|
| ||
|
Redding Record Searchlight Febrary 4, 2006
See Also: 2/2/06 Breaking News! Greenaction & Red Bluff residents to fight InEnTec in court as company tries to overturn our victory. Read Greenaction statement and Red Bluff Daily News and Redding Record Searchlight stories. 12/21/05 Victory! Greenaction & Red Bluff citizens win appeal against InEnTec’s medical waste plasma arc proposal. Read press release, news stories (Sacramento Bee, Red Bluff Daily News, Redding Record Searchlight) on victory. Read the Final Findings that the Hearing Board Adopted by 3-1 vote. Read background. Document: Appeal of Inentec permit Red Bluff Daily News, 10/12/05: Citizens send loud message to county Red Bluff Daily News, 10/11/05: EDITORIAL: County should require EIR on InEnTec project Red Bluff Daily News, 9/9/05: InEnTec opponents air their concerns Red Bluff Daily News, 9/10/05: InEnTec appeal date set Red Bluff Daily News, 7/12/05: S.F. group calls for more thorough review of InEnTec For more information, contact:
|
InEnTec appealing for reinstatement of permits Firm still wants to build plant in Tehama County By Kimberly Ross, Record Searchlight RED BLUFF — A proposed medical waste disposal plant may have lost its air pollution permit appeal, but its executives haven’t given up on building in Tehama County. InEnTec Medical Services California, is asking a Tehama County judge to reverse a hearing board’s decision, rather than dropping the project or reapplying for two revoked air pollution permits, CEO David Farmer said Friday. " We could (reapply), but the concern is, we’d find ourselves right back in front of that hearing board, because the permits would be appealed," he said. "We’d find ourselves with the same outcome." InEnTec filed the petition for writ of administrative mandamus in Tehama County Superior Court on Thursday. The document seeks to undo the decision of the five-member hearing board of the county Air Pollution Control District. After the 80-hour appeal hearing, the hearing board in December revoked two permits issued by the air district. InEnTec can’t build its $10 million medical waste melter plant south of Red Bluff without the permits. The appeal board favored a nine-page list of findings by two groups opposing InEnTec: The Citizens for Review of Medical Waste Imports into Tehama County, and Greenaction For Health and Environmental Justice. The document presented several arguments against the district’s approval of the permits, including: • several significant changes to the project, triggering a need for further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Planning department checklist shows the project would reach a full system capacity of processing six tons of waste a day; the air district application asks 17 tons a day; the district granted permits for 20 tons a day. • the lack of an Environmental Impact Report, an incinerator permit requirement. InEnTec officials have said their project is not an incinerator but a plasma arc melter that releases less pollution than an incinerator. • district officials testified they did not determine the project could comply with state, federal and local air pollution regulations and failed to scrutinize claims that the technology was "pollution free." Farmer said InEnTec could have corrected the permits if the hearing board had outlined how. " They really gave no indications as to what their district did wrong, or what was wrong with the permits," he said. "It’s not clear to anyone." Bradley Angel, a spokesman for Greenaction, said the project’s flaws are clear, but numerous. " I’m not sure how they’d fix it because the problems are so severe. They’d probably have to submit it all over again, (even) with the Planning Commission, and that would delay the project years," he said. Meanwhile, the Tehama County Board of Supervisors, warned by County Counsel William Murphy that InEnTec was likely to litigate, authorized him to recommend an outside attorney to defend the district. " The Board of Supervisors has given clear direction that this hearing board’s decision is defended," he said. Murphy would not say how much money the board has authorized toward a legal defense, however. By comparison,
the county’s monitoring
of a renewed application from InEnTec would have brought "some
internal costs, but nothing like litigation," he said. "Litigation
is expensive." |
