CHILLICOTHE, Ohio (From the Chillicothe Gazette) - Glatfelter disputed violation claims made in February by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency in a notice to the company and the two parties are presently in the process of working out their differences.

In that Feb. 4 notice, the EPA took issue with the timeliness and content of the first reports by the company of possible emissions from equipment malfunctions on Oct. 31 and Dec. 16 and with the company over odor and health complaints reported by residents. The agency also said emissions during malfunctions Oct. 31 and Jan. 7 and 8 were above "health-based action levels" and had the potential to create health issues among residents.

Claiming that in the October and January instances, a public nuisance was created, the EPA gave Glatfelter 30 days to submit a plan and schedule to return the mill to compliance and to offer a time frame in which corrections would be made.

In the company's Feb. 27 response, obtained through a public records request from the Gazette, it states that while Glatfelter is committed to continuous improvement and bettering its relations with Ohio EPA, it disagrees with the violation notice.

"As we have expressed to Ohio EPA on several occasions, we believe that Glatfelter is in compliance with its permits and applicable rules and regulations," wrote Molly Crabtree, with the Porter Wright corporate law firm representing the company. "We believe Ohio EPA's (notice) is premised on several legal misrepresentations which we have previously communicated and which we again address below."

The response tackles each point made in the notice, beginning with the claim that three malfunctions took place over five months. The company states that in dealing with regulatory language, a malfunction that requires reporting to the EPA only happens when broken equipment causes emissions greater than what is allowed under the company's permit. Glatfelter says no evidence was presented by the EPA showing emissions vented in the incidents were above what permits allow.

The company's decision to report the October incident to state and federal authorities anyway, it said, was done because the company was being cautious until it could confirm that what was released was within permitted limits. The company also claims it did provide Ohio EPA with all the information requested and that it does not believe it was in violation of reporting requirements.

With regard to the nuisance allegations, the company stated that every time a complaint has been communicated to Glatfelter by the state, the company has "been able to identify a permitted release or has confirmed that the plant was functioning normally and could not likely be the source of the complaint." It also stated that it had not been made aware of any "health-based complaints" referenced in the notice and that if Ohio EPA had shared the information about any such complaints, the company could better address any concerns.

The company argues that because the notice stated only that emissions "could have potentially endangered" public health rather than definitively saying public health was endangered, there was no nuisance violation under the Ohio Administrative Code. It also noted that since negligence has to be demonstrated for a nuisance to be declared, and since the state did not demonstrate negligence, a nuisance did not exist.

Crabtree concludes the response by saying that even though the company strongly disagrees with Ohio EPA's position in issuing the notice, it understands the agency's desire to have a plan in place to improve communication between the entities and to better deal with complaints. It also has developed an emissions calculator to use in future cases where venting may be needed.

The letter calls for Ohio EPA and Glatfelter to work together to move the relationship forward on a constructive level. A spokesperson for Ohio EPA said late last week that all the agency could say was that discussions with the company are ongoing.
A $5 million class-action lawsuit was filed against the company last week on behalf of residents living in the area of the paper mill claiming emissions create a public nuisances, cause damage to their property and deprive them of enjoyment of their property and that the company is not doing enough to prevent those emissions.

In response, the company said that for the last several years it has been examining options in preparing for U.S. Clean Air Act requirements that focus on a reduction in boiler emissions and began spending the capital for those improvements around the beginning of this year, months before letters went out to community members from the law firm seeking participants in what was then a potential lawsuit.

"As part of this ongoing initiative, Glatfelter is investing approximately $31 million in the Chillicothe mill over the next year and a half to convert two coal-fired boilers to natural gas boilers and to upgrade the air pollution control system on the wood-fired boiler," a statement issued by the company last week stated.