 |
| ||||
|
Speak Out For Clean Air and Environmental Justice!! Stop the Covanta Waste-to-Energy Garbage Incinerator
10/8/02 Community Youth, Residents and Greenaction Challenge Garbage Incinerator in Stanislaus County at Bogus "Public Hearing" Read the Modesto Bee news story! Read Modesto Bee news coverage of pressure being applied by residents and Greenaction, as well as the permit being sought. Stanislaus County residents & Greenaction Step Up Fight Against Dump Plans! Read the the Press Release, Modesto Bee Editorial and news coverage from Tuesday, 7/9 and Wednesday, 7/10! Read the Action Alert! And Read the Fact Sheet on the Covanta Incinerator in Crow's Landing, Stanislaus County! Residents & Environmental Justice Groups Launch Fight to Stop County Plans to Build Giant Dump for Out-of-County Garbage and Sewage Sludge, as well as Modesto Bee Press Coverage and Editorial
For more information, contact:
|
Comments on Covanta Stanislaus, Inc. Title V Permit Application
Seyed Sadredin Comments on Covanta Stanislaus, Inc. Title V Permit Application Greenaction for Health and
Environmental Justice submits the following comments on the The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District must deny this Title V permit application for the following reasons: (A) The permit review process was fatally flawed due to the extreme bias shown and errors made by the Air District in announcing and convening the public review process: The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District has made numerous significant errors and demonstrated bias in favor of Covanta throughout the notice and convening of the permit review process, impacting the legitimacy of the permit review process. (1) The notice issued by the Air District was misleading, stating it was for a "Preliminary decision for the proposed issuance of federally mandated operating permits." This wording gives ordinary citizens the impression that issuance of the permit is mandated by federal law, when in fact a permit issuance is not mandated. The District must approve or deny the permit application based on the facts. (2) The title of the notice
states that the review is of a "resource recovery facility."
Nowhere does the notice inform the public that the emissions being evaluated
under this Title V permit review are from a garbage incineration facility
burning large amounts of waste and emitting a broad range of highly
toxic chemicals and metals into the air of an area with poor air quality. (3) The agenda distributed by the Air District at the October 7th and December 3rd hearings stated it was a "Public Hearing on the Issuance of a Federally Mandated Operating Permit…." This should not have been advertised as a hearing on the issuance, but instead should have been a hearing to evaluate the permit application and/or to receive comment on the proposed issuance of a Title V permit application. The wording in your notice may have resulted in concerned residents believing a decision to issue the permit was a foregone conclusion and thus a waste of their time. As the Clean Air Act has a strong public participation component in permit decisions, proper and unbiased notice should have been given. A new permit review with accurate and unbiased notice must be held. (B) The permit review process was fatally flawed due to the extreme bias and defects in the environmental and health risk assessments for the project: (1) The Air District wrote and distributed a document entitled "About The Facility" as part of the permit review process. This document was very biased towards Covanta, the permit applicant, and was factually incorrect in extremely important and relevant ways. The document states that "Facility's maximum allowable emissions and actual emissions are summarized below," yet this statement in part lacks a basis in fact. The Air District relies exclusively on Covanta's own data - and lacks any independently verifiable data - to back up the statement that what Covanta claims their actual emissions to be is accurate. (2) Covanta has failed to accurately portray their emissions from the incinerator, yet the Air District repeats their claims as "fact." For example, a brochure issued by Covanta Stanislaus, Inc. states: "Waste is combusted at furnace temperatures exceeding 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and reduced to an inert ash residue." It is a known fact that the combustion process does not completely destroy the waste being burned and the material is not just "reduced to an inert ash residue" as Covanta claims. Covanta and the Air District know that dioxin and a wide range of toxic metals and chemicals are emitted as a result of the combustion process, in addition to ash. The Air District errs by considering emissions data submitted by Covanta as "actual emissions" when it is clear that Covanta's description of their emissions in public relations material is not an accurate description. (3) The "Fact Sheet" prepared by the Air District and distributed to the public as part of the so-called public review process was biased and inaccurate. This "fact sheet" claims that "District analysis shows no significant risk to public health," and claims that there was a detailed toxic emissions plan. In fact, the Air District failed to do a comprehensive scientific analysis as cumulative impacts were not considered. (4) The "Health Risk Assessment Summary" and Health Risk Assessment prepared by the Air District are misleading and inaccurate. Your Summary document states that "Health risk assessments are used to estimate whether current or future emissions could pose health risks to a broad population…The health risk assessment evaluates the acute and chronic non-cancer, and cancer risk." These statements are totally incorrect, as your health risk assessment failed completely to assess the true and accurate risks posed by chemicals known to be emitted by Covanta. As the Air District knows very well, some of the chemicals such as dioxin emitted by the facility are persistent, bioaccumulative toxics. These chemicals act in cumulative and synergistic ways in the bodies of people exposed either directly or through contamination of the food chain. By failing to evaluate the cumulative and synergistic effects of Covanta's emissions, a realistic and accurate assessment of cancer and non-cancer risks was not done - contrary to your written claim. The fact that your claim is inaccurate and the fact that an incomplete study was done that fails to confirm your conclusions must require that a new, comprehensive and cumulative analysis be done. Residents on the west side of Stanislaus County are exposed to numerous pollution impacts that can impact their health and environment. Toxic pollutants emitted from other nearby sources should have been evaluated by the Air District to assess the real life impacts of the toxic emissions from the Covanta incinerator, as Covanta's emissions do not exist in a vacuum. West side residents are also exposed to any potentially are impacted by pollution from the Fink Road landfill (including the proposed expansion), pesticides, nitrates in groundwater, diesel and dioxin emissions from the massive truck traffic on Interstate 5, contamination from the Westley tire fire, and the possible resumption of tire incineration in Westley. The Health Risk Assessment also failed to evaluate the findings of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's massive dioxin study (the Dioxin Reassessment) in evaluating Covanta's dioxin emissions. EPA's study found that the general population already has so much dioxin in our bodies that any additional exposures could trigger ill health effects including cancer, reproductive, developmental, immunological and other illnesses even at minute levels of exposure. A new study must be done that considers all the latest science on exposure to dioxin and other persistent, bioaccumulative toxics. The Health Risk Assessment incorrectly claims that the assumptions used in the study are "designed to be conservative." At the December 3rd hearing the Air District confirmed that the Risk Assessment did not assess risks from accidents, explosions, uncontrolled bypasses of the pollution control equipment or similar problems that can and do occur at incineration facilities. Based only on "maximum allowable emissions," the Health Risk Assessment thus lacks an accurate, real-life evaluation of what happens during violations, accidents, uncontrolled bypasses of pollution control equipment and other breakdowns. It lacks a realistic worst case scenario. This omission is a huge defect in the Health Risk Assessment and is a fatal flaw in the permit review and approval process. A permit must not and cannot be approved based on this inaccurate and flawed Health Risk Assessment. (C) The permit process was flawed as the Air District improperly withheld from Greenaction public information regarding Covanta's compliance and violation history, preventing the Greenaction and the public from effectively participating in the public review process. The Air District also violated its own policy on providing copies of documents related to pending Title V permitting actions. On July 23, 2002 Greenaction submitted a written Public Record Release Request via fax to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District requesting "Copies of compliance history, violations, and inspection reports from the past 5 years." We also requested a fee waiver as we are a small non-profit public interest organization that cannot afford to pay large amounts of money for copies of these important documents. The Air District acknowledged our public records request the following day, July 24, 2002. I was informed that the copies would cost us over $200, a prohibitive sum. On September 30, 2002 I received a letter from Seyed Sadredin, Director of Permit Services and Jim Swaney, Permit Services Manager regarding our public information request. In their September 30th letter they offer we can "Bring in your own copy machine to make any copies, thereby avoiding the copy charge." As a low-income non-profit organization, we do not own a portable copy machine. The letter of September 30th did state the following: "Please note that we do not charge for providing copies of documents relating to pending Title V permitting actions …" As the Air District is well aware, and as we informed them repeatedly, documents pertaining to Covanta's compliance and violation history are directly related to the Title V permit action. To qualify for a new Title V permit, Covanta must be able to assure compliance with a new permit. The public has a complete right to access compliance and violation history that can inform our comments and understanding of whether or not Covanta can comply. As the Air District withheld these documents and violated their own policy of providing documents related to Title V permitting free of charge, the permit process was defective and flawed. The requested documents must be provided to Greenaction immediately and without charge, as Air District policy provides, and the public comment period must then be reopened to allow for informed participation based on any relevant information contained in these documents. (D) The permit process was defective as key documents were not translated into Spanish. Despite the fact that the facility is located in an area near heavily Spanish-speaking communities, the Air District failed to translate all key documents into Spanish - denying at least some residents the opportunity to fully participate in a permit review process. For example, the Health Risk Assessment, the chart discussing emissions from the plant, and the proposed permit were never translated. As the Air District had five years from the time of the application to the date of the hearing to translate documents, there is simply no excuse for the lack of translation of key documents. (E) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District has shown favoritism and bias in support of this facility for years, including failing to process this permit application for five years. The Air District deemed the Title V Application review complete on April 30, 1997, more than five years ago. The proposed permit was not issued for public comment until late September, 2002. No legitimate reason for this incredible delay was ever offered to the public. The five-year delay by the Air District in supposedly reviewing this permit application was inexcusable and prevented the public from commenting on this facility's operations for years. The delay helped Covanta avoid public scrutiny in a public review permit process, and had the effect of denying the public its right to know and have a say about a facility emitting toxic pollutants into their air. (F) Covanta has not shown
they can assure compliance with a new permit as required by Title V
of the Clean Air Act. (G) Issuance of a Title V
permit to Covanta Stanislaus, Inc. would have a disproportionate and
discriminatory impact on the low-income people of color residents on
the west side of Stanislaus County, in violation of Title VI of the
United States Civil Rights Act of 1964: The low-income, Spanish-speaking communities of color most impacted by Covanta's emissions area simultaneously exposed to numerous toxic and environmental health hazards (see above). It is a clear fact that the West Side of Stanislaus County is disproportionately impacted by environmental health hazards. These numerous and cumulative impacts which have real life effects on people were never evaluated by the Air District. To determine if issuance of the proposed permit would have a disproportionate and discriminatory impact on the low-income and people of color residents nearest the Covanta plant, the Air District should have analyzed the numerous pollution sources and cumulative impacts affecting nearby residents on the West Side. In addition, by conducting a biased and defective permit process the Air District in effect excluded the community from their legal right to participate in a meaningful permit process. The Air District's failure to conduct a proper public review and permit process is an action that is having a discriminatory and disproportionate impact on the low-income people of color next to the plant. Spanish-speaking residents were particularly impacted by the lack of a proper process, including the Air District's failure to translate key documents. The failure by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to conduct a factual and unbiased public comment period, public review process and public hearing, combined with the failure to conduct an accurate health risk analysis that includes an assessment of potential disproportionate impacts, are actions that violate Title VI of the U.S. Civil Rights Act. In light of the violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by the Air District, and due to the disproportionate and discriminatory impact a permit would have, a Title V permit cannot be approved. For health and environmental justice, Bradley Angel |