Deny the Red Star Yeast Permit!

Call the Bay Area Air District and Urge them to Deny Red Star's Permit Application

(415) 749-4971

See Also:

Read the Fact Sheet!

Read Greenaction's the Community Statement of Opposition to Red Star!

Read about the June 18th protest and the June 20th public hearing.

Check out the Oakland Tribune coverage and the SF Gate story on Environmental Injustice in West Oakland!

Read the San Francisco Chronicle article about the community fight against Red Star Yeast.

For more information, contact:

Chester Street Block Club Association	(510) 444-4494
Citizens for West Oakland Revitalization	(510) 451-2967
Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice	(415) 248-5010

Comments on Red Star Yeast/LeSaffre Title V Permit Application

July 17, 2002

Brenda Cabral
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
939 Ellis Street
San Francisco, CA 94109

Comments on Red Star Yeast/LeSaffre Title V Permit Application

Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice submit the following comments on the Title V Clean Air Act permit application by Red Star Yeast/LeSaffre Corporation for their facility located at 5th and Mandela in Oakland, California.

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) must deny this Title V permit application for the following reasons:

The permit process is fatally flawed due to the extreme bias shown and errors made by the BAAQMD:
At the May 20, 2002 community meeting sponsored by the BAAQMD on the Red Star Yeast Title V permit application, BAAQMD staff told the community that the BAAQMD was going to issue the permit and that permit approval was the only option. This statement by BAAQMD demonstrated bias by the agency in favor of the company, and falsely described the BAAQMD's options in the permit evaluation. The BAAQMD is required to approve or deny the permit application based on the facts - including facts presented verbally or in writing during the public comment period. By telling the community that the permit was going to be issued, some in the community were led to believe that submitting oral or written comments in opposition to a permit was futile.

In addition, BAAQMD staff stated on May 20 that the company was in compliance, when in fact the company is in chronic non-compliance due to the ongoing odor nuisances which are specifically prohibited under their existing and proposed permits.

On June 20th Peter Hess and Terry Lee of BAAQMD made statements that were aired on the KTVU Channel 2 television news that were extremely biased in favor of the company, and factually incorrect. Mr. Hess stated that the company had instituted manufacturing process changes that resulted in a significant reduction in emissions in the prior one and a half to two months. In fact, the BAAQMD has no such data. Mr. Hess has confirmed that prior to the most recent source test - which was done on only one of five fermenters - the last test was one year ago, not two months ago. There are no facts measuring reductions over the recent two month period. Ms. Lee repeated the unsubstantiated claim that emissions are going down.

In addition, the strong noxious odors from Red Star continue to be emitted despite the BAAQMD's claims that emissions have recently been "significantly" reduced.

On June 13, 2002 the BAAQMD issued a document containing "responses' to comments raised during the May 20th community meeting. In that document, the BAAQMD made incorrect and non-responsive statements. For example, the first question responded to by BAAQMD was "Is there something the people of the community can do to have Red Star's permit denied?" The BAAQMD answer was "At the present time the Air District is not aware of any regulatory issue that would lead to denial of the Title V Permit." This answer by BAAQMD makes a mockery of the permit process as BAAQMD is well aware of the Clean Air Act's mandate that a company must "assure compliance" in order to receive a Title V permit. The ability or inability of a company to assure compliance is a basic and clear regulatory issue that could lead to a permit denial, and the BAAQMD erred in stating otherwise. In addition, a permit could not be issued if such a permit issuance can be proved to violate Title VI of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Air District again committed a major error at the June 20, 2002 public hearing when Steve Hill began the hearing by stating that the purpose of the hearing was to take public comment to help the BAAQMD "improve the permit." This statement by Mr. Hill is an inaccurate statement of the purpose of the public hearing. The purpose of a Title V public hearing is to take public comment on whether a permit should be issued or denied. Mr. Hill's comments on behalf of the BAAQMD have led some in the community to incorrectly believe that the only option is a permit approval. These statements by BAAQMD have tainted the process and made it illegitimate.

Red Star Yeast/LeSaffre cannot assure compliance - and in fact cannot comply - with a Title V Clean Air Act permit, and therefore the BAAQMD and USEPA cannot approve the permit:
Similar to Red Star's current Title V permit, the new proposed permit (Section VI (2)) states that "Fermenters causing an off-property odor nuisance problem per District Regulations…shall be managed to reduce or contain odors to comply with District regulations. Within 72 hours of the nuisance, the owner/operator shall submit to the District, a summary of the problem(s) causing the odor and clearly outline all corrective and/or preventive measures taken."

It is clear to any person who has a sense of smell that Red Star/LeSaffre emits noxious odors into the community on a regular basis. These odors are frequent and often overwhelming. Red Star has never abated these odors on a regular basis, and is thus in non-compliance. Despite company and BAAQMD claims that manufacturing process changes have recently been implemented that allegedly reduced emissions, the fact is that odor emissions are unchanged and remain a terrible and unacceptable nuisance to the community. It is thus impossible for Red Star Yeast/LeSaffre and the BAAQMD to claim that the company is in compliance or will comply with this permit condition. The permit must therefore be denied.

Issuance of a Title V permit to Red Star Yeast/LeSaffre by the BAAQMD would have a disproportionate and discriminatory impact on the low-income people of color residents in West Oakland, in violation of Title VI of the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964:
Title VI of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations prohibits agencies such as BAAQMD that receive federal funding from taking actions that would have a discriminatory and disproportionate impact on communities of color and other low-income populations. The West Oakland neighborhood next to the Red Star Yeast plant is predominantly a low-income community of color. This community is exposed to numerous toxic and environmental health hazards, including the toxic and noxious emissions from Red Star Yeast, the vinyl chloride contamination site (just one block away) that has been recommended by USEPA Region IX for Superfund status, the freeway, thousands of diesel trucks including port traffic and the nearby postal service truck yard, and the toxic contamination at the site of what is now the South Prescott Park. These cumulative impacts which have real life effects on people were never evaluated by the BAAQMD.

In addition, by conducting a biased and defective permit process the BAAQMD is excluding the community from their legal rights to participate in a meaningful permit process. BAAQMD'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.

The failure by BAAQMD to conduct a proper public comment period and public hearing, combined with the failure to conduct an accurate cumulative risk analysis, are actions by BAAQMD that violate Title VI of the U.S. Civil Rights Act.

BAAQMD's Risk Analysis and Statement of Basis are Inadequate and Defective:
An analysis and evaluation of emissions of cancer-causing chemicals from Red Star Yeast - if analyzed in combination with the other carcinogens in the neighborhood - would likely demonstrate an unacceptable health risk from Red Star's emissions. BAAQMD is aware that toxic chemicals, including carcinogens, can act in a cumulative and synergistic way. Unfortunately, the BAAQMD refused to do a cumulative impact analysis. To ignore the cumulative and synergistic effects of these chemicals makes a mockery of BAAQMD's claim that Red Star poses only an acceptable risk to residents.

By failing to acknowledge that residents who have lived near all these toxic hazards for years have been exposed to more carcinogens than people not living near toxic sources, your modeling is not accurate. Long time residents of this community, and young children and infants, are particularly at risk due to the numerous serious toxic exposures in this area. As the BAAQMD is well aware of the many toxic sources in the community yet has chosen to ignore these facts, your failure to analyze this information is an action that will have a discriminatory and disproportionate impact on the low-income people of color next to the plant.

BAAQMD relies on the compliance reports submitted by the company - and continues to ignore the complaints from the public about odor nuisances - in your statement of basis for the proposed permit. The Statement of Basis claims that the district received only 14 odor complaints, which is completely inaccurate. We know for a fact that there have been many dozens of odor complaints and that complaints have escalated as the odors continue unabated.
Your Statement of Basis (page 15) states that "The Director of Compliance and Enforcement has concluded that on-going compliance can be reasonably assured for this facility." How can the Director of Compliance and Enforcement come to this conclusion when it is a basic fact that the facility continues to emit noxious odors on a regular basis, that the odors have not been abated, and that this is a violation of the permit? The Director's conclusion is without basis in fact, and the Statement of Basis for the permit is wrong.

To make sure that a permit issuance would not have a discriminatory or disproportionate impact on the low-income and people of color residents living near Red Star and the other toxic sites in the neighborhood, BAAQMD should have done a cumulative risk analysis.

Improper reliance on information claimed as "trade secret":
Under Table IIA of the Proposed Title V Permit for LeSaffre Yeast, the equipment list fails to state the capacities of the facility's five yeast fermenters. This table is supposed to provide the "maximum allowable capacities for each source" but instead lists this information as a "trade secret." This violates Section 7661b(e) of the Clean Air Act which states that the contents of a Title V permit shall not be entitled to the protection of section 7414(c) of the Clean Air Act (trade secrets protection) (See 42 U.S.C. § 7414(c) & 42 U.S.C. § 7661b(e)).

Improperly Vague Condition:
In Section V. of the Proposed Title V Permit for LeSaffre Yeast, it states that "the permit holder shall also comply with applicable requirements that become effective during the term of this permit [underline here] on a timely basis [underline ends]." The term "on a timely" basis is meaningless and needs to be more clearly defined.

For the above reasons, Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice calls on BAAQMD to uphold the law, protect public health and the environment, and deny the Title V permit application by Red Star Yeast/LeSaffre.

For environmental justice,

Susan Chiang
Community Health Advocate

Bradley Angel
Executive Director