To the Editor:

I appreciate the June 25 editorial in support of Albany County'’ proposed Clean Air Law that would block tire burning at Lafarge in Ravena/Coeymans and PFAS/AFFF [per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances /aqueous film-forming foam], burning at Norlite in Cohoes, and legislation recently and unanimously passed by the state legislature, that, if signed into law when sent to Governor Andrew Cuomo, will ban the burning of PFAS/AFFF in Cohoes.

The proposed county law would require continuous emissions monitoring of air pollutants, something not done now.

In the editorial, former United States Environmental Protection Agency regional administrator Judith Enck noted that earlier this year, after it was learned that Norlite had been burning PFAS/AFFF for more than a year, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation announced it would develop a test burn protocol before Norlite resumes any such burning.

Ms. Enck said, “You’re supposed to do that before you burn a new waste stream.” The DEC had allowed the PFAS/AFFF burning not knowing how dangerous it is.

PFAS  (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) can persist in a person’s bloodstream for years, and are associated with thyroid disorders, kidney and testicular cancers, infertility, and high blood pressure.  PFAS have contaminated water supplies in Hoosick Falls, Petersburgh, Newburgh, and Cairo, New York.

PFAS have been used in aqueous film-forming foam, used until recently in firefighting. There are thousands of varieties of PFAS. Burning fire suppressants is not easy; incomplete combustion may occur, and smaller PFAS may be released into the environment.

The DEC has allowed Norlite to burn millions of pounds of hundreds of hazardous wastes and chemicals for decades. Very few of these toxins have been tested for safety. The state government allows an uncontrolled experiment to occur in a city right next to a public housing project and within a mile of where thousands of people live.

Rather than taking a precautionary approach (as The Enterprise had editorialized in favor of), in which any business would have to, prior to undertaking a potentially dangerous activity, establish that what it intends to do is safe or almost certainly safe, and especially for the most vulnerable of nearby residents and down-winders: pregnant women, infants and toddlers, elderly people, and those in poor health, both Norlite and the DEC are willing to risk slowly but gradually poisoning thousands of people.

They know that, since we are exposed to many poisons from many sources, and these poisons interact in ways that cannot be determined, it is usually impossible to prove that a specific illness in any person resulted from an identifiable pollution source.

The DEC and Lafarge are taking a similarly dangerous step. Lafarge desires to burn perhaps millions of tires a year in its cement kiln on Route 9W, only a few hundred meters from the Ravena-Coeymans-Selkirk middle and high schools.

Lafarge has a long history of heavy air pollution, particularly mercury emissions. In 2005 when the DEC issued a negative declaration for the project, many people, myself included, strongly objected.

A negative declaration means the DEC had determined that no significant environmental problems were likely and thus Lafarge would not be required to produce an environmental impact statement that the public could have input in, review, and challenge.

We insisted that, due to the enormity of the project and its immediate proximity to schools, DEC had a legal and moral responsibility to require an EIS. No EIS exists for the massive tire-burning project.

A decade ago, Lafarge was the largest mercury emitter in New York. Adding tires to a coal fuel mix will, according to Michael Ewall of the Energy Justice Network, increase emissions of chromium, lead, dioxins/furans, PCBs [polychlorinated biphenyls], polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, sulfur dioxide, and benzene.

The state’s health department is practically invisible in these matters. Physicians are supposed to first do no harm. Health regulators should be held to the same standard. 

Like the DEC, the state’s health department appears to be either unfamiliar with or rejects the precautionary principle when it comes to pollution hazards, and allows powerful corporations to impose great risks on the public.

Finally, Governor Cuomo has pontificated at great length in recent months about human health in relation to COVID-19. He said at his June 26 press briefing that gyms, malls, and movie theaters could not reopen until the state health department had determined if air-filtration systems in these buildings were circulating the coronavirus and if technologies existed to remove it from the air.  He said: “We don't want to go ahead until we know what we’re doing …. Our department of health is trying to determine if there is any filtration system for an air-conditioning system that can successfully remove the virus from air circulation.”

The state appears to want to know the facts and employ a precautionary approach with COVID-19. Is it asking too much for the environmental conservation and health departments to know the facts about hazardous waste incineration and tire burning?

Our lives and health depend on those agencies having the latest and best science, taking a precautionary approach, protecting those who are most vulnerable, operating in a transparent manner, and proactively telling the whole truth about environmental poisons and public health.

Tom Ellis

Albany