Official comment Sierra Pacific permit No . SAC-12-01/ #94-VP-18b

hswriter@frontiernet.net to: R9AirPermits, Deborah Jordan 01/05/2014 05:51 PM

Cc: Omer Shalev, Kara Christenson

From: "hswriter@frontiernet.net" <hswriter@frontiernet.net>

To: R9AirPermits@EPA, Deborah Jordan/R9/USEPA/US@MSO365, 

Cc: Omer Shalev/R9/USEPA/US@MSO365, Kara Christenson/R9/USEPA/US@MSO365

Please respond to "hswriter@frontiernet.net" <hswriter@frontiernet.net>

January 5th, 2014

Deborah Jordan, Air Director

Shaheerah Kelly

EPA Region 9

75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

R9airpermits@epa.gov

RE: Official comment on Permit No. SAC 12-01/Modification of 

Permit #94-VP-18b,

I am so grateful to the EPA Environmental Appeals Board for 

ruling that EPA Region 9 must hold a public hearing on the above 

permit. As a regular citizen, I was very proud of myself and my 

friends to have fought so hard for our right to have a voice in this 

process. 

Environmental Justice was served. 

Then, Deborah Jordan, Air Director EPA Region 9 thwarted the 

intent of the Appeals Board's orders, the Environmental Justice 

Mandate and the PSD permitting process. 

The Appeals Board ruled Region 9 must consider Best Available 

Control Technology (BACT) and hold a public hearing. A public 

hearing always follows Environmental review. 

A major change occurred during the time Permit No. SAC 

12-01/Modification of Permit #94-VP-18b was originally issued 

by Deborah Jordan, and when the Appeals Board made its ruling: 

WASHINGTON— A key federal court ruling today confirmed 

that Clean Air Act limits on carbon dioxide pollution apply to 

industrial facilities that burn biomass, including tree-burning 

power plants. The court vacated an exemption that the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency had carved out for “biogenic 

carbon dioxide.”

Emissions from power plants and other industrial facilities that 

burn biomass can accelerate global warming and contribute to a 

host of respiratory and cardiac problems. Biomass-fueled power 

plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than 

power plants that burn fossil fuels — even coal — and it can 

take decades before that excess CO2 is “re-sequestered” by 
subsequent plant growth. 

~Center for Biological Diversity

Region 9 Air Director Deborah Jordan went against the intent of 

the Appeals Board by still not conducting the permitting process 

in this case according to EPA's guidelines. 

EPA REGULATIONS 

Title 40. Protection of Environment

Part 70 – State operating permit programs

S/S 70.7 Permit issuance,renewal, reopenings, and revisions.

(2) Proceedings to reopen and issue a permit shall follow 

the same procedures as apply to initial permit issuance and 

shall effect only the parts of the permit for which cause to 

reopen exists... 

That procedures for an initial permit it to:

... The Clean Air Act calls for any permit that undergoes 

significant changes to undergo a new review process. A new 

Environmental Review and the review process that follows is 

required according to the Clean Air Act. [emphasis added]

In order for a meaningful public hearing, the Region first must 

conduct a new Environmental Study on the project. This study 

would include CO2 emissions. Tacking Best Available Control 

Technology on after Region 9's Air Director has issued the final 

permit is a slap in the face to the citizens who gave so generously 

of their time to be meaningfully involved in this process. 

The most significant disrespect to the involved citizens and the 

ruling by the Environmental Appeals Board was how EPA Region 

9, forced to conduct a hearing, then proceeded. 

Region 9 scheduled the meeting for December 10th, 2013. 

Who schedules a hearing in-between Thanksgiving and 

Christmas? The Appeals Court ruled on July 18th, 2013. Why 

didn't the Region hold the meeting in August? September? 

October? Early November? Perhaps wait until January, 2014? 

Two days before the hearing was scheduled, a record-setting ice 

storm hit Northern California. Snow fell in San Francisco for the 

first time in thirty five years. I emailed my concerns about the 

weather to Deborah Jordan. Deborah Jordan knows I was one of 

the petitioners to the Appeals Board and that I would attend if 

there was anyway possible. 

Region 9 held the meeting anyway. After all my hard work, I 

could not attend. 

Another long time activist, Marily Woodhouse could not attend. 

We both live in the mountains and could not safely travel the icy 

roads. How many other people were prevented from coming 

because of the record ice storm and the holidays? 
Marily wanted to attend the meeting. She wanted clarification 

from Region 9 if the waste water from the plant was going to be 

cleaned before going into the Sacramento River. The Region's 

answers at the hearing would have been used in her written 

comments: 

From: Marily Woodhouse [mailto:marily-lobo@hotmail.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:14 AM

Subject: biomass

Hi [name redacted for privacy]

Unfortunately, the roads were so icy that i wasn't able to get to 

the EPA hearing about the biomass plant yesterday. But, i 

thought i would send you this info sheet if you are writing 

anything. I heard that some people at the meeting seem to think 

that 9 jobs are more important than all the costs to the entire 

population. This is just one of the costs:

An enlargement of the biomass plant would require even more 

forests to be cut. Biomass plants use huge amounts of water for 

cooling also: 14,000-18,000 gallons per day for each megawatt. 

This means that the current daily usage for the 4 megawatt plant 

is up to 72,000 gallons a day; at 31 megawatts that could 

increase to 558,000 gallons a day. According to the Partnership 

for Policy Integrity (www.pfpi.net) about 85% of that is 

evaporated and the balance is returned to the river (the 

Sacramento in this case) as a heated solution containing 

concentrated pollutants such as aluminum and phosphorus. 

Marily Woodhouse

www.thebattlecreekalliance.org

(530) 474-5803

In preparation for our questions for the hearing, Marily emailed 

me:

... But research says that a 50 MW plant produces 650,000 tons 

of CO2/year.

That equals 13,200 per MW. So, 4MW=52,800 tons/year and 

31MW= 409,200 tons/year, or an ~87% increase...

Since the permit from the Region would allow both plants to 

operate, combined emissions equal 462,000 tons per year. 

Not something to be tacked on after a final permit has been issued 

and with no environmental review. 

To not redo the environmental study on this project after such a 

monumental change is to totally disregard the Environmental 

Justice mandate. The mandate calls for early, prolonged and 

meaningful involvement of the effected community. The mandate 
calls for the federal agencies involved to go above and beyond 

their usual efforts to help and involve the effected community.

EPA is the lead agency of this mandate.

I understand it is a mandate and not a law. But for Region 9 to not 

even consider Environmental Justice and its role in this permitting 

process after the citizens won in the Appeals Court is 

disheartening to say the least. 

For EPA Region 9 to disenfranchise our community 

(acknowledged twice by the Environmental Appeals Board) with 

no apparent consequences makes me wonder what purpose the 

Environmental Justice Department serves. Perhaps we should 

dissolve the department and save office space and taxpayer 

dollars. 

Sincerely, 

Heidi Strand, Co-Chair

Citizens for Clean Air

P.O. Box 172,

Whitmore,CA 96096

hswriter@frontiernet.net