20080868 Ver 2_EPA pushes new boundary for PCS growth_20090326

EPA pushes new boundary for PCS growth
Subject: EPA pushes new boundary for PCS growth
From: Susan Massengale <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:03:08 -0400
To: DWQ Clips <[e-mail]>
From the Washington Daily News
EPA pushes new boundary for PCS growth
Suggested boundary aimed at reducing damage to wetlands
By TED STRONG
Staff Writer
The Environmental Protection Agency proposed Tuesday another change in the footprint
of a mine expansion at PCS Phosphate in Aurora as the clock ticked on the agency's
window to request an extra review of the site.
"Based on our preliminary look at the information they provided, it's a very
significant change from boundaries that had been evaluated in the past, and it is
certainly very troublesome to PCS that after nine years of evaluation there's new
information presented by an agency that has been reportedly very engaged in the
proceedings the entire time," said Ross Smith, PCS Phosphate manager of
environmental affairs.
The Environmental Protection Agency has less than two weeks to decide if it will
ask the Corps of Engineers' Washington, D.C., office to perform an extra review of
PCS Phosphate's request to mine thousands more acres of wetland.
Corps of Engineers officials in Wilmington were still reviewing the proposed new
boundary Wednesday and didn't yet have a position on it.
The new boundary is aimed at reducing damage to wetlands. It mirrors recent
objections made by a coalition of environmental groups in an appeal of a state water
permit for the expansion.
"Our view has been all along that there could be significantly more avoidance of
wetlands than what has been proposed in Alternative L (the current boundary)," said
Derb Carter, a lawyer for the Southern Environmental Law Center, which represents
groups including the Pamlico-Tar River Foundation in the appeal. "The company could
continue to mine for an extended period of time, and there would be much less
impact on wetlands and water quality and fisheries (with a more-restrictive
boundary) than would result from the plan that the company has applied to receive a
permit for."
Smith said the new EPA-proposed boundary would represent "a significant reduction in
potential minable area."
The proposed boundary change is part of the EPA's response to a letter sent by the
Wilmington office of the Corps of Engineers, said Jim Jiattina, director of water
protection for the EPA Atlanta office.
In that letter, the Corps of Engineers outlined how it had addressed EPA objections
to proposed environmental safeguards for the mine's expansion. The letter was a key
precursor to the Corps of Engineers making a final decision on the permit, which
environmentalists have said would be the largest permitted destruction of wetlands
ever in North Carolina.
"We're still in the deliberative process within EPA," Jiattina said. "We're still
looking for opportunities to work with both the Corps and the applicant to address
our concerns."
In addition to the boundary change, the proposal the EPA presented Tuesday included
1 of 2 3/26/2009 5:03 PM
EPA pushes new boundary for PCS growth
more mitigation measures designed to offset destruction of wetlands.
If the EPA feels its concerns haven't been addressed fully by the Corps of
Engineers, officials could trigger the extra review process to the Corps of
Engineers' Washington, D.C., office. That decision is now being made by the EPA's
assistant administrator for water, who reports directly to EPA Director Lisa
Jackson, Jiattina said.
"What we have put on the table is an additional avoidance (of wetlands) and
minimization that we think would be critical given the resources" at the site,
Jiattina said.
It is likely, but not certain, the new boundary would require an additional
environmental impact study, said Tom Walker, a Corps of Engineer official involved
with the permitting process. If the EPA's national office decides to request the
second review, the Corps of Engineers would take roughly a month, Walker said.
That means the extra review would probably be quicker than adopting the EPA's
boundary-change proposal.
PCS Phosphate officials have said they hoped to secure all their permits by the end
of April, and Beaufort County's entire Congressional delegation sent a letter
earlier this year urging the EPA to decide more quickly.
Jiattina said the agency isn't out to destroy jobs, but does have a responsibility
to consider the matter fully.
"We're not in favor of putting the company out of business or in a terrible
financial position," he said.
He added later: "We are very sensitive to those issues, and at the same time we are
trying to do our jobs to protect the resources in that area."
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina
Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
DENR.DWQ.CLIPS mailing list
DENR.DWQ.CLIPSClists.ncmail.net
Part 1.3 Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Encoding: 7bit
2 of 2 3/26/2009 5:03 PM