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, Williamsport, PA 17701 (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 White Deer Township, Union County, PA. The public hearing will give all of us citizens the opportunity to speak out about, for example, the health hazards of the tire incinerator to all who live near to or downwind of the National Gypsum plant. This tireburning plant in White Deer Township will incinerate 100 million pounds of shredded tires PER YEAR. This averages out to about 273,973 pounds PER DAY and 11,416 pounds PER HOUR. Incinerating so many tires produces dioxins dangerous to the health of us human beings. And no filters can completely filter out the particulate matter emitted by the incinerator. I am quite concerned because of these dioxins released by tire incineration. Those of us who live near the National Gypsum plant or downwind of it deserve to have 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 to one degree or another, and I am wondering if these dangerous emissions, plus the other dangers of big road trucks especially wrecks, air pollution, and noise pollution--are taken into consideration in determining if this burner should be permitted. It seems to me that this number of trucks and emissions likely guarantee that sometime in the life of this burner, people will be injured or killed in collisions with one of these trucks and/or made ill by these emissions. Is that the case? And, if it is, wouldnt that be a complete argument against this burner? Or, does the DEP permit these burners on the assumption that these trucks will always be in perfect condition and driven by perfect drivers, never sleepy, always alert, and who never make mistakes?

Letter#3
I write this letter with grave misgivings and concerns about the tireburning incinerator that I understand is approved to be constructed in White Deer Township. This tire-burning incinerator, as I understand the facts will provide electricity for National Gypsum only and will not benefit any other residents of White Deer Township. I am distressed that National Gypsum invited an incineration company from out-ofstate without so much as a second thought to the impact it would have on the White Deer Valley residents. The truck traffic alone is enough to cause major problems in this area. The accidents it could potentially cause are astronomical. Outof-state drivers are not familiar with our roads and conditions and therefore 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 the incredible down-grade of air quality this incinerator will cause. By EPAs 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 DO NOT understand how you, DEP, who is supposed to be working and looking out for our best interest could possibly approve such a disaster waiting to happen. We MUST be provided a public hearing so the residents voices, who will be most affected, can be heard and we can confront National Gypsum directly and find out why they hold such 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 check out the site of the proposed WDEP burner. I was amazed when we got 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 am thinking about moving somewhere else because I can't see how emissions from the burner won't sometimes be thick in the air around our house and yard. We spend lots of time outside in our backyard, and already my wife and I are worrying about whether we should go live somewhere else if th burner is built. And, if we can't play in the yard, why live here? By the way, does the company or the DEP have a fund that protects people like us from declining value of our property if that happens? Ive already talked to a few neighbors, and we are all convinced well never 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 companies you have in mind?

Letter#5
I read in a newsletter sent out by an environmental organization that the burner would emit over hundreds of tons each year of thirty two chemicals that the EPA regards as "Hazardous Air Pollutants." I also read on the WDEP web site that none of this will keep it from getting a clean bill of health from the DEP. How can that possibly be the case?

If you put these poisons in the air, how can anyone be sure about where they go, how they accumulate, and what is their effect on everyone down-wind, from healthy adults to young kids and older people? There are thirty two (!!!) poisons you will allow into my air if you permit this plant, and I can't see how you can that. If this sort of poisoning is legal, something is wrong, wrong, wrong, and I can't help but believe you know that. Do you ever feel guilty by enforcing laws that you think are not in the best interests of civilians? Well, if you permit this toxic spewing monster, you should either feel guilty or you should look in the mirror and say, "Hi, Mr. Simpleton."

Letter#6
I would like to comment on, and ask questions about, the truck traffic that will result from with the E-TL incinerator. I would also like to use my comments on this truck traffic to demonstrate that in approving this project, you are violating your own Mission Statement, which on your web sites states that: The Department of Environmental Protection's mission is to protect Pennsylvania's air, land and water from pollution and to provide for the health and safety of its citizens through a cleaner environment. We will work as partners with individuals, organizations, governments and businesses to prevent pollution and 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. The emissions also include each year hundreds of thousands of pounds of hazardous air pollutants, many tons of them particulate matter about whose dangers scientists remain divided. Every ounce of toxins that goes into the air from this burner reveals how unreal and unreliable is your claim that you will work with businesses and others to prevent pollution.

In no place in this application is my main point more easily shown than in the case of the truck traffic. My interpretation of the application is this: huge trucks will bring in the shredded tires and the limestone used as a dry sorbent, and other trucks will take away the ashes from the burner. How many such trucks? Last August, when the company was planning to burn 73 million pounds of tires per year, it estimated it would bring in about 6-7 trucks per day. Now it plans to burn about 100 million pounds per year, a 37% increase in shredded tires. Assuming a similar percentage increase in the need for trucks to haul the shreds, sorbent and fly ash, the company will have 9 trucks per day 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 going from the site. I did not see from the application proposed routes for these trucks, but surely there is going to be noise, air pollution, congestion and danger brought to the roads taken by the trucks. Its hard to see how your allowing this truck traffic can provide for the health and safety of its citizens. Further details about this truck traffic add to it as a problem. E-TLs application says two things: first of all fugitive emissions from these trucks on the highway, and from unloading and loading at the plant. will amount to at almost nine tons of toxic particulate matter emitted into the air. (And, I believe it might be more than this/ Necause the presentation is highly technical, I wasnt certain about my interpretation, and I used what I considered a low estimate). The application tells us not to worry about these emissions, stating on p. 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 from delivery truck traffic on paved roadways. This apparently means that as the trucks taking this lime sorbent down the highway, some of it, real fugitives containing particular matter, will be blowing in the wind on to other cars and into the ambient air. As I read and interpret this application correctly, the companys delivery system brings hazards to the highways where it travels

simply because it will involve huge trucks, making thousands of trips per year on public highways with some of those trucks regularly dusting passersby with poisons too small to see and whose long term effects remain unknown. Do you understand why someone might see all of this as your way of providing for the health of these two companies rather than providing for the health and safety of its citizens. Last of all, my questions: (1) Do you agree that approving this permit violates your Mission Statement? And (2) Do my comments indicate that I have correctly interpreted the application?

Letter #7
About a year, or so, ago, I remember reading on the WDEP web site a question that someone had asked, and it was something like this: "Can your company guarantee that none of its emissions will harm any people or animals?" The company's answer on the web site really just ignored the question, saying something like, "The DEP and the EPA set these limits based on good scientific data." Well, I am going to ask same kind of question to you: Will you give a permit to this company even if you can't be absolutely be sure that it won'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 company a permit?

Letter#8
I have read in a number of places about the unknown dangers of the kind of particulate matter (PM) that will be emitted from the WDEP burner. Recently, I saw a lecture on You Tube by an environmental epidemiologist, and she argued that no one knows the long term effects of PM on human beings, and that the smaller these things are

the more dangerous they are because they get under the skin and into the lungs so easily. All of the people who wrote things that I read seemed to come to the same conclusion: we don't about this stuff, and we don't about dioxin, over the long haul. So, dont you see that it is really shortsighted not to accept that fact and then no longer permit burners generating emissions we are not yet sure about.

Letter#9
You guys really take the cake. I mean really!!! Your fellow DEP people 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 the public about the project, about how it works, or any of that. You are called the Department of environmental PROTECTION, but how 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 thirty days 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, because you give them months, or even years, to get their permit ready but give us a measly thirty days to tell you what we think of your decision.