The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has released a Draft Hazardous Waste Facility Siting Plan that essentially proposes that, if New York State is to have more hazardous waste dumped within its borders, WNY is the place to dump it, despite the fact that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Siting Plan itself state that New York State does not need more hazardous waste capacity. Download NY State Haz Waste Plan. Download NYS Haz Waste Plan appendices The State has also prepared a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement in support of its siting plan. Download DGEIS Supporting Haz Waste Plan.
Written comments will be accepted if received by the close of business on January 14, 2010. Numbers matter: It is important for citizens to know that, if they identify themselves as a member of any organization, state officials DO NOT COUNT THAT as a distinct comment received, but rather part of a single organizational response. To make your voice count, in this tally, simply provide your name only.
Comments can be sent to John Iannotti, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Solid and Hazardous Materials, 625 Broadway, Albany, New York 12233-7250.
MANY POINTS TO PONDER
DEC must recognize that the Plan does not have an equitable distribution of hazardous waste facilities across the state: Niagara County and WNY bear a disproportionate burden of facilities needed for long-term management of hazardous waste. In this regard, the type and size of facility must be considered, not just the the number of facilities. The only active major hazardous waste site in the entire state, the giant CWM, is right here in WNY, yet the state gives dozens of tiny, closed facilities across the state the same weight as CWM. Each open or closed commercial hazardous waste landfill should be considered a separate facility, and the total amount of waste contained in each facility should be considered in determining the size and type of facility as part of the equitable distribution evaluation. The Siting Plan does not evaluate environmental issues associated with a particular application. Instead, it is an important guidance document given to a state siting board which is appointed by the Governor for each application. The Plan guides that Board in determining; 1) Whether the state needs more capacity, and, 2) Whether there is equitable geographic distribution of existing hazardous waste facilities. On the first question, this draft concurred with the Erie and Niagara County positions that there is no need for an in-state hazardous waste landfill for business or for Brownfield Program clean ups. This came as no surprise. For 15 years the EPA has stated that hazardous waste landfill capacity was adequate for the foreseeable future. And last year, DEC demonstrated that there is 40 years of land disposal capacity nationwide, without CWM Chemical Services, the only hazardous waste landfill still operating in NY. The DEC also observed that a great deal of waste is shipped out-of-state, which indicates that an in-state facility is not always the most cost-effective. The Plan also contains examples of waste sent for land disposal which could have been treated and destroyed on-site, but was landfilled instead, because treatment companies have gone out of business. This is likely due to treatment businesses facing increased competition from landfills like CWM in recent years. Under both the state and federal preferred hazardous waste management hierarchies in law, treatment is preferable to land disposal. Some of the reasons for CWM’s competitive advantages over treatment companies: In contrast to most states, CWM pays no disposal tax to New York. CWM pays about 90% less per acre in school and county tax than most residents, and about 95% less than many businesses. CWM receives low-cost power from the New York State Power Authority for job retention. However, in contrast to most businesses, CWM’s volume, and therefore jobs, is not based on profitability from variations in demand. Instead, its volume is pre-determined and fixed by the regulators. The state has determined there is no need for additional capacity at CWM when its current landfill becomes full, which is probably in about 4 years. This conclusion puts the burden of proof on CWM to demonstrate that its facility is otherwise in the public interest. On the second question, this draft Plan concluded that “there is an equitable geographic distribution of facilities across the state.” We disagree. Not just because it seems to be unfair, but because DEC’s analysis is at odds with Siting law. The law requires that the type of hazardous waste facility, and the size of that facility, be considered when evaluating the burden on any area of the state. The law also requires identification of facilities needed for long-term management of hazardous waste. Long-term management should include closed landfills, which still generate leachate, still need repairs, and still operate under post-closure permits. However, the Plan omitted these facilities. Instead of counting at least nine commercial hazardous waste landfills in Niagara County, this draft of the Plan reported only one: There are at least 3 closed landfills in Niagara Falls at the former CECOS facility, and 5 closed landfills plus one, still in use, at CWM. By ignoring the requirement to include facilities used for long-term management of hazardous waste, namely closed landfills, the state omitted 10 million tons of hazardous waste from consideration of burden. Approximately 2 million tons in Niagara Falls, and 8 million tons in CWM Chemical Services in the Town of Porter. Six maps were prepared in Chapter 6 of the Plan to assess Equitable Geographic Distribution. However, most of those maps looked at only the number of facilities, without regard to the type and size of hazardous waste facilities across the state. While the maps show New York State as divided into the nine DEC regions, the Plan’s equity analysis divided the state into just four areas, one of which we’ve not heard of before. It’s called the “mid-state” area, and includes DEC Regions 7, 4 and 3. Syracuse and Westchester are both part of this one, single, “mid-state” area. To comply with the siting law requirement to hold hearings in each region of the state, DEC has, in fact, chosen these 9 areas. The narrative here tells us there is an incinerator in the eastern part of the state and a landfill in the western part of the state. However, it doesn’t tell the reader that the “incinerator” burns 7,000 tons of low grade fuel, while the hazardous waste landfill is permitted to accept up to 500,000 tons per year of the widest variety of toxics, the most dangerous of toxics, and, in among the highest concentrations of toxics. One map, (page 6-16), shows the amount of hazardous waste generated for shipment from each region, and the amount of waste that is received in each region. Inclusion of generator data here leads the reader to compare waste generated and received in each region, instead of comparing the volume of waste received between the regions. Therefore, it is not easy to see on this map that Region 9 received more waste in just one year, than every other facility in the state, combined. Here again, the Plan considers volume received at a recycling facility, just as significant as volume sent to a hazardous landfill, where it will stay forever. At the end of the day, all facilities reflected on the Plan maps house -0- amount of hazardous waste, while Niagara County retains 10 million tons. However, the 10 million tons landfilled in DEC Region 9 are nowhere on any of these maps. There was no analysis of facility size as required by law. The failure to consider type and size of facility would also render as equitable an application to increase the amount of material incinerated in Albany from 7,000 tons to 200,000 tons per year - and instead of burning low grade fuel, burn more dangerous toxics. In summarizing the six maps, DEC writes: “Considering all of these ways to define facilities, it is concluded that the distribution of all industrial hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities as of 2007, is relatively geographically equitable across the State.” A Siting Board can overturn this conclusion, but that Board is appointed by the Governor who ultimately approved this Plan. If hazardous waste landfills fail to meet current “equitable distribution” in this Plan, it is unlikely the industry would try to site another hazardous waste landfill in NY given the overcapacity in the industry and engineering costs.
