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

A Clean Environment* Green Purchasing* Pollution Prevention* Healthy People* Green Jobs* Zero
Waste
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 suspension-
fired, 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-of-
the-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 27-
0106" 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 #1: CONTAINER #2 SEPARATE CONTAINERS
*Aluminum Foil *Brown Paper Bags *Car Batteries
*Clear, Green & Brown glass (bottles & jars) *Computer Paper *Household Batteries
*Foil Pans (aluminum) *Corrugated Cardboard *Motorcycle/Marine Batteries
*Juice Boxes *Kraft Paper (brown bags) Used Antifreeze
*Milk Cartons *Junkmail/Magazines Used Clothes
*Plastic Bottles (#1 - #7) *Office Paper Used Motor Oil
*Tin/Aluminum Cans *Paperback Books
*White Refrigerated/Frozen Food Containers *Soft Covered Workbooks
*Telephone Books

*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 PM-
10. 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 Part 219 requirement Draft Permit

PM .010 grains/dscf 0.648 mg/dscf 20 mg/dscm

corrected to 7% O2 corrected to 7% O2 ANNUAL
corrected to 7% O2
HCL Less than 10% by wt. CEM also 25 ppmv
ANNUAL
Dioxin 0.2 ng/dscf Or 7 ng/dscm 13 ng/dscm
corrected to 7% O2 corrected to 7% O2 corrected to 7% O2
(Total dioxins & (2,3,7,8 only)
furans) ANNUAL
Mercury 28 µg/dscm 50 µg/dscm
corrected to 7% corrected to 7%
O2 or O2 ANNUAL
85%reduction
Opacity 10% 20%

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 EPA proposal We

recommend:
PM 20 mg/dscm 13 mg/dscm 0.648 mg (Part 219)
Opacity 10% 1% 1%
Cadmium 10 µgs/dscm 1.3 µgs/dscm 1.3 µgs/dscm
Lead 140 µgs/dscm 2.6 µgs/dscm 2.6 µgs/dscm
Mercury 50 µgs/dscm 2.8 µgs/dscm 2.8 µgs/dscm
Dioxin1 13 ngs/dscm .031 ngs/dscm .031 ngs/dscm
NOx2 180 ppmv (federal) 25 ppmv 25 ppmv
NOx 25ppmv (state only)
1
Total Dioxins & Furans
2
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 219-
2.6(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 #1 New Yorkers for Zero Waste Platform

Attachment #2 Climate Change
Attachment #3 Jobs
Attachment #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