LEWISTON: Siting plan forum draws familiar responses

Business, environment clash at DEC session in Lewiston

<!--Mark Scheer--><table width="234" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" background="http://static.cnhi.zope.net/flashpromo/niagaragazette/images/byline_234x60.jpg" height="60"><tr><td><div align="center"><font size="3" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">By Mark Scheer</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br /></font><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="mailto:mark.scheer@niagara-gazette.com">mark.scheer@niagara-gazette.com</a></font></div></td></tr></table>

The latest version of New York’s statewide hazardous waste siting plan prompted many familiar arguments during a public hearing on Thursday.

More than 200 people gathered inside the auditorium at Lewiston-Porter High School for the session in which officials from the state Department of Environmental Conservation fielded comments from the public about the agency’s tentative siting plan.

As has been the case with similar hearings in the past, the crowd featured two groups - those who believe adoption of the plan will be good for local business and those who fear such a move would benefit one company in particular - Chemical Waste Management which operates the state’s only hazardous waste landfill in the Town of Porter.

“It’s easy to cast stones at big companies, but big companies are made up of guys like me,” said Chuck Aube, a Ransomville resident who has worked at CWM’s landfill in the Town of Porter for 33 years.

“Is there anyone here tonight who really believes Lewiston Porter is better off with eight million tons of hazardous waste in its backyard?” said Tim Henderson, a member of Residents for Responsible Government, a citizens’ group that has long criticized CWM’s landfill operation as a threat to the health of residents and the quality of life in the community.

The siting plan is being developed by the DEC at the direction of the state Legislature to serve as a guideline for various aspects of hazardous waste handling and disposal in New York. RRG representatives and other critics of the newest version took exception to several of the findings in the document but expressed particular disappointment over a section that suggests the distribution of hazardous waste facilities in New York is “geographically equitable.” A similar conclusion reached as part of the 2008 version of the siting plan drew similar outcries from critics who continue to point out that Niagara County is home to the only hazardous waste landfill in New York.

“Nothing about this is equal,” said RRG President April Fideli.

Dr. R. Nils Olsen, an attorney and professor of law who represents RRG, said one of the major flaws in the DEC’s “equitable distribution” finding relates to how the agency measures hazardous waste operations statewide. While the plan notes that there are 25 treatment, storage and disposal facilities in the Long Island region and 23 in the Western New York area, Olsen said it does not take into account the size or type of facilities in question. As a result, Olsen said the DEC’s document suggests the number of such facilities in both regions is comparable when, by the agency’s own count, Long Island facilities took in 2,129 tons of waste in 2007 compared to Western New York sites which received 166,862 tons that same year.

“How can you call that equitable?” Olsen said.

Final siting plan approval is needed before CWM can move forward with a plan to expand its landfill operation in Porter. Under state law, the review of the company's permit application cannot occur until a final siting plan has been approved.

The majority of those who spoke in favor of adoption of the current siting plan were employees from the CWM landfill and union leaders who did business with the facility. Several of them argued that the facility not only provides jobs, but contributes to the local economy through payments for transportation, engineering and other services it requires.

“I tell my men one job matters,” said Robert Connelly, business agent for Laborers Local 91. “It may not matter to some, but if you are that person who loses that job it matters to them.”

Sean Kelley, a Town of Porter resident who attended the hearing with his young daughter, said jobs are important, but so too is having a clean environment in which to raise a family.

“It seems to me that there are some things that are non-negotiable for me and my family,” he said.

Some advocates for site plan approval bristled at the notion that CWM’s operations posed a hazard to the health of the community. Paul McCollum, business manager for the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 463, said the employees at the landfill are well trained and the technology employed in constructing caps for the hazardous materials on site is sound.

“People who have said that there are landfills that leak, well, I personally don’t believe it,” he said.

Both sides found themselves at odds over another key finding in the document which suggests there is no need for additional hazardous waste capacity in New York. Landfill expansion advocates asked the DEC to reconsider that finding while critics of the expansion plan said it was one of the areas the DEC got right.

State Assemblywoman Francine DelMonte, D-Lewiston, outgoing Town of Lewiston Supervisor Fred Newlin, recently appointed Village of Lewiston Mayor Bill Geiben and Niagara County lawmaker John Ceretto, R-Lewiston, all attended the hearing and spoke out against adoption of the plan. State Sen. George Maziarz sent his assistant Jim Ward who said the senator could not attend in person because he was delayed in a special session in Albany. Maziarz submitted a four-page statement on the plan to the DEC.

Similar hearings have been held at locations across the state. Comments will be used in the development of the final plan which DEC officials expect to deliver to Gov. David Paterson sometime next year.