20080868 Ver 2_EPA delays PCS Phosphate's permit_20090408

EPA delays PCS Phosphate's permit
Subject: EPA delays PCS Phosphate's permit
From: Susan Massengale <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 11:58:10 -0400
To: DWQ Clips <[e-mail]>
From the Washington Daily News
*EPA delays PCS Phosphate's permit*
*By TED STRONG*
Staff Writer
The EPA on Monday asked for an additional review of PCS Phosphate's application for
a permit to consume wetlands as it expands its facility near Aurora.
PCS Phosphate officials aren't yet sure if the decision will mean lost jobs or
reduced production at the mine, said Ross Smith, the company's manager for
environmental affairs.
PCS Phosphate's application now goes to the assistant secretary of the Army at the
Army Corps of Engineers' Washington, D.C., office.
The assistant secretary's office has 30 days to review the application.
That office likely will send the application back to Wilmington with orders to
either improve the paperwork or issue the permit, said Tom Walker, who coordinated
the application's review at the Corps of Engineers' Wilmington office.
This is the first time he's seen a decision "elevated" in nine years, Walker said.
The Environmental Protection Agency's request is the latest turn in a permitting
process that has lasted more than eight years. The company wants to expand to
extract high-grade phosphate ore from areas that include thousands of acres of
wetlands.
Walker declined to comment specifically on the EPA's decision because he hadn't had
an opportunity to review it.
Smith was unhappy with the EPA's decision.
"We're very disappointed in EPA's response, particularly given our commitment to
environmental stewardship and our track record in that regard and the fact that this
process has been going on for more than eight years," he said.
He said the company will keep reviewing the situation as it changes.
"It's somewhat fluid because our goal is to minimize whatever impacts (to production
and employment at the mine) occur, so we're evaluating it," Smith said.
Private environmental groups oppose the expansion, saying it would be the largest
permitted destruction of wetlands ever in North Carolina. Environmentalists have
maintained the company isn't being selective enough in where it mines, tearing up
wetlands it could afford to avoid.
The EPA echoed those concerns last month when it proposed a different footprint for
the mine's expansion. The EPA's decision to request further review referenced the
footprint change it proposed. In its objection, the EPA specifically cited the
footprint proposal as an alternative the Corps of Engineers should have considered.
1 of 3 4/7/2009 12:01 PM
EPA delays PCS Phosphate's permit
Congressman G.K. Butterfield on Monday criticized the EPA for making that proposal
without consulting PCS Phosphate, which is the county's largest employer. The EPA
did consult other government agencies, Butterfield said.
"I would hope that the EPA would conduct themselves in a more objective manner," he
said.
Butterfield, a Democrat, represents the state's 1st Congressional District, which
includes part of Beaufort County.
In an April 3 letter to an EPA official, Thomas J. Regan Jr., president of PCS
Phosphate, wrote that the proposal isn't economically feasible because it would cut
years of mining life from the site and require the relocation of a state road at a
cost of $90 million.
"Furthermore, EPA's surprising requirement that we completely abandon more than 18
years of ore reserves in exchange for a permit is unwarranted," he wrote.
The EPA's letter announcing its decision, signed by Michael H. Shapiro, acting
assistant administrator of the EPA, identifies several other concerns the EPA has
about the Corps of Engineers' work reviewing PCS Phosphate's application.
The EPA contends the Corps of Engineers:
• used a faulty process to decide which alternative best balanced cost with impact
to the environment;
• shouldn't allow PCS Phosphate to mine part of a nationally significant natural
heritage area (a hardwood flat that was the center of a state permitting spat at
the end of last year) or, as much as possible, mine anywhere that would harm tidal
creeks;
should require better reclamation of the land after it is mined;
• should require the company to sign legal documents preventing it from ever
mining the areas it agrees not to mine now;
• should require more compensatory mitigation, which is the reconstruction of
wetlands to make up for the wetlands the mine would damage;
should ensure monitoring and management of mining and mitigation sites.
Local officials panned the decision.
"I'm personally dissatisfied that they did that," said Jay McRoy, chairman of the
Beaufort County Board of Commissioners. "I feel that they've done a great injustice
to ... the working people in Beaufort County."
Vice Chairman Jerry Langley agreed with McRoy.
"It's not fair to the employees," he said.
He added later, "If you're going to make a decision, make a decision, don't
procrastinate."
A call to the EPA's national headquarters Monday afternoon wasn't immediately
returned.
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.
2 of 3 4/7/2009 12:01 PM
EPA delays PCS Phosphate's permit
DENR.DWQ.CLIPS mailing list
[e-mail]
Part 1.3 Content-Type: text/plain
............
Content-Encoding: 7bit
3 of 3 4/7/2009 12:01 PM