Merck & Co., Inc.
Letter from W. Michael McCabe to Betty Sellers
January 16, 1997
Mrs. Betty S. Sellers
Route 4, Box 245
Elkton, Virginia 22827
Dear Mrs. Sellers:
Thank you for your letters of December 18, 20, and 27, 1996 regarding
the Merck XL project. We appreciate your support for the project, which
offers significant environmental benefits for the community and surrounding
area. Your dedication and contributions to this project have been outstanding,
and I truly thank you for your participation.
We appreciate you expressing your remaining concerns about the stakeholder
process for the future evaluation of changes to Merck's Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit. We understand that you believe
the three community representatives as a group should be required to
give consent to permit changes, independent of the Rockingham County
Board of Supervisors. We also realize that you support the position
expressed by Mr. David Carr of the Southern Environmental Law Center
that a public interest group should be required to give consent to permit
changes.
The participation of parties that have a stake in the environmental
impacts of a project is a key element of Project XL. As you know, the
draft PSD permit currently provides a five-year periodic review process
whereby changes to the permit can be recommended to the permitting authority
upon full consent of the project signatories (i.e., U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Merck, Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality, U.S. Department of the Interior, and the Rockingham County
Board of Supervisors). The draft permit also provides that additional
stakeholders, including three community representatives and a regional
public interest group, will participate in the five-year reviews but
their consent is not required for permit changes. As the draft permit
is currently structured, these participants will have an important role,
along with the signatories, in the evaluation and discussion of whether
permit changes are warranted. In your December 18, 1996 letter, you
recommended that, at a minimum, Merck should be required to consult
with the three community representatives. In fact, the draft permit
in effect establishes a process in which all stakeholders will consult
with each other during the review process, much as the stakeholders
did during the development of the draft permit.
If should be noted that the signatories' full consent on a permit change
serves to recommend that the permitting authority propose a permit modification
according to the public participation procedures that would be established
in EPA's site-specific rulemaking. Thus, the public will have a formal
opportunity to comment on proposed permit changes. The permitting authority
must consider any public comments prior to issuing a revised permit.
You have also expressed concern for ensuring adequate technical assistance
specific to community needs during the future evaluation of the permit.
Prior to the initiation of the five-year permit reviews, EPA would be
glad to work with the community representatives to assist in providing
the technical and informational resources necessary for the community
to make informed decisions.
We have reviewed your comments on the draft permit and plan to include
them in the docket for EPA's proposed site-specific rulemaking for the
Merck XL project. We will thoroughly evaluate these and any other public
comments prior to making decisions about the provisions of the final-rulemaking.
Again, thank you for the substantial commitment you have made on behalf
of your community to make the Merck XL project a success. Please call
Ms. Robin Moran of my staff at (215) 566-2064 if you would like to discuss
this matter further.
Sincerely,
W. Michael McCabe
Regional Administrator
cc: Merck XL Stakeholders