|
BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUE November 5, 2001 Margaret Key Senior Environmental Engineer Virginia Dept. of Environmental Quality South Central Regional Office 7705 Timberlake Road Lynchburg, VA 24502 smkey@deq.state.va.us Re: Permit No. VA-30297
Solite Corporation
Cascade Facility SIC Codes: 3295,
4953 Dear Ms. Key: On behalf of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, I write to comment on the draft Title V permit for Solite Corporation Cascade Facility and to request that the Department of Environmental Quality hold a public hearing before issuing this permit. SPECIFIC COMMENTS 1. Portable Plant Permit Status In permit application of June 28, 2001, Solite Manager Lane Smith states, “The facility does not intend to retain the permit for Portable Plant No. 1 (Registration No. 30998). This unit has been permanently removed from the site.” Therefore, it would be appropriate for DEQ to require that the permit become null and void before Permit No. VA-30297 becomes applicable. 2. Pyro-processing Monitoring and Recordkeeping Draft permit item III.B.2 states that if visible emissions are observed, the permittee shall either (a) take “timely corrective action” or (b) “perform a visible emission evaluation.” Option “a” is vague as to when action must be taken. This vague language is repeated in permit item IV.C.a and V.C.a. Option “a” should be eliminated, leaving option “b” as the only acceptable alternative in each case. Item B.3.a states, “The annual throughput shall be calculated as the sum of each consecutive twelve month period,” allowing calendar year totals which may result in excess emissions. High emissions may occur at the end of one annual period and at the beginning of the next which could be split by the arbitrary year-end. This should be altered to reflect a more accurate and tightly controlled monthly rolling average method. For example, permit item IV.A.1 exhibit’s a tighter monitoring method by stating that throughput is “calculated monthly as the sum of each consecutive twelve month period.” (emphasis added) Permit item IV.D.2.a also should be changed to the tighter method. 3. Emissions Compliance, Monitoring, and the BIF Rule In February 1991, the EPA promulgated a rule on the burning of hazardous waste in boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs). The BIF rule set emission controls for toxic organic compounds, toxic metals, HCl, chlorine gas and particulate matter. However, for cement and aggregate kilns there was a loophole. The BIF rule allowed hazardous waste burning facilities which were in existence before August 27, 1991 to apply for interim status. Interim status facilities could burn hazardous waste without a permit so long as they filed a RCRA Subpart B permit application and certified compliance with applicable BIF performance standards. Virginia Solite has been regulated under this rule. The EPA decision to include existing facilities in the interim status category effectively eliminated public participation in the decision to burn hazardous waste in these facilities. Virginia DEQ can and must act to close the loophole and reduce emissions of toxic organic compounds, toxic metals, HCl, chlorine gas and particulate matter Chlorine is a hazardous air pollutant (CAS #7782505). As stated in the permit application, Solite is designated as a major source for chlorine (Cl2) emissions, having the potential to emit more than 10 tons/year. However, the draft permit omits an emission standard, monitoring, testing, record keeping for chlorine and its derivatives. According to EPA, (“Delegation of 40 CFR Part 63 General Provisions Authorities to State and Local Air Pollution Control Agencies” 10 July 1998, Memorandum from John Seitz to Regional Directors ).Virginia has the following authorities to establish compliance monitoring and testing:
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League submits that sufficient authority exists for Virginia to require emission limits which are protective of public health. The ATSDR public health assessment was prompted by legitimate and persistent citizens’ grievances. It is unfair to assume that the current lack of complaints indicate a solution to these problems; rather, it is a symptom of discouraged plant neighbors exhausted and disappointed by official failure to remedy their community’s plight. Other states with Solite plants have had to contend with similar levels of toxic air pollution and have taken action. Three examples: EPA TARGETS BIFs On September 28, 1993 an EPA Enforcement Initiative Fact Sheet was released which stated: Today “EPA Headquarters (OSWER and OE), together with the Regions and the state of Illinois, announced a cluster filing of enforcement actions against violators of hazardous waste combustion regulations. The actions seek over $22 million in civil penalties and, where violations are ongoing, to compel the facilities to return to compliance. A total of 30 federal administrative complaints, 1 state complaint, and 7 federal administrative consent agreements were filed. Most of the actions target boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs) for failing to comply with EPA’s Burning of Hazardous Waste in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (BIF) rule, codified at 40 CFR Part 266, Subpart H. From Work On Waste USA, Inc., September 1993 KENTUCKY SOLITE CORP. Aggregate Kiln “Failure to perform leak detection monitoring on hazardous waste equipment, failure to make a hazardous waste/Bevill determination...failure to monitor hydrocarbon emissions.” From Work On Waste USA, Inc., September 1993 NC FINES CAROLINA SOLITE September 20, 1999 the NC Division of Waste Management signed a Compliance Order with Administrative Penalty for Carolina Solite of $52,499. The fines assessed included violations for failing to mark hazardous waste control piping which the state emphasized as "posing potential risk to the employees and state regulators who come in contact with the equipment." The events occurred on March 18, April 28 and June 14, 1999. Solite was issued a combined Notice of Violation for fugitive emissions occurring on January 6, 13 and 16, 1999. Solite has a long history of noncompliance with fugitive emissions. In the past a State official observed holes in the equipment plugged with bottle caps and rags. Multiple violations were issued for Solite on March 25, 1996, after several incidents of fugitive emissions. From
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, September
1999 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 public, the state, and the operator 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.” Virginia must use its delegated powers to reduce the impact of toxic air pollution on Pittsylvania and Rockingham counties in Virginia and North Carolina. Respectfully submitted, Louis Zeller Clean Air Campaigns Coordinator November 5, 2001 Additional
Comments on the Draft Title V Permit for Solite
Corporation As mentioned in
the Nov. 5, 2001 comments, BREDL feels that the
Draft Title V permit does not address public
health concerns. In 1995 & 1997, Pittsylvania
Co., VA and Caswell Co., NC were ranked number 1
in the nation for asthma mortality rates,
according to information based on Health Service
Area mortality data from 1994 to 1996 provided by
the National Institutes of Health. It is crucial
that the Virginia DEQ monitor criteria pollutants
in the Virginia southside area. This issue is
relevant to this permit because without proper
monitoring, DEQ and the public may not be able to
adequately gauge the public health risk. For
example, during the 2001 ozone season the closest
ozone monitors had exceedences of the EPA 8-hour
ozone health standard. Roanoke had 5 exceedences
and the North Carolina Triad area had 22
exceedences. It is highly probable that
Pittsylvania and Henry Counties also exceeded
these health standards. Sincerely, Mark E. Barker BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUE February 20, 2002 Title
V Fact Sheet |