1
EXHIBIT 99.2
BCP A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
BORDEN CHEMICALS and PLASTICS
OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
BCP Management, Inc., General Partner NEWS
CONTACT: Marshall Owens FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(504) 673-0671 October 27, 1994
BCP CHALLENGES EPA FINDINGS
GEISMAR, Louisiana -- Borden Chemicals and Plastics Operating Limited
Partnership (BCP) today charged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with
making "retroactive changes" in hazardous waste regulations that violate the
"basic concepts of fairness and due process."
"It is simply wrong to allow a federal agency to retroactively change
the rules on what constitutes hazardous waste and then attempt to punish a
business because it was not in compliance before the rules were changed," said
Wayne Leonard, BCP's vice president and general manager.
BCP claims it is being sued by EPA because it relied on the legal
determination of hazardous waste, as confirmed by the Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ), at the time it began shipping catalyst off-site
for processing and reuse. The central issue in the lawsuit is what
constitutes - or does not constitute - hazardous waste.
-more-
P.O. BOX 427, GEISMAR, LA 70734 * TELEPHONE (504) 673-6121
2
2-2-2
When BCP began shipping the partially-depleted catalyst back to the
manufacturer for processing, Leonard said it was costing BCP four times as much
as it would have to dispose of it as waste material. "We didn't ship the
material to be processed beause it was cheaper," Leonard said, "we did it
because we felt it was the proper thing to do for the environment."
In 1993, DEQ confirmed that the catalyst was not a hazardous waste.
And even though DEQ is the EPA's delegated agent in Louisiana for administering
the hazardous waste program, EPA disagreed with the state agency.
On May 5, 1994, BCP filed suit in federal court against EPA asking for
a declaratory judgment to uphold DEQ's decision. After the lawsuit was filed
and after BCP ceased shipments to the manufacturer, DEQ abruptly reversed
itself. BCP's lawsuit against the EPA is still pending.
"No industry in America should be asked to comply with regulations that
can be changed retroactively and without notice," Leonard said.
EPA also claims that a more than $20 million program under which BCP
agreed to remediate contaminated shallow groundwater (not used for household
purposes) is inadequate even though the program was approved by DEQ in 1985.
BCP says management is not aware of evidence that the groundwater or hazardous
waste issues addressed by EPA in its lawsuit have resulted in any contamination
or injury in the the neighboring community. In fact, the evidence is to the
contrary based on DEQ and other independendent potable water surveys.
The EPA's lawsuit was filed more than two years after EPA conducted a
"multi-media" inspection of the BCP facility in Geismar and seven years after
EPA made its initial review of the issues.
BCP employs approximately 700 workers in the Geismar area.
# # #
3
BCP A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
BORDEN CHEMICALS and PLASTICS
OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
BCP Management, Inc., General Partner
MEDIA STATEMENT
BCP CHALLENGES EPA FINDINGS
Wayne Leonard, vice president and general manager of Borden Chemicals and
Plastics, issued the following statement today regarding the lawsuit filed
against BCP by the Department of Justice on behalf of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
For additional information, please contact Marshall Owens, BCP's
director of manufacturing, at 504-673-0671.
The lawsuit filed against BCP by the Environmental Protection Agency today
constitutes a retroactive change in regulations that violates basic concepts of
fairness and due process.
We are being sued because we relied in good faith on the government's
definition of hazardous waste in effect at the time we took action.
We are being sued after complying with reasonable interpretations of all
applicable regulations and spending more than $20 million on environmental
cleanup programs. And, management is not aware of evidence that the
groundwater or hazardous waste issues addressed by EPA in its lawsuit have
resulted in contamination or injury in the neighboring community. In fact, the
evidence is to the contrary based on DEQ and other independent potable water
surveys.
At issue in the lawsuit is what constitutes - or does not constitute -
hazardous waste.
In 1993, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) confirmed that
the partially-depleted mercuric chloride catalyst we were shipping back to the
manufacturer for processing was not a hazardous waste. And even though DEQ is
the EPA's delegated agent in Louisiana for administering the hazardous waste
program, EPA disagreed with the state agency.
P.O. BOX 427, GEISMAR, LA 70734 * TELEPHONE (504) 673-6121
4
Page two/Leonard
On May 5, 1994, we filed suit in federal court against EPA asking for a
declaratory judgment to uphold DEQ's decision. After the lawsuit was filed and
after BCP ceased shipments to the manufacturer, DEQ abruptly reversed itself.
This reversal was contrary to facts established in the record before DEQ. We
believe penalties are unwarranted here because the EPA's own director of the
Office of Solid Waste has said that "the regulatory language is not as clear as
we would like it to be." BCP's lawsuit against the EPA is still pending.
No industry in America should be asked to comply with regulations that can be
changed retroactively and without notice.
The EPA's charge that our reprocessing activities somehow gave us an unfair
competitive advantage is incorrect. When BCP began shipping catalyst back to
the manufacturer for processing, it was costing us four times as much as it
would have to bury it in a landfilll. We didn't ship the material to be
processed because it was cheaper, we did it because we felt like it was the
proper thing to do for the environment.
The EPA's lawsuit was filed more that two years after EPA conducted a
"multi-media" inspection of the BCP facility in Geismar. And the EPA has been
well aware of many issues addressed in its lawsuit for at least seven years.
Over the past several months, we have negotiated with the EPA in good faith and
we have made every reasonable effort to resolve our differences, but to no
avail.
At this point, we intend to vigorously defend the action and pursue our legal
rights to the ful extent of the law.
If the EPA wants to redefine what it considers to be waste, it should follow
the legal procedures required for all federal agencies and the redefinition
should apply only to future activities.
It is simply wrong to allow a federal agency to retroactively change the rules
on what constitutes hazardous waste and then atempt to punish a business
because it was not in compliance before the rules were changed.
# # #