FROM

:

PHONE NO.

:

Nov. 24 2013 10:13PM pi November 24th, 2033 Richard Simon, APCO Snasta Ccunty Air Quality Mgmt District 1855 Placer St Suite 101 ltedding,CA 96001- RE: Expired

4 mw Facility Permit, Sierra Pacific Industries, Anderson, CA. (Sac 12-0 1) Dear Air Pollution Control Officer Rick Simon; The Title 

# V permit that the Shasta County Department



# of Resource Management lAir Quality Management 

# District (District) issued Sierra 

# Pacific Industries Anderson,CA facility expired on Dec. 12 20 12. Your agency stated: “According

to District rule 5, the District must issue
a renewed permit no later than 18 months after an application

is deemed àomplete. Therefore, the renewal deadline becomes January 19,2013.” According

to EPA Title V guidelines, and District rules of your agency,

a permit must be issued within 18 months after an application

is deemed complete. We could not locate any district, state or federal law that substantiated the assertion that although the permit had gone past the 28 months,

it can remain in force indefinitely. 

# “Therefore, the 

# current Title 

# V permit will remain
in force until this renewal process becomes complete.” What else could you do when your supervising agency (EPA Region 9) prevented your attempts
to renew the permit before
it expired? 

# uThe permitting process for the new cogeneration plant has not been completed
by the EPA. 

# As a 

# result this Title V 

# permifting action has been slowed and will not be complete by the January 19, 2013 deadline.’ 1 It was the intent of EPA Region
9, under Air Director Deborah Jordon’s management,

to ‘modify’ the existing

4 mw facility’s sawmill permit to allow the construction
of a new source of emissions (31mw cogeneration plant) next door to the existing

4 mw sawmilL This ‘modification’ would allow the existing 4mw sawmill and the new proposed source of emissions (the 31 mw facility) to operate on the same license. EPA Region

9 could not complete the paperwork for this scheme in time for your agency to renew the existing 4mw permit. Rather, EPA Region

9 is still proceeding

as if the expired

4 mw permit your ascncy had initially authorized will somehow be resurrected
by your agency when they order you to complete

it.

Page

1FROM

:

PHONE ND.

:

Nov. 24 2013 10:14PM P2 According

to EPA Region 9’s November 8th, 2013 Public Notice: The original PSb permit for this facility was issued
in 1994 by the Shasta County Air Quality Management bistrict (SCAQMb).
On March
3, 2003 EPA revoked and rescinded SCAQMb’

5 authority
to issue and modify federal PSb permits for new and modified major sources of attainment pollutants

in Shasta County. Once EPA Region

9 obstructed your efforts to renew the existing

4 mw permit within the 18 month deaWine,

it expired. Expired: stop, finish, end, pass on, depart, perish, die. “Webster’s New World Thesaurus The 4mw facility
is operating without

a permit because of the oversight failures of Deborah Jordon, Air Director for EPA Region
9. For this existing

4 mw facility to operate within the law again,

a new perirlitting process must be conducted. Since EPA Region

9 revoked your authority
to issue new permits, the process and any final permit issuance must come from Region
9. We are concerned that EPA Region

9 may be attempting

to take advantage of your agency. EPA Region

9 asked your agency to conduct the environmental review for the new 31. mw project. By requesting you to ‘modify’ Shasta County’s

4 mw sawmill permit to authorize construction
of a new stationary source of pollution, they asked the district to commit violations of the Clean Air Act. Was this an effort to shift legal liability from EPA Region

9 to Shasta County Resource Management? In the Nov. 8th, 2013 EPA Region

9 public notice,
it states: “If EPA issues

a final decision granting the PSD permit modifications, and there is no appeal, construction

of the modification may commence EPA is still attempting

to use the (now expired)

4 mw permit your agency issued for the existing Sierra Pacific facility as the basis for the construction
of a new (31 mw) major emission source. If EPA Region

9 Air Director Deborah Jordan
is successful
in this endeavor 1 the next step is for her office to pressure your agency to “reneW’ the non-existent permit for the 4 niw facility. EPA plans to issue permission

to construct

a 31 mw facility on an expired permit before renewing the 4 mw permit. This
4 mw permit
is for a facility that was designated
by EPA itself to be ‘significantly out of compliance’ the entire

5 years the permit was in existence. By attempting
to force your agency to participate

in this paperwork scheme, EPA Region
9, as your supervising agency, has abused its authority over Shasta County. It is our intention
to appeal EPA Region 9’s upcoming decision. If EPA Region

9 continues on this path, they will attempt to force your agency to ‘renew 1 the expired

4 mw permit You have the right to protect your agency. Let them accept responsibility
for their own decisions.

It is reasonable

to assert that once EPA Region

9 delayed the permit beyond the 18 month deadline,

it became invalid. According

to EP4, you no longer have any authority
to issue new permits. When EPA Region

9 asks your agency to ‘renew’

a non-existent permit, we urge you to politely decline, Page

2FROM:PHONENO.:Nov.24201310:14PMP3Ifwecanbeofanyassistance,pleasecontactus.Respectfully1CitizensforCleanAirBeidiStrand,Co-chairCelesteDraisner,MediaAffairsSpecialist(530)223-0197CC:KevinBundy,CenterforBiologicalDiversityShastaCountyBoardofSupervisorsBeddingCityCouncilAndersonCityCouncil*ShastaLakeCityCouncilDamonArthur,RecordSearchlightSteveGibson1KQMSRadioInspectorGeneralArthurA.Elkins,Jr.,OfflceoftheInspectorGeneralDeborahJordon,AirDirectorEPA,Region9Page3

# FROM

PHD NE NO.

Nov. 24 2013 l0:lspM P4 

# Open Letter PRESS RELEASE

— 

# Environmental Justice ALERY7 Published: 11/24/13 From: Citizens For Clean Air To: Deborah Jordan, Air Director Environmental Protection Agency; Region

9 (San Francisco Office) Attention Ms. Jordan: please attend the court ordered Sierra Pacific Industries December

10 2013 public meeting.

Your upcoming

decision
to rant Sierra Pacc permission

to build a 31 megawatt biorn ass plant in Anderson, CA. on an gspired

4 megawatt sawmill permit (located next door) concerns US. 

# Dear Deborah Jordan; Citizens For Clean Air asserts that it will be difficult for members of our community

to come to the public meeting your office has scheduled for December
10, 2013. Holding this important meeting two weeks before Christmas places an undue burden on our friends and neighbors. Can you see how this timing choice sheds an unflattering light? It is contrary
to Environmental Justice Guidelines. According

to EPA Region 9’s November

8, 2013 PUBLIC NOTICE: “... 

# On July, 18, 2013, the EAB remanded the permit to EPA Region

9 because

it determined that our decision not to hold
a public hearing prior to issuing the permit was contrary
to applicable regulations See In Re Sierra Pacc Industries, PSD Appeals Nos. 13-Cl to 13-04, slip op. At 87 (EAB July 18, 2013).” If you feel the timing of this meeting

is not inconvenient for the public, then it should not prevent your attendance. Your office did schedule the hearing for December
10, 2013. Sincerely, Celeste Draisner Media Affairs Specialist Citizens For Clean Air (530) 223-0197, 

# citizensforc1eanair.redwoodsgmail.com To promote attendance, we have booked Christmas Carolers. Performances will be held at:4PM and 6PM (during the breaks) Free sugar and persimmon cookies provided, B.Y.O.C. (Bring Your Own Coffee) Public Meeting (Proposed Sierra Pacific 31MW biomass factory construction permit) Date; December
10, 2013 Time: 4:30PM

— 

# 6:00 PM, 7:00PM

— 

# 9:00PM Location:
City of Anderson Community Center 1887 Howard Street Anderson, CA 96007 

# Question5

For EPA: (415) 947-4156, R9airermits@epppv Permit Application: