Sample Letters to DEP

7/28/2019 Sample Letters to DEP

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sample-letters-to-dep 1/7

Sample letters to DEP

MAIL TO:

(1) Muhammad Q. Zaman, Environmental Program Manager, Air Quality , PA

DEP, North Central Region, 208 W. Third St., Suite 101, Will iamsport , PA17701

(2) David Laidacker, Chair, OUE Board, P.O. Box 1, Lewisburg, PA., 17837.

Letter #1:

I am quite concerned that you have approved of the construction of the tire incinerating plant (WDEP) at National Gypsum in White Deer

Township, Union County, PA.

I request that you hold a public hearing regarding your approval of National Gypsum's request to build the tire incinerating plant in WhiteDeer Township, Union County, PA.

The public hearing will give all of us citizens the opportunity to speakout about, for example, the health hazards of the tire incinerator to allwho live near to or downwind of the National Gypsum plant. This tire-burning plant in White Deer Township will incinerate 100 million

pounds of shredded tires PER YEAR. This averages out to about273,973 pounds PER DAY and 11,416 pounds PER HOUR.

Incinerating so many tires produces dioxins dangerous to the healthof us human beings. And no filters can completely filter out theparticulate matter emitted by the incinerator. I am quite concernedbecause of these dioxins released by tire incineration. Those of uswho live near the National Gypsum plant or downwind of it deserve tohave safe air to breathe, not dioxin-polluted air.

Letter#2

It says in the ETL application (p.5-9) that each year on the roadways,its trucks will have “fugitive emissions” of either TDF, Dry Sorbent,



or fly ash of approximately 14.4 tons. All three of these are toxic toone degree or another, and I am wondering if these dangerousemissions, plus the other dangers of big road trucks – especiallywrecks, air pollution, and noise pollution--are taken into considerationin determining if this burner should be permitted. It seems to me thatthis number of trucks and emissions likely guarantee that sometime inthe life of this burner, people will be injured or killed in collisions withone of these trucks and/or made ill by these emissions. Is that thecase? And, if it is, wouldn’t that be a complete argument against thisburner? Or, does the DEP permit these burners on the assumptionthat these trucks will always be in perfect condition and driven byperfect drivers, never sleepy, always alert, and who never makemistakes?

Letter#3

I write this letter with grave misgivings and concerns about the tire-burning incinerator that I understand is approved to be constructed inWhite Deer Township. This tire-burning incinerator, as I understandthe facts will provide electricity for National Gypsum only and will notbenefit any other residents of White Deer Township. I am distressedthat National Gypsum invited an incineration company from out-of-state without so much as a second thought to the impact it wouldhave on the White Deer Valley residents.

The truck traffic alone is enough to cause major problems in thisarea. The accidents it could potentially cause are astronomical. Out-of-state drivers are not familiar with our roads and conditions andtherefore are not safe or courteous drivers. The gas companies have

proven this fact over and over again.

Along with the unsafe number of additional trucks on our roads is theincredible down-grade of air quality this incinerator will cause. ByEPA’s own admission the matter coming out of the stacks is a“hazardous air pollutant”. Environmental experts even assert “There



is no safe way to burn tires to generate electricity.” Therefore, I DONOT understand how you, DEP, who is supposed to be working andlooking out for our best interest could possibly approve such adisaster waiting to happen. We MUST be provided a public hearingso the residents’ voices, who will be most affected, can be heard andwe can confront National Gypsum directly and find out why they holdsuch disregard for their neighbors in the White Deer Valley.

Letter#4

I live in West Milton, and recently I took a ride out Old Rt. 15 to checkout the site of the proposed WDEP burner. I was amazed when wegot to it so quickly, because it was just a couple or three miles from

where I live.

We are clearly downwind from that site and close to it, and now I amthinking about moving somewhere else because I can't see howemissions from the burner won't sometimes be thick in the air aroundour house and yard. We spend lots of time outside in our backyard,and already my wife and I are worrying about whether we should golive somewhere else if th burner is built. And, if we can't play in theyard, why live here?

By the way, does the company or the DEP have a fund that protectspeople like us from declining value of our property if that happens?I’ve already talked to a few neighbors, and we are all convinced we’llnever sell our homes if that burner is put it. Do you taken that sort of thing into consideration? Or, is it just the welfare of the companiesyou have in mind?

Letter#5

I read in a newsletter sent out by an environmental organization thatthe burner would emit over hundreds of tons each year of thirty twochemicals that the EPA regards as "Hazardous Air Pollutants." I alsoread on the WDEP web site that none of this will keep it from gettinga clean bill of health from the DEP. How can that possibly be thecase?



If you put these poisons in the air, how can anyone be sure aboutwhere they go, how they accumulate, and what is their effect oneveryone down-wind, from healthy adults to young kids and olderpeople?

There are thirty two (!!!) poisons you will allow into my air if you permitthis plant, and I can't see how you can that. If this sort of poisoning islegal, something is wrong, wrong, wrong, and I can't help but believeyou know that. Do you ever feel guilty by enforcing laws that you thinkare not in the best interests of civilians? Well, if you permit this toxicspewing monster, you should either feel guilty or you should look inthe mirror and say, "Hi, Mr. Simpleton."

Letter#6

I would like to comment on, and ask questions about, the truck trafficthat will result from with the E-TL incinerator. I would also like to usemy comments on this truck traffic to demonstrate that in approvingthis project, you are violating your own Mission Statement, which onyour web sites states that:

The Department of Environmental Protection's mission is to

protect Pennsylvania's air, land and water f rom pollution and toprovide for the health and safety of its c itizens through a cleaner environment. We will work as partners with individuals,organizations, governments and businesses to prevent pollutionand restore our natural resources.

How are you not doing that? In a nutshell, E-TL will emit tons of polluted air into the air every day as the end-game of a process of incinerating 100,000,000 pounds of shredded tires each year. Theemissions also include each year hundreds of thousands of poundsof hazardous air pollutants, many tons of them particulate matterabout whose dangers scientists remain divided. Every ounce of toxinsthat goes into the air from this burner reveals how unreal andunreliable is your claim that you will work with businesses and othersto “prevent pollution.”



In no place in this application is my main point more easily shownthan in the case of the truck traffic. My interpretation of the applicationis this: huge trucks will bring in the shredded tires and the limestoneused as a dry sorbent, and other trucks will take away the ashes fromthe burner. How many such trucks? Last August, when the companywas planning to burn 73 million pounds of tires per year, it estimatedit would bring in about 6-7 trucks per day. Now it plans to burn about100 million pounds per year, a 37% increase in shredded tires.

Assuming a similar percentage increase in the need for trucks to haulthe shreds, sorbent and fly ash, the company will have 9 trucks perday arriving and then leaving the plant.

Further, the application typically indicates that it will operate 350 days

per year, and that gives us 3,150 trucks per year coming and goingfrom the site. I did not see from the application proposed routes forthese trucks, but surely there is going to be noise, air pollution,congestion and danger brought to the roads taken by the trucks. It’shard to see how your allowing this truck traffic can “provide for thehealth and safety of its citizens.”

Further details about this truck traffic add to it as a problem. E-TL’sapplication says two things: first of all “fugitive” emissions from thesetrucks on the highway, and from unloading and loading at the plant.

will amount to at almost nine tons of toxic particulate matter emittedinto the air. (And, I believe it might be more than this/ Necause thepresentation is highly technical, I wasn’t certain about myinterpretation, and I used what I considered a low estimate).

The application tells us not to worry about these emissions, stating onp. 4-1 of the “Plan Supplement” that, “Fugitive emissions from the

TDF delivery system are expected to negligible.” It also admits on p.4-6 that “Minor roadway fugitive dust emissions will result fromdelivery truck traffic on paved roadways.” This apparently means thatas the trucks taking this lime sorbent down the highway, some of it,real fugitives containing particular matter, will be blowing in the windon to other cars and into the ambient air.

As I read and interpret this application correctly, the company’sdelivery system brings hazards to the highways where it travels



simply because it will involve huge trucks, making thousands of tripsper year on public highways with some of those trucks regularlydusting passersby with poisons too small to see and whose long termeffects remain unknown. Do you understand why someone might seeall of this as your way of providing for the health of these twocompanies rather than “providing for the health and safety of itscitizens.”

Last of all, my questions: (1) Do you agree that approving this permitviolates your Mission Statement? And (2) Do my comments indicatethat I have correctly interpreted the application?

Letter #7

About a year, or so, ago, I remember reading on the WDEP web sitea question that someone had asked, and it was something like this:"Can your company guarantee that none of its emissions will harmany people or animals?" The company's answer on the web sitereally just ignored the question, saying something like, "The DEP andthe EPA set these limits based on good scientific data."

Well, I am going to ask same kind of question to you: Will you give apermit to this company even if you can't be absolutely be sure that itwon't ever harm people, or animals? And, if you can't guarantee that,how in the world could live with yourself if you still gave the companya permit?

Letter#8

I have read in a number of places about the unknown dangers of thekind of particulate matter (PM) that will be emitted from the WDEPburner.

Recently, I saw a lecture on You Tube by an environmentalepidemiologist, and she argued that no one knows the long termeffects of PM on human beings, and that the smaller these things are



the more dangerous they are because they get under the skin andinto the lungs so easily.

All of the people who wrote things that I read seemed to come to thesame conclusion: we don't about this stuff, and we don't about dioxin,over the long haul. So, don’t you see that it is really shortsighted notto accept that fact and then no longer permit burners generatingemissions we are not yet sure about.

Letter#9

You guys really take the cake. I mean really!!! Your fellow DEPpeople just okayed the largest tire burner in the world, out in

Meadville, and that makes me pretty sure you'll okay this one, too.

And, you're going to do that without saying a single world to thepublic about the project, about how it works, or any of that.

You are called the Department of environmental PROTECTION, buthow can you protect us if you don't tell us anything about this burner?Also, if you okay it, which we all know you will, you only give us thirtydays to ask our questions.

It seems to me that you are actually more in the business of protecting the companies who want permit than the citizens, becauseyou give them months, or even years, to get their permit ready butgive us a measly thirty days to tell you what we think of your decision.

Documents

Sample Letters to DEP