Also, the transportation analysis included in section 3.2.7 of the DEIS indicates that the proposed transportation routes have sufficient capacity to handle additional truck traffic to the landfill, with few changes to the relatively high levels of service that such highways currently provide for area motorists. Landfill sites are designed with special safety measures to protect the environment and nearby communities from potential health risks associated with landfill waste. The Authority has expressed no interest in a permit sale, and any transfer of the permit would require the prior written approval of the Department, according to 6 NYCRR 360-1.11(b). 33). . 8-A.) Even if it is considered, one must note that Utica and Nick's Lake (which is in Herkimer County) are each about 25 miles from the project site, not "nearby" the site as the Objectors claim. Their expert, Mr. Gutman, says in a letter (Exhibit "Z", an attachment to the Objectors' petition) that background concentrations are "substantial percentages of the applicable air quality standards," but there was no further offer on this point at the issues conference. Property that would be owned by the Authority - - between the landfill and the Veterans Forest - - would act as a noise and visual buffer for the forest and monument. While not determinative, EPA's independent evaluation deserves some weight in considering the issues proposed by the Objectors, especially in relation to study methodology. The Authority also noted that due to the relatively small size of the Tannery Road site, there appeared to be limited available area for on-site wetlands creation mitigation projects. This Market Profile study (dated December 2, 1997) indicated that, when transportation costs and future conditions of the disposal marketplace are considered, development of the proposed landfill at Site WLE-5 East will be cost competitive with waste exportation alternatives, particularly in the long run. 9-K, page 46.). Mud Road Dump Permits are available, for city residents only, through the City Clerk's Office. Therefore, in addition to the local community compensation package that is described in the DEIS, the Authority has offered to provide funding for one emergency medical technician during weekday landfill operating hours to supplement the resources of the West Leyden Fire Department, and to make available any landfill employees who are state-certified EMTs, to respond as necessary to EMS calls in the area of the landfill. Are you affiliated with Oneida Herkimer Regional Landfill? Also, a plan must be developed for groundwater monitoring wells capable of detecting landfill-derived groundwater contamination within the CSS. The Objectors seek to raise various issues relevant to landfill-generated truck traffic. 9-G-1, page 39. Basically, a receptor is a point or location at which the model calculates an impact concentration. Ms. Stevens has performed her own delineation, and the difference between hers and the Authority's is significant because, in her portrayal, more acreage of protected wetlands would be filled, and therefore more mitigation efforts would be required in compensation. Other claims, discussed below, concern (1) the possibility that the project site overlies a principal aquifer, (2) the characterization of the critical stratigraphic section (which bears on the ability to monitorany contaminantss that might escape the landfill), and (3) the adequacy and potential impacts of the groundwater suppression system in facilitating leachate migration. These systems constitute a conservative and effective means of environmental containment that is engineered to prevent the migration of leachate from contaminating groundwater or surface waters. The DEC Commissioner agreed, finding that "the psychological impact caused by this facility cannot, standing alone, be grounds for denial of the application." While the initial study did not actually show any exceedence of state guidelines, the supplemental study, using the same assumptions but 65 new receptor locations, shows an exceedence of the state annual guidance concentration for vinyl chloride at five receptors and an exceedence of the state annual guidance concentration for acrylonitrile at four locations. The Authority reasons that, since total NMOC is comprised of hazardous air pollutants such as acrylonitrile and vinyl chloride, one can expect that hazardous air pollutant emissions will be significantly lower than the AP-42 document estimates that have been used in the air modeling. However, the project DEIS (Exhibit No. Mr. Daskiewich has provided no contrary analysis that would call into question the Authority's conclusions in this regard. RULING: No issue exists for adjudication. The Objectors also allege that the Authority violated SEQRA, which requires an expansive review of alternative sites by a public entity with condemnation powers. According to the Applicant's air quality impact studies, maximum particulate matter impacts are predicted along the northwest perimeter of the site. Because landfilling in a wetland is incompatible with wetland functions and benefits, the Authority must show that it is the only practicable alternative that could accomplish its objectives [6 NYCRR 663.5(e)(2)]. The resolution provided that site MID-9 in the Towns of Fairfield and Newport would be held as a contingency site, to be tested later only if deemed necessary by the board. 9 ( and listed in Appendix "B" to these rulings) are a list of siting reports that were issued by the Authority between June 1992 (the release of the FEIS for the siting methodology) and January 1998 (the release of the DEIS for landfill development at site WLE-5 East). However, that does not absolve them of their duty to make an adequate offer of proof in order to raise an issue for adjudication. Criteria Pollutant Attainment Status Finally, the Objectors fault the screening analysis that was performed as part of the FEIS on the ground that receptors were not placed all along the project boundaries, so that there was no modeling for the area in which the highest off-site concentrations of pollutants would occur. The views from station 5 (at pages BB-7 through BB-9 of the FEIS) are what one would see from the roadside at Mr. Daskiewich's property. May 24, 1980 . More Info. They want a commitment from the Authority that it would follow the wishes of the Town and Village of Boonville as to any bypass road that is built. Under the current 6 NYCRR Part 360, municipal solid waste landfills today are sited, constructed, operated, and closed in a manner which sets these modern-day disposal facilities far apart from the 38 landfills which were the subject of the NYSDOH investigation. Speakers against the project easily outnumbered those in favor, especially at the evening session, which featured an organized protest by project opponents. Yet the conditions simply mirror the language of the applicable regulations, so if there is any ambiguity, it is in the regulations themselves, which the Authority is bound by regardless of how the conditions are written. The groundwater suppression system - - part of the landfill's design - - would lower the water table more than the Authority concedes, disrupting wetlands in addition to those that would be filled. Also, they claim that the Authority has seriously underestimated the particulate emissions associated with truck traffic, as well as the amount of fugitive dust one might expect due to the site's silt-rich soils. Even though measures for property value protection cannot be pursued in this hearing, one should note that the Authority is mindful of Mr. Daskiewich's concern. The Objectors argue that the landfill would be a "chemical cookery" that may not be permitted if its air emissions would have an adverse impact on public health. Also, project need is one of the "social, economic and other essential considerations" to be considered against the project's adverse environmental impacts. The Objectors assert that the two counties served by the Authority do not need a landfill at all because they have numerous export options. (These sites were given no further consideration.) However, this letter did not set out reasons for believing the Class II classification was incorrect, so it did not oblige the Department to reconsider its determination. As to SEQRA, one must note again that DEC was not the lead agency for this project. Finally, Staff's draft air permit (Condition No. Allowing extra time due to the number and length of these rulings, any appeals must be sent to the attention of Commissioner John Cahill and received at the Office of the Commissioner (NYSDEC, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York, 12233-1010) before 2 p.m. on March 2, 2001. The DEIS also states that to the extent that any foraging by a northern harrier may occur, it is minimal, most likely by migrants, and that there is considerable suitable habitat in the region. One might even argue that, under regular circumstances, DEC should not adjudicate this issue at all, and simply defer to the Authority's judgment, since the Authority is the solid waste management planning unit for the two counties. Such issues, to be litigated, must be both "substantive" and "significant." This includes issues proposed by the Objectors that are particular to the south branch of Moose Creek, including impacts bearing on water quality, chemistry and temperature, and mollusk populations. In his petition, Mr. Daskiewich expresses concern about traffic congestion and any proposed entrance to the project site from State Route 294. In addition to this, today's landfills are constructed with a double composite liner and dual leachate collection and removal systems. The Objectors point out that, in the event of a collision between a landfill truck and a school bus, the area within a 40-mile radius of the landfill site has only four ambulances to transport injured children to the nearest hospital, which is thirty miles away, an hour-long commute according to the local ambulance captain. EPA's regulations on municipal solid waste landfill siting provide for offsetting impacts to federally regulated wetlands "through all appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation actions (e.g., restoration of existing degraded wetlands or creation of man-made wetlands") [40 CFR 258.12(a)(4)]. I find that, while laudable, the plan to preserve land in the sand plains should not be considered at all as wetland mitigation. The Objectors claim that the leachate collection system would substantially alter the hydrology of the site and its surrounding wetlands by diverting millions of gallons of precipitation annually from its accustomed paths. Even were visual impacts to be considered in this proceeding, one should note that there is no factual dispute about what those impacts are.