September 10, 2004

For more information, contact:

Bradley Angel Greenaction

(415) 248-5010

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District has nullified all previous permits issued to the project despite the company's claim that emissions from the facility will be kept well below the permitted limits.

This is the second setback to face the project after the district suspended the permit to construct in early August amid an outcry from a Bay Area green activist group over emission concerns. The New Castle company has since modified its plans to scale back the operation.

Plastic Energy now proposes to reduce the number of plastic melters from three to one, as well as to use a turbine, not piston engines, for burning byproducts.

"These changes invalidate the original respective permits, and Plastic Energy, LLC, has written the district that they will be submitting revised applications," Donald Hunsaker, plan development supervisor for the district, wrote in an Aug. 30 letter to the Kings County Planning Agency Director Bill Zumwalt. The letter was also directed to Henry Dwyer, president of Plastic Energy.

Explaining the intent of his letter, Hunsaker on Thursday said, "Since the project description has changed so much, we wanted to clarify the public record ... We're going to write a new letter after we review the new project information."

Plastic Energy wants to build an operation that would convert discarded plastics into low-sulfur diesel fuel at the Kings Waste and Recycling Authority on Hanford-Armona Road. If the facility is built, it will be the first of its kind in the United States.

Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice of San Francisco, which has been mustering opposition to the project, is happy with the air district's recent decision.

"It's a huge victory for the residents of Hanford and Greenaction because this project was suspended instead of being rubber-stamped based on false claims and inaccurate information and the truth has begun to come out," said Bradley Angel, executive director of Greenaction.

Dwyer did not return phone calls Thursday. Zumwalt was out of town for a conference and was not available for comment.

For the past few months, Plastic Energy and Greenaction have been calling each other liars.

Emissions from the plant have been a primary concern for Angel all along. Greenaction labels the project as an "incinerator in disguise."

Dywer has previously said that's a false characterization. The technology uses a heat-induced chemical reaction and involves no burning of wastes, Dwyer said.

According to the county paperwork, the proposed plant consists of a recycling facility to convert plastics to diesel and cogeneration equipment which produces electricity and heat for the operation itself and the existing material recovery facility.

Rick McVaigh, permit services manager for the district, would not call it an incinerator. He said the process would not directly burn the plastics, but it does produce some waste gas, which the company proposes to burn, along with natural gas, for heat and power generation.

Plastic Energy estimates the emissions from the plant would be no more than 11.7 percent of the limit for any of the regulated pollutants.

Dwyer argues the proposed facility will help by recycling plastics that would otherwise go to the landfill. He says the project should be supported, not opposed, by those concerned about environmental protection.

Angel said he is not advocating for landfilling of plastics and acknowledged the need for more recycling. But he doesn't believe this project is the viable solution.

"I don't think it's a legitimate recycling effort," Angel said. "Even if it is legitimate, the bottom line is, we don't think it's safe."

Angel also doesn't like the fact that the project was approved by the Kings County Planning Agency through an administrative site plan review. He said the project was improperly exempted from a review under the California Environmental Quality Act and little effort was made to give the public a chance to learn about the project.

Zumwalt has said cogeneration equipment with a capacity of 50 megawatts or less is exempt from CEQA. The project is proposing to generate 1.2 megawatts.

The air district, too, now calls for a CEQA review.

The new information "requires reconsideration of the project in light of CEQA," Hunsaker said. "We understand that the county will consider the CEQA implications of the new project description."

But it will still be up to the county planning agency, the lead agency on the project, to make that determination.

A building permit is a different story.

Before the county can issue a building permit, Plastic Energy needs to prove it has met all regulatory agencies' requirements, said Assistant Zoning Administrator Sandy Roper.

Roper said the county will not issue a permit for construction plans that are different from the plans approved for the site plan.

In the face of recent controversy, the project has widespread support from city and county leaders. Now that the headwind is growing stronger against the project, its proponents are hoping to launch a public relations campaign.

Earlier this week, the governing board for the Kings Waste Recycling Authority was talking about placing an advertisement in The Sentinel. The KWRA is a key stakeholder on the project. It has worked closely with Plastic Energy on the project planning from day one.

"With a full-page ad, this board will go out and explain to people why we're behind it and, no matter what they hear from Greenaction, this is not an incinerator," said KWRA Executive Director Mike Adams.

Adams did little hide his frustration.

"We're saying if the project is not what we think it is, we'll shut it down," Adams said. "How much more assurance can we give to the public?"

In response to repeated request by Greenaction, Dwyer is expected to hold a town hall meeting sometime this month to inform the public about his project.