Lafarge Ravena Modernization FEIS

Volume I of III

RAVENA PLANT MODERNIZATION PROJECT

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Prepared by:

Henningson, Durham, & Richardson Architecture & Engineering, P.C.

Lead Agency:

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Project Sponsor:

Lafarge Building Materials, Inc.

July 2011

Table of Contents

Ravena Plant Modernization Final Environmental Impact Statement TOC-i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... ES-1

CHAPTER 1 - PROPOSED ACTION ..................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED ...................................................................................................... 1-4

1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ...................................................................... 1-6

1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS ........................................................................... 1-10

1.5 FRAMEWORK FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ............... 1-15

1.6 APPLICABLE LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL PERMITS AND APPROVALS ...................... 1-18

1.6.1 Federal Agencies ................................................................................................... 1-18

1.6.2 New York State Agencies ....................................................................................... 1-19

1.6.3 Local Government .................................................................................................. 1-19

CHAPTER 2 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................... 2-1

2.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE CEMENT MANUFACTURING PROCESS .......................................... 2-1

2.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING RAVENA PLANT ........................................................... 2-4

2.3.1 Limestone Mining and Primary Crushing ............................................................... 2-7

2.3.2 Cement Manufacturing Operation ........................................................................... 2-8

2.3.3 Finished Product Distribution System ..................................................................... 2-9

2.3.4 Waste Generation..................................................................................................... 2-9

2.3.5 Industrial Water ..................................................................................................... 2-10

2.3.6 Power Demand....................................................................................................... 2-10

2.3.7 Air Pollution Control Systems ............................................................................... 2-10

2.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT .................................................................. 2-10

2.4.1 Limestone Mining and Primary Crushing ............................................................. 2-12

2.4.2 Cement Manufacturing Operation ......................................................................... 2-12

2.4.3 Finished Product Distribution System ................................................................... 2-21

2.4.4 Waste Generation................................................................................................... 2-21

2.4.5 Industrial Water ..................................................................................................... 2-21

2.4.6 Power Generation .................................................................................................. 2-23

2.4.7 Air Pollution Control System ................................................................................. 2-24

2.5 CONSTRUCTION PHASE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................ 2-24

CHAPTER 3 - LAND USE, ZONING, AND PUBLIC POLICY .......................................... 3-1

3.1 INTRODUCTION AND STUDY AREA DELINEATION ......................................................... 3-1

3.2 ANALYSIS/METHODOLOGIES ........................................................................................ 3-1

3.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................. 3-3

3.3.1 Land Use .................................................................................................................. 3-3

3.3.2 Zoning ...................................................................................................................... 3-6

3.3.3 Public Policy ............................................................................................................ 3-7

Table of Contents

Ravena Plant Modernization Final Environmental Impact Statement TOC-ii

3.4 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................................. 3-14

3.4.1 Land Use ................................................................................................................ 3-14

3.4.2 Zoning .................................................................................................................... 3-15

3.4.3 Public Policy .......................................................................................................... 3-16

3.5 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................................... 3-16

3.5.1 Land Use ................................................................................................................ 3-16

3.5.2 Zoning .................................................................................................................... 3-19

3.5.3 Public Policy .......................................................................................................... 3-19

3.6 IDENTIFICATION OF SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .................... 3-23

CHAPTER 4 - SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS ............................................................. 4-1




4.3.1 Economic Activity and Employment ........................................................................ 4-4

4.3.2 Fiscal Conditions and Taxes .................................................................................. 4-16

4.4 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................... 4-19

4.4.1 Economic Activity and Employment ...................................................................... 4-19



4.5.1 Economic Activity during Construction ................................................................. 4-23

4.5.2 Economic Activity in Analysis Year, 2015 ............................................................. 4-27


4.5.4 Direct or Indirect Displacement of Residents and Businesses .............................. 4-28

CHAPTER 5 - ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ..................................................................... 5-1

5.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ANALYSIS ........................................................................... 5-1

5.3 DELINEATION OF STUDY AREA ..................................................................................... 5-2

5.4 IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AREAS WITHIN THE STUDY

AREA ............................................................................................................................ 5-3

5.5 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................... 5-8

CHAPTER 6 - COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES .......................................... 6-1




6.4 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT ............................................. 6-6

6.5 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH THE PROPOSED ACTION ..................................................... 6-6

6.6 PROPOSED MITIGATION ................................................................................................ 6-8

CHAPTER 7 - OPEN SPACE .................................................................................................. 7-1



Table of Contents

Ravena Plant Modernization Final Environmental Impact Statement TOC-iii


7.3.1 Open Space Lands within the Study Area ................................................................ 7-2

7.3.2 Open Space Lands with Scenic Resource Opportunities ......................................... 7-5

7.4 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................................... 7-6






7.6 IDENTIFICATION OF SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...................... 7-7

7.7 PROPOSED MITIGATION ................................................................................................ 7-8

CHAPTER 8 - CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................ 8-1




8.3.1 Archaeological Resources ....................................................................................... 8-2

8.4 HISTORIC RESOURCES ................................................................................................... 8-4

8.5 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................................... 8-7


CHAPTER 9 - VISUAL RESOURCES ................................................................................... 9-1

9.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 9-1

9.2 ANALYSIS/METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................... 9-2

9.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................ 9-28



9.5.1 Potential for Creation of a Visible Plume with the Proposed Project ................... 9-74

9.5.2 Potential for Impact on Scenic Area of Statewide Significance from the Proposed

Project .................................................................................................................... 9-76

CHAPTER 10 - NATURAL RESOURCES .......................................................................... 10-1

10.1 INTRODUCTION AND STUDY AREA DELINEATION ....................................................... 10-1

10.2 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES ....................................................................................... 10-1

10.2.1 Review of Existing Information .......................................................................... 10-1


10.4 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROPOSED ACTION ........................................... 10-19

10.5 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................................. 10-22

10.6 ADDITIONAL MEASURES THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE INCORPORATED INTO THE

PROJECT DESIGN TO REDUCE THE RATE OF BIRD STRIKES ....................................... 10-31

CHAPTER 11 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ....................................................................... 11-1


11.1.1 Soil Management and Dewatering..................................................................... 11-3

Table of Contents

Ravena Plant Modernization Final Environmental Impact Statement TOC-iv

11.1.2 Health and Safety ............................................................................................... 11-4




CHAPTER 12 - SURFACE WATER ..................................................................................... 12-1


12.2 ANALYSIS/METHODOLOGIES ...................................................................................... 12-1




12.6 AVOIDANCE AND REDUCTION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON SURFACE WATER QUALITY TO

BE INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED PROJECT ............................................................................. 12-25

CHAPTER 13 - HUDSON RIVER WATER WITHDRAWALS ........................................ 13-1

13.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 13-1

13.2 WATER SUPPLY DESCRIPTIONS ................................................................................... 13-1

13.3 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES ....................................................................................... 13-4

13.3.1 Impingement and Entrainment of Aquatic Organisms....................................... 13-4



CHAPTER 14 - GROUNDWATER RESOURCES ............................................................. 14-1






CHAPTER 15 - COASTAL RESOURCES ........................................................................... 15-1



15.3 IDENTIFICATION OF SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE .... 15-3

15.3.1 Future Conditions without the Proposed Action ............................................... 15-4

15.3.2 Future Conditions with the Proposed Action..................................................... 15-4

CHAPTER 16 - INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................................................. 16-1




16.3.1 Water Supply ...................................................................................................... 16-2

16.3.2 Sanitary Sewage ................................................................................................. 16-3

16.3.3 Stormwater ......................................................................................................... 16-3

16.4 FUTURE CONDITION WITHOUT THE PROPOSED ACTION............................................... 16-8

16.4.1 Water Supply ...................................................................................................... 16-8

Table of Contents

Ravena Plant Modernization Final Environmental Impact Statement TOC-v

16.4.2 Sanitary Sewage ................................................................................................. 16-8

16.4.3 Stormwater ......................................................................................................... 16-9


16.5.1 Water Supply ...................................................................................................... 16-9

16.5.2 Sanitary Sewage ............................................................................................... 16-12

16.5.3 Stormwater ....................................................................................................... 16-12

16.5.4 Industrial Wastewater ...................................................................................... 16-13

CHAPTER 17 - ENERGY....................................................................................................... 17-1

17.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 17-1


17.2.1 Fuel .................................................................................................................... 17-1

17.2.2 Electricity ........................................................................................................... 17-2


17.3.1 Fuel .................................................................................................................... 17-2

17.3.2 Electricity ........................................................................................................... 17-3


17.4.1 Fuel .................................................................................................................... 17-3

17.4.2 Electricity ........................................................................................................... 17-4

17.5 IDENTIFICATION OF SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS ................................................. 17-4

17.6 MITIGATION ................................................................................................................ 17-5

CHAPTER 18 - SOLID WASTE ............................................................................................ 18-1

18.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 18-1


18.3 FUTURE CONDITION WITHOUT THE PROPOSED ACTION............................................... 18-4


CHAPTER 19 - TRAFFIC AND SAFETY ........................................................................... 19-1

19.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 19-1

19.2 STUDY AREA .............................................................................................................. 19-2

19.2.1 Traffic Assessment ............................................................................................. 19-2

19.2.2 Safety Assessment............................................................................................... 19-8

19.3 CAPACITY ANALYSIS/METHODOLOGIES ..................................................................... 19-8

19.3.1 Traffic Assessment ............................................................................................. 19-8

19.3.2 Safety Assessment............................................................................................. 19-11

19.4 EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................................................................................. 19-12

19.4.1 Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................ 19-12

19.4.1.1 Manual Traffic Volume Surveys................................................................... 19-12

19.4.2 Capacity Analysis Results ................................................................................ 19-16

19.4.3 Safety ................................................................................................................ 19-18

19.4.1 Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................ 19-20

19.5 FUTURE CONDITION WITHOUT THE PROPOSED ACTION............................................. 19-20

Table of Contents

Ravena Plant Modernization Final Environmental Impact Statement TOC-vi

19.5.1 Capacity Analysis............................................................................................. 19-24

19.5.2 Safety ................................................................................................................ 19-27

19.6 FUTURE CONDITION WITH THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................................... 19-27

19.6.1 Construction Phase .......................................................................................... 19-27

19.6.2 Operational Phase ........................................................................................... 19-30

19.7 IDENTIFICATION OF SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .................. 19-37

19.8 PROPOSED MEASURES TO BE IMPLEMENTED TO REDUCE THE POTENTIAL FOR

SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC AND SAFETY EFFECTS DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED

PROJECT .................................................................................................................... 19-37

CHAPTER 20 – AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................ 20-1

20.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 20-1

20.2 POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN ......................................................................................... 20-2

20.3 HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS ................................................................................... 20-6

20.4 TOXIC AMBIENT AIR CONTAMINANTS (TAACS) ........................................................ 20-7

20.5 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................... 20-7


20.6.1 Attainment Status of the Air Quality Control Region in Which the Project Site is

Located ............................................................................................................. 20-19

20.6.2 Existing Air Pollutant Emissions at the Ravena Plant..................................... 20-20

20.7 AIR QUALITY CONDITIONS IN THE FUTURE WITHOUT THE PROPOSED ACTION ......... 20-23

20.8 AIR QUALITY CONDITIONS IN THE FUTURE WITH THE PROPOSED ACTION ................ 20-25

20.8.1 Control Technology ......................................................................................... 20-25

20.8.2 Future Air Pollutant Emissions at the Ravena Plant with the Proposed

Action ............................................................................................................... 20-30

20.8.3 PSD Analysis .................................................................................................... 20-31

20.8.4 NAAQS Compliance Demonstration ................................................................ 20-42

20.8.5 Evaluation of Impacts at Potential Environmental Justice Areas and Public

Schools ............................................................................................................. 20-43

20.8.6 Potential for Increased Emissions During Start-up of the New Kiln Line ...... 20-50

20.8.7 TAAC Evaluation ............................................................................................. 20-50

20.9 MOBILE SOURCE IMPACT ASSESSMENT .................................................................... 20-51

20.10 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ...... 20-51

CHAPTER 21 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ........................................................... 21-1

21.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 21-1

21.1.1 Background ........................................................................................................ 21-3

21.1.2 Pollutants of Concern ........................................................................................ 21-4

21.2 GHG EMISSIONS SOURCES AND FRAMEWORK OF ANALYSIS ...................................... 21-6


21.3.1 Process Emissions .............................................................................................. 21-7

21.3.2 Off-site Electricity .............................................................................................. 21-9

21.3.3 Waste Generation............................................................................................... 21-9

Table of Contents

Ravena Plant Modernization Final Environmental Impact Statement TOC-vii

21.3.4 Transportation ................................................................................................. 21-11

21.3.1 Materials Extraction ........................................................................................ 21-12

21.3.2 Total GHG emissions ....................................................................................... 21-13


21.4.1 Process Emissions ............................................................................................ 21-15

21.4.2 Off-site Electricity ............................................................................................ 21-15

21.4.3 Waste Generation............................................................................................. 21-16

21.4.4 Transportation ................................................................................................. 21-16

21.4.5 Materials Extraction ........................................................................................ 21-17

21.4.6 Total GHG Emissions ...................................................................................... 21-17


21.5.1 Process Emissions ............................................................................................ 21-18

21.5.2 Off-site Electricity:........................................................................................... 21-20

21.5.3 Waste Generation............................................................................................. 21-21

21.5.4 Transportation ................................................................................................. 21-21

21.5.5 Construction Phase Assessment ....................................................................... 21-23

21.5.6 Materials extraction ......................................................................................... 21-24

21.5.7 Total GHG emissions ....................................................................................... 21-24

21.6 ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................................................... 21-25

21.6.1 Alternative Fuels .............................................................................................. 21-25

21.6.2 Carbon Capture and Sequestration Systems.................................................... 21-34

21.6.3 Low Carbonate Alternate Raw Materials ........................................................ 21-42

21.7 MEASURES INCORPORATED IN THE FACILITY DESIGN TO REDUCE GHG EMISSION .. 21-45

CHAPTER 22 - NOISE ........................................................................................................... 22-1

22.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 22-1

22.2 NOISE FUNDAMENTALS .............................................................................................. 22-2

22.3 STUDY AREA .............................................................................................................. 22-5

22.3.1 Receptor Locations ............................................................................................ 22-5

22.4 NOISE SOURCES WITH THE PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................... 22-9

22.4.1 Construction ....................................................................................................... 22-9

22.4.2 Operational Phase ........................................................................................... 22-12

22.5 NOISE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA .................................................................................. 22-14

22.5.1 Construction ..................................................................................................... 22-14

22.5.2 Operational ...................................................................................................... 22-15


22.6.1 Property Boundary Noise Monitoring ............................................................. 22-16

22.6.2 Receptor Noise Monitoring .............................................................................. 22-18

22.6.3 Receptors Along Route 9W and Old Ravena Road .......................................... 22-19

22.6.4 Receptors Along Route 144 .............................................................................. 22-22

22.6.5 Additional Noise Monitoring East of the Hudson River .................................. 22-23

Table of Contents

Ravena Plant Modernization Final Environmental Impact Statement TOC-viii

22.7 NOISE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ........................................................................ 22-25

22.7.1 Construction-Related Impact Analysis ............................................................ 22-25

22.7.2 Operation-Related Impact Analysis ................................................................. 22-26

22.8 FUTURE NOISE CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................ 22-29

22.8.1 Noise Levels in the Vicinity of the Project Site Due to On-Site Noise Sources 22-29

22.8.2 Noise Levels Due to Vehicles Travelling Along Roadways in the Vicinity of the

Project Site ....................................................................................................................... 22-29

22.9 PREDICTED NOISE CONDITIONS WITH THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................. 22-29

22.9.1 Construction ..................................................................................................... 22-29

22.9.2 Operational ...................................................................................................... 22-41

22.10 COMBINED ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 22-55

22.10.1 Combined Effect of On-Site Construction Equipment and Construction-Related

Vehicles Travelling To and From the Construction Site ................................................. 22-55

22.10.2 Combined Effect of On-Site Equipment and Vehicles Travelling To and From the

Project Site During Operation of the Proposed Project .................................................. 22-56

CHAPTER 23 - PUBLIC HEALTH ...................................................................................... 23-1

CHAPTER 24 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS .................................................... 24-1

CHAPTER 25 ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................... 25-1

25.1 ALTERNATIVE PROJECT SIZE AND CAPACITY.............................................................. 25-2

25.2 ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE PROPOSED PROJECT .................. 25-3

25.3 ALTERNATIVE SITE LAYOUTS AND ORIENTATION ...................................................... 25-3

25.4 ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS .......................................................................................... 25-4

25.5 ALTERNATIVE CEMENT MANUFACTURING PROCESSES ............................................... 25-6

25.6 ALTERNATIVE TREATMENTS TO ENHANCE THE VISUAL APPEARANCE OF THE FACILITY

25-8

25.7 ALTERNATIVE POLLUTION CONTROLS ...................................................................... 25-19

25.8 ALTERNATIVE FUELS AND OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO DECREASE GREENHOUSE GAS

(GHG) EMISSIONS .................................................................................................... 25-22

25.9 ALTERNATIVE USES OF THE PROPOSED SITE ............................................................. 25-24

25.10 NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE ...................................................................................... 25-24

CHAPTER 26 – IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES ........................................................................................... 26-1

CHAPTER 27 - GROWTH-INDUCING ASPECTS ............................................................ 27-1

CHAPTER 28 - CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ........................................................................ 28-1

CHAPTER 29 - PUBLIC OUTREACH ................................................................................ 29-1

29.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 29-1

CHAPTER 30 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ..................................................................... 30-1

30.1 GENERAL .................................................................................................................... 30-1

30.2 AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................ 30-11

Table of Contents

Ravena Plant Modernization Final Environmental Impact Statement TOC-ix

30.3 PERMITS .................................................................................................................... 30-39

30.4 PERMITS – SPDES .................................................................................................... 30-64

30.5 VISUAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................. 30-65

30.6 PUBLIC HEALTH ........................................................................................................ 30-84

30.7 PROPOSED ACTION.................................................................................................... 30-86

30.8 COASTAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................... 30-93

30.9 AVIATION SAFETY .................................................................................................... 30-93

30.10 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 30-94

30.11 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .............................................................................. 30-98

30.12 NOISE .................................................................................................................... 30-99

30.13 SURFACE WATER QUALITY................................................................................. 30-101

30.14 TRAFFIC AND SAFETY ......................................................................................... 30-104

CHAPTER 31 – REFERENCES/BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................... 30-1

Table of Contents

Ravena Plant Modernization Final Environmental Impact Statement TOC-x

LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1 Existing vs Proposed .......................................................................................... 2-13

Table 3-1 Study Area Zoning Summary(1) .......................................................................... 3-9

Table 4-1 Total Population, 1990-2008 ............................................................................... 4-5

Table 4-2 Total Households, 1990-2008 .............................................................................. 4-5

Table 4-3 Median Household Income, 1990-2008 ............................................................... 4-6

Table 4-4 Establishments and Employment, 2000-2007 Establishments and Employment in the Secondary Study Area, 2000-2007 ................................................................ 4-8

Table 4-5 Establishments and Employment in Primary Study Area Zip Codes, 2000-2007 .......................................................................................................... 4-15

Table 4-6 Average Annual Salaries the Secondary Study Area ......................................... 4-16

Table 4-7 Property Tax Revenues from the Ravena Plant, 2006 ....................................... 4-17

Table 4-8 Sales and Use Tax Payments to New York State Counties, Lafarge Building Materials, Inc. .................................................................................................... 4-19

Table 4-9 Federal Tax Payments*, Ravena Plant, Lafarge Building Materials, Inc. ......... 4-19

Table 4-10 Total Population, 2008-2013 ............................................................................. 4-21

Table 4-11 Total Households, 2008-2013 ............................................................................ 4-21

Table 4-12 Median Household Income, 2008-2013 ............................................................. 4-22

Table 4-13 Potential for Construction-Related Jobs in the Secondary Study Area ............. 4-26

Table 5-1 Potential Environmental Justice Areas ................................................................ 5-5

Table 6-1 RCS School District Student Enrollment ............................................................. 6-4

Table 8-1 Known Historic Resources in Vicinity of the Proposed Project .......................... 8-8

Table 9-1 Sites Listed on the National Register of Historic Places ................................... 9-22

Table 9-2 Dates and Conditions During Which Photographs were Taken ........................ 9-27

Table 9-3 New and Existing Stack Conditions* Affecting Condensation Plume Formation ........................................................................................................... 9-75

Table 9-4 Columbia Green North SASS ............................................................................ 9-80

Table 10-1 Ecological Communities within the Project Site ............................................... 10-5

Table 10-2 Mammal Species that Could Occur On or Adjacent to the Project Site ............ 10-7

Table 10-3 Bird Species That Could Occur On or Adjacent to the Project Site .................. 10-9

Table 10-4 Potential Amphibian and Reptile Species That Could Occur On or Adjacent To the Project Site ............................................................................................ 10-14

Table 10-5 Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Species that Could Occur On or Adjacent to the Project Site.............................................................................. 10-16

Table 12-1 Outfall 003 Existing Sources and Estimated Wastewater Flows ....................... 12-5

Table 12-2 Coeymans Creek Water Quality Data .............................................................. 12-10

Table 12-3 Daily Freshwater Flows (cfs) of the Hudson River at Green Island, New York for the Period 1946-2007 ....................................................................................... 12-11

Table 12-4 Estimated Wastewater Flows with the Proposed Action ................................. 12-23

Table of Contents

Ravena Plant Modernization Final Environmental Impact Statement TOC-xi

Table 13-1 Estimated Annual Entrainment Losses by Taxon and Life Stage at 2.0 MGD Hudson River Withdrawal Rate and Current Intake Configuration (Average of 2004-2008 Data) ................................................................................................ 13-7

Table 13-2 Estimated Annual Entrainment Losses by Taxon and Life Stage at 2.0 MGD Hudson River Withdrawal Rate with 0.5 mm Wedge-wire Screens Installed (Average of 2004-2008 Data) ................................................................................................ 13-7

Table 17-1 Summary of Energy Demand............................................................................. 17-5

Table 18-1 Summary of Solid Waste Management and Annual Waste Quantities ............. 18-7

Table 19-1 LOS Criteria for Intersections ............................................................................ 19-9

Table 19-2 LOS: Existing Conditions ................................................................................ 19-17

Table 19-3 Accident Records Summary - Route 9W ......................................................... 19-21

Table 19-4 LOS: Future without the Proposed Action Conditions Compared to 2008 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................... 19-25

Table 19-5 Projected Construction Vehicle Trips .............................................................. 19-29

Table 19-6 Project-generated Truck Trips Weekday AM and PM Peak Hours ................. 19-34

Table 19-7 Level of Service: Future with the Proposed Action Conditions ..................... 19-35

Table 20-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards ........................................................... 20-3

Table 20-2 PSD/NNSR Significant Net Emissions Increase Thresholds (Tons/Year) ........ 20-9

Table 20-3 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Significant Impact Levels (SIL) (Micrograms/cubic meter) ............................................................................... 20-10

Table 20-4 Revised NESHAPS for Portland Cement Kilns............................................... 20-16

Table 20-5 Permit Emissions Limits for New Kiln System and Clinker Cooler ............... 20-20

Table 20-6 Average Yearly Plantwide Emissions of PSD Regulated Pollutants for the August 2004 – July 2006 Baseline Period .................................................................... 20-21

Table 20-7 Average Annual Estimated Emissions of PSD Regulated Pollutants at the Ravena Plant During the August 2004 – July 2006 Baseline Period (Short Tons Per Year) ...................................................................................... 20-22

Table 20-8 Net Changes in Emissions with the Proposed Project Between August 2004-July 2006 Baseline Levels (Short Tons Per Year) ................................................... 20-32

Table 20-9 Estimated CO SIL Concentrations Using Albany Airport Meteorological Data for 2003 thru 2007 and Albany Surface Characteristics With the Proposed Project at “Full Load” ...................................................................................................... 20-35

Table 20-9 Estimated CO SIL Concentrations Using Albany Airport Meteorological Data for 2003 thru 2007 and Ravena Surface Characteristics With the Proposed Project at “Full Load” ...................................................................................................... 20-35

Table 20-10 Estimated CO SIL Concentrations Using Albany County Airport Meteorological Data for 2003 thru 2007 and Albany Surfac Characeristics with the Proposed Project at 75% Load ......................................................................................... 20-36

Table 20-10 Estimated CO SIL Concentrations Using Albany County Airport Meteorological Data for 2003 thru 2007and Ravena Surface Characteristics with the Proposed Project at 75% Load ......................................................................................... 20-36

Table of Contents

Ravena Plant Modernization Final Environmental Impact Statement TOC-xii

Table 20-11 Summary of GHG Emissions, Tons CO2-e Per Ton of Clinker ...................... 20-42

Table 20-12 CO levels at PEJs and Public Schools with the Proposed Project at Full Load ................................................................................................................. 20-46

Table 20-13 Changes in PM10, PM2.5, SO2 and NOx Concentrations at PEJ Areas and Public Schools in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project (micrograms/cubic meter) ... 20-47

Table 20-14 Maximum Estimated TAAC Concentrations with the Proposed Project at Full Load ................................................................................................................. 20-52

Table 20-15 Toxics Impact Analysis Summary for PEJs and Public Schools ..................... 20-54

Table 21-1 Global Warming Potential for Major GHGs ...................................................... 21-4

Table 21-2 Annual Production of Clinker, Cement and CO2 from the Ravena Plant during the Baseline Period ................................................................................. 21-9

Table 21-3 Existing GHG Emissions from Fuel used by Fleet Vehicles ........................... 21-11

Table 21-4 Existing GHG Emissions from Non-Fleet Vehicles ........................................ 21-12

Table 21-5 Summary of GHG Emissions........................................................................... 21-13

Table 21-6 Clinker, Cement and CO2 Produced Each Year in Future Without the Proposed Action ............................................................................................................... 21-15

Table 21-7 Transportation-related GHG Emissions in Future Without the Proposed Action ............................................................................................................... 21-17


Table 21-9 Clinker, Cement and CO2 Production with the Proposed Action ................... 21-20

Table 21-10 GHG Emissions from Fuel used by Fleet Vehicles in 2015 with the Proposed Action ............................................................................................................... 21-22

Table 21-11 GHG Emissions from Fuel used by Non-Fleet Vehicles in 2015 with the Proposed Action ............................................................................................................... 21-22


Table 21-13 Comparison Of Plant Equipment Technologies .............................................. 21-47

Table 22-1 On-site Construction Noise Sources ................................................................ 22-10

Table 22-2 Construction-Related Vehicles Traveling To and From the Project Site ........ 22-12

Table 22-3 Additional Operational-Related Vehicles Traveling To and From the Site .... 22-14

Table 22-4 Existing Noise Monitoring Data –Property Boundary ..................................... 22-17

Table 22-5 Existing Noise Monitoring Data – Noise-Sensitive Receptors along Route 9W and Old Ravena Road ...................................................................................... 22-21

Table 22-6 Existing Noise Monitoring Data – Noise-Sensitive Receptors along Route 1441,2 .................................................................................................... 22-22

Table 22-7 Existing Noise Monitoring Data – East of the Hudson River across from Lafarge Barge Loading Operations .................................................................. 22-23

Table 22-8 Predicted Noise Levels during Construction that would be Generated by On-Site Construction Equipment at Nearest Noise-Sensitive Receptors ...................... 22-31

Table 22-9 Predicted Noise Levels during Construction that would be Generated by Construction-Related Vehicles at Nearest Noise-Sensitive Receptors Route 9W; Shift 1 ............................................................................................................... 22-35

Table of Contents

Ravena Plant Modernization Final Environmental Impact Statement TOC-xiii



Table 22-12 Predicted Noise Levels during Construction that would be Generated by Construction-Related Vehicles at Nearest Noise-Sensitive Receptors Route 14422-43

Table 22-13 NYSDEC Program Policy Noise Assessment Predicted Noise Levels that would be Generated by On-Site Noise Sources at Nearest Noise-Sensitive Receptors22-44

Table 22-14 NYSDEC Part 360 Noise Standard Assessment Predicted Noise Levels that would be Generated by On-Site Noise Sources at Nearest Noise-Sensitive Receptors122-46

Table 22-15 Predicted Operational Related Noise Levels due to Vehicles Travelling Along Roadways in the Vicinity of the Project Site at Nearest Noise-Sensitive Receptors Route 9W; Peak Facility Hours ....................................................................... 22-50

Table 22-16 Predicted Operational Related Noise Levels due to Vehicles Travelling Along Roadways in the Vicinity of the Project Site at Nearest Noise-Sensitive Receptors Route 144; Peak Facility Hours ....................................................................... 22-52

Table 22-17 Predicted Operational Related Noise Levels due to Vehicles Travelling Along Roadways in the Vicinity of the Project Site at Nearest Noise-Sensitive Receptors Route 9W; Non-Peak Facility Hours ............................................................... 22-53

Table 22-18 Predicted Operational Related Noise Levels due to Vehicles Travelling Along Roadways in the Vicinity of the Project Site at Nearest Noise-Sensitive Receptors Route 144; Non-Peak Facility Hours ............................................................... 22-54

Table 22-19 NYSDEC Program Policy Noise Assessment – Combined Analysis Predicted Total Construction Related Noise Levels at Nearest Noise-Sensitive Receptors during the First Construction Shift .................................................................. 22-57

Table 22-20 NYSDEC Program Policy Noise Assessment – Combined Analysis Predicted Total Operation Related Noise Levels at Nearest Noise-Sensitive Receptors during Peak Facility Hours .............................................................................. 22-58

Table of Contents

Ravena Plant Modernization Final Environmental Impact Statement TOC-xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Project Location ................................................................................................... 1-2

Figure 1-2 Operational Units of the Plant.............................................................................. 1-3

Figure 1-3 Ravena Plant Modernization Project Schedule .................................................... 1-9

Figure 2-1 Existing Plant Site Layout ................................................................................... 2-5

Figure 2-2 Future Plant Site Layout .................................................................................... 2-17

Figure 2-3 Future Plant Rendering ...................................................................................... 2-18

Figure 2-4 Potential Construction Staging Areas ................................................................ 2-25

Figure 3-1 Existing Ravena Plant Site Boundary .................................................................. 3-4

Figure 3-2 Existing Land Use ................................................................................................ 3-5

Figure 3-3 Existing Zoning .................................................................................................... 3-8

Figure 4-1 Primary and Secondary Study Areas ................................................................... 4-2

Figure 5-1 Study Area and Area PEJs ................................................................................... 5-4

Figure 6-1 Emergency Facilities ............................................................................................ 6-5

Figure 7-1 Existing Public Open Space ................................................................................. 7-4

Figure 8-1A Construction of Existing Cement Manufacturing Facility, c. 1962 ..................... 8-3

Figure 8-1B Construction of Existing Cement Manufacturing Facility, c. 1962 ..................... 8-4

Figure 8-2 Historic Resources ............................................................................................... 8-9

Figure 9-1 Viewshed Analysis – Existing Plant Southeast Quadrant.................................... 9-7

Figure 9-2 Viewshed Analysis – Existing Plant Northeast Quadrant.................................... 9-8

Figure 9-3 Viewshed Analysis – Existing Plant Northwest Quadrant .................................. 9-9

Figure 9-4 Viewshed Analysis – Existing Plant Southwest Quadrant ................................ 9-10

Figure 9-5 Viewshed Analysis – Proposed Plant Southeast Quadrant ................................ 9-11

Figure 9-6 Viewshed Analysis – Proposed Plant Northeast Quadrant ................................ 9-12

Figure 9-7 Viewshed Analysis – Proposed Plant Northwest Quadrant ............................... 9-13

Figure 9-8 Viewshed Analysis – Proposed Plant Southwest Quadrant ............................... 9-14

Figure 9-9 Viewshed Analysis – Increased Visibility of Proposed Stack ........................... 9-15

Figure 9-10 Viewshed Analysis and Aesthetic Resource Overlay ........................................ 9-16




Figure 9-14 Visible Picture Points ......................................................................................... 9-25

Figure 9-15 Hudson River Picture Points .............................................................................. 9-26

Figure 9-16 Viewpoint A: Schodack Landing Historic District ........................................... 9-29

Figure 9-17 Viewpoint B: Fletcher Blaisdell Farm Complex .............................................. 9-30

Figure 9-18 Viewpoint C: First Reformed Church of Bethlehem ........................................ 9-31

Figure 9-19 Viewpoint D: Taconic State Parkway ............................................................... 9-32

Table of Contents

Ravena Plant Modernization Final Environmental Impact Statement TOC-xv

Figure 9-20 Viewpoint E: Ravena-Coeymans-Selkirk Middle/High School ....................... 9-33

Figure 9-21 Viewpoint F: New York State Thruway ........................................................... 9-34

Figure 9-22 Viewpoint G: Interstate 90, Berkshire Spur ...................................................... 9-35

Figure 9-23 Viewpoint H-1: Hudson River, near Henry Hudson Park ................................ 9-36

Figure 9-24 Viewpoint H-2: Hudson River, north of Castleton Bridge ............................... 9-37

Figure 9-25 Viewpoint H-3: Hudson River, Lafarge Wharf ................................................ 9-38

Figure 9-26 Viewpoint H-4: Hudson River, near Route 144, south of Lafarge Wharf ........ 9-39

Figure 9-27 Viewpoint H-5: Hudson River .......................................................................... 9-40

Figure 9-28 Viewpoint H-6: Hudson River .......................................................................... 9-41

Figure 9-29 Viewpoint H-7: Hudson River, southern Schodack Island ............................... 9-42

Figure 9-30 Viewpoint I: Schodack Island State Park, Boat Launch .................................... 9-43

Figure 9-31 Viewpoint J: New Baltimore Hamlet Historic District .......................................... 9-44

Figure 9-32 Viewpoint K: Stuyvesant Railroad Station ........................................................ 9-45

Figure 9-33 Viewpoint L: Coxsackie Boat Launch ............................................................... 9-46

Figure 9-34 Viewpoint M: Dutchman’s Landing Park .......................................................... 9-47

Figure 9-35 Viewpoint N: Olana Historic Site ...................................................................... 9-48

Figure 9-36 Viewpoint A: Schodack Landing Historic District ........................................... 9-54

Figure 9-37 Viewpoint B: Fletcher Blaisdell Farm Complex .............................................. 9-55

Figure 9-38 Viewpoint C: First Reformed Church of Bethlehem ........................................ 9-56

Figure 9-39 Viewpoint D: Taconic State Parkway ............................................................... 9-57

Figure 9-40 Viewpoint E: Ravena-Coeymans-Selkirk Middle/High School ....................... 9-58

Figure 9-41 Viewpoint F: New York State Thruway ........................................................... 9-59

Figure 9-42 Viewpoint G: Interstate 90, Berkshire Spur ...................................................... 9-60

Figure 9-43 Viewpoint H: The Hudson River ...................................................................... 9-61

Figure 9-44 Viewpoint I: Schodack Island State Park Boat Launch ..................................... 9-62

Figure 9-45 View Point A – Schodack Landing Historic District Visually Enhanced Tower/Stack Structure Alternative .................................................................... 9-63

Figure 9-46 View Point B – Fletcher Blaisdell Farm Complex Visually Enhanced Tower/Stack Structure Alternative .......................................................................................... 9-64

Figure 9-47 View Point C – First Reform Church of Bethlehem Visually Enhanced Tower/Stack Structure Alternative .................................................................... 9-65

Figure 9-48 View Point D – Taconic State Parkway Visually Enhanced Tower/Stack Structure Alternative.......................................................................................................... 9-66

Figure 9-49 View Point E – Ravena-Coeymans-Selkirk Middle/High School Visually Enhanced Tower/Stack Structure Alternative .................................................... 9-67

Figure 9-50 View Point F – New York State Thruway Visually Enhanced Tower/Stack Structure Alternative .......................................................................................... 9-68

Figure 9-51 View Point G – Interstate 90 Berkshire Spur Visually Enhanced Tower/Stack Structure Alternative .......................................................................................... 9-69

Table of Contents

Ravena Plant Modernization Final Environmental Impact Statement TOC-xvi

Figure 9-52 View Point H (H-4) – The Hudson River Visually Enhanced Tower/Stack Structure Alternative .......................................................................................... 9-70

Figure 9-53 View Point I – Schodack Island State Park Visually Enhanced Tower/Stack Structure Alternative .......................................................................................... 9-71

Figure 9-54 SASS Subunits ................................................................................................... 9-81

Figure 10-1 Ecological Communities .................................................................................... 10-2

Figure 10-2 Wetlands .......................................................................................................... 10-20

Figure 10-3 Impacts ............................................................................................................. 10-24

Figure 12-1 Area Water Bodies ............................................................................................. 12-2

Figure 12-2 Quench System .................................................................................................. 12-7

Figure 12-3 Minimum, maximum, and median Hudson River water temperature at Poughkeepsie Water Works for the period 1/1/1974 through 5/8/2008 .......... 12-14

Figure 12-4 100-Year Flood Plain ....................................................................................... 12-16

Figure 12-5 Modernized Plant Water Flow Diagram .......................................................... 12-22

Figure 14-1 Bedrock Geology ............................................................................................... 14-4

Figure 14-2 Surficial Geology ............................................................................................... 14-5

Figure 14-3 Vicinity Water Supply Wells ........................................................................... 14-10

Figure 15-1 Coastal Waterfront ............................................................................................. 15-2

Figure 16-1 Spherical Ball Reservoir – Hudson River Intake Storage .................................. 16-4

Figure 16-2 Outfall 03A – Water Flow Diagram .................................................................. 16-5

Figure 16-3 Outfall 003 – Existing Water Flow Diagram ..................................................... 16-6

Figure 16-4 Outfalls 006, 007, 010 – Water Flow Diagram .................................................. 16-7

Figure 16-5 Proposed Water Flow and Proposed Discharge Diagram ................................ 16-10

Figure 16-6 Modernized Plant Water Supply and Discharges ............................................ 16-14

Figure 16-7 Modernized Plant Water Supply and Discharges ............................................ 16-15

Figure 19-1 Traffic Study Area & Intersections .................................................................... 19-3

Figure 19-2 Existing Conditions Traffic Network (2008) AM Peak Hour ......................... 19-14

Figure 19-3 Existing Conditions Traffic Network (2008) PM Peak Hour .......................... 19-15

Figure 19-4 No Build Conditions Traffic Network (2015) AM Peak Hour ........................ 19-22

Figure 19-5 No Build Conditions Traffic Network (2015) PM Peak Hour ......................... 19-23

Figure 19.6 Build Conditions Traffic Network (2015) AM Peak Hour .............................. 19-31

Figure 19.7 Build Conditions Traffic Network (2015) PM Peak Hour............................... 19-32

Figure 20-1 Potential Environmental Justice Areas and Nearby Public Schools ................ 20-12

Figure 20-2 Isopleths of CO Modeled Concentrations (Overall Modeling Domain, 1-Hour Averaging Period) ............................................................................................ 20-37

Figure 20-3 Isopleths of CO Modeled Concentrations (Near-field Receptors, 1-Hour Averaging Period) ............................................................................................ 20-38

Figure 20-4 Isopleths of CO Modeled Concentrations (Overall Modeling Domain, 8-Hour Averaging Period) ............................................................................................ 20-39

Table of Contents

Ravena Plant Modernization Final Environmental Impact Statement TOC-xvii

Figure 20-5 Isopleths of CO Modeled Concentrations (Near-field Receptors, 8-hour Averaging Period) ............................................................................................ 20-40

Figure 20-6 Isopleths of PM2.5 Modeled Concentrations Changes (Near-field Receptors, 24-Hour Averaging Period) ................................................................................... 20-48

Figure 20-7 Isopleths of PM2.5 Modeled Concentrations Changes (Near-field Receptors, Annual Averaging Period) ............................................................................... 20-49

Figure 22-1 Common Indoor and Outdoor Noise Levels ...................................................... 22-3

Figure 22-2 Route 9W and Old Ravena Road– Noise Monitoring Locations & Representative Nearby Noise-Sensitive Receptors West of the Hudson River .......................... 22-7

Figure 22-3 Route 144 – Noise Monitoring Locations & Representative Nearby Noise-Sensitive Receptors West of the Hudson River ................................................. 22-8

Figure 22-4 Noise Monitoring Location East of the Hudson River .................................... 22-24

Figure 25-1 Dujiangyan, China Plant .................................................................................. 25-10

Figure 25-2 Sugar Creek, Missouri Plant ............................................................................ 25-11

Figure 25-3 Richmond, British Columbia Plant .................................................................. 25-13

Figure 25-4 Empire State Building, New York City ........................................................... 25-15

Figure 25-5 Montréal Grain Elevator Building, Canada ..................................................... 25-16

Figure 25-6 Visually Enhanced Tower/Stack Structure ...................................................... 25-17

Figure 25-7 Partially Enclosed Tower/Stack Structure ....................................................... 25-18

Acronyms

Ravena Plant Modernization Final Environmental Impact Statement TOC-xviii

ACRONYMS

ACG Annual Guideline Concentration

AGC Annual Significant Concentrations

ANSI American National Standards Institute

AQCR Air Quality Control Region

ASF Alternate Solids Fuel

ASTM American Society of Testing Material

ATR Automatic Traffic Recorder

BACT Best Available Control Technology

BART Best Available Retrofit Technology

BDT Best Demonstrated Technology

BL Body length

BMP Best Management Practices

BTA Best Technology Available

Btu British Thermal Units

BUD Beneficial Use Determinations

°C Degrees Celsius

C & D Construction and Demolition Debris

CAA Clean Air Act

CaCO3 Calcium Carbonate

CaSO3 calcium sulfite

CaSO4 gypsum

CAD Computer Aided Dispatch

CaO Clinker

CBS Chemical Bulk Storage Registration

CEMS Continuous Emission Monitoring System

CEQR New York City Environmental Quality Review

CERM Continuous Emission Rate Monitor

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cfs Cubic Feet Per Second

CH4 Methane

CKD Cement Kiln Dust

cm Centimeters

cm/s Centimeters Per Second

CO Carbon Monoxide

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CO2-e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent

COMS Continuous Opacity Monitoring Systems

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act

CR County Route

Acronyms

Ravena Plant Modernization Final Environmental Impact Statement TOC-xix

ACRONYMS

CRQL Contract Required Quantification Limit

CWIS Cooling Water Intake Study

dBA A-weighted Decibel

DBH Diameter at Breast Height

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

D/F Dioxins & Furans

DM Demineralization

DMR Discharge Monitoring Report

DO Dissolved Oxygen

DOS Department of State

EAF Environmental Assessment Form

EDR Environmental Data Resources Inc.

EIA Energy Information Administration

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EJ Environmental Justice

ESA Environmentally Sensitive Area

ESPs Electrostatic Precipitators

EWQCV Existing Water Quality Comparison Values

°F Degrees Fahrenheit

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FF Fabric Filters

FGD Flue Gas Desulfurization

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FIRE Factor Information Retrieval

FIS Flood Insurance Study

fps Feet Per Second

FTA Federal Transit Administration

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GIS Geographic Information System

g/m3 Grams Per Cubic Meter

gpd Gallons Per Day

gpm Gallons Per Minute

GWP Global Warming Potential

H2O Water

H2S Hydrogen Sulfide

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant

HASP Health and Safety Plan

Acronyms

Ravena Plant Modernization Final Environmental Impact Statement TOC-xx

ACRONYMS

HCl Hydrochloric Acid

HCM Highway Capacity Manual

HCP Hearing Conservation Program

HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons

Hg Mercury

HREAP Hudson River Estuary Action Plan

HRU Hudson River Utilities

HVFTB Hudson Valley Fold -Thrust Belt

ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers

kg Kilograms

KWH Kilowatt Hour

L5 5th Percentile Noise Level




LAER Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate

Leq Equivalent Sound Level

Leq(1) One-hour Equivalent Sound Level

LOS Levels of Services

LSE Load Serving Entity

LWRP Local

Local Waterfront Revitalization Program

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology

MGD Million Gallons per Day

Mi3 Cubic Mile

mm Millimeters

mph Miles per Hour

MPT Maintenance and Protection of Traffic

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet

MSHA Mine Safety & Health Administration

MSW Municipal Solid Waste

MW Megawatt

MWH Megawatt Hour

N/A Not Applicable

N2O Nitrous Oxide

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NCCW Non-Contact Cooling Water

NED USGS National Elevation Dataset

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant

Acronyms

Ravena Plant Modernization Final Environmental Impact Statement TOC-xxi

ACRONYMS

NNSR Non-Attainment New Source Review

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide

NOx Nitrogen Oxides

NOTR Northeast Ozone Transport Region

NSPS New Source Performance Standard

NSR New Source Review

NYCAS New York City Audubon Society

NYCRR New York Code of Rules and Regulations

NYNHP New York Natural Heritage Program

NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

NYSDOL New York State Department of Labor

NYSDOS New York State Department of State

NYSDOT New York State Department of Transportation

O3 Ozone

OPRHP New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation

OSHA Occupational Health and Safety Administration

OSC New York State Office of the State Comptroller

OTR Ozone Transport Region

PAHs Poly Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Pb Lead

PBS Petroleum Bulk Storage Registration

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls

PCE Passenger Car Equivalents

PEJ Potential Environmental Justice

PFCs Perfluorocarbons

PHF Peak Hour Factors

PHV Peak Hour Volumes

Plan Town of Coeymans Comprehensive Plan

PM Particulate Matter

PM2.5 Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Microns in Diameter

PM10 Particulate Matter Less than 10 Microns in Diameter

ppm Parts Per Million

ppt Parts Per Thousand

PS Performance Specification

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

PUD Planned Unit Development

PWL Priority Water Bodies List

PWW Poughkeepsie Water Works

RACT Reasonably Available Control Technology

Acronyms

Ravena Plant Modernization Final Environmental Impact Statement TOC-xxii

ACRONYMS

RCNM Roadway Construction Noise Model

RCS Ravena-Coeymans-Selkirk

RFI Request for Information

RO Reverse Osmosis

RTO Regenerative Thermal Oxidizier

S/NR State and/or National Register of Historic Places

SASS Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance

SAV Submerged aquatic vegetation

SEQRA State Environmental Quality Review Act

SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride

SGC Short-Term Guideline Concentration

SGCN Species of Greatest Conservation Need

SHPO New York State Historic Preservation Officer

SI Site Investigation

SIL Significant Impact Level

SIP State Implementation Plan

SMC Significant Monitoring Concentrations

SOF Statement of Findings

SNCR Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide

SOx Sulfur Oxides

SPDES State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

SPHINX NY State Preservation Historical Information Network Exchange

SPL Sound Pressure Level

SVOC Semi-Volatile Organic Compound

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

TAAC Toxic Ambient Air Contaminant

TAGM Technical Administrative Guidance Memorandum

TDF Tire Derived Fuel

TDH Total Dynamic Head

TDS Total Dissolved Solids

THC Total Hydrocarbons

TL Total Length

TNM Traffic Noise Model

TRI Toxic Release Inventory

TSS Total Suspended Solids

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDOI United States Department of the Interior

USDOL United States Department of Labor

Acronyms

Ravena Plant Modernization Final Environmental Impact Statement TOC-xxiii

ACRONYMS

USDOT United States Department of Transportation

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

WTC Water Treatment Chemicals

Executive Summary

Ravena Plant Modernization Final Environmental Impact Statement ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 OVERVIEW Lafarge Building Materials, Inc. (Lafarge) proposes to modernize and expand its existing cement

manufacturing facility in the Town of Coeymans in Albany County, New York (the “Ravena Plant”) by

constructing a state-of-the-art, energy efficient and economically and environmentally sustainable

cement manufacturing plant. The proposed modernization (“the proposed project” or “Proposed

Action”) would replace the existing “wet” cement-making process at the Ravena Plant with a more

energy efficient “dry” cement-making process. This would be accomplished by replacing the two

existing long “wet” kilns with a new preheater/precalciner tower/stack structure, kiln and clinker cooler

operation and providing for the future replacement or upgrade of the cement grinding mills, all of which

are part of the Proposed Action. The capacity of the Ravena Plant would increase with the proposed

project from its current baseline capacity of approximately 1.72 million short tons of clinker per year to

approximately 2.81 million short tons of clinker per year with the Proposed Action.

1.1 Proposed Action

The proposed project entails replacing two existing wet kilns, currently in operation at the Ravena Plant,

with a single dry preheater/precalciner kiln system and related equipment. In this dry process, crushed

limestone and other raw materials (kiln feed) would be preheated in a dedicated tower with exhaust gas

from the kiln. The preheated material would then enter a “precalciner” where it would be heated to a

temperature of approximately 1800 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) before it enters the kiln. Preheating the kiln

feed allows the kiln length to be substantially shortened, thereby lowering energy consumption. The

material entering the kiln would be heated to a final temperature of approximately 2650°F (the

temperature required to complete the conversion of kiln feed to clinker). The roughly one-inch-diameter

clinker would be allowed to cool, after which it would be ground into a fine powder along with small

amounts of gypsum and other materials to form cement. The finished material would be stored in on-

site storage silos prior to being shipped by truck, rail or barge to locations within New York State and

other locations along the Eastern Seaboard.

Executive Summary


The Proposed Action includes the installation of new equipment and the replacement/upgrade and/or

decommissioning of other existing equipment at the Ravena Plant. Specifically, the Proposed Action

includes: (1) installation of a new secondary crusher, a new preblending system, new raw mill storage

bins, a new scrubber, a new selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) system, new clinker storage silos,

new finish mill additive storage bins, a new dewatering system, and a new power generation station that

would generate electricity using the excess heat from the kiln system; (2) replacement of the two

existing wet kilns, associated kiln drives and clinker coolers with a single dry preheater/precalciner kiln

system and related equipment, including: a preheater/precalciner tower and a fiberglass reinforced stack

attached to the tower, a dry process kiln and associated kiln drives, a new clinker cooler system, and

new particulate matter (PM) emissions controls for the kiln system and alkali bypass system; (3) the

decommissioning and replacement of most of the existing mills, including two raw (horizontal roller)

mills, two finish (horizontal ball) mills, and two coal (ball) mills; (4) decommissioning of slurry basins;

and (5) replacement and upgrade of certain conveyor systems, air handling equipment, and material

transfer equipment.

The capacity of the proposed modernization would be approximately 2.81 million short tons of clinker

per year. Although the existing kilns and certain related equipment would be replaced as part of the

proposed project, the current capacities of the on-site cement storage silos, cement conveyor belt and

barge loading facilities would be sufficient to meet and handle the increased capacity of the modernized

facility. No modifications to the Hudson River barge loading system would be needed since the current

Lafarge Hudson River dockside loading and marine barge transport system is capable of handling the

anticipated future increases in the production of cement.

As allowed under the existing New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)

operating permits for the facility, it is anticipated that coal and petroleum coke would continue to be

used as the principal fuels at the facility. Use of tire derived fuel (TDF) and fuel oil are also allowed

under existing NYSDEC permits. Lafarge intends to evaluate the use of other non hazardous alternate

solids fuels (ASF) as a substitute for coal and coke in the kiln system sometime in the future. The use of

any ASF would be subject to environmental review under both solid waste and air permitting regulatory

approval processes, and is not part of the Proposed Action.

Executive Summary


Under the Proposed Action, no new facilities would be required at the adjacent quarry to process the

additional amount of limestone extracted or for transportation of raw materials and finished products by

barge or rail. The Proposed Action would result in an increase in trucks to transport raw materials and

finished product. The physical improvements proposed as part of the modernization project would

occur within the same geographic limits as the existing cement manufacturing plant, or the Project Site,

entirely within the boundaries of the existing cement manufacturing facility. No additional land would

be required for the proposed project. The amount of cement kiln dust (CKD) sent to the landfill located

north of the Project Site within the boundaries of the existing Ravena Plant would decrease from

approximately 124,000 short tons per year to less than 86,000 short tons per year as a result of the

proposed project. Future operation of the Callanan Industries (Callanan) aggregate manufacturing

facility at the Lafarge property is independent from the Proposed Action. and subject to renegotiation

of its existing contract with Lafarge, which expires on December 31, 2010. Lafarge has informed the

NYSDEC that the existing Callanan processing operations at the Ravena Plant are scheduled to be

terminated at the end of 2011. There would be no aggregate processing (crushing, screening or

washing) by Callanan or any other entity during the construction period of the modernization project,

thus eliminating the dust from the stone processing. If any aggregate processing is proposed in the

future, it would be subject to the Department’s permitting process including public input.

Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to occur in two phases. The majority of the new

equipment would be installed at the Ravena Plant during the first phase of construction, which is

anticipated to be completed in 42 months. The second phase of construction is to include the installation

of the new clinker storage silos, new finish mill storage bins, a new finish (vertical roller) mill and raw

material pre-blending system.

Design and construction of the first phase of the proposed modernization would require approximately

42 months to complete. Decommissioning of the existing equipment, which is not included it the

42-month period, would occur once the proposed plant modifications are constructed. The duration of

active on-site construction activities, exclusive of project commissioning, is expected to require

approximately 24 months.

Executive Summary


1.2 Purpose and Need of the Proposed Action

The Ravena Plant manufactures Portland cement, the most common type of cement in general use and a

basic ingredient of concrete, mortar and grout. The Ravena Plant was originally constructed by the

Atlantic Cement Company in 1962. The existing facility, while fully compliant with state and federal

law and related regulations, is not efficient by today’s cement manufacturing standards. The

evaporation of water from a “water-limestone slurry” (limestone and other raw materials mixed with

water) used in the existing process, and the relatively poor heat transfer in this process requires

considerable energy and fuel, making the process energy inefficient and costly to operate. This

inefficient process adversely affects the economic viability of the Ravena Plant, a facility important to

the regional and state economy.

The current baseline capacity of the Ravena Plant is approximately 1.72 million short tons of Portland

cement and masonry products. Product from the Ravena Plant is shipped to locations in New York

State, New England, and other locations along the East Coast of the United States. Product from the

Ravena Plant is also shipped from its on-site barge loading facility on the Hudson River to other Lafarge

terminals in New Haven, Connecticut, Brooklyn, New York, Bayonne, New Jersey, and Baltimore,

Maryland, from where it is distributed to locations along the Eastern Seaboard between New Hampshire

and North Carolina.

The Ravena Plant often competes with cement manufactured at foreign locations. This is particularly

true in the New York City and Virginia markets. These products come from Asia, South America, and

Europe. Products from the Ravena Plant have been used in high profile projects, such as the new Giants

Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey and the foundation of the World Trade Center Memorial in

lower Manhattan. The proposed project would allow the Ravena Plant to consolidate its leading position

in its current markets and allow it to support projected growth in demand over the coming decades.

While demand for cement has experienced a decrease due to the current economic downturn, it is

anticipated that demand will start to recover in 2010 2011 and that it would reach the full capacity of the

Ravena Plant by 2012/2013. It is projected that demand will continue to grow to respond to observed

and projected population growth and future infrastructure needs of the region served by the facility.

Traditionally, excess demand in the Northeast markets has been met by imports. In 2006, the Northeast

Executive Summary


markets imported approximately 2.9 millions tons of cement, or 20% of consumption. It is expected that

the cost of imported cement will remain competitive with domestic production because of low

manufacturing costs, less stringent environmental controls in other countries of the world, and relatively

low transportation costs. It is anticipated that, without the proposed modernization of the Ravena Plant,

projected increased demand for cement in the future would continue to be met with imports from other

regions of the world.

The purpose of the proposed project is to transform and expand the existing cement manufacturing

operation at the Ravena Plant into an environmentally and economically sustainable, energy efficient,

state-of-the-art cement manufacturing facility adjacent to the source of its raw material in the Hudson

Valley. The modernized facility would replace the existing operation with a more energy efficient

operation that would result in reduced rates of most air pollutant emissions.

1.3 Local, State and Federal Permits and Approvals

Implementation of the proposed project would require discretionary actions and approvals from federal,

state and local agencies. These actions and approvals include: (1) federal: United States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and New Source Review

(NSR), and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Standards in 49 CFR Part 77; (2) state: NYSDEC

Title V Permit and State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit Modifications,

Petroleum Bulk Storage Registration (PBS) and Chemical Bulk Storage Registration (CBS); New York

State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) authorization for any modifications to the roadways

serving the plant that would be necessary during or post construction; New York State Department of

State (NYSDOS) consistency assessment; and (3) local: Town of Coeymans Building Permit, Town of

Coeymans Planning Board Site Plan Approval, and Albany County Planning Board Planning Board

Review.

1.4 Environmental Review

Pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) (N.Y. ECL§§ (8-0101 to

-0117), and its implementing regulations (6 NYCRR Part 617), state and local government agencies

must determine whether their discretionary approvals may result in a significant adverse impact on the

environment.

Executive Summary


NYSDEC, acting as SEQRA “Lead Agency” for this review, reviewed the proposed project and

determined that it may result in one or more significant adverse impacts. This Draft Final

Environmental Impact Statement (DEISFEIS) has been prepared by the Lead Agency pursuant to the

requirements of SEQRA and examines a full range of potential environmental impacts from the

Proposed Action, including potential effects on land use, zoning and public policy, socioeconomic

conditions, environmental justice, open space resources, cultural resources, visual resources, natural

resources, hazardous materials, surface water quality, surface water biology, groundwater resources,

coastal resources, infrastructure, energy use, municipal solid waste management systems, traffic and

safety, air quality, (GHG) emissions, noise, and public health.

As summarized below, and described further in this DEISFEIS, the Proposed Action would not result in

significant adverse environmental impacts. Any temporary effects during construction would be

mitigated through implementation of best management practices (BMPs) for the control of air pollution,

erosion and sedimentation, noise reduction measures, and the use of shuttle buses to carry construction

staff from remote interceptor parking facilities to the Project Site.

1.5 Alternatives

This DEISFEIS considers a range of alternatives to the Proposed Action, including:

� Alternatives to the proposed size and capacity of the proposed facility;

� Alternatives to the proposed schedule for constructing and implementing the proposed project;

� Alternative modifications to the proposed layout of the project on the Project Site or modifications to the orientation of facilities on the Project Site to decrease the visual effects of the proposed project;

� Alternative locations at which the proposed facility could be developed;

� Alternative design and technologies, including potential alternatives to the proposed preheater/precalciner process to improve energy efficiency and decrease air pollutant emissions;

� Alternative treatments to enhance the visual appearance of the facility;

Executive Summary


� Alternative pollution controls to reduce air pollutant emissions;

� Alternative fuels and other options to decrease GHG emissions;

� Alternative uses that could be developed at the Project Site; and

� The SEQRA-mandated “No Action” alternative.

Each alternative was assessed to determine whether it:

� Would have the potential to meet the overall purpose and need of the Proposed Action.

� Would result in the same or greater level of cost savings as compared to the cost savings that would accrue with the Proposed Action.

� Is within the control of the Project Sponsor.

� Could be implemented within the time period projected to meet the future level of demand for cement.

� Would avoid or reduce identified significant adverse environmental effects that would occur with the Proposed Action or result in substantial additional environmental benefits beyond those that would accrue with the Proposed Action.

As documented in this FDEIS, the No Action alternative would not meet the goals and objectives of the

Proposed Action.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Description of the Existing Ravena Plant

The cement-making operation at the existing Ravena Plant consists of three functional components: a

limestone mining operation, a main cement-manufacturing operation and a finished product distribution

system. A description of each of these three functional components is provided below. The current

production capacity of the existing plant is approximately 1.72 million short tons of clinker per year.

This is the average yearly amount of clinker produced between August 2004 and July 2006, which is the

“baseline period” used in the air permit application for the proposed project.

Executive Summary


2.1.1 Limestone Mining and Primary Crushing

Limestone, the primary raw material used in the existing Ravena Plant, is mined in a 2,274-acre

limestone quarry owned and operated by Lafarge located approximately 1 mile west of the main cement

manufacturing facility. Mining activities at the existing quarry are conducted in accordance with a

NYSDEC Mined Land Reclamation Permit, which details the boundaries, mining methods, and long

term reclamation plan for the quarry. Mining is accomplished through: stripping vegetation and soil to

expose underlying rock formations, controlled blasting, and removing material in 85-ton haul trucks.

The timing of quarrying activities depends on a number of factors including the depth and chemical

properties of the limestone, haul distance to the primary crusher and demand for cement and aggregate.

The rock formations found in the quarry include the Coeymans-Manlius, Kalkberg, Becraft, and New

Scotland formations, in addition to a layer of shale. The composition of each of these formations varies

as to their calcium content and, consequently, their utility in the cement-making process. The amount of

material taken from each formation varies depending on the type of cement being produced, ease of

extraction and other factors.

A portion of the excavated material is sold to Callanan, which operates an aggregate facility on property

leased to them by Lafarge on the Ravena Plant site. The existing Callanan processing operations are

scheduled to be terminated at the end of 2011.The leasehold is scheduled to terminate at the end of 2010.

Material suitable for use in cement-making is sent to a primary crusher located at the quarry. The

primary crusher is a gyratory type crusher that reduces the desk-size boulders to less than 8 inches in

diameter. A conveyor belt transports the crushed rock from the primary crusher to the Ravena Plant

where it is stockpiled.

2.1.2 Cement Manufacturing Operation

2.1.2.1 Secondary Crushing and Raw Grinding

A “reclaim” system consisting of vibrating feeders and belt conveyors transports the crushed rock from

the on-site stockpiles to a secondary crusher where it is further crushed and transported to raw material

silos.

Executive Summary


The crushed rock is withdrawn from the silos, combined with iron ore and/or bauxite additive and

transported to two raw horizontal roller mills where it is ground and mixed with water to form a fine

paste or slurry (kiln feed) with a moisture content of approximately 30%. This material is then pumped

to large slurry storage and blending basins.

2.1.2.2 Pyroprocessing and Calcination

The kiln feed is pumped from the slurry basins to two 580-foot long rotary cement kilns in which water

is evaporated and carbon dioxide (CO2) is driven off from the limestone. As the kiln feed passes

through the kiln, its temperature increases to approximately 2600 F or greater at which point the slurry is

transformed into clinker. After passing under the flame at the end of the kiln, the clinker drops into an

air cooler (“clinker cooler”) where large fans reduce its temperature to less than 500°F. The clinker

cooler is located in the clinker storage hall, located within the existing Kiln Discharge End Building.

2.1.2.3 Finish Grinding

The cooled clinker is reclaimed from the existing clinker storage hall and transported to an adjacent mill

building. Within the mill building, gypsum is added and the blended material is ground into a very fine

powder by one or more of four finish horizontal ball mills to produce cement. The cement is pumped by

pneumatic pumps to on-site cement storage silos prior to being shipped to locations within New York

State and along the Eastern Seaboard.

2.1.3 Finished Product Distribution System

The finished product is transported either from the cement silos to trucks or rail cars, on-site, or by

conveyor to barges at a barge loading facility on the Hudson River for final distribution to market. A

much smaller amount is sent to an on-site bagging facility, where it is bagged prior to being transported

to trucks for final distribution. The bulk or bagged Portland cement or masonry products are transported

from the Ravena Plant by truck, rail or barge to locations within New York State and other locations

along the Eastern Seaboard. A small percentage of the cement is shipped out from the silos by truck to

the local market. A greater percentage of the cement is shipped in rail cars to distribution terminals

further away from the plant. However, the largest percentage of cement is transported to the dock at the

Executive Summary


Hudson River through a conveyor system and loaded on large barges for transportation on the Inter-

coastal Waterway to terminals located along the East Coast.

2.2 Description of the Proposed Project

The Proposed Action consists of the modernization of the Ravena Plant through the replacement of the

existing “wet” cement-making process with a “dry” cement-making process. Major elements of the

proposed project include:

� Installation of a new secondary crusher;

� Installation of a new preblending system;

� Installation of new raw mill storage bins;

� Replacement of the two existing wet kilns, associated kiln drives and clinker coolers with a single dry preheater/precalciner kiln system and related equipment, including:

− A preheater/precalciner tower;

− A dry process kiln and associated kiln drives;

− A new clinker cooler system;

− A new kiln PM emissions control system;

− A new raw mill and coal mill;

− An alkali bypass system; and

− A new stack.

� Decommissioning and replacement of most of the existing mills, including two raw (horizontal rod) mills, two finish (horizontal ball) mills, and two coal (bowl) mills;

� Installation of a new scrubber and dewatering system;

� Decommissioning of slurry basins;

� Installation of a new SNCR air pollution control system;

� Installation of new clinker storage silos;

� Installation of new finish mill additive storage bins;

� Installation of a new power generation (cogeneration) station;

� Replacement and upgrade of certain conveyor systems;

Executive Summary


� Replacement and upgrade of certain air handling equipment; and

� Replacement and upgrade of certain material transfer equipment.

The Proposed Action would occur within an approximately 170-acre Project Site located entirely within

the boundaries of the existing 735-acre Ravena Plant. Limestone would continue to be mined from the

existing Lafarge owned and operated quarry as with the existing Ravena Plant under the requirements of

a NYSDEC Mined Land Reclamation Permit. Although the capacity of the existing Ravena Plant would

increase with the Proposed Action, the amount of limestone that would be extracted from the quarry

would not increase proportionately to the increase in capacity of the Ravena Plant since the dry

cement-making process would allow for use of material from the quarry that is not suitable for use with

the current wet cement-making process. The quarry would employ the same mining methods and

techniques as those currently employed at the existing Ravena Plant.

3.0 ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

The process used to evaluate the potential impacts of the Proposed Action consists of identifying

existing conditions within the specified study area, identifying an analysis year when the Proposed

Action would be in place, predicting the future conditions that would occur in the study area in the

analysis year without the Proposed Action taking into account planned future changes independent from

the Proposed Action, projecting the future conditions that would occur in the study area in the analysis

year with the Proposed Action, assessing whether the changes in conditions in the study area in the

analysis year that would occur with the Proposed Action would result in significant adverse

environmental impacts, and, in the event that significant adverse environmental impacts are projected,

developing measures to avoid or mitigate such impacts. In addition, a range of alternatives to the

Proposed Action are evaluated, including a No Action Alternative against which the impacts of the

Proposed Action are evaluated.

3.1 Study Areas

For each technical analysis area examined in this DEISFEIS, a study area was defined for the specific

impact category of concern. The study areas are those geographic areas likely to be affected by the

Proposed Action, and differ in aerial extent depending on the type of effect being analyzed. Study areas

Executive Summary


are described throughout this DEISFEIS and range between the area encompassed within a 1/4-mile

from the boundary of the Project Site for most technical areas, to 20 miles or greater from the Project

Site for the assessment of air quality, visual and environmental justice impacts.

3.2 Analysis Years

Operational Analysis

Phase 1 of the proposed modernization would require approximately 42 months to implement, including

the time required for final engineering and design, and the manufacture and procurement of required

materials and equipment. Decommissioning of the existing equipment, which is not included in the

42-month period, would occur as needed once the proposed plant modifications are constructed. Given

this schedule, the Analysis Year selected for assessing the potential impacts of the Proposed Action was

2015, which would be the first full year of operation of the new facility.

In the future without the Proposed Action, cement manufacturing and maintenance operations at the

Ravena Plant would continue as currently permitted. Several improvements to the Ravena Plant would

occur without the Proposed Action. These include modifications to expand the landfill capacity and the

addition of new equipment necessary to comply with air quality requirements. Potential air quality

control technology upgrades would be required as a consequence of a number of existing and proposed

regulatory programs, including application of Regional Haze/Best Available Retrofit Technology

(BART), the September 9, 2010 revised National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

(NESHAPS) for Portland Cement Plants, and NYSDEC NOX Reasonable Available Control Technology

for cement plants.

A federal Clean Air Act Consent Decree between Lafarge, the USEPA, and 13 states was entered by the

United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on March 18, 2010. Among other

things, the Consent Decree specifies new control technology requirements, emission limitations, and

monitoring requirements for nitrogen oxide (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) for the two existing kilns at

the Ravena Plant or, as an alternative, the replacement of the existing kilns with a state-of-the-art kiln

and associated emission control technologies. However, the proposed modernization at the Ravena

Plant would satisfy the requirements of the Consent Decree relative to the construction of a state-of-the-

art kiln and associated emission control technologies.

Executive Summary


It is projected that the current landfill at the Ravena Plant would reach full capacity as early as 2019,

with or without the Proposed Action. To address this need, it is anticipated that a permit application,

pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 360, to permit a new on-site landfill unit will be submitted to the NYSDEC

as early as 2015. The need for the increase in landfill capacity is independent and unrelated to the

proposed modernization.

A Callanan aggregate facility is located on a 65-acre parcel of land leased from Lafarge along Route 9W

immediately west of and adjacent to the existing cement manufacturing operation. The current lease is

scheduled to expire at the end of 2010. An approximately 30-acre portion of the Project Site is located

within the boundaries of this leasehold. Lafarge has informed the NYSDEC that the existing Callanan

processing operations at the Ravena Plant are scheduled to be terminated at the end of 2011. There

would be no aggregate processing (crushing, screening or washing) by Callanan or any other entity

during the construction period of the modernization project, thus eliminating the dust from the stone

processing. If any aggregate processing is proposed in the future, it would be subject to the

Department’s permitting process including public input.

Callanan's future operation at the Lafarge property after 2010 would be subject to a re-negotiation of the

contract taking several factors into consideration, including new contract business terms and material

availability. Use of Lafarge property for Callanan operations would also depend on an evaluation, by

Lafarge, of business terms and the availability of material suitable for use as aggregate from the

Lafarge-owned quarry after 2010. A final determination of whether to continue the existing business

relationship between Lafarge and Callanan will ultimately depend on economic and other considerations

by Lafarge and Callanan independent from the needs of the Proposed Action.

Construction Analysis

The duration of active on-site construction activities for Phase 1, exclusive of project commissioning, is

expected to require approximately 24 months. The construction of the proposed project would consist of

the following stages: earthwork, foundation work, erection of steel, placement of machinery, electrical

work, and construction of various support buildings. The majority of the new equipment would be

installed at the Ravena Plant during the first phase of construction. During the most intensive

construction period, which is anticipated to last approximately 12 months, it is expected that there would

be one construction shift between 7:00 AM and 3:30 PM during which approximately 800 construction

Executive Summary


workers would be on-site. Up to three remote locations, as described in Chapter 19 of this DEISFEIS,

would be used for construction employee vehicle parking. A second shift, between 3:30 PM and 12:00

AM and, although less likely, a third shift, between 12:00 AM and 7:00 AM, may also be required

during this most intensive period of construction activity. The second and third shifts would consist of a

maximum of 20 to 30 employees per shift and would only last a few weeks.

3.3 Alternatives

In conformance with SEQRA requirements, a broad range of reasonable options with the potential to

meet the purpose and need and related goals of the Proposed Action were evaluated in the DEISFEIS on

the basis of its potential to transform the existing Ravena Plant into a modern and energy efficient

facility that meets all federal and state mandated environmental requirements and that could successfully

compete against other domestic and international manufacturers of cement. Reasonable alternatives

evaluated in the DEISFEIS include:

� Alternatives to the proposed size and capacity of the proposed facility;

� Alternatives to the proposed schedule for constructing and implementing the proposed project;

� Alternative modifications to the proposed layout of the Project Site or modifications to the orientation of facilities on the Project Site to decrease the visual effects of the proposed project;

� Alternative locations at which the proposed facility could be developed;

� Alternative design and technologies, including potential alternatives to the proposed preheater/precalciner process to improve energy efficiency and decrease air pollutant emissions;

� Alternative treatments to enhance the visual appearance of the facility;

� Alternative pollution controls to reduce air pollutant emissions;

� Alternative fuels and other options to decrease GHG emissions;

� Alternative uses that could be developed at the Project Site; and

� The SEQRA-mandated “No Action” alternative.

Executive Summary


3.3.1 Alternative Project Size and Capacity

The proposed capacity of the proposed project of 2.81 million short tons per year is required to meet

projected demand for cement over the expected life of the plant (i.e., at least 50 years based on the

estimated amount of material available at the existing quarry) and would position the plant to effectively

compete against other domestic and foreign competitors.

The proposed capacity of the Proposed Action is required to meet future anticipated demand. A smaller

production line would still require a significant capital investment comparable to that of the Proposed

Action and higher operating costs than with the Proposed Action. The cost per ton of clinker would be

higher and the return on the investment would be smaller for a smaller production line. The new line

would result in significant economic and strategic benefits over the existing line that justifies the

investment of several hundreds of millions of dollars.

3.3.2 Alternative Schedules for Implementing the Proposed Project

The proposed schedule for implementing the proposed project is based on an analysis of the projected

demand for cement in the market currently served by the Ravena Plant; the need to effectively compete

against less costly cement manufactured in other locations, including foreign venues, that do not have to

meet the stringent environmental controls within New York State; and the need to reduce the rate of

GHG emissions and air pollutant emissions associated with the existing facility. The ability to advance

the overall schedule for construction of the facility is constrained by the time required to complete the

project environmental review process, the time required to select a qualified engineering firm to design

the facility, and a 42-month facility design through construction period.

3.3.3 Alternative Site Layout and Orientation

Alternative locations within the plant property were analyzed for the construction of the new processing

line, including the existing quarry west of the Ravena Plant and alternate locations within the Ravena

Plant boundaries. Other areas within the boundaries of the existing Ravena Plant were determined to be

infeasible because of lack of room needed to develop the new facilities, interference with existing rail

facilities not in the control of Lafarge, interference with other equipment that would force the existing

Executive Summary


line to cease operation before the new line is completely commissioned, and the need to tie into existing

infrastructure that would be retained after the modernization. None of these options would substantially

affect views of the proposed project, including views of the preheater/precalciner tower, the most

prominent visible feature at the site.

3.3.4 Alternative Locations

Alternative locations to build a new kiln system to serve the existing Ravena Plant markets were

evaluated on the basis of:

� Proximity to known limestone reserves, under the control of the Project Sponsor, of sufficient quality and quantity to meet projected market demand;

� Proximity to the markets served by the existing Ravena Plant;

� Proximity to existing rail, highway and barge facilities needed to transport raw materials, fuel and finished product;

� Proximity to available sources of electric power and water needed for operation of the facility;

� Available land held by the Project Sponsor that is of sufficient size to house the proposed project, including land at existing Lafarge cement manufacturing facility sites; and

� Available land held by the Project Sponsor that was appropriately zoned to allow for the proposed use as a cement manufacturing facility.

The results of this assessment indicated that the only properly zoned sites of sufficient size to house the

proposed project that are currently owned by the Project Sponsor and proximate to known limestone

reserves of sufficient quality and quantity to meet projected market demands were the current Ravena

Plant site and the existing limestone quarry currently serving the Ravena Plant. Constructing the new

processing line at the site of the existing limestone quarry would require a significant investment beyond

that needed to develop the Proposed Action at the existing Ravena Plant with little or no discernible

benefits, since it would require extensive land preparation, development of new site access and product

distribution facilities, and development of new sources of electricity and potable and process water to

meet facility requirements. The site would also be susceptible to the risk of flooding and would result in

a substantial increase in traffic on the local roadways providing access to the site.

Executive Summary


3.3.5 Alternative Technologies There are three principal cement manufacturing processes currently in use in the United States:

� A wet process, a version of which is currently in use at the Ravena Plant. In this process, limestone and other raw materials are fed into a long inclined rotating kiln in the form of a wet slurry where, under very high temperatures, they are transformed into clinker. The clinker is then ground together with gypsum to form Portland cement. This process is detailed in Chapter 2 of this DEISFEIS.

� A long kiln dry process, in which limestone and other raw materials are fed into a long inclined rotating kiln in their dry form where, under very high temperatures, they are transformed into clinker. As with the wet process, the clinker is then ground with gypsum to form Portland cement.

� A preheater/precalciner process, in which limestone and other raw materials are fed into a relatively short inclined rotating kiln and preheater/precalciner where, under very high temperatures, they are transformed into clinker. As with the wet process and the long kiln dry process, the clinker is then ground with gypsum to form Portland cement. This is the process that is proposed as part of the Proposed Action, and is detailed in Chapter 2 of this DEISFEIS.

Based on a review of alternative production options, including the cement-making facilities in place at

the 12 other Lafarge cement plants currently in operation in the United States, the preheater/precalciner

process has been demonstrated to be the most energy efficient and cost effective method to produce

cement currently available.

3.3.6 Alternative Treatments to Enhance the Visual Appearance of the Facility

As described in Chapter 9, the proposed project would consist of industrial facilities similar in overall

character, bulk, form, size, scale, and use to those that currently exist on the Project Site. In addition,

many of the existing manufacturing, storage and other facilities would be retained for use and remain in

place after completion of the proposed project. As a consequence, the overall visual character of the

Ravena Plant would remain as that of an industrial facility.

Although the overall visual character of the Ravena Plant would remain industrial, based on

coordination between Lafarge and NYSDEC, a number of alternative aesthetic treatments have been

identified to soften the industrial appearance of the proposed project and reduce its potential impacts on

nearby visually-sensitive resources. These options focused on potential visual enhancements to the

Executive Summary


tower/stack structure, the most visually dominant element included in the proposed project, and on

options that have the potential to reduce the potential for adverse visual impacts during nighttime.

Viable options were limited to treatments that either did not enclose or only partially enclosed the

tower/stack structure. Fully enclosing the tower/stack structure was not considered viable given the

intense heat emitted from within the structure and the need to provide substantially unobstructed access

to the structure for needed maintenance.

Potentially viable alternatives include:

1. A base option, in which the tower/stack structure would incorporate the same minimum level of aesthetic treatment as that of the existing Ravena Plant;

2. A partially enclosed tower/stack option, in which the tower/stack structure would be partially enclosed through the use of cladding;

3. A substantially enclosed tower/stack structure option, in which the tower/stack structure would be substantially enclosed through the use of cladding; and

4. A visually enhanced tower/stack structure option, in which the tower/stack structure is partially enclosed through the use of cladding and a number of types of materials and decorative lighting is provided during nighttime periods.

Each of these options was evaluated on the basis of their respective cost, maintenance requirements,

effect on access to the tower/stack structure, effects on nighttime views of the facility, potential to soften

the industrial appearance of the proposed project, and its potential to reduce impacts on nearby visually

sensitive resources.

As described in Chapter 9 – Visual Resources, each of the options would have their unique benefits and

disadvantages based on anticipated costs, maintenance requirements, degree of access, potential to result

in elevated temperatures where the work force may be affected, overall visual presence, including being

observable during nighttime hours, and the lessening of the industrial visual character of the proposed

project. Based on a review of these advantages and disadvantages, the Partially Enclosed Tower/Stack

Structure alternative is proposed as the preferred alternative to enhance the appearance of the

tower/stack structure, since, of the potentially viable options that would enhance the visual character of

the tower/stack structure, it would require the least degree of maintenance, allow for unobstructed access

Executive Summary


to the tower/stack structure, have the least potential to result in elevated temperatures at locations where

the facility work force would be present, and have the most reasonable capital costs of the potentially

viable options under consideration.

However, given the potential increased benefit of the Visually Enhanced Tower/Stack Structure

Alternative, assessments of both the Partially Enclosed Tower/Stack Structure and the Visually

Enhanced Tower Stack Structure Alternatives are provided in Chapter 9 – Visual Resources of

this DEISFEIS.

The Base Alternative was not selected since it would not result in substantial visual benefits compared to

the other alternatives. The Substantially Enclosed Tower/Stack Structure Alternative, while providing

some visual benefits and reducing the amount of Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)-

required lighting that would be seen from visually sensitive resources, would be substantially more

costly, require a higher level of maintenance, yet have comparable benefits to the selected Alternative,

but not the potential greater benefits of the Visually Enhanced Tower/Stack Structure Alternative.

3.3.7 Alternative Air Pollutant Controls

As described in Chapter 20 of this DEISFEIS, the Proposed Action will incorporate air pollutant

controls to reduce emissions of PM, SO2, NOX, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), mercury (Hg), and

carbon monoxide (CO). Implementation of these controls will meet all New York State and federal

emissions controls requirements.

3.3.8 Alternative Fuels and Other Alternatives to Decrease GHG Emissions

Coal is the predominant fuel currently used at the existing facility and would continue to be the

predominant fuel that would be used with the Proposed Action. Other fuels are permitted for use under

existing NYSDEC operating permits, including petroleum coke, fuel oil and TDF. The Ravena Plant

does not use any hazardous waste as a fuel nor would it be used with the Proposed Action.

Approximately 94% of the energy required to heat the limestone and water slurry is currently derived

from coal as a fuel source. An additional 4% is derived from petroleum coke, while the remaining 2% is

Executive Summary


derived from diesel fuel to start the kiln. A similar distribution of fuels is anticipated to be used in the

future with the Proposed Action.

As described in Chapter 21 of this DEISFEIS, a number of alternative fuels, raw materials, process and

technology applications have been identified with the potential to decrease GHG emissions from the

project. These include:

� Alternative Fuels (Natural Gas and Biomass)

� Reducing Clinker Content of Cement

� Carbon Capture and Sequestration Systems

� Use of Alternate Low Carbonate Raw Materials

A detailed assessment of these options is provided in Chapter 21.

3.3.9 Alternative Uses of the Proposed Site

As described in Chapter 3 of this DEISFEIS, the proposed Project Site is zoned Planned Industrial (I-

3P), which permits research/development laboratories, light and heavy manufacture and assembly

plants, transportation terminals, and industrial parks on lots measuring 40,000 square feet or more in

area, subject to site plan review and approval by the Town of Coeymans Planning Board. As indicated

in that chapter, the existing cement manufacturing facility use of the Project Site and the proposed

project both conform to the I-3P zoning district. Although the current zoning for the site would allow

for a range of manufacturing, laboratory, research, and industrial uses, none of these would meet the

purpose and need of the proposed project. In addition, as the largest diversified supplier of construction

materials in the United States and Canada, in particular cement and cement-based materials, Lafarge is

dedicated to the manufacture and marketing of cost competitive building materials to the North

American construction market and has no plans to develop the Project Site for any other use.

Consequently, use of the Project Site for other purposes would require the sale or lease of the property to

others. Sale or lease of the property for such uses is not currently contemplated by Lafarge.

Executive Summary


3.3.10 No Build Alternative

In the future without the Proposed Action, cement manufacturing and maintenance operations at the

Ravena Plant would continue as currently permitted. Several improvements to the Ravena Plant would

occur without the Proposed Action. These include modifications to expand the landfill capacity and the

addition of new equipment necessary to comply with air quality requirements. Potential air quality

control technology upgrades would be required as a consequence of a number of ongoing regulatory

programs, including application of Regional Haze/BART, the September 9, 2010 revised NESHAPS for

Portland Cement Plants, and NYSDEC’s NOx Reasonably Available Control Technology for cement

plants.

A federal Clean Air Act Consent Decree between Lafarge, the USEPA, and 13 states was entered by the

United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on March 18, 2010. Among other

things, the Consent Degree specifies new control technology requirements, emission limitations, and

monitoring requirements for NOx and SO2 for the two existing kilns at the Ravena Plant or, as an

alternative, the replacement of the existing kilns, with a state-of-the-art kiln and associated emission

control technologies. However, the proposed modernization at the Ravena Plant would satisfy the

requirements of the Consent Decree relative to the construction of a state-of-the-art kiln and associated

emission control technologies.

It is projected that the current landfill at the Ravena Plant would reach full capacity as early as 2019,

with or without the Proposed Action. To address this need, it is anticipated that a permit application,

pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 360, to permit a new on-site landfill unit will be submitted to the NYSDEC

as early as 2015. The need for the increase in landfill capacity is independent and unrelated to the

proposed modernization.

A Callanan aggregate facility is located on a 65-acre parcel of land leased from Lafarge along Route 9W

immediately west of and adjacent to the existing cement manufacturing operation. The current lease is

scheduled to expire at the end of 2010. An approximately 30-acre portion of the Project Site is located

within the boundaries of this leasehold.

Executive Summary


Lafarge has informed the NYSDEC that the existing Callanan processing operations at the Ravena Plant

are scheduled to be terminated at the end of 2011. There would be no aggregate processing (crushing,

screening or washing) by Callanan or any other entity during the construction period of the

modernization project, thus eliminating the dust from the stone processing. If any aggregate processing

is proposed in the future, it would be subject to the Department’s permitting process including public

input.

Callanan's future operation at the Lafarge property after 2010 would be subject to a re-negotiation of the

contract taking several factors into consideration, including new contract business terms and material

availability. Use of Lafarge property for Callanan operations would also depend on an evaluation, by

Lafarge, of business terms and the availability of material suitable for use as aggregate from the

Lafarge-owned quarry after 2010. A final determination of whether to continue the existing business

relationship between Lafarge and Callanan will ultimately depend on economic and other considerations

by Lafarge and Callanan independent from the needs of the Proposed Action.

4.0 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES

A summary of the results of the analysis of potential impacts of the Proposed Action on each of the

impact categories evaluated in this DEISFEIS is presented below. Detailed descriptions of the analyses

are presented in Chapters 3 through 28 of this DEISFEIS.

4.1 Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy

The proposed project would be built entirely within the boundaries of the existing Ravena Plant on land

owned by Lafarge, and, as a consequence, would not directly displace any existing land use in the Study

Area. A portion of the Project Site includes Lafarge owned land currently leased to Callanan as an

aggregate manufacturing facility. However, the existing Callanan processing operations at the Ravena

Plant are scheduled to be terminated at the end of 2011. that lease ends in 2010 and would be subject to

renewal at the discretion of Lafarge. That renewal is an independent action from the Proposed Action.

Consequently the proposed project would not result in a direct displacement of that facility.

Executive Summary


Land uses on the Project Site consist of the major components of the existing Ravena Plant related to

cement manufacturing operations, including: the centrally located mill building; the clinker storage hall

and workshop; and the rotary kilns, stack, slurry tanks, pack house, buffer silos, and the coal and raw

material stockpiles. Land uses within the ½-mile radius Study Area comprise a mix of vacant land and

industrial, residential, agricultural, and commercial uses. Since the proposed project constitutes a

continuation of the same land use that currently exists on the Project Site, it would not result in any

increased potential for indirect displacement of these adjacent land uses as a consequence of its

implementation.

The Project Site is currently located within the I-3P zoning district, which allows building material

plants by special permit. Proposed modifications to the Town of Coeymans Zoning Code independent

of the Proposed Action could result in new zoning designations that would allow for commercial uses

along Route 9W, extending west to County Route 101. While the Project Site could potentially be

rezoned along with all other parcels currently within industrial zoning districts into one consolidated

industrial district, it would remain within an industrial zoning district. Any buffering requirements

accompanying the consolidated industrial zoning district are unlikely to be applicable to the Project Site

since it is not immediately adjacent to residential or commercial uses. The Proposed Action would also

be consistent with the relevant recommendations and goals outlined within the Town of Coeymans

Comprehensive Plan, and goals of the Draft Coeymans Economic Development Strategy.

Based on this assessment, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts related to

land use, zoning, or public policy.

4.2 Socioeconomic Conditions

As described under Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy, the proposed project would neither directly or

indirectly displace any existing land use since it would not introduce any new land use within the Study

Area, accelerate an existing trend in the change in land use in the Study Area, or require land currently

occupied by any existing land use in the Study Area.

Executive Summary


The construction and operation of the proposed project would result in economic benefits within two

Study Areas analyzed for the assessment of socioeconomic impacts (the primary Study Area, defined as

within ½-mile radius from the Ravena Plant boundary and a larger secondary Study Area, that consists

of the six New York State counties in the vicinity of the Project Site, and in which 167, or 92.7%, of the

180 Ravena Plant employees currently reside.)

As stated in the previous paragraph, the Ravena Plant currently employs 180 workers. No net change in

employment is expected with the proposed project. Therefore, no significant changes are anticipated in

the demographic and workforce profile that could be attributed to the proposed project, in both the

primary and secondary Study Areas. The proposed modernization project would occur entirely within

the boundaries of the existing Ravena Plant. The proposed project would not result in the direct or

indirect displacement of existing residences or businesses, nor would it alter existing socioeconomic

trends in the Study Areas. It is anticipated that, during the peak construction period, 800 construction

workers would be active at the Project Site. It is anticipated that these workers would be drawn largely

from the local labor force, except in cases where contractors require specialized skills not immediately

available locally. The 800 jobs directly created during the construction phase would generate an

additional 800 jobs in the regional economy. The temporary increase in regional jobs generated from

the proposed project would have a corresponding beneficial effect on household earnings.

Overall, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts to socioeconomic

conditions.

4.3 Environmental Justice

There are no potential environmental justice (PEJ) areas within a 5-mile radius of the Project Site. The

analyses performed for all potential impact categories indicate that there would be no significant adverse

impacts in any PEJ areas that would result from the proposed project during either the construction or

operational phases, including no significant adverse impacts on environmental justice populations

regarding Land Use, Zoning and Public Policy; Socioeconomic Conditions; Community Facilities and

Services; Open Space; Cultural Resources; Visual Resources; Natural Resources; Hazardous Materials;

Surface Water Quality; Surface Water Biology; Groundwater Resources; Coastal Resources;

Infrastructure; Energy; Solid Waste; Traffic and Safety; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; and Noise.

Executive Summary


Therefore, based on these analyses, no disproportionate adverse impacts are predicted to minority or

low-income communities, as defined in the environmental justice policy.

4.4 Community Facilities and Services

The proposed project would not result in any direct or indirect displacement of any community facility.

The Town of Coeymans Police Department headquarters is located approximately 2½ miles from the

Project Site, allowing for rapid response to incidents at the Project Site. Lafarge has initiated steps to

minimize effects on local traffic conditions during the construction period, which in turn would limit the

need for additional traffic enforcement. Based on coordination with the Town of Coeymans Police

Department, operation of the proposed project would not result in any increase in demand on police

services. No increase in demand on fire services is currently anticipated, and the Coeymans Fire

Department has indicated that access to the site is sufficient for response to alarms from the site. On-site

staffing would not increase due to the facility modernization; therefore, no long-term increase in demand

on emergency medical service is anticipated. During the construction period, there may be a temporary

increase in demand for emergency medical services or traffic enforcement due to the presence of

construction workers.

The proposed project would not result in an increase in the number of students attending Ravena-

Coeymans-Selkirk (RCS) Central School District schools, the number of users served by the RCS

community library, or the number of children using existing day care facilities. There would be no

anticipated significant adverse impacts on community facility services with the Proposed Action.

However, there would be a temporary effect on traffic conditions during times of construction in

proximity to the RCS Middle and High School, which is located directly west of the Ravena Plant site,

across Route 9W. Chapter 19 of this DEISFEIS describes the proposed measures to be used to ensure

safe traffic flows during construction.

4.5 Open Space

The proposed project would be built entirely within the boundaries of the existing Ravena Plant and

would not result in any direct or indirect use of public parkland, recreation area or open space, nor

would the operation of the proposed project affect the continuation and functioning of public open space

resources within the ½-mile Study Area. The number of residents and workers would not increase as a

Executive Summary


result of the proposed project, and, as a consequence, the proposed project would not increase the

burden on existing public open spaces.

Construction effects of the proposed project would be temporary and are discussed throughout this

DEISFEIS. Potential effects on air quality and noise are discussed in Chapters 20 and 22, respectively,

and would not significantly affect public open space. While the use of the property would remain the

same and would not have a significant adverse impact on surrounding open space lands within the Study

Area, the construction of the proposed tower/stack structure would change views of the site, as detailed

in Chapter 9 of this DEISFEIS.

4.6 Cultural Resources

Given the extent of ground disturbance that occurred during construction of the existing plant in the

1960s and plant improvements that have occurred since that time, there is little or no potential for the

presence of existing archaeological resources in the Project Site. As a consequence, construction and

operation of the Proposed Action would not result in a significant adverse impact on any archaeological

resources. New York State’s Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has indicated its concurrence with

this conclusion. In addition, the Proposed Action would not require demolition or alteration of any

significant historic resources on the Project Site as identified by the New York State Office of Parks,

Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) and in the Town of Coeymans Comprehensive Plan.

SHPO has reviewed the Proposed Action in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 and has concluded that the Proposed Action would not affect any cultural

resource listed on or eligible for listing on the State or National Registers of Historic Resources, and, as

a consequence, the Proposed Action would not have any significant adverse impacts on cultural

resources.

4.7 Visual Resources

Views of a number of the components of the existing facility, particularly the 350-foot stack, from sites

in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site clearly denote, and visually establish the presence of the

Ravena Plant as an industrial facility. The presence of the Callanan aggregate facility that extends along

the western perimeter of the Project Site currently restricts views of the existing facility from locations

Executive Summary


to the west of Route 9W. However, the existing Callanan processing operations at the Ravena Plant are

scheduled to be terminated at the end of 2011. As indicated in Chapter 3, the continued operation of the

Callanan facility will be based on a number of factors separate from the Proposed Action. Termination

of the Callanan operation would result in more extensive views of the Ravena Plant from locations to the

west. Views of the Project Site from other locations would not be affected regardless of the presence of

the Callanan facility. However, with or without the Callanan facility, the overall visual character of the

Project Site would continue to be that of an industrial facility.

The majority of structures included in the proposed project would consist of industrial facilities similar

in overall character, bulk, form, size, scale, and use to those that currently exist on the Project Site.

However, a new preheater/precalciner tower/stack structure would be greater in height than any of the

structures that currently exist on the Project Site. As documented in Chapter 9 – Visual Resources of

this DEISFEIS, this structure would be visible from a number of publicly accessible vantage points with

visual sensitivity, including from a number of historic districts, historic and architectural landmarks,

public open spaces, and the Hudson River. Therefore, Chapter 9 includes an assessment of whether the

increased visibility of the Ravena Plant that would occur with the proposed project would result in

significant adverse effects on visually sensitive resources. Included in that assessment is an evaluation

of the visual effects of vapor plume from the new tower/stack structure, and the increased level of

lighting that would be required for the new structure to meet MSHA and FAA requirements during

nighttime.

Plantings and other visual (green belt) barriers would be incorporated into the proposed modernization

in accordance with a landscape plan to be developed in cooperation with local stakeholders in the Town

of Coeymans and the Village of Ravena to provide habitat for wildlife, and to obscure and “soften” the

industrial character of the Project Site to the extent practicable. The goal of the plan, to the extent

practicable, is to maintain existing vegetation on site for continued site screening and plant new

vegetation or install other features at key locations to fill in or enhance existing screening. The plan will

be developed by a landscape architect and include a range of plantings, including both coniferous and

deciduous trees and shrubs, the development of berms and the use of other elements to minimize views

of the facility to the extent practicable.

Executive Summary


The assessment included completion of a comprehensive inventory of all significant historic districts,

historic and architectural landmarks, public open spaces and parks, major arterials, and other visually

sensitive areas, including the Hudson River, within a 25-mile radius of the Project Site. Field

observations were then undertaken to determine whether the Project Site could be viewed from these

locations. Based on this assessment it was determined that views of the Ravena Plant would be visible

from nine representative vantage points. These include:

� Schodack Landing Historic District

� Fletcher Blaisdell Farm Complex

� First Reformed Church of Bethlehem

� Taconic State Parkway

� Ravena-Coeymans-Selkirk Middle/High School

� New York State Thruway

� Interstate 90, Berkshire Spur

� The Hudson River

� Schodack Island State Park

Digital photographs were taken of views of the existing Ravena Plant from each of these locations.

Scaled images of the proposed project were then overlaid on these photographs using digital

photographic techniques to depict views of the proposed project from each potentially affected resource.

These simulations were then assessed to determine whether views from each site would be substantially

different with the proposed project compared to views without the proposed project, and whether these

changes would represent a significant adverse visual impact. As described in Chapter 25 – Alternatives,

assessments were completed for two design options: a partially enclosed tower/stack option, in which

the tower/stack structure would be partially enclosed through the use of cladding, and a visually

enhanced tower/stack structure option, in which the tower/stack structure is partially enclosed through

the use cladding and a number of types of materials and decorative lighting is provided during nighttime

periods. Measures were then identified, as necessary, to mitigate potential adverse impacts of the

proposed project.

Executive Summary


The evaluation was completed for both daytime and nighttime periods during times of the year when

deciduous vegetation was without leaves. Views of the Project Site would be greatest during these

periods and would have the greatest potential to result in significant adverse visual impacts.

As documented in Chapter 9 – Visual Resources, these simulations indicate that the Proposed Action

would result in a noticeable difference in views of the Ravena Plant from some of the visually sensitive

locations assessed in Chapter 9. However, these would not represent significant adverse impacts on

visual resources since the proposed project would include industrial facilities similar in overall

character, bulk, form, size, scale, and use to those that currently exist on the Project Site, and since, as

described below, the proposed project would incorporate the following measures to reduce its effects on

visual resources:

� Finishes, materials and colors will be incorporated into the design of the tower/stack structure to diminish the industrial character of the facility.

� To the extent permitted under MSHA requirements, lighting fixtures will be designed to shield and direct lighting toward the ground and away from visually sensitive resources.

� To the extent permitted under MSHA requirements, lighting will be activated by manually-operated switches and motion-detectors to minimize the amount of lighting at the facility during nighttime hours

� Plantings and other visual barriers will be placed along the perimeter of the Project Site to partially shield the facility from nearby locations and to provide additional aesthetic relief from the industrial nature of the facility.

� The existing stack will be removed from the Ravena Plant in accordance with the overall project schedule provided in Chapter 1, reducing the overall visual presence of the facility. It is currently anticipated that the existing stack will be removed during the second phase of the proposed project, approximately four years after completion of the first phase of the project, to minimize overall disruption to facility operations and minimize cost. However, removal of the stack could occur as early as approximately two years after start-up of the first phase of the proposed project and the related facility “shake down” period.

In addition, an assessment was completed to identify the potential for impact on Scenic Area of

Statewide Significance (SASS) from the proposed project. Two SASS’s are within a 25 mile radius of

the Project Site. The New York Coastal Management Program (CMP) includes two policies (Policy 24:

Prevent Impairment of Scenic Resources of Statewide Significance and Policy 25: Protect, Restore or

Executive Summary


Enhance Natural and Man-Made Resources Which are Not Identified as Being of Statewide

Significance, but Which Contribute to the Overall Scenic Quality of the Coastal Area) for the protection

and enhancement of these two SASS’s. The two SASS’s are the Catskill-Olana SASS and the

Columbia-Greene North SASS. A visual resource assessment was conducted to evaluate the consistency

of the proposed project on the Columbia-Greene North SASS with these CMP policy guidelines.

Included in the analysis was the identification of locations throughout the Columbia-Greene North

SASS that currently have views of the existing facility and that would have views of the proposed

project once completed, including views of the tower/stack structure, the dominant visual element of the

proposed project. Based on this analysis, six representative locations within the Columbia-Greene North

SASS were selected for detailed assessment. Views from these locations included views from sites

within the CGN-03, CGN-04, CGN-09, CGN-15 and CGN-18 Subunits of the Columbia-Greene North

SASS. Views from 6 of the 29 Subunits of the Columbia-Green North SASS would be affected with the

proposed project. Views from the remaining 23 Subunits would not be affected by the proposed project

due to the presence of intervening land form and vegetation. As demonstrated by the representative

views from locations in Subunits CGN-03, CGN-04, CGN-09, CGN-15 and CGN-18, the tower/stack

structure with the proposed project would not dominate or substantially alter views from any Subunit

within the Columbia-Greene North SASS, due to the relatively large distance (1.8 miles to 13 miles)

between the Project Site and the Subunits.

An assessment was also completed of the potential changes in the visibility of the exhaust plume from

the tower/stack structure. A predictive model was run to estimate the opacity of the plume from the new

kiln stack in the absence of moisture condensation. The results of the modeling indicated that the

opacity of the plume at the new kiln stack would be approximately 2.75%, which is visually

indistinguishable from zero (i.e., invisible to the naked eye). This indicates that the plume from the new

kiln stack would not be visible except, as discussed below, during times when condensed water vapor is

present in the plume.

As with the plume from the existing facility, under certain atmospheric conditions water vapor

exhausted from the new kiln stack with the Proposed Action would create a vapor plume visible from

substantial distances from the Project Site. However, as detailed in Chapter 9 – Visual Resources, this

would occur less frequently with the new facility than with the existing facility.

Executive Summary


Calculations were also made to determine the ambient temperatures and relative humidity under which a

condensation plume would form with the new process. The results of these calculations indicate that a

visible water vapor plume with the new facility would not form at temperatures above 65°F, and that a

visible water vapor plume would form under all atmospheric humidity conditions at temperatures below

approximately 35°F. Between the temperatures of 35°F and 65°F, the formation of a visible plume

would depend on atmospheric humidity, with a visible plume being created at a higher temperature with

an increase in atmospheric humidity.

The length of the visible (condensation) plume would vary substantially depending on the temperature

and humidity conditions that exist on any given day, the direction and speed of wind, and the “stability”

of the atmosphere. In general, higher wind speeds will tend to dissipate a plume more quickly than with

low wind speeds. Stability is a measure of the temperature gradient in the atmosphere that causes a

plume released from a source to change vertically after it is released. Under “unstable” atmospheric

conditions, for example, a plume will tend to rise vertically in the atmosphere, while under more stable

conditions the plume will remain relatively parallel to the surface of the earth. The visibility of the

plume will also vary depending on the background against which it is viewed. A plume viewed against

clear, partly cloudy and cloudy backgrounds will be noticeably different to the viewer. In all cases,

views of the plume from the proposed project will not vary substantially from that of the existing

facility.

Lighting at the proposed facility would also have the potential to affect nighttime views of the proposed

project. As is the case with the existing facility, the proposed project will incorporate lighting necessary

to meet MSHA and FAA requirements to protect workers at the plant and to prevent aircraft from

accidentally hitting the facility, particularly the tower/stack structure. As required by FAA for the

existing 350-foot stack, it is anticipated that red flashing lights along the face of the tower/stack

structure will be used to warn aircraft of its presence. Additional lighting would be required on the

proposed tower/stack structure and other elements of the proposed project to meet MSHA requirements.

The final design of the proposed project, including the detailed design of tower/stack structure has not

been completed As described in Chapter 25 – Alternatives, a number of alternative treatments have

been identified to soften the industrial appearance of the proposed project and reduce its potential to

result in adverse visual impacts on nearby visually-sensitive resources. These options focused on

Executive Summary


potential visual enhancements to the tower/stack structure, the most visually dominant element included

in the proposed project, and on options that have the ability to reduce the potential for adverse visual

impacts during nighttime. Viable options were limited to treatments that either did not enclose or only

partially enclosed the tower/stack structure. Fully enclosing the tower/stack structure was not

considered viable given the intense heat emitted from within the structure and the need to provide

substantially unobstructed access to the structure for needed maintenance. Of these, a partially enclosed

tower/stack option, in which the tower/stack structure would be partially enclosed through the use of

cladding, has been identified as the preferred option to enhance the visual character of the proposed

project since, of the potentially viable options that would enhance the visual character of the tower/stack

structure, it would require the least degree of maintenance, allow for unobstructed access to the

tower/stack structure, have the least potential to result in elevated temperatures at locations where the

facility work force would be present, and have the most reasonable capital costs of the potentially viable

options under consideration.

4.8 Natural Resources

As detailed in Chapter 10 – Natural Resources of this DEISFEIS, an assessment was completed of the

potential effects of construction and operation of the proposed project on natural resources, including

potential effects on terrestrial and avian species (including threatened, endangered and species of special

concern), surface waters, and wetlands. As documented in that assessment, the proposed project would

be located entirely within the boundaries of the existing Ravena Plant, which was extensively disturbed

during construction of the existing facility, substantially reducing the available habitat for many

terrestrial and avian species. Operation of the Ravena Plant during the 48 years since it was constructed

in 1962, and use of a portion of the Ravena Plant site by Callanan as an aggregate processing and

storage facility has further reduced available habitat on the site.

The Proposed Action would principally affect only those portions of the Project Site that are already

developed for use in cement manufacturing (i.e., communities characterized as rural structure exterior

and roadways). Disturbance of other land would be limited to an approximately 0.9-acre area of

successional northern hardwoods located in the central portion of the Project Site. This relatively small

area (about 4.7% of existing successional northern hardwood forested area found on the Project Site)

would be converted to industrial use associated with the Proposed Action. Much of the area that would

Executive Summary


be disturbed during the construction of the proposed project had been previously disturbed and is in

early successional stages with the exception of a few oak trees with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of

10 to 24 inches located to the west of the proposed location of the preheater/precalciner tower/stack

structure.

The reduction in the size of this community would not have a significant effect on the ecology of the

Project Site since it represents a small fraction of the 19.2 acres of successional northern hardwood

habitat currently found on the Project Site. The natural communities found in the northern hardwood

habitat that would be displaced by the Proposed Action are typical of those found in the Project Site as

well as in the surrounding Hudson Valley.

No impacts to endangered, threatened or wildlife species of concern are anticipated as a result of the

construction of the proposed project, since there is limited potential for the occurrence of these species

on the Project Site. The potential for temporary construction period impacts on existing wildlife would

be limited to the clearing of the approximately 0.9 acre of successional northern hardwoods for use in

the development of the preheater/precalciner tower/stack structure included as part of the Proposed

Action. The clearing of existing land would result in the loss of less than one acre of natural habitat for

species. The area of forest that would be cleared represents a small fraction of available forest within

the Project Site and in the surrounding undeveloped land. Overall, construction activities would be

substantially restricted to areas with existing buildings and roadways that are not suitable habitat for

most species, and provide only marginal habitat for others. Temporary impacts would not be significant

because construction activities would be focused in areas that are already developed and do not support

a variety of species.

4.8.1 Potential for Increased Incidence of Bird Strikes

Factors Affecting the Incidence of Bird Strikes. It is well documented that collisions of birds with tall

structures is a major cause of bird mortality. Since the Project Site is located near the Hudson River

along a known avian migratory flyway, and since the proposed modernization would include the

installation of a new preheater/precalciner tower/stack structure, it would have the potential to increase

the frequency of bird strikes and bird mortality rates, particularly during migration seasons. Bird strikes

Executive Summary


also occur as birds move between their roosts and foraging areas, but at a much lower rate than during

the spring and autumn bird migration seasons since the density of birds in the air is much greater during

the spring and autumn migratory seasons than during the winter and summer periods.

Of the anthropogenic causes of bird mortality, collisions with windows on buildings have been

estimated to be responsible for approximately 58% of the reported bird fatalities. Birds are especially

attracted to the lower levels of buildings where reflections of vegetation and water appear in the glass

windows or walls. Estimates of bird mortality due to building window strikes vary between 97 million

and 976 million deaths per year (Klem 1990, USFWS 2002, Hager et al. 2008).

Of anthropogenic sources of bird mortality evaluated by Erickson et al. (2005), the nearest analog to the

proposed tower/stack structure appears to be communication towers. Bird mortality due to this source

has been estimated at approximately 4.5 million annual deaths. On an individual per tower basis, the

estimated mean number of annual collisions per tower range from approximately 82 birds per year at an

825-foot (250-meter) tall television tower in Alabama (Bierly 1968, 1969, 1972; Remy 1974, 1975;

Cooley 1977) to 3,199 birds per year at a 1,000-foot (305-meter) tower in Eau Claire, Wisconsin

(Kemper 1996). Bird fatalities have been reported at structures ranging in height between

approximately 30 feet (9 meters) and approximately 1,988 feet (606 meters).

Avian nighttime collisions with buildings and towers are more common than daytime collisions since

the majority of bird species migrate predominantly at night, using the stars to navigate. The majority of

neo-tropical migratory birds fly at altitudes between 500 and 6,000 feet during migration, while

shorebirds generally migrate at altitudes of between 1,000 and 13,000 feet. However, bird fatalities

have been reported at structures as low as 30 feet high. Towers that are stayed by guy wires are a major

source of bird fatalities (OAP 2002) since the guy wires are thin and are substantially invisible to

nocturnal migrants.

Brightly lit buildings and broadcast towers can attract birds during nighttime, particularly when poor

weather conditions cause birds to fly at lower altitudes. This is especially true on overcast or foggy

nights, since fog, rain and snow decrease visibility and can cause birds to become disoriented when they

encounter lights. Birds appear to show different degrees of attraction to different types of lighting.

Several studies have suggested that birds are more attracted to red lights than white lights, but others

Executive Summary


report that these studies are inconclusive (Drewitt and Langston 2008), and it has been reported that

buildings with fixed, white stationary sources of light, such as lighthouses, may cause increased levels of

bird strikes (USFW, Lincoln, Peterson, Zimmerman 1998). The type of lighting source appears to be a

significant factor influencing collision risk, in that lower intensity lights are less likely to attract birds

than high intensity lighting. Observations indicate that birds are less attracted to strobe lighting than to

continual lighting: bird strikes are less likely with the longer the period between flashes. The risk of

collision also appears to be correlated with the orientation of the lighting, in that it has been reported that

birds are less attracted to lights when the lights are directed downwards (Drewitt and Langston 2008).

Environmental factors, including seasonality and weather conditions, also influence the rate of bird

collisions with structures. Typically, mortality levels are highest during migratory seasons when the

movement and density of birds at a given location are at their greatest. During poor weather, migrating

birds can descend to lower altitudes, making them more likely to encounter structures (Drewitt and

Langston 2008).

Bird Strikes at the Existing Ravena Plant. The existing Ravena Plant includes a number of elevated

structures that could result in bird strikes, particularly during the spring and autumn bird migration

seasons when the density of birds in the air is much greater during the spring and autumn migratory

seasons than during the winter and summer periods. The tallest of these structures is the 350-foot tall,

40-foot diameter (at its base) stack, which presents a 2,513-square-foot cross-section to the principal

(north/south) bird migration route along the Hudson Valley. No comprehensive statistically valid survey

of bird strikes against the stack or other structures has been completed at the Ravena Plant. However,

anecdotal evidence indicates that there are not a substantial number of bird strikes at the Ravena Plant,

in that few dead or injured birds are found at or near the base of the stack or other structures at the

Ravena Plant regardless of time of year. A visual reconnaissance of the Project Site taken between

May 20, 2010 and June 14, 2010 (the spring migration season) failed to reveal any dead or injured birds

at the base of the stack or other structures at the Project Site.

Potential for Bird Strikes with the proposed project. The dimensions of the proposed

preheater/precalciner structure are approximately 109 feet wide by 155 feet long by 462 feet high. A

23.3-foot diameter stack (at its top) would extend an additional 64 feet above the top of the tower,

resulting in a combined height of the tower and stack of 526 feet. The tower would be a free-standing

structure without guy wires, reducing the potential for bird strikes. The largest (approximately

Executive Summary


72,000 square feet) face of the tower would be oriented roughly perpendicular to the principal direction

of the bird migration pathway. The tower would be lit throughout its form during nighttime hours to

conform to MSHA requirements. The orientation of the lighting would be downward to illuminate

walking paths and stairways along the face of the tower, ameliorating its potential to induce bird strikes.

The tower would not include windows or other reflective surfaces, the dominant source of bird strikes.

These design features conform to United States Fish & Wildlife Interim Guidelines for

Recommendations on Communication Tower Siting, Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning,

which call for down-shielding of lighting to keep light within the boundaries of the site, construction

without the use of guy wires, and the minimum application of workplace and FAA-required aviation

safety lighting.

Since the tower/stack structure would be the tallest and bulkiest structure lit at night as part of the

Proposed Action, and within known routes of bird migration, it would have the potential to result in an

increased number of bird strikes compared to conditions at the existing Ravena Plant. As a

consequence, a detailed study was completed of whether the presence of the preheater/precalciner

tower/stack structure would result in a significant increase in bird strikes and bird mortality rates during

the spring and fall bird migratory seasons. A summary of the study is provided below.

As described above, factors that influence the rate at which birds strike elevated structures include:

� The presence of reflective sources, such as windows;

� Nighttime lighting, including upward facing lighting and fixed white stationary sources of light such as found on lighthouses;

� The presence of supporting guy wires;

� The season of the year, since the maximum number of bird strikes occurs during the spring and autumn bird migration periods;

� The location, dimensions and orientation of the structure relative to migratory flyways, since the number of bird strikes are directly related to proximity to these flyways, the height of the structure and the surface area of the structure, particularly that facing the principal direction of migration; and

� Cloud cover ceiling heights, since birds tend to fly closer to the earth and may become disoriented and attracted to illuminated structures under lower ceiling heights and in the presence of precipitation.

Executive Summary


As discussed previously, the preheater/precalciner tower/stack structure would not include any reflective

surfaces, would not be supported by guy wires and would incorporate downward facing lights, thereby

reducing the potential for bird strikes. However, the contribution of lighted and free-standing towers

without guy wires to avian mortality is not well known. (See Erickson et al. 2005, who summarized the

results of studies on bird mortality caused by numerous anthropogenic sources).

The Hudson River Valley serves as a migration corridor for large numbers of Neotropical migrants

(e.g., thrushes, vireos, tanagers, warblers, cuckoos, flycatchers, etc.) during the spring and fall. It is

recognized that migration habits may vary widely between bird species. It is generally recognized that,

in the Hudson River Valley, the annual spring migration begins on approximately April 15th and ends by

about June 15th; while the annual fall migration begins on approximately September 1st and ends by

approximately October 31st.

Most migratory movements occur at night, especially during periods without strong headwinds. During

these nights, birds typically fly at high elevations through the Hudson Valley. The results of two nearby

radar studies at Jordanville and Moresville, New York (approximately 80 miles from the Project Site)

indicate that the mean elevation of birds during the fall migration period at these two sites was

1,443 feet and 1,621 feet, respectively above ground level. Approximately 3% to 6% of the birds

monitored during these studies were flying below 410 feet. This is consistent with the results of studies

of bird migration in other areas of New York State. Based on studies of the effect of 23 wind powered

turbans across the state, the average flight altitude was estimated at approximately 1,253 feet, well above

the proposed tower. Approximately 12% occurred below 492 feet, while 8.6% occurred below 410 feet.

At the Jordanville and Moresville, New York sites during the spring migration period, the average flight

elevation was 1,217 feet and 1,414 feet, respectively, above ground level. During the spring, 21% of the

birds at Jordanville and 8% of the birds at Moresville that were monitored were flying at elevations

lower than 410 feet (NYSDEC 2008). On a state-wide basis, similar elevations were observed. Based

on 20 wind sites from across the state, the average flight altitude was 1,311 feet, well above the

proposed preheater/precalciner tower/stack structure. Based on these same stations, approximately 15%

occurred at or below approximately 410 feet.

Executive Summary


Local weather conditions can alter the migration altitude and whether or not migration will occurs

(Kerlinger 1995, Drewitt and Langston 2008). Migrating birds generally avoid flying through cloud

cover, preferring to fly below the cloud ceiling height. Previous studies in the New York region,

particularly ABR Inc. 2006, indicate that ceiling height was associated negatively with migration, and

that passage rates significantly decrease when ceiling heights are lower than 1,640 feet (500 meters)

above ground level.

An analysis of weather data from Albany, New York was conducted to determine the percentage of time

that nighttime weather conditions could cause birds to migrate at low elevations. Cloud elevation data

from the last five spring and fall migration periods were evaluated to determine the frequency of events

when the elevation of the cloud ceilings could potentially cause birds to migrate at low elevations

(< 1,500 feet). Nighttime data (between sunset and sunrise) from April 15th through June 15th and from

September 15th through October 15th from the last five years were evaluated. The results indicate that

during the spring migration period, cloud ceilings were at 1,500 feet or less 11% of the time, and were at

or below 500 feet only 3% of the time. During the fall migration period, cloud ceilings were at or below

1,500 feet 16% of the time and at or below 500 feet 7% of the time. These results suggest that during

most of the spring and fall migration periods, birds will pass well above the proposed tower height.

Analysis of NEXRAD radar data from the KENX site, located approximately 14 miles from the

proposed tower, suggests that the number of birds using the Hudson River corridor during the spring and

fall is likely equivalent to those throughout New York State. Two spring dates that were examined

(May 21 and 24, 2009) indicated an average density of 21.0 birds per cubic mile (birds/mi3) and

approximately 6.7 birds/mi3, respectively. Assuming a typical target velocity (≈ wind speed) of 20 knots

(23 miles per hour [mi/hr]) during migration (based on hourly wind speeds from six dates during the

2005 migration period), the average number of birds would be 69.5 to 83.2 birds/mi/hr. Based on

20 sites throughout New York State, the mean spring passage rate is 157.7 birds/mi/hr (ranging from

25.5 to 316 birds/mi/hr) (NYSDEC 2008).

Fall migrations rates are also comparable. Based on two dates examined in the study for this DEISFEIS

(September 24, 2009 and October 4, 2009), the average densities were 102.2 and 35.7 birds/mi3,

respectively. Assuming a typical speed of bird flight of 20 knots during migration, the average number

Executive Summary


of birds would be 121.7 to 172.6 birds/mi/hr. Based on 23 sites throughout New York State, the mean

fall passage rate is 201.6 birds/mi/hr (ranging from 103.1 to 454.5 birds/mi/hr) (NYSDEC 2008). Both

spring and fall passage rates appear to be within range observed statewide.

As a consequence of their nocturnal migrations, avian collisions with buildings and towers are more

common during nighttime hours than during daytime hours. Birds typically use the stars to navigate at

night, and brightly illuminated buildings and towers can attract and/or disorient them. This is especially

true on overcast or foggy nights (Drewitt and Langston 2008). Birds appear to show different degrees of

attraction to different types of lighting. Several studies have suggested that birds are more attracted to

red lights than white lights, but other studies report that these results are inconclusive (Drewitt and

Langston 2008). The type of lighting source appears to be a more influential factor relating to collision

risk. Lower intensity lights are less likely to attract birds than high intensity lighting. Birds are also less

attracted to strobe lighting than to continual lighting, with the longer the period between flashes, the less

likelihood for bird attraction. The risk of collision also appears to be correlated with the orientation of

the lighting, in that birds are less attracted to lights that are directed downwards (Drewitt and

Langston 2008).

Although it will be lit throughout its form to conform to MSHA requirements, the proposed tower would

not include upward-directed nighttime lighting that could disorient migrating birds and increase the

potential for bird strikes. The new tower would not include windows or other reflective surfaces, a

major factor in the potential for bird strikes. The tower would be relatively short when compared to the

elevation of common bird flyways, and, unlike communications towers, would not have guy wires,

which is a major contributor to bird strikes. Towers that are stayed by guy wires are reported to cause

the greatest numbers of bird fatalities (OAP 2002).

The results of this study indicate that:

� Documented assessments of wind turbines in New York State and other studies indicate that

although migrating birds generally fly well above the elevation of the tower/stack structure, as many as 12% of birds fly below 492 feet, an elevation at which they would potentially encounter the proposed tower/stack structure.

� Nighttime weather conditions could exist between 3% and 7% of the time when cloud ceiling heights are less than 500 feet that would cause birds to fly at elevations during the spring and fall migration seasons to potentially encounter the tower/stack structure, and that cloud ceiling heights less than 1,500 feet occur between 11% and 16% of the time.

Executive Summary


� Although the flight path of migrating birds varies, there is the potential that migrating birds could pass over the Project Site.

� The density of migrating birds within their migrating pathways can vary widely, and range between approximately 7 birds/mi3 and 102 birds/ mi3.

There is no generally accepted method to accurately estimate the number of birds that would potentially

strike the tower/stack structure or other structures that are part of the proposed modernization. The

broad range in the number and density of migrating birds (between 7 and 102 birds/mi3) that could

potentially pass over the Project Site during the spring and fall migration seasons make it particularly

difficult to make a precise estimate of the number of bird strikes. Bird strikes would be most likely to

occur against the 155-foot by 462-foot (approximately 72,000-square-foot surface area) tower structure.

Bird strikes would be less likely to occur against the relatively small diameter (approximately 23 feet at

its top) 64-foot tall stack that would rise from the top of the tower. However, there would be a greater

chance of bird strikes with the Proposed Action compared to existing conditions, in which the 350-foot

tall, 24-foot diameter (at its top) stack is the principal elevated structure with the potential to cause bird

strikes. The existing stack would be removed as part of the Proposed Action, eliminating it as a

potential cause of bird strikes.

Overall, the chances of a significant number of bird strikes would be expected to be relatively small

given the relatively low observed frequency (12%) of birds flying at elevations at which they would

encounter the tower/stack structure and low frequency (3% to 7%) of meteorological conditions (ceiling

heights below 500 feet) that would potentially cause birds to fly at elevations at which there would be an

increased chance for birds to encounter the tower/stack structure. However, as noted previously, the

height and bulk of the tower/stack structure would be greater than the existing stack, thereby increasing

the chance for bird strikes compared to the existing condition at the Ravena Plant. The lack of guy

wires, lack of reflective surfaces such as windows, and lack of upward-facing lighting would reduce the

likelihood of bird strikes. However, since the densities of migrating birds and their flight paths vary

widely, the likelihood of bird strikes cannot be considered as inconsequential.

In addition to the proposed use of low intensity lighting and the shielding and downward facing design

of the facility lighting system, the risk of bird strikes could be further reduced through decreasing the

height and bulk of the tower/stack structure, through further modification of the MSHA- and

Executive Summary


FAA-required lighting of the proposed structures during nighttime hours, or by incorporating a range of

materials and colors to visibly differentiate between elements of the structure (NYCAS 2007, City of

Toronto 2007).

As described in Chapter 25 – Alternatives, the height of the tower/stack structure is dictated by the goal

of providing a design that would result in the lowest fuel use and energy costs, thereby reducing the

amount of GHG emissions and air pollutants emitted from the proposed facility. Further engineering

studies during the final design of the facility may allow for a shorter tower/stack structure. The estimate

of potential bird strike, therefore, provides an assessment of the maximum number of potential bird

strikes.

In addition to the application of low-intensity, downward orientated lighting, and the development of a

lighting protocol that would specify locations within the facility at which lights would only be lit

on-demand when access was needed, the potential for nighttime bird strikes could be potentially further

reduced by fully enclosing or partially enclosing the tower/stack structure. Fully enclosing the

tower/stack structure to either fully or partially eliminate the potential for birds to become disoriented,

thereby striking the structure, would be cost-prohibitive given the increased wind load on the structure

and other safety and operational considerations, and is not considered to be a reasonable option, given

the relatively low probability of bird strikes.

The current design of the structure includes a number of features that will create a range of textures and

colors that will reduce the likelihood of bird strikes. These will include the use of a range of concrete,

steel, and other materials in the construction of the tower/stack structure and its associated walkways,

ladders, piping, and other equipment. Colors and the quality of lighting will also vary throughout the

structure, further increasing the “visual noise” of the tower/stack structure further reducing the potential

for bird strikes. These design features conform to United States Fish & Wildlife Interim Guidelines for

Recommendations on Communication Tower Siting, Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning,

which call for down-shielding of lighting to keep light within the boundaries of the site, construction

without the use of guy wires, and the minimum application of workplace and FAA-required aviation

safety lighting.

Executive Summary


4.9 Hazardous Materials With the Proposed Action, excavation would be undertaken on the Project Site in connection with the

development of required foundations that would necessitate dewatering and removal of soil. Soil and

groundwater samples would be collected prior to excavation to characterize the area to be cleared and to

define the methods to be used to properly handle and dispose of the material in accordance with

applicable state and federal requirements. It is anticipated that the excavated material would include

petroleum contaminated soil, non-hazardous urban fill, and soil that may potentially exceed the

NYSDEC Technical and Administrative Guidance Memorandum (TAGM) 4046 guidance for

determining clean-up requirements. Water withdrawn from the Project Site during dewatering activities

would be analyzed to determine the presence of contaminants and treated as necessary to meet

requirements for discharge through a permitted outfall.

All construction activities would be completed in accordance with a site-specific Health and Safety Plan

(HASP), which would detail the procedures and methods to be implemented to protect the health and

safety of workers and the general public. The HASP would include procedures for the safe handling of

site soils and groundwater, including any water from dewatering activities.

4.10 Surface Water Quality In the future without the proposed project, water quality and flows in all on-site or nearby water bodies

would not change significantly from current conditions. The existing discharges would continue and the

SPDES permit for the Ravena Plant would continue to be in effect. The current floodplains of

Coeymans Creek and the Hudson River in the vicinity of the Project Site would remain essentially

unaltered, other than small potential changes due to causes extraneous to the proposed project.

In the future with the proposed project, the new dry manufacturing process would use less water per ton

of clinker produced than the existing system, although the total production capacity of the Ravena Plant

would increase from approximately 1.72 million tons of clinker per year to approximately 2.81 million

tons of clinker per year. The primary water sources for the proposed modernized plant would be quarry

pumpout water and site groundwater. Hudson River water would be used as needed to supplement or

replace quarry and groundwater supplies when their availability is insufficient or limited by quality or

quantity. These three sources combined would provide the proposed modernized plant with an

adequately assured water supply and redundancy to assure uninterrupted operation of the facility.

Executive Summary


It is estimated that the quarry can supply between 0.5 and 1.0 million gallons per day (MGD) to the

plant process system but would be seasonally and precipitation pattern limited. For the groundwater

supply wells, current hydrogeological analyses indicate that the aquifer beneath the site can reliably

yield up to 1.0 MGD without impacting surrounding groundwater levels or other well water supplies or

inflow to surface water bodies.

The Hudson River would be the third source and would provide supplemental flow as well as full

redundancy to the combined supplies of the quarry water and the groundwater wells. The Hudson River

intake and delivery system would be capable of providing up to 2.0 MGD to the proposed

modernized plant.

As discussed below, the modernized plant would no longer have cooling water discharges and therefore,

6 NYCRR §704.5 and Section 316b would no longer be applicable. However, under SEQRA and the

Hudson River Estuary Action Plan: 2010-2014 (HREAP), the proposed modernized plant is required to

minimize impacts of water withdrawals to the Hudson River fisheries. As indicated above, the Ravena

Plant will be required to minimize impacts of the current withdrawal of water under the Department

Initiated Modification SPDES permit.

The intake facility and operating modifications that are appropriate to achieve minimization of the

impacts of water withdrawal were summarized in a Best Technology Available (BTA) analysis as

requested by the NYSDEC. The report addressed at least eight technologies and operational measures

designed to minimize cooling water withdrawal impacts. The proposed modifications to the intake

structure, which will be evaluated under the Department Initiated Modification permit, will include the

proposed installation of 0.5 millimeter (mm) wedge wire screens on the offshore intake structure, and

modifications to the intake pumps and controls to limit the intake capacity to 2.0 MGD.

The impacts would be further minimized by the prioritized use of the primary water supplies from the

quarry pumpout and the additional groundwater supply wells. These primary supplies would minimize

the frequency and flow volumes drawn from the Hudson River.

Executive Summary


This would ensure that the water withdrawal rates from the Hudson River would be limited to only what

is needed to supplement the primary sources. Since the Hudson River intake will be modified to meet

the NYSDEC’s BTA requirements for minimization of impact under the current modified SPDES

permit, the Proposed Action, which would use the same intake, would also meet the HREAP

requirements for impact minimization. Therefore, minimization of impacts to the Hudson River

fisheries would be achieved.

Stormwater runoff is currently conveyed by surface ditches, unnamed Tributary 1 to Coeymans Creek,

culverts and subsurface piping to a settling pond located in the southern portion of the site upstream of

Outfall 003. As requested by NYSDEC, the operator of the Ravena Plant completed a preliminary

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) since the Proposed Action would disturb greater than

one acre. The preliminary SWPPP evaluated the impacts to the receiving stream from the proposed

project’s construction activities and identified permanent control measures for addressing water quality

and quantity requirements for the proposed project. The total disturbed area for the Project Site is

approximately 170 acres. Under the Proposed Action, the developed area (roads, buildings, and other

surfaces) would increase from 27.59 acres to 36.1 acres. As presented in the preliminary SWPPP, the

drainage from the disturbed area would be collected by a new on-site stormwater detention pond. The

outlet from this new on-site stormwater detention pond would be permitted under the Ravena Plant’s

SPDES permit and it would discharge to unnamed Tributary 1.

The existing once-through non-contact cooling water (NCCW) operations would be replaced with new

closed-looped glycol cooling water systems which would eliminate approximately 0.8 MGD of NCCW

currently being discharged to surface waters. The NCCW represents the highest wastewater

temperatures discharged from the cement manufacturing operations. The proposed modernized facility

would also include a new 6 megawatt (MW) waste heat recovery cogeneration unit with an associated

new cooling tower. To eliminate the thermal discharge to Coeymans Creek associated with the cooling

tower blowdown, under the Proposed Action, the blowdown would be recycled as makeup water for the

proposed flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wet scrubber system. With the replacement of the present

once-through cooling water system to a closed loop system and the internal recycling of the cooling

tower blowdown, the proposed modernized plant would have no cooling water thermal discharges and

therefore, 6 NYCRR §704.2 (b)(2) and Section 316b would not be applicable to the Proposed Action.

Executive Summary


In addition to the removal of cooling waters, the Proposed Action would also incorporate the complete

recycle (i.e., “zero discharge”) of all process wastewaters. The two wastewater streams created by the

Proposed Action would be flue gas wet scrubber blowdown and the waste heat recovery cogeneration

unit’s demineralization plant wastewater.

Under the Proposed Action, a FGD wet scrubber or an equivalent alternative system for the control of

sulfur oxides (SOX) and mercury flue gas emissions combined with a SNCR technology system to

control NOX would be installed. As gas emissions pass through the FGD, contaminants in the gas

stream would be concentrated in the liquid limestone slurry. As the sulfur concentration increases in the

liquid stream, a portion of the stream would be purged as blowdown waste. The blowdown waste would

be recycled to process cooling units.

The demineralization (DM) plant would support the operations of the new waste heat recovery

cogeneration unit. The influent water source to the DM plant include: the quarry water, current and new

groundwater supply wells and, when necessary, the Hudson River. Wastewater would be generated

from reverse osmosis (RO) reject which generally consists of concentrated salts. Under the Proposed

Action, this source would be recycled back into the process supply water system where it again would

be recycled internally and would not be discharged to surface waters.

The SPDES permit for the Proposed Action would continue to permit only currently permitted non-

process site discharges such as stormwater, excess quarry water, treated sanitary effluent and cement

kiln dust (CKD) leachate. All existing process and cooling water discharges would be eliminated under

the Proposed Action.

Under the Proposed Action, four current surface discharges would be modified. The truck wash station

would be converted to a recycle and/or air vacuum system and would no longer have a discharge to

surface water. Two outfalls, 03A (sanitary) and 03B (CKD leachate – note currently proposed in draft

Department Initiated Modification permit), would be removed from Outfall 003 and would discharge

directly into unnamed Tributary 1 to Coeymans Creek.

Executive Summary


Outfall 03A is the existing wastewater treatment plant on-site to process human waste. Sufficient

treatment capacity exists at the treatment facility to maintain the existing effluent water quality. Thus,

the water quality of unnamed Tributary 1 to Coeymans Creek would not be affected.

Under the Department Initiated Modification permit, the Ravena Plant will monitor and evaluate the

existing CKD leachate (03B) and a report will be submitted to the NYSDEC upon completion of this

evaluation. The report will summarize all monitoring results and address the future actions required by

the Ravena Plant in complying with permit limits. Currently the Ravena Plant is proposing an upgrade

to the leachate pump station and a new wastewater treatment system. As agreed with NYSDEC, the

details, including required engineering reports and/or compliance schedules will be finalized under the

Department Initiated Modification permit. Based on these requirements the Proposed Action assumes

that the CKD leachate would be treated to meet applicable discharge requirements under the Department

Initiated Modification permit.

Under the Proposed Action Outfall 003 would also be eliminated. With the elimination of process

discharges and the individual permitting of the remaining outfalls, the treatment systems that currently

regulate these effluents at Outfall 003 are unnecessary and would be taken out of service. Since the only

flows continuing in unnamed Tributary 1 to Coeymans Creek would be natural stream flows and

overland stormwater runoff, the tributary would flow directly to Coeyman’s Creek via the existing

culvert connections. Overland stormwater flows to the tributary would be controlled by implementation

of stormwater BMPs under the final Department Initiated Modification permit.

Therefore, wastewater discharges from the Ravena Plant under the Proposed Action include excess

quarry water, stormwater, treated sanitary effluent and CKD leachate. These discharges are not new

discharges but essentially are the same as the current discharges or the discharges as they will exist

under the modified permit for the current plant prior to construction of the new facility. Further, these

discharges are not related to the new manufacturing facility but rather are associated with the

surrounding site.

Therefore, the Proposed Action would not result in significant adverse effects to surface water quality

during construction or operation.

Executive Summary


4.11 Hudson River Water Withdrawals

An assessment was completed of the potential for impacts of the Proposed Action on surface water

biology, including potential effects of entrainment and impingement of aquatic life as a result of the use

of Hudson River water in the proposed project

Due to the use of cooling towers and alternative on-site water sources, the Hudson River withdrawals

would, on average, be less than those for the existing facility. As a result, entrainment and impingement

losses would also be less than those predicted in the preceding section.

With withdrawal rates limited to 2.0 MGD and the installation of 0.5 millimeter (mm) wedge-wire

screens, the impacts of the proposed project on aquatic biota due to the withdrawal of Hudson River

water would be minimized. The design capacity of the pumps at the existing facility is 8 MGD,

therefore limiting the flow to 2 MGD represents a reduction of 75% in potential withdrawal volume with

an equivalent reduction in numbers of passive organisms exposed to entrainment. The installation of

0.5 mm screens is predicted to reduce losses by an additional 90%, bringing the total reduction as

compared to design capacity to more than 97%. The draft NYSDEC policy on cooling water

withdrawals proposes that losses in freshwater would be reduced by 86% to 88% from baseline levels.

The Proposed Action, as proposed, would exceed this guideline.

In the future with the proposed project, the Ravena Plant would incorporate the complete recycle (i.e.,

“zero discharge”) of all process wastewaters and cooling waters to be generated by the modernized dry

kiln cement-making plant. These wastewaters include the flue gas wet scrubber blowdown, waste heat

recovery cooling tower blowdown, and waste heat recovery demineralization plant wastewaters. The

SPDES permit for the proposed modernized plant would continue to allow only currently permitted non-

process site discharges such as stormwater, excess quarry water, treated sanitary effluent and CKD

leachate.

The existing once-through NCCW operations would be replaced with a new closed-looped glycol

cooling water system which would eliminate approximately 0.8 MGD of NCCW currently being

discharged to surface waters. The NCCW represents the highest source wastewater temperatures

discharged from the cement manufacturing operations. The proposed modernized facility would also

include a new 6 MW waste heat recovery cogeneration unit with an associated new cooling tower. To

Executive Summary


eliminate the thermal discharge to Coeymans Creek associated with the cooling tower blowdown, under

the Proposed Action, the blowdown would be recycled as makeup water for the proposed flue gas

desulfurization wet scrubber system. With the replacement of the present once-through cooling water

system to a closed loop system, and the internal recycling of the cooling tower blowdown, the proposed

modernized plant would have no cooling water thermal discharges and therefore, 6 NYCRR §704.2

(b)(2) and Section 316b would no longer be applicable to the Proposed Action.

The proposed modernized facility would meet all criteria for minimization of the potential impacts of

the withdrawal of Hudson River water. The minimization would be achieved by the combination of:

1) technology improvements to the intake structure which would be accomplished under the

requirements of the existing facility SPDES Permit, 2) reductions of water usage by the dry cement

process, and 3) minimization of Hudson River water requirements by the use of on-site sources and

complete recycling of all process water for reuse.

4.12 Groundwater Resources

In the future with the Proposed Action, the existing once-through NCCW operations would be replaced

with a new closed-looped glycol cooling water system and process cooling units, which may consist of

evaporative sprays, and would have no impact to groundwater quality. The makeup water to these

cooling systems would be supplied from the internal recycling of process wastewater discharge (i.e.,

FGD wet scrubber blowdown) supplemented by the sources identified below.

A waste heat recovery cogeneration unit, including a preheater boiler, deaerator, steam turbine

generator, condenser and associated cooling tower, is proposed as part of Phase 2 of the Proposed

Action. The demineralization plant associated with the unit and the cooling tower makeup would also

be supplied from the sources listed below. However, as indicated in the hydrogeological report,

adequate supply of groundwater is available to support this new process. Demineralization plant

wastewater would be returned to the process water supply thereby reducing demands on groundwater

resources. Cooling tower blowdown would be recycled as makeup water to the new FGD wet scrubber

as discussed below.

Executive Summary


A new FGD wet scrubber would be used for removal of airborne contaminants (SOX). The makeup

water to the system would be supplied primarily from the recycling of cooling tower blowdown, and

supplemented by the sources listed below.

The process-related groundwater needs described above would be met from three sources:

� Approximately 0.5 to 1.0 MGD from quarry “pump-out” water, depending on the amount of

precipitation that occurs during the year;

� Approximately 1.0 MGD from on-site groundwater wells (i.e., from two existing wells that are currently used for the cooling of water before it is discharged into the on-site surface water body and new wells); and

� Up to a maximum of 2.0 MGD from the Hudson River.

Hudson River water would only be used to supplement or replace quarry and groundwater supplies when

the availability of each is insufficient to meet needs. Together, these three sources would be sufficient

to meet the total need for process water, estimated to be approximately 1.6 MGD.

The Ravena Plant currently uses a total of approximately 5,000 gallons per day (gpd) of potable water

supplied by the Village of Ravena municipal water supply system. The Village of Ravena supply source

is the Alcove Reservoir which stores surface water runoff from the watershed of the Helderberg

Mountains west of the Project Site (Village of Ravena, 2006). No changes in the demand or source of

potable water would occur with the Proposed Action.

The proposed project would potentially increase the net discharge to Coeymans Creek through unnamed

Tributary 1 to Coeymans Creek through stormwater runoff. However, the potential impacts of this

would be minimal since the hydraulic connection between the stream and underlying deposits and

bedrock is poor. The stream flow in Coeymans Creek cuts across the lacustrine silt and clay deposits

that were part of glacial Lake Albany. Below the quarternary alluvium of Coeymans Creek is a

significant thickness of these silts and clays, effectively forming a barrier preventing significant

transmission of water between the stream and deeper water bearing units. Secondly, the potential

recharge input from Coeymans Creek to deeper units is insignificant relative to the important recharge

zone and elevation differential (driving groundwater flow regionally toward the Hudson Valley)

represented by the highlands of the Helderberg Escarpment west of the glacial Lake Albany plain on

which the site is located.

Executive Summary


No significant adverse impacts to groundwater resources are anticipated to occur as a result of the

Proposed Action.

4.13 Coastal Resources

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 was enacted by Congress to balance the

competing demands of growth and development with the need to protect sensitive natural and manmade

resources within the coastal zone of the United States. Pursuant to the federal CZMA, New York has

defined coastal zone boundaries and policies to be utilized to evaluate whether projects occurring within

or affecting the designated zones are consistent with the program.In response to the CZMA, New York

State adopted a Coastal Zone Management Program administered by the NYSDOS. As part of this

Program, New York State adopted a number of Coastal Policies used to guide the State’s efforts to

create and maintain clean, accessible and prosperous coastal areas and inland waterways for present and

future generations.

New York Coastal Policies are grouped in the following categories: Development, Fish and Wildlife,

Flooding and Erosion, General Safeguards, Public Access, Recreation, Historic and Scenic Resources,

Agricultural Lands, Energy and Ice Management, Air and Water Resources, and Wetlands. Two the

State Policies (Policies Numbers 24 and 7) have been given greater specificity of areas of statewide

significance. In the Hudson Valley, five areas along the Hudson River have been designated as Scenic

Areas of Statewide Significance, one of which (the Columbia/Greene North Scenic Area of Statewide

Significance) is located immediately east of the Project Site. In addition, 250 important coastal habitats

have been designated as Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats, two of which (the Coeymans

Creek and Hannacroix Creek Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats) are in the vicinity of the Project Site.

Although the Project Site is not within the designated coastal zone, a federal Coastal Zone Consistency

Assessment Form was completed for the proposed project to determine where the proposed project

would conflict with any Coastal Policy. Based on this assessment, the NYSDOS confirmed that the

proposed project would not be within the designated Coastal Zone and that concerns related to coastal

zone policy consistency were are primarily limited to the potential effect of the proposed project on

significant visually sensitive resources, including from points within the Columbia/Greene North Scenic

Area of Statewide Significance and other areas within the established Coastal Zone along the Hudson

Executive Summary


River. As described in Chapter 9 - Visual Resources of this DEISFEIS, a detailed assessment was

completed to determine whether the proposed project would result in a significant adverse impact on

visually sensitive resources. As documented in Chapter 9, the results of this assessment indicate that the

proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impact on views from visually sensitive

resources within the designated Coastal Zone, including views from the Hudson River. The principal

ship channel, which is located along the west shore of the River, limits the visibility of the proposed

project from most of the marine traffic passing by the Project Site.

4.14 Infrastructure

With the Proposed Action, a dry cement production process would replace the existing wet process.

This process would not increase industrial water use. The anticipated water demand of the modernized

Ravena Plant under the Proposed Action is estimated to be up to 2.0 MGD. The 5,000-gpd water

demand for potable water would continue to be supplied at the same rate as currently exists by the

Ravena Water District, as the number of employees for the proposed project would remain the same as

at the current facility.

The quarry and site groundwater would be used, to the extent possible, as the first priority sources.

Hudson River water would be used as needed to supplement or replace quarry and groundwater supplies

when their availability is insufficient or limited by quality or quantity. These three sources combined

would provide the proposed modernized plant with an adequately assured water supply and redundancy

to ensure uninterrupted operation of the facility.

The Hudson River intake and delivery system would be capable of providing up to 2.0 MGD to the

proposed modernized plant. The Ravena Plant will be required to minimize impacts of the current

withdrawal of water under the final Department Initiated Modification of the existing SPDES permit.

The intake facility and operating modifications that are appropriate to achieve minimization impacts of

water withdrawal are summarized in a BTA analysis as requested by the NYSDEC. The Cooling Water

Intake Structure report addresses at least eight technologies and operational measures designed to

minimize cooling water withdrawal impacts. This report is an attachment to this DEISFEIS. The

proposed modifications to the intake structure, which will be evaluated under the Department Initiated

Modification permit, will include the proposed installation of 0.5 mm wedge wire screens on the

offshore intake structure, modifications to the intake pumps, and controls to limit the intake pumps to

2.0 MGD.

Executive Summary


The impacts would be further minimized by the availability of the primary water supplies from the

quarry pumpout and the additional groundwater supply wells. These alternate supplies would minimize

the frequency and flow volumes drawn from the Hudson River.

This would ensure that the water withdrawal rates from the Hudson River would be limited to only what

is needed to supplement the primary sources. Since the Hudson River intake will be modified to meet

the NYSDEC’s BTA requirements under the current Department Initiated Modification permit, the

Proposed Action would also meet the HREAP impact minimization requirements. Therefore,

minimization of impacts to the Hudson River fisheries would be achieved.

A number of construction- and operation-related measures would be incorporated into the methods used

to construct the proposed project and to avoid and minimize operation-related effects on surface water

quality. These measures are described, as requested by NYSDEC, in the preliminary SWPPP, which is

discussed in Section 4.10, above.

In the future with the proposed project, the Ravena Plant would incorporate the complete recycle (i.e.,

“zero discharge”) of all process wastewaters and cooling waters to be generated by the modernized dry

kiln cement-making plant. These wastewaters include the flue gas wet scrubber blowdown; waste heat

regeneration cooling tower blowdown; and waste heat regenration demineralization plant wastewaters.

The SPDES permit for the proposed modernized plant would continue to permit only currently permitted

non-process site discharges, such as stormwater, excess quarry water, treated sanitary effluent and CKD

leachate.

In the future with the Proposed Action, the existing water supply, wastewater treatment and stormwater

management systems are expected to support the Proposed Action without incurring significant adverse

impacts.

4.15 Energy

The proposed modernization would be more energy efficient compared to the existing Ravena Plant. As

a result of the replacement of the wet cement-making process with the more energy efficient dry

process, it is estimated that the Proposed Action would operate at an improved energy consumption

efficiency of 2.74 million British thermal units (Btu) of fuel per short ton of clinker with the proposed

Executive Summary


project compared to the current rate of 4.62 million Btu of fuel per short ton of clinker with the existing

facility. The total amount of energy from fuel required would be reduced by 3% from existing levels.

In terms of electricity use, the consumption per short ton of clinker is also expected to be reduced as a

result of the Proposed Action. However, the total electricity use is expected to increase to

approximately 262,400 megawatt hours (MWH), which would be a 21% increase compared to existing

electrical demand at the Ravena Plant. National Grid, which is the source of electricity for the Ravena

Plant, has the installed capacity to meet the overall increase in electricity use under the Proposed Action.

The improvements that are proposed to modernize the Ravena Plant would not conflict with or

temporarily disrupt the energy transmission infrastructure that traverses or is adjacent to the Project Site.

Therefore, the Proposed Action would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to

energy use.

4.16 Solid Waste

The Proposed Action would not result in any change to the waste management practices as the existing

facility. The volume of CKD requiring disposal in the on-site landfill would dramatically decrease.

With the installation of an “alkali bypass,” CKD requiring disposal would decrease from 143,500 tons to

less than 86,000 tons per year. Depending on the final mix design of the raw materials for the new kiln

system, the alkali bypass may not be required and any wasted CKD dust would be prioritized for off-site

recycling and use via an approved Beneficial Use Determination. Should that be the case, disposal of

any CKD to the landfill would be minimal. The volume of kiln refractory that would be disposed of

each year in the on-site landfill is expected to decrease by about 50% as a result of the Proposed Action.

Approximately 1,250 tons of kiln refractory would be disposed of each year in the on-site landfill. The

Proposed Action would not result in increased volumes of office waste, worn mechanical equipment

parts, and used motor oil, hydraulic fluids and gear oils.

Therefore, the Proposed Action would not have any significant adverse impacts on solid waste

management.

Executive Summary


4.17 Traffic and Safety

The Proposed Action would not result in any long-term impacts on traffic levels of the transportation

systems serving the Ravena Plant or to related safety conditions within the Study Area. The

improvements would not change the markets served by the Ravena Plant or the modes of transport used

to distribute product to those markets. As a consequence, there would no significant change in

proportionate amounts of product transported by truck, rail or barge to market. Fuel delivery to the

Ravena Plant would continue to be principally by rail, but at a reduced rate as a consequence of the

improvement in energy efficiency that would result from the Proposed Action. The slight increase in

trucks delivering raw material and transporting final product would result in a small increase in delay at

one intersection in the vicinity of the Project Site, and the operation at all of the key intersections studied

within the Study Area would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS).

During the active 24-month construction period, there would be a short-term change in traffic operations

in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site, due to the presence of construction worker vehicles, heavy

equipment delivery trucks, and shuttle buses travelling between the interceptor parking facilities and the

Project Site during construction peak periods. These construction-related vehicles would result in a

temporary increase in traffic within the Study Area. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not have any

significant adverse impacts on traffic and safety.

Although the results of the traffic impact assessment indicate that no significant adverse traffic or safety

impacts would occur during construction of the facility, a number of measures would be implemented to

further reduce the potential for adverse traffic and safety effects during construction of the proposed

project. These measures would be documented in a project-specific maintenance and protection of

traffic (MPT) plan. The MPT plan would include driving instructions for project deliveries, a parking

strategy for construction workers and a communications plan for the school district and Town of

Coeymans.

Lafarge would provide driving instructions to vendors delivering equipment and materials to the Project

Site. The instructions will include a map of the required route of truck travel to the site. Truck

deliveries would be limited to the extent practical to non-peak hours. Truck delivery instructions would

be incorporated into the contract of vendors delivering materials to the site.

Executive Summary


As discussed in Chapter 19, in an effort to minimize potential construction impacts, Lafarge has initiated

the development of a construction worker carpool program and has identified a list of suitable remote

locations for off-site parking. Up to three of these sites would be used for remote off-site parking

locations during construction. These potential remote sites may include, but are not limited, to the

following locations:

� CSX-Selkirk, Speeder Road Automotive Distribution Facility, Selkirk, New York (> 1,000

parking spaces);

� Marshall’s Garage, 2369 Route 9W, (~ 200 parking spaces);

� Bethlehem Industrial Park, 3 miles north of Lafarge on Route 9W (~ 200 parking spaces);

� South Albany Airport, South Bethlehem, New York (50 to 100 parking spaces);

� Church of Saint Patrick, 21 Mail Street, Ravena, New York (8 acres of property);

� F&M Farms, 450 County Route 101 (South Road), Coeymans, New York; and

� Port of Coeymans (across from Plant), south of Wharf Road, Ravena, New York.

The construction workers would use a shuttle service to and from the Project Site. The off-site locations

would be suitable to access major roadways, such as Interstate 87 (I-87), and would be in appropriately

zoned areas. Many of the off-site locations would provide parking for approximately 150 to

200 construction workers.

Lafarge will communicate anticipated traffic with the RCS Central School District and Village of

Ravena and Town of Coeymans governments and will work with these organizations to minimize

impacts of traffic. Lafarge will prepare a weekly traffic report during the peak construction period and

will provide the report to: RCS Central School District, Town of Coeymans, Town of Coeymans Police

Department and the Village of Ravena. The traffic report will contain an estimate of the traffic volume

anticipated during the upcoming week and any special circumstances that may require additional traffic

control measures. The MPT plan would include provisions for the stationing of traffic control and

enforcement agents, if determined to be necessary by the Town of Coeymans Police Department.

The MPT plan, which to be developed in close coordination with the Town of Coeymans and the RCS

Central School District, would also detail the measures to be used to keep the public informed

concerning the status of the construction activities and the measures to be applied to safeguard the public

Executive Summary


during the construction period. Specific measures will be included in the weekly traffic report These

measures will include public information for posting on the RCS Central School District web site, the

Town of Coeymans web site and for distribution at Town of Coeymans Board meetings.

4.18 Air Quality

The proposed project would, under established federal and New York State rules, be considered a

“major” source of air pollution requiring permits for its construction and operation. Consequently, the

proposed project will require review and approval under a number of New York State and federal air

quality regulations and guidelines, including review under federal PSD, 40 CFR 52.21, New York State

PSD and Non-Attainment New Source Review (PSD/NNSR, 6 NYCRR Part 231), NESHAPS, 40 CFR

Part 63 requirements, NYSDEC Guidelines for Control of Toxic Ambient Air Contaminants (TAACs,

6 NYCRR Part 212), and SEQRA. The methodologies and air quality modeling procedures and

protocols used to assess the air quality effects of the proposed project were developed through

coordination between Lafarge, NYSDEC and USEPA and included assessment of the major new

stationary air pollutant emissions sources from the proposed facility, including emissions from the kiln

system and a new finish mill. A separate air permit application was prepared by Lafarge and submitted

to USEPA and NYSDEC for review. Air Quality assessments included in this DEISFEIS are based on

information developed as part of the air permitting process. These assessments included evaluation of

both long-term (operation-related) effects and short-term (construction-related) effects of the Proposed

Action. An assessment of Bbest Aavailable Ccontrol Ttechnology (BACT) to reduce GHG emissions

under the Clean Air Act has been completed for the proposed project (see Appendix L “Greenhouse Gas

Best Available Control Technology Analysis for Ravena Plant Modernization Project”).

The impact assessment focused on the potential effect of stationary sources that would be included as

part of the proposed project. Since operation of the proposed project would generate motor vehicle

traffic, including motor vehicles used by employees traveling to and from the Project Site, trucks

delivering materials to the Project Site and trucks hauling finished material from the Project Site, the

assessment also included a qualitative assessment of the air quality impacts of these mobile sources.

Executive Summary


In addition to the estimation of the maximum impacts of the proposed project on ambient levels of air

quality, the analysis also included estimation of the potential impact of the proposed project on ambient

levels of air quality at NYSDEC-identified PEJ areas and at the Pieter B. Coeymans Elementary School,

the Ravena-Coeymans-Selkirk High School and the A. W. Becker Elementary School.

In conformance with Federal and New York State requirements, the proposed project includes a number

of air pollution control measures that will assure compliance with USEPA and NYSDEC emissions

limitations for Portland cement manufacturing facilities. The assessment of potential air quality effects

was based on the incorporation of these measures into the design of the proposed project. These

proposed controls are described below.

• Particulate Matter (PM) Controls. The proposed project would incorporate PM emission

controls that would meet a proposed PM emission limit for the kiln and clinker cooler of 0.01

pound per ton (lb/ton) of clinker (each) as measured by a PM continuous emissions monitoring

system (CEMS). This limit would be met by incorporating either a fabric filter(s) (FF) or

electrostatic precipitator(s) (ESP) or a hybrid combination of both systems. The decision

whether to use FF or ESP technology would be based on both technical and economic

considerations consistent with regulatory requirements. A final decision on which option would

be implemented has not been determined at this stage.

The revised NESHAP limits were based on membrane filter technology; Lafarge may use this

technology to these limits if the FF option is chosen. FFs would additionally be used to control

PM emissions from other process sources (raw material, clinker and cement handling and

transfer; finish mills, etc.).

• Sulfur Dioxide Controls. Per the September 9, 2010, USEPA final changes to the New Source

Performance Standards (NSPS) for Portland Cement Plants, the proposed project would

incorporate SO2 emission controls that would meet an emission limit for the kiln system of 0.4 lb

of SO2/ton of clinker, 30-day rolling average, as measured by a continuous emission rate

monitoring system (CERMS). This would result in an emission reduction of 11,261 tons per

year (tons/yr) relative to the current baseline emissions. This emission limit would be met using

a wet scrubber to control combustion gases from the system (kiln and raw mill, coal mill and

alkali bypass).

Executive Summary


The clinker cooler exhaust would not go through the scrubber, because it does not contain SO2 or

any combustion gases, and PM would have already been removed by the more efficient new PM

control device. Adding the cooler exhaust to the scrubber would impose significant cost, energy,

and water usage penalties with no additional pollutant removal benefit. The current design

mixes the clinker cooler exhaust gases with the exhaust from the wet scrubber, raising the gas

temperature and lowering the moisture content of the combined stack exhaust, which results in

positive benefits of reducing the visible moisture plume and improving stack dispersion

characteristics.

The proposed spray scrubber design would be similar to those installed on cement plants in the

United States and Europe. Kiln gases would be cooled and saturated with moisture using quench

sprays prior to entering the scrubber body. SO2 is absorbed in spray water droplets forming

sulfurous acid (H2SO3) which reacts with a basic reagent (i.e., calcium hydroxide [Ca(OH)2],

calcium carbonate [CaCO3], or CKD) forming calcium sulfite (CaSO3), which is oxidized to

gypsum (CaSO4) by forced air oxidation.

The scrubber slurry would be recirculated increasing the concentration of gypsum in the solution

forming a super-saturated solution of CaSO4 · 1½ water (H2O) that precipitates to gypsum

crystals. A portion of the solution would be removed and gypsum would be separated by

centrifuge, thickener, and/or filter press. The supernate would be returned to the scrubber sump.

The dissolved solids in the recirculated slurry increase during operation due to the presence of

alkali salts in the flue gas stream (i.e., potassium chloride [KCl], sodium chloride [NaCl], sodium

sulfate [Na2SO4], potassium sulfate [K2SO4], etc.) and a blow down is maintained to remove the

salts. Blow down would be discharged to in-process water uses that are currently using clean

water. These may include finish mill spray cooling, CKD pugmill, and/or dust suppression

systems.

The final cleaned gases from the scrubber would be combined with hotter waste gases from the

clinker cooler, producing a final gas stream that is hotter and less saturated with moisture. SO2

removal of the system is limited by the low SO2 inlet concentration and the need to operate at a

solution pH which would not remove a significant amount of CO2 from the gas stream. Removal

Executive Summary


of CO2 forms CaCO3 which scales the piping, demister, and nozzles of the scrubber. Reagent

feed rates would be variable depending on the inlet SO2 concentration. The actual feed rate

would be controlled via the SO2 CEMS to meet the requested emission limit.

• Nitrogen Oxides Controls. Per the September 9, 2010, USEPA final changes to the NSPS for

Portland Cement Plants, the proposed project would incorporate NOX emission controls that

would meet a proposed emission rate from the kiln system of 1.5 lb/ton of clinker, 30-day rolling

average. This would result in an emission reduction of 3,115 tons/yr relative to the current

baseline emissions. NOX emissions from the preheater would be reduced using a low-NOx kiln

burner and a low-NOX calciner that destroys kiln NOX. SNCR would also be applied to control

NOX emissions for the new kiln system.

For a well operating modern kiln, the range of uncontrolled NOX emissions are as follows:

Position Expected NOX Contribution to Total NOX

Kiln Gas Outlet 900 – 1500 parts per million (ppm) 10%

Preheater Outlet 450 – 600 ppm 100%

Therefore, the total uncontrolled NOX with 10% kiln gas by-pass would range between 540 ppm

and 750 ppm. The SNCR system would be designed with 1:1 molar ratio of NOX and ammonia

for estimated uncontrolled emissions.

It is proposed to use 19% ammonia solution for SNCR. The designed maximum flow rates for

19% ammonia would be 7 gallons per minute (gpm). The actual rate would be controlled by the

NOX CEMS.

Ammonia solution would be injected into the calciner upper section where the temperature is

900 degrees Celsius (ºC) to 1050ºC and favorable conditions exist for NOX reduction.

Provisions would be made to install the ammonia injection nozzles for optimum NOX

destruction.

Executive Summary


Lafarge has installed a similar SNCR NOX control system on its Roberta Plant, located in

Calera, Alabama. That system has been in operation for 2 years, and also uses 19% ammonia,

with the injection nozzles strategically located at the top of the preheater tower. Emissions are

monitored and recorded by a NOX CEMS. Based upon that experience, Lafarge is confident that

it would meet the new NSPS NOX emission limit.

• Volatile Organic Compound Controls. The proposed project would incorporate VOC

emissions controls that would meet a proposed VOC emission limit of 254.4 tons of VOC/yr,

rolling 12-month average using a CERM. Based on expulsion testing on anticipated kiln feed

mixes, Lafarge has confirmed that this emission limit could be met through application of the

proposed emissions controls.

The proposed project must also comply with the revised THC limits for the new kiln under the

applicable NESHAP (i.e., 24 parts per million volume [ppmv]). The VOC and THC limits are

independently derived and are not directly related. USEPA has included an option in the final

rule to limit emissions based on a selected group of organic HAPs (in this case the 24 ppmv THC

limit would not apply). Compliance with the THC limit would not reduce VOC emissions below

the requested limit.

A range of different control options including incorporating Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer

(RTO) into the design of the proposed project have been reviewed to meet the THC emissions

limits promulgated for new kiln systems. Only two plants in the U.S. have employed RTO’s

(only one of which is currently operating) and both have experienced significant operational

problems, including heat exchanger fouling, poor heat recovery, high fuel costs, and significant

maintenance problems. Based on current technologies available and process review, the

prescribed emission limits would be met through process operating controls.

• Mercury Controls. Per the September 9, 2010, USEPA revised Portland cement NESHAP, the

proposed project would incorporate Hg emission controls that would meet an Hg emission limit

from the kiln system of 21 pounds per million tons of clinker produced, which would limit the

annual mercury emissions from the new kiln at the Ravena Plant to approximately 59 pounds

per year, at maximum production.

Executive Summary


The proposed control system for the new preheater/precalciner kiln system is a wet scrubber.

Based on the comprehensive Hg mass balance testing program conducted at the Ravena Plant in

2008, the input Hg from raw materials and fuels would be approximately 250 lbs/yr at the

proposed clinker rate of 2.81 million tons/yr. The removal efficiency of the scrubber would be

dependent on the oxidation rate of elemental Hg (Hg°) to oxidized species (Hg+1 and Hg+2). The

oxidation rate of Hg with the new raw mix and process is expected to be in the range of 30% to

70%. Normally, the scrubber removal rate is in the same range, but depending on the level of Hg

oxidation, the Hg removal rate from the scrubber could also vary significantly.

As an option for complying with the revised NESHAP, the industry is considering using an

activated carbon injection system with baghouse control to remove Hg emissions from the gas

stream. Use/reuse of the carbon and operation of such a system would be optimized to meet the

final regulatory emission limits once they are known.

A number of other new Hg emission control system technologies are under development. They

range from being able to remove Hg from coal before it is fired to collecting Hg on specially

treated baghouse filter materials to adding additives to ensure oxidation of the Hg so that

scrubber collection and control is enhanced. The proposed project would incorporate BTA

necessary technology to ensure compliance with the revised NESHAPS regulation for Portland

cement plants.

Fugitive Dust Control Plan. Lafarge currently operates the Ravena Facility in accordance with a

NYSDEC-approved Fugitive Dust Plan last revised in 2010 (Lafarge Ravena Plant Fugitive Dust Plan.

2010 Revision). The objective of the Fugitive Dust Plan is to devise a strategy to control, to the greatest

extent practicable, fugitive or airborne dust emissions at the Ravena Facility. This is accomplished by

development of measures to control fugitive dust and airborne dust emissions from all major potential

sources at the Ravena Plant, including:

� Material conveyors and transfer points, material storage piles, paved roads, unpaved

roads, material loading, and material unloading activities at the cement manufacturing facility;

� Drilling, blasting, material loading, material unloading, and unpaved haul roads at the aggregate quarry;

Executive Summary


� Operations at the cement kiln dust landfill; and

� Conveyors and transfer points, material storage piles, unpaved roads, and material unloading activities at the facility wharf.

The results of these analyses indicate that the Proposed Action would conform to all regulatory

requirements and would not result in any significant adverse impact on air quality.

4.19 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The modernized Ravena Plant has been designed to reduce the rate of GHG emissions per short ton of

“clinker” (an intermediate product in the cement manufacturing process consisting of various fused

compounds of calcium, silicon, aluminum and iron). The cement manufacturing process is GHG-

intensive. It is estimated that the proposed project would achieve a kiln emissions rate of 0.92 short tons

of CO2-e per short ton of clinker, compared to the cement industry average of 0.98 short tons of CO2-e

per short ton of clinker in 2006 per the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). An assessment of

BACT to reduce GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act has been completed for the proposed project

(see Appendix L “Greenhouse Gas Best Available Control Technology Analysis for Ravena Plant

Modernization Project”).

GHGs are widely considered to be a major factor affecting climate cycles worldwide. Common GHGs

in the Earth’s atmosphere include water vapor, CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone, and

chlorofluorocarbons. Since CO2 is the single largest anthropogenic source of GHGs, emissions of other

GHGs are presented as CO2 equivalent (CO2-e) emissions.

Cement is manufactured through a chemical process during which limestone, a sedimentary rock

composed largely of calcite (calcium carbonate or CaCO3) is converted to “clinker” (an intermediate

product consisting of various fused compounds of calcium, silicon, aluminum and iron) by heating the

limestone to extremely high temperatures (approximately 2600°F). CO2 is a byproduct of the cement-

making process. Heating limestone to the temperature needed to produce cement requires the burning of

fuel, most commonly, as in the case of the Ravena Plant, coal and petroleum coke. CO2 is also one of

the byproducts from the burning of coal and petroleum coke. In addition, as with the existing Ravena

Plant, the proposed project would also emit much smaller quantities of other GHGs.

Executive Summary


An assessment is included in Chapter 21 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the effect of the Proposed

Action on GHGs. The assessment was conducted in conformance with NYSDEC policy guidance on

the methods to be used in EISs in which the NYSDEC is lead agency (Assessing Energy Use and

Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Environmental Impact Statements – July 14, 2009).

In conformance with this guidance, the chapter provides assessments of:

� “Direct” GHG emissions, including emissions from on-site combustion sources and

industrial processes, and from fleet vehicles owned (or leased) and operated by Lafarge and associated with the proposed project. This assessment focuses on CO2 emissions since the quantities of non-CO2 GHG emissions from cement kilns are insignificant compared to the evaluation of CO2 emitted during cement manufacturing.1

� “Indirect” GHG emissions, including emissions generated by off-site sources supplying electricity used during the operation of the proposed project, and emissions from freight deliveries and employer commuting trips to or from the Project Site.

� GHG emissions from waste generation and disposal.

� GHG emissions generated during construction of the proposed project: Consistent with the NYSDEC policy, provided is a qualitative discussion of construction period GHG emissions, including a discussion of GHG emissions resulting from the manufacture and transport of the construction materials.

� GHG emissions associated with materials extraction related to the proposed project: Since GHG emissions as a consequence of materials extraction represent a small fraction of total project emissions, a qualitative discussion of these emissions is included in this chapter.

� Emissions of methane (CH4) and N2O from cement kilns: Emissions of CH4 and N2O will not represent a significant fraction of total project emissions since the high combustion temperatures in the kilns convert the overwhelming proportion of CH4 and N2O to fully oxidized compounds. (CH4 emissions are typically about 0.01% of kiln CO2 emissions on a CO2–e basis.) Consequently, CH4 and N2O emissions will not be evaluated in this assessment.2

Since the proposed project would not result in the release of any hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), PFCs or

sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), an assessment of the contribution of these sources by the proposed project was

not included in the assessment. As required in the NYSDEC policy, the assessment also reviewed

alternatives that could potentially be applied to reduce GHG emissions from the proposed project,

including:

1 CO2 Accounting and Reporting Standard for the Cement Industry; World Business Council for Sustainable Development, July 2005. 2 Ibid.

Executive Summary


� Use of Alternative Fuels (Natural Gas and Biomass)

� Reducing Clinker Content of Cement

� Implementing Carbon Capture and Sequestration Systems

� Use of Alternate Low Carbonate Raw Materials

A description of these measures and an assessment of their potential application to the proposed project

is also provided in Chapter 21 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

In the future without the Proposed Action, the demand for cement would increase between now and

2015 (the Analysis Year). However, the production of clinker at the Ravena Plant would remain at its

existing level of 1.72 million short tons per year. While demand for cement has decreased during the

last year as a consequence of the current economic downturn, it is anticipated that demand of cement

would rebound to the point that, by 2015, the demand for cement would exceed the capacity of the

Ravena Plant. As has historically been the case, this excess demand would be met through importing

cement from locations in Latin America and the Middle East, where production costs are substantially

lower than production costs in the United States. It is expected that the cost of imported cement in the

future would remain competitive with domestic production because of relatively low manufacturing

costs in locations outside of the United States, the less stringent environmental regulations in other

countries, and relatively low shipping costs. As a consequence, in the future without the Proposed

Action, it is assumed that the approximately 1.3 million tons/year of incremental demand beyond the

current capacity of the Ravena Plant would be met by imports.3

Based on the assumption that incremental demand beyond the existing capacity of the Ravena Plant

would be met by imports from the Middle East and Latin America, an estimate was completed of the

incremental GHG emissions that would occur due to the increase in the length of travel of shipments to

markets on the Eastern Seaboard of the United States from the Middle East and Latin America compared

to the length of travel from the Ravena Plant to those same markets. In completing this analysis, it was

assumed that the GHG emissions from all other components of cement production in the Middle East or

Latin America, including the delivery of limestone and fuel to the facilities, the actual production of

cement, off-site electricity generation, and disposal of waste products, would be the same as that of the

modernized plant.

3 CO2 Accounting and Reporting Standard for the Cement Industry; World Business Council for Sustainable Development, July 2005..

Executive Summary


The results of this assessment are summarized in the accompanying table.

In summary, the proposed project would emit:

� Approximately 2,579,000 short tons of CO2-e per year from the rotary kiln process, which is

a decrease from 1.04 short tons of CO2-e per short ton of clinker to 0.964 short tons of CO2-e per short ton of clinker;

� Approximately 62,450 short tons of CO2-e per year as a result of the demand for electricity from National Grid - this represents a 20 % decrease of CO2-e per short ton of clinker; and

� Approximately 66,620 short tons of CO2-e per year from mobile sources. While this is less than the approximately 104,900 short tons or more of CO2-e emitted per year predicted in the future without the Proposed Action, it is greater than the approximately 46,000 short tons per year of CO2-e emitted under existing conditions since the Proposed Action would produce more cement and therefore require more trucks, barges, and railcars to transport greater amounts of raw and finished materials to and from the plant.

As under existing conditions, material would continue to be extracted and transported from the on-site

quarry to the Ravena Plant generating additional GHGs. Waste generation would not increase with the

proposed project relative to existing conditions. No existing forested areas would be affected, and, as a

consequence, existing tree stands would continue to sequester and act as a sink for CO2. Construction

activities would result in a short-term increased in GHG emissions from the consumption of fossil fuel

and electricity needed for construction equipment and deliveries.

Overall, approximately 2.7 million short tons of CO2-e would be emitted annually with the proposed

project to manufacture approximately 2.81 million short tons of clinker. This would be less than the

approximately 3.1 million short tons of CO2-e emissions that would be emitted in the future without the

Proposed Action, but greater than the 1.9 million short tons of CO2-e emissions under existing

conditions. Total CO2-e emissions per short ton of clinker manufactured would decrease from

approximately 1.1 short tons under existing conditions to 0.96 short tons in future without the Proposed

Action.

4 Including all direct and indirect emission sources

Executive Summary


Summary of GHG Emissions

GHG Emission Sources

Existing Conditions Future without the Proposed Action*

Future without the Proposed Action –

Ravena Plant Shutdown**

Future with the Proposed Action

(short tons CO2-e/year)




Process Emissions: Ravena Plant 1,799,000 1,799,000 0 2,579,200 Other Location(s) N/A 1,167,000 2,579,200 N/A

Off-Site Electricity 48,070 51,500+ 62,450 62,450

Waste Generation 0 N/A N/A 0

Transportation: 46,030 125,480 to 221,020++ 210,920 to 445,020++ 66,620

Fleet Vehicles 33,340 33,340+ N/A 42,300

Non-Fleet Vehicles

Trains 3,030 3,030+ N/A 7,320

Other non-fleet vehicles 9,660 9,630+ N/A 17,000

Cement from other Source

Shipping from Latin America N/A 58,860 144,300 N/A

Shipping from Middle East N/A 154,400 378,400 N/A

Total+++ 1,893,100 3,154,000 to

3,249,000++

2,853,000 to

3,087,000+ 2,708,000

Total short tons of CO2-e/ short ton of clinker (Ravena Plant only)

1.10 1.10 N/A 0.96

* Future without the Proposed Action if cement production capacity at the Ravena Plant would be capped at existing levels and the incremental demand would be

met by imports.

** Future without the Proposed Action if the Ravena Plant were to shut down and imports would exclusively provide for demand for cement for the market served by

the Ravena Plant. For comparison purposes, overall GHG emissions from off-site electricity generation and from fleet and non-fleet vehicles associated with

cement production at other locations are assumed to be similar to those related to the modernized Ravena Plant. +

GHG emissions related to the Ravena Plant only. ++

GHG emissions from off-site electricity generation and from fleet and non-fleet vehicles associated with cement production at other locations are assumed to be

similar to those related to the modernized Ravena Plant for comparison purposes and are reflected in the “Transportation” and “Total” rows. Transportation-

related emissions presented here include GHG emissions related to the Ravena Plant (46,000 CO2-e—see Table 21-8) plus shipping-related GHG emissions, and

GHG emissions from fleet and non-fleet vehicles associated with cement production at other locations. +++

All numbers are rounded.

Executive Summary


4.20 Noise

The proposed project is a complex industrial facility with numerous noise sources that could

potentially result in increased noise levels at nearby noise-sensitive land uses. In addition,

construction of the proposed project could potentially result in short-term increases in noise

levels in the vicinity of the proposed project. As a consequence, a detailed quantitative

assessment was completed to determine whether construction and/or operation of the proposed

project would result in significant adverse impacts on noise levels.

The results of this assessment indicated that operation of the Proposed Action would not result in

a significant adverse noise impact based on NYSDEC noise guidance and standards, but that

there would be occasions when noise from construction and/or operation of the Proposed Action

would be perceptible at nearby noise-sensitive land uses.

While there would be occasions when the noise from the construction and/or operation of the

Proposed Action would be perceptible at nearby noise-sensitive land uses, including residential

uses in the vicinity of the proposed project and at the RCS Middle/High School along Route 9W,

the operational phase noise sources of the Proposed Action would comply with the NYSDEC

Program Policy and the NYSDEC Part 360 Noise Standards.

The use of construction equipment associated with the Proposed Action would generate noise.

The increase in noise levels from on-site and off-site construction activities at the nearest

noise-sensitive receptors identified within 1/4-mile Study Area would range between

0 and 5 dBA. A change in noise levels of 3 dBA or greater would be perceptible to the human

ear. The increase in noise levels due to construction would be temporary in nature. The

following measures would be applied to lessen or ameliorate construction noise levels, to the

extent practicable: replace back-up beepers on machinery with strobe lights; modify machinery

to reduce noise by using plastic liners, flexible noise control covers, and dampening plates and

pads on large sheet metal surfaces; schedule work with high noise levels (including equipment

and material deliveries) weekdays during daytime hours; use quieter electrical powered

equipment; situate noisier equipment at locations that are removed and shielded from sensitive

receptor locations; limit the idling of equipment and trucks; and require contractors and

subcontractors to properly maintain equipment and have quality mufflers installed.

Executive Summary


4.21 Public Health

The potential for an industrial facility to affect public health relates to the level of exposure of

on-site workers and area residents to byproducts of the industrial processes associated with a

facility. Exposure levels for workers in the facility are strictly regulated by occupational

standards established by the MSHA, while the facility itself may affect environmental health by

exposure to industrial chemicals that are transported by water or air. The DEISFEIS analyses

addressing these air and water media indicate that:

� The concentration of TAACs, including Hg, would be well below New York State

guidelines and standards.

� The emission increases of all PSD-regulated pollutants (except CO), including PM2.5, would be below de minimis thresholds under the PSD provisions of the Clean Air Act. Air quality modeling for CO shows that the modernized plant would have an insignificant impact on CO concentrations.

� The proposed modernization would meet all permit requirements pursuant to federal and State PSD and Non-Attainment Area New Source Review.

� The quality of water discharges from the Ravena Plant would not change. The proposed modernization would meet all permit requirements pursuant to the Clean Water Act including USEPA Categorical Effluent Standards and NYSDEC Division of Water SPDES permit requirements, including Hg limitations.

Based on these analyses, the Proposed Action would not result in significant adverse impacts on

public health.

4.22 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Unavoidable adverse impacts are defined as those that meet either of the following two criteria:

� There are no reasonably practicable mitigation measures to eliminate the impact; or

� There are no reasonable alternatives to the proposed project that would meet the purpose and need of the action, eliminate the impact, and not cause other or similar significant adverse impacts.

Executive Summary


The analyses predict that impacts identified during construction are temporary and could be

minimized or mitigated. Measures to address these temporary impacts are described in

Chapters 12 (Surface Water Quality), 19 (Traffic & Safety) and 22 (Noise). With the exception

of impacts on visual resources and natural resources, no permanent unavoidable impacts have

been identified due to the operation of the proposed project.

Regarding unavoidable impacts of the proposed project on visual resources, the proposed

526-foot tower/stack structure would permanently affect views of the Ravena Plant from the

surrounding area, especially at night, including from visually sensitive resources in the vicinity

of the Project Site. These effects are unavoidable since the tower/stack structure, at its projected

height, is integral to the dry-kiln cement-making process and is required to be lighted to meet

MSHA and FAA safety requirements. However, to the maximum practicable extent during the

design phase, measures would be incorporated into the design of the proposed project to reduce

the visual impact of the plant. These include:

� Finishes, materials and colors would be incorporated into the design of the tower/stack structure to diminish the industrial character of the facility.

� To the extent permitted under MSHA requirements, lighting fixtures would be designed to shield and direct lighting toward the ground and away from visually sensitive resources.

� To the extent permitted under MSHA requirements, lighting would be activated by manually-operated switches and motion-detectors to minimize the amount of lighting at the facility during nighttime hours.

� Plantings and other visual barriers would be placed around the perimeter of the Project Site to partially shield the facility from nearby locations and to provide additional aesthetic relief from the industrial nature of the facility.

The existing stack would be removed from the Ravena Plant in accordance with the overall

project schedule provided in Chapter 1, reducing the overall visual presence of the facility. It is

currently anticipated that the existing stack would be removed during the second phase of the

proposed project, approximately four years after completion of the first phase of the project, in

coordination with demolition of two kilns and on-site ESP to allow for construction of a new

clinker silo and finish mill. Demolition of the kiln and ESP would provide improved access to

the stack which is located in close proximity to a 115 kilovolt (KV) substation providing power

Executive Summary


to the Ravena Plant. This would allow for a greater level of safety during demolition of the

stack. Should Phase 2 be delayed from its current 2018 - 2019 projected construction, NYSDEC

would be notified and the stack would be removed no later than the first quarter of 2018.

Regarding unavoidable impacts of the proposed project on natural resources, the 526-foot

tower/stack structure would potentially result in an increase in the number of bird strikes as

compared to existing conditions since the tower/stack structure is taller and has a greater cross

section than the existing stack at the Ravena Plant. However, the potential for an increase in the

number of bird strikes is not anticipated to be significant since:

� The orientation of the lighting would be downward to illuminate walking paths and stairways along the face of the tower, reducing its potential to induce bird strikes, and

� The tower/stack structure would not include windows or other reflective surfaces, a dominant cause of disorientation that results in an increased incidence in strikes against structures by bird.

In addition, a lighting protocol would be developed that would specify locations within the

facility at which lights would only be lit on-demand when access was needed, further reducing

the potential for nighttime bird strikes. Potential for bird strikes would be further reduced by

partially enclosing the tower/stack structure. Fully enclosing the tower/stack structure is not

feasible given the need to provide direct access to the tower/stack structure and the need to

dissipate the high heats generated within the tower/stack structure.

The current design of the structure also includes a number of features that would create a range

of textures and colors that would reduce the likelihood of bird strikes. These would include the

use of a range of concrete, steel, and other materials in the construction of the tower and its

associated walkways, ladders, piping, and other equipment. Colors and the quality of lighting

would also vary throughout the structure, further increasing the “visual noise” of the tower/stack

structure and reducing the potential for bird strikes.

Executive Summary


4.23 Cumulative Impacts

An assessment was completed of whether the proposed project in combination with other

projects that would be in place by the 2015 analysis year would have the potential to result in

significant adverse environmental impacts. Future actions that potentially may have an

overlapping influence within the proposed project’s study area were integrated into the

conditions depicted in the No Action scenario used as the baseline for the analysis. In addition to

the adjustments to include specific projects, elements of the baseline were modified to take into

consideration regional changes for which trends can be demonstrated. The traffic network, for

example, was adjusted to include a one percent per year growth in traffic volumes to taken into

account the overall growth in the region. Other technical areas that use the traffic data were

consequently adjusted to increase baseline levels. Based on this analysis, the Proposed Action

would not result in cumulative impacts.

4.24 Public Outreach

Lafarge has established a public information program to allow for public participation,

availability of project documents and to solicit feedback from the community. The public

information program consists of public meetings, quarterly newsletters, project updates to

stakeholders, on-line availability of project documents and a project email address.

Public outreach for the proposed modernization project began in June 2008 when Lafarge

representatives met with community leaders to brief them on the proposed project prior to its

public announcement on July 9, 2008. In August and September 2008, Lafarge presented

overviews and briefings of the proposed project at several meetings, including two meetings in

the Stuyvesant and Coeymans Town Halls, and through mailings and notices to surrounding

communities and Ravena customers and vendors.

The Draft Scope of Work for the Ravena Plant Modernization Project Environmental Impact

Statement was issued on October 7, 2008, followed by a NYSDEC public scoping meeting on

October 29, 2008. Comments on the Draft Scope of Work were received during the public

Executive Summary


meeting by NYSDEC as Lead Agency. Written comments on the Draft Scope of Work were

received until November 10, 2008. Subsequent to the comment period, four (4) meetings were

held in November 2008, three with local and state government officials and one with the

Community Liaison Panel. A Final Scope of Work was issued on January 29, 2009 with

consideration given to comments received during the outreach and scoping process.

Lafarge also holds regular meetings with local and/or state government officials to provide

updates and has consulted with groups such as Friends of the Hudson, Scenic Hudson, New York

Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), Audubon Society of New York State, the Beacon

Institute, Earthjustice, the Sierra Club, SCRAP and Environmental Advocates of New York.

Lafarge has mailed newsletters (Around the Block) containing descriptions of progress related to

the modernization project to neighboring communities since August 2008. In February 2009, the

proposed project was also discussed at the Renssellaer County Town Hall Meeting.

Public documents related to the proposed project are available on line from two websites:

http://lafargeravenafacts.com/ and http://bethlehemchamber.com/.

Questions or feedback on the proposed project may be sent to Lafarge via email at

[email protected].

Hard copies of the project documents are available at thirteen document repositories (7 town

halls and 6 libraries) throughout the region. The Notice of Completion of the DEIS, Notice of

Public Hearing on the DEIS and theis DEIS is also available at these repositories. The Notice of

Completion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), and this FEIS will be placed in

these repositories when issued.

Documents

Lafarge Ravena Modernization FEIS