The Prince Edward County…

The Prince Edward County Field Naturalists (PECFN)
Comments on ERO 019-6462

PECFN has many concerns with Lehigh Cement’s application as well as its ability to use ALCFs safely and in a way that will protect the environment. Our concerns are summed up in the following 9 comments.

1. Lehigh Cement is proposing to bring in materials to burn as fuel from all over Southern Ontario. But they are also proposing to bring material in from two Great Lakes states, which raises any number of interesting questions, among them being that a company that boasted to the public about contributing to Ontario’s circular economy will also apparently be contributing to the circular economies of Michigan and New York State.

In our view, diverting non-recyclable materials away from U.S. landfills is both problematic and unfair. For example, metal and glass that arrives at the plant will need to be discarded because they do not combust. (Lehigh Cement’s consultation report references a metal reject collection bin but says nothing about glass.) Invariably, certain materials will be brought in from the U.S. that cannot be used, and this material will need to be sent somewhere to be recycled or may be burned anyway if they’re overlooked during the process of screening material prior to incineration.

Lehigh Cement has not provided any rationale for sourcing materials from the U.S. when an explanation is clearly called for. Sourcing materials for ALCFs from the U.S. ultimately passes the responsibility for disposing of recyclable and non-recyclable waste originating in the U.S. over to Ontario municipalities to deal with. In proposing to use waste originating in the U.S., Lehigh Cement is not just relieving our American neighbours of their non-recyclable waste (and most likely some of their recyclable waste as well). Lehigh Cement’s proposal has direct implications from a local and regional perspective, including potentially putting additional pressure on our recycling facilities.

We would like to know whether other cement plants operating in Ontario such as St. Marys Cement in Bowmanville and Lafarge in Bath, make more of an effort to find local sources
for their supply of ALCFs. Doing so is obviously in the best interest of Ontario communities – and the environment.

2. Lehigh Cement is not being aboveboard with the public about emissions from ALCFs. The ERO posting lists the following emissions that will be permitted by the approval:

• crystalline silica
• iron
• nitrogen oxides
• hydrogen chloride
• particulate matter
• benzene
• nickel
• cobalt

Lehigh Cement did not identify any of these emissions at its first public meeting. During their slide presentation, a slide entitled “kiln emissions” used technical language to describe the emissions (e.g., “volatile organic compounds” and “polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons”) which are beyond most peoples’ understanding. To be fair, however, Lehigh Cement did identify dioxins and furans on the “kiln emission” slide.

At the second public meeting Lehigh Cement identified 4 emissions on the ERO list in its Emission Summary Table (page 110, consultation report): crystalline silica, iron, nitrogen oxides and hydrogen chloride. But nothing was said about the other 4 emissions identified on the ERO, i.e., particulate matter, benzene, nickel and cobalt. So we were not expecting to see these additional emissions on the ERO list. In our view, ALL emissions should have been disclosed during public consultation.

According to the Emissions Summary Table in Lehigh Cement’s consultation report, 89 contaminants were assessed in total. These contaminants might have been assessed but as far as we can see, they’re not listed anywhere in the consultation report. We are also told that of these 89 contaminants, 42 were considered negligible and 14 contaminants were less than 1%. But this still leaves some 33 contaminants unaccounted for. Proponents should be using consultation to clear up any potential confusion and misunderstanding - they should not be creating more.

3. According to Lehigh Cement there’s no reason for the PEC public to worry about changes in air quality. In their consultation report, Lehigh Cement concludes that: “It is not anticipated based our estimates that the ALCF’s will have a significant impact on emissions.” But It would seem naïve to rely on Lehigh Cements’ estimates (and its reassurances) when studies have shown that ALCFs can – and in fact do - impact emissions and can impact them in a significant way. For example, a study at a Cementa plant in Sweden (re: pdf attached) found that when ALCFs were introduced the concentration of dioxins produced was higher than in a previous sampling (before ALCFs were used). In fact, the study goes on to note that at one point the TEQ value (toxic concentration) exceeded the toxic level of 0.1 ng/m3 set by the World Health Organization.

Lehigh Cement has failed to show any understanding of why people would be concerned with its proposal to use ALCFs as fuel. For example, in their response to a question from a member of the public about how they intend to prevent dangerous chemicals produced by incineration like furans and dioxins, Lehigh Cement simply replies: “Within Lehigh’s own experience, we have studied this in other facilities. The cement process burns at very high temperatures and we have complete combustion which reduces the likelihood of furan and dioxin production.”

It would be nice if things were this simple. But the study at the Cementa plant noted above concluded that high temperatures during combustion may have precisely the opposite effect on dioxin production. According to the Cementa plant study dioxins were maximum at a higher temperature:

“The temperature of the APCD (air pollution control devices) is important for controlling the dioxin formation. There was a study conducted on the formation of PCDD/Fs (polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and furans) in cement kilns and tested the dioxins at two different temperatures 255°C and 400°C. . .The dioxins were maximum at higher temperature and minimum at lower temperature suggesting that the temperature of the APCD should be minimum in order to decrease the formation of dioxins.”

Moreover, the Cementa study references another study that found that dioxins and furans are formed in different ways and at different temperatures:

“In another study it was observed that the maximum concentration of PCDDs were at 300°C-400°C, while the PCDFs peaked at 400°C-500°C,supporting the theory of different formation mechanism for these two compound groups.”

Lehigh Cement tends to dismiss public concerns about harmful emissions instead of taking them seriously as seen, for example, in its claim that complete combustion reduces the likelihood of furan and dioxin production. As far as Lehigh is concerned, this is the end of the story - although based on the Cementa study it’s clearly not.

4. Lehigh Cement is proposing to use discarded seed as part of its ALCF mix but has been short on details. It would be helpful to have some examples where treated seeds have been used successfully as ALCFs at cement plants. We would like to know if this is the first time treated seeds would be used as an ALCF at a cement plant in Ontario.

5. In 2011 the United Nations set out the “Technical guidelines in the environmentally sound co-processing of hazardous wastes in cement kilns”. These guidelines are a set of general principles for co-processors, i.e., cement companies using ALCFs as part of their fuel mix. One of these principles is that co-processors must be qualified. Among the criteria is that co-processors have “good environmental and safety compliance records” and have “personnel, processes and systems committed to protecting the environment, health and safety”. Lehigh Cement does not meet these criteria. As reported by Quinte News on November 22, 2022, Lehigh Cement is now facing five charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. It’s inappropriate for the MECP to be considering approval of Lehigh Cement’s ALCF application while these charges are before the court and while the Ministry of Labour, Training and Skills Development appears to still be conducting an investigation. In our view, Lehigh Cement should withdraw its application until these charges are resolved and all necessary changes have been made to ensure the safe operation of the plant.

6. Lehigh Cement has not been fully transparent with the public, as seen in its failure to disclose the provision in O. Reg. 79/15 for a pilot (demonstration) project. Lehigh Cement had every opportunity at two public meetings to explain the legislation and even more importantly explain why it was opting to apply for full approval to use ALCFs. Instead of doing that, Lehigh deliberately led people to believe that it was pursuing the standard process in place to burn ALCFs at its plant as set out in O. Reg. 79/15 and was following the normal process that all cement companies in Ontario were required to follow. All the while Lehigh was purporting to be fully complying with the requirements of O. Reg. 79/15 it was hiding from the public the provision in the legislation that allows them to initially test the ALCFs they’d be using. The concern is not just the way the public has been misled, it’s that the public will never know that the company could have applied for a demonstration project and Lehigh Cement will never need to explain to the PEC public why they did not.

We are also concerned about the precedent Lehigh Cement is potentially setting for other cement companies to do the same thing. After all, why would a cement company go through the time and expense of a pilot project when all they need to do is apply for an amendment to the approval they already have?

7. As noted in the previous point, Lehigh Cement is asking the government for an amendment to their current approval. This would not necessarily be a problem if Lehigh Cement had already been approved to use ALCFs, and they were simply making changes that would require applying for an amendment to their approval. It might be acceptable to amend an approval based on estimates and modelling when the cement plant already has a proven track record in using ALCFs – but Lehigh Cement isn’t in that category yet. Lehigh Cement is applying to use ALCFs at the plant for the first time. This is a major change. In the interests of public safety, they should be applying for a demonstration project.

8. We find it disturbing that the government would even be considering approval of the use of ALCFs at the plant when no monitoring plan has been submitted by the company. We would like to know if any cement plant anywhere in the U.S. or Europe has ever been permitted to use ALCFs for the first time without also being required to closely monitor and report on the resultant emissions. We wonder if the technology exists for monitoring emissions at cement plants on a 24-7 basis, and if so, whether Lehigh Cement would be open to this in lieu of the demonstration project.

9. We would urge you to give further consideration to the attached submission by Environmental Defence on O. Reg. 79/15. In the introduction, Environmental Defence makes clear that: “While we support the phasing out of coal use in Ontario, we believe the Alternative Fuels regulation does not provide enough controls regarding toxic emissions or public oversight to ensure that we are not replacing one problematic fuel with others.”

Environment Defence goes on to observe that: “Even under the current regulation, it is virtually impossible for communities living in the vicinity of a facility burning alternative fuels to find out, in real time, what is being emitted into the local airshed from the stacks. Because alternative fuels are waste products, the exact mix and composition of the fuel varies and therefore emissions vary accordingly. Strict requirements for pollution control and public reporting should be implemented to provide the public with information on exposures and to ensure these facilities are limiting emissions of toxic substances to the greatest extent possible.”

For the reasons above PECFN opposes the approval of Lehigh Cement’s application as presented.