Main Office: 33 Central Ave, 3rd Floor, Albany, New York 12210 Phone: (518) 462-5527  Fax

: (518) 465-8349  E-mail: cectoxic@igc.org Websites: www.cectoxic.org  www.ecothreatny.org  www.toxicfreefuture.org

October 27, 2010 John W. Petronella Environmental Analyst New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits Region 3 21 South Putt Corners Road New Paltz, NY 12561-1620 Re: Taylor Biomass Energy Facility Permit Applications Dear Mr. Petronella, Thank you for your assistance in accessing the files and answering our questions. We appreciate your help. We intend to address both applications at once, because many of the issues are interconnected, apply to both Solid Waste and Air applications and it seems redundant to repeat the same thing twice. We are also enclosing an earlier letter regarding the Draft EIS which was signed by many environmental groups and sent to the Town of Montgomery. These and all other comments which we have provided to DEC or the Town of Montgomery and copied to DEC should constitute the entire record of our comments for the proposed Taylor facility. 1. The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation should deny any permits for this experimental facility. Currently there is no commercial facility in the nation that uses gasification for mixed solid waste. The track record elsewhere on these newer versions of garbage incinerators points to serious problems. We are enclosing two reports for background information: Incinerators in Disguise and An Industry Blowing Smoke. Many of the newer versions of incinerators-- gasification, plasma arc and pyrolysis-- have been defeated at the local level because project proponents misrepresented the capability of the technology or the costs or lied about the emissions, often claiming zero emissions. All of these technologies use staged incineration. We urge particular attention to the Thermo-select facility, located in Germany. It had difficulty producing energy to the grid. Many communities had to find other ways to deal with their garbage. It was such a failure that the local community and newspaper dubbed it "Thermo-defect". Finally after a large toxic release it was permanently shut down. The large German energy company that contracted

Waste

A Clean Environment* Green Purchasing* Pollution Prevention* Healthy People* Green Jobs* Zero

for the facility lost almost $500 million and had had enough. It severed its relationship with Thermo-select and cancelled plans for a second plant. Given the difficult economic times the state is experiencing, and the extreme cutbacks the agency has experienced, this is just the kind of project that should not be permitted. It is a project that will need monthly monitoring, not semi-annual reports that are allowed an additional 60 for submission. DEC must deal with the facts, while ignoring the obfuscations that have been presented by the applicant. 2. DEC is for some bizarre reason having difficulty regulating this facility for what it is -- a solid waste incinerator. We urge DEC to study the definitions found in your own regulations as well as EPA' definitions for municipal waste combustors and approach this project as what it is -- an incinerator for muncipal solid waste. EPA's definition under 40CFR Part 60 Subpart EB 60.51b Definitions (underlining is ours) Municipal waste combustor, MWC, or municipal waste combustor unit: (1) Means any setting or equipment that combusts solid, liquid, or gasified municipal solid waste including, but not limited to, field-erected incinerators (with or without heat recovery), modular incinerators (starved-air or excess-air), boilers (i.e., steam generating units), furnaces (whether suspensionfired, grate-fired, mass-fired, air curtain incinerators, or fluidized bed-fired), and pyrolysis/combustion units. EPA also refers to Incinerators processing 250 tons per day of municipal solid waste as being subject to New Source Performance standards. DEC regulations §360-1.2 DEFINITIONS.
(1) Solid waste means, except as described in paragraph (4) of this subdivision, any garbage, refuse, sludge from a wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded materials including solid, liquid, semi-solid, or contained gaseous material, resulting from industrial, commercial, mining and agricultural operations, and from community activities, but does not include solid or dissolved materials in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return flows or industrial discharges that are point sources subject to permit under 33 USC 1342, as amended (86 Stat. 880), or source, special nuclear or by-product material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (68 Stat. 923) except as may be provided by existing agreements between the State of New York and the government of the United States (see section 360-1.3 of this Part). (2) A material is discarded if it is abandoned by being: (i) disposed of; (ii) burned or incinerated, including being burned as a fuel for the purpose of recovering usable energy; or (iii) accumulated, stored or physically, chemically or biologically treated (other than burned or incinerated) instead of or before being disposed of.

(157) Solid waste incinerator means an incinerator combusting solid waste or solid waste in combination with fossil fuel with or without energy recovery. (158) Solid waste management facility means any facility employed beyond the initial solid waste collection process and managing solid waste, including but not limited to: storage areas or facilities; transfer stations; rail-haul or barge-haul facilities; landfills; disposal facilities; solid waste incinerators; refuse-derived fuel processing facilities; pyrolysis facilities; C&D debris processing facilities; land application facilities; composting facilities; surface impoundments; used oil storage, reprocessing, and rerefining facilities; recyclables handling and recovery facilities; waste tire storage facilities; and regulated medical waste treatment facilities. The term includes all structures, appurtenances, and improvements on the land used for the management or disposal of solid waste. (159) Solid waste incinerator process train means the solid waste incineration chute to stack equipment. This equipment would generally include a feed chute or charging hopper, combustion system, boiler, air pollution control devices and ash residue system.

§219-1.1 Definitions (10) Municipal solid waste incineration facility. A facility that is owned, operated, or utilized by, or under contract with, a municipality or political subdivision and which utilizes high temperature thermal destruction technologies, including combustion for the recovery of thermal value or for the disposal of municipal solid waste. Note: A municipal solid waste incineration facility may also be an infectious waste incineration facility. (11) Private solid waste incineration facility. Any facility, other than a municipal solid waste facility, that burns municipal solid waste, or any fuels derived from municipal solid waste using thermal destruction technologies, with or without energy recovery. The Taylor facility is private, and it plans to use staged incineration- first gasifying the waste, then combusting it. There will be two streams following the gasifier-- a gas which will be combusted in a turbine generator and a solid char which will be combusted in a combustion reactor. Taylor likes to refer to his facility as gasification only but the reality is that gasification is followed by combustion. One of the major problems here is that the gas needs to be cleaned before being used as a product gas, and details about this step are still unknown as Taylor has not supplied the information. If not adequately "cleaned" the product gas itself will be a key source of air contaminants. Overall destruction efficiency of volatile and semi-volatile compounds will be critical for protecting public health. The Massachusetts DEP has recently extended its moratorium on incineration and included the newer versions in the moratorium. We believe New York should do the same. See the New Yorkers for Zero Waste Platform, which contains a recommendation for a moratorium on incineration, Attachment #1. 3. We remain hopeful that DEC will deny any permits to this flawed project. In the absence of a denial, we are hopeful that DEC will make major modifications, include stringent conditions, additional monitoring and reporting in the permits, which are needed for an experimental facility of this kind.

We agree with DEC's earlier 2009 interpretation that these applications were incomplete. We find them still incomplete and difficult to review for that reason. However, DEC determined in September 2010 that these air and solid waste permit applications were complete enough for review, despite the fact that DEC had still not received the final Environmental Impact Statement from the Town of Montgomery. DEC indicated it would only begin review of the EIS once the Final EIS was made available. While the applications were complete enough for public review, DEC indicated that its review was not finished. What this means essentially is that there may be additional modifications as the applicant responds to issues that DEC raises. In addition, after the public comment period DEC will review comments from various parties and may make modifications to the draft permits. We believe that these applications are far too deficient and problematic, as we delineate below. Therefore, we are requesting that once DEC completes its review and finalizes its comments that we are given an additional opportunity with a reasonable comment period to review the modifications, DEC's technical review and any permit changes. We believe this is a very reasonable request given the unique and experimental nature of this proposal and the incomplete nature of information submitted by Taylor. 4. Too many falsehoods are given life in the applications and EIS. DEC needs to focus on the facts and the real environmental impacts of this project, ignoring the public relations hype advanced by the applicant. The project is advanced as renewable energy, as saving energy, as clean, as providing many jobs and contributing to economic development, as reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I may have left out some other miraculous aspect of the claims about this proposal. The reality is in the exact opposite direction. The truth is that the existing facility is a recycling facility that recycles a large amount of C&D debris. According to the EIS "in excess of 97% of the waste products delivered to the existing permitted facility are processed and recycled with the balance shipped to permitted landfills for disposal." Under the new proposal, while adding additional capacity for C& D and MSW, the plan is to recycle 20-30% ( this amount varies within the application materials which state 20% sometimes and 30% at others) of the material only and to create what Taylor is calling "biomass feedstock" to be burned or destroyed in its gasification/combustion reactor. So despite increasing the quantities of waste materials handled the amount actually recycled will go down by a whopping 69-79%. Even if we assume that all of the existing materials 407 TPD are recycled and all of the new quantities are combusted, 643 TPD, that would mean that 61% is combusted and 39% recycled. This is quite a change from the existing 97% recycled. Yet the applicant states he is only planning to recycle 20-30%. The application states misleadingly that recycling will continue at existing levels. Whether by tonnage or percentage this cannot be true. We find this totally unacceptable. As we know from the recently completed Draft State Beyond Waste Plan and from EPA's Warm Model, recycling saves 4-5 times the energy an incinerator recovers. EPA has found that 90% of materials going to landfills or incinerators is recyclable material. Waste reduction, reuse, recycling and composting (organics recycling) are collectively preferred waste strategies for many reasons-- preservation of material resources, energy savings, cost savings, reduction of pollution from virgin inputs, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and local job creation and economic development.

This fundamental aspect of this proposal is inconsistent with state goals under the Solid Waste Management Act, the new State Beyond Waste Plan, and the stated objectives of Orange County's proposed modifications to its solid waste plan. See press release below from Orange County's website. The project you are reviewing is not a recycling project but a project that proposes to dramatically reduce recycling and increase the destruction of material resources, increasing pollution and greenhouse gases and hindering job creation and economic development. The project being reviewed is the change from the existing condition and that change is quite significant. The entire region will be increasing disposal and decreasing recycling as a result of use of this facility. Yet many of the public officials involved in this project believe the very convincing PR of project proponents and think they are getting renewable energy, greenhouse gas reductions, and a host of other benefits. See Attached Fact Sheets regarding Climate Change #2 and Jobs #3 .

Orange County Press Release 07-30-10 Orange County to Prepare New Solid Waste Management Plan
Seeks Input from Municipalities in Plan Development Reduce, reuse, recycle, and compost are primary concepts behind the New York State Department of Conservation’s (DEC) proposed new solid waste management plan “Beyond Waste.” Now in draft form and open for public comment, the plan focuses on decreasing the amount of trash that ultimately makes it to a landfill. In response to NY DEC’s “Beyond Waste” plan, Orange County has embarked on an effort to develop a new solid waste management plan of its own that will conform to the State’s plan. Orange County’s current solid waste management plan was prepared in 1991 and updated in 1995/96. It is set to expire at the end of 2010. To assist in the development of the new plan, Orange County has retained Cornerstone Environmental Group LLC. Nationally recognized for their environmental expertise and experience in solid waste management, Cornerstone’s national headquarters is located in Middletown. They have performed work in more than 40 states. “Gone are the days of simply dropping your trash into a bag that’s left at the curb and delivered to a landfill,” said Orange County Executive Edward A. Diana in announcing the County’s efforts to develop a new solid waste management plan. “Today, trash disposal is a complex, multi-faceted operation,” continued Mr. Diana. “Coupling Cornerstone’s national experience with input from Orange County municipalities will help us to develop a state-ofthe-art plan that will be good for the environment and good for our communities,” added the County Executive. As a first step, Cornerstone will soon be sending a solid waste management survey to the chief elected official and clerk in each Orange County municipality in order to obtain information regarding their existing solid waste and recycling operations. This information will be analyzed by Cornerstone and the County and be an important component in plotting the County’s course for the new plan. Municipalities are encouraged to complete and return the survey in a timely fashion so that an accurate assessment can be compiled and the findings incorporated into the plan development. If any municipality has not received a survey by the end of August, they can obtain one by calling Orange County’s Division of Environmental Facilities and Services at 291-2640 or by emailing britzinger@orangecountygov.com. The County’s plan will incorporate the goals contained in the State’s draft plan. These are: minimize waste generation, increase re-use, maximize recycling, enhance composting and organics recycling, and minimize the need to export waste. “Orange County will use ‘Beyond Waste’ as a road map for developing the County’s new 10-year plan,” said Peter Hammond, Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Public Works Division of Environmental Facilities and Services. “Based on their goals, development of the new County plan will explore the potential for expanded education and outreach programs, an organics composting facility, alternatives to landfill utilization, and a community re-use center,” continued Mr. Hammond. “I encourage each municipality to complete their survey and share their input with our plan development team.” The County has recently completed construction of a $5.2 million transfer station facility in Goshen which will play an integral role in addressing the County’s future waste.

5. The application does not contain: "a description of how the facility is consistent with the State solid waste management policy identified under subdivision (1) of ECL section 270106" This is required under 6 NYCRR Part 360-1.9. Taylor's application addresses none of the issues relevant to the State's Solid Waste Management Act, or its goals and objectives. Taylor just ignores this requirement. The application states, "all recovered material, suitable for inclusion as Biomass fuel will be transported to silos."

Unfortunately, we are not informed as to how Taylor determines what is suitable for inclusion as Biomass fuel. The application identifies paper, food, wood, fiber, leather, textiles and selected plastics-- all recyclable materials. The engineering report tells us that "To the greatest extent possible materials which cannot be economically reused or recycled will be recovered through the proposed Gasification and Power Generation processes." We think that Taylor has failed to demonstrate a need for this facility and explain why recyclable materials should be gasified and combusted rather than recycled as our state policy demands. Taylor must provide a detailed demonstration as to the materials which he believes cannot be economically reused or recycled. In addition, the following list of starred items shows mandatory recyclables under existing Local Law. If DEC approves the Taylor project as proposed DEC will be violating not only state goals, laws and solid waste plans, but Local recycling law by allowing Taylor to gasify and combust mandatory recyclables. This list was taken from the Orange County website. Recycling
THE FOLLOWING RECYCLABLES ARE FREE OF CHARGE:
CONTAINER #2 *Brown Paper Bags *Computer Paper *Corrugated Cardboard *Kraft Paper (brown bags) *Junkmail/Magazines *Office Paper *Paperback Books *Soft Covered Workbooks *Telephone Books SEPARATE CONTAINERS *Car Batteries *Household Batteries *Motorcycle/Marine Batteries Used Antifreeze Used Clothes Used Motor Oil

CONTAINER #1: *Aluminum Foil *Clear, Green & Brown glass (bottles & jars) *Foil Pans (aluminum) *Juice Boxes *Milk Cartons *Plastic Bottles (#1 - #7) *Tin/Aluminum Cans *White Refrigerated/Frozen Food Containers

*Mandatory – Must be recycled in accordance with Local Law #2 of 1989

We recommend a permit condition that requires testing of the recyclable content of materials constituting the feedstock for the gasifier and sets a limit on permissible recyclable materials to de minimis levels.
6. New

York's solid waste hierarchy in the Solid Waste Management Act is often used to justify incineration. However, a more careful reading of the 3rd priority in the hierarchy is necessary. “Third, to recover, in an environmentally acceptable manner, energy from solid waste that cannot be economically or technically reused or recycled; ..” The third priority is not just energy recovery. There are three criteria above- environmental acceptability, economics of reuse and recycling, and technical feasibility of reuse and recycling. Environmentalists certainly disagree with the environmental acceptability of incineration- toxic air emissions, toxic incinerator ash, destruction of material resources and competition with recycling, waste of energy and greenhouse gas emissions. All of the energy that went into making consumer products is not recovered, but wasted. This is why recycling recovers 4-5 times the energy that an incinerator recovers. CO2 emissions from incinerators exceed those from coal fired power plants by 30%. The critical imperative related to climate change also demands that we have a realistic view of incineration. Incinerators will not reduce climate change. It would also be pretty hard to demonstrate today given technical improvements in recycling that most materials in the waste stream cannot be technically reused or recycled. San Francisco recently exceeded 75% recycling. Given the extremely high costs of incineration, it would be even harder to demonstrate that these same materials could not be more economically handled by reuse, recycling or composting.

DEC should demand to know why recyclable materials cannot be more economically handled by reuse, recycling or composting. 7. Taylor says the project includes Organics Recovery. Organics recovery occurs at composting or anaerobic digestion facilities, not gasification/ combustion facilities, where organics are destroyed. In both composting and anaerobic digestion the organic material can be recycled as a soil amendment and fertilizer, increasing organic carbon in the soil and aiding carbon sequestration. Other benefits include reducing soil runoff, increasing water retention, reducing plant diseases and improving plant health, increasing plant nutrient content and reducing need for fossil fuel fertilizers. Composting impacts on Climate change are all beneficial but magnified by carbon sequestration in soil and reducing the need for fossil fertilizers. Anaerobic digestion also provides energy. Taylor's plan is not about Organics recovery at all. It is about destroying organics, their true value and all their associated environmental benefits. We understand that Taylor had at one point sought a permit amendment for composting of yard waste, but assume that this was not pursued. 8. The proposal is primarily for an incinerator, to dispose of solid waste, yet DEC's applicable regulations for incinerators under Part 219 are not being applied. The absence of any reference to Part 219, Incinerators, indicates to us that this application should never have been determined complete for review purposes. All applicable requirements should be addressed in the air and solid waste applications. We do note however that DEC has used emissions limits from NSPS 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Eb for Municipal Waste Combustors in setting emissions limits for this facility. However, this state only permit should include all the state requirements pertaining to incinerators, including all the required continuous emissions monitoring, the more frequent schedule for stack testing, the combustion index evaluation, the measurements and monitoring of all air emissions control devices including fabric filters. Many of these requirements are not in this permit. Monitoring of the cyclones and fabric filters should be specified in permit conditions. Combustion destruction efficiency is also essential and we don't see any reference to this in the permit conditions either. We are attaching the DEC Policy Statement and Decision Tree which makes it very clear that only Part 219 should be used for this facility, not Part 212. See Attachment # 4 below. If DEC chooses not to apply Part 219 to this facility, DEC should provide a detailed explanation in its findings statement. In general DEC should plan for an adjudicatory hearing. BACT or Best Available Control Technology for a Recyclable Handling AND Thermal Destruction facility should be at the front end based on maximizing the reuse and recycling of the materials to the maximum extent feasible. 9. All of Part 219 requirements need to be applied to this facility, including requirements related to gas conditioning or cleaning and storage of so-called "biomass fuel" in silos. §219-2.8 (d) Operation includes, but is not limited to: (1) fuel preparation, storage, charging combustion, heat extraction, combustion gas treatment; and

(2) proper functioning of all mechanical and/or environmental control and monitoring equipment. Combustion gas treatment referred to in the application as cleaning or conditioning is an essential aspect of the entire proposed facility and emissions control. Unfortunately, the applicant is still saying that they cannot provide any detail about the degree of gas cleaning and plan to provide this information at some point in the future. "The product gas will continue onto the gas conditioning unit and then to a final cleanup step (specific elements of gas cleanup will be determined by the requirements of the gas turbine)." (The Draft EIS p. 2-28) The applicant knows the gas turbine it is purchasing. This is one more example of an incomplete application. DEC cannot write an adequate air permit without this information. Despite this notable missing element, the applicant assures everyone how clean this process is. In addition, the applicant has listed the silos as exempt air emissions sources. We disagree with this as EPA's definition includes the fuel feed as part of the municipal waste combustion system. As part of the combustion system, the silos should not be exempt. 10. In the Part 360 application, Taylor consultants check off the following types of facilities: Refuse Derived Fuel Processing Recyclables Handling and Recovery Transfer Station Other - (Fills in) C & D Processing / MSW Gasification. Taylor does not check Solid Waste Incineration although this is clearly the applicable type of facility and instead identifies C & D processing/ MSW Gasification. Refuse Derived Fuel Processing is usually processing to prepare material for combustion in an incinerator. Concerning the Recyclable Handling and Recovery facility, Taylor's application makes clear that the primary purpose of his facility is not to recover recyclables. He has no planned building for construction that is labeled as a MRF or a Recycling Building. He is expanding his C& D processing building and planning to treat MSW as a source of biomass fuel. We object to the clear intent to burn recyclables and to Taylor's presentation in the application, that the only other option for this material is landfilling. DEC needs to require the Taylor project to demonstrate success with recyclables handling and recovery by constructing a state of the art recycling facility and requiring demonstrated levels of materials recovery. 11. Solid waste is not considered a source of renewable energy in New York State under State law and DEC regulations. Only the clean waste wood, which is just 10% of incoming waste materials, can be considered by any reasonable definition to be renewable biomass. Taylor's attempts to construct his own definitions of renewable energy and biomass, but they do not hold weight. Ninety percent of material entering the gasification process cannot be classified as a renewable source of energy. In Appendix M we learned that Taylor may sell its RECs, or renewable energy credits under a contract to the Public Service Commission under the Renewable Portfolio Standard. We contacted the PSC to find out the status of any determination by the Commission

and learned that it had received no communication from Taylor except in relation to another issue, not about this proposed facility. We will be following up with the PSC on this matter. 12. We appreciate that DEC has identified the Climate change policy under SEQRA for attention once the Final EIS is received from the Town. The analysis submitted by Taylor only compared its facility to landfilling or incineration. There was no analysis of the greenhouse gas emissions of increased recycling & composting as compared to their proposed process. We know from EPA's Warm Model that landfilling has the worst greenhouse gas emissions and incineration is only slightly better. All zero waste options-waste reduction, reuse, recycling and composting score the best by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Please see Attachment #2, Climate Change factsheet. 13. The public interest should come first, not private interests. The nature of this experimental facility demands the kind of thorough review a Title V permit would provide BEFORE construction. The applicant will eventually have to comply with New Source Review Requirements. We have found many problems with this facility and with the permit applications. Adequate review of a completely experimental facility, that will be the first commercial solid waste gasification facility in the nation, run by someone with no experience running any kind of incinerator should only take place through established procedures of state and federal review for a Title V application. Short circuiting the process is clearly only being done to facilitate the applicant's quest for federal loan guarantees. We object to this facility on environmental grounds, but it is even more maddening to understand that taxpayer dollars are subsidizing this facility, when there are many other environmentally sound options for using taxpayer dollars that would create jobs and economic development as well as increase energy efficiency or expand clean renewable energy projects. The decision to cap emissions in a state only permit and permit construction means the facility will be constructed and operating before a comprehensive review takes place of a Title V application. It also exposes the applicant to considerable risk as the Title V will then have to be reviewed as if no construction has occurred. Otherwise it will be seen as an attempt to evade new source review requirements. 14. The applicant's primary interest is in testing his patented idea. The state's environmental laws establish other important criteria that require a hard look at the environmental soundness of a project by reviewing alternative technologies. As stated on p. 1-29 of the Draft EIS-- "One of the primary objectives of the Project is for Taylor to demonstrate the technical and economic viability of its gasification technology as applied to MSW. Taylor has patented a process to convert tars into useful synthesis gas. The purpose of this Project is to demonstrate that the Taylor MSW gasification can be commercially viable at a scale of 500 tpd of MSW and approximately 24 MW of electricity. As a result, in order to achieve this objective, Taylor does not have a choice to use alternative technology. The Project is designed to process 500 tpd of MSW because 500 tons is the minimum necessary for economic viability." New York's environmental laws require a comparison with alternative technologies. Economic viability of private technology may be the applicant's interest, but his interests must match the

requirements of state law for environmentally sound projects. A comparison of the benefits and drawbacks of waste gasification compared to reuse, recycling and composting is absolutely essential for this project, not optional. Economic viability can be easily determined by comparison of costs for his equipment compared to costs for recycling equipment. There is a long record of financial costs for incinerators and for recycling and composting facilities. Incinerators have been shown to be the most expensive solid waste management method. The National Solid Waste Management Association has kept these records and incineration has never moved from its spot as the most expensive method. 15. The draft permit suggests that DEC is treating this facility as a wood combustion unit only. Then DEC also includes a list of other solid waste materials, as if DEC has not yet decided. Under state only requirements, the Dept. references the combustion of clean waste wood only. However, then there is a list which includes other acceptable fuels that includes solid waste and organic materials. If MSW is gasified and the synthesis gas burned then all the requirements of Part 219 apply-- including limits on a number of additional contaminants, which are not currently in the permit. Please see Attachment #4 for DEC policy which makes clear that Part 219 should be applied to this facility We object to the notion that it is only non-recyclable cardboard or non-recyclable paper that would be burned. Even if the paper and cardboard are contaminated with food waste most of what you identify as acceptable solid waste materials could be composted (organics recycling) as an alternative to combustion. Composting is also far less expensive. If the emissions cap requires the burning of only clean waste wood, this should appear in the federally enforceable permit conditions. It also must include a monitoring component to ensure that only clean waste wood is used by the facility. The writer of these comments obtained experience from a facility that was supposed to be receiving only tree stumps and recognizable clean wood to be processed on site for combustion. Later the facility changed the conditions of the permit (without consulting regulators) to receive wood already processed, which was contaminated with paint and other wood treatments. High levels of lead entering a nearby sewage treatment plant was the first clue to a problem. DEC should note that it is very difficult to recognize treated construction lumber after weathering. Only recognizable tree trunks, stumps and limbs should be allowed as clean waste wood. 16. Capping of Emissions below major source thresholds There are several problems associated with the capping of emissions for this facility. First is that because incinerators are a listed category, fugitive emissions must be fully accounted for. This has not been done. Trucking is part and parcel of this operation and includes onsite fueling. Fugitive dust, fugitive VOCs and all fuel burning equipment, including trucks should be accounted for. The existing facility has been burning waste oil. Capping emissions should not be done until all emissions including fugitives are accurately counted. Orange County is in nonattainment of the PM 2.5 NAAQS. Almost no analysis of PM 2.5 has been done for this permit application, despite the fact that incinerators emit ultrafine particulate matter, that is not captured in fabric filters. Since incinerators with a charging capacity great than 50 tons per day are one of the listed Source categories in Part 201-2, fugitive emissions must be

included in assessing potential to emit. This has not been done for total particulate matter or PM10. Multiple sources of fugitives are at this site with C & D processing and various pieces of equipment and silos storing biomass feedstock. Diesel equipment on site and truck deliveries would add to the emissions not included in PM emissions potential. Capping emissions related to startup equipment only is particularly problematic. Incinerators typically have frequent startups, shutdowns and malfunctions. This gasification/combustion facility will the first commercial scale facility of its kind in the nation. Yet despite the experimental nature of this operation, DEC is capping the emissions associated with startup equipment operating on natural gas rather than capping the total amount of biomass feedstock gasified and combusted or hours of operation per quarter. The initial flaring of product gas is also capped. Do you really want to discourage a facility from shutting down when there are malfunctions and pollution episodes-- because it only has a few startups allowed ? A commercial facility of the only type in the nation will have a need for more frequent startups, due to more frequent shutdowns and malfunctions. We recommend capping total biomass fuel or limiting hours of operation per quarter. If operation is troubled the facility would be able to stay shutdown for a longer period in order to stay within the cap. If the Department has capped NOx emissions below major source thresholds, the NOx emissions limit- 25 ppmv- which is seen under state only requirements should appear as a federally enforceable permit condition, rather than the 180 ppmv. Capping to stay below major source thresholds must be federally enforceable. Orange County is in the Ozone Transport Region. A NOx RACT demonstration should have been required. We believe NOx RACT for this facility should require that organic waste including food scraps be excluded from the feedstock for this facility. 17. All emissions must be routed to air pollution control devices. We note a relief valve in the gasification reactor. Since Gasification facilities have suffered from sudden toxic releases, as in the case of the Thermo select facility in Germany, we recommend the routing of relieve valves to secondary contaminant devices fitted with emissions control. "The gasification reaction will take place in an oxygen free atmosphere to prevent combustion. However, the reactor will be designed for a 50 psig pressure rating and will be equipped with a rupture disk, to protect against any overpressure condition, with piping routed to a safe place." p2-33 of the DEIS. We don't know what that safe place is because it has not been described. As presented, it qualifies as an emission point. "The Biomass Gasification Unit, and associated process equipment, will be mounted on a curbed concrete slab and enclosed within vented, louvered metal sheeting extending to the top of the Gasification Process structure to improve aesthetics." p. 2-15 of the DEIS. This unit is not in a contained building, but a facility that is vented directly to the outside. We need a full description of the safe place the pressure valve will release to or the DEC should specify the secondary containment needed.

18. Process Wastewater needs more specific requirements for monitoring, segregation and treatment. There are limitations related to onsite handling of wastewater due to a limited septic system. Process Wastewater could amount to almost 30,000 gallons per day. There are discrepancies regarding how this process water will be handled. The proposal states that process water will be trucked off site for handling. However, on p.10-11 of the Draft EIS, the applicant says process water will be reused on site OR trucked offsite. Appendix Q shows process water going to onsite treatment. These discrepancies must be resolved. Some amount of this wastewater could be highly contaminated with dioxins and heavy metals-that used for scrubbers and blowdown water as well as steam that has become contaminated in the process. Reusing this wastewater on site could result in spreading contamination to surface water and to the already degraded water body, Beaverdam Brook. The applicant should provide regular reports and receipts showing the quantity of wastewater sent offsite for treatment. No reuse should occur unless clean water process streams are identified and authorized for use only through proper periodic monitoring. 19. Proposed Emission Standards are not Adequate. The complete absence of incorporating Part 219 emissions standards for this facility is unacceptable. As can be seen from the chart below Part 219 requirements are more stringent than limits set in the Draft Permit. (Note that PM in grains was converted to milligrams.)
Part 219 requirement PM HCL Dioxin .010 grains/dscf corrected to 7% O2 Less than 10% by wt. 0.2 ng/dscf corrected to 7% O2 (Total dioxins & furans) Part 219 requirement 0.648 mg/dscf corrected to 7% O2 CEM also Or 7 ng/dscm corrected to 7% O2 Draft Permit 20 mg/dscm ANNUAL corrected to 7% O2 25 ppmv ANNUAL 13 ng/dscm corrected to 7% O2 (2,3,7,8 only) ANNUAL

Mercury

28 µg/dscm corrected to 7% O2 or 85%reduction
10%

50 µg/dscm corrected to 7% O2 ANNUAL
20%

Opacity

Notes to Chart: • Changes occur with units of dscf and dscm • PM The draft permit uses dry standard cubic meters rather than dscf. These values are roughly equivalent • Hydrogen chloride is required to have Continuous emissions monitoring in contrast to only annual testing in the draft permit.

• •

Part 219 requires total dioxins and furans to be measured and sets the level 46% times lower than in the draft permit. Under Part 219 Mercury emissions are roughly half of the emissions allowed in the draft permit. Opacity is twice as stringent under Part 219 as in the draft permit.

Part 219 also includes continuous emissions monitoring for more pollutants: (1) opacity; (2) sulfur dioxide; (3) hydrogen chloride; (4) nitrogen oxides; (5) carbon monoxide; (6) carbon dioxide; (7) oxygen; (8) temperature; and (9) combustion index. Intermittent Emissions testing under Part 219 is required once in 60 days and not later than 180 days after first receipt of waste. Then once in 12 months but within 18 months of first waste receipt. The Draft Permit specifies annual testing for most contaminants and does not include a full suite of toxic air pollutants as Part 219 does: (See below) Air emission tests are required for particulates; carbon monoxide; carbon dioxide; oxygen; sulfur dioxide; nitrogen dioxide; hydrogen chloride and trace contaminants, including but not limited to heavy metals (arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, total chromium, hexavalent chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, zinc), polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, polychlorinated dibenzo furans, total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), formaldehyde, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's). Testing of congeners of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzo furans is required, as specified by the commissioner. The commissioner may require testing for additional contaminants or delete contaminants from this list for good cause. On June 4, 2010 EPA issued a proposed rule containing new performance standards for incineration units. We recommend that this facility comply with the newest more stringent standards. In the chart below we are recommending these more stringent limits in contrast to what DEC has put in the draft permit. We have noted also noted that 2,3,7,8 dioxin is listed in the permit, when it should be referencing total dioxins and furans in accordance with EPA requirements. Draft Permit recommend: PM Opacity Cadmium Lead Mercury Dioxin1 20 mg/dscm 10% 10 µgs/dscm 140 µgs/dscm 50 µgs/dscm 13 ngs/dscm EPA proposal 13 mg/dscm 1% 1.3 µgs/dscm 2.6 µgs/dscm 2.8 µgs/dscm .031 ngs/dscm We 0.648 mg (Part 219) 1% 1.3 µgs/dscm 2.6 µgs/dscm 2.8 µgs/dscm .031 ngs/dscm

NOx2 NOx
1 2

180 ppmv (federal) 25ppmv (state only)

25 ppmv

25 ppmv

Total Dioxins & Furans Since DEC has established a more stringent limitation for NOx we are recommending that level, but urge that it be made a federally enforceable requirement, rather than as a state only requirement. As you are aware the applicant uses natural gas emissions factors for the combustion turbine. Organic materials will increase the available nitrogen and resultant NOx emissions. 20. Hazardous emissions and contaminants There are newer persistent, bioaccumulative toxins, including those that are dioxin-like that should be monitored from this kind of facility-- beyond the list in Part 219 this would include polybrominated compounds and polyfluorinated compounds. We are concerned about this process and the many ways that dioxin emissions could be increased including in process wastewater. We believe multiple monitoring points are necessary for this facility. We are definitely not satisfied with an application that says 90% of volatiles will be completely combusted -- what about the other 10%? 21. Additional Air Emissions Monitoring and Requirements that should be in the Draft Permit In general we believe that this facility should not be permitted at all. If DEC intends to go ahead and permit this facility then it should only be as a Research and Development project, under which stringent and comprehensive monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting and full time oversight by an independent monitor occurs. At minimum DEC's Part 219 regulations should be applied including requirements for a report prior to installing continuous emissions monitoring equipment: (c) A report indicating continuous emission monitoring equipment locations, as well as specifications, and procedures for calibration, operation, maintenance, and data evaluation and reporting must be submitted to the commissioner at least 90 days prior to installation of such equipment. This report must be distributed as set forth in section 219-2.6(f) of this Subpart and must be approved by the commissioner prior to equipment installation. Operating Parameters and Quarterly Reports: (d) A file of the emission and operating parameter measurements required by this section and other operating parameters specified in paragraphs (1) through (5) of this subdivision, and any additional parameters required by the commissioner as a result of new technology or information, must be maintained. Each permittee for a source subject to this Subpart will, where applicable, following each calendar quarter, tabulate and summarize emission and operating parameter measurements, and the following operating parameters, recorded during the preceding three months. Such quarterly summaries must be submitted as set forth in section 2192.6(f) of this Subpart within 30 days after the end of each calendar quarter in a format acceptable to the commissioner: Steam & Fuel

(1) steam temperature in degrees F, steam pressure in pounds per square inch absolute and steam flow in pounds per hour (hourly average); (2) hourly auxiliary fuel use per furnace in gallons per hour for fuel oil and cubic feet per hour for gaseous fuel; Baghouse: (4) for fabric filters: (i) hourly average pressure drop across each module and also across the inlet and outlet of the entire device in inches of water; (ii) number of compartments in use, hourly; (iii) hourly average temperature at both inlet and outlet of the device in degrees F; and (iv) frequency and duration of maintenance or cleaning periods when the fabric filter is not fully operational; Other emissions control devices: (5) for gaseous contaminant emission control devices: (i) hourly average pressure drop across device in inches of water; (ii) hourly average temperature at both inlet and outlet of the device in degrees F; (iii) reagent chemicals used in pounds per hour by chemical; (iv) water use in gallons per hour; and (v) frequency, duration, and description of periods when the device is not fully operational. Records & quarterly reports (e) Records and summaries of all measurements and operating parameters must be retained for at least three years, and made available upon request of the commissioner or his representative within 10 working days from receipt of the request. (f) The quarterly summary of emissions and operating parameters required by this section will be forwarded to the department and other agencies identified in section 219-2.6(f) of this Subpart within 30 days of the end of each calendar quarter. Reporting of excess emissions: (g) Excess emissions and/or out of compliance operating parameters must be reported to the appropriate regional air pollution control engineer within one working day of occurrence, along with a program for immediate correction of these conditions. (h) All reports required by this Subpart must include a section on data quality control and quality assurance. A plan for data quality control and quality assurance must be submitted 90 days prior to application for any certificate to operate and approved by the commissioner prior to issuance of the certificate to operate pursuant to Part 201 of this Title. 22. Requirements for Product Gas We understand that the expected product gas has a much lower energy content than natural gas. Appendix N of the applications predicts a demand for product gas of 30,000 lbs. per hour. However, Appendix EE tells us that the product gas will be generated at a rate of 27,000 lbs per hour. In the accompanying chart, however the listed constituents of the gas add up to only approximately 19, 235 lbs per hour. Since our first concern is the constituents in the gas -- what constituents make up the other 8,000 lbs per hour? Secondly if the gas only provides 19, 235 lbs per hour, does Taylor intend to supplement with natural gas to meet the demand?

We expect that the product gas that is being combusted will be subject to Part 219 incineration standards, since the gas is being derived from municipal solid waste. 23. Good Engineering Practice for Stack Height The applicant is proposing to use a height for the stack of less than adjacent onsite buildings. The situation is exacerbated by the nearby berm which could trap pollution at the site. This could pose an acute health and safety issue for workers at the site, given the potential level of carbon monoxide emissions. In addition, a stack at just 90 feet will be delivering pollution at breathing level to residents in the Village of Maybrook. No matter how much control of hazardous air pollutants this facility may have ( we don't believe that there will be adequate control), there is virtual no control of ultrafine particles which this kind of facility produces, but cannot be captured adequately in a fabric filter. We are also concerned about the amount of steam that may be leaving this facility and impacts on visibility for roadways under adverse meteorological conditions. The airport has not really been addressed in the application and we don't know whether there may be impacts on air travel. 24. DEC requested a detailed HAZOP evaluation, but this has not been received. Applicant puts this off until sometime in the future. Reading Appendix S, it becomes crystal clear how complicated a shutdown will be particularly in the case of emergency conditions. We believe this information is critical for evaluation prior to issuing any permits. As many steps as possible in this process need to be made automatic and/ or redundant with backups and appropriate alarms and warning devices. 25. Record of Compliance at existing facility is problematic. We have not yet received a complete response to our Freedom of Information request. However, we did see a number of violations for the existing Taylor facility. These violations were recorded over several months and represented repeated occurrences and violations of explicit permit conditions: Operating in exceedance of permit limits Storage of waste materials exceeding pile heights and base limits Operating outside of hours specified in permits Acceptance of unauthorized waste These are significant violations of permit conditions for a fairly simple operation. The new proposed facility is not simple but highly complex. Taylor's past record points to a significant problem with compliance that could have much more serious outcomes in the new facility. Yet when we reviewed the Part 360 application, we found an unsigned Record of Compliance. This should mean that the application is incomplete for review. Why should the public read an application that has not even been officially signed by the applicant? In addition the Record of Compliance was improperly filled out to indicate that Taylor had no violations.

Taylor should be required to sign the Record of compliance. However, if Taylor signs the above, it is a false statement. Thank you for your attention. We wish to reiterate our call for an additional comment period after DEC's review and additional Taylor submissions. Sincerely,

Barbara J. Warren Executive Director Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment #1 New Yorkers for Zero Waste Platform #2 Climate Change #3 Jobs #4 DEC Policy regarding Alternative Fuels

Attachment #5 Previous CEC Comments to DEC Attachment #6 Sign on Letter submitted to Town of Montgomery Attachment #7 Testimony to Town of Montgomery Attachment #8 Post Town Hearing written comments Two Reports: An Industry Blowing Smoke Incinerators in Disguise

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful