|
BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUE
www.BREDL.org
~ PO Box 88 Glendale Springs, North Carolina
28629 ~ Phone (336) 982-2691 ~ Fax (336) 982-2954
~ Email: BREDL@skybest.com
March 12, 2002
Ms. Valeria V. Willing, Division of Engineering
Services
Bureau of Air Quality
South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, South Carolina, 29201
Re: Part 70 Air Quality Permit Number:
TV-1860-0038
Georgia-Pacific Corporation - Holly Hill, South
Carolina Fiberboard Plant
Dear Ms. Willing:
On behalf of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense
League, I write to comment on the draft Title V
permit for Georgia-Pacific Corporation - Holly
Hill and to request that the Bureau of Air
Quality extend the public comment period for 30
days before issuing this permit.
GENERAL COMMENTS
Title V permits are meant to reduce confusion by
including all applicable requirements that apply
to a given source. The operating permit program
is designed to define compliance, not just
applicable standards. The permit must list all
applicable requirements including monitoring,
methods of testing, semi-annual reporting, and
annual compliance certification. Compliance is
determined by monitoring conditions with respect
to an associated standard. If there is no federal
standard for monitoring requirements, averaging
times, or record keeping, Title V directs the
state to determine them. This monitoring
provision allows the state, the operator, and the
public to know if the facility is in compliance
with emission standards. According to the US EPA
OAQP&S, “In effect, title V makes
compliance a matter of corporate
responsibility.”
Although we are still waiting for additional
documents from the DHEC regarding the
Georgia-Pacific Title V permit, at this point we
believe that the draft permit’s compliance
with federal standards depends on a 1996 consent
decree between US EPA and Georgia-Pacific. By its
very definition, a consent order means
non-compliance. Moreover, the requirement of
official review to determine prevention of
significant deterioration simply cannot be
avoided. PSD Review must precede Title V
permitting in this matter. Since the Title V
permit must assure compliance, at this point we
believe that this proposed permit is not
federally enforceable.
Our staff has been invited to Holly Hill to
review in person the multiple air pollution
sources which have been permitted by DHEC. In
alliance with CORE (Community Organization for
Rights and Empowerment), we are concerned about
the multiple and synergistic health impacts.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Control of Visible Emissions - 61-62.5
Standard No.1, Section I
Opacity limits are based on the date of
manufacture. The draft permit does not record a
date of construction for the Holly Hill facility.
Facilities made before July 1, 1971 must not
exceed 40% opacity; more recently manufactured
plants are limited to 20% opacity. In any case,
the permit must state the basis for this limit.
Emission Unit Requirements - 61-62.5
Standard No. 7
The permit (excerpt below) states that the weekly
and monthly production limits are based on a
consent decree.
PERMIT 5.E.5.
Per the Consent Decree between the US EPA
and Georgia-Pacific Corporation dated
July 18, 1996, the facility will limit
monthly production to 12.31 million SF
(3/4" basis) for five-week months
and 9.85 million SF (3/4" basis) for
four-week months. The plant shall be
limited to a weekly production rate of
2.8 million SF (3/4" basis). This
limit was set to avoid a PSD review for
the installation of the two (2) flash
tube dryer
The
state cannot permit non-compliance; the avoidance
of PSD is an insufficient basis upon which to
determine the production limits, and is
unenforceable as a practical matter.
We plan to submit additional comments.
Respectfully submitted,
Louis A. Zeller
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUE
www.BREDL.org
~ PO Box 88 Glendale Springs, North Carolina
28629 ~ Phone (336) 982-2691 ~ Fax (336) 982-2954
~ Email: BREDL@skybest.com
April 11, 2002
James A. Joy III, Bureau Chief
Bureau of Air Quality
South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Re: Part 70 Air Quality Permit No.
TV-1860-0038
Georgia-Pacific Corporation-Holly Hill, South
Carolina Fiberboard Plant
Dear Mr. Joy:
On behalf of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense
League, I write to provide further comments on
the draft Title V permit for Georgia-Pacific
Corporation’s Holly Hill plant. These
remarks are in addition to our comments submitted
March 12, 2002. Allow me to begin by thanking you
for extending the public comment period for this
permit. We have used this additional time to gain
access to documents necessary for a more complete
understanding of the permit and the fiberboard
plant.
As you know, in November 1996 the US EPA entered
into a consent decree which settled its
“long-running dispute with Georgia-Pacific
regarding PSD violations.” The EPA said that
the company had failed to obtain permits for
major modifications at 18 facilities, including
the Holly Hill MDF plant, causing significant
amounts of volatile organic compounds to be
emitted without pollution controls.
Georgia-Pacific (G-P) paid a civil penalty of $6
million for violations of the Clean Air Act which
occurred in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Virginia.
For the G-P facility in Holly Hill, the
consequences of this consent decree are 1) weekly
and monthly production limits for medium density
fiberboard and 2) a Clean Air Act audit.
Production Limits
The draft permit Part 6.B.5 sets maximum monthly
and weekly production rates for medium density
fiberboard (MDF) for the purpose of avoiding
major source thresholds embodied in the Clean Air
Act. Avoidance of PSD review and other
requirements via production limits in the permit
may comply with consent decree instructions, but
assurance of regulatory compliance and questions
of enforceability require more. The consent
decree resolves the United States’ claims
against the company, but the agreement is the
result of a compromise in which both parties
settle for less than what they want. But a Title
V permit granted by South Carolina must comply
with 100% of DHEC and EPA regulations; therefore,
the state can and should go beyond the baseline
suggested by the consent decree signed by
Georgia-Pacific and the Department of Justice. To
be considered federally enforceable, Title V
permit conditions must be based on federal law or
the state SIP. Further, permit terms and
conditions must be practicably enforceable to be
considered federally enforceable.
The G-P Holly Hill plant has the potential to
emit 397.7 tons per year of volatile organic
compounds; it is a major source and must undergo
PSD revue. The draft permit states: “Air
dispersion modeling (or other method) has
demonstrated that this facility’s operation
will not interfere with the attainment and
maintenance of any state or federal
standard.” (Draft Permit Section 4.B.2)
However, the EPA’s AP-42 Emissions Factors
for MDF plant are not finalized making
DHEC’s computer modeling which depends on
them an unreliable predictor of pollution levels.
Although computer modeling may be useful when
permitting a new facility which has no track
record, operating plants have specific emissions
data which are more reliable than computer
simulations. Tests of ambient levels of pollution
will also help determine compliance with NAAQS.
Georgia-Pacific should be required to do a more
comprehensive analysis of the impact of its Holly
Hill plant on public health.
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are hazardous
to human health. In the atmosphere VOCs react
with nitrogen oxides to form ground-level ozone,
or smog, which damages the lungs. Children and
adults with asthma, lung disease, and heart
disease are most vulnerable, but even healthy
adults are affected when ozone levels are high.
To assure regulatory compliance and protect
public health recordkeeping and reporting must
include more than the total number of square feet
of MDF produced. To limit VOC emissions, DHEC
should require G-P to record and report 1)
monthly consumption of all materials used
containing VOCs. These records would include the
VOC and/or individual HAP content of each
material; 2) total VOC and individual HAP
emissions on a monthly basis; 3) annual
inventories of VOC totals and total VOC emissions
for the previous year. These data should be
compiled in a rolling average.
The plant must comply with air quality
regulations at all times. To assure compliance
the state may go beyond minimum requirements. The
consent decree does not limit the state’s
power or foreclose this type of action.
Clean Air Act Audit
In addition to production limits, the 1996
Consent Decree established an environmental audit
process at the Holly Hill plant to remedy
existing problems and to prevent their
re-occurrence. The consent decree between US EPA
and Georgia-Pacific (G-P) states:
G-P has submitted to
the United States for review a summary
description of its
environmental audit program, including
the procedures and protocol, and the
United States has agreed that G-P’s
current audit program will satisfy the
requirements of this Part IV.D. of this
Consent Decree. (Consent Decree
paragraph 31)
Part
IV.D is the section on environmental audits. The
audit program evaluates recordkeeping,
operations, and pollution controls. The scope of
the audits is detailed in paragraph 34 of the
consent decree and includes “applicable
permit terms and conditions” and
“technical issues that affect the ability of
the plant to comply with all applicable
requirements of the Act, including state and
Federal regulations and permit terms and
conditions issued pursuant to the Act.” The
consent decree is critical to continuous
enforcement of state and federal law.
The entire decree must be included in this
permit, either by reference or in its entirety,
in order for its stipulations to continue to be
federally enforceable. Otherwise, pollution
reduction measures extant at the beginning of the
permit could become less stringent or cease
functioning when the consent decree expires.
We request that the information submitted under
the consent agreement by Georgia-Pacific’s
third party auditor to EPA be submitted to DHEC
and that a list of interested parties be notified
of all periodic audit reports. The permit must
stipulate that the Audit Summary Report required
by Consent Decree paragraph 42 not be subject to
confidentiality provisions in the state’s
environmental audit law. Also, these documents
should be made accessible to the residents of
Holly Hill at a public place such as a library or
town hall. Further, we request that the
information be subject to freedom of information
and public records laws. The residents of Holly
Hill are affected persons who have a direct
interest in the operation of the Georgia-Pacific
MDF plant. According to EPA guidance documents,
the provision for a Clean Air Act Audit is
indicated under the following circumstances:
A pattern
of violations can be attributed, at least
in part, to the absence or poor
functioning of an environmental
management system; or
The type
or nature of violations indicates a
likelihood that similar
noncompliance problems may exist or occur
elsewhere in the facility or at other
facilities operated by the regulated
entity." 51 Fed. Reg. 25007 (1986). 1
Georgia-Pacific
plainly fits the above conditions. Thorough,
independent assessment of their environmental
compliance would be assisted by an informed
public. This would aid state and federal agencies
attempts to remedy root causes of noncompliance.
Citizens would continue to be watchful long after
the consent decree has expired. Routine
inspections by a diligent DHEC will never be able
to match the ability of people who live within
sight of the Holly Hill plant to observe and
report on local conditions. EPA’s guidance
supports this:
A settlement’s
audit requirements may end after the
party meets the agreed-upon
schedule for implementing them.
Nevertheless, the Agency expects that
most
audit programs established through
settlements will continue beyond the life
of
the settlement. After the settlement
expires, the success of those programs
may be
monitored indirectly through the routine
inspection process. 1
State
and federal resources are limited, and the audit
process relies on certification by a third party.
We cannot rely upon Georgia-Pacific, a repeated
violator of NAAQS, to report on its compliance
with the law. The fox cannot guard the henhouse.
SC Environmental Audit Privilege
The SC Environmental Audit Privilege law, Title
48 Chapter 57, grants confidentiality and
protection from penalties to permit holders in
return for self-disclosure of environmental
compliance violations. Section 48-57-110 states:
“No state or local governmental rule,
regulation, guidance, policy, or permit condition
may circumvent or limit the privileges
established by this chapter or the exercise of
the privileges or the presumption and immunity
established by this chapter.” However, the
state’s audit privilege is not part of the
State Implementation Plan and cannot supercede
federal provisions for statements of compliance
status, for notice of modifications to the
facility’s environmental compliance
management programs, and/or disclosure of
exceedences of applicable permit limits.
The November 1996 consent decree between EPA and
G-P states, “This Consent Decree is not a
permit; compliance with its terms does not
guarantee compliance with all applicable Federal,
State, or Local laws or regulations.” (CD
paragraph 71) The consent decree does not enlarge
the rights of Georgia-Pacific against any third
parties including the public.
Rather than improve compliance, the South
Carolina environmental audit privilege undermines
enforcement of regulations and denies the pubic
its right-to-know. Disclosure of information
regarding regulatory compliance is vital to the
public interest and environmental protection.
The permit should stipulate that the Audit
Summary Report required by Consent Decree
paragraph 42 not be subject to confidentiality
provisions in the state’s environmental
audit law.
Clarification Needed
The G-P draft permit lists emission limits and
standards at Table 4.1 and shows VOC lists SC
61-62.5 Standard No. 5.1 as a state only
requirement. However, the Code of Federal
Regulations
(40 CFR 52.2126) shows that SC 62.5 is approved:
§ 52.2126 VOC rule
deficiency correction.
Sections I and II of South
Carolina’s Regulations 62.1 and 62.5
is approved. The State submitted these
regulations to EPA for approval on
September 18, 1990. Sections I and II of
Regulation 62.5 were intended to correct
deficiencies cited in a letter calling
for the State to revise its SIP for ozone
from Mr. Greer C. Tidwell, the EPA
Regional Administrator, to Governor
Carroll A. Campbell on May 26, 1988, and
clarified in a letter from Mr. Winston A.
Smith, EPA Region IV, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, to Mr. Otto
E. Pearson, former Director of the South
Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control: (a) South
Carolina’s VOC regulations contain
no method for determining capture
efficiency. This deficiency must be
corrected after EPA publishes guidance on
the methods for deter-mining capture
efficiency before the SIP for ozone can
be fully approved. [57 FR 4161, Feb. 4,
1992, as amended at 59 FR 17937, Apr. 15,
1994]
VOC
emissions, regulations, and limitations are
central to our concerns for public health in this
matter. Please clarify which VOC regulations
apply to this facility, which VOC regulations do
not apply, and which are state enforceable only.
All Title V permits must correctly list
applicable regulations and be clearly
understandable.
Respectfully submitted,
Louis Zeller
CC: Donna Moye
Valeria Willing
Stuart Latta
Virginia Townsend
John Runkle, Esq.
1Final EPA Policy on the Inclusion of
Environmental Auditing Provisions in Enforcement
Settlements, Thomas L. Adams, Jr., Assistant
Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring, November 14, 1986
More info: Georgia-Pacific
Corporation-Holly Hill
Title
V Fact Sheet
BREDL
comments on other Title V permits
|