<![CDATA[HEALTH OVER WEALTH BENSON - Updated Information]]>Tue, 02 Jun 2026 12:52:09 -0700Weebly<![CDATA[Health Over Wealth Sues City of Benson & Aluminum Dynamics, Inc]]>Wed, 03 Sep 2025 18:12:39 GMThttp://www.protectbensonaz.org/updated-information/health-over-wealth-sues-city-of-benson-aluminum-dynamics-incFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Health Over Wealth Benson Files Lawsuit Challenging City of Benson’s Illegal Approval of Aluminum Casting Facility Project
Benson, Arizona- Health Over Wealth Benson, a local nonprofit dedicated to protecting community health and environmental safety, has filed a lawsuit in Cochise County Superior Court against the City of Benson and its Planning and Zoning Commission. 
The complaint seeks to overturn the City’s approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) granted to Aluminum Dynamics, Inc. (a subsidiary of Steel Dynamics, Inc.) for construction of a large-scale aluminum casting facility on the southeast corner of Highway 80 and the 1-10 Business Loop. 

The complaint alleges that the City of Benson unlawfully approved the project by granting a conditional use permit where state law requires a height variance, which only the Board of Adjustment has authority to issue, as well as allowing Aluminum Dynamics to proceed without any proof of property ownership or authorization from the landowner, a violation of Benson’s own zoning code. 

If built, the facility would operate 24/7, produce hundreds of thousands of aluminum ingots per year, while generating significant amounts of air pollution, water consumption, noise, traffic, safety risks, and potentially even odor. Modeling included in the company’s Title V permit application shows that harmful pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter would spread miles beyond the project site. 

“This case is about enforcing the law and protecting our community,” says a spokesperson for Health Over Wealth Benson. “The city ignored zoning requirements and put our residents at risk by fast-tracking a heavy industrial facility right next to a delicate ecosystem, a mile from the schools, and across the street from a nursing home. Our lawsuit asks the court to void this illegal permit and stop construction before irreversible harm is done to Benson, the wonderful people that live here, and the beautiful San Pedro River.”

The lawsuit seeks a court order declaring the City’s permit void, halting all development on the site, and requiring the City of Benson to follow proper legal procedures.

You can donate to help Health Over Wealth with costs for legal aid here. 

About Health Over Wealth Benson
Health Over Wealth Benson is a nonprofit organization committed to protecting the health, safety, and future of Benson residents by advocating for responsible land use, clean air and water, and transparent local governance. ]]><![CDATA[Forming a Solid ADEQ Comment]]>Fri, 29 Aug 2025 02:52:43 GMThttp://www.protectbensonaz.org/updated-information/forming-a-solid-adeq-commentADEQ extended the public comment period til September 16!
ADEQ HAS STATED THAT PUBLIC COMMENTS MUST BE BASED ON FACTS AND LAW, NOT EMOTION.
Here are some real statutes and regulations that apply to the weak points in the Title V permit. 

CAA §112(d) - Requires Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).
ARS §49-427(A) - Arizona incorporates federal HAP requirements.
ADI reports dioxin/furan emissions (2.82E-09 tpy) based only on EPA emission factors. Although baghouses are proposed, they capture particulate matter only.
They do not control gaseous toxics like dioxins, HF, or HCl. No
monitoring or additional control technology is proposed. The application acknowledges toxic emissions but fails to propose legally required controls.


ARS §49-480 - Permits must contain conditions that are practically enforceable.
AAC R18-2-306(A)(5) - All permit terms must be enforceable by ADEQ.
CAA §504(c) - Permits must include enforceable limitations and standards.
ADI relies on emission factor calculations rather than continuous monitoring or site-specific testing. A permit cannot be approved if compliance cannot be independently verified.


CAA §165(a) (4) - New major sources must apply BACT.
CAA §112(d) - HAPs must be subject to MACT.
AAC R18-2-406(H) - Arizona PSD permits must require BACT.
Baghouses are included for PM, but no Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) review for NOX, VOCs, or CO, and no MACT review for hazardous pollutants such as HCI, HF, or dioxins. The application omits the mandatory technology review for major pollutants and HAPs.


CAA §112(f) - Requires evaluation of residual risk from combined hazardous air pollutants.
ARS §49-427(A) - ADEQ must regulate HAPs to protect public health.
ADI modeled pollutants individually against thresholds but did not evaluate cumulative
exposure (combined risks from multiple pollutants).
The analysis is incomplete because real-world exposures occur simultaneously, not in isolation.


CAA §165(d) (2) (C) - Requires analysis of impacts on visibility in Class I areas.
AAC R18-2-406(I) - ADEQ must ensure no adverse impact to Class I areas.
ADI capped NOx and VOC emissions just below major source thresholds to avoid full PSD review.
They used AERMOD only, which is not sufficient for Class I area visibility or deposition analysis. No
CALPUFF modeling or comprehensive San Pedro Riparian
NCA evaluation was provided.
The San Pedro Riparian NCA was not given the required visibility and deposition protection review.


AAC R18-2-306 - Records must be sufficient for enforcement.
CAA §504(c) - Compliance must be verifiable and enforceable.
ADI proposes to calculate emissions monthly using throughput and emission factors, without continuous monitoring or independent verification.
Reliance on self-reported calculations leaves emissions unverifiable and unenforceable.


AAC R18-2-306.01 - Voluntary limits must be federally enforceable.
CAA PSD Program - Major sources cannot circumvent PSD by unenforceable caps.
ADI voluntarily limited NoX and vOC emissions both just under 100 tons year) to avoid stricter PSD review and controls. Without enforceable monitoring, these caps are not credible.
ADI's emission caps are a regulatory avoidance strategy, not a substitute for PSD compliance.


Public comments must be fact-based and grounded in law.
ADEQ cannot legally approve a permit that fails the Clean Air Act and Arizona enforceability requirements.
Your comment should cite these issues, not emotions.
Submit your comment before the deadline. Protect the San Pedro.
Protect Benson.]]><![CDATA[ADEQ Neglect: Documented Shortcomings and Legal Challenges]]>Tue, 12 Aug 2025 19:20:05 GMThttp://www.protectbensonaz.org/updated-information/adeq-neglect-documented-shortcomings-and-legal-challengesIt's time to admit that ADEQ will not be our saviour. A massive aluminum facility wants to operate inner town, across from a nursing home and about a mile from the schools. The permit they submitted to the ADEQ includes permission to release tons of toxic air pollutants into the environment every single year. The ADEQ representative at the Benson informal meeting told us that they haven't denied a permit in the last 22 years. Let's see where that got them.
ADEQ Neglect: Documented Shortcomings and Legal Challenges


Queen Creek, Arizona (2023)
ADEQ failed to submit the federally required water pollution cleanup plans (TMDLs) for copper and lead in Queen Creek, leading to a a lawsuit being filed, which led to a proposed consent decree. 
If ADEQ misses critical deadlines, waterways stay polluted for longer, which is something that could be absolutely devastating to our beautiful San Pedro Riparian. The proposed ADI facility site is less than 1/10th of a mile from the river. 

San Pedro River (2006)
ADEQ has already transgressed against the San Pedro, and for some reason we’re supposed to entrust that they won’t do it again? In 2006, CBD and other environmental groups sued ADEQ for stonewalling and failure to provide promised notice and hearings related to projects affecting the river. This shows us that ADEQ is known for poor public engagement and handling of the permit review process near such a fragile riparian area. 

Hayden (continuing oversight)
The EPA had to step in and take action when ADEQ missed deadlines to address high sulfur dioxide and lead pollution in Hayden, directly violating obligations of the Clean Air Act. ADEQ’s delay meant that federal action had to be taken. EPA has designated it as a “non-attainment area”. ADEQ submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) in 2017, but EPA found the area still had not attained standards by statutory deadlines.
This behavior of failing to meet air-quality planning and reporting obligations is absolutely a direct threat to Benson while we await the approval of ADI’s Title V permit request. What good is an industrial permit if it is not enforced?


Patagonia (2025)
Environmental groups near Patagonia challenged an air quality permit approved for Hermosa mine, publicly criticizing ADEQ for not strengthening permits and addressing deficiencies on proposed mining projects. The EPA declined to respond to their petition to object within the 60 days required. These groups have had to escalate their concerns federally, by suing the EPA and pointing to the ADEQ’s role. Relying on the EPA to step in after ADEQ has already approved risky projects with no community safeguards is NOT a burden that should be placed on our small rural community. 

Sweat V. Hull (2001) 
Residents of Arizona sued then-Governor Jane Hull and ADEQ director Jacqueline Schafer after Arizona repealed the Random On Road testing Program, which was a part of the state’s federally approved air quality plan. Plaintiffs argued that once an air quality plan is approved by the EPA, it remains enforceable unless a revision is approved, even if repealed by state law. The court agreed, and ADEQ was on the hook for failing to enforce a state implementation plan that was federally binding, blatantly disregarding Clean Air Act requirements. 


Sources
Federal Register — Proposed Consent Decree re: Queen Creek TMDL.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/10/20/2023-23239/proposed-consent-decree-clean-water-act-claim 

Center for Biological Diversity — San Pedro litigation and press materials.   
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/san-pedro2-20-2006.html? 

https://biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/mining/pdfs/Queen-Creek-signed-consent-decree.pdf?

Local reporting on ADEQ criticisms around mining permits (Tucson / Patagonia coverage).  
https://www.kold.com/2025/01/25/local-environmental-groups-sue-epa-over-permits-proposed-project-patagonia-mountains/?

ADEQ internal/legal notices and Hayden SO₂ documentation.   
https://static.azdeq.gov/legal/comment_epa_haydenso2.pdf?
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2001/06/25/01-15883/proposed-settlement-agreement-clean-air-act-citizen-suit?

Historical court cases and EPA-ADEQ consent decrees.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/200/1162/2422129/?

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-11/documents/section_9_lease_aum_babbitt_ranches_aoc.pdf
]]><![CDATA[Center for Biological Diversity V. ADWR]]>Tue, 12 Aug 2025 18:03:12 GMThttp://www.protectbensonaz.org/updated-information/center-for-biological-diversity-v-adwrEvery 15 years, the City of Benson's Water Designation is supposed to be reviewed by the Arizona Department of Water Resources. It's been 17 years, and it has yet to be reviewed. The Center for Biological Diversity, the San Pedro 100, and Robin Silver launched a lawsuit. ​
​Back in 2008, the City of Benson got approved for 13,000 acre feet of water every year for 100 years. Since then- courts have established protections for the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation area. Data is now showing that Benson's pumping is now violating those rights, and taking water that the river is entitled to. 

​At the same time, Benson is promising water to two huge projects- Villages at Vigneto & Aluminum Dynamics ingot casting facility. Both are mentioned in the lawsuit. This lawsuit is pushing the ADWR to actually review the water designation. If the designation is revoked-this could put a stop, or at least a hold, on building the casting facility. 

​This lawsuit is very important, it's putting pressure on the city and the state to stop approving large developmental projects without actually confirming that the water for these projects even exists. 

Great job CBD, San Pedro 100, and Robin Silver! Read the full lawsuit here.
]]><![CDATA[Let's break down the health risks associated with the emissions from the ADEQ permit.]]>Tue, 29 Jul 2025 04:43:41 GMThttp://www.protectbensonaz.org/updated-information/lets-break-down-the-health-risks-associated-with-the-emissions-from-the-adeq-permit
Picture
Picture
]]><![CDATA[Center for Biological Diversity Speaks Out]]>Tue, 29 Jul 2025 04:17:41 GMThttp://www.protectbensonaz.org/updated-information/center-for-biological-diversity-speaks-outFrom Facebook:
"Hi all, Russ McSpadden here from the Center for Biological Diversity. We've put together a handy guides to our biggest issues with ADEQ's faulty draft air permit.
Feel free to crib from this for questions to ADEQ tonight [ADEQ's informal public meeting] and for formal comments during the public comment period. 

Feel free to print out or share this link.
PS, the fiery response and organizing that folks in Benson have taken on is truly inspiring. Keep it up!"

Thanks Russ! ​
]]><![CDATA[Do you feel comfortable with ADI's Emergency Plan in case of a fire?]]>Sun, 27 Jul 2025 22:39:05 GMThttp://www.protectbensonaz.org/updated-information/do-you-feel-comfortable-with-adis-emergency-plan-in-case-of-a-fireWhy are fires such a big risk for Aluminum smelters?
Aluminum scrap can include flammable coatings, residues, and contaminants like oils, paints, or magnesium. When this contaminated scrap is rapidly heated, it can ignite or even explode, especially if moisture is trapped inside.
One of the most dangerous interactions in a smelter is between molten aluminum and water, which can cause violent explosions.
Even a small amount of water entering the furnace (from wet scrap or condensation) can lead to flash vaporization and massive pressure spikes.

Aluminum dust, particularly fine particulate matter, is highly flammable and can cause dust fires or explosions, especially near conveyors, grinding areas, or baghouses.
If not cleaned properly, dust can ignite from a spark and lead to catastrophic flash fires.
High temperatures, caustic fumes, and corrosive conditions place constant stress on electrical wiring, conveyors, and ventilation systems—all of which can spark a fire if poorly maintained.
Fires at secondary aluminum smelters are not rare.
Multiple fires occur each year in facilities across the U.S. and globally.
 March 2022 – Fire at Hydro Aluminum plant in Henderson, KY
August 2023 – Massive blaze at a secondary smelter in Ohio, causing evacuation of nearby residents
2021-2023 – OSHA cited several smelters for fire safety violations due to poor dust management and furnace hazards
Proximity Risk: A facility close to homes, schools, or hospitals amplifies public safety concerns.

A fire could:

• Emit toxic smoke and particulate matter (PM2.5)
• Trigger emergency evacuations
• Endanger firefighters due to explosive risk
• and more...

Increased Insurance Burdens: Industrial fire risk could lead to higher local insurance rates, especially if fire response is limited.
Drain on Emergency Services: Local fire departments in rural areas may not be equipped to handle industrial-scale blazes, putting residents and responders at risk.


OSHA: Aluminum Industry Safety and Health Best Practices
NFPA Guidelines: Combustible Metals (NFPA 484)
“The Dangers of Molten Aluminum” – Fire Engineering Journal
]]>