Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, September 15, 1994 TAG: 9409160010
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-14 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: By DON SHEPHERD
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
At the time the department began the public-review process for the Lynchburg Foundry permit in Radford, all differences of opinion about the permit had been resolved. There was no presentation made by the department at the public hearing that implied any disagreement, and I apologize if I didn't make that clear to your reporter.
During my years at the department, we developed a participatory style of management that encouraged free expression of opinions, provided we were all willing to pull together once a decision was reached.
In the case of the Lynchburg Foundry permit, there were differences of opinion within the Roanoke office regarding interpretation of one aspect of our permitting policies. Once resolved locally, we incorporated our understanding of the issue into a report to our Richmond headquarters, but also included a request that headquarters review the issue and make a final determination on how to implement the policy in question. Headquarters directed Roanoke to use the alternate policy interpretation, and the draft permit was revised accordingly and sent to the Radford Library for public review.
We understood and fully supported the headquarters' decision. Because it was also our understanding that information bearing upon the decision-making process must be provided to the public, correspondence describing this process was also included in the materials placed in the Radford Library. I invite anyone interested to review those records at the Radford Library or the Roanoke Air Office.
I was pleased that your news article noted the extraordinary efforts of the department staff in working evenings and weekends to expedite processing of the Lynchburg Foundry permit. Similar efforts have gone into other permits, such as the one issued recently to Roanoke Cement for a major modernization and pollution-abatement project.
Such efforts are motivated by a strong desire by the staff to assist industry with projects that will be environmentally and economically beneficial. Through this process of modernization, we've seen air-pollutant emissions decrease significantly in this area, and this trend should continue as the 1990 Clean Air Act is implemented.
It should be noted that the department's new director, Peter Schmidt, has already instituted changes to reduce some unnecessary paper work, and has pledged to improve employee working conditions. I applaud those efforts.
Don Shepherd of Salem was director of the Roanoke Air Office of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.
by CNB