DEC fails to ‘clear the air’ on CWM

by Terry Duffy
Lewiston Porter Sentinel, March 8, 2008

Members of the Lewiston and Porter Community Advisory Committee, which oversees the various affairs of CWM Chemical Services LLC as they relate to its RMU-1 landfill operation permit under state Environmental Law §27-113, heard from the state Department of Environmental Conservation on air quality issues at CWM’s Balmer Road facility.

While the group voiced their concerns over health impact issues to the community from CWM operations, what they may have anticipated and what they ended hearing didn’t exactly “clear the air.” Instead, they were advised that CWM air quality was considered as acceptable under existing EPA guidelines covering particulates, from its landfill operations.

“There are regulations they have to comply with,” advised Larry Sitzman, DEC regional pollution control engineer, as he informed of 23 emissions permit areas that CWM needs to adhere to. Sitzman said CWM’s air emissions were rated at one-half that of a major air pollution facility such as the AES Somerset coal-fired power generating facility or various Niagara Falls industries. Informing that DEC requires its emissions calculations to be permitted to the maximum, he said CWM’s landfills were considered as having “small emissions.”

“As long as they don’t make changes” in their operations as it relates to emissions criteria, CWM won’t have to re-permit “based on cumulative versus annual (air discharge) activity,” said Sitzman. He described the air quality monitoring at CWM as basically limited to standpipe discharges from its landfills, storage tanks, leachate and water treatment tanks, and from “bag house” facilities on the property.

On a question from CAC member Amy Witryol of the Niagara Health Science Report, on whether the EPA air quality criteria covers emissions from CWM’s facultative ponds that comprise its hazardous waste landfill operations, Sitzman responded they didn’t. “I’m not sure we’ve ever done any (air) monitoring of the facultative ponds,” said Sitzman, adding that such operations typically aren’t monitored for air emissions.

Regarding air quality issues from the “bag houses” that also comprise the haz-waste treatment process at CWM, Sitzman told CAC’s Peter Diachun that EPA monitors these and other activities, and there has been “no significant (environmental air ) impact from the site.”

Informing the group of six EPA monitoring stations at CWM, Sitzman added, “As far as hazardous pollutants from an industrial facility, these are small.”

He did say however, that the EPA air monitors at CWM are limited to particulates, measuring at EM-10 or higher on those that are typically found in vehicle emissions or burning operations.

When asked by Witryol if DEC had ever considered air quality levels for benzene, explaining that CWM operations resulted in high benzene levels in 1994, triggering a county health department response, Sitzman replied the chemical has not been monitored for years, as it comes from a number of sources beyond the hazardous waste treatment and disposal operations at CWM. “It comes from so many things,” he said, pointing to levels recorded in such remote locations as Whiteface Mountain.

As the group continued to express its dismay on CWM, which was not in attendance at the session, and the impact of their operations on the community’s health with regards to air quality, Sitzman indicated DEC would be willing to expand its focus in the future.

“I’ve seen years of monitoring … that didn’t show anything,” said Sitzman. “However, there’s questions over this. That concerns me.”

Regarding a suggestion of additional standpipe testing of the landfill areas, perhaps done in the summer months, Sitzman replied, “I don’t think it’s a bad idea. I’d like to see it sampled.” He added its cost would be borne by CWM.

On a question of DEC implementing further air quality requirements into a new permit schedule, with CWM now seeking additional capacity under its RMU-2 application, Sitzman responded that it would be hard to do. “It’s a catch-22 at times,” he said.

As Sitzman concluded his remarks, Diachun thanked him for assistance, telling him, “Your participation is valuable. We need you to help us.”

As discussion turned to CWM’s RMU-1 vertical landfill expansion, DEC’s Jim Strickland informed the agency had issued another notice of an incomplete application to CWM, based on its concerns over landfill stability. “The issue is still being discussed with DEC,” Strickland said, adding DEC was expecting CWM to return with a modified request. “CWM is aware of this,” he said.

He closed by informing that the long awaited Siting Plan is still under review by DEC and the state. “No plan, no new landfill,” he said, adding that when a revised plan does come out, “we’ll be going back to square one on this.”

More as news develops. Stay tuned.