Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 3 · column 4 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
By MARY K. BLEWITT
Arundel Newspapers State Writer
RICHMOND — Avtex Fibers Front Royal Inc. failed to convince the state Air Pollution Control Board that its emissions of carbon disulfate do not pose a threat to human health at a hearing held in Richmond Friday.
After ten hours of listening to arguments from both Avtex and the Department of Air Pollution Control and spending almost four hours in executive session “for legal advice,” the board declared Avtex to be in violation of the state’s air toxics regulations.
Avtex was given 60 days to reduce carbon disulfide emissions by 75 percent and to submit a plan for emissions reduction. The plan must include modeling and monitoring as well as interim compliance dates approved by the executive director of the DAPC.
At a formal hearing on April 28, the board determined that Avtex facilities emitted sufficient quantities of carbon disulfide to equal or exceed the state’s significant ambient air concentration (SAAC), a level that may cause or contribute to the endangerment of human health. Studies have shown that carbon disulfide may cause heart or nerve damage at some levels.
The burden of proof then rested on Avtex to show that the SAAC does not threaten human health.
“I don’t feel comfortable that I’ve been persuaded,” said board member Elizabeth H. Haskell during the hearing’s fourteenth hour. “There is a substantial burden of proof that I’m not sure has been met.”
Each of the five board members criticized the Avtex case for not discussing the effects of exposure on the general public of Front Royal. At a public hearing in Warren County residents complained of nausea, headache, and asthmatic symptoms particularly when the unopleasant odor from the plant was strong.
"It would have impressed me if you had appeared more sensitive to the health effects of the people,” commented Manuel Deese, board member. “Extra effort consulting with doctors would have been extremely helpful.”
Requesting a relaxation of the state regulations, Avtex argued that Virginia’s air standards for carbon disulfide are inappropriately stringent. Much of the case focused on past studies conducted on carbon disulfide and on predictive modeling
95.2%