Pollution law threat to growth

When an influential trade group persuaded state lawmakers to ease a water pollution rule last spring, it created an unintended roadblock to economic growth in South Carolina.

Public utilities are having to wait longer to get water pollution discharge permits they need to serve new residential and industrial development.

The permit delays — which could be 18 months in some cases — have not yet reached a critical stage. And it is unclear if the problem could delay the openings of some companies that recently announced they would locate in South Carolina.

But utilities planning for growth already are feeling the impact. Utility officials say the delays could slow economic development.

“We are wasting time,” said Paul Calamita, an adviser to more than two dozen public wastewater systems and engineering firms in South Carolina.

“Any uncertainty and additional delay in environmental permitting has impacts on economic and community development,” he said.

So far, wastewater systems in Moncks Corner and Timmonsville have had permit decisions delayed by months because of the 2004 law — meaning they cannot move ahead with sewer expansion plans.

Greenville and Cayce systems also could see delays, utility managers said.

Cayce, which wants to expand its sewer plant to 24 million gallons per day, has held off on seeking a new discharge permit because of uncertainty created by the Legislature’s action.

In Greenville County, the Western Carolina Regional Sewer Authority wants to expand sewer service in the Lower Reedy River area to accommodate growth. The utility does not want to experience permit delays, said director Ray Orvin.

MONTHS OF DELAYS

The problem arose because the new law, championed by the S.C. Manufacturers Alliance, sparked a dispute with the federal government.

Meant to help industry, the law prohibits state regulators from requiring a key pollution test and discharge limit when writing wastewater permits. But federal regulators say the test is an important tool to keep rivers clean.

As a result, the Environmental Protection Agency has taken over from the state the processing of discharge permits for sewer systems and industries it says need the testing and accompanying pollution limits.

The EPA decision to take over the process is slowing the issuing of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits.

Not only must the state now issue a permit under S.C. law, but the EPA also must issue the federal discharge permit for many industries and wastewater systems. Previously, the state had handled both permits as one.

In some cases, the EPA says it could take up to 18 months longer to issue a federal wastewater discharge permit from the federal agency than it would have under the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control. At the least, it could add four to six months to the process, the federal agency says.

Public wastewater systems wanting to expand for new industrial and residential growth cannot provide the extra service until they get the permits.

Neither can new industries that want to discharge directly into rivers instead of into public sewer systems.

The EPA’s involvement also could affect those industries.

‘THIS IS A BIG ISSUE’

After reluctantly agreeing to a compromise on the new law last spring, DHEC regulators today are speaking out against it.

“Recruitment of new industry may be adversely affected because ... the time period for an applicant to receive an EPA-issued permit will be significantly longer,” according to a presentation DHEC has shown to business groups, consultants and the EPA.

Timmonsville, a small town in an economically depressed part of the state, is one of those hurt by the delays in getting a permit to expand its wastewater system.

The Florence County town will not be able to clean up sewer discharges as quickly as it had anticipated because its permit has not been issued.

Nor will it have the extra capacity to accommodate industrial growth. A nearby Honda plant already discharges into the town sewer system and would need to discharge more if it expands, company officials said.

Town consulting engineer Paul Smith said the EPA-South Carolina dispute has set the expansion project back by about six months.

“I expect to have this worked out by summer, but I was anticipating January,” Smith said.

Lawmakers who pushed for the changes say they did not want to chill economic growth. They merely wanted to add flexibility to a pollution rule manufacturers said was too strict, said state Sen. Ronnie Cromer, R-Newberry.

“If this is a problem, we certainly will look at it,” Cromer said.

The S.C. Chamber of Commerce hopes the bill will be fine- tuned when the legislative session starts in January, chamber lobbyist Otis Rawl said.

“This is a big issue right now,” Rawl said. “Out of the blue, we ran into problems we didn’t anticipate. We now have permits holding up.”

WARNINGS IGNORED

Gov. Mark Sanford signed the bill despite a letter from the EPA warning him not to do it.

The letter said if the law went into effect, the federal agency could begin taking over discharge permits affected by the change.

Sanford spokesman Will Folks offered no comment on the issue.

As with other states, South Carolina had been delegated the authority to run the federal program, meaning state regulators could issue the federal permits. But states cannot weaken federal law.

The test in question is based on whether fleas reproduce in a sample of wastewater from an industrial or municipal plant.

If the fleas cannot reproduce, the plant’s wastewater is considered too toxic to discharge into rivers or creeks, state and federal regulators agree. Facilities that consistently fail the test can be fined up to $32,500 per violation per day, according to the EPA.

The testing is important to catch pollutants that might not otherwise be found in sewer discharges, regulators say. In Columbia about four years ago, the flea tests helped spot toxic tin compounds that threatened to cause substantial pollution in the Congaree River, city engineering operations manager Dee Bennett said.

Still, lobbyists for the S.C. Manufacturers Alliance, an industrial association that includes powerful textile corporations, say the test is unfair.

They have questioned whether the types of fleas used in the test are the right ones for South Carolina.

FAILING THE TEST

Records show some S.C. textile plants have had a hard time passing the flea test, even though EPA regulators say most dischargers routinely pass it.

Milliken & Co.’s textile plant in Abbeville has failed 98 of 99 flea reproduction tests from 1996 through late this year, DHEC records show. Discharges from the plant have contributed to water pollution in a creek nearby, a DHEC report found.

Because of the failures, regulators want to place limits on Milliken’s discharges based on the results of the flea tests. If the company exceeds the limits, it could be fined. The company was not fined in the past because its permit did not include limits based on flea test results.

The Milliken plant’s pending permit renewal now will be done by the EPA, the agency said.

A Milliken environmental manager spoke against the flea reproduction tests during a Senate committee hearing last spring.

Lewis Gossett, president of the S.C. Manufacturers Alliance, and Milliken spokesman Richard Dillard contend the flea test is not always accurate and should not be relied upon by regulators.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., however, said the EPA’s use of the test is fair. The Dec. 10 federal court decision upheld the test as a sound method of examining wastewater for toxic pollutants.

But Gossett blasted the EPA for taking control of water pollution permits in South Carolina, saying the agency has been inflexible in trying to work out a compromise.

“They’ve been like Big Brother threatening, saying, ‘If you don’t do this, we’ll take over the program,’” Gossett said.

The S.C. Pulp and Paper Association, in a recent letter to DHEC, complained the EPA’s involvement could bring “unnecessarily extreme measures by the federal agency, resulting in hardship on South Carolina’s regulatory community.”

Former state Sen. Bob Waldrep, R-Anderson, said he is surprised to hear that a dispute had erupted between the EPA and the state. But state and EPA regulators say they made it clear last year what the consequences would be of passing the bill.

Senators approved the bill dropping the flea testing requirement and limits after manufacturers and state regulators said they had reached a compromise.

As part of that compromise, South Carolina again will require the flea test if the EPA ever takes formal action to process all wastewater discharge permits in South Carolina, not just the selective permits it is handling now.

To date, the EPA has taken over 16 permit applications.

Senators say they were caught off guard.

“They said they had a compromise,” Waldrep said of the regulators and manufacturers. “Anytime you have a compromise like that, your mind kind of cuts off, and you go on to something else.”

Reach Fretwell at (803) 771-8537 or sfretwell@thestate.com