Here are critiques of the Emission Control Plans that MRI and Ogden Martin submitted to the DEP. They were written by John Rumpler, the attorney for Action For Communities and the Environment, who is representing the MerrimackValley Environmental Coalition. This is for anyone interested in following the legal, and health arguments for closure. Jill --------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: ECP Comments

Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 18:46:43 +0000
From: ace@essential.org
To: kathymoyes@worldnet.att.net

Dear MVECers:

Here are the comments I submitted on behalf of LEAG and ACE regarding the Wheelabrator and Ogden ECPs:

January 20, 1999

Heidi O'Brien, Deputy Regional Director DEP-NERO
205-A Lowell Street
Wilmington, MA 01887

Dear Ms. O'Brien:

Enclosed please find my written comments on Mass REFUSETECH's (MRI's) proposed Emission Control Plan (ECP) which I am submitting on behalf of the Lawrence Environmental Action Group (LEAG) and Alternatives for Community and Environment (ACE). As you know, we believe that the best solution for the region is to reject the proposed ECP. As indicated herein and at the hearing, the Department has the authority and the legal mechanism to do so.

Nevertheless, should the Department decide to approve an ECP for MRI, it should insist on more information and impose tougher conditions to afford at least some protection to the public.

Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to discussing this issue with you further.

Sincerely,

John Rumpler

WRITTEN COMMENTS ON MRI's PROPOSED EMISSION CONTROL PLAN (ECP)

DEP should not approve MRI's proposed ECP. There are several areas where the Department should either impose additional conditions or seek additional information from MRI. Each of these conditions is outlined below:

A. DEP SHOULD IMPOSE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ON MRI TO LESSEN ITS CONTRIBUTION TO THE CONDITION OF AIR POLLUTION IN THE MERRIMACK VALLEY.

Under the new Municipal Waste Combustor (MWC) rule, the Department may impose additional requirements where an incinerator causes or contributes to a condition of air pollution. Because the MRI incinerator will contribute to a condition of air pollution in the Merrimack Valley, DEP should exercise its authority to impose the additional conditions on approval of MRI's ECP.

1. DEP Has the Legal Authority for Imposing Additional Requirements. Section (j)(5) of the MWC rule provides that Additional requirements may be included in the emission control plan approval if the Department determines that the emissions from a municipal waste combustor plant's unit(s) alone or cumulatively with other municipal waste combustor plant's unit(s) cause or contribute to a condition of air pollution or a violation of any other regulation. Such requirements include but are not limited to emissions limits on air contaminants, and additional stack testing or emission monitoring requirements.

310 CMR 7.08(2)(j)(5).

2. There is a condition of air pollution in the Merrimack Valley.

a) There is a likelihood that dioxin concentrations exceed the Ambient Allowable Level (AAL) in the Merrimack Valley. When Univerity of Massachusetts researchers analyzed ambient monitoring data from Haverhill, they found that the dioxin concentration was hovering at or just below the AAL Moreover, the MRI facility has actually failed multiple stack tests for dioxin in recent years.

b) There are other conditions of air pollution in the region. DEP should not limit its analysis of "condition of air pollution" to exceedances of AALs. Rather, the Department should find that a "condition of air pollution" exists where it finds a disproportionate concentration of health and environmental impacts typically caused by air contaminants. There is no question that communities in the Merrimack Valley suffer from a disproportionate concentration of health and environmental impacts linked to air pollutants. As Kathy Moyes testified at the hearing on January 13, 1999, rates of respiratory illnesses in the City of Lawrence - including asthma and bronchitis - are unusually high. There can be no doubt that such illnesses are often caused and or exacerbated by particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and carbon monoxide (CO) - all of which spew forth from the MRI facility.

Similarly, numerous water bodies in the Merrimack Valley are subject to fish advisories due to high levels of mercury deposition. As the Department has already found, MRI's facility is one of the largest if not the largest emitter of mercury in the Commonwealth.

Regarding dioxin, a condition of air pollution exists regardless of whether ambient concentrations exceed the AAL. That is because the primary health effects of dioxin are not through inhalation but through the food chain. Studies of beef, baby food, and human breast milk all indicate dioxin levels which threaten human health. Accordingly, even if dioxin concentrations are below the AAL, the Department should find that there is a general condition of air pollution with respect to dioxin. Given that incinerators are among the largest sources of dioxin, it is reasonable for the Department to conclude that this condition of air pollution is particularly bad in the Merrimack Valley.

3. Under MRI's proposed ECP, its facility will continue to contribute to the condition of air pollution in the Merrimack Valley. Although the ECP will reduce MRI's short-term emissions, the incinerator will still release dioxin, mercury, SO2, CO, and PM (along with other pollutants). Accordingly, even post-retrofit, the MRI facility will continue to contribute to the conditions of air pollution which burden the Merrimack Valley.

Nor is there any indication that the Merrimack Valley will no longer suffer conditions of air pollution after the ECP is implemented. The Department's "Merrimack Valley Incinerator Aggregate Impact Study" is much too limited to lend any support to such a conclusion. As the Department has acknowledged, the Aggregate Impact Study did not analyze food chain effects of pollutants or the cumulative build-up of pollutants in the environment. Moreover, because the study did not include pollution from other sources than incinerators, it does not even represent a modeling of post-retrofit concentrations of mercury or dioxin. And lastly, the study does absolutely no modeling of the contaminants linked with respiratory illnesses - namely, SO2, CO and PM.

In summary, because MRI will continue to contribute to conditions of air pollution in the Merrimack Valley, (j)(5) of the MWC rule gives DEP the authority to include additional requirements in its approval of MRI's ECP.

4. If the Department decides to approve MRI's ECP, it should impose the following additional conditions to protect the Merrimack Valley from continuing conditions of air pollution:

a) New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for dioxin and other pollutants. Given that MRI is proposing to install completely new control technology, it should be able to limit its emissions to the NSPSs. For dioxin, imposing NSPS would cut expected emissions in half (from 30 ng/dscm to 13 ng/dscm). Given the rates of respiratory illness in the Valley, MRI should also be required to meet NSPSs for SO2, CO, and PM.

Requiring NSPS is particularly critical regarding PM. While MRI's incinerator currently emits 40, 000 pounds of PM per year; the proposed limit of 27 mg/dscm would allow MRI to emit up to 110, 000 pounds of PM per year. This directly contradicts the spirit if not the letter of the "anti-backsliding" provision of the MWC rule.

b) Public Education and Source Reduction for PVC Plastic: The Department is currently completing guidelines for the materials separation plans that incinerators will be required to develop and implement pursuant to the MWC rule. Through its materials separation workgroup, the Department has already received evidence documenting the link between PVC plastic in the wastestream and the creation of dioxin during combustion. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether the guidelines will deal with dioxin prescursors in the short term.

While the Department may not wish to require all incinerators in the Commonwealth to act on PVC plastic, the disproportionate burden borne by the Merrimack Valley makes action by MRI imperative. For relatively little cost, MRI could educated consumers in the region about the dangers of PVC plastic and availability of alternative products.

B. THE PROPOSED SCHEDULE IN THE ECP MUST BE MODIFIED TO INSURE TIMELY COMPLIANCE.

The MWC rule requires that MRI's facility be in compliance with the new emissions limits by February of 2000. MRI's request for an extension should be denied. Granting MRI's extension would subject the public to eight more months of higher emissions with no discernable benefit.

Moreover, MRI's proposed schedule does not insure compliance until approximately February 1, 2001 - more than two months after the federal deadline of December 19, 2000. At the very least, DEP should require that MRI complete all compliance and start up testing before the December 19, 2000 deadline. Otherwise, there is no guarantee that the facility complies with federal law.

C. REQUIRE THE BEST CEM SYSTEM

As the Department knows, MRI's facility has had numerous problems with its CEM system. In fact, a pending Notice of Violation from U.S. EPA cites several instances of CEM downtime as permit violations. Apparently, the current CEM system is rather antiquated.

In light of these facts, we are troubled by the lack of specificity regarding MRI's proposed changes to its CEM. MRI should be required to install and operate a CEM system which operates as close to 100 percent of the time as technologically feasible. That is what continuous means. Requiring CEM reporting for 90 only percent of operating hours in any given quarter is not protective of public health. Ten percent of operating time is a a tremendous window for vast exceedances of emissions limits. If technology can close this window, then DEP should require it.

D. REQUIRE DATA REGARDING EFFECTS OF CONCOMMITANT USE OF VARIOUS CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES.

MRI is proposing to treat its post-combustion gasses with a combination of carbon, urea, and other substances, including lime. However, no documentation has been provided regarding how these substances interact with each other, or the effect of such interactions on emissions. DEP should not approve any ECP until MRI addresses this issue in a manner protective of public health.

E. CREATE ONE COMPREHENSIVE, MULTIMEDIA PERMIT DOCUMENT.

We wholeheartedly concur with the recommendation of the Tellus Institute that the Department ought to take this opportunity to create one comprehensive permit for the MRI facility. Placing all requirements in one document will make it more accessible and understandable for citizens as well as MRI. In addition to the topics addressed in the proposed ECP, such a comprehensive permit must address the following:

1. Reporting Requirements: The MWC rule specifically states that operators will report in a manner "understandable and informative to the public." 310 CMR 7.08(2) Given that the Department has yet to specify the format and medium for meeting this condition, the ECP should at least incorporate the condition by reference. Similarly, the reporting obligations which MRI has undertaken in its agreement with the Town of North Andover should be explicitly written into this permit document. Such reporting obligations should not be left to the vagaries of private contract law; they should be part of MRI's publicly enforceable requirements.

2. Multimedia Analysis: In addition to emitting contaminants into the air, MRI's facility generates a considerable amount of ash which is laden with toxic substances. To further the Commonwealth's goal of pollution prevention, MRI's permitting document should consider all of its impacts on the environment. This is particularly important with this facility because the anticipated reductions is air emissions are likely to be accompanied by increased concentrations of toxins in the ash.

F. EVALUATE POLLUTION PREVENTION AS MAXIMUM AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (MACT).

The Department should consider whether replacing combustion with materials separation and landfilling of non-recoverable waste is a more efficient way to reduce pollution than the control devices proposed in the ECP. Where substituting separation for combustion is more efficient, the spirit if not the letter of the MACT standard in Section 129 of the Clean Air Act warrants its adoption. Accordingly, the Department should reject MRI's ECP if it determines that replacement of combustion with materials separation and landfilling of non-recoverable waste is a more efficient method of reducing pollution from waste processing operations at the site. In reaching this determination, the Department should consider the following: 1) the cost of the proposed retrofit versus the cost of material separation and landfilling of non-recoverable waste; 2) elimination of emissions monitoring, reporting, and other costs inherent in maintaining a stationary source; 3) preventing the generation of bottom and fly ash containing with mercury, dioxin and other toxic contaminants.

The result of such an analysis is likely to provide a comprehensive, preventative approach to pollution problems in the Merrimack Valley.

January 21, 1999

Heidi O'Brien, Deputy Regional Director DEP-NERO
205-A Lowell Street
Wilmington, MA 01887

Dear Ms. O'Brien:

Enclosed please find my written comments on Emission Control Plan (ECP) submitted by Ogden Martin Systems of Haverhill (Ogden Martin) which I am submitting on behalf of the Lawrence Environmental Action Group (LEAG) and Alternatives for Community and Environment (ACE). To protect public health and the environment, the Department should insist on more information and impose tougher conditions as part of the ECP for the Ogden Martin facility.

Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to discussing this issue with you further.

Sincerely,

John Rumpler

WRITTEN COMMENTS ON OGDEN MARTIN'S PROPOSED EMISSION CONTROL PLAN (ECP)

There are several areas where the Department should either impose additional conditions or seek additional information from Ogden Martin. Each of these conditions is outlined below:

A. DEP SHOULD IMPOSE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ON OGDEN MARTIN TO LESSEN ITS CONTRIBUTION TO THE CONDITION OF AIR POLLUTION IN THE MERRIMACK VALLEY.

Under the new Municipal Waste Combustor (MWC) rule, the Department may impose additional requirements where an incinerator causes or contributes to a condition of air pollution. Because the Ogden Martin incinerator will contribute to a condition of air pollution in the Merrimack Valley, DEP should exercise its authority to impose the additional conditions on approval of Ogden Martin's ECP.

1. DEP Has the Legal Authority for Imposing Additional Requirements. Section (j)(5) of the MWC rule provides that

Additional requirements may be included in the emission control plan approval if the Department determines that the emissions from a municipal waste combustor plant's unit(s) alone or cumulatively with other municipal waste combustor plant's unit(s) cause or contribute to a condition of air pollution or a violation of any other regulation. Such requirements include but are not limited to emissions limits on air contaminants, and additional stack testing or emission monitoring requirements.

310 CMR 7.08(2)(j)(5).

2. Dioxin Levels in the Haverhill Area Constitute a Condition Of Air Pollution. There is uncontroverted evidence that dioxin concentrations exceed the Ambient Allowable Level (AAL) in Haverhill. In 1989, researchers from the Environmental Institute at University of Massachusetts conducted an ambient monitoring study to determine the level of dioxin in the area. They concluded that "[o]verall, the results of the PCDDs/PCDFs sampling at the Silver Hill and Haverhill Public Library sites indicate that the Massachusetts DEP's guideline of 0.045 pg/m3 is exceeded in the Haverhill area." While the U.Mass study is ten years old, nothing submitted by Ogden Martin even addresses its basic finding.

Moreover, a condition of air pollution exists regardless of whether ambient concentrations of dioxin exceed the AAL. The primary health effects of dioxin are not through inhalation but through the food chain, and studies of beef, baby food, and human breast milk all indicate dioxin levels which threaten human health. Accordingly, even if dioxin concentrations in Haverhill were below the AAL, there is still a general condition of air pollution with respect to dioxin. Given that incinerators are among the largest sources of dioxin, it is reasonable for the Department to conclude that this condition of air pollution is particularly bad in the Merrimack Valley.

3. Under Ogden Martin's Proposed ECP, Its Facility Will Continue To Contribute To The Condition Of Air Pollution In The Merrimack Valley. Although the ECP will reduce Ogden Martin's short-term emissions, the incinerator will still release dioxin. Thus, even post-retrofit, the Ogden Martin facility will continue to contribute to the condition of air pollution which burden the Haverhill area..

Nor is there any indication that Haverhill will no longer suffer conditions of air pollution after the ECP is implemented. The Department's "Merrimack Valley Incinerator Aggregate Impact Study" is much too limited to lend any support to such a conclusion. As the Department has acknowledged, the Aggregate Impact Study did not analyze food chain effects of pollutants or the cumulative build-up of pollutants in the environment. Moreover, because the study did not include pollution from other sources than incinerators, it does not even represent a modeling of post-retrofit concentrations of dioxin. This is directly contrary to what U.Mass. researchers recommended nearly a decade ago.

In summary, because Ogden Martin will continue to contribute to a condition of air pollution in the Haverhill area, (j)(5) of the MWC rule gives DEP the authority to include additional requirements in its approval of Ogden Martin's ECP.

4. The Department Should Impose The Following Additional Conditions To Protect Haverhill From The Continuing Condition Of Dioxin Air Pollution:

a) New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for dioxin and other pollutants. Given that Ogden Martin is proposing to install completely new control technology, it should be able to limit its emissions to the NSPSs. For dioxin, imposing NSPS would cut expected emissions in half (from 30 ng/dscm to 13 ng/dscm).

b) More Information on Control Technology: Appendix C of the ECP describes the Spray Dryer Absorber and Fabric Filter that Ogden Martin intends to use to control dioxin emissions. Documentation and explanation of the control efficiencies of these technologies is lacking. It is not clear from the ECP how Ogden Martin will meet the proposed 30 ng/dscm dioxin limit, or whether in fact its technology is capable of meeting the NSPS. One troubling question relates to the capture efficiency of the Fabric Filter for dioxin in its vapor phase. Ogden explains that "[s]ome of the metals and organics that may still be in vapor phase will also be removed from the gas stream as these contaminants are adsorbed/absorbed by the filter cake . . . that builds up on the surface of the bags of the fabric filter." ECP at A-9. What is troubling about this assurance is that filter cake must be periodically cleaned from the fabric filters to insure proper performance. Each time this cleaning is done, the vapor phase capture capacity will be reduced considerably. Before approving an ECP, DEP should require Ogden to demonstrate how it will compensate for this problem.

c) Public Education and Source Reduction for PVC Plastic: The Department is currently completing guidelines for the materials separation plans that incinerators will be required to develop and implement pursuant to the MWC rule. Through its materials separation workgroup, the Department has already received evidence documenting the link between PVC plastic in the wastestream and the creation of dioxin during combustion. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether the guidelines will deal with dioxin prescursors in the short term.

While the Department may not wish to require all incinerators in the Commonwealth to act on PVC plastic, the disproportionate burden borne by the Merrimack Valley makes action by Ogden Martin imperative. For relatively little cost, Ogden Martin could educated consumers in the region about the dangers of PVC plastic and availability of alternative products.

B. THE PROPOSED SCHEDULE IN THE ECP MUST BE MODIFIED TO INSURE TIMELY COMPLIANCE.

The MWC rule requires that Ogden Martin's facility be in compliance with the new emissions limits by February of 2000. Ogden Martin's request for an extension should be denied. Granting Ogden Martin's extension would subject the public to eight more months of higher emissions with no discernable benefit.

At the very least, DEP should require that Ogden Martin complete initial performance testing before the December 19, 2000 federal deadline. There is simply no reason why such testing should take 180 days or even 60 days to complete.

C. REQUIRE THE BEST CEM SYSTEM

we are troubled by the lack of specificity regarding Ogden Martin's proposed changes to its CEM. Ogden Martin should be required to install and operate a CEM system which operates as close to 100 percent of the time as technologically feasible. That is what continuous means. Requiring CEM reporting for 90 only percent of operating hours in any given quarter is not protective of public health. Ten percent of operating time is a tremendous window for vast exceedances of emissions limits. If technology can close this window, then DEP should require it.

D. REQUIRE DATA REGARDING EFFECTS OF CONCOMITANT USE OF VARIOUS CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES.

Ogden Martin is proposing to treat its post-combustion gasses with a combination of carbon, urea, and other substances, including lime. However, no documentation has been provided regarding how these substances interact with each other, or the effect of such interactions on emissions. For example, lime injection is likely to mask ash toxicity levels, and this could have serious consequences for proper handling and disposal.

In addition, Ogden has provided little or no information on the level of truck traffic generated by deliveries of these substances, or the risks of accidental releases during transport.

DEP should not approve any ECP until Ogden Martin addresses these issues in a manner protective of public health.

E. CREATE ONE COMPREHENSIVE, MULTIMEDIA PERMIT DOCUMENT.

We wholeheartedly concur with the recommendation of the Tellus Institute that the Department ought to take this opportunity to create one comprehensive permit for the Ogden Martin facility. Placing all requirements in one document will make it more accessible and understandable for citizens as well as Ogden Martin. In addition to the topics addressed in the proposed ECP, such a comprehensive permit must address the following:

1. Reporting Requirements: The MWC rule specifically states that operators will report in a manner "understandable and informative to the public." 310 CMR 7.08(2) Given that the Department has yet to specify the format and medium for meeting this condition, the ECP should at least incorporate the condition by reference. In North Andover, MassREFUSETECH, Inc., has committed to certain reporting obligations to the Town of North Andover; DEP should require Ogden Martin to comply with those same requirements, as well as on-line access to real-time CEM data.

2. Multimedia Analysis: In addition to emitting contaminants into the air, Ogden Martin's facility generates a considerable amount of ash which is laden with toxic substances. To further the Commonwealth's goal of pollution prevention, Ogden Martin's permitting document should consider all of its impacts on the environment. This is particularly appropriate for this facility for two reasons. First, the anticipated reductions in air emissions are likely to be accompanied by increased concentrations of toxins in the ash. Second, the ash itself will be disposed at Ogden's adjacent monofill at Ward Hill, and the community has the right to see the full picture of how Ogden's operations affect their community.

That's all for now, folks.

John