Such new construction occured when Masonite constructed its Molded Product Line in 1989. But in constucting the line without permits, Masonite ignored laws designed to protect the public from unhealthy levels of pollution. These laws would have required Masonite to incorporate pollution control equipment into the design of the new product line.
EPA Region 9 decided to grant a permit to Masonite for operation of the Molded Products Line. After careful study Citizens for a Healthy Ukiah concluded that EPA's decision was faulty on many counts.
Our concerns were scrutinized by Alan Ramo, Co-Director of The Environmental Law and Justice Clinic, located in Golden Gate University. Mr. Ramo found that our concerns had merit and agreed to represent our group in an appeal of EPA's decision as a law clinic project.
The law students and professors worked very hard on our appeal, and were able to prevail in many areas. Much depends on what Region 9 will do with the resulting Appeals Board opinion on our appeal. If Region 9 does not follow through, we may be forced to go to trial.
Following is a summary of the Environmental Appeals Board opinion on our appeal:
Summary of the Environmental Appeals Board
US EPA Washington D.C.
Decision of November 1, 1994
Citizens for a Healthy Ukiah (CHU) had sought a review of the EPA Region 9 decision to issue a permit to Masonite for after -the -fact approval of the modifications of Masonite's "hardwood" paneling and siding manufacturing facility in Ukiah. The facility was modified in 1989 and 1990 to produce a new product line called the "molded product line" (MPL) which began operating in 1990. The Region had divided their review of the MPL into two parts- the Press line and Grain line. CHU raised among other issues the following:
1. should the Region consider the lines separately
2. whether the Region improperly excluded parts of the MPL process from its analysis
3. whether the Region improperly failed to conduct an analysis for sources at the facility other than the MPL
4. whether the Region should have required Masonite to do a full ambient air quality analysis for volitile organic chemical (VOC) emissions
5. whether the addition of the MPL and other contemporaneous changes resulted in significant net emissions increase in particulate matter 10 microns in size or smaller (PM10) emissions, necessitating an analysis for that pollutant
6. whether the Region should have considered fugitive emisions from the handling of wood chips at the facilty
7.whether alleged deficiencies in the permit require additional modifications of the permit
The Board held that it was appropriate for Region 9 to perform separate analyses for the two different parts of the Molded Products Line(MPL). They said this was justified "because some of the technologies available for control of emissions from one part of the process are not available for control of emissions from the other part of the process."
The Board asked the Region to consider the following:
1. Whether fugitive emissions of PM 10 from the wood chips (if quantifiable) combined with other contemporaneous increases in PM 10 emissions at the facility amount to a significant net emissions increase of PM 10 thereby requiring a BACT (best available control technology) determination for PM 10 emisssions. The Region admitted that wood chips would emit some VOCs and conceded that such emissions must be considered in the analysis to the extent they can be quantified. The Board noted that the Region had concluded that VOCs were the only pollutant for which there was a significant net emissions increase attributable to the addition of the molded products line or contemporaneous changes. CHU had contended that there was also a significant net emissions increase in PM 10 emissions. The Board said that "there is no question that the addition of the molded products line constitutes a major modification of this source." They felt that the Region erred in not counting increases in fugitive emissions of PM 10 that may have occurred or will occurr from the handling of wood chips at the facility as a result of the major modification. They wanted the Region to reconsider its determination that there was not a significant net emissions increase of PM 10.
2. What emissions limitation is available (BACT) for VOC emissions from the facility dryer ovens. The Board noted that the Region admitted it was mistaken when they said there were no emissions increase from the drying ovens. The Board noted that the Region appeared to admit that it did not do a formal BACT analysis for the VOC emissions from the drying ovens. The Board believed that such an analysis must be completed. "... a BACT analysis must be performed for each emission unit at the Masonite facility where there has been a net increase in emissions of VOC's" They sent it back to the Region to do a BACT analysis for VOC emissions from the dryng ovens.
3. Whether the permit should include a requirement for continuous automatic monitoring of the temparature of the Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer (RTO). The existing permit did require monitoring of the RTO temperature but did not specify how it was to be carried out. CHU felt there should be continuous automatic monitoring of the RTO temperature. The Board said that this should happen or the Region should explain why, upon further consideration, such a condition would not be a good idea after all.
4. Reconsider the Regions rejection of the option of using existing Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer(RTO) in conjunction with water borne coating in its BACT ( best available technology) analysis for the Grain line VOC emissions. Masonite itself had concluded that using a RTO in combination with water borne coatings would be the most stringent technically feasible control option for the Grain line VOC emissions. Masonite then rejected the idea/option on cost-effectiveness grounds. The Board agreed with CHU that this rejection on cost-efective grounds was erroneous.
It is possible that Region 9 EPA may not require Masonite to do more to control emissions at the Masonite plant. Our representatives at the Environmental Law and Justice Clinic ask that we each send letters of concern asking for more controls to Region 9. Cards and letters may be addressed to: Felicia Markus, Director, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105
As you can see, a considerable amount of effort went into this appeal. We owe a debt of gratitude to the students and staff of the Environmental Law and Justice Clinic. Thank-you notes may be sent to:Alan Ramo, Co-Director, Environmental Law and Justice Clinic, Golden Gate University, 536 Mission St., San Francisco, CA 94105-2968.
Another group, the Environmental Law Foundation, is representing CHU in a separate but related issue. CHU is still waiting to hear whether Masonite will be forced to reveal the contents of their Public Health Risk Assessment which they performed as required by State Law AB2588, Toxic Hot Spot Act. The staff of the Environmental Law Foundation has worked tirelessly on this issue. Through their efforts, CHU won the initial hearing (Judge Luther) only to have the decision returned for reconsideration on appeal.
The staff of the Environmental Law Foundation hired one of the authors of State Law AB2588 as a consultant for CHU, and the case was brought back to Judge Luther January 5th. Judge Luther is expected to publish his decision in February.
Thank-you notes may be sent to: Elizabeth Pritzker, Environmental Law Foundation, 1736 Franklin, 8th Floor, Oakland, CA 94614
Citizens for a Healthy Ukiah is asking for donations to help with legal costs. Donations should be made payable to: CHU/TREES, c/o 106 W. Standley, Ukiah, CA 95482.
Late News Flash:
In mid-February, Region 9 EPA sent a proposed settlement agreement, called a "consent decree", between EPA and Masonite to the US District Court in San Francisco. By the terms of this agreement, Masonite would neither admit or deny the allegations of violations against them. The "consent decree" calls for Masonite to pay $600,000 in civil penalties to the US Treasury and to comply with specified emissions limits and operating practices. They must also still obtain a "Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit" from EPA. Masonite contends that they are already complying with the requirements of the draft "PSD Permit".
However, the terms of the "consent decree" totally ignore the US Environmental Appeals Board decision of November 1 that directed EPA Region 9 to reconsider certain emission assessments and possible control options that they had earlier rejected. This seems a blatant oversight. In addition, sending $600,000 to the U.S. Treasury does nothing to alleviate the effects of Masonite's pollution. People are urged to contact the Assistant Attorney General at the Environment and Natural Resources Division in Washington, D.C., asking that EPA Region 9 be required to meet the November 1 directives of the Appeals Board, and that instead of simply sending a $600,000 fine to the U.S. Treasury, Masonite use this fine money to further reduce its emissions. There is evidence in the public record that additional emission equipment, which would reduce their emissions by an additional 125 tons per year, would cost approximately the same amount. As we go to press, we are awaiting word as to whether or not the Assistant Attorney General will intervene in this matter.
Feel free to call 468-1660 for updates, and to volunteer. (Help is needed to do research, organize a phone tree, assist with mailings, organize educational events, etc.)
Copyright Mendocino Environmental Center 1995