Merck & Co., Inc.

Merck XL Permit - Request for Hearing

National Parks and Conservation Association
Northeast Regional Office

14 May 1997

Via Facsimile and U.S. Mail

Ms. Robin Moran
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III
Air, Radiation & Toxins Division
841 Chestnut Street (3AT23)
Philadelphia, PA 19107-4431

RE: Merck Project XL Permit Elkton, Virginia

Dear Ms. Moran:

The National Parks and Conservation Association (NPCA) is pleased to have this opportunity to comment on the proposed Project XL permit for Merck's Elkton, Virginia plant. NPCA is America's only private nonprofit citizen organization dedicated solely to protecting, preserving, and enhancing the U.S. National Park System. An association of "Citizens Protecting America's Parks," NPCA was founded in 1919, and today has 500,000 members of whom 13,000 are Virginia residents.

NPCA is highly supportive of the Project XL program and of the overall intent of Merck's proposed program. However, there are some serious flaws in the proposed permit and Final Project Agreement that have the potential to harm Shenandoah National Park. Generally, NPCA associates itself with the concerns expressed by the Southern Environmental Law Center. Specifically, NPCA is deeply concerned with the following:

There is a lack of adequate community and public interest representation in the permit review process. The proposed permit minimizes public participation in the permit review process. Full public participation is supposed to be a major component of the Project XL program. This lack of a public interest voice for Shenandoah National Park may mean that potential future evidence of emissions-linked degradation will be insufficiently addressed or ignored all together. The EPA must require greater public interest involvement in the permit review process.
The permit is for an unlimited term of duration, and Merck has veto authority over all permit changes. Although review of the permit is to occur every five years, Merck can veto any proposed changes. The danger of such an arrangement is obvious. With veto power and an unlimited term, Merck is given virtual control over the permitting process and can ignore evidence of air quality and resource degradation in Shenandoah National park and the Shenandoah Valley due to emissions allowed under the permit. EPA must impose a term limit on the permit; a 10-15 year initial term limit would be more appropriate. In addition, EPA must remove Merck's veto authority over proposed permit changes.
Not all pollutants may decrease with Merck's new boilers. Although the total pollutants emitted will decrease with the switch to gas-fired boilers, there is the potential for the emission of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to increase. Currently, the role of VOCs in the formation of ozone is considered minimal, but their direct impact on human health and natural resources is not well known. The proposed permit's review structure would put severe limitations on incorporating any future knowledge about VOCs into the permit's conditions. EPA must change the review structure -- including removing Merck's veto power -- to insure that future knowledge is incorporated into the permit's conditions.

Shenandoah National Park is a nationally significant example of the central Appalachian ecosystem. The park's air quality has long been of serious concern to the National Park Service, NPCA, and to the park's constituents. Much has been done to identify and begin to rectify those factors contributing to air quality problems in the area. We hope that Merck's permit will not reverse this hard-won progress. NPCA urges EPA to resolve the problems with the proposed permit to make the Merck program the model you intend it to be.

Yours,

Eileen T. Woodford
Northeast Regional Director

Merck & Co., Inc.

Local Navigation