Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Industrial Emissions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County officials outline enforcement, monitoring plan after recurring odors from DRT plant
Summary
Effingham County officials described repeated fires and equipment failures at a chemical distillation plant known locally as DRT and said they will form a multi‑stakeholder steering committee to hire an independent firm to determine odor sources and support enforcement actions by EPD and EPA.
County officials updated District 4 residents on repeated odor events and equipment failures at a chemical distillation plant known locally as DRT, saying the county will form a steering committee and hire an independent firm to pinpoint sources when odors recur.
The county official, speaking at the District 4 town hall, said DRT processes a paper‑mill wastewater stream called sulfate turpentine and distills products such as “alkyl primine, beta primine, and diamantine,” and that a residual waste stream produces the heavy pine‑like odor residents have reported. “DRRT, my 3 least favorite letters in the alphabet,” the county official said when introducing the topic.
Why this matters: County and city emergency responders have addressed multiple incidents at the plant, and regulators including the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are involved in enforcement. The presenter said EPD currently has an active enforcement investigation and recent code violations have been cited.
Officials summarized the plant’s recent incidents: a fire that blew off a hatch in 2019; a distillation‑column fire and thermal oxidizer failures in 2022; and, earlier this year, a fire on stored filter media. The county official told residents the thermal oxidizer — equipment that scrubs the plant’s emissions — has failed multiple times and that those failures correspond with the most pungent odor episodes.
The county’s response and next steps: The county official said countywide services (fire and emergency management) have responded to incidents, while nuisance and odor enforcement is handled by the City of Springfield under local ordinances. For technical and regulatory enforcement, the county has engaged with EPD and EPA and has attended meetings with EPD’s director and with EPA officials. To reduce disputes about odor source attribution, the county will assemble a steering committee of municipal, school district, emergency‑services and public members to contract a specialist firm to deploy source‑attribution monitoring over a six‑month period. The presenter said the goal is to produce binding, third‑party evidence that can be used by regulators and for enforcement.
What the county did not say: There was no vote or formal land‑use action recorded at the meeting; county officials described investigative and enforcement steps and regulatory engagement but did not announce specific fines or permit revocations at the town hall.
Ending: Officials asked residents to continue reporting odor events so investigators can document occurrences and deploy the contractor when incidents happen.
