|
|
|
|
|
LAFARGE RAVENA
NY
LaFARGE
CEMENT
applied to DEC
to burn tires as
fuel
while not in compliance to current regulations FEBRUARY 23, 2006 RESPONSE FROM THE DEC Lafarge Cement applied for a permit to burn tires as fuel in place of 25% of coal at its cement plant in Ravena NY. Friends of Hudson submitted comments in opposition to the Draft Permit. Yesterday Friends of Hudson received a letter from the DEC announcing that they have prepared a response to comments ("Responsiveness Summary") made during the Lafarge Public Comment Period which closed on October 3, 2005. We've been advised that this letter was sent to every person who submitted comments on Lafarge. The Responsiveness Summary is 92 pages, but actual responses and references cover about 83 pages. It can be accessed on the DEC website: http//:www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dar/boss/afs/lafargertc.pdf FoH attorney Jeff Bake and Director Susan FalzoneI are reading through and digesting the implications of each substantive response. This document is an indication of how, if at all, DEC will modify the Draft Permit when they issue a Permit. On cursory reading it appears that the DEC is prepared to issue the Permit from the Draft Permit without significant modifications to the Draft. However we will know more definitively when we review the finalized Draft Permit. The DEC has prepared a finalized Draft Permit and, in accordance with regulations, has sent it to the EPA for review. The EPA has 45 days in which to comment. Friends of Hudson has submitted a FOIL for the Draft Permit, which we expect to receive quickly. FoH attorneys and technical experts will review it along with the comments we submitted during the comment period. FoH expects to complete the review and have written comments to the EPA within two weeks. The EPA response will determine FoH's next steps. Falzone said, "If the EPA supports the FoH position then the DEC will have to change the Draft Permit. If not, our recourse will be legal action." Falzone continued, "As always, taking action on critical issues such as this will require support from our members and other interested parties. The costs of this campaign will not reach anywhere near the level of costs for SLC, but we still need to pay considerable fees for the best technical and legal expertise. Public support and vocal opposition along with the highest level of expertise distinguished us from most other citizen groups. If we are to engage in the Lafarge issue we need the same level of support and expertise. Now is as good a time as any for you to make a contribution (or an additional contribution) to help defray the costs of pursuing a satisfactory resolution to this tire burning proposal." SEPTEMBER 22, 2005 REPORT: September 21st DEC LaFarge Hearing Upon arrival at 7:00 PM, the auditorium of the Ravena High School was about 1/3 full. Four people spoke in favor of approving the LaFarge permit. Three were consultants hired and paid by LaFarge and one was the president of the union local representing members employed by LaFarge. Attorney Jeff Baker, who has been retained by Friends of Hudson, Susan Falzon, Deputy Director of Friends of Hudson and a gentleman representing Scenic Hudson spoke against the LaFarge permit citing studies and research done by a consulting firm hired by FoH and other research as well. Members of KNGG, residents of Stuyvesant (including one Town Board member), Chatham, Schodack Landing and Hudson spoke out against the permit. Only three people from the west side of the Hudson spoke up against the application. Supervisor Doug McGivney of Kinderhook was absent but he sent a representative, Lenny Collins, to read his report to the DEC. Many speakers from Columbia County demanded that the DEC hold a hearing in Columbia County. Why does the DEC think that the only area to be effected by this proposal is Green County? Crossing the Hudson to Ravena from various areas of Columbia County can take from forty minutes to one and one half hours. The most devastating fact that came out was how the DEC gave the LaFarge application a “negative declaration” meaning that LaFarge will not be required to file an environmental impact statement (EIS). Judy Grunberg pointed out that she, owner of a small farm outside Chatham was required to file an EIS to put up a barn for use as a performance space. Yet the large firm of LaFarge, who has already been cited for polluting the air and breaking DEC regulations, is allowed to go forward without filing an EIS. Where is the logic? Where are the safeguards that are are supposed to protect our health? KNGG Board member Abbey Cash pointed out that the DEC declared a negative declaration for LaFarge because “it solved the problem of excess used tires in the state and it gave LaFarge a monetary benefit. This is all being done at the expense of the health of our local citizens. The DEC should be doing a better job. You are playing Russian Roulette with our lives.” A gentleman from Chatham accused the DEC of having a conflict of interest in this situation. He reported that the DEC has been charged with the job of getting rid of waste tires. Along comes LaFarge who tells the DEC we’ll get rid of these tires for you by burning them, if allowed to do so. Is this not a case of the fox guarding the henhouse? One contributor told of how he asked Mr. Clark, a DEC official, how they determined this application as a negative declaration. Clark’s answer was that a “model” was used as a comparison. What model? The full impact of burning tires has yet to be determined. Scientists have not yet determined the toxicity of many chemicals that would be released into the air. What model did the DEC use? It was obvious that when the speakers hired by LaFarge spoke, the figures they quoted were mostly from plants burning shredded tires, not whole tires which is LaFarge’s proposal. Whole tires release more toxins when burnt. One woman spoke of having spent extensive time in France where the French had learned to make safe, noise reduced super highways out of used tires. And one man from Baltimore brought in a rubber shingle like those he just used to cover his home. There are many ways other than burning to get rid of used tires. KNGG president Allen Schaefer stated, “One does not have to be rocket scientist to be aware that the air we breathe is already polluted. Does it make any sense to add more toxic pollutants to our air?” He continued, “LaFarge is telling us that by burning 5 million tires per year they will save a million dollars in fuel expense. I ask the DEC, how many millions will we have to pay out in medical expenses to compensate for this? How many lives are to be lost to save LaFarge this one million dollars? How can the DEC ask the citizens of this state to be subject to the many dreaded illnesses caused these toxic pollutants? LaFarge has hired consultants to prove that burning whole tires in this kiln is safe. These consultants were hired by LaFarge to do just this. Friends of Hudson hired consultants also. They did not tell their consultants to prove that LaFarge’s proposal is not safe. Friends of Hudson asked their consultants to look at every aspect and report the findings. The findings say that this process is unsafe and harmful to our health. I am more apt to believe Friends of Hudson’s consultants. The LaFarge consultants inspire no credibility. Tonight we heard from a Hudson woman who walks down Rossman Ave. every morning to work. She can see the LaFarge smoke plum from Hudson, 16.5 miles away across the Hudson. Another lady from Schodack Landing told us she lives only 3 miles from the plant on the bank on the opposite side of the river and has a frightfully close view of the plum. The junction of US9 and Albany Ave. in Kinderhook, is only nine miles to Lafarge and the plum can bee seen from many areas of Kinderhook as well. Columbia County is very close to this plant and should be more involved in the examination of the LaFarge application for a permit as should Albany County, Rensselaer County, the Berkshires and western Connecticut. The members of KNGG demand that the DEC hold a hearing in Columbia County. Yes, we have concerns about breathing poisoned air. However we are also concerned about the pollutants that fall in the rivers and lakes. These pollutants will be found in the fish. People eat fish. Pollutants will fall on local farmland. The vegetables will absorb the pollutants from the soil. People eat vegetables. Live stock eats this vegetation as well and people eat beef, lamb, pork and chickens, etc. We will be hit in many ways from many directions with this LaFarge generated toxic pollution. KNGG is appalled that a private citizen wanting to build a barn-like structure for performing arts on her farm was forced to file a State Environmental Impact Statement, yet a polluting giant such as LaFarge is not requited to file an Environmental Impact Statement. Why and how are they getting away with this? I am told the mission of the DEC is to protect the public. I certainly do not see this here tonight. In conclusion, KNGG demands that LaFarge be required to file an Environmental Impact Statement and we expect to see you (the DEC) at a LaFarge hearing in the near future in Columbia County.
AUGUST 27, 2005
LAFARGE TIRE BURN
UPDATE
FROM FOH
At last week’s Public Information Meeting on Lafarge’s tire burning proposal
the language used by Lafarge and DEC to answer questions as well as their
comments afterwards made it clear that we are on the right track in our
issues. We heard information about how the DEC handles violations that will
allow us to make a stronger case against the permit and gave us even more
basis for a Clean Air Act citizen lawsuit that we are contemplating.
There were about a dozen and a half people other than DEC and Lafarge employees at last night’s meeting. That provided us with the opportunity to ask questions that revealed weaknesses in their arguments. There were at least as many Lafarge supporters as opponents at this meeting. That is new- Lafarge is now mobilizing employees and contractors. We must show strength at the Public Hearing on Wednesday, September 21 and we must send many more letters of opposition between now and October 3 when the comment period closes. We don’t appear nearly as strong without a public display of our strength. In light of the present and future energy crisis, corporations of all kinds will be seeking to burn tires (TDF) and other hazardous materials to reduce the cost of operations and increase profits. We need to be more vigilant than ever. We cannot allow the draft permit for Lafarge to be issued by the DEC. It presents several significant problems: Track Record Lafarge has a poor track record with frequent Air Permit compliance deviances. In the first 5 months of 2005 alone our experts have found 20 incidents when Lafarge exceeded plume opacity limits by a significant percentage for a significant period of time. Opacity is a surrogate for Hazardous Air Pollutants, including heavy metals. The DEC should not consider this application until Lafarge can provide an adequate explanation for its operating problems and provide a plan for fixing them. Whole vs. shredded tires and inconsistent data It is significantly cheaper for Lafarge to use whole tires rather than shredded tires. Lafarge proposes to burn whole tires at the rate of 6 per minute per kiln. Our experts tell us that there is a statistically significant difference in emissions when burning whole vs. shredded tires. Yet Lafarge insists that there is no difference. On top of that, although they own 9 plants in North America that burn whole tires the data they submitted to DEC do not come from their own tire burning plants. Instead they used data from plants that burn shredded tires. The DEC should not base a decision on this misleading data. They must insist that Lafarge provide data from plants that are burning whole tires at comparable application rates to their proposal for Ravena. Increased emissions The draft permit issued by the DEC allows an increase of 100 metric tons per year of CO. Yet data from a plant that is burning whole tires at a higher application rate than the Ravena proposal shows no increase in CO. The DEC should not allow Lafarge this increase, especially since spikes in CO emissions often are the result of incomplete combustion (more frequent with whole vs. shredded tires). Incomplete combustion produces increased emissions of heavy metals as well as dioxins and furans that are known to be carcinogens and developmental and reproductive toxins. TDF does not mean recycling It is misleading for Lafarge to present this proposal as a solution to NYS’ scrap tire problem. It is inappropriate for DEC to treat it as such. This is a proposal that would enable Lafarge, by their own estimation, to save $1 million annually in the cost of fuel. There is no guarantee that any of the tires Lafarge proposes to burn will even originate in NYS. New York currently produces approximately 18 million scrap tires per year. Even if Lafarge’s entire supply were to come from NY the proposed 4.8 million would not come near to solving the scrap tire management problem. Furthermore, NYS has 30+ million stockpiled tires now that will not likely be used by Lafarge. In contrast, the DOT, DEC and OGS of NY are engaged in a civil engineering project that will use more than half of the current stockpile by 2007 in civil engineering road building applications. DEC needs to recognize that trying to solve the tire problem at the expense of the health of our citizenry is unacceptable and not the solution to the dilemma of disposal of tires. There are better recycling and reuse options for New York’s scrap tire problem that would not produce hazardous air pollution. NYS should develop scrap tire management policies to support a more diverse set of strategies and create markets and incentives for the development of solutions that are true recycling rather than passively relying on the TDF proposals made by polluting industries Precedent Finally if this permit is issued it will be a precedent setting decision regarding TDF in the Hudson Valley. SLC Catskill is watching this proposal very closely as are other plants throughout the Hudson Valley. Granting this permit will open the door for other cement plants and industrial polluters up and down the Hudson Valley to seek permits for TDF. The Comment Period closes on October 3. You must voice your opinion now! We have all attended so many hearings and meetings during the SLC battle and written so many letters. This is one letter and one hearing to prevent the DEC from risking the health of our communities because one corporation has tried to create an environmental argument in order to enhance its own bottom line. Wednesday Sept. 21 at 7 PM in the auditorium of Ravena-Coeymans-Selkirk H.S. on Route 9W in Ravena. To submit a written comment before October 3, send to: William J. Clarke NYSDEC Region 4 Headquarters 1150 North Westcott Road Schenectady, NY 12306 To sign our online petition go to: http://www.petitiononline.com/lafarge DISTANCES FROM LAFARGE TO:
Stuyvesant POST OFFICE 7.3 milesKinderhook RTE.US 9 + ALBANY AVE. 9.2 milesNo. Chatham RTE. 66 + RTE. 203 9.4 milesSchodack Landing RTE. 9J + RTE. 2 2.9 milesCastleton RTE. 9J @ OLD TRAIN STATION 3.6 milesMalden Bridge I-90 + ROUTE 66 11.6 milesAlbany STATE CAPITOL 10.6 milesCoxsackie WATERFRONT PARK 10.3 milesSelkirk RTE. 9W + OLD TOWN ROAD 2.4 milesNew Baltimore RTE. 144 + WASH. AVE. 3.9 milesRECENT PERFORMANCE:
courtessy
of Friends of Hudson - April 5, 2005
Compliance
problems have skyrocketed at Lafarge cement plant in Ravena, reports
show:
* 483 compliance deviations since acquiring plant in 2001 * Air permit conditions repeatedly exceeded, but no fines levied by DEC * Problems raise doubts about plant's ability to handle tire-burning risks LAFARGE TIRE~BURNING PROPOSAL IN RAVENA
Known issues and facts: > Cement kilns are not designed, constructed, operated or intended for use as scrap tire incinerators– Cement plants aren’t regulated as commercial incinerators – Synthetic rubber tires contain significant concentrations of toxic and hazardous chemicals, which may be released when burned Lafarge proposes to burn whole, not shredded, tires– Whole tires can produce more emissions than shredded ones – Shredding is too costly, according to company No proposed upgrade of the two Ravena kilns– Wet-process kilns are prone to incomplete combustion due to turbulence, irregular temperature, and other "upset" conditions – Lafarge’s proposed emissions monitoring and pollution controls appear to be inadequate > Lafarge claims burning tires could lower nitrogen oxides, with no change in sulfur dioxide, volatile organics, carbon monoxide, dioxins, or particulates– Credible scientists say that tire-derived fuel (TDF) may result in increased NOx, particulate, heavy metal, and dioxin emissions – NOx emission projections in the application exceed even those in St. Lawrence Cement’s Greenport application New York’s waste tire problem has better solutions– New York State legislators are keen to encourage proposals to address this problem – However, less-risky recycling and reuse applications for waste tires other than incineration include materials for insulation, roofing, railroad ties, road-building, and playgrounds, etc. • 6-8 million tires would be burned yearly in kiln• Some of the tires imported from out-of-state • Plant fined $276,000 in ’01 for permit violations• Lafarge bought plant from Blue Circle in 2001; Based in France; largest global cement maker• Health risks associated with burning tires include cancer and reproductive problems• Cement plant is located in Ravena (New York) Review process: Lafarge has filed for tire-burning permits with the Dept. of Environmental Conservation– Lafarge seeks a Beneficial Use Determination (BUD) permit and has filed an Environmental Assessment form under the State Environmental Quality Review Act – DEC is reviewing the application for completeness, and could deem it complete at any time—after which there could likely be only a 30-day public comment period – Involvement by residents, officials, and independent groups is essential to a meaningful review process DECISIVE ACTION IS NEEDED IN COMING WEEKS TO ENSURE THAT THE AIR WE ALL BREATHE DOESN’T TAKE A SERIOUS TURN FOR THE WORSE Possible Action Steps: 1. Ask potentially-impacted municipalities to: Request that the NYS DEC send them a copy of the LaFarge application and add them to the "interested parties" list to receive all notices and oppose the proposal, or at least pass a resolution expressing their concern about the impact on their their town, village or city. 2. Have groups and individuals do the same as in 1. To be added to the "interested parties" list, contact: Thomas Haley, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Region 4 Permits, 1150 North Westcott Road, Schenectady NY 12306-2014. Phone 518 357-2069. 3. Form Working Groups to: Study LaFarge application, Gather related research, Assist with grass roots action 4. Raise funds for: Mailings, events, flyers, legal/engineering analysis For more information contact Susan Falzone at Friends of Hudson 518 822-0334 or falzon@mhcable.comE SEE THE OTER SIDE OF THIS SHEET FOR ACTIONS YOU TAKEe info ntact: an Falzon, Frieds of Hudson • (518) 822-0334 • falzon@mhcable.com TRANSCRIPT BELOW COURTESY OF FRIENDS OF
HUDSON:
LaFarge Cement in Ravena NY has applied to the DEC (NYS Department of
Environmental Conservation) for approval to burn tires as a fuel. Ravena is in
southern Albany County near the Green County line across the Hudson River from
northern Columbia and Renssleaer Counties.
It is due west of Stuyvesant. Kinderhook is due east of Stuyvesant. Kinderhook is so close that many in town can view the Catskill Mountains from their homes. Pollution fallout from burning tires could be devastating to Stuyvesant and Kinderhook and points east. Lafarge North America is part of Paris-based Lafarge SA, which burns tires in five other plants in North America and 17 plants in Europe and Asia. The company claims to have seen some reductions in emissions -- particularly nitrogen oxides--at those sites says David Vahue, community relations manager with the plant. He claims emissions would remain below currently permitted levels. We believe there are many unanswered questions regarding the LaFarge application and toxic emissions created by tire burning. Cement kilns are not designed to burn tires. They are not incinerators. Lafarge SA is the world’s largest producer of cement. In 2001, the company bought the Ravena plant, which produces about 2 million tons of cement annually and employs 216 people. LaFarge is NOT proposing any pollution controls or
monitoring in addition to what they already do- which in our opinion is already
inadequate. In fact they are seeking a PCP (a pollution control project)
exemption from federal air permit requirements. And of course their
application refers to this as a minor modification to their existing permits.
(sounding analogous to SLC’s description of the Greenport project as a
"replacement plant"). 1. The primary concern is of course the health impacts. According to our research and communications with other cement activists, kiln upsets (inability to maintain a constant high temperature, which is common in tire burning) can cause incomplete combustion, which results in significant toxic emissions. 2. Our overarching concern is that the proposal be given the highest level appropriate and the most thorough scrutiny before any DEC approvals. We need to make sure that the DEC’s decisions are not based solely on what is stated in LaFarge’s application. We all know how many inconsistencies and falsehoods FoH uncovered when they started to study the SLC DEIS. KNGG SAYS: WE, NOT A FRENCH CONGLOMERATE, NEED TO BE IN CHARGE
OF WHAT
WE
BREATHE.
KNGG, STUYVESANT, THE VILLAGE OF KINDERHOOK AND THE TOWN OF KINDERHOOK HAVE BECOME "INTERESTED PARTIES." YOUR community needs to be an "INTERESTED PARTY"
too
The Chathams, Austerlitz, Rensselaer County and
the Berkshires need to become "interested parties."
To be added to the "interested party" list, write to: NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Region 4 Permits
1150 North Westscott Road, Schenectady NY
12306-2014
Contact Susan Falzon at Friends of Hudson at 518 822-0334
or falzon@mhcable.com
Also see "Articles" under LAFARGE on this web site.
* * * |
