1 1 2 STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY LEGISLATURE 3 COUNTY OF ONONDAGA 4 WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE and ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION 5 ------------------------------------------- 6 In the Matter of 7 Draft Scoping Document as Part of Proposed REGIONAL SOLID WASTE PARTNERSHIP 8 Between Onondaga and Cortland Counties 9 ------------------------------------------- 10 PUBLIC HEARING in the above matter, conducted 11 at the Dewitt Town Hall Court Room, 5400 Butternut Drive, East Syracuse, New York before, 12 JOHN F. DRURY, CSR, RPR, Notary Public in and for the State of New York, on June 9, 2014, 6:30 p.m. 13 A p p e a r a n c e s: 14 DAVID KNAPP, Chairman Ways & Means 15 MICHAEL PLOCHOCKI Chair of Envl Protection. 16 J. RYAN McMAHON Chair Ond Cnty Legislature 17 JIM CORI 3rd District KATHLEEN RAPP 5th District 18 PEGGY CHASE 9th District KEVIN HOLMQUIST 10th District 19 PATRICK KILMARTIN 11th District DEREK SHEPARD, JR 13th District 20 CASEY JORDAN 14th District MONICA WILLIAMS 16th District 21 LINDA ERVIN 17th District 22 DEBORAH MATURO Clerk, Ond Cnty Leg. 23 24 Reported By: John F. Drury, CSR, RPR 25 Court Reporter 471-7397 2 1 2 INDEX TO SPEAKERS 3 SPEAKERS PAGES 4 DAVID COBURN (Director of Environment) 8 5 6 7 IAN HUNTER (Last Chance Recycling) 12 8 DENNIS PAYNE (JAMPAC) 18 9 MARTHA LOEW 21 10 GERALDINE AIRD 25 11 VICKI BAKER (JAMPAC) 27 & 76 12 PHILIP ROTHSCHILD 37 13 BRIAN SOLOMON 38 14 JANE GERSHAW 45 15 MICHAEL WOLFSON, M.D. 49 & 75 16 DON HUGHES (Sierra Club) 66 17 DEBBIE GATES GAFFNEY 73 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 Chairman Knapp 2 CHAIRMAN KNAPP: Good evening. I 3 would like to call the meeting to order 4 please if everyone could take their 5 seats. I would like to call to order 6 the Special Joint Meeting of the Ways 7 and Means and Environmental Protection 8 Committees to receive public comment on 9 the Draft Scoping Document that has been 10 prepared as part of the Proposed 11 Regional Solid Waste Partnership between 12 Onondaga and Cortland Counties. 13 There is a few housekeeping things 14 we need to do before we get started. 15 Number 1, please make sure you notice 16 where the exits are, just in case. 17 Remind everyone please turn off their 18 cell phones. 19 My name is Dave Knapp and I'm 20 Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee 21 for the County Legislature and I'm 22 joined with by Mike Plochocki, who is 23 the Chairman of the Environmental 24 Protection Committee. And this is, as I 25 mentioned, a joint meeting of those two 4 1 Chairman Knapp 2 committees. 3 We have several speakers, people who 4 would like to speak tonight. So if we 5 could keep our comments to three to five 6 minutes that would be great so we can 7 make sure everyone gets an opportunity 8 to be heard, get their thoughts out and 9 but keep the evening moving along. 10 If possible, if you are speaking if 11 you have a copy of your comments it 12 would be great if you could give them to 13 Debbie Maturo, the clerk of the 14 Legislature over at the table so that we 15 can make sure they get put in as part of 16 the record. We do have a stenographer 17 (court reporter) here, so we will get 18 everyone's comments. If you don't have 19 a written copy of your comments then 20 that's okay, we'll still, it's 21 considered part of the evening. But 22 it's great if you have the written 23 comments. 24 Just a few comments from me before 25 we get started. Again, welcome to 5 1 Chairman Knapp 2 everyone for coming tonight. This was a 3 public information hearing that was 4 enacted by the entire Legislature, at my 5 request to really, you know, we're at 6 the very beginning of this process and 7 we want to hear from you, the folks in 8 the community here that surround the 9 waste energy facility. 10 This is a long process, this is 11 where we're at at the very very 12 beginning of it, and that's why we 13 wanted to hear from everyone. There 14 will be other opportunities as the 15 environmental process moves forward for 16 meetings like this where we can get your 17 input or ask questions to us. Tonight 18 though is primarily for us to listen to 19 you. We have folks from OCRRA who are 20 going to be here, again, to listen. We 21 have well over half the Legislature, 22 County Legislature, besides these two 23 committees we have a few other folks if 24 they're not here already will be here 25 shortly to hear your comments. So 6 1 Chairman Knapp 2 again, we really want to hear your 3 thoughts on the scoping of the 4 environmental review. 5 I'm going to introduce David Coburn 6 in a couple minutes, who is the Director 7 of the Environment for the County, where 8 he's going to explain more specifically 9 the process and where we are. But I 10 just wanted to give a quick overview of 11 the evening. Again, we wanted to do 12 this out away from the Legislature, 13 where it was convenient for all of you 14 to come and talk; and much easier than 15 going downtown. So anyway, with that, 16 Mike, would you like to say a few words? 17 CHAIRMAN PLOCHOCKI: Yes, thank you. 18 I wanted to emphasize and expand upon 19 something that Dave Knapp just said, and 20 that is why we're here and why we're not. 21 What we're here for is to listen. All 22 of us Legislators here, we have the 23 right to make comments and to talk but I 24 think many of the public would say that 25 politicians do a little too much talking 7 1 Chairman Plochocki 2 and not enough listening. And so 3 tonight we would really want to hear 4 from you guys. We're not here to have a 5 debate, we're not here to answer 6 questions. 7 There will be more meetings like 8 this. There certainly will be 9 opportunities to ask questions of us, 10 there certainly will be opportunities to 11 debate and there certainly will be a 12 point at which we take a vote on this 13 matter. But none of that is what 14 tonight's purpose is. So I ask 15 everybody everyone to keep that in mind, 16 I certainly look forward and I think all 17 the legislators do too, hearing what you 18 have to say. Thank you. 19 CHAIRMAN KNAPP: Are there any 20 comments from any other Legislators 21 before we get started? Okay, at this 22 time as I mentioned, David Coburn is 23 here from Onondaga County Department of 24 the Environment, and he's going to give 25 us just a brief overview of the process. 8 1 Coburn 2 Again, where we are and what the next 3 couple of steps are. 4 DAVID COBURN: Good evening I feel 5 like I should turn the podium around a 6 little bit, I'm intending to speak to 7 the audience but there is so many 8 microphones up here. 9 CHAIRMAN KNAPP: It's on wheels, but. 10 DAVID COBURN: Just the process here 11 so forgive me for sort of facing 12 partially away from you. I'm going to 13 be explaining the SEQR process for any 14 of you who aren't familiar with that. 15 If you're new to the SEQR process, the 16 basic purpose of SEQR is to incorporate 17 consideration of environmental factors 18 into the decision-making process by 19 local governments and by the state 20 government. 21 SEQR begins with the establishment 22 of lead agencies for a proposed action. 23 And in this case Onondaga County and 24 Cortland County have decided to act as 25 co-lead agencies under SEQR. And the 9 1 Coburn 2 lead agencies, once they're established 3 they then complete Environmental 4 Assessment forms. These are forms that 5 are developed by the state to determine 6 if a proposed project might have a 7 significant impact on the environment. 8 In this case the co-lead agencies 9 determined that the proposed projection 10 might have a significant impact on the 11 environment, and have called for the 12 development of a Draft Environmental 13 Impact Statement to assess those 14 potential impacts. 15 One option available to lead 16 agencies in preparing a Draft 17 Environmental Impact Statement under 18 SEQR is to include something called 19 Scoping. And the purpose of scoping is 20 to help lead agencies make sure they've 21 identified all of the potentially 22 significant environmental issues and 23 impacts associated with the proposed 24 project to make sure that they become 25 addressed in the Draft Environmental 10 1 Coburn 2 Impact Statement. 3 Onondaga County and Cortland County 4 have decided to exercise that option. 5 So they have started scoping. They've 6 been accepting public comments on scopes 7 since May 14th, and will be accepting 8 comments through June 14th. And as part 9 of scoping both counties have elected to 10 take the additional step of having 11 public hearings on the scope, which is 12 obviously the focus of tonight's public 13 hearing. 14 Once scoping is completed the Draft 15 Environmental Impact Statement will be 16 prepared. And then that too will be 17 released for public comment as Chairman 18 Knapp had mentioned. The tentative 19 schedule is to hold a public hearing 20 some time in August. I would add as an 21 aside that we also expect to have a 22 separate public hearing on the 23 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management 24 Plan Update for Onondaga County. 25 After the close of the public 11 1 Coburn 2 comment period on the Draft Environmental 3 Impact Statement, if it's necessary 4 based on the comments we received, there 5 will be revisions made to the 6 Environmental Impact Statement and then 7 a Final Environmental Impact Statement 8 will be prepared. And that too will be 9 made available to the public for review. 10 And once the Final Environmental 11 Impact Statement is prepared the lead 12 agencies will adopt findings. And the 13 lead agencies then considers the 14 proposed action in light of the 15 information that was provided through 16 the SEQR process. 17 So tonight's hearing, as already 18 noted, is specifically for accepting 19 public comments on the draft scoping 20 document for the DEIS that has been made 21 available since May 14th. 22 CHAIRMAN KNAPP: If you would like 23 to make comments, I already have several 24 cards that folks signed in, and signed 25 up to speak. If you decide you would 12 1 Hunter 2 like to make a few comments just go over 3 to the table and they will just get your 4 name for the record to get to me. So I 5 just have these cards basically in the 6 order the folks signed in. So at this 7 time I would like to declare the public 8 comment period opened and we will start 9 off with Ian Hunter. 10 IAN HUNTER: I've got a financial 11 question here. We're talking about 12 bringing garbage in from Cortland 13 County. How stupid are the people in 14 Cortland County when they would send 15 garbage to Onondaga County for $79 a ton 16 when they can take it down to Seneca 17 Meadows for $22 a ton. Explain that to 18 me. I don't know why we're here talking 19 about this. This is insanity. Can you 20 tell me? 21 Let's put it this way, you had a 22 truck load of garbage, 30 tons in a 23 truck, you're sitting in Onondaga County. 24 You can dump it here for $79 a ton or 25 drive it down the road 70 miles and dump 13 1 Hunter 2 it for around $22 a ton. What are you 3 going to do? That's what you've got to 4 think about. 5 Last year I ran for the mayor of the 6 city of Syracuse and I needed some 7 issues and I needed something that 8 people would, you know, grasp onto. And 9 the big problem that Syracuse has like a 10 lot of other municipalities, they don't 11 have any money, they're broke. And I 12 took a look at the tipping fees that are 13 a result of what they call flow control 14 in Onondaga County and I worked out the 15 numbers. And I determined that Syracuse 16 can save $18,000 a day if flow control 17 didn't exist. 18 I wrote a letter to Mr. McMahon 19 there, and I asked him to give it to the 20 other legislators. I don't know if he 21 did it or not, I don't think he did 22 because he never answered my letter. 23 And when I saw him on Election Day I 24 asked him why he didn't answer my 25 letter, you know, we're all in this 14 1 Hunter 2 business of making this a better 3 community, elevating the human 4 conditions with public policies that we 5 advocate. And he told me, he says, I 6 don't agree with your numbers. So I 7 says, well, Ryan, what are the numbers. 8 Tell me what the numbers are? When I 9 asked, they told me that, you know, get 10 a Freedom of Information Act, they just 11 don't give it to you. 12 But now we have the numbers. We've 13 got the numbers because there has been a 14 report by the County comptroller that 15 was, that I pushed very hard to do the 16 first audit OCRRA ever had. They never 17 had an audit before. In fact 18 Mr. Antonacci told me that, when he 19 first told them he was going to audit 20 OCRRA, they told him you can't do that, 21 we're a state authority. The local 22 government can't audit a state authority. 23 What happened though is when they 24 passed flow control, part of the Flow 25 Control Law gave the comptroller the 15 1 Hunter 2 authority to audit them. So they had 3 the first audit in twenty years. 4 Now, the first thing I think 5 Onondaga County should do before we talk 6 about what they're going to do for the 7 next twenty years. They tell us or I've 8 been told they value the facility at $90 9 million. The first thing they should do 10 is put out a request for proposals. 11 There might be somebody who wants that 12 facility. Then we could send our 13 garbage down to Seneca Meadows for $22 a 14 ton. Seneca Meadows has a permit now 15 that will last for another nine years. 16 Nine years we can save each household, 17 could save $53 a year if we just send it 18 down there. It would be an easy 19 transition because most of the garbage 20 is picked up by private haulers and most 21 of them have walk in type trailers. 22 They take stuff in Seneca Meadows that 23 isn't covered by the Flow Control Laws. 24 They take C&D down there all the time, 25 it's really not a problem. 16 1 Hunter 2 The best thing we can do with OCRRA 3 with the burning plant is just get rid 4 of it. We just simply don't need it. 5 And if somebody wants to buy it and 6 generate electricity with natural gas I 7 think that would be a great idea, 8 because we're sitting on 200 years of 9 natural gas. If we ever get past the 10 ban on fracking, you know, it might be 11 something viable in the future. 12 The reality though is electricity is 13 not much in demand. There is a 30 14 megawatt plant right on the corner of 15 Burnet Avenue and Thompson Road, they 16 start it seven days a year. That's all 17 they use it for. There is no demand for 18 electricity. And that's the problem we 19 had here. 20 If Covanta buys the plant, we all 21 know that it will cost them a dollar. 22 But that isn't true. They have to pick 23 up what remains of the bonding. And if 24 we spend all the reserves before that 25 would take place, the price wouldn't be 17 1 Hunter 2 one dollar, it would be $42 million plus 3 a dollar. That's what they would have 4 to pay for. And the only way it would 5 work for them is if Onondaga County is 6 dumb enough to pass or renew the Flow 7 Control Act. Because they tell us that 8 people will come from outside the County 9 and drop their garbage if Covanta takes 10 it. They can do that, because the 11 Supreme Court says they take it any way 12 they want. But again who's going to 13 bring it to them for $79 a ton? They go 14 to Seneca Meadows or High Acres. 15 CHAIRMAN KNAPP: Wrap it up, thank 16 you. 17 IAN HUNTER: In the event that 18 Covanta doesn't take it we are stuck $42 19 million. I worked out the numbers and 20 amortized it. If there is a surcharge 21 on all the garbage and the recyclables 22 that are picked up in the County it 23 would cost $8.82 a household per year. 24 And that would pay off -- or a ton, I'm 25 sorry, and that would pay off the $42 18 1 Hunter 2 million. 3 The other problem we've got with 4 OCRRA, OCRRA tells us they're doing 5 other things, they're composting. Well, 6 I'm in the composting business. I want 7 to tell you something, I produce a yard 8 of compost equal to what they have if 9 not better for $6 a yard. What do you 10 think OCRRA, it costs them to make one 11 yard of compost? For $55.60 a yard. 12 They lost $420,000 in 2012. 13 Mr. Antonacci tells me he's going to do 14 the 2013 audit, and that's going to be 15 much much worse because they spent two 16 and-a-half million dollars upgrading 17 their facilities. We've got to watch 18 these people, we've got to watch these 19 people as citizens because they're 20 sucking the blood out of us. 21 CHAIRMAN KNAPP: Thank you, Ian. 22 Next we have Dennis Payne. 23 DENNIS PAYNE: My name is Dennis 24 Payne, I'm a resident of Jamesville. 25 Member of JAMPAC, that is the Jamesville 19 1 Payne 2 Positive Action Committee, the 3 Jamesville Chamber of Commerce, a former 4 member of the Citizens Advisory 5 Committee on the Incinerator and a 6 retired teacher. 7 When the incinerator was being 8 planned and built, against by the way 9 the strong opposition of the residents 10 of Jamesville, the County Legislature 11 created some safeguards to protect and 12 placate us. A program of continuous off 13 site monitoring and Citizens' Advisory 14 Committee on the incinerator were 15 initiated by the Legislature. Most 16 importantly, legislation was written 17 that banned the importation of garbage 18 from outside Onondaga County to the 19 incinerator. 20 Since that time the County Legislature 21 has slowly removed all of the safeguards 22 that was put in place during the initial 23 process. The Citizens' Advisory 24 Committee was ended, and then the 25 Off-Site Monitoring Committee. So that 20 1 Payne 2 now we must rely on Covanta's yearly air 3 quality test to confirm the purity of 4 the emissions from the incinerator. 5 And now, in what is a potentially 6 unprecedented act of betrayal, the 7 Legislature is deciding whether to shrug 8 off the health and safety and concerns 9 of the County residents who live 10 downwind of the incinerator and allow 11 the importation of garbage. 12 So I have a question for the members 13 of the County Legislature who are here 14 tonight, and I know it was indicated 15 that you were here to listen and not to 16 answer questions or to debate, but I do 17 have a question that I think deserves, 18 and I think we all need the courtesy of 19 a response. And here is the question. 20 I also have a suggested answer. 21 The question is: In light of the 22 County Legislature's ongoing betrayal of 23 the basic needs of County residents why 24 should the people of the County trust 25 any of you on any issue, not just the 21 1 Loew 2 incinerator or importation, but any 3 issue that involves the well-being of 4 the people. For example, of Clay or 5 Van Buren, Manlius, Skaneateles or 6 Tully? That's my question, and here's 7 my recommended solution. You can pass 8 legislation that bans now and forever 9 the importation of garbage by any 10 private, public or other entity into 11 this County. That would renew people's 12 trust in the Onondaga County Legislature. 13 Thank you. 14 CHAIRMAN KNAPP: Thank you. Next is 15 Martha Loew. 16 MARTHA LOEW: My name is Martha Loew. 17 First off I want to thank the Town of 18 Dewitt for having this space available 19 for you all to do this and to both of 20 your Committees for holding this 21 hearing. That being said, here I go. 22 I limited my comments strictly to 23 the Draft Scoping Document, but my 24 initial comment is asking everybody to 25 please extend the time period for this 22 1 Loew 2 comment period to at least September 3 1st. You've been working on this plan 4 for two years, and one month from the 5 announcement date is not adequate nor 6 reasonable. 7 Okay, specific problem, the project 8 description on page 4 paragraph 4, and 9 the bullets with it, says: To assess 10 public benefits (all financial) as "can 11 be considered as mitigation measures for 12 potentially significant adverse 13 environmental impacts" is not a 14 responsible statement. You cannot 15 mitigate environmental impacts with 16 money. And that is essentially what 17 that whole paragraph says. This needs 18 to be addressed and corrected. Money 19 for environmental damage is not a 20 benefit. 21 Paragraph 4 of the same description 22 is a statement that: Cortland will 23 benefit from Onondaga's special waste 24 programs needs explanation. How can 25 Cortland benefit from our hazardous 23 1 Loew 2 waste programs? Do they come here? In 3 other words that needs to be more fully 4 described and if you're going to use it 5 as a reason to implement this program 6 you have to show how it's going to 7 happen. 8 Then in the Draft Scoping Document, 9 3-4, Transportation, Waste Transportation 10 it's essential that the estimate of the 11 amount of transportation, CO2, etc., 12 include the trucks that will still haul 13 incinerator residue to Rochester. There 14 is a leftover residue and that cannot go 15 into the Ash For Trash program. It will 16 still have to go to Rochester because 17 it's got to go to a landfill or to any 18 other landfill. So in the summary of 19 waste hauling vehicles of truck trips 20 it's essential to include that 21 transportation to Rochester, which would 22 still have to happen, not as much as now 23 but would still have to happen. 24 4.1.2 and 3 had energy conservation 25 and air resources. Again, include all 24 1 Loew 2 trips not just those to Cortland. 3 4.1.4: Unacceptable materials. How 4 would Cortland trash be screened? Will 5 it use the Onondaga County rules for 6 household trash, which is clear plastic 7 bags or will it ignore the rule as is 8 done in Onondaga County? Onondaga 9 County has a rule that says all 10 household waste is supposed to be in 11 clear plastic bags. It has never been 12 enforced. Most people use black bags. 13 And so I never have understood why we 14 couldn't implement that. Without the 15 clear plastic bags there is no way to 16 tell how many batteries or whatever 17 things are in this waste that is going 18 into the incinerator, which is going 19 into the air, which is coming to us. 20 And then finally the Full 21 Environmental Assessment Form, it's 22 included in the documents that I got, 23 and it's been modified, the language, to 24 state that this form will only deal with 25 Cortland County. The form says it must 25 1 Loew 2 deal with all aspects of this plan. And 3 so that's not in keeping with the 4 purpose of the form. Onondaga County is 5 also affected by this project and so you 6 cannot arbitrarily eliminate it from the 7 form. But the form that has already 8 been written up, it says right, they 9 just sort of amended it, right below 10 where it says it is to include everybody, 11 they amended it to say it will only 12 include Cortland County. So Onondaga 13 County must be included within the 14 Environmental Assessment form there 15 because there are things that happen 16 here from the incinerator that affect 17 all of us too. And so it should be 18 assessed along with everything else that 19 goes on in Cortland. Thank you very much. 20 CHAIRMAN KNAPP: Thank you. Next is 21 Geraldine Aird. 22 GERALDINE AIRD: Good evening. I'm 23 Geraldine Aird and live at 41 Ely Drive 24 in the Town of Dewitt. And that is 25 right close to probably one of the 26 1 Aird 2 busiest intersections in Onondaga 3 County. I've been concerned about air 4 pollution there for a long time because 5 the traffic keeps getting heavier and 6 heavier. And as we talk about the waste 7 incinerator I think about more air 8 pollution. And until I looked at the 9 public health, 4.3.3 public health part 10 of the Draft Scoping Document, that's as 11 far as I've gotten. I mean this is a 12 really hurried up job, right? We need a 13 lot more time to work on all this. 14 The public health part of it, and 15 the increase in air pollution, I think 16 that Onondaga County really needs to 17 take a very good look at adding any 18 more, any more air pollution to the area. 19 And certainly burning garbage and the 20 waste incinerator will do that if it 21 gets expanded and if it gets extended. 22 So I did have some prepared 23 information here but there are a lot of 24 other people who want to speak, so I 25 think I just will speak as a resident of 27 1 Baker 2 the area and say please, no more air 3 pollution. 4 CHAIRMAN KNAPP: Thank you. If you 5 want to give those the written comments 6 to the clerk we can make sure they're 7 part of it. 8 GERALDINE AIRD: I don't really have 9 them. 10 CHAIRMAN KNAPP: Next up is Vicki 11 Baker. 12 VICKI BAKER: I want to thank you 13 for coming and hearing our concerns. 14 And also I want to point out that this 15 is not a Jamesville issue, it's not a 16 Dewitt issue, we're all on the same 17 planet. We all generate trash, we all 18 should be responsible for what we do 19 with it. So I think the problem I have 20 with just thinking of this area, I'm 21 hopeful that we can get you to think 22 outside the box and think about other 23 issues that are important. 24 First of all, the process. I've 25 been involved in SEQRA and Draft 28 1 Baker 2 Environmental Impact Statements for 3 years. And this has been the most 4 confusing convoluted process I've seen. 5 Where we all, oh, yeah, send your 6 comments to Cortland. Oh, no, now we're 7 going to have our own. Oh, no, it's 8 like okay, so if we submitted comments 9 do we resubmit them again? Or just add 10 a little to whatever you want to add to 11 whatever we've already sent? 12 A lot of people are not even aware 13 this is happening. They don't have a 14 clue. And I'm just disappointed. I 15 would like to see the public be more 16 aware of issues. 17 I guess I want to say that there are 18 great concerns, after hearing that the 19 people in the Cortland County Legislature 20 say this is a done deal, that you have 21 the votes, you know who can get away 22 with voting against it because of your 23 constituency. And in fact have assured, 24 well the County Executive signed an 25 agreement in principle on this whole 29 1 Baker 2 issue in August of 2013. August of 3 2013. And I don't think anybody in the 4 public was really on board with this. 5 And here we are now, the process is 6 starting, and we get you know, a few 7 weeks. And they got, they had 12 years 8 to decide that they were even going to 9 sell the plant or whatever they're going 10 to do with Covanta and importation. 11 It concerns me about the lack of 12 truthfulness about the incinerator, 13 about the pollution it generates, about 14 the tipping fees and how they were kept 15 artificially low for years so people 16 would come there. The false claims that 17 they are renewable energy. They're not 18 renewable energy, they create a lot of 19 toxins, dioxins, mercury, lead. That's 20 not renewable energy. 21 And you can certainly read the 22 A.G.'s report if I haven't already sent 23 it. By the way I have tried my best and 24 I hope you're not tired of me but I 25 tried to educate you on what I've been 30 1 Baker 2 involved in since Day One. And my 3 little pin is because we would let 4 little balloons go from that incinerator 5 site and five hours later I got a call 6 from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania telling me 7 they got my balloon and the card and why 8 didn't I put my area code on it? And I 9 had no idea. But it did tell me the 10 issues about thinking globally and 11 acting globally. 12 I know that the opinions of your 13 legal force or your legal team just 14 depends on, you know, who you ask. And 15 in 1994, being there, I asked and got a 16 response from lawyer Tarolli, the 17 discussion about commerce clause. And 18 the fact that you have rights as a 19 community. Publicly owned facility 20 still has the right to restrict the 21 acceptance of non-local waste. This is 22 referred to as the market participation 23 exception to the commerce clause. And 24 I'm sure attorneys love this kind of 25 stuff but most people don't understand 31 1 Baker 2 that. 3 This was about importation of sludge 4 as well. The County sludge management 5 agreement prohibits the processing of 6 non-County sludge without explicit 7 legislative approval. 8 Our floor leader at the time was Sid 9 Oglesby, who I always respected and 10 thought he was very articulate. He had 11 sent a letter about the importation laws 12 being called a ban. And I will get 13 these letters to you. But the 14 prohibition of 1989 and 1992 legislation 15 was not relative to isolated case 16 scenarios but rather was absolute. 17 While it's true that the Legislature 18 may generally rescind the legislation 19 prohibiting waste or ash importation it 20 is a stretch of logic to induce (sic) 21 that what was intended was a possible 22 series of isolated dependence, 23 independent decisions relative to 24 whether or not to allow this importation 25 of waste. Indeed the potential 32 1 Baker 2 cumulative effects of the discrete 3 allowances would so weaken the law that 4 the public would perceive that no law 5 exists. 6 So you kind of really undo what we 7 had intended to do when we passed that 8 law years ago. And it was certainly to 9 be protective of human health and the 10 environment. And I see this proposal as 11 a direct threat to our environment and 12 our health. Not to mention carbon 13 dioxide and the big headlines in the 14 paper locally, that reducing CO2, yet 15 we're going to put all of our trash in 16 the air. It just doesn't make sense 17 from any point of view, whether it's 18 environmental, health or whatever. 19 I'm concerned that your attempt or 20 your discussion about overturning that 21 law makes the public believe how can we 22 believe that this will end with 23 Cortland? What if next year you get an 24 offer you can't refuse? New York City 25 waste, at double the rates? That might 33 1 Baker 2 be good, especially if we're hurting for 3 money or if we're up for reelection and 4 we don't want to raise the taxes. I've 5 been there, done that. I think though a 6 lot of the issues, perhaps you're not 7 considering the total package. 8 I would think that you would also be 9 very concerned about predictability of 10 needs and growth projections for this 11 community. How can you sign a 15, 20 12 year contract giving away the last 13 percentage of this plant that shouldn't 14 have been built in the first place? But 15 who has looked at those numbers? I 16 haven't seen any kind of reports or any 17 kind of information that you've received 18 saying we're good for twenty years, keep 19 taking Cortland. 20 So we really haven't seen anything 21 on finances and I wonder what will it 22 take to make this issue go away? Should 23 we start doing bake sales? Is there 24 anything we can do to look at another 25 direction to get you to think outside 34 1 Baker 2 the box? When I was a citizen I was 3 involved with Recycle First, which was 4 an organization that came up with the 5 County's alternatives. And we talked 6 about costs and hazardous waste and air 7 emissions and low recycling goals. And 8 it discourages recycling. That one of 9 the sentences in our information was 10 once the large incinerator is built it 11 has to be fed for it to be economical. 12 County Legislators vote to impose -- 13 that is the County trash agency will 14 have control over where all the trash 15 goes. It's more than likely that if a 16 large incinerator is built and we are 17 and we are very successful with the 18 recycling program the County will have 19 to import waste to keep the plant 20 running. And remember that the 21 hierarchy of DEC and EPA, they're saying 22 incinerate over land-filling but above 23 that is reduce the amount of trash 24 generated; recycle, repair, compost. 25 That's where our emphasis should be. 35 1 Baker 2 And we should be looking at 3 alternatives. I saw no other alternatives 4 in the scoping document other than no 5 action. What alternatives are we 6 looking at? Can we bring people to town 7 that will give us some options about 8 creating jobs from the recycling program? 9 Have we looked at them? Are we going to? 10 There is no information in this 11 SEQRA document that really gives us the 12 financials or the workable solutions. 13 There is not a permit limit for 2.5. 14 That's the fine fine particulates, and I 15 believe, I hope that I sent you the 16 magazine that talked about the PAH's and 17 the black hole and the ways to monitor 18 this stuff. This will not be regulated 19 in this plant. The plant is an old 20 plant with an old CEM monitor following 21 an old health risk assessment and old 22 ideas. 23 We look to you for leadership and 24 fresh sustainable solutions. The only 25 thing between us and toxic pollution is 36 1 Baker 2 this Legislature. And I do see this as 3 a threat to our health and environment. 4 While we're burning up here they're 5 learning to take out toxic waste, so we 6 become the guinea pigs? How many years 7 does it take to develop a good hazardous 8 waste program in the community? I don't 9 think I want to be the guinea pig to 10 find out. 11 I'm asking that you extend the 12 comment period at least through 13 September. We'd like more information 14 on this scoping because we don't believe 15 that there is enough information. We 16 need to explore alternatives, investigate 17 cancer rates and respiratory illnesses, 18 ask that we regulate 2.5 PM particles 19 and ban forever importation. I think I 20 covered everything I hope. 21 Again, I want to thank you for 22 listening. When we were also part of 23 the citizens who made recommendations to 24 the County instead of burning we wanted 25 to do the other things, the three R's. 37 1 Baker 2 But in response to those citizens the 3 Solid Waste Management Team at the 4 County and City together said the 5 waste-to-energy plant is composed of 6 three totally separate units. Should a 7 decrease in the supply of trash become 8 long term it is possible to shut down 9 one of the plants three combustion units. 10 Thereby allocating more trash for the 11 other two. Having less trash is less of 12 a problem than having too much trash. 13 Wouldn't want to hold you to that. 14 We want you to phase out this 15 incinerator over a five year period. We 16 want you to create jobs from recycling. 17 We want you to protect our health and 18 environment. Thank you. 19 CHAIRMAN KNAPP: Thank you. Next is 20 Phillip Rothschild. 21 PHILIP ROTHSCHILD: Good evening 22 members of the Legislature, thank you 23 for coming to hear our concerns. I was 24 here in another place 20 years ago when 25 you were deciding on whether to build 38 1 Rothschild 2 this thing or not. There were a number 3 of promises made, not the least of which 4 was that there would be monitoring, 5 there would be oversight of this thing 6 and this thing would be self sustaining 7 and it would be making money. And the 8 chief among those promises was that we 9 would not be importing any garbage. 10 Now these other promises have fallen 11 by the wayside and looks like as though 12 this one is going to fall by the wayside 13 again. I'm just concerned that the 14 County is basically doubling down on a 15 process which seems to be falling out of 16 favor across the country. I believe it 17 is doing so for very shortsighted 18 reasons. And I would ask this 19 Legislature to reconsider and provide 20 more time for comment regarding this and 21 to look at it more closely. And that's 22 it. 23 CHAIRMAN KNAPP: Thank you. Next is 24 Brian Solomon. 25 BRIAN SOLOMON: Thank you. I 39 1 Rothschild 2 believe it would be prudent for the 3 contract renewal with Covanta Energy to 4 be much further along prior to 5 commencing the SEQR process. The 6 current options are not only the status 7 quo of the proposed OCRRA-Cortland 8 County partnership. From OCRRA's 9 Executive Summary Item 8, in 2013, 10 Covanta Energy, the group that operates 11 the facility has the contractual ability 12 to buy the plant and assume $45 million 13 worth of bond payments on the facility. 14 For close to 20 years OCRRA and 15 Covanta have had a successful, public/ 16 private service contract in place. Both 17 parties are working towards an extension 18 of that contract etc., etc. If a 19 service contract is not reached and 20 Covanta buys the plant it becomes a 21 private facility and our Legislature has 22 no say in where the trash comes from. 23 This means trash could be imported 24 from Cortland or any other location of 25 Covanta's choosing. Trash beyond 40 1 Solomon 2 typical household trash, which brings 3 higher revenue and likely higher 4 emissions could be imported. This is on 5 OCRRA's website. So if a service 6 contract is not reached the scope of 7 this environmental review under SEQR 8 will be considerably limited to the 9 detriment of the citizens of Onondaga 10 County. Would we ever have the ability 11 to consider an unbiased environmental 12 review of impacts from Covanta Energy's 13 likely activities if they were to 14 proceed with their contractual ability 15 to purchase the waste to energy facility 16 and accept various municipal solid waste 17 and other wastes at their discretion. 18 Covanta Energy necessarily needs to 19 be included in this SEQR process to 20 assess the potential environmental 21 impact of the waste to energy facility 22 under their ownership and operation. 23 Per page 1 of the DSD, SEQR and it's 24 implementing regulations establish a 25 process for the consideration of 41 1 Solomon 2 environmental impacts in the planning 3 stages of actions that are directly 4 undertaken, funded or approved by local 5 regional state agencies, etc. 6 So since the contract negotiations 7 between OCRRA and Covanta will 8 necessarily impact the environment, and 9 OCRRA is a regional agency, the impact 10 from Covanta's sole ownership and 11 operation of gnd facility must be 12 considered as part of this renewal, this 13 review. It strongly suggests that the 14 SEQR process is tabled until after a set 15 of contract alternatives between OCRRA 16 and Covanta Energy is put forth, which 17 will allow for the environmental impacts 18 of those alternatives to be considered 19 concurrently. 20 So right now it seems like there is 21 one option on the table that OCRRA 22 presents, this partnership with Cortland 23 County or else the status quo or what 24 else is there? There needs to be 25 dialogue with Covanta that needs to be 42 1 Solomon 2 transparent and part of this process. 3 And I believe the two entities should 4 come together and develop a series of 5 alternatives, not one alternative. 6 So I have two other shorter 7 comments. Cortland County recycling 8 information in the case of the County's 9 program provides for the acceptance of 10 all plastic containers. Plastic, 1 11 through 7, even better than what we do 12 here. 13 If recycling rates weren't high in 14 Cortland County as they are in Onondaga 15 County, Cortland County's MSW 16 composition would necessarily be 17 expected to contain a lower quantity of 18 plastics than found in Onondaga County's 19 MSW on a per math basis. This is due to 20 OCRRA's more limited acceptance of 21 plastics, only bottles number 1 and 2, 22 and Number 5 containers. So as you 23 probably know some research has 24 indicated that dioxins are known to be 25 formed during the combustion of 43 1 Solomon 2 industrial and domestic, and to escape 3 into the environment via exhaust gases 4 from incinerators. 5 In 2005 OCRRA contracted for a waste 6 quantification and characterization 7 study. The DSD should likely include a 8 provision for such a study to be 9 conducted to assess the composition of 10 Cortland County's MSW, which will help 11 to quantify the additional mass of 12 plastic that would be incinerated at the 13 Rock Cut Road facility under this 14 partnership, and better gauge the 15 potential for additional dioxins to be 16 emitted. 17 So right now Cortland County says 18 that they recycle more plastics than we 19 do but informal conversations have led 20 me to believe that they're not as good 21 at recycling them as Onondaga County is. 22 So we really have no idea what the 23 composition of their municipal solid 24 waste is. Does it contain more plastic 25 than ours? Does it contain less? We 44 1 Solomon 2 need to assess that before we can 3 estimate what the pollution will be by 4 burning that extra MSW. 5 One more comment. In considering 6 the proposed OCRRA-Cortland County 7 partnership the DSD should have said, it 8 is appropriate, unbiased, to review only 9 OCRRA's current contract for disposal of 10 incinerator ash at the High Acres 11 landfill in Fairport. That is as 12 recently as 2011 incinerator ash from 13 the Rock Cut Road facility was sent to 14 Seneca Meadows' landfill in Waterloo, 15 New York. 16 The current contract with High Acres 17 landfill having been established in the 18 second half of 2011. OCRRA periodically 19 reviews, renews and rebids ash disposal 20 contracting with various facilities. It 21 so happens that the current contract is 22 with the High Acres landfill. So in 23 reporting the potential greenhouse gas 24 reductions due to the proposed 25 partnership between OCRRA and Cortland 45 1 Gershaw 2 County, this current contract with High 3 Acres landfill potentially skews the 4 benefit in greenhouse gas emissions. If 5 this was only a few years ago that we 6 were having this conversation OCRRA 7 wouldn't be able to put on the website 8 all the huge reductions in greenhouse 9 gases, because Seneca Meadows may even 10 be closer to Syracuse than Cortland 11 County is. So that's it, thank you. 12 CHAIRMAN KNAPP: Thank you. Next is 13 Jane Gershaw. 14 JANE GERSHAW: I'm kind of new to 15 this process, I haven't spoken in any 16 kind of a public comment period. So 17 you'll excuse me if I don't have all the 18 right language. The first I ever heard 19 about Trash to Ash and about Covanta was 20 about a year ago. And it took a while 21 for me to understand all of this. Most 22 of the people I've listened to tonight 23 have been involved in this process for 24 many years. But I try very hard to 25 educate myself, and I find that the 46 1 Gershaw 2 trash to ash technology is 30 years old. 3 Whatever benefits it may bring to both 4 counties it locks us into a method of 5 dealing with trash that is already being 6 rethought and fazed out in other places. 7 The Draft Scoping Document that 8 we're discussing was poorly publicized 9 and hastily written. It was distributed 10 just quite by accident to me through an 11 e-mail from a friend. It's a document 12 for continuing a method of waste 13 disposal that is no longer viable. But 14 if we don't accept this proposal we put 15 our counties in a position worse than 16 where we find ourselves now. 17 Written into the first contract 18 Covanta will be able to take possession 19 of the incinerator for one dollar in 20 2015 and operate with no oversight and 21 no regulation over what they can do. 22 They can import trash from as far away 23 as Puerto Rico. 24 I copied and put together a number 25 of articles about Covanta in other 47 1 Gershaw 2 places as far away as, I think one of 3 them is from Scotland, on how they have, 4 the public has suffered with the kinds 5 of activities that Covanta has engaged 6 in. I asked the Cortland County 7 Legislature during their public comment 8 period to put those articles, newspaper 9 articles on their website, which they 10 do, did. And I'm going to distribute 11 them or I'm going to give them to you 12 this evening because obviously I can't 13 go through them. 14 Covanta is a New York Stock Exchange 15 publicly traded corporation. I believe 16 that they will do almost anything to 17 make money for their stockholders. It 18 is to them that they are responsible, 19 not the communities where they work. 20 They act like the good guys who donate 21 time and energy to the Boy Scouts, 22 Hospice and other popular local charities. 23 They make political donations to 24 Republicans and Democrats alike. In the 25 end they're a corporation. They can go 48 1 Gershaw 2 into bankruptcy, which they once did. 3 They can be bought by another 4 corporation, which once happened. 5 To believe that they care about you 6 or me is to engage in a fantasy that has 7 no foundation. Their CEO and other 8 officers make millions of dollars a year 9 to keep that fantasy alive and not to 10 better our community in any way. As a 11 concerned resident of Onondaga County I 12 ask the Legislature to both Cortland and 13 Onondaga to limit the length of any new 14 contract to no longer than five years. 15 First, to include an update to 16 current standards of monitoring. 17 Second, to increase the frequency 18 and scope of monitoring of incinerator 19 emissions and the content of ash residue 20 from the current incinerator. 21 And finally, during these five years 22 to engage in serious exploration of 23 alternatives to incineration. Thank you. 24 CHAIRMAN KNAPP: Thank you. Next is 25 Dr. Michael Wolfson. 49 1 Wolfson 2 MICHAEL WOLFSON, M.D.: Like to join 3 the others who have thanked the 4 Legislature for convening this meeting. 5 I think it's very important that the 6 views of members of the public be heard 7 regarding this particular plant, which I 8 find abhorrent. The idea of importing 9 trash when it was one of the principles 10 that were laid down over 20 years ago 11 before the incinerator opened was that 12 we would never import trash. That was 13 the way that this was sold to the 14 citizens of Onondaga County. 15 Now I'd like to note my credentials 16 because I think that's important in 17 talking about the main issues that I'm 18 concerned about tonight, which are the 19 public health and the environment; 20 individual and public health and the 21 environment. 22 I did my medical training here, 23 graduated in 1981, I have a master's 24 degree in pharmacology, I'm fellowship 25 trained at Harvard with an MPH from the 50 1 Wolfson 2 Harvard School of Public Health. And my 3 fellowship training is in occupational 4 and environmental medicine. I would 5 venture to say, well I think what should 6 be noted is that everyone here is 7 entitled to an opinion about what should 8 be done regarding the incinerator and 9 this plan to import trash. Everyone is 10 not entitled to his or her version of 11 facts. 12 And when you're looking at the 13 issues of health, public health and the 14 environment, then I think that one of 15 those issues for me is that I've not 16 received adequate response from any of 17 the regulatory agencies, including the 18 Onondaga County Health Department, the 19 DEC, the State Health Department or the 20 EPA regarding my concerns about the 21 public health and the impact that this 22 incinerator has had since it opened. 23 And I would suggest to you that the 24 only individuals who can adequately 25 address those questions in a factual 51 1 Wolfson 2 manner are those individuals who are 3 noted to be or have been certified as 4 experts who can testify in either New 5 York State court, a federal court or 6 other state courts, which I've done for 7 the last 20 to 25 years. So when there 8 are individuals who make statements 9 about the fact that there are no health 10 impacts or health impacts are minimal, 11 etc., you have to take that with a grain 12 of salt. And it has to be taken with 13 the understanding of what the source is. 14 And to my knowledge there is no one 15 else in this County, and I don't believe 16 anyone in Cortland County at this point, 17 with maybe one exception, who has either 18 the training or the qualifications to 19 determine what the health risks are. So 20 let's talk for a minute about the health 21 risks, and I would actually like to 22 refer to the Scoping Document first. 23 I would refer you back to the 24 meeting at Jamesville elementary school 25 approximately 12 to 15 years ago, I 52 1 Wolfson 2 can't remember the date and I don't have 3 the papers with me now. When the DEC 4 was quite ready to permit the burning of 5 tires at the incinerator. And hundreds 6 of people showed up at Jamesville 7 elementary school, and probably 99 out 8 of a hundred of us who came were opposed 9 to this. 10 One of the things that I mentioned 11 in my comments was that the DEC provided 12 us with test results for a Hudson River 13 Valley incinerator that was burning 14 tires. They probably thought that we 15 were either too stupid or too lazy to 16 read the report. But the report showed 17 that burning tires would increase the 18 emissions of cancer causing chemicals as 19 well as other hazardous chemicals by 20 somewhere from 5 to 10 times. 21 Those included dioxins and PCB's and 22 dioxin -- PCB's which have the chemical 23 formula similar to dioxin are also 24 considered carcinogens. Polychlorinated 25 dienzofurans or PCDF's, arsenic, 53 1 Wolfson 2 mercury, lead, cadmium. All those 3 except mercury are recognized 4 carcinogens. Lead was not recognized as 5 cancer causing agent when the first 6 health risk assessment was first done. 7 And I've written comments for the last 8 15 years, the last time I believe was in 9 2009 when the incinerator was up for 10 another permit renewal, indicating that 11 the original health risk assessment for 12 this incinerator showed that there would 13 be a risk of 9.9 excess cancer deaths 14 per million population if the 15 incinerator were allowed to be permitted. 16 Now, the DEC has informed me 17 directly in discussions that at 10 18 cancer deaths per million or one per a 19 hundred thousand, a facility like this 20 incinerator could not be permitted. Now 21 the DEC, the Department of Health, have 22 refused and have been aided in that 23 refusal by the EPA to conduct a new 24 health risk assessment. 25 I have papers from comments that I 54 1 Wolfson 2 last wrote I believe in 2009, indicating 3 that there should have been another 4 health risk assessment done in 2003; it 5 was not. If that health risk assessment 6 had been done even before the 7 incinerator was built, using the 8 knowledge that was available then, it 9 could not have been opened. 10 The information that was used in the 11 health risk assessment that allows this 12 facility to continue to operate is data 13 from before 1985. The incinerator 14 opened in 1994. So we need an entirely 15 new health risk assessment. That was 16 one part of this Scoping Document that 17 was not mentioned at all. We absolutely 18 need a totally new health risk 19 assessment by a group of individuals who 20 have no financial or other considerations 21 related to this incinerator. 22 Now in the Scoping Document there 23 are some curious things that are 24 included, which again, maybe that we 25 were expected not to be able to, since 55 1 Wolfson 2 we hadn't had this for very long, to 3 read and understand what was being said. 4 Now I will say that the one thing that 5 was noted is that at least for Onondaga 6 County, where I'm a resident, I live in 7 the Town of Dewitt, an action that must 8 be taken in order for this plan to go 9 through is that Onondaga County has to 10 allow for importation of Cortland County 11 waste to be burned at the incinerator. 12 Now again, I would ask you to stand 13 by the original guarantees made by the 14 Legislature over 20 years ago that there 15 would be no importation of waste. There 16 is clearly an increase in hazard every 17 time there is a burn. Dioxins are so 18 toxic that any increase in exposure in 19 the environment, whether it's by, 20 through the air or in the soil, which is 21 the only off-site monitoring that's 22 being done now are soil levels, any 23 increase in the emissions of dioxins 24 increases risks of cancer. 25 I would note to you that in my 56 1 Wolfson 2 comments before and in my discussions 3 with the DEC and the County Health 4 Department I pointed out that off-site 5 monitoring tests results showed, as long 6 as 10 or 12 years ago at least, that 7 there are increased levels of dioxins in 8 soils above the "acceptable" level for 9 the EPA, at City Lights, above the 10 Jamesville Penitentiary. There are also 11 unacceptable levels, increased levels of 12 arsenic on the south campus of Syracuse 13 University. There is no other source 14 for these increased levels of cancer 15 causing toxins. 16 If you've noted, there was a news 17 story in the last week quoting the Wall 18 Street Journal. We are 9th from the 19 bottom in over 2,700 counties in the 20 country in the production of 21 manufacturing jobs over the last either 22 5 or 10 years. So there are no other 23 facilities putting out these toxins it's 24 only the incinerator. 25 The increased levels of mercury in 57 1 Wolfson 2 the Clark Reservation Lake are very 3 likely a result of emissions from the 4 incinerator. The dioxins in City 5 Lights, from the incinerator. Arsenic 6 on the SU campus, the incinerator. And 7 all the other toxins that are being 8 tested for or not being tested for are 9 coming from the incinerator. 10 Now, there is also information that 11 shows that we have an increased 12 incidence of breast cancer in Onondaga 13 County that coincides with the time that 14 the incinerator has been opened. And 15 that's particularly noted, notable in a 16 few zip codes, including, there are two 17 zip codes one in Marietta, one in Nedrow 18 with very small numbers. But the 19 largest number which is I believe 60 20 when the expected number is around 40, 21 is in 13078. The zip code that includes 22 Jamesville and is the zip code that is 23 in fact most impacted downwind of the 24 incinerator by any emissions that are 25 coming from the facility. 58 1 Wolfson 2 So I would refer you to the EPA's 3 own scientists who have been publishing 4 peer-reviewed material for the last 20 5 years, indicating that the dioxins are 6 in fact a breast cancer risk, that the 7 risk is greatest when, greatest to the 8 fetus, it slowly decreases as an 9 individual gets older but it's still 10 there for a lifetime. So that means 11 that pregnant women and their offspring 12 in this County, particularly those down 13 wind from the incinerator are greater 14 risk for breast cancer as well as most 15 other cancers. 16 The National Academy of Sciences, 17 the arm of the CDC, called ATSDR, IAR, 18 the International Agency for Research on 19 Cancer, which is part of the World 20 Health Organization, all have noted that 21 the materials that are being emitted 22 from the incinerator, dioxins, dioxin 23 like PCB's, arsenic, lead, cadmium, are 24 all cancer causing materials and they're 25 all toxic. There is no question about 59 1 Wolfson 2 this. These are known human 3 carcinogens. 4 So I would suggest to you that what 5 our goal should be at this point is to 6 phase out and close this incinerator. 7 Short of that at this point it's to 8 reject any plan to import trash, to keep 9 the faith with the people of Onondaga 10 County who expected that this would 11 never happen; and to reject this plan 12 out of hand. 13 Now, there are a couple of other 14 things I would note for you. Even in 15 the very conservative review of the 16 effects of dioxins by the publication 17 called Veterans in Agent Orange. And as 18 many of you may know, veterans exposed 19 to Agent Orange during the Vietnam war 20 are now recognized as having service 21 connected disabilities when they were 22 exposed in areas that were sprayed with 23 Agent Orange. Now, the contaminant in 24 Agent Orange that causes those various 25 problems is in fact dioxins. 60 1 Wolfson 2 Even in this very limited document, 3 which is published now for twenty years 4 I believe, there are certain cancers 5 that are recognized as being related as 6 well as Type 2 diabetes I should 7 mention, arsenic is also a cause of Type 8 2 diabetes, as well as vascular disease 9 that is not cancer related. 10 The cancers that the veterans of 11 Agent Orange publications recognize, and 12 this is a limited number, are soft 13 tissue sarcomas, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, 14 chronic leukocytic leukemia, which 15 includes hairy cell leukemia, and other 16 B cell leukemias. 17 And by the way, those of you who use 18 Round Up on your lawns, I testified in a 19 federal case about the risk of hairy 20 cell leukemia and multiple myeloma are 21 related to the use of Round Up. Dioxins 22 are far more toxic than anything in 23 Round Up. Hodgkin's lymphoma and chlor 24 acetin, and again what was not included 25 because these are not cancers are Type 2 61 1 Wolfson 2 diabetes at the very least. 3 Now, the World Health Organization 4 says that PCB waste, and that would mean 5 both non-dioxin like and dioxin like 6 PCB's should be treated as hazardous 7 waste. Now, we have not treated the ash 8 from this incinerator as hazardous waste 9 from the beginning. The DEC and the 10 Department of Health claim that it's not 11 hazardous waste because they use what is 12 a discredited, in my view, my opinion, a 13 discredited method called PCLP or toxic 14 characteristic leaching procedure to 15 determine whether or not there is a risk 16 from the material that the incinerator 17 produces in land-filling that in an 18 unlined non-regulated landfill, which is 19 what we've done at Seneca Meadows, at 20 the other landfill that's being used 21 now, and what will be done in Cortland 22 if this plan goes through. 23 The fact is this is hazardous waste. 24 If you look at the results of the 25 monitoring of the ash there are tens of 62 1 Wolfson 2 thousands of units of dioxins per unit 3 of ash. And that stuff is being dumped 4 in a place where it can't be monitored. 5 And I would also suggest to you members 6 of the Legislature that there is no 7 immunity on the part of Onondaga County 8 if people who are exposed to this ash 9 and become ill, at a later date decide 10 they want to take legal action against 11 us. So those of us who live in Onondaga 12 County could be financially responsible 13 for the these actions, these unacceptable 14 actions of allowing this incinerator to 15 continue to operate for the last 20 16 years. Now my last -- 17 CHAIRMAN KNAPP: We're about 15 18 minutes now, so if you could wrap it up 19 appreciate it. 20 MICHAEL WOLFSON: I'll wrap it up. 21 Again, I would refer you to comments 22 that I wrote and I just have my draft 23 with me, the comments that I wrote 24 regarding the incinerator on multiple 25 occasions. Yes, stack sampling of the 63 1 Wolfson 2 incinerator emissions only provides a 3 two to three hour snapshot of individual 4 toxic emissions each year, and that's 5 not sufficient. The operators are 6 informed of the stack sampling time well 7 in advance and this may allow the 8 recharacterization of what's being 9 burned at the time that the sampling is 10 done. I'm not saying that is done, but 11 it's my opinion that it's possible to do 12 that. You don't inform regulated 13 entities that they're going to be tested 14 or inspected in advance. 15 The last thing I would note to you 16 is that off site monitoring program 17 which has been gutted over the last 18 dozen years. 13, 12 or 13 years ago 19 several of us who were in this room 20 today met with then current Onondaga 21 County Health commissioner, the local 22 head of the DEC, DEC representatives 23 from Albany and representatives from the 24 Department of Health in Albany from the 25 Toxics Division. And we pointed out 64 1 Wolfson 2 that we had found out inadvertently that 3 the off-site monitoring program had not 4 been carried out properly between 1993 5 and 1999. In other words, samples of 6 all of the media that were to be tested, 7 eggs, water, soil, had all been either 8 contaminated, thrown out or in some way 9 they had been improperly handled. 10 Those test media should have been 11 tested within 42 days; that's the state 12 law. The state knew that this law was 13 being violated and these representatives 14 of these regulatory agencies chose to do 15 nothing. So what you're getting when 16 you get off-site test monitoring results 17 are comparisons with initial baseline 18 testing that grossly over-estimates how 19 much toxic material was in the soil; 20 because that's all we're testing now. 21 Grossly over-estimates the toxics in the 22 soil at the time that those original 23 samples are taken in 1993. 24 And the reason is a process that 25 could be compared to freezer burn. In 65 1 Wolfson 2 other words, those samples sitting in a 3 freezer that were not contaminated or 4 lost, over six years, became dehydrated. 5 So the level of toxics in those original 6 samples before the incinerator opened 7 were much higher than they would have 8 been if they had been tested properly. 9 So this off-site monitoring program 10 has been a problem. We need to 11 reinstitute off-site monitoring at the 12 levels that was originally recommended 13 before 1994. And again, it's my opinion 14 that the Health Commissioner in 1995 was 15 forced out, was forced out because of 16 his support for the off-site monitoring 17 program. We need to beef up the 18 program, we need to wind down this 19 incinerator. A new health risk 20 assessment will undoubtedly show that 21 this incinerator should not be operating 22 at all. So any plan to take in any 23 outside waste and burn it is just going 24 to be a further risk to the health and 25 the environment of people in this County 66 1 Hughes 2 as well as the people in Cortland 3 County. Appreciate the time. 4 CHAIRMAN KNAPP: Next is Don Hughes. 5 DON HUGHES: Thank you, thank you 6 for having this hearing. And I promise 7 to be a little more concise. So my name 8 is Don Hughes, I've been a member of the 9 Sierra Club for many years. I've lived 10 in the city of Syracuse since 1985. I 11 served on the OCRRA board for about six 12 years, 2003 to 2008, if memory serves. 13 Those were the good years when OCRRA was 14 making money. We had high electricity 15 prices, we had lots of trash. 16 And, but prior to that I worked with 17 a group, you've heard of it Vicki Baker 18 mentioned it, Recycle First. We were 19 trying to stop the construction of the 20 incinerator. We thought it was a bad 21 deal for the community. Bad from an 22 environmental point of view but also bad 23 from an economic point of view. In fact 24 one of our primary reasons to oppose the 25 plant was not air emissions, was not ash 67 1 Hughes 2 disposal, it's not hazards, those were 3 important arguments but the Number 1 4 reason was it was too big. And guess 5 what, it is too big. So now we're faced 6 with trying to fill a hole, a gap about 7 30 to 35,000 tons a year. That's why 8 we're here, that's why we're negotiating 9 with Cortland. This is the problem with 10 incinerators. You have to feed them. 11 They have a certain capacity and they 12 have an appetite. It's a beast. You've 13 got to feed the beast. 14 I would offer to you that we're 15 facing a junction here, we either try to 16 make the best deal we can with Covanta 17 and keep the incinerator going or we 18 break ties with it. I would like you to 19 entertain the thought of breaking ties 20 with the incinerator. Let it go. There 21 is a landfill down the street, you can 22 throw out the trash for $40 a ton or you 23 can pay $70 a ton here, maybe more. 24 So I would also implore you to 25 extend the period for public comment. 68 1 Hughes 2 This DEIS was released only thirty days 3 ago or not even, we have a thirty day 4 public comment period, that's not enough. 5 This is a major community decision. 6 This is like Interstate 81. It's a big 7 deal. We need more time, okay? So 8 extend the public time period to at 9 least September. We need to have that. 10 And I would reiterate the comments 11 of Brian Solomon who said that we need 12 transparency. And we're looking at one 13 alternative here, this agreement ash to 14 trash, ash for trash, but really what we 15 need to do is look at the many 16 possibilities that are in front of us. 17 There is all kinds of permutations of 18 how the relationship between OCRRA and 19 the County is with Covanta. So we need 20 more time. We need more indemnity. And 21 I appreciate the fact that you're having 22 this public hearing here. 23 So on the economics, $40 a ton 24 versus $70.00 a ton. A differential of 25 $30 a ton. We get rid of about 330,000 69 1 Hughes 2 tons a year. You're looking at $10 3 million a year potential savings. Think 4 about that. There is also this debt 5 tied to the incinerator of I think the 6 number was 45 million bond that has to 7 be paid off. 8 Another consideration. Some 9 environmental aspects, this is the 10 Environmental Impact Statement so let's 11 not forget about that. Mercury 12 emissions are a major issue with trash 13 incinerators, always have been. What's 14 going to happen when we start bringing 15 in Cortland trash? Does Cortland have 16 any kind of thermometer, mercury 17 thermometer program, mercury recovery 18 from thermostats? We can see a big 19 increase in mercury coming into the 20 plant if Cortland gets imported. 21 There is also the matter of C&D 22 waste, construction and demolition 23 waste, that can have mercury from old 24 thermostats and other stuff. 25 Greenhouse gases. Let's talk about 70 1 Hughes 2 greenhouse gases for a little bit. I 3 believe that the benefits of burning 4 trash compared to land-filling have been 5 greatly exaggerated. For one thing when 6 you move the ash up to Cortland we're 7 looking at a major elevation increase. 8 I don't have the exact number but it's 9 over 400 feet and it may be well over 10 that. So having these trucks go up 11 there is, you're going to have much less 12 fuel economy. 13 Another more important factor is the 14 electricity generation. When you 15 generate electricity from the 16 incinerator it has been, OCRRA is fond 17 of saying however, replacing fossil fuel 18 generated electricity. But that's not 19 actually true. Because almost all the 20 electricity in these parts comes from 21 nuclear or hydropower. There is a 22 little bit more that comes from wind, 23 there is a tiny bit that comes from 24 coal, a little bit from gas, but really 25 nuclear is the big source of electricity 71 1 Hughes 2 around here. 80 percent is the 3 statistic that I heard. And that's from 4 someone you should know, that's folks 5 over at the Regional Planning 6 Development board. 7 The other aspect of greenhouse gas 8 emissions has to do with generation of 9 methane from landfills. A highly 10 variable factor. And I'll leave it at 11 that. There may be a benefit from 12 burning compared to land-filling but 13 there is a lot of assumptions that goes 14 into that. 15 Finally, I want to talk about 16 transportation of the ash. I would like 17 you strongly to consider the fact that 18 we're going to be putting lots of trucks 19 on Interstate 81, sending ash up the hill. 20 And by my calculations it's going to 21 come to something like 3,300 or more 22 trips per year. You're going to have 23 about a dozen trucks a day on the road. 24 And I don't know if you've driven 81 in 25 the winter time but it sure is prone to 72 1 Hughes 2 accidents. And God help us if we have 3 an accident with an ash truck, because 4 that's happened before. We had, when I 5 was on the board at OCRRA, we had an ash 6 truck that just leaked, didn't spill out 7 its guts it just leaked some ash on the 8 road surface of 81 and it turned into 9 this greasy slimy condition. And only 10 by the grace of God no one got killed. 11 That ash is also, as you heard, rather 12 toxic. 13 So I would urge you to consider the 14 big picture here. Should we keep our 15 relationship, our tight relationship 16 with this incinerator or just let it go? 17 I strongly suggest to you let it go. 18 Thank you. 19 CHAIRMAN KNAPP: Thank you. That 20 was the last speaker that we've had 21 signed in. Is there anyone else who 22 would like to? Please state your name 23 and address. 24 DEBBIE GATES GAFFNEY: Hi, my name 25 is Debbie Gates Gaffney and I live at 73 1 Gaffney 2 6034 Single Tree Lane in Jamesville. I 3 really don't speak at these things and 4 I'm speaking because I've had a couple 5 of days notice about this. 6 My first point is that I strongly 7 believe it's absolutely imperative that 8 we have time to educate ourself and form 9 an educated opinion. I also want you to 10 all think about this in a human way too. 11 I'm wondering specifically how many of 12 you have children or grandchildren? I 13 have two small children that I left 14 tonight to be here. I have a 21 month 15 old and a 9 year old. The concerns that 16 have been raised already are of great 17 concern to me. 18 I think we need to have a baseline 19 study of what kinds of substances, 20 toxins, metals are being emitted into 21 the air, the soil and the water. And I 22 want to see some research studies about 23 what is considered to be safe and what 24 is considered to be dangerous, what the 25 risks are. I want to know what the 74 1 Gaffney 2 relative risks are for myself and my 3 children. And I think not only do we 4 need more time for this and we need to 5 find out really what are the risks that 6 we're taking? The health risks and 7 environmental risks relative to the 8 monetary gain? 9 And to keep my comments short I 10 would say and I would ask each of you to 11 think what your choice would be. I 12 think it's important to be fiscally 13 sound and for us to be able to survive 14 in an economic and monetary fashion. 15 However, given the choice between 16 developing cancer or one of my children 17 developing cancer and dying from cancer 18 or even the extreme measure of having 19 Onondaga County go bankrupt. My choice 20 would be for Onondaga County to go 21 bankrupt rather than me dying of a toxin 22 related to this incinerator or having 23 one of my children die from that. 24 And I would encourage each of and 25 every single one of you sitting here 75 1 Wolfson 2 tonight to think about this. To think 3 about what is more important, is it more 4 important that we pass this agenda here 5 and let Covanta go ahead with this? 6 What would be most important to each and 7 every one of you sitting here? What 8 would your choice be? 9 CHAIRMAN KNAPP: Thank you. Is 10 there anyone else? Yes, doctor? 11 MICHAEL WOLFSON: I believe members 12 of the Legislature are aware when this 13 facility was built there were I believe 14 guarantees built into the process by the 15 state Legislature that guaranteed that 16 the citizens of Onondaga County would 17 not be on the hook financially for any 18 expenses if this facility were to go 19 belly up. Then the citizens of the 20 County would not be paying, would not be 21 paying anything as a result of that. It 22 would be the bond holders and the owner 23 of the facility that would be on the 24 hook for that. 25 CHAIRMAN KNAPP: Thank you. 76 1 Wolfson 2 Anything else? I now declare the public 3 comment period closed. Are there any 4 comments from either committee? 5 VICKI BAKER: David, can I ask when 6 you might make a decision about 7 extension of the comment period or does 8 it end on the 14th? 9 CHAIRMAN KNAPP: Chairman, do you 10 want to say something? 11 CHAIRMAN McMAHON: That's the first 12 time we heard this request and we'll 13 consider the request and make it public. 14 VICKI BAKER: Will it be before June 15 14th? 16 CHAIRMAN McMAHON: It will be before 17 June 14th. 18 CHAIRMAN KNAPP: Okay, doctor, last 19 one. 20 MICHAEL WOLFSON: I would just 21 second that request to extend the 22 comment period. 23 CHAIRMAN KNAPP: Thank you any other 24 comments from the Legislators? Again, I 25 would like to thank everyone for coming, 77 1 Knapp 2 thank you to Supervisor Michalenko and 3 the entire Dewitt Town Board too for 4 making the space available to us. And 5 have a nice evening and drive safely. 6 Thank you. 7 [Conclusion of public hearing at 8:05 p.m.] 8 * * * * 9 C E R T I F I C A T E 10 This is to certify that I am a Certified. 11 Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public in and 12 for the State of New York, that I attended and 13 reported the above entitled proceedings, that I 14 have compared the foregoing with my original 15 minutes taken therein and that it is a true 16 and correct transcript thereof and all of the 17 proceedings had therein. 18 19 _______________________ 20 John F. Drury, CSR, RPR 21 22 Dated: June 11, 2014 23 24 25