Lafarge's Tire-Burning Permit
On April 24 2006 the DEC issued a permit to Lafarge’s cement plant in Ravena, New York to use tire-derived fuel (TDF) in place of 25% of coal. Friends of Hudson has been opposing this proposal since November 2003. While we are disappointed in the final outcome, we believe we made some gains. We were able to identify deficiencies in the application and our comments resulted in some positive changes in the permit conditions. Overall, however, DEC determined that Lafarge’s proposal would operate within the regulatory limits of the Clean Air Act and New York State’s air pollution control laws.
In FoH’s comments opposing Lafarge’s proposal we were operating within a regulatory framework that favors TDF, and under requirements that grant considerable presumptions to Lafarge as an existing operation. Since Lafarge is an existing plant with no proposed increase in output they were only required to adequately demonstrate that the proposed changes in operation would not result in exceeding existing regulatory emissions caps.
The regulatory scheme under the Clean Air Act is very complex and applied on a case-by-case basis. Lafarge’s permit application asserted that they would be able to burn 4-6 million whole tires per year within the applicable regulatory limits and therefore should be granted a permit to do so. When the original application, filed in December 2003, showed that substituting TDF for 40% of the coal would have resulted in CO emissions by 200 metric tons per year (mty) thereby exceeding the CO cap by 100 mty per year, Lafarge withdrew and resubmitted its application (July 2005) with a new proposal for 25% TDF that then brought increased CO emissions to just under 100 mty which is within allowable limits.
In requesting what is considered by DEC to be a relatively modest change in operations Lafarge faced a very low hurdle to satisfy the permitting requirements. It is EPA and DEC policy to encourage TDF in cement kilns as a preferred alternative to landfills or stockpiles for scrap tire management. Since TDF has already been permitted in NYS and elsewhere in the country, FoH in challenging the permit application needed to carefully examine whether Lafarge’s projected operations and emissions would fall within the strictest application of the law. CLICK HERE for FoH’s letter to the EPA.
FoH’s legal and technical experts, the same team that worked on the SLC opposition, undertook an exhaustive research effort into burning tires. The research did come up with some interesting arguments, but none of these revealed major deficiencies in Lafarge's or DEC's analysis. CLICK HERE for CDM’s report.
Furthermore, TDF is recognized as a good tool for reducing NOx which is a major contributor to ozone creation and is an acid rain precursor. When regulators look at controlling one pollutant there is often a trade-off in the creation of another - in this case the significant decrease in both NOx and SOX against the possibility of an increase in dioxins and furans. However in Lafarge’s application even those increases were below the applicable risk based standards and we couldn't show otherwise. Unfortunately the regulatory guidelines or the statistical data have not yet caught up with what many scientists and physicians already understand--that no amount of these toxins should be considered safe for humans. This remains an issue that must be addressed at the state and national levels. The Lafarge TDF permit poses a health threat that cannot be remedied in the present regulatory process. FoH is a member of the Toxics Action Network, a coalition of environmental groups that is working to eliminate toxic chemicals and their effects.
Our examination did identify deficiencies in the application and made comments that resulted in Lafarge providing additional information leading to some changes in the permit conditions. DEC did agree with us that Lafarge's permit will need to be revised to include a limit on mercury emissions but DEC decided to defer that until the renewal of the Title V permit, which will be done within a year. We were unsuccessful in getting a hard cap CO increases as a better way to monitor the permitted CO increases. This remains an issue for FoH to watch carefully in Lafarge’s ongoing operations.
We also raised the issue of the failure of DEC to enforce the NOx RACT standard that has not been reconsidered since 1994. RACT (Reasonable Achievable Control Technology) is one of the lowest levels of controls under the Clean Air Act. Cement plants in NY were supposed to do a RACT analysis in 1994 and show that they complied. RACT is done by reviewing the available technology at the time, and applying the technology that is reasonable by virtue of a cost benefit analysis. By its very definition, RACT changes and we argued for a requirement that Lafarge must re-do the analysis and see if there is a new RACT. DEC disagreed.
Early in our research we uncovered numerous emissions violations by Lafarge. DEC has not taken action on these violations because they believe Lafarge is far better than Blue Circle, the plant’s previous owner. We don’t agree. We have consulted several experts who support our contention that the history of violations since Lafarge took ownership in April 2001 is serious and should have been addressed by DEC. We are considering a Clean Air Act lawsuit in this matter. We are discussing this possibility with national groups who might be able join us in this case and bring to bear their expertise on air issues.
At FoH we believe the limits set by the Clean Air Act are inadequate in safeguarding the environment and human health. We will continue to work with others who share this view for better laws, regulations and processes that favor health above all other considerations.
At the local level FoH’s Air Monitor project (CLICK HERE) seeks to improve air quality by placing ambient air data into the hands of the public in a way that will enable public action with regard to the laws and in response to local polluters.
May 2, 2006