|
|
|
Public CommentsMr. Dale Givens May 17, 2001Secretary, Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 52135 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70884 Ref: Public comments regarding the proposed Shell Chemical Company expansion in the Giesmar area, Review Numbers 17802, 28568, 28571, 28574, 28578, 58579, 28580, and AI1136. . Dear Mr. Givens, These public comments are submitted on behalf of the Louisiana Environmental Action Network, and are submitted via facsimile and letter to the office of Dale Givens. 1. Granting this permit will inhibit reasonable further progress in the Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment area and, as such, is not in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA). We contend that the requirements for reasonable further progress are included in, but not limited to, Section 173(a)(1)(A). This section is referenced by Sections 172(c)(5) and 182(a)(2)(C). This permitting provision first requires an emissions reduction below the baseline value, and in accordance with Section 182(c)(10) for serious ozone nonattainment areas. In addition, 173(a)(1)(A) requires that these reductions also represent reasonable further progress as defined in Section 171, which requires adequate emissions reductions "for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable national ambient air quality standard by the applicable date." The only emissions reductions achieved by the Shell permit was the proposed 1.2 to 1 reduction required in Section 182(c)(10). Unfortunately, this degree of reduction does not ensure attainment in the future or by the applicable date for the Baton Rouge nonattainment area. At the start of 1999 Baton Rouge had four of its eleven monitors in noncompliance and three more very close to noncompliance. Baton Rouge had monitors in noncompliance at the November, 1999, attainment date. This compares to 1994 when Baton Rouge had only two monitors out of compliance and the hope of achieving attainment by 1999. There have been several policy decisions that have pushed Baton Rouge farther away from attainment, and allowing the increased emissions from the proposed Shell plant in the manner proposed in the permit would do the same. The proposed permit for this facility can only make the ozone problems worse, and can't possibly meet the requirements of Title I of the CAA. 2. The Louisiana emissions banking system is a failure. The use of offsetting emissions in the nonattainment area will only work as well as the banking system in Louisiana is working. If the banking doesn't work, the offsets won't work either. This is the condition that currently exisits in the Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment area. Failures of the Louisiana banking system include but are not limited to; failure to ensure that banked offsets are consistent with the Clean Air Act and failure to adequately enforce Louisiana's banking emissions program. Sincerely, Mary Lee Orr Executive Director Back to Air Projects page.
|