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
p ermi t . 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
p rocess. 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
p ower 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
p lants emit significantly more CO2 p er kilowatt produced than
p ower plants that burn fossil fuels — even coal — and it can take decades before that excess CO2 is “re-sequestered” bysubsequent 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
p ermit 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 j obs are more important than all the costs to the entire
p opulation. 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 p er 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. p fpi.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 p er 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.
N ot 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, p rolonged and meaningful involvement of the effected community. The mandatecalls 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
p rocess 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