Read past stories on the Bayer CropScience explosion here.  

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Bayer CropScience lacked a required permit for the chemical tank that blew up last August and killed two workers, state Department of Environmental Protection officials said Wednesday.

DEP Secretary Randy Huffman said his agency's inspectors have determined the tank should have had a hazardous waste permit under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

"That tank is not exempt from RCRA," Huffman said. "Obviously, Bayer disagrees with that. They thought it was exempt."

Mike Zeto, DEP's chief inspector, wrote to Bayer about the issue on Friday.

"It does not appear that Bayer's RT tank is exempt from regulations under RCRA as a recycling process," Zeto wrote. "The tank is a fully regulated tank as defined under RCRA, therefore, future operation of this and similar tank(s) need to be to be properly managed under RCRA."

Bayer spokesman Tom Dover said that the company has received Zeto's letter.

"We are in the process of reviewing it and understanding the impact of their directions before we restart those operations in the future," Dover said.

Huffman said his agency has not cited Bayer for the problem, and is waiting for company officials to provide additional information before taking any action.

"If they were planning to start [that unit] up again next week, then there would be more of a sense of urgency," Huffman said.

DEP has been going back and forth with Bayer on the issue since last October, when agency inspectors visited the Institute plant as part of their follow-up to the deadly Aug. 29, 2008, explosion.

Read past stories on the Bayer CropScience explosion here.  

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Bayer CropScience lacked a required permit for the chemical tank that blew up last August and killed two workers, state Department of Environmental Protection officials said Wednesday.

DEP Secretary Randy Huffman said his agency's inspectors have determined the tank should have had a hazardous waste permit under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

"That tank is not exempt from RCRA," Huffman said. "Obviously, Bayer disagrees with that. They thought it was exempt."

Mike Zeto, DEP's chief inspector, wrote to Bayer about the issue on Friday.

"It does not appear that Bayer's RT tank is exempt from regulations under RCRA as a recycling process," Zeto wrote. "The tank is a fully regulated tank as defined under RCRA, therefore, future operation of this and similar tank(s) need to be to be properly managed under RCRA."

Bayer spokesman Tom Dover said that the company has received Zeto's letter.

"We are in the process of reviewing it and understanding the impact of their directions before we restart those operations in the future," Dover said.

Huffman said his agency has not cited Bayer for the problem, and is waiting for company officials to provide additional information before taking any action.

"If they were planning to start [that unit] up again next week, then there would be more of a sense of urgency," Huffman said.

DEP has been going back and forth with Bayer on the issue since last October, when agency inspectors visited the Institute plant as part of their follow-up to the deadly Aug. 29, 2008, explosion.

Among other things, DEP inspectors were asking questions about the Bayer Methomyl unit's "residue treater," a 4,500-gallon tank where the explosion occurred.

In the tank, Bayer heated and condensed waste Methomyl from its pesticide processes. The resulting material was then piped to the plant powerhouse, where it was burned.

Investigators from the U.S. Chemical Safety Board said last week that an undersized heater, incorrect mixture in the tank, and routine bypassing of key safety protections led to a runaway reaction that overwhelmed the tank's emergency vents and blew up the vessel.

Huffman said if Bayer didn't list the tank on its RCRA permit applications and other documents submitted to DEP, agency officials "would not even have looked at it as something that needed to be in the permit."

"We've had people in that plant doing RCRA inspections and so has [the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency]," said Tom Fisher, DEP's assistant director of Environmental Enforcement. "Of course, when you're in the plant, there are dozens of tanks."

Fisher and Huffman said nothing about the lack of a RCRA permit would have anything to do with the causes of -- or prevent of -- the explosion and fire last August.

Huffman said his agency "would not have had the expertise under RCRA" to pick up on issues about whether the heater unit on the tank or the emergency vents were adequate.

Carol Amend, associate director in EPA's regional land enforcement office, said a RCRA permit review generally would include an assessment of the tank's integrity, periodic inspection requirements, and a mandate for certain types of secondary containment, such as dikes.

"All of that gets to leaks and releases," Amend said.

@tag:Reach Ken Ward Jr. at kw...@wvgazette.com or 304-348-1702.