Toxic Scandal in Hanford

See Also:

Stop Plastic Energy LLC plastics "catalytic cracking" plant proposed for Hanford, California!

Read the Press Release with Photos and Fresno Bee press coverage!

For more information, contact:

Comments to San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

August 19, 2004

David Warner
Director of Permit Services
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
1990 East Gettysburg Avenue
Fresno, CA 93726-0244

Comments on Permit Evaluation for Hanford Plastic Energy Project No. C-1020434

Dear Mr. Warner,

In response to the invitation from your agency to submit written comments on the proposed Hanford Plastic Energy Project, Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice submits the following comments on behalf of our members and constituents in Hanford and Kings County who are concerned about the proposal from Plastic Energy LLC to build and operate a plastics catalytic cracking plant.

To properly review this proposed project, which would be the first of its kind in the United States and possibly in the entire world, the Air District must take the following steps:

1)Require the company to file a new permit application due to their redesign of the project and intent to use a technology design different from that first submitted to and initially reviewed by the Air District;

2)Review the project under the California Environmental Quality Act, including a scoping process, a full Environmental Impact Report, public hearings in Hanford, proper public notice and providing of information in English and Spanish;

3)Become the lead agency for this project due to the potential significant impact on air quality.

Based on our discussions with the company’s attorney and with Air District staff, we know that Plastic Energy LLC will be submitting new information to the SJVAPCD in response to your letter suspending the permits. We cannot comment on this new information as the company has not shown it to us, the Air District or Kings County Planning Agency.

However, certain facts are clear. The company will be submitting significant new information that has never been reviewed or submitted to the SJVAPCD or Kings County Planning Agency.
Plastic Energy LLC official Larry Buckle has repeatedly told us over many months that the company has developed a new design and technology for the project since the time that the original application was submitted to and approved by the Air District. This information has, as of today, never been submitted to your agency or Kings County for review. Mr. Buckle told Greenaction that the technology they now plan to use is not in commercial operation anywhere in the world for the purpose proposed in Hanford. When Greenaction on several occasions asked Mr. Buckle to provide information such as the name or location of an existing similar facility using this technology for this type of waste stream, we were told that no facility using the technology and design that would be used in Hanford existed anywhere.

As the company will be submitting new information, and apparently intends on using a new technology design that represents a significant change and redesign of the project, SJVAPCD must require that the company submit this information as a new permit application requiring full agency and public review under CEQA.

In light of the fact that this new information apparently will be for a new technology design with no existing model facility in operation in the world, it is clear that proper and thorough evaluation is necessary to evaluate the potential impact of the project.

Air District staff has confirmed that as currently designed the project would emit air contaminants, and the technology would include the combustion of waste gases – not just the combustion of natural gas from the gas company as the company has claimed. Air District staff has confirmed that based on what was initially submitted to your agency, the catalytic cracking facility is not a closed loop system as claimed by the company. Our technical experts agree with the Air District’s evaluation that there would be combustion of waste gases and that there would be some hazardous emissions from the catalytic cracking process.

In addition, as the company intends to import plastic wastes from across the San Joaquin Valley to the site, most likely in diesel trucks, there will be an impact on air quality from the transport of plastic wastes to the site. Also, fugitive emissions from the facility would result in hazardous air emissions.

The company is now claiming they would not handle PVC, but there is significant evidence to the contrary. A company representative has admitted to us that they know PVC would be in the waste stream as it is mixed in with other plastics they will receive. The company refuses to voluntarily exclude PVC plastics from their permit, and their permit allows PVC to be treated. Obviously this raises the possibility of dioxin formation, as well as concern about metals in the PVC.

Non-PVC plastics are also a concern, as they can contain stabilizers, plasticizers, softeners, dyes and other additives that may impact emissions from the catalytic cracking process. Plastic bottles and polyolefins cover an enormous universe of materials.  It is expected that these materials could contain heavy metals, phthalates, brominated flame retardants, and other hazardous materials.

As the San Joaquin Valley has some of the worst air quality in the nation, and is a non-attainment area, any additional air pollution is a tremendous concern and has a potential significant impact.

It was improper for Kings County Planning Agency to completely exempt this project from CEQA, and it was improper for the SJVAPCD to go along with the CEQA exemption. Allowing a new and unproven technology to heat plastics, incinerate waste gases, and import plastics on diesel trucks, without proper scrutiny under CEQA and full environmental review with full public involvement, is reckless and in violation of the law.

Exempting this project from CEQA and approving it without public notice, public hearings, or an EIR makes a mockery of CEQA and violates environmental justice mandates and civil rights laws. The SJVAPCD now has an opportunity to properly review this project in compliance with CEQA and other lawful mandates.

The SJVAPCD must ensure that your actions do not have a discriminatory or disproportionate impact on communities of color and other low-income populations. Hanford has a large low-income, Spanish-speaking, Latino population that could be disproportionately impacted by this project. It is for these reasons that SJVAPCD must also ensure that this project be properly reviewed including providing for full public involvement in the permit process.

As this project does have the potential to have a significant impact on air quality and the environment, the SJVAPCD must evaluate this project under the mandates of the California Environmental Quality Act. Proper review to ensure public safety, protect air quality and comply with CEQA and environmental justice mandates requires holding a scoping process, a full Environmental Impact Report, public hearings in Hanford, proper public notice and providing of information in English and Spanish.

In addition, now that residents of Hanford are finding out about this project for the very first time, there is tremendous public interest and concern. Many residents are calling and emailing Greenaction for information about the proposed project, and they are expressing a great desire to know more and to have a say about the project. We believe the community has a lawful right to know about this project and to be able to comment on it before a final decision is made: both the SJVAPCD and Kings County have denied residents that right to date, but it is time for our government agencies to acknowledge this right of the community and provide a real opportunity for the public to participate in the environmental review and decision-making process.

Greenaction also urges the SJVAPCD to become the lead agency for this project. Kings County Planning Agency, the current lead agency, improperly exempted this project from CEQA and has shown a complete lack of concern about the potential negative air quality, health and other environmental impacts from this proposed facility. For example, the County’s alleged NEPA review for a loan application had a grand total of twenty-eight words in their discussion of air quality issues related to the project, and seven of those words were “San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.” Obviously one cannot evaluate or discuss potential air quality impacts from such a facility in so few words. Also, as the most likely impact from this project is on air quality, it is proper and necessary that the SJVAPCD become the lead agency.

We request the ability to add to these comments after the company has submitted the new information to the SJVAPCD in the coming days. We hope that your agency will allow us and the public to submit new comments in response to the new information in the context of a full CEQA review, with formal scoping and EIR process, formal comment periods, and public hearings.

Sincerely,

Bradley Angel
Executive Director