    
   
 |
LATEST NEWS
Mercury Still Unregulated in the Cement IndustryCement Industry Mercury Emissions Continue to Be Unregulated at State and National Levels Despite Science, Public Opinon and Court OrdersWhat is Needed It’s time for NYS to stop passing the buck to the EPA while cement kilns get to play Russian Roulette with mothers and their babies. Mercury is bioaccumulative. Every day that these emissions continue unrestrained is another dangerous day that lasts forever. It’s time for DEC to limit exposure of the most vulnerable segment of the population to the known health hazards of mercury. It’s time for DEC to stop “negotiating” with Lafarge and allowing it (and Holcim in Catskill) to operate with expired air permits. It’s time for DEC to issue a permit that imposes the most stringent limits on mercury and other dangerous pollutants on Lafarge. What We’re Doing at the State Level On Thursday March 6 at 11 am Friends of Hudson will join Earth Justice, Sierra Club, NYPIRG and Environmental Advocates and others in calling on DEC Commissioner Pete Grannis to immediately close the loophole that allows Lafarge and other cement companies to continue to put the health of our children at risk. What We’re Doing at the Federal Level We have joined Sierra Club, Earth Justice and several regional organizations throughout the country in applying legal pressure on the EPA to remedy the absence of standards for mercury and hydrocarbons emissions in the cement industry. Earth Justice has been fighting this battle in the courts for more than ten years and in 2006 FoH joined in the fight. Despite consistently being ordered by the courts to issue standards the EPA has refused. The most recent action was filed in February 2007 by Earth Justice on behalf of Sierra Club, Friends of Hudson and a number of local organizations throughout the US . We have recently been made aware that there might finally be some movement on the part of the EPA. We will post updates on this website and most importantly we will join with EJ, Sierra Club and others to ensure that the data EPA uses to base its ruling upon are accurate and relevant and that the ruling itself is appropriate and effective for the highest levels of protection of human health. WHAT YOU CAN DO--ACTION ALERT: Stop Excessive Mercury Emissions in Cement Plants Lafarge is operating its Ravena Cement Plant with an expired air permit that doesn’t set any limits on mercury emissions. Lafarge Ravena’s mercury emissions of 400 pounds per year far exceeds that of any other plant in the state. Holcim in Catskill and Glens Falls Lehigh in Glens Falls have not been required to actually test their emissions. These three local plants are estimated to produce 600 pounds of mercury emissions per year, which is equal to half of the total amount of mercury from the state’s 26 coal fired power plants. This is just an estimate. The actual amount might even be higher. (CLICK HERE for more detailed background information)*** PLEASE TAKE the FOLLOWING ACTIONS Write DEC Commissioner Grannis today. Demand that this loophole be closed immediately. Insist that DEC include the strictest possible mercury emissions limits in a timely review and renewal of Lafarge’s air permit. Insist that the DEC immediately require accurate mercury emissions testing at Holcim in Catskill and Glens Falls Lehigh in Glens Falls. The Honorable Pete Grannis, Commissioner New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway Albany, New York 11233-1010 Send a copy of your letter to FoH sfalzon@mac.com Friends of Hudson PO Box 326 Hudson NY 12534 Join us at the press conference in Albany, Thursday March 6 at 11:00 am. LCA Press Conference Room (Legislative Office Building, Room 130) Albany This is a joint press conference with Earth Justice, Friends of Hudson, Sierra Club, NYPIRG, Environmental Advocates and others Watch this site for more details and updates on this and other actions at the federal level to stop the unconscionable excessive mercury emissions in the cement industry nationally. www.friendsofhudson.org Make a generous donation to Friends of Hudson so that we may continue to participate in critical campaigns such as this. For more information e-mail to sfalzon@mac.com or call (518) 822-0334. BREAKING NEWS—There will be an update shortly on potential action at the federal level. Check back to this site for this update on the EPA and mercury in the cement industry. Draft LWRP Needs RevisionsCity Should Resolve Serious Deficiencies Before Adopting the PlanNeeds More Public Engagement, Less Focus on SLC LWRP Should Consider All Waterfront Assets Our Vision: An Accessible Working Waterfront for the 21st Century that provides economic benefit to the city and its residents, maximizes recreation and scenic aspects for the public, preserves and enhances the ecology and maintains a sound and healthy infrastructure. CLICK HERE to view FoH's video on the assets of Hudson's waterfront Friends of Hudson today (May 29, 2007) filed its comments on Hudson's latest Draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP). The Draft LWRP was created by a Steering Committee, created by the Common Council and led by Hudson Democratic Committee Chair Linda Mussman. The Steering Committee was supported by the work of Paul Buckhurst and other staff at BFJ Planning. A Task Force of FoH staff, board and members reviewed the document, spent time at the waterfront and on the River and brought together several years of working on issues related to the health and vitality of the waterfront. The Task Force did find several aspects of the Committee's efforts to be appreciated. Among them: -- The Waterfront Committee itself has been a dedicated group of volunteers. -- Attention to the protection of habitat, the potential of commercial fishing, review of the study area's geology and history. -- The definition of the Waterfront Zone considerably expanded to include substantial, underutilized open space assets further inland. -- As part of that expansion, the Draft Plan emphasizes linking the waterfront and Hudson's major areas of open space by developing a system of pedestrian and bike trails. -- The Draft LWRP provides new, more thoughtfully differentiated zoning recommendations. On the whole however FoH's review found significant problems with the Draft, including the process by which it was created. The LWRP Guidebook issued by the DOS' Division of Coastal Resources provides valuable counsel for creating a LWRP noting that communities that have recognized the potential of their waterfronts to bring new life and energy to their communities have found that the keys to making the most of their waterfront assets include a clear vision and plan, broad public involvement, creative partnerships, patience, persistence and a step-by-step strategy. Unfortunately the FoH review found that a clear and compelling vision is not represented in the Draft, nor was there broad public involvement or creative partnerships established. The plan itself was drafted in a closed-door top-down fashion. Unfortunately therefore, because the Steering Committee's Draft fails to reflect the expressed wishes of the public and instead resorts to politically motivated compromises, the current LWRP is unlikely to be acceptable to any segment of Hudson's population. In contrast FoH proposes a vision for the creation of an accessible working waterfront for Hudson for the 21st Century that provides economic benefit to the city and its residents, maximizes recreation and scenic aspects for the public, preserves and enhances the ecology and maintains a sound and healthy infrastructure. The city has an unprecedented opportunity to establish a working waterfront in which long-standing competing values and uses can be reconciled and harmonized. To do so will require a hard look at the possibilities and the obstacles, the hard work of compromise and collaboration and courage in defending the possibilities of achieving a vision. In other words the patience, persistence and step-by-step strategy advised by the DOS' in the LWRP Guidebook. Therefore the Task Force has recommended the creation of issue-specific task groups made up of Hudsonians with diverse perspectives and interests in the waterfront to address and resolve the critical issues in the current Draft. Six critical issues were determined by the Task Force to require significant rethinking and modification since these issues are essential to creating an LWRP reflective of Hudson's uniqueness: -- Hydrological planning encompassing the entire City. -- Restoration of the South Bay as part of an overall estuarine ecology strategy. -- Resolution of land- and water- dependent uses and potential conflicts between commercial and/or industrial uses with public and/or scenic and recreational uses. -- Maximizing direct, unmediated public access to the River. -- Resolving deferred questions of ownership and land use. -- Placing SLC within a community-defined vision for the waterfront. The Task Force's overall assessment determined that the Draft did not adequately examine all the waterfront assets that could be enhanced to maximize public access, shied away from confronting obstacles that currently prevent the fullest use of the waterfront and therefore left certain problems unresolved. The plan overall lacks specific action recommendations that would enable the City to take fullest advantage of the possibilities for commercial shipping and the creation or enhancement of beaches, boat docking and other public uses. On the other hand, the Task Force found that the LWRP inappropriately did specify actions designed to satisfy SLC's plans for use of the waterfront. FoH contends that the City must not undertake such moves while there are title issues with regard to SLC's ownership and without first investigating whether the proposed site is contaminated. The Draft LWRP also supports the notion of a conveyor belt to the dock or a road to be built through the South Bay (a federally protected Class I wetland) as means of transporting aggregate from the quarry to the dock for loading onto barges. The proposed accommodations to SLC are inappropriately specific in an LWRP and negates all that we and our allies fought for when we opposed SLC's plan to build its cement factory in Greenport. With the close of the Comment period today the Common Council must now determine next steps. Possibilities include adoption of the Draft as written or calling for the creation of a modified Draft. Friends of Hudson will continue to remain active in the process and watchful that the best interests and expressed wishes of the public and the City are protected. Click Here for full text of FoH Comments Click Here for Appendix II: Cover Letter, DOS LWRP Comments, October 28, 2005 Click Here for Appendix II: DOS LWRP Comments, October 28, 2005 Click Here for Appendix IV: Denial of Coastal Consistency, Decision of Secretary of State Randy Daniels, April 2005 Colarusso Mining Expansion Permit: DEIS Not Adequate to Protect Public Health and SafetyFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEHudson NY April 5, 2007 Friends of Hudson Files Comments on Colarusso Mining Expansion Permit; Calls for Substantial Revision and Additional Permit Conditions Expert Review Finds Potential Environmental Impacts Have Not Been Adequately Addressed Hudson, NY – Late Monday afternoon (April 2) Friends of Hudson (FoH) submitted comments to the NYS DEC on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for A. Colarusso & Son’s Mining Expansion Permit Application. The SEQRA process under which this application is reviewed relies on public comment as well as on the applicant’s submission and DEC analysis of it to fully understand and address all issues that effect the environment. “It is important that there be an independent review of the Colarusso mining proposal to consider potential impacts to the health and safety of the general community,” said FoH’s president Christopher Reed. “Colarusso is an important contributor to the local economy. A thorough review of this application can ensure that economic benefits would not be offset by environmental impacts. The opportunity afforded by public participation in the review process provides the oversight necessary to ensure that” he said. Friends of Hudson’s review concentrated primarily on water, air and traffic impacts because these were of most significant concern to the public and the areas in which there would likely be the most impacts. The review concluded that the DEIS as written could allow for significant and potentially preventable harm to the City of Hudson’s back-up reservoir, degrade air quality and increase traffic congestion. After careful review FoH has concluded that the DEIS cannot be accepted as final by the DEC unless and until the issues raised in FoH’s comments are specifically addressed in a supplemental or substantially revised environmental impact statement. Moreover, FoH asserted that there are special permit conditions that must be included in a draft permit and that their exclusion would raise substantive and significant issues for adjudication. In calling for these revisions and the special conditions, Friends’ Director Susan Falzon noted, “DEC permits often include conditions but then fail to identify repercussions for violations.” She said that “FoH is therefore calling for the DEC to expressly identify mandatory corrective actions for violations and that any violation of protective conditions for the City of Hudson’s reservoir be the basis for immediate permit revocation.” In conclusion FoH found that the DEIS needs to be supplemented or substantially revised to include: • A specific proposed annual production cap • An expanded fugitive dust plan • A threshold analysis of PM2.5 impacts • Detailed information regarding all air emissions • A detailed, proposed Stormwater Management Plan • An expanded grading plan • A detailed assessment of the projected future market demand • A detailed traffic study that provides an accurate assessment of projected traffic In addition to the above, if after review and comment on the SEIS is completed and DEC decides to issue a permit to allow for the proposed expansion of mining activities on the City of Hudson property, the following Special Conditions must be included: • An annual production cap for the existing and expanded mine; • Specific prohibition against mining below the existing groundwater table elevation of 197 feet above mean sea level (famsl); • Specific, mandatory dust prevention and dust control measures; • Requirement that the Colarusso mine is in full compliance with the DEC Commissioner’s Policy on fine particulate emissions; • Specific, mandatory storm water control measures during the life of the mine, which prevent any surface runoff (contaminated or not) to come in contact with the City Reservoir. • Conditions regarding blasting at least as stringent as those in the existing permit; • Conditions limiting truck traffic volume and prescribing designated roadways and specific times for travel, in order to prevent or mitigate impacts to residents in and around the Colarusso mine. If the DEC adopts FoH’s recommendations the result will be a far better outcome for all concerned. “Careful oversight of implementation is as important as reviewing the plan itself,” Falzon said. “We have identified issues that the DEC and Colarusso, along with the Hudson Department of Public Works, the Mayor, and the Common Council, as well as elected officials in Greenport and Claverack need to monitor in the future to ensure protection of public health and safety, assuming that the DEC issues a permit at the end of this review process.” Summary of FoH Findings and Recommendations, click here. Complete text of FoH’s comments to DEC, click here. Fuss & O’Neill hydrogeology report, click here. For more information call (518) 822-0334 or email to info@friendsofhudson.org HOME | ARCHIVES BOX 326 HUDSON NY 12534 (518) 822-0334 TEL (518) 822-9435 FAX  |