter entirely.
8Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MR. MULLER:Â Well, I don’t think so, Lisa,
9Â Â Â because here we are, Amendment 3, liner, general
10Â Â Â provisions, but this is a facility that has no liner
11Â Â Â and DNREC is proposing to re-issue the permit.
12 MS. VEST:Â Alan, I am not going to give you
13Â Â Â much more leeway on this.Â We are not going to talk
14Â Â Â about Pigeon Point, Cherry Hill, DuPont Edgemoor.
15Â Â Â These are comments on the regulations at hand.Â I am
16Â Â Â not going to let you bring them in in a sideways
17Â Â Â manner.
18 If you have comments or concerns about the
19Â Â Â proposed amendments, we will entertain them.Â If you
20Â Â Â have additional comments that you wish the Department
21Â Â Â to elaborate on, such as explanations or definitions
22Â Â Â contained within the amendments, we will certainly
23Â Â Â entertain those, but I will put a stop to you bringing
24Â Â Â in other matters inclusive into this record.Â It’s not
1Â Â Â going to happen.
2Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MR. MULLER:Â Well, I realize, Lisa, that short
3Â Â Â of a humongous wrangle, it’s going to be very
4Â Â Â difficult, but my point was to establish a context and
5Â Â Â to point out why Amendment 3 on industrial landfills is
6Â Â Â unsatisfactory, because there are issues in Delaware
7Â Â Â right now involving industrial landfills that need
8Â Â Â liners and don’t have them.Â And the only provision
9Â Â Â here does not appear to me to address that, and the
10Â Â Â issue needs to be addressed.
11Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The issue that needs to be addressed is that
12Â Â Â any landfill of that kind that is now operating without
13Â Â Â a liner should not get a new permit and should not be
14Â Â Â continued to operate, should not be allowed to continue
15Â Â Â to operate without a liner.
16Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MS. VEST:Â And I would certainly encourage you
17Â Â Â to put that in part of your written comments to the
18Â Â Â secretary, Allen, but I have to ask you to move along.
19Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MR. MULLER:Â Well, Lisa, the point of this
20Â Â Â hearing is supposed to be to establish a record.
21Â Â Â That’s why we have a court reporter here.Â That’s why I
22Â Â Â am here testifying, and you keep telling me to shut up
23Â Â Â and go home and write it, and —
24Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MS. VEST:Â Nobody is telling —
1Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MR. MULLER:Â — I think you’re violating the
2Â Â Â intent of the law under which this hearing is being
3Â Â Â held, and I would like my objection to that to be, I
4Â Â Â hope, noted by everyone in the room.
5Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MS. VEST:Â Duly noted.
6Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MR. MULLER:Â Alright, now, with regard to
7Â Â Â infectious waste, I don’t understand everything that is
8Â Â Â in here.Â I had a couple of questions.Â We have an item
9Â Â Â entitled exemptions, which is Section 11.4, and
10Â Â Â 18.104.22.168 is entitled food waste which are pathogenic to
11Â Â Â humans only through direct ingestion.Â In other words,
12Â Â Â you would have to eat them in order to be — Do I
13Â Â Â understand this correctly, this means that contaminated
14Â Â Â food waste would not be considered infectious waste
15Â Â Â unless you have to eat it in order to be harmed by it?
16Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MS. VEST:Â Is the Department able to offer an
17Â Â Â answer at this time to Mr. Muller?
18Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MR. DAVIS:Â Unfortunately, the regulations
19Â Â Â aren’t being amended.
20Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MS. VEST:Â I have to ask you to move on,
21Â Â Â Mr. Muller.
22Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MR. MULLER:Â Okay.Â Now — Okay, now, here is
23Â Â Â 22.214.171.124, waste consisting of human anatomical remains,
24Â Â Â including human fetal remains, managed by a licensed
1Â Â Â funeral director.
2Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Now, I have a reason for bringing this up, and
3Â Â Â I am sure, Lisa, that you are going to interrupt me as
4Â Â Â soon as I bring it up, but I will do it anyway because
5Â Â Â it’s the purpose of the hearing.
6Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MS. VEST:Â Only if it doesn’t concern that
7Â Â Â which we are here for tonight, which is the amendments.
8Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MR. MULLER:Â Well, you and I just disagree
9Â Â Â fundamentally, so let’s try to not wrangle too much,
10Â Â Â because we will get finished more quickly that way.
11Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â I have heard many complaints over the years
12Â Â Â that funeral places dispose of human blood by pouring
13Â Â Â it down the drain, and some people find that thought
14Â Â Â unappealing, particularly because the City of
15Â Â Â Wilmington pours its sewage untreated into the rivers.
16Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â So my question is does human anatomical
17Â Â Â remains, does that include blood?
18Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MS. VEST:Â Is the Department able to answer or
19Â Â Â offer a comment as to that?
20Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MR. DAVIS:Â That portion of the regulation is
21Â Â Â not open for amendment.
22Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MS. VEST:Â I am going to have to ask you to
23Â Â Â move on, Mr. Muller.
24Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MR. MULLER:Â Okay, well, I have a comment that
1Â Â Â it doesn’t seem to me that I have received an answer to
2Â Â Â that, and it seems to me that human waste, if it’s
3Â Â Â allowed to be poured down the drain, is not adequately
4Â Â Â regulated in Delaware.Â And, if this is the case, and I
5Â Â Â don’t know whether it is or not, some amendment of this
6Â Â Â part of the regulations would be appropriate.
7Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Now, there is some other stuff in here that I
8Â Â Â don’t understand, but I want to ask you all about a
9Â Â Â category of infectious agent known as prions.Â Anybody
10Â Â Â know what they are?
11Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MS. VEST:Â Alan, is this leading to a question
12Â Â Â about the proposed amendments?
13Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MR. MULLER:Â It certainly is, Lisa.
14Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MS. VEST:Â Okay.
15Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MR. MULLER:Â Prions are the infectious agents
16Â Â Â of chronic wasting disease and other kinds of illnesses
17Â Â Â that involve degeneration of the brain, and they
18Â Â Â generally can’t be disinfected by — They are not
19Â Â Â necessarily adequately disinfected by techniques that
20Â Â Â kill fungi and bugs and so on.
21Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â So my question is in these amendments and the
22Â Â Â exemptions and the tests that are here for the adequacy
23Â Â Â of disinfection, have you considered prions?
24Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MS. VEST:Â Is anybody here from the Department
1Â Â Â able to answer that?
2Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MS. J’ANTHONY:Â I think that would be best put
3Â Â Â in writing.
4Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MR. MULLER:Â Well, I am putting it right here
5Â Â Â now verbally.
6Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MS. VEST:Â Well, Alan, once again the
7Â Â Â Department is trying to entertain your questions.Â We
8Â Â Â are not saying we are not going to answer them.Â We are
9Â Â Â just saying put them in writing because we weren’t
10Â Â Â coming tonight to ask questions or receive comment on
11Â Â Â everything, just the proposed amendments.Â I have to
12Â Â Â ask you to move on.
13Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MR. MULLER:Â Okay, so if I was to propose an
14Â Â Â additional amendment to the regulations, you would
15Â Â Â consider that to be —
16Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MS. VEST:Â You could certainly do that.Â You
17Â Â Â could certainly do that, propose it in writing.
18Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MR. MULLER:Â Well, I am proposing things
19Â Â Â verbally, and I don’t feel that you are listening.
20Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MS. VEST:Â The court reporter is.
21Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MR. MULLER:Â Well, I hope so.Â I think I am
22Â Â Â done except for a couple of procedural questions.Â When
23Â Â Â will the transcript be available?
24Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MS. VEST:Â The court reporter has seven days
1Â Â Â to get it to us under their contract.
2Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MR. MULLER:Â Okay, and you provide it
3Â Â Â immediately to Green Delaware?
4Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MS. VEST:Â If you want me to, I will make a
5Â Â Â note to forward it to you as soon as I get it.
6Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MR. MULLER:Â Okay, well, I am requesting that
7Â Â Â now.
8Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MS. VEST:Â Okay.
9Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MR. MULLER:Â I would like the transcript.
10Â Â Â When can I expect answers to my questions from the
11Â Â Â Department?
12Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MS. VEST:Â As soon as —
13Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MR. MULLER:Â A timetable?
14Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MS. VEST:Â Well, let me answer that with a
15Â Â Â question, Alan.Â Are you willing to make the effort and
16Â Â Â put them in writing to us?
17Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MR. MULLER:Â Well, I don’t know that I want to
18Â Â Â repeat in writing the questions that I have put on the
19Â Â Â record now.
20Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MS. VEST:Â Well, then, we have to wait and get
21Â Â Â the transcript.Â If you are not going to make that step
22Â Â Â and put them in writing and we have to rely on the
23Â Â Â transcript, then the Department is going to have to
24Â Â Â have an opportunity to review the transcript.
1Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MR. MULLER:Â Well, I agree, so what kind of
2Â Â Â schedule are we looking at?
3Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MS. VEST:Â Again, Alan, I am not inclined to
4Â Â Â let the record stay open beyond October 31.Â This
5Â Â Â matter was workshopped.Â I understand, you know, if you
6Â Â Â didn’t have a chance to put them in writing before
7Â Â Â tonight, but this has been on the Department’s
8Â Â Â calendar, it’s been out there for quite sometime, it’s
9Â Â Â been on my calendar for two months, so I don’t know why
10Â Â Â you are not able to offer the stuff in writing.
11Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MR. MULLER:Â Well, I am asking you, Lisa, when
12Â Â Â is the Department able to respond to the questions that
13Â Â Â I have raised, and maybe you should ask the people who
14Â Â Â are going to have to prepare the responses.
15Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MS. VEST:Â Well, again, to the extent that
16Â Â Â they are related to the subject matter at hand tonight,
17Â Â Â what is an adequate timetable for the Department, if
18Â Â Â Mr. Muller were to get them to us in five working days?
19Â Â Â Or does the Department believe that all of his
20Â Â Â questions are outside the scope of tonight’s hearing?
21Â Â Â Is there anything that the Department would wish to
22Â Â Â elaborate on that would be considered within the scope
23Â Â Â of these proposed amendments tonight, or are these just
24Â Â Â questions in general?
1Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â What is your feel on that?Â I am not asking
2Â Â Â you to make a legal decision.Â I am just asking you
3Â Â Â what you guys feel on that.
4Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Questions such as the general questions that
5Â Â Â we started tonight, quite honestly, my ruling is that
6Â Â Â they are outside the scope of this hearing, so when the
7Â Â Â Department could respond to them, Alan, they will
8Â Â Â respond to them, but it doesn’t necessarily affect the
9Â Â Â timetable of these regulatory amendments.
10Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MR. MULLER:Â So you are announcing a ruling
11Â Â Â that every one of the questions that I posed is outside
12Â Â Â the scope of this hearing?
13Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MS. VEST:Â No, I didn’t say that.
14Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MR. MULLER:Â I thought you did.
15Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MS. VEST:Â I said to the extent that any of
16Â Â Â your questions are outside of the scope of the proposed
17Â Â Â amendments, it would not affect the timetable of this
18Â Â Â particular regulatory proceeding.
19Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MR. MULLER:Â Well —
20Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MS. VEST:Â I am going to have to ask you,
21Â Â Â Alan, I am going to be frank with you.Â This matter has
22Â Â Â been on the calendar for over two months now, and
23Â Â Â if you are not willing to put your questions set forth
24Â Â Â in writing, I am not going to force the Department to
1Â Â Â give you a response on when you are going to get them.
2Â Â Â And right now I have not seen anything that you have
3Â Â Â offered that would cause me to extend the record beyond
4Â Â Â October 31.
5Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MR. MULLER:Â Okay, well, I just have a closing
6Â Â Â statement that — I think — May I do that?
7Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MS. VEST:Â Sure.
8Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MR. MULLER:Â And I will be done.
9Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MS. VEST:Â Sure.
10Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MR. MULLER:Â I guess I have participated in
11Â Â Â quite a number of DNREC public hearings over the course
12Â Â Â of the last 15 years, and this is one of the most
13Â Â Â insulting and unsatisfactory proceedings that I have
14Â Â Â had the displeasure of participating in, not only
15Â Â Â procedurally with the constant interruptions and
16Â Â Â insults from the hearing officer, but the fact that the
17Â Â Â material presented is so utterly unsatisfactory and
18Â Â Â that the Department has not been able to provide
19Â Â Â meaningful answers to even the most rudimentary
20Â Â Â questions, with a few exceptions.
21Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â It’s very disappointing, it’s extremely
22Â Â Â discreditable to the Department, and it raises the
23Â Â Â question in my mind of when, if ever, are we going to
24Â Â Â see improvements in the management of solid waste in
1Â Â Â Delaware with the attitudes that have been expressed
2Â Â Â here tonight.
3Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â I mean two members of the public who have some
4Â Â Â knowledge of this came, and we came because this is a
5Â Â Â public hearing.Â It is held under a Delaware statute,
6Â Â Â and the statute says that the purpose of the hearing is
7Â Â Â to establish a record, to provide a basis for a
8Â Â Â decision.
9Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The statute doesn’t say anything about
10Â Â Â workshops.Â Workshops have no legal significance under
11Â Â Â Delaware law.
12Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â So I can’t say I am surprised, but I am
13Â Â Â disappointed.Â I think you can do better.Â And I think
14Â Â Â that those of you who have a desire to be part of
15Â Â Â running a competent regulatory agency ought to try to
16Â Â Â do that.
17Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â I think that I have been systematically
18Â Â Â obstructed and prevented from offering testimony that
19Â Â Â needs to be offered.Â I would like to see responses to
20Â Â Â these questions.Â I would like to see the record remain
21Â Â Â open for two weeks from the date of the Department’s
22Â Â Â response to my questions, and I base that specifically
23Â Â Â on the recent experience I mentioned in which we
24Â Â Â received partial responses approximately six hours
1Â Â Â before the record was scheduled to close.
2Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â That is not the way one operates in good
3Â Â Â faith.Â That’s not the way one allows public
4Â Â Â participation in decision making.Â That’s the way one
5Â Â Â creates a farce.Â And, with that, I will end my
6Â Â Â comments.Â Thank you for listening to me.
7Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â MS. VEST:Â Thank you, Alan.Â Again, for the
8Â Â Â record, I would request that if there are any specific
9Â Â Â questions or comments that you want to make sure get
10Â Â Â noted in the record that pertain to these hearings, you
11Â Â Â can feel free to add to what you have presented tonight
12Â Â Â as part of the record.
13Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The record will be open for receipt of public
14Â Â Â comments through the close of business on October 31.
15Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Is there anybody here tonight other than
16Â Â Â Mr. Muller that wanted to offer comments or questions
17Â Â Â regarding these proposed hearings or regulations?
18Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Okay, that being said, I want to thank
19Â Â Â everybody for coming out tonight.Â Obviously, the
20Â Â Â information presented tonight will be included as part
21Â Â Â of the overall record for the Secretary’s review.Â The
22Â Â Â time is 7:23, and this hearing is adjourned.
23Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â (Concluded at 7:23 p.m.)
1Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â CERTIFICATE
2Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â I, Lorena J. Hartnett, a Notary Public
3Â Â and Registered Professional Reporter, do hereby
4Â Â certify that the foregoing is an accurate and
5Â Â complete transcription of the proceeding held at
6Â Â the time and place stated herein, and that the said
7Â Â proceeding was recorded by me and then reduced to
8Â Â typewriting under my direction, and constitutes a true
9Â Â record of the testimony given by said witnesses.
10Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â I further certify that I am not a relative,
11Â Â employee, or attorney of any of the parties or a
12Â Â relative or employee of either counsel, and that I am
13Â Â in no way interested directly or indirectly in this
14Â Â action.
15Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
16Â Â hand and affixed my seal of office on this 25th day of
17Â Â October 2007.
21Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â ___________________________
22Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Lorena J. Hartnett, R.P.R.
23Â Â Â Â Â Reporter Certificate #134-RPR, Exp. 01-31-2008